[GDT] Vancouver Canucks vs. Vegas Golden Knights | August 29th, 2020 | 6:45pm PT, SNP | R2G3

[GhostsOf1994]

4 minutes ago, oldnews said:

it may be that 'simple' in it's 'origin' - skin deep - with some cultural differences over time and space - depending on where humans migrated to, where they lived climatically, what they ate, etc - generating what seem like significant 'differences' - but nevertheless - it's been the 'basis' for a great deal of very real racism - ideologically - over millenia - so the question remains. 

 

Can anyone tell me what "race" really consists of - whether the 'basis' of "race" is worthy of all the historical, political, cultural, structural, etc, weight it has been given, and the subsequent consequences?

I'm not talking about the real fabrication and use of 'race' for political, socio-economic ends, etc - I'm talking about whether there is (scientific and philosophical) validity to the concept, in it's essence.

Im with you oldnews, why did my grandmother flee germany as a 7 y.o. to "vacation" in canada for the summer?

 

Because according to her countrymen, her skin tone and features made her sub human.

 

Why did my great grandparents flee norway?

 

Because they weren't blonde haired and blue eye and feared for their lifes.

 

[Darius]

7 minutes ago, oldnews said:

it may be that 'simple' in it's 'origin' - skin deep - with some cultural differences over time and space - depending on where humans migrated to, where they lived climatically, what they ate, etc - generating what seem like significant 'differences' - but nevertheless - it's been the 'basis' for a great deal of very real racism - ideologically - over millenia - so the question remains. 

 

Can anyone tell me what "race" really consists of - whether the 'basis' of "race" is worthy of all the historical, political, cultural, structural, etc, weight it has been given, and the subsequent consequences?

I'm not talking about the real fabrication and use of 'race' for political, socio-economic ends, etc - I'm talking about whether there is (scientific and philosophical) validity to the concept, in it's essence.

"Race" is a social construct.

 

[GhostsOf1994]

6 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

how the heck do you interpret that as me defending her? 

Apologies, i must have gotten mixed up with another post/member. 

 

I didn't mean to come off dicky, i thought you were trolling me.

 

My mistake

[189lb enforcers?]

21 minutes ago, GhostsOf1994 said:

nailed it, we're all the same on the inside.

Skin color is used way to often when describing a human.

I was under the understanding that the genetics between the Mongloid, negroid and caucasoid’s are radically different. Some have different heel bones, bacteria, etc. 
 

It would take me a while to backdoor Google to provide the distinct differences, genetically, between what we casually call races.
 

I misremember stats and numbers all the time, so don’t quote me on the numbers, but I do know that races of humans have a higher disparity of genetic drift than some species of gorilla, coyote, etc. 
 

While some will point to the fact that we are only 0.2% different genetically, that becomes significant when you realize that humans are also 97.5% the same, genetically, as a beluga whale. That small, number of variation becomes much more significant when you look at it that way. 
 

Point being, skin and skin colour isn’t but one of many physical manifestations of distinctly different genetics found in “races”. 
 

Too bad there wasn’t a thread on the subject. Lots to explore that isn’t being taught in schools or in the media. Interesting stuff, really. 
 

I’m here for Canucks Talk, sucked into side discussions... 

 

I’ll take my leave now and hope to see a more united group in the next GDT. 

People, please put down your phones and MSM and think for yourselves about your neighbours.
 

Edited August 28, 2020 by 189lb enforcers?

[Timråfan]

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

thanks.

that was the point - in general - it becomes harder to produce in the playoffs - you can add the Sedins and many others to that list.

Trevor Linden - was a remarkable force - tremendous heart and will - a rare player.

One more point is that Green coached them for play offs. That mean he played more defensive from time to time. Forechecked hard others. Experimented with line ups during games a lot. This leads to less points during the season but match the players for the play offs. 

 

[JM_]

Just now, GhostsOf1994 said:

Apologies, i must have gotten mixed up with another post/member. 

 

I didn't mean to come off dicky, i thought you were trolling me.

 

My mistake

fair enough, the temperature is up in here 

 

my point is, black people in the US (and first nations people here) come by their anger honestly. Some express it in very constructive ways, a few are extremists. But all movements have their extremists. If we cancelled every movement due to its outliers we wouldn't have made much change over the last 100 years. I'm not excusing anyone, just not going to paint an entire group because of the fringes.

[skategal]

I fully support the suggestion to create a new GDT for the rescheduled Game 3.  We're at almost 100 pages now and probably about 15 of those are tied to the game, the rest are more relevant to the discussion of why the games were postponed.  Could @Robertsoriginal post be copied to a new GDT that could be started?  

[VC420]

1 hour ago, Robert Long said:

well, most people don't like looting. I don't see how that de-legitimizes BLM, they aren't out there asking people to destroy property. 

 

Forgive the superficial comparison, but it reminds me of other fan bases that blame "Canucks fans" for the 2011 riots. 

By BLM's own logic they are at fault for any rioting. The narrative they espouse is that "White silence is violence" which means that it doenst matter if you are not racist or have never participated in racist actions so long as you are not actively fighting against it then you are a part of the problem. It is the old bystanders are as bad as the bullies argument and if they want to use that logic then that same logic should be applied to BLM supporters and these riots. It doesn't matter if you are not rioting and just protesting peacefully, you need to be actively fighting against the rioters or you are a part of the problem.

 

BTW, I have seen videos of black folks in BLM shirts actively trying to encourage people to go to the suburbs and protest and harass people outside their homes. I saw a video of a black women defending the rioting and the looting stating that looting is reparations.

If BLM truly is a peaceful organization and stands against rioters and looters then they need to prove it by policing their own organization better and work towards stopping hateful individuals who seek to coopt their movement to engage in violent and destructive acts.

[GhostsOf1994]

1 minute ago, Robert Long said:

fair enough, the temperature is up in here 

 

my point is, black people in the US (and first nations people here) come by their anger honestly. Some express it in very constructive ways, a few are extremists. But all movements have their extremists. If we cancelled every movement due to its outliers we wouldn't have made much change over the last 100 years. I'm not excusing anyone, just not going to paint an entire group because of the fringes.

You're right.

I'm not for canceling blm movement, i am against the leadership of the blm group.

 

If it was Latino lives matter, and leadership made racist comments I'd still condemn them too.

 

Hate breeds hate, release the good!

 

https://youtu.be/42UGvmEf820

 

 

[189lb enforcers?]

43 minutes ago, c00kies said:

I might send you the link, because I don't think it shows intermissions and such. I'll do it after work and you can decide to use it or not. It also gives the away (or other) broadcasts. It also works on your phone

 

Dude, that is generous. Thank you. 

[Biff Tannen]

9 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Can anyone tell me what "race" consists of?

 

Serious question. 

 

I'd like to start a discussion from the 'ground' up - see if there is any reasonable, non-partisan, non-ideological grounding to be gained - before proceeding to all the divisiveness that ensues once most people take their positions within opposing, battling herds.

 

It's disconcerting how entrenched so many people can get - without being able to answer something as "simple" as the original matter that underlies an entire (global) dynamic like this.

 

What - exactly - is "race" in the sense that we're fighting/arguing about?

 

I've spent a long time thinking about this - researching it - scientifically and socially/culturally - and the 'answers' are weak at best once you really dig into the history of "race"  - but before I do that I'm wondering if anyone can give a solid answer to that question above.

 

I'm also wondering if it's worth a thread of it's own - a purely 'philosophical' thread that doesn't really descend into the micro/minutae that we often get caught up in.

If the mods think it's fitting, I'd be happy to start one and outline where I'm coming from on the matter.

Would it belong in "Canucks" talk under the circumstances - given the team itself has engaged in the matter?

Or should it go to 'off topic' - which imo it isn't, really, under the circumstances?

 

It does all get a bit murky but basically race is a meaningless term that I doubt you'll ever be able to satisfactorily define. Biologically I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume everyone here is a member of the human race. Further subdivisions on supposedly racial grounds are social constructs - try and define it too scientifically and before you know it you have to start looking at the 'racial purity' of individuals within a group.

 

The terms racist and racism are probably a bit more relevant to the discussion and I think most people would agree they are prejudiced attitudes and actions motivated and/or reinforced by perceived ethnic or racial difference. Basically race is defined in the head of the person or group promoting racist ideas, but the consequences of that racism very much exists in the real world.

 

We could go down a side track and debate whether racial prejudice needs an inherent power imbalance to be racism i.e. a black person in North America can't be racist towards white people, but I personally don't think I'm qualified to weigh in on that one.

 

Others could probably do a better job of explaining it, but that's my 2 cents anyway.

[Chicken.]

5 minutes ago, skategal said:

I fully support the suggestion to create a new GDT for the rescheduled Game 3.  We're at almost 100 pages now and probably about 15 of those are tied to the game, the rest are more relevant to the discussion of why the games were postponed.  Could @Robertsoriginal post be copied to a new GDT that could be started?  

This suggestion has been shot down multiple times unfortunately we're stuck with this one until Saturday ... 

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, GhostsOf1994 said:

You're right.

I'm not for canceling blm movement, i am against the leadership of the blm group.

 

If it was Latino lives matter, and leadership made racist comments I'd still condemn them too.

 

Hate breeds hate, release the good!

 

https://youtu.be/42UGvmEf820

 

 

Yeah i think it fair to question the comments of some of the leadership. 

 

But you look at any major movement since the industrial revolution, and you find some pretty out extreme people at one point or another in a movements history. The labour movement had some pretty hard ass folks in it, e.g.  

[BoKnows]

 

This song is more relevant than ever now.

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, VC420 said:

By BLM's own logic they are at fault for any rioting. The narrative they espouse is that "White silence is violence" which means that it doenst matter if you are not racist or have never participated in racist actions so long as you are not actively fighting against it then you are a part of the problem. It is the old bystanders are as bad as the bullies argument and if they want to use that logic then that same logic should be applied to BLM supporters and these riots. It doesn't matter if you are not rioting and just protesting peacefully, you need to be actively fighting against the rioters or you are a part of the problem.

 

BTW, I have seen videos of black folks in BLM shirts actively trying to encourage people to go to the suburbs and protest and harass people outside their homes. I saw a video of a black women defending the rioting and the looting stating that looting is reparations.

If BLM truly is a peaceful organization and stands against rioters and looters then they need to prove it by policing their own organization better and work towards stopping hateful individuals who seek to coopt their movement to engage in violent and destructive acts.

I don't see how you can make that connection. They didn't say "go out and smash a window" they say if you're not helping you're hurting. You may not agree with that logic, but they do have something of a point, if you are simply a bystander you are complicit to some degree. I see it as similar to people who don't vote but complain about politicians. If you're not involved you are complicit in that sense.

 

Great, we have videos of some people doing bad things. We have a US president saying "both sides". What does that prove about the legitimacy of the BLM movement? do the actions of a few really mean we cancel an entire movement? 

[MeanSeanBean]

22 hours ago, fecklund said:

He's 100% right. 

Did you seriously just say a guy who posted a pro Hitler video is "100% right"? I'm gonna just assume that you didn't actually fully investigate the post you were backing because the alternative makes you an evil person.

[Sharpshooter]

19 minutes ago, Darius said:

"Race" is a social construct.

 

Correct. After all, we’re all Africans. 

[BoKnows]

2 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

Correct. After all, we’re all Africans. 

We all came from plankton.

[JM_]

1 minute ago, BoKnows said:

We all came from plankton.

technically we're all from super novas. 

[joe-max]

35 minutes ago, GhostsOf1994 said:

 

 

So now you're defending racism as long as its black on white?

They sure know how to pick their guests at FOX to discredit unwelcome opinion. The "other" side (Democrat; left; anti-Trump etc.) is either represented by total dimwits or hot-tempered savages that could easily be triggered. Have never heard a honest, balanced, sophisticated discussion there.