Welcome to Gaia! ::

Agent Borealis
I think in some areas white people are probably the majority of troublemakers. I'm not saying the standard is set for the entire world, different cities have different kinds of people. Some cities have more black people, others have more white people. Some cities have a large lower class population and a small upper-class population etc. It varies.

ACRESONMYHOES

You are not one of the smartest people of all time.


You don't even know who I am.

ACRESONMYHOES

I still think you're a little racist


Okay I'm racist in whatever way you subjectively perceive "racism". Whoopy

ACRESONMYHOES

It's a fallacy to attempt to deduce someone's behavior from their skin pigmen


You're thinking about it in a closed way. It isn't specifically the skin pigment that causes it, the skin color could just be a shared characteristic. But again, it really depends on what area we're talking about.


It's not subjective, or at least, it's not some secret: racism is commonly defined as having a prejudice towards people based on their perceived makeup. It has a negative connotation, mostly because the concept of race is sort of embarrassing to a lot of people. If your definition is different that's fine, I just wanted to use a word that encapsulated my opinion.
If you're worried or something, I don't think you're an a*****e or anything, just a little bit racist.

Yeah, but that shared characteristic, in this particular case, happens to be shared by these people because their ancestors were victims of racism in the past. It's a special case. By accepting that blacks are more likely to commit crimes, and leaving it at that, like it's a law of the universe, you're effectively behaving as if black skin makes you a criminal, even if that's not exactly what you believe. I'm not saying you're wrong, anymore. I'm just saying that even though a couple of poor black children stole some of your things, you might still want to be careful about drawing conclusions like, "more than fifty percent of trouble makers are black." Because that's not a real statistic, and if you use it to guide your behavior, you're ******** racist.
Posties
Je Nique vos Merdiers
Posties
Tuah
Posties
I'm looking, and it still doesn't settle why you claimed your opinion to not be an opinion and a general thought that should be indicative of a specific population of people with tattoos.


Are you trying to misunderstand my posts? 'cause I thought I spelled it out pretty well there.

I'm guessing as to why people dislike tattoos because I don't know for sure. I can't be certain of other peoples' opinions, so I do not claim that this is fact.

I am not saying anything about [people with tattoos]. I am saying something about [people who say things about people with tattoos]. I don't know if I can say it more simply than that.

I am with the OP; in agreement, mutual understanding, alliance, cahoots. I think the OP is right to question this behavior of questioning people with tattoos.
If you're guessing then stop trying to propagate your ******** argument as a valid generalization. No s**t.
You can agree with OP if you want, it's irrelevant because your initial statement that you rejected as not being an opinion and axiomatic is actually an generalized opinion.

Do you really have nothing better to do than write this crap?
Someones pissed. Explain how what I have typed is crap.
ad hominem aka unjust insulting.

You're posting in a thread about ******** tattoos, and you write terrible s**t like "it's irrelevant because your initial statement that you rejected as not being an opinion and axiomatic is actually an generalized opinion."
"not being an opinion and axiomatic"?
"an generalized opinion"?

You think I'm pissed? You sound like your a*****e is a singularity and you're trying to pass a second universe through your bowels.
ACRESONMYHOES


It's not subjective, or at least, it's not some secret: racism is commonly defined as having a prejudice towards people based on their perceived makeup. It has a negative connotation, mostly because the concept of race is sort of embarrassing to a lot of people. If your definition is different that's fine, I just wanted to use a word that encapsulated my opinion.
If you're worried or something, I don't think you're an a*****e or anything, just a little bit racist.


I'm not worried.
"Racism" often carries with it an emotional weight. Its not socially acceptable to be considered 'racist'. Often if one person has a higher opinion of people of different races and they come across someone else who simply doesn't have that same high opinion they become racist in that person's mind. It is often used subjectively in this way. To hold a "prejudiced" opinion would mean to hold an opinion that is not based on reason. I definitely do not consider my opinions unreasonable.

ACRESONMYHOES

Yeah, but that shared characteristic, in this particular case, happens to be shared by these people because their ancestors were victims of racism in the past. It's a special case. By accepting that blacks are more likely to commit crimes, and leaving it at that, like it's a law of the universe, you're effectively behaving as if black skin makes you a criminal, even if that's not exactly what you believe.


You're doing it again. Like I said it doesn't become a universal or worldwide law, it differs from city to city (speaking about this particular case).

ACRESONMYHOES

I'm not saying you're wrong, anymore. I'm just saying that even though a couple of poor black children stole some of your things, you might still want to be careful about drawing conclusions like, "more than fifty percent of trouble makers are black." Because that's not a real statistic, and if you use it to guide your behavior, you're ******** racist.



I never said "more than fifty percent of trouble makers are black". I was using that phraseology to serve as an EXTREMELY BROAD example of how statistical analysis could be used to examine patterns in criminal activity and thus, draw conclusions as to what kind of people/groups in differing areas are likely to be criminally minded.

And I am not basing my entire opinion on black people in my area based on my experience either seeing as how they were two very minor instances.
I AM R U's avatar

Savage Fairy

12,700 Points
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Ultimate Player 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
duldol v3
I AM R U
duldol v3
I AM R U
duldol v3
black_wing_angel
Technically, judging someone for their tattoos IS judging them for their actions.

But regardless, I believe it all comes down to what and where. A small tattoo that can be easily concealed, if necessary? No harm in it. Having your entire body covered in ink? That's not quite so reasonable. And having a tattoo of your national flag, or a heart or butterfly or whatever? Sure. Why not? But too many of the tattoos people get, are ill-conceived "spur of the moment" decisions, that they'll inevitably regret, once time goes by. All you really have to do, is google search "tattoo fail", and you'll see the kind of s**t I'm talking about. Someone with some of THOSE tattoos? I wouldn't trust with such a high responsibility. They've already shown a distinct lack of forethought.



Yes, some tattoos are done rather quickly, however some tattoos are actually thought about for quite a long time and a great amount of research is done into the design and consultations and discussions about the tattoo and other precautions and concerns are dealt with before the tattoo is ever decided upon. It's case by case. That's why I'm saying we need education, we hear all these stories about these frat house bros who just get drunk and walk into the nearest tattoo parlor wanting, "yolo" tatted on their armpit. So we assume tattoos are rash decisions. It's not all like that.

I think it's discriminatory to assume that this man has a lack of forethought just because he goes against the grain and has his whole body tattooed. You don't know anything about the process of how he got his tattoos or why he got his tattoos. It's just being assumed that one day he woke up saying, "yeahhh..I think i'll get my whole body tattooed today. For no reason at all but because I lack forethought and I'm rash!!"


Well, it would be impossible to get your whole body tattooed in one day sweatdrop just saying.


Exactly. I'm saying it took real dedication and commitment to go through with all that body ink. Not rash at all


I'd agree that it isn't rash. Possibly stupid and ill-informed, but no, not rash.


Why would it be stupid and ill-informed? I feel like that's an ill-informed assumption about this man.


not necessarily this man - I don't know him, so I wouldn't pass judgement on him. I'm speaking generally...
Posties's avatar

Distinct Poster

Je Nique vos Merdiers
Posties
Je Nique vos Merdiers
Posties
Tuah
Posties
I'm looking, and it still doesn't settle why you claimed your opinion to not be an opinion and a general thought that should be indicative of a specific population of people with tattoos.


Are you trying to misunderstand my posts? 'cause I thought I spelled it out pretty well there.

I'm guessing as to why people dislike tattoos because I don't know for sure. I can't be certain of other peoples' opinions, so I do not claim that this is fact.

I am not saying anything about [people with tattoos]. I am saying something about [people who say things about people with tattoos]. I don't know if I can say it more simply than that.

I am with the OP; in agreement, mutual understanding, alliance, cahoots. I think the OP is right to question this behavior of questioning people with tattoos.
If you're guessing then stop trying to propagate your ******** argument as a valid generalization. No s**t.
You can agree with OP if you want, it's irrelevant because your initial statement that you rejected as not being an opinion and axiomatic is actually an generalized opinion.

Do you really have nothing better to do than write this crap?
Someones pissed. Explain how what I have typed is crap.
ad hominem aka unjust insulting.

You're posting in a thread about ******** tattoos, and you write terrible s**t like "it's irrelevant because your initial statement that you rejected as not being an opinion and axiomatic is actually an generalized opinion."
"not being an opinion and axiomatic"?
"an generalized opinion"?

You think I'm pissed? You sound like your a*****e is a singularity and you're trying to pass a second universe through your bowels.
Now you're just restating what I said, and then restating what you said. Nice opinion man, are you going to prove your initial premises? No, so you're just spamming and babbling.
Agent Borealis
ACRESONMYHOES


It's not subjective, or at least, it's not some secret: racism is commonly defined as having a prejudice towards people based on their perceived makeup. It has a negative connotation, mostly because the concept of race is sort of embarrassing to a lot of people. If your definition is different that's fine, I just wanted to use a word that encapsulated my opinion.
If you're worried or something, I don't think you're an a*****e or anything, just a little bit racist.


I'm not worried.
"Racism" often carries with it an emotional weight. Its not socially acceptable to be considered 'racist'. Often if one person has a higher opinion of people of different races and they come across someone else who simply doesn't have that same high opinion they become racist in that person's mind. It is often used subjectively in this way. To hold a "prejudiced" opinion would mean to hold an opinion that is not based on reason. I definitely do not consider my opinions unreasonable.

ACRESONMYHOES

Yeah, but that shared characteristic, in this particular case, happens to be shared by these people because their ancestors were victims of racism in the past. It's a special case. By accepting that blacks are more likely to commit crimes, and leaving it at that, like it's a law of the universe, you're effectively behaving as if black skin makes you a criminal, even if that's not exactly what you believe.


You're doing it again. Like I said it doesn't become a universal or worldwide law, it differs from city to city (speaking about this particular case).

ACRESONMYHOES

I'm not saying you're wrong, anymore. I'm just saying that even though a couple of poor black children stole some of your things, you might still want to be careful about drawing conclusions like, "more than fifty percent of trouble makers are black." Because that's not a real statistic, and if you use it to guide your behavior, you're ******** racist.



I never said "more than fifty percent of trouble makers are black". I was using that phraseology to serve as an EXTREMELY BROAD example of how statistical analysis could be used to examine patterns in criminal activity and thus, draw conclusions as to what kind of people/groups in differing areas are likely to be criminally minded.

And I am not basing my entire opinion on black people in my area based on my experience either seeing as how they were two very minor instances.


ooh, phraseology, you must be a genius.

The point is that if you're trying to use something like skin color a the sole input to a "statistical analysis" leading to a conclusion that causes you to act all weird around black folks, you're racist. I accept that black kids steal sometimes for thrills or whatever, and there's a lot of pro crime in large cities, where black people were organized into concentrated communities and oppressed until like... the eighties. So whatever, you can say you act sketchy around black people and act a different way, which is kind of what I think is going on here, but your little statistical analysis thingy I think prefigures you to prejudice, which means "pre-judgement" duuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrr not necessarily without reason but without considering "relevant facts". which in this case REALLY has to do with the kids who robbed you being rougher than you, indicated by their blickety blackness but not defined by it. You could really just leave race out of it, if you wanted to, you could just say "They were from Denver" or wherever, and maybe qualify that assessment with "I knew because they were black and talked funny." That's a reasoned opinion. But trying to predict criminal behavior based on somebody's skin color alone, is racist.
YOu said that you think it's extremely likely that more than fifty percent of people who steal are black, with the implied qualification that that only applies to your area, I guess.
Racial inequality does exist still, I'm not denying that. But since it's a social construct, and has little to no basis in biological inequality besides coloration, I think it behooves us all to cut a little slack for the individual, and try to get over past experiences when dealing with new people. You said you watch your stuff when black people are around, that's sort of creepy and people will pick up on that, and it will make you look racist.
You know black people can be racist, too, and they're struggling with the same prejudices. "Will this white guy say something freudian that pisses me off ..3..2...1 dave chappelle is 'fair', got it, d**k."
Chance your s**t for social change, dag.
Posties
Je Nique vos Merdiers
Posties
Je Nique vos Merdiers
Posties
If you're guessing then stop trying to propagate your ******** argument as a valid generalization. No s**t.
You can agree with OP if you want, it's irrelevant because your initial statement that you rejected as not being an opinion and axiomatic is actually an generalized opinion.

Do you really have nothing better to do than write this crap?
Someones pissed. Explain how what I have typed is crap.
ad hominem aka unjust insulting.

You're posting in a thread about ******** tattoos, and you write terrible s**t like "it's irrelevant because your initial statement that you rejected as not being an opinion and axiomatic is actually an generalized opinion."
"not being an opinion and axiomatic"?
"an generalized opinion"?

You think I'm pissed? You sound like your a*****e is a singularity and you're trying to pass a second universe through your bowels.
Now you're just restating what I said, and then restating what you said. Nice opinion man, are you going to prove your initial premises? No, so you're just spamming and babbling.

No, this is exactly what I mean. "Are you going to prove your initial premises?"

First of all, the only thing I've written in here is "Do you really have nothing better to do than write this crap?" which is a question, not a statement or "premises".

Second, my point is why are you taking this discussion so goddamned seriously? It's about tattoos and you're writing as if someone said climate change doesn't exist and weather is caused by the tears and hot flashes of Jesus.
Sir Fharlanghn
Mei tsuki7
Sir Fharlanghn
Mei tsuki7
Sir Fharlanghn
Mei tsuki7


Source for said tendency please. While there is a lot of jokes about being unable to make good money with tattoos it had not really been proven in any way, shape or form that I've seen.



That is called anecdotal evidence and has no true scientific basis and is not true evidence. It is prejudice honestly but that doesn't mean it's not a normal human response.

I actually don't know anyone with a tattoo who is a troublemaker honestly.
Go talk to any business that requires you to dress well. They will tell you that they are more likely to hire people without tattoos than with tattoos. Go check who has sleeves of tattoos and who doesn't. Is it the people that live on 20k a year or 100k?


Ancedotal evidence is not proof. Here's my ancedotal evidence. I have a tattoo on my left inner wrist. I make just slightly less than the average household income in the US and I'm only a year and a half out of college. I work with two other people with tattoos, one with a half sleeve, who probably make at least twice what I do. So basically, my ancedotal evidence states that having tattoos does not effect how much you make.

O and the dress code for my job is business casual but we aren't required to cover up our tattoos.
You're really dense aren't you?


You're the one who, when asked for proof, gave none.
Tell me, what type of person would fund a study that discriminates against people with tattoos? Please, just look at more than two people for your own conclusions.


You mean would fund a study looking at the discrimination against people with tattoos right? Because the study itself wouldn't discriminate against people with tattoos.

Do I really have to point out all the celebrities with tattoos and how much money they make? You can easily make good money with a tattoo because there are a lot of jobs that do not rely on appearance or where a unique appearance can help you get farther such as research, sports, entertainment, etc.
Posties's avatar

Distinct Poster

Je Nique vos Merdiers
Posties
Je Nique vos Merdiers
Posties
Je Nique vos Merdiers
Posties
If you're guessing then stop trying to propagate your ******** argument as a valid generalization. No s**t.
You can agree with OP if you want, it's irrelevant because your initial statement that you rejected as not being an opinion and axiomatic is actually an generalized opinion.

Do you really have nothing better to do than write this crap?
Someones pissed. Explain how what I have typed is crap.
ad hominem aka unjust insulting.

You're posting in a thread about ******** tattoos, and you write terrible s**t like "it's irrelevant because your initial statement that you rejected as not being an opinion and axiomatic is actually an generalized opinion."
"not being an opinion and axiomatic"?
"an generalized opinion"?

You think I'm pissed? You sound like your a*****e is a singularity and you're trying to pass a second universe through your bowels.
Now you're just restating what I said, and then restating what you said. Nice opinion man, are you going to prove your initial premises? No, so you're just spamming and babbling.

No, this is exactly what I mean. "Are you going to prove your initial premises?"

First of all, the only thing I've written in here is "Do you really have nothing better to do than write this crap?" which is a question, not a statement or "premises".

Second, my point is why are you taking this discussion so goddamned seriously? It's about tattoos and you're writing as if someone said climate change doesn't exist and weather is caused by the tears and hot flashes of Jesus.
You first called me idiotic, and denigrated my points without any back information. Cool opinion son.
Explain what you define as serious, sounds like you have an ignorant version of what is serious. Are you going to keep crying, or just continue the fallacious subjective narcissism. I'm going to just assume both, but whatever the outcome is I'm still right.
ACRESONMYHOES

ooh, phraseology, you must be a genius.


I'm not interested in butt-hurt conversations.

ACRESONMYHOES

The point is that if you're trying to use something like skin color a the sole input to a "statistical analysis" leading to a conclusion that causes you to act all weird around black folks, you're
racist.


1: So acting "weird" around black folks is what constitutes racism now? See what I mean by it being a highly subjective term?

2: What exactly do you mean by their skin color being the sole input?

ACRESONMYHOES

But trying to predict criminal behavior based on somebody's skin color alone, is racist.


Ah but there you go again over simplifying things. It isn't the skin color alone. In fact I'm sure you would find the true amount of variables mind boggling.

ACRESONMYHOES

YOu said that you think it's extremely likely that more than fifty percent of people who steal are black, with the implied qualification that that only applies to your area, I guess.


Wrong. Learn to read and go back to re-read my comment.

ACRESONMYHOES

Racial inequality does exist still, I'm not denying that. But since it's a social construct, and has little to no basis in biological inequality besides coloration, I think it behooves us all to cut a little slack for the individual, and try to get over past experiences when dealing with new people.


Now we're getting to the meaty bits. This is where our opinions seem to differ. I don't think that humans are born equally and that there are correlations of traits in groups of people.

Lets see if you completely misunderstand what I just said and simply, in a knee-jerk reaction, call me a racist biggot.
Posties
You first called me idiotic, and denigrated my points without any back information. Cool opinion son.

Uh, no I didn't. I do now want to know what kind of drugs you are on, because the first post of mine in this thread was, "Do you really have nothing better to do than write this crap?
Posties's avatar

Distinct Poster

Je Nique vos Merdiers
Posties
You first called me idiotic, and denigrated my points without any back information. Cool opinion son.

Uh, no I didn't. I do now want to know what kind of drugs you are on, because the first post of mine in this thread was, "Do you really have nothing better to do than write this crap?
"You're posting in a thread about ******** tattoos, and you write terrible s**t like"
Same pejorative sentiment, but nice failure of semantics. I'm also glad to see you continue what I said you would, responding without actually backing up what you said.

You would have been better of just saying nothing if you're just going to babble illogical nonsense. I love seeing the average alogical tendencies of ignorant humans.
Agent Borealis
ACRESONMYHOES

ooh, phraseology, you must be a genius.


I'm not interested in butt-hurt conversations.

ACRESONMYHOES

The point is that if you're trying to use something like skin color a the sole input to a "statistical analysis" leading to a conclusion that causes you to act all weird around black folks, you're
racist.


1: So acting "weird" around black folks is what constitutes racism now? See what I mean by it being a highly subjective term?

2: What exactly do you mean by their skin color being the sole input?

ACRESONMYHOES

But trying to predict criminal behavior based on somebody's skin color alone, is racist.


Ah but there you go again over simplifying things. It isn't the skin color alone. In fact I'm sure you would find the true amount of variables mind boggling.

ACRESONMYHOES

YOu said that you think it's extremely likely that more than fifty percent of people who steal are black, with the implied qualification that that only applies to your area, I guess.


Wrong. Learn to read and go back to re-read my comment.

ACRESONMYHOES

Racial inequality does exist still, I'm not denying that. But since it's a social construct, and has little to no basis in biological inequality besides coloration, I think it behooves us all to cut a little slack for the individual, and try to get over past experiences when dealing with new people.


Now we're getting to the meaty bits. This is where our opinions seem to differ. I don't think that humans are born equally and that there are correlations of traits in groups of people.

Lets see if you completely misunderstand what I just said and simply, in a knee-jerk reaction, call me a racist biggot.


Oh s**t rosseau, you're really blowing me here.

Of course there are different traits, but they're complementary because they're determined by the environment, and earth is an essentially balanced ecosystem, if it wasn't we'd all be dead already. And anyway, the difference between one race and another, while extant, is ******** tiny compared to the difference between, like, a north chinese person and a south chinese person, to use a common example.

FUN: http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/WJ_Black_Studies.htm
ACRESONMYHOES
Racial inequality does exist still, I'm not denying that. But since it's a social construct, and has little to no basis in biological inequality besides coloration, I think it behooves us all to cut a little slack for the individual, and try to get over past experiences when dealing with new people.


You stated that Racial inequality is a social construct and has little to no basis in biology. If you don't care to either defend or revoke that audacious statement we have nothing else to talk about.

ACRESONMYHOES

Of course there are different traits, but they're complementary because they're determined by the environment, and earth is an essentially balanced ecosystem, if it wasn't we'd all be dead already. And anyway, the difference between one race and another, while extant, is ******** tiny compared to the difference between, like, a north chinese person and a south chinese person, to use a common example.


How is any of this relevant to our conversation? I'm not even rebuking it, I'm just asking.
Agent Borealis
ACRESONMYHOES
Racial inequality does exist still, I'm not denying that. But since it's a social construct, and has little to no basis in biological inequality besides coloration, I think it behooves us all to cut a little slack for the individual, and try to get over past experiences when dealing with new people.


You stated that Racial inequality is a social construct and has little to no basis in biology. If you don't care to either defend or revoke that audacious statement we have nothing else to talk about.

ACRESONMYHOES

Of course there are different traits, but they're complementary because they're determined by the environment, and earth is an essentially balanced ecosystem, if it wasn't we'd all be dead already. And anyway, the difference between one race and another, while extant, is ******** tiny compared to the difference between, like, a north chinese person and a south chinese person, to use a common example.


How is any of this relevant to our conversation? I'm not even rebuking it, I'm just asking.


Read a ******** book about it, I'm not your mother.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games