By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 said:
bdbdbd said:

It does make you a national of some American country, but it does nothing to your ethnicity. 

Again, what is American ethnicity? What does that mean?

Native Americans? 

I know not everyone is the same with preference but the bolded part is what my native friend hates lol. They were here pre America so Native American sounds wierd. Just. Natives or The Natives.

America by itself has no ethnicity to call it's own as a country. As a part of land, it does and those are Natives.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Around the Network
Leynos said:

I know not everyone is the same with preference but the bolded part is what my native friend hates lol. They were here pre America so Native American sounds wierd. Just. Natives or The Natives.

America by itself has no ethnicity to call it's own as a country. As a part of land, it does and those are Natives.

Not particularly relevant to the conversation, but YouTube gave me this video of George Carlin several hours ago, and it feels particularly relevant to this post. 

"We steal their hemisphere, destroy five hundred cultures, kill 20,000,000, stick the rest of them on the worst land we can find and then as a special bonus we named them after ourselves"



Cyran said:

I mean we all share a common ancestry if you want to go back far enough.  My point is there are different jewish ethics groups.  Ashkenazi = European Jew and while there common dna with Arabs there is also DNA that unique to Ashkenazi that allow them to be identified as Ashkenazi. When I submitted my DNA it did not come back as some middle eastern country even through clearly some of my DNA link me there but it came back as European jew because there are distinct markers for that also.  For example from your article "Richards et al. published work suggesting that an overwhelming majority of Ashkenazi Jewish maternal ancestry, estimated at "80 percent of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry comes from women indigenous to Europe, and [only] 8 percent from the Near East, with the rest uncertain"".  My point is there been enough time from the initial migration form the middle east for multiple ethics groups among jews to form. 

Regardless, I feel like you are pushing farther from the original point.

That it's a ethnoreligious group, anyone can thus become Jewish in the religious sense.

bdbdbd said:

I've met a lot of people who argue only women should be in positions of power because of historical wrongness needs to corrected. Apparently the "future is female" is some kind if a subset of this attitude.

Women and Men are roughly 50/50 population. (It's 101 men to every 100 women, but who cares.)

There is an under representation of women in "positions of power" - Not just because of historical wrongness, but because of social norms.
And yes, that needs to change and become equal opportunity.

This isn't the 1920's where women are expected to stay home and raise children, they are allowed to pursue a career as well.

bdbdbd said:

Actually you ARE being harassed for being a religious person and you're expected to be an atheist, but at the same time calling out religions for their bullshit is islamophobia, according to the excact same people who think religions are bullsit. And I'm not even exaggarating.

The fact is... Everyone on this planet is born Atheist. No exception.
That is a lack of belief in any God or Gods (plural).

It's only later in life that they are indoctrinated/recruited into certain religions/beliefs/cults.

So I think by default, Atheism should be the expectation as it's literally the default position. - That is of course, until religion can start to prove it's God/Gods actually exist, but after thousands of years that hasn't eventuated.
Remember... Freedom -of- religion also has the implied right of Freedom -from- religion. - Atheism should be the default with other "options" available to those who wish to pursue those paths rather than have it (religion) rammed down peoples necks.

Conversely... Many highly concentrated Atheist countries are actually successful... They haven't burned to ground in fire and brimstone.

bdbdbd said:

30 years ago nobody cared who played who and wrote the story as long as the movie was good. Today it's "blackface" or "cultural appropriation" if some characted doesn't play some certain bracket reserved for his or her otherness. Squid Game is being criticized because there's a dude playing a trans, instead of trans playing trans. 

It's a good question whether you can write a story about someone that someone else think you can't identify as/with. I would guess it's not appropriate - if it's not now, it soon might be. 

Who cares? Lets take Brokeback Mountain, which was a highly critical film despite the fact both actors (Australian Heath Ledger and American Jake Gyllenhaal) were straight. - Both actors portrayed their characters absolutely brilliantly.

The issue actually exists on both sides... The progressives are whinging about incorrect representation... And the conservatives are whinging about to much representation.

Both sides need to calm down, they are as bad as each other... Rather we should be judging each media release on their individual merits, if a straight male actor can play a Gay Trans man and portray that character extremely well... It should be noted and applauded.
...But sadly conservatives don't even want it to get that far. - They want zero representation of minorities.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Leynos said:
sundin13 said:

Again, what is American ethnicity? What does that mean?

Native Americans? 

I know not everyone is the same with preference but the bolded part is what my native friend hates lol. They were here pre America so Native American sounds wierd. Just. Natives or The Natives.

America by itself has no ethnicity to call it's own as a country. As a part of land, it does and those are Natives.

What natives? I'm a native myself too. 

I kind of get his point, but it comes down to language we are speaking. Maybe his language has it's own word for Americas, but in English Americas are called Americas. And American natives therefore are native Americans in English. I believe most of the countries have different names in different languages.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Pemalite said:
Cyran said:

I mean we all share a common ancestry if you want to go back far enough.  My point is there are different jewish ethics groups.  Ashkenazi = European Jew and while there common dna with Arabs there is also DNA that unique to Ashkenazi that allow them to be identified as Ashkenazi. When I submitted my DNA it did not come back as some middle eastern country even through clearly some of my DNA link me there but it came back as European jew because there are distinct markers for that also.  For example from your article "Richards et al. published work suggesting that an overwhelming majority of Ashkenazi Jewish maternal ancestry, estimated at "80 percent of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry comes from women indigenous to Europe, and [only] 8 percent from the Near East, with the rest uncertain"".  My point is there been enough time from the initial migration form the middle east for multiple ethics groups among jews to form. 

Regardless, I feel like you are pushing farther from the original point.

That it's a ethnoreligious group, anyone can thus become Jewish in the religious sense.

bdbdbd said:

I've met a lot of people who argue only women should be in positions of power because of historical wrongness needs to corrected. Apparently the "future is female" is some kind if a subset of this attitude.

Women and Men are roughly 50/50 population. (It's 101 men to every 100 women, but who cares.)

There is an under representation of women in "positions of power" - Not just because of historical wrongness, but because of social norms.
And yes, that needs to change and become equal opportunity.

This isn't the 1920's where women are expected to stay home and raise children, they are allowed to pursue a career as well.

bdbdbd said:

Actually you ARE being harassed for being a religious person and you're expected to be an atheist, but at the same time calling out religions for their bullshit is islamophobia, according to the excact same people who think religions are bullsit. And I'm not even exaggarating.

The fact is... Everyone on this planet is born Atheist. No exception.
That is a lack of belief in any God or Gods (plural).

It's only later in life that they are indoctrinated/recruited into certain religions/beliefs/cults.

So I think by default, Atheism should be the expectation as it's literally the default position. - That is of course, until religion can start to prove it's God/Gods actually exist, but after thousands of years that hasn't eventuated.
Remember... Freedom -of- religion also has the implied right of Freedom -from- religion. - Atheism should be the default with other "options" available to those who wish to pursue those paths rather than have it (religion) rammed down peoples necks.

Conversely... Many highly concentrated Atheist countries are actually successful... They haven't burned to ground in fire and brimstone.

bdbdbd said:

30 years ago nobody cared who played who and wrote the story as long as the movie was good. Today it's "blackface" or "cultural appropriation" if some characted doesn't play some certain bracket reserved for his or her otherness. Squid Game is being criticized because there's a dude playing a trans, instead of trans playing trans. 

It's a good question whether you can write a story about someone that someone else think you can't identify as/with. I would guess it's not appropriate - if it's not now, it soon might be. 

Who cares? Lets take Brokeback Mountain, which was a highly critical film despite the fact both actors (Australian Heath Ledger and American Jake Gyllenhaal) were straight. - Both actors portrayed their characters absolutely brilliantly.

The issue actually exists on both sides... The progressives are whinging about incorrect representation... And the conservatives are whinging about to much representation.

Both sides need to calm down, they are as bad as each other... Rather we should be judging each media release on their individual merits, if a straight male actor can play a Gay Trans man and portray that character extremely well... It should be noted and applauded.
...But sadly conservatives don't even want it to get that far. - They want zero representation of minorities.

Well, you kind of are proving my point further that woke is based on US political rhetoric, and that's largely why it doesn't make sense at all: there's some part in the world where equality isn't happening, so women need more representation here.

Most people seem to need something to believe in and to rely on morals, if it's not religion, it's usually something equally stupid. 

Well, many people seem to care. That's why so many seem to be so vocal. Brokeback Mountain was made before the modern demand for "representation"; if straight people are playing gays, then gays don't get representation. Actually both sides seem to whine about incorrect representation. 



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Around the Network
bdbdbd said:

Well, you kind of are proving my point further that woke is based on US political rhetoric, and that's largely why it doesn't make sense at all: there's some part in the world where equality isn't happening, so women need more representation here.

The word "woke" has existed for almost 100~ years in American politics... Mostly to refer to awareness of social and polical issues impacting minorities.

Conservatives grabbed the word and ran with it to try and use it as a weapon to shut down any logical or constructive discussion.
Aka. Herd/Sheep mentality.

bdbdbd said:

Most people seem to need something to believe in and to rely on morals, if it's not religion, it's usually something equally stupid. 

Religion is not a requirement to have morals.

I am a hardline Atheist. - I don't want religion in my life. Period.
However... As someone who has built a career saving lives, I would like to think I have very strong morals based around empathy for others... Religion wasn't required.

bdbdbd said:

Well, many people seem to care. That's why so many seem to be so vocal. Brokeback Mountain was made before the modern demand for "representation"; if straight people are playing gays, then gays don't get representation. Actually both sides seem to whine about incorrect representation. 

Brokeback Mountain was made during the modern demand for "representation" it was during a period where strong conservative voices were shutting down LGBT proponents.

Remember the movie came out in 2005, almost 20 years ago.

Keep in mind... When that movie came out, it was legal to discriminate against someone who was LGBTQI in the USA in the majority of the nation, same sex marriage didn't get legalized until a decade later, same-sex couples weren't allowed to adopt children until a decade later.

Heck, there was discrimination even as recently as 2020... The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that sexual orientation and gender identity are included under "sex" as a prohibited ground of employment discrimination in the Civil Rights act.
That's right, in 2019 you could be "fired" for being "gay" with an employer.

In 2011, 6 years after that film... You weren't allowed to be openly LGBTQI while serving in the US military.

Then you have the "Gay Panic Defense" in the USA which is used to reduce the "time" you need to pay for your "crime". I.E. Murder.

Hence the need for strong vocalization to support the LGBTQI community... Hence why the film Brokeback Mountain was a pivotal point in Cinema and LGBTQI culture in general.

But it's also "woke" and if conservatives had it their way (Which Trump has suggested as much) all the above would be rolled back.
So yes, representation is important and will always be important, but it needs to be done in a tasteful and appropriate manner.

I would argue if straight people are playing gay people in a film, gay people are definitely getting representation, which the film Brokeback Mountain empirically demonstrated.
And I am okay with that if it's done tastefully.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
bdbdbd said:

Well, you kind of are proving my point further that woke is based on US political rhetoric, and that's largely why it doesn't make sense at all: there's some part in the world where equality isn't happening, so women need more representation here.

The word "woke" has existed for almost 100~ years in American politics... Mostly to refer to awareness of social and polical issues impacting minorities.

Conservatives grabbed the word and ran with it to try and use it as a weapon to shut down any logical or constructive discussion.
Aka. Herd/Sheep mentality.

bdbdbd said:

Most people seem to need something to believe in and to rely on morals, if it's not religion, it's usually something equally stupid. 

Religion is not a requirement to have morals.

I am a hardline Atheist. - I don't want religion in my life. Period.
However... As someone who has built a career saving lives, I would like to think I have very strong morals based around empathy for others... Religion wasn't required.

bdbdbd said:

Well, many people seem to care. That's why so many seem to be so vocal. Brokeback Mountain was made before the modern demand for "representation"; if straight people are playing gays, then gays don't get representation. Actually both sides seem to whine about incorrect representation. 

Brokeback Mountain was made during the modern demand for "representation" it was during a period where strong conservative voices were shutting down LGBT proponents.

Remember the movie came out in 2005, almost 20 years ago.

Keep in mind... When that movie came out, it was legal to discriminate against someone who was LGBTQI in the USA in the majority of the nation, same sex marriage didn't get legalized until a decade later, same-sex couples weren't allowed to adopt children until a decade later.

Heck, there was discrimination even as recently as 2020... The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that sexual orientation and gender identity are included under "sex" as a prohibited ground of employment discrimination in the Civil Rights act.
That's right, in 2019 you could be "fired" for being "gay" with an employer.

In 2011, 6 years after that film... You weren't allowed to be openly LGBTQI while serving in the US military.

Then you have the "Gay Panic Defense" in the USA which is used to reduce the "time" you need to pay for your "crime". I.E. Murder.

Hence the need for strong vocalization to support the LGBTQI community... Hence why the film Brokeback Mountain was a pivotal point in Cinema and LGBTQI culture in general.

But it's also "woke" and if conservatives had it their way (Which Trump has suggested as much) all the above would be rolled back.
So yes, representation is important and will always be important, but it needs to be done in a tasteful and appropriate manner.

I would argue if straight people are playing gay people in a film, gay people are definitely getting representation, which the film Brokeback Mountain empirically demonstrated.
And I am okay with that if it's done tastefully.

I believe it was the "woke" people who started using it to refer to intersectionalism in 2000's and then the conservatives started using it aswell as a term for social justice. Now it seems that the "woke" is trying to back out of the term because the conservatives were right about it. 

Brokeback mountain was made 20 years ago, things have changed since then, aa proven by the criticism towards Squid Game. I do agree that the impact of the film was likely positive and so will be the impact of Squid Game.

Even if you do have strong moral ground coming from inside, most people need their moral compass to come from the outside. If a religion is removed, something else will fill the moral void left by religion. What fills it, is the one that want to fill it the most aggressively - likely another religion, or if not religion, it would be an ideology. It's only about choosing the least bad option. If you want atheism to fill the moral void, atheism needs to ve aggressive, like communism is for example.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

bdbdbd said:

I believe it was the "woke" people who started using it to refer to intersectionalism in 2000's and then the conservatives started using it aswell as a term for social justice. Now it seems that the "woke" is trying to back out of the term because the conservatives were right about it. 

Your belief is incorrect.
1930's and earlier.
Evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

bdbdbd said:

Brokeback mountain was made 20 years ago, things have changed since then, aa proven by the criticism towards Squid Game. I do agree that the impact of the film was likely positive and so will be the impact of Squid Game.

Hence my point.
Did you not read our exchange?

bdbdbd said:

Even if you do have strong moral ground coming from inside, most people need their moral compass to come from the outside. If a religion is removed, something else will fill the moral void left by religion. What fills it, is the one that want to fill it the most aggressively - likely another religion, or if not religion, it would be an ideology. It's only about choosing the least bad option. If you want atheism to fill the moral void, atheism needs to ve aggressive, like communism is for example.

All children are born innocent. All children are born Atheist.
I would argue that children have the best moral compasses before they are taught additional behaviors from society and adults... They will happily play with people from all walks of life without any prejudices or judgement.

Religion has the -worst- track record of moral and systemic abuse.
..Child abusing priests, Kony and the Lords republic army recruiting children soldiers, Middle-Eastern conflicts dating back decades, the Crusades killing millions...

And if we target the USA specifically, religion is often used to instill fear through psychological manipulation through teachings, their attacks against women/abortion, the LGBTQI community and more.
All monotheistic religions are inherently violent not just physically, but also emotionally/psychologically because of their exclusivity which inevitably creates hostility towards those who are considered "outsiders". - Aka. "Sinners".

I am a firm believer the world would be a better place without religion.

Atheism isn't "filling a void".
Atheism isn't a belief.
Atheism isn't a religion.

Atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of a God or Gods as the burden of proof has not been met to substantiate religious claims.

In nations like my own which are majority Atheist, other "rubbish" doesn't fill the void from a lack of religion, people are happy to simply live their lives peacefully and constructively.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

I’m not totally comfortable talking about this kind of stuff, but I’ll say this: “woke” is the most overused, politically/culturally charged, misunderstood, and misused term in recent memory. The thing about “go woke, go broke” is a backwards statement, as it assumes that anything that goes “woke,” will go “broke.” As if there aren’t any example of successful games that went “woke.” If we’re having issues of games or other media now due to cultural/social issues or “woke,” oh boy..wait until we talk about multimedia works from not even 50-80 years ago.



Pemalite said:
bdbdbd said:

I believe it was the "woke" people who started using it to refer to intersectionalism in 2000's and then the conservatives started using it aswell as a term for social justice. Now it seems that the "woke" is trying to back out of the term because the conservatives were right about it. 

Your belief is incorrect.
1930's and earlier.
Evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

bdbdbd said:

Brokeback mountain was made 20 years ago, things have changed since then, aa proven by the criticism towards Squid Game. I do agree that the impact of the film was likely positive and so will be the impact of Squid Game.

Hence my point.
Did you not read our exchange?

bdbdbd said:

Even if you do have strong moral ground coming from inside, most people need their moral compass to come from the outside. If a religion is removed, something else will fill the moral void left by religion. What fills it, is the one that want to fill it the most aggressively - likely another religion, or if not religion, it would be an ideology. It's only about choosing the least bad option. If you want atheism to fill the moral void, atheism needs to ve aggressive, like communism is for example.

All children are born innocent. All children are born Atheist.
I would argue that children have the best moral compasses before they are taught additional behaviors from society and adults... They will happily play with people from all walks of life without any prejudices or judgement.

Religion has the -worst- track record of moral and systemic abuse.
..Child abusing priests, Kony and the Lords republic army recruiting children soldiers, Middle-Eastern conflicts dating back decades, the Crusades killing millions...

And if we target the USA specifically, religion is often used to instill fear through psychological manipulation through teachings, their attacks against women/abortion, the LGBTQI community and more.
All monotheistic religions are inherently violent not just physically, but also emotionally/psychologically because of their exclusivity which inevitably creates hostility towards those who are considered "outsiders". - Aka. "Sinners".

I am a firm believer the world would be a better place without religion.

Atheism isn't "filling a void".
Atheism isn't a belief.
Atheism isn't a religion.

Atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of a God or Gods as the burden of proof has not been met to substantiate religious claims.

In nations like my own which are majority Atheist, other "rubbish" doesn't fill the void from a lack of religion, people are happy to simply live their lives peacefully and constructively.

I know the term woke existed long before, but it re-emerged in 2000's and the re-emerged context is how we talk about it today.

Yes, I repeated my point about Squid game as I wasn't sure If you ageed or disagreed with it. 

Leaving a religion leaves a void on your moral compass. Either it's some other religion or an ideology that fills it for most people. More specifically, I'm talking about how people act in masses, not certain individual's behaviour.

The issue isn't whether a religion is monotheistic, polytheistic or an ideology. It's about how dogmatic it is. If you look at  European natural pagan religions, they weren't dogmatic at all and you could practise them to your liking. Because the religions didn't have dogmas, they were rather easilly replaced by more forceful dogmatic religions.

Even newborns have prejudices. Well technically they're just xenophobic. However, children's moral compass is narcissm. The parents need to teach their kids other moral values that aren't self centered. 

I'm actually quite curious on this one: If your country starts talking muslim immigrants, how long would it take for your atheist country to turn islamic? Why do you think what you think?



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.