fed up of this racism going on in todays society. people should be put forward due to merit. having quotas is racist/sexist/Somethingphobic or somthing ist.
It is bascially saying Black people are not good enough to win awards so we need to shoehorn X percent in. Having more black having more gay having more transgender people in anything does not make it better. How some idiots want to impliment "diversity" is racism.
saying that because there are more black people in anything makes it better is racist. If there are not many black people or gay people or transgender people winning or being in x show you have to look for a few things
1.Are there more straight white people so statistically there will be more of them in shows (Yes in most situations)
2. Is there a evil white racist plot to stop black people winning. (Probably not)
I mean there is a black awards show and if you want to look at where the most racist and generally unnaceptable music comes from it is rap a black dominated culture.
Brits to be more diverse in 2017 Watch
- 15-01-2017 21:55
- 15-01-2017 22:02
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
- 15-01-2017 22:03
GonvilleBromhead Holy crap you've written an essay!
I greatly appreciate your post.
I'll reserve this place so that I can respond to your post when I've got time.
But have a PRSOM in the meantime.
Yes, there is an argument for that; but there is racial tribalism built into us, as has been demonstrated with studies on infants and children.
(I'll write more later, you evidently deserve a deeper discussion)
It's certainly a factor, I'd just argue somewhat mitigated if not completely. If poss could you link any of those studies, I've looked into a lot of them and the methodology seems sh!t as in there was one where they said a baby stared for more time at a same race person than a different race person (so many vitiating factors to conclude with any certainty was madness).
Cheers for your engagement haha, too many forum goers just insult or detract the point
- 15-01-2017 22:20
People should be put forward based on merit is correct, but when certain demographics are underrepresented due to being less mainstream is where the problem lies. Most music made by black people for example is in traditionally black genres (rap, grime, jazz etc), and as a result of being less mainstream or less popular than traditionally white genres (pop, rock, even indie to an extent), they aren't represented as much at awards shows outside of their categories.
The problem isn't "Black people don't make good music so we're gonna force the awards in their favour", the problem is unpopular music, while still having merit isn't valued as much by society, and when this unpopularity correlates with race it presents a problem.
- Thread Starter
- 15-01-2017 22:28
Chances are, almost all parts of your DNA are already floating around the gene pools of each of the largest races. Races are not uniform blocks of genes - the dominant genes in the Asian gene pool will be present in the European gene pool, for example, although much rarer. However, obviously in other races, your genes won't be in the same combination (otherwise they'd look like you), and it would be extremely unlikely to produce someone like you, because they will be greatly diluted amongst all the other, much more common, genes, characteristic to that race.
So, almost all your genes will likely survive for a (very long) while, whether or not you have children. When I say 'a while', since white populations (the population which has the most copies of your genes, assuming you are white) are declining - and eventually the human population as a whole will start declining too - the number of people with your genes will decline, until many of your genes eventually disappear.
However, if you don't mind me talking about events in the extremely distant and optimistic future which I have no business talking about, most of your genes should survive long enough for them to be present in the colonists of new worlds, and I would guess that eventually there would be a colonised world, moon, or space station where some of your genes become dominant.
But... one might argue that one part of your genetic characteristic is the specific 'combination' of those genes, which is itself a form of genetic data. That likely won't survive, not in any reasonable form, not unless you have lots more children than is normal, and all of your descendants also have many children, and most of your descendants stick to genetically close people.Last edited by FriendlyPenguin; 15-01-2017 at 22:30.
- Political Ambassador
- 15-01-2017 22:29
- 15-01-2017 23:11
should be based on merit
- Thread Starter
- 17-01-2017 14:17