2016 US Election

[Chae]

I'm pretty sure that in the future when all the races have mixed to the point of where there are no races

The hilarious thing is, that's actually what science predicts so it's cool that you mention it The prognosis is that we'll all look Brazilian (ahhh oh my god). Concerning in-group discrimination, it's the flipside of inter-group tension. The very fact that groupings have formed identity-wise (as a result of physical differentiation) also relates to what is going on within the race. Division always goes hand in hand with joining, it's mutual. To end racism, we have to abolish races. To end sexism, we have to abolish gender. And so on, those are just examples of an universal dynamic. I recommend reading into Transhumanism as a topic, it's very enlightening

[Raver]

I'm pretty sure that in the future when all the races have mixed to the point of where there are no races, people will still find things to discriminate eachother over... unless humanity somehow evolves above that whole tribalism mindset.

I once dated someone from Colombia who was clearly of mixed race (Spanish/Native American) and he was incredibly bigoted towards illegal Mexicans who looked exactly like him. He would even go as far as to make fun of their Indian heritage while he visibly had lots of indigenous South American blood. White people would call him Mexican all the time and it would irritate him because he somehow saw himself as above Mexicans. His best friends were Dominican and Puerto Rican who both had clear African ancestry, yet they were bigoted twords blacks and would always crack racist jokes about them. I never understood that, but apparently this prejudice mindset is common among a lot of Hispanic people who tend to be quite racially diverse themselves.

It's sad when people hate who they are genetically because it's only a minority of their genes. As a mixed person, I'm in a unique situation in where genetically I'm basically hispanic or a euro mestizo or harnizo, but my phenotype can pass as white in any Latin American country without a problem.

I'm proud of every ethnic group in my DNA, but in the same time I don't really care either because race is both important and unimportant depending on your perspective. I find race to be a fascinating subject personally because of the fact that I have a diverse racial background not in spite of it.

How you define race make it exist or not, if you define race as minor genetic differences and skin color, then it exists, but then the categories are entirely geographic and arbitrary. In Brazil Rashida Jones is white, what makes her white in Brazil and black in America, it's not genetics, it's the laws and regulations which define race.

Race exists certainly as a social construct, but the genetic difference between races and the mixing of races makes definitions of race largely arbitrary and politically driven, often to disenfranchise groups and segregate them. It is this false, politically driven construct of race that is not merely untrue, but oppressive. If what is left of race in the future is some ancestry DNA chart of where your genes came from, then race would largely be a non issue, however as a politically constructed mechanism by which people are considered impure and lower class citizens, this injustice is intolerable.

I think it all comes down to perspective, we could argue that it doesn't exist because in the grand scheme of things race isn't that much of a dramatic difference genetically or we can argue that race does exist because of the minor differences we have genetically. Either can be proven depending on what you're looking for.

There's no doubt that race is harmful when it's used to oppress people by judging others as inferior because of their differences. However, if race is used in a way to just differentiate humans in a harmless way where people recognize each other as having some differences, but still respect each other then it's fine.

Here are my ancestry results since you were interested:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1149636

I could look at what comprises the majority of my ethnic background and think to myself: "that's who I am" or I can fixate on the minority of my ethnic background and put emphasis on it, but either would just be silly. All of my ethnic groups matter because they make who I am genetically or I wouldn't be here and none of them matter because I am human first and my ethnic background second. It just comes down to what your perspective is in the end.

@inumbra I take back my last point about races being a subspecies, race is clearly a lower taxonomy than subspecies and I was overvaluing race:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

[mu4]

I think it all comes down to perspective, we could argue that it doesn't exist because in the grand scheme of things race isn't that much of a dramatic difference genetically or we can argue that race does exist because of the minor differences we have genetically. Either can be proven depending on what you're looking for.

There's no doubt that race is harmful when it's used to oppress people by judging others as inferior because of their differences. However, if race is used in a way to just differentiate humans in a harmless way where people recognize each other as having some differences, but still respect each other then it's fine.

Race as it has been defined has never been used for merely descriptive scientific goals. It has always had a component of social stratification, of segregation and of in-group/out-group determination.

This is not a product of race, but rather a product of the mind observing skin color and making associations which are in error. This is a psychological problem, that we've inherited thru our evolution. Recognizing the psychology problem and the feelings that arise as well as the feelings that are inhibited allows you to be aware of it and mediate between your feelings/lack of feelings with one's feelings of justice, decency, fairness and any such logical or ethical disposition one wishes to have.

Race as it stands today thru our education thru the media, thru our day to day interactions and from the flawed psychological associations our mind makes is a strong inhibitor of out group-empathy, especially towards some who have been the most oppressed and most disenfranchised.

http://sites.tufts.edu/emotionontheb...p-empathy-gap/

The intergroup empathy gap as described in the study is something that can be addressed, regardless of whether or not race is real or how to define it, people perceive skin color and perception of skin color is where a lot of problem arises.

Race as it has been defined has been biased by the false association of negative and positive traits to skin color, and people continue to try and define it in terms of positive and negative in regard to skin color.

The tools exists today to really investigate what creates these psychological phenomena which have been so damaging to so many.

Trying to fight about whether or not race is real is a sideshow to the real injustices that are occurring because of the false and oppressive definitions of race that exist today.

Race is real, of course it is, it's been created at the very least to stratify society and oppress colored people, it's genetic reality is not relevant to the social realities of race in which oppression occurs. Whatever genetic reality race brings, it does not rationalize oppression, it does not rationalize injustice and it does not rationalize second class citizenship.

[Raver]

Race as it has been defined has never been used for merely descriptive scientific goals. It has always had a component of social stratification, of segregation and of in-group/out-group determination.

This is not a product of race, but rather a product of the mind observing skin color and making associations which are in error. This is a psychological problem, that we've inherited thru our evolution. Recognizing the psychology problem and the feelings that arise as well as the feelings that are inhibited allows you to be aware of it and mediate between your feelings/lack of feelings with one's feelings of justice, decency, fairness and any such logical or ethical disposition one wishes to have.

Race as it stands today thru our education thru the media, thru our day to day interactions and from the flawed psychological associations our mind makes is a strong inhibitor of out group-empathy, especially towards some who have been the most oppressed and most disenfranchised.

http://sites.tufts.edu/emotionontheb...p-empathy-gap/

The intergroup empathy gap as described in the study is something that can be addressed, regardless of whether or not race is real or how to define it, people perceive skin color and perception of skin color is where a lot of problem arises.

Race as it has been defined has been biased by the false association of negative and positive traits to skin color, and people continue to try and define it in terms of positive and negative in regard to skin color.

The tools exists today to really investigate what creates these psychological phenomena which have been so damaging to so many.

Trying to fight about whether or not race is real is a sideshow to the real injustices that are occurring because of the false and oppressive definitions of race that exist today.

Race is real, of course it is, it's been created at the very least to stratify society and oppress colored people, it's genetic reality is not relevant to the social realities of race in which oppression occurs. Whatever genetic reality race brings, it does not rationalize oppression, it does not rationalize injustice and it does not rationalize second class citizenship.

I agree with the majority of what you're saying, the foundation of race was originally based on oppression and stratifying people. It could be used as a way to differentiate human beings scientifically today, but there is a lot of difficulty in that because race was largely used as a means of oppression in the past and bringing up differences between races genetically today scientifically does lead to social injustices occurring.

However, I don't think race is just limited to skin color, but expands to other physical attributes like facial features, skull structure, body, etc... Ideally, it would be nice if we can just analyze the genetic differences between people because of their race without causing any social repercussions, but that would be wishful thinking unfortunately as people will use that as a way to look at their race as superior to others.

[mu4]

I agree with the majority of what you're saying, the foundation of race was originally based on oppression and stratifying people. It could be used as a way to differentiate human beings scientifically today, but there is a lot of difficulty in that because race was largely used as a means of oppression in the past and bringing up differences between races genetically today scientifically does lead to social injustices occurring.

However, I don't think race is just limited to skin color, but expands to other physical attributes like facial features, skull structure, body, etc... Ideally, it would be nice if we can just analyze the genetic differences between people because of their race without causing any social repercussions, but that would be wishful thinking unfortunately as people will use that as a way to look at their race as superior to others.

I deal with race and ethnicity in healthcare daily, and it is used for healthcare because there are certain diseases which are associated with certain races/ethnicity. This is a legitimate use of race and ethnicity and can be used to improve care. However the social reality of race is not the healthcare/genetic reality. The scientific use of race and ethnicity hasn't stopped and it won't but the political use of race to divide and stratify people, this is something that needs to end sooner rather than later.

And I don't care how genetics define race as far as the problem of racism, because race is defined by skin color and appearance in individual perception far more than genetics, you can't see someone's ancestry DNA but you can perceive the shade of their skin. The social problem of race and social apparatus of racism is very distant from the genetics, the genetics of race as a defense of these problems and the injust apparatus is the rabbit hole of eugenicists, bigots and racists. There is virtually no reason to bring up genetics in the discussion of the injustice done to people because of race, past and present. Genetics cannot rationalize the continued oppression of people, and any such rationalization is merely the resistance of the privileged against actually dealing with the harms of racism, past and present.

I don't care if you want to figure out what race is or define it genetically, there is legitimate work being done here especially on the topic of regional inherited disease such as sickle cell. But this definition of race has little bearing on dealing with the oppression and injustice that exists today and the perceptions of race via skin color and other features of appearance.

[Aylen]

Let me put it this way, I'd just as soon see Charlie Sheen run for president and WIN. He is much more entertaining and interesting than Trump. Trump is unstable so the rational choice would be Hillary because there is no way the other two will win. So if you do not want someone who is unstable, sexually assaults women, (brags about it then threatens to sue them when they back up his own story) so weak minded that he can be baited by a twitter post, and cries about it being unfair, what choice is there? He is the creepiest kind of liar because he says things on camera and then denies them outright. That tells me he is a terrible strategist and only follows his whims. If he could have kept it together things might have been different for him but as of now he will be the source of his own downfall if he loses. He has preemptively been creating a narrative on his losing but most people see through it and know exactly what he is doing. I am not sure if he really wants to win tbh. If he does he certainly sucks at make the right choices that would have ensured his victory. I don't hate Trump so I think I am being objective here. Hillary doesn't scare me one bit. He is too unstable to deal with other world leaders.



#charliesheen2020 <-- election rigging brought to you by the reptilians. stay tuned!

What did I say?!




Obviously I didn't want Trump to win but he did. I wasn't lending energy to that outcome so I could wash my hands of it, if he won. lol My conscious is clear. I am not even that upset about it because it shows the universe has a warped sense of humor, like me.

Now Sheen is someone I can get behind... You guys and your Trump prediction with 50/50 odds... What are the odds here?


*I am just being silly, obviously. Don't get your panties in a bunch.


Edit:

should i feel bad that this makes me feel giddy.

As we all collectively shake our fists and yell “good riddance” to 2016, Charlie Sheen pops up on Twitter to remind us that things in the future could be even darker, or at least stranger. Sheen made a plea to former Trump rival Ted Cruz to join him in a run for the highest office in all the land. “C’mon Ted Cruz,” the tweet reads, “in 4 years we can unseat this guy!!” Sheen also explained his foolproof campaign strategy, “You bring the AWESOME, I’ll bring the WINNING!!”

[Singu]

Fuck I hate Charlie Sheen.

[Aylen]

Fuck I hate Charlie Sheen.

He will never even know the depths of your hatred. When I have those feelings I try to redirect the energy since it eats away at you and has little, if any, affect on the object of hatred.

I am only human though so... voodoo dolls are interesting focal points. Redirect that energy into something productive.

[Disturbed]

Didn't vote in the poll, but pretending it said "who was the best vote?", then among the Republicans, Rand Paul, then Carly Fiorina, then "Other - libertarian". Rand Paul seemed better on foreign policy, but Carly Fiorina is sexy, gave me erections (people who are all of: static, logical process, and positivist are so feminine/sexy) and was pretty fiscally conservative, supported some civil liberties that other politicians don't, and wouldn't have been more foreign interventionist than Obama was (he and Hillary Clinton supported invading Libya), and maybe even a little bit less (Carly Fiorina was an LSI-Se after all, and LSI-Se are less likely to be foreign interventionists than most people because they realize how much it doesn't help the country they're elected leader of and they have the logic to see one country's interest is not the same as all other countries interests and that she had an oath to the Constitution and that the Constitution says the U.S. military is really only supposed to oppose all enemies of the United States foreign and domestic, the LSI-Se would have the concrete logical ability to not go beyond that, as would the ILE-Ti). But Rand Paul is not his father, and his father isn't the Articles of Confederation.

The Democrats are scary and what people should've known was that Hillary Clinton may have had misogynistic tendencies (she was open to restricting how "little girls dressed inappropriately" and she maybe she was bitter that she was independent when women are more likely to be financially and socially independent, to be gentle, to be more logical and original and elegant and beautiful and heavy than visceral, verbal, banal, poor in style, inelegant, and underweight, to be good with computers, more likely to feel violated paying taxes than male tax-payers are, and less emotionally needy than men when Hillary Clinton was the opposite of all those good feminine things I just mentioned) and even if she didn't her policies would've been more harmful to women than Trump's policies. And unlike Kobe Bryant's accuser who was telling the truth and whom I admire and applaud Evan Rachel Wood for speaking her mind and the truth, and her observational ability and memory (most people didn't remember, but I was wondering why so many people were mourning his death because I remembered because my high school teacher in my emotionally disturbed/social skills class mentioned it when it was news and said she automatically believed the rape accusers), Donald Trump's accusers are lying. I didn't vote for Donald Trump and I never would, but the truth is the truth and we're lucky we didn't have another president like Hillary Clinton with a reckless, irrational, idiotic, pro-war, anti-american, anti-human rights, globalist foreign policy, and that we do have a president who is as cautious as he is on foreign policy. While I hate the fact that the country didn't get an overall tax cut and and overall spending cut, and I hate tariffs and nationalism and centralization of political power and even patriotism, Trump wisely not joining the TPP is better than having tariffs, because maybe Pence will become President and he'll remove the tariffs and allow us to reap some benefits from all the other idiots joining the TPP. So then we'd have free trade without economic nationalism and without globalism, and those other poor countries would, unfortunately, still be stuck in the globalist trap.

I say this as someone on welfare who didn't sign up for it and who thinks it's ridiculous and feels even more corrupted by welfare than I already did.

[End]

i don't think that as some here have said, that hillary clinton is a sociopath.

The Secret Service itself saw and treated assignment to her team as a literal punishment detail! If you have anyone you know that's in the US military, ask them what McMurdo is. It's a base within the arctic circle. You can get assigned there for many a reason but the primary one is, well, because you fucked up and the Officer in charge of punishing you for that was particularly vindictive. Like, 40k Commisar vindictive. As in, let's make an example of you vindictive.

If you want to dial it down a grade, who exactly do you think gets stuck with "latrine" duty in a military formation? Hint: It isn't someone everyone exactly likes or hopes survives a given encounter with the enemy with the caveat that if that SOB doesn't die it means their collective necks cannot possibly be next on the chopping block. So they do hope that SOB survives, but for all the wrong reasons.