Is Civ 6 PC: A continuation.

[GenyaArikado]

I suggest ignoring EnricoDandolo posts, considering this is the person thar thinks Cuba is a paradise and the only reason they aren't better is USA (instead of the actual cuban government )

Big "shut up and dribble" energy

While I personally respect someone's pronouns of choice, it seems silly to base biology on outlier occurrences. Some people are born with more than two nipples, should standard human biology state "there is no defined number of human nipples, as people can be born with any number of nipples", even though <0.5% of people are born with a third nipple?

No one is basing biology on outlier things. The woman that got fired had a longass transphobic story which is why she got fired. No rational trans person/ally denies sex

Don't believe JKR trying to spin the thing as "poor me/women"

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

I suggest ignoring EnricoDandolo posts, considering this is the person thar thinks Cuba is a paradise and the only reason they aren't better is USA (instead of the actual cuban government )

Lol never said anything about Cuba? Can you quote it? Cuz I'm pretty sure you're one of the most reviled people in the entire Civ6 thread I am pretty sure some of your dumb comments have been referenced more than once, by multiple people, as the prime examples on how not to engage in conversation. You want me to put them here for the Off-Topic people to see, just in case?
Imagine being a white male but advocate for more misandry. I hope you're ok in real life and reach out for help when you need it.

Moderator Action: While the rules might be laxer in OT than in the civ forums, they are still there. Civility is important. Please keep your remarks focused on the topic at hand and not the poster. There is no need for the personal nature of your comments above. Thanks.

 

[fy00sh]

That's a very easy thing to say in America, but that's not a justifiable answer to say what is currently happening in China right now with the government and the Uyghur people.

Oh yeah, I was assuming the context of America when I said that. If we're talking about China, I'd say what I said applies to Han-on-nonHan racism. So In China, a Han people being racist against Uyghurs would be worse than Uyghurs being racist against Han people, again due to Han people in general having much more ways to systemically enforce their racism against Uyghurs. Such as through a literal ongoing genocide.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Oh yeah, I was assuming the context of America when I said that. If we're talking about China, I'd say what I said applies to Han-on-nonHan racism. So In China, a Han people being racist against Uyghurs would be worse than Uyghurs being racist against Han people, again due to Han people in general having much more ways to systemically enforce their racism against Uyghurs. Such as through a literal ongoing genocide.

My point was if I, a white male, travelled to China and experienced some form of racism towards me is it negated, and not considered worse, because of my European heritage, even though I and my supposed group aren't in a place of power?

 

[GenyaArikado]

Oh dandolo wasn't the crazy cuban guy. His arguments last post still sucked tho. Or were at least bad faith arguments.

Again the woman got fired for her transphobia history. Racism obviously works both ways but american systems power dynamics currently favor white people which is why it black2white racism gets a pass. And the level of outrage for the black little mermaid was racist, cuz if she had looked fully different but still white, skinny and pretty, it wouldn't have blown up like that.

 

[fy00sh]

My point was if I, a white male, travelled to China and experienced some form of racism towards me is it negated, and not considered worse, because of my European heritage, even though I and my supposed group aren't in a place of power?

Nope, it's not negated. It's at least as bad as any other form of racism, potentially even worse if some sort of institutional power is leveraged against you. I'm pretty sure we agree on this.

Some people are born with more than two nipples, should standard human biology state "there is no defined number of human nipples, as people can be born with any number of nipples", even though <0.5% of people are born with a third nipple?

No, it should state, "humans typically have two nipples, although as with pretty much everything, there are occasional albeit infrequent exceptions."
Also, biological sex is often much more complex than something as (relatively) cut-and-dry as "how many nipples does this person have". Here's a link with a good infographic for demonstrating just how complex sex can be. https://www.scientificamerican.com/...xtraordinary-complexity-of-sex-determination/

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Nope, it's not negated. It's at least as bad as any other form of racism, potentially even worse if some sort of institutional power is leveraged against you. I'm pretty sure we agree on this.

It's the part of "institutional power" which is confusing. I guess to put it back in America context lets say a white person decides not to sell something to another person because they are black. In another instance a black person kills a white person because of their race. Which is worse?
From what you are trying to explain is no matter what, whatever the white person did is worse because they currently hold the power in America. At least that's what I'm understanding about you're argument, which to me makes no sense.

 

[fy00sh]

It's the part of "institutional power" which is confusing. I guess to put it back in America context lets say a white person decides not to sell something to another person because they are black. In another instance a black person kills a white person because of their race. Which is worse?
From what you are trying to explain is no matter what, whatever the white person did is worse because they currently hold the power in America. At least that's what I'm understanding about you're argument, which to me makes no sense.

I think I see the disconnect, I'll try my best to explain.
So to first answer your question, the black person murdering the white person for being white is definitely worse, because murdering someone is way worse than refusing them service at a store.
The part about "power imbalances make certain types of racism worse than others" mostly only applies when you're looking at racism on the scale of a society, like the USA or China, or an institution, like the criminal justice system. White-on-POC racism in the USA is a larger problem on a societal scale, because white people control more systems of power in the USA and are more capable of collectively enforcing that power. But, individual incidents of white-on-POC racism aren't inherently any worse than individual incidents of POC-on-white racism; one thing that makes them on average worse is the fact that on average there's a higher likelihood that a white person will get away with committing an act of anti-POC racism, or will at least get a softer punishment, than if they were a POC committing an act of anti-white racism. But if we assume that all aspects of a racist act are equal except for who's what skin color, then there's no difference in how bad it is, in my eyes.
I think I wasn't being clear enough in expressing that, for example, white-on-black racism is worse on a societal scale than balck-on-white racism, but both are equally bad on an interpersonal level.
Did that clear things up? /gen

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think I see the disconnect, I'll try my best to explain.
So to first answer your question, the black person murdering the white person for being white is definitely worse, because murdering someone is way worse than refusing them service at a store.
The part about "power imbalances make certain types of racism worse than others" mostly only applies when you're looking at racism on the scale of a society, like the USA or China, or an institution, like the criminal justice system. White-on-POC racism in the USA is a larger problem on a societal scale, because white people control more systems of power in the USA and are more capable of collectively enforcing that power. But, individual incidents of white-on-POC racism aren't inherently any worse than individual incidents of POC-on-white racism; one thing that makes them on average worse is the fact that on average there's a higher likelihood that a white person will get away with committing an act of anti-POC racism, or will at least get a softer punishment, than if they were a POC committing an act of anti-white racism. But if we assume that all aspects of a racist act are equal except for who's what skin color, then there's no difference in how bad it is, in my eyes.
I think I wasn't being clear enough in expressing that, for example, white-on-black racism is worse on a societal scale than balck-on-white racism, but both are equally bad on an interpersonal level.
Did that clear things up? /gen

Yes it did clear more things up.
Still it makes me wonder what particular "racist" institutions or policies that we have in society today in the U.S. that are indeed deemed bad, because from what I've learned something being "racist" is open up to interpretation.

 

[EnglishEdward]

You will not get fired for this ....

I agree about not being fired, but there is this subtle thing about not quite fitting in,
and their deduction of silent dissent can easily eliminate promotion prospects.

There remains a risk in not going along with management/work team group think.

 

[Gorbles]

The linked thread has more than one (set of) problematic opinions. I would personally suggest we accept them all, or we accept none. The entire point of criticising "political correctness" is that it allegedly silences viewpoints and the like. Silencing criticism just because you find it absurd is more than a bit ironic

OT's moderation is a bit different to the game forums, mainly so we can have these interesting threads and "have it out", as you might say. I don't want to talk specifically about moderation (nor am I a moderator at all), but I just wanted to let you know it's okay to focus on the thread, and not individual posters you might think could cause problems (and if they genuinely are, just report).

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

The linked thread has more than one (set of) problematic opinions. I would personally suggest we accept them all, or we accept none. The entire point of criticising "political correctness" is that it allegedly silences viewpoints and the like. Silencing criticism just because you find it absurd is more than a bit ironic

Sorry, I might have gotten a little carried away.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The linked thread has more than one (set of) problematic opinions. I would personally suggest we accept them all, or we accept none. The entire point of criticising "political correctness" is that it allegedly silences viewpoints and the like. Silencing criticism just because you find it absurd is more than a bit ironic

I agree though posting that we start should hate a certain group of people more, not just in the game, takes it way too far than just criticism.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Not sure what that has to do with the topic but I agree with you that the background isn't good....

Moderator Action: We usually allow a fair amount of latitude in OT discussions unless they have the [RD] designation. The introduction of less relevant material can be both interesting and worthy of discussion.

Nope, it's not negated. It's at least as bad as any other form of racism, potentially even worse if some sort of institutional power is leveraged against you. I'm pretty sure we agree on this.

No, it should state, "humans typically have two nipples, although as with pretty much everything, there are occasional albeit infrequent exceptions."
Also, biological sex is often much more complex than something as (relatively) cut-and-dry as "how many nipples does this person have". Here's a link with a good infographic for demonstrating just how complex sex can be. https://www.scientificamerican.com/...xtraordinary-complexity-of-sex-determination/

Newly conceived fetuses will become female without a Y chromosome present. Nipple development begins before the Y chromosome takes effect so males have nipples. They are "less developed" but they are there.

 

[fy00sh]

Newly conceived fetuses will become female without a Y chromosome present. Nipple development begins before the Y chromosome takes effect so males have nipples. They are "less developed" but they are there.

Oh wait I didn't mean "biological sex determines more things than just how many nipples you have", I figured that number of nipples isn't determined by sex. Unless that's not what you were getting at? It sounds like you're arguing against what I said, but maybe you aren't, I'm not sure.
I was arguing that "defining biological sex in a way inclusive of nonstandard expressions thereof" wasn't exactly comparable to doing the same for number of nipples, because biological sex is a more complicated and multifaceted factor of human biology.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

I suggest sticking to what you're good at; social criticism is not it.

This feels like one of the cases where people are ok with a celebrity to voice political opinions only when they resonate with them. This is why America feels like two giant echo chambers without any form of communication going through from one to the other.

long but informative tweet thread by someone who knows the facts, which don't care about your feelings:

As someone in science, I wish this were true. People are in fact motivated by other non-scientific agendas, but because of Andrew Wakefield's huge scandal, people are getting better at dodging possible consequences. Even established branches of science like Forensic DNA aren't as definitive as you may believe, as pointed out in the NAS 2009 Report, the most referenced report in Forensic sciences. I don't want to brush your evidence aside completely, like you did to me, although I could easily have said "this science is from twitter so it isn't legit", so I searched Rebecca R Helm on pubmed, and she did have credible publications, so I trust her and your sources. However, if you look, also on Pubmed, peer-review studies and replication studies of her publications, you can see academia isn't totally agreeing upon this. While things like "Smoking causes lung cancer," "climate change is man made" or "vaccines don't cause autism" are generally agreed upon by the vast majority, this just isn't one. Picking out just one study (although what you showed me was just a twitter feed) that echoed your already founded belief doesn't cut it, even though to your credits, this is from a credible source (a person with a doctorate degree in microbiology).

PC and wokeness in America is part of a multi cultural nation trying to stitch its fabric together without one single dominant culture (like the very point of a dynamic culture built on the idea of the rule of law rather then the rule of man). So while the adjustment periods are tough and uncomfortable, rest assured we are making headway. There is plenty of backlash to PC and wokeness when it goes to far and we will proceed to hash this stuff out. Asking it to go away is the epitome of "white privilege".

Just because I don't like PC culture, I must be white? You are funny. Just for your record, I'm not.
(1) Curb your White privilege assumption - YouTube

Probably my last comment here, because just like every other politically charged threads, this isn't going anywhere. For the record, in the original thread, I said I didn't find Civ6 PC at all, and suggested people who advocated for PC culture to have more compassion for folks who don't share your point. A good starting point? Stop saying someone isn't as "qualified" as you because they hold a different opinion.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Cleopatra, I don’t know what her ethnicity was

she was white, hellenic white. Ptolomaic dinasty of times of Alexander the Great just do inbreeding relationships

But the premise of the discussion is broader than that, isn't it? It is whether it is fair to punish someone who holds a politically incorrect belief, against the political current. Guynemer just picked the most obvious case of it with the most common soundbites about white supremacy to get a cheap shot at a logical high ground but you can't mount your entire thesis on that one most obvious example, as we all know that most people (ones with a brain, that is) agree white supremacy is ugly, other matters that are considered politically incorrect are in grey areas.
A few years ago, it was generally agreed upon that "sex is what you are at birth, gender is a social construct about how you express yourself." That was until last year when an accountant got fired over her belief that sex was determined by biology, which set off the entire chain of events related to JK Rowling. You surely said a lot about science and academia, I'm a chemist myself, has academia collectively agreed upon this new notion of biological sexes at some points in the last few years that I missed?
A white employee who believes in white supremacy getting fired has to be the most cliche example to be had in a discussion about political correctness. Flip that hypothesis around, a black employee, after saying a darnedest thing about white people, believes he cannot be racist because there is a belief going on in sociology that black people cannot be racist because they don't hold any institution power.

Would you or Guynemer, the employer of the year, fire that black person for holding that belief, or will you let the latest political fad absolve him? Not so black and white anymore, isn't it?
The fact is white supremacy and white nationalism and neo-nazism are the most extreme of racism, but in a PC climate, you don't have to go to that extreme to be hurled the "racist" label at. Something as small as disapproving the casting choice of a black person in a role of a white historical figure, or a traditionally white role like the Little Mermaid, can be considered racist, which takes away the gravitas of the meaning of the word.

And please, political correctness and woke culture originate from America, tell me how enlightened you have been in the last few years. I hope you used the phrase in the case about white supremacy only, and not in the entire PC spectrum. Saying other countries are enlightened societies cuz they think like America is some classic American stuffs if I've ever seen one.

I can't get your main idea, blacks can or cannot be racist? I think they cannot.

 

[GenyaArikado]

Lol never said anything about Cuba? Can you quote it? Cuz I'm pretty sure you're one of the most reviled people in the entire Civ6 thread I am pretty sure some of your dumb comments have been referenced more than once, by multiple people, as the prime examples on how not to engage in conversation. You want me to put them here for the Off-Topic people to see, just in case?
Imagine being a white male but advocate for more misandry. I hope you're ok in real life and reach out for help when you need it.

Moderator Action: While the rules might be laxer in OT than in the civ forums, they are still there. Civility is important. Please keep your remarks focused on the topic at hand and not the poster. There is no need for the personal nature of your comments above. Thanks.

Imagine taking a comment about having a pinterest mood board about "white men hate" seriously

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

His arguments last post still sucked tho. Or were at least bad faith arguments.

This will be the last time I ever address you, since most people in the Civ6 forum already avoided direct quoting you anyway: If you want to be taken seriously, make actual arguments. I will list a few of your (in)famous comments in the Civ6 forums, some of which were already deleted or snipped only minutes after you posted it:
"If the leader is not female, I'm going to cut people"
"I'm already a white male, why do I need a white male leader?"
"I have never played a male leader in game"
"I only study about female leaders"
"There isn't enough misandry. We need more men hating."
"i think it's trash we're not getting a female leader."
Have you ever actually discussed anything besides the gender of a person? Lol talking about bad faith, just take time and read what you wrote. You are a meme in the entire Civ6 forum on how not to engage in conversations. Want some proofs that aren't from me? Read DukeWilliam's comments last thread and AriaLyric at the beginning of this thread. Maybe get more mentally stable and one day you can stop hating yourself for waking up as a white male. Hope one day you outgrow your pinterest and tumblr phase.

Imagine taking a comment about having a pinterest mood board about "white men hate" seriously

That is because your commenting history is famously rational

Moderator Action: Here in Off Topic it is actually a bad thing to belittle other's mental health, whether they have issues in that area or not. Kindly keep that kind of rhetoric out of the forums. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Lexicus]

While I personally respect someone's pronouns of choice, I disagree with the notion of basing biology on outlier occurrences. Some people are born with more than two nipples, should standard human biology state "there is no defined number of human nipples, as people can be born with any number of nipples", even though <0.5% of people are born with a third nipple?

Well, one-fourth of one percent (0.25%) of 7.5 billion is nearly twenty million people, so no, I don't think that "standard human biology" should ignore the existence of those people.
More generally, I think that letting people understand that even if they're outliers, they are valid and there's nothing wrong with them is more important than...whatever benefit you derive (and I admit, I am unclear on what that is) from pretending intersex people don't exist.

I'm still trying to frame this in my head, so pardon me while I think out loud a little bit, but you're getting at something that bugs me about the arguments over "political correctness" and "cancel culture", which is that it seems to studiously ignore evaluating the merits of a given act or position. I don't really think that a guideline for behavior that treats every idea the same is useful. So, in your example, I think I would consider it an injustice if someone got fired for supporting BLM, but I would not consider it an injustice if someone got fired for saying things that supported "racial superiority." The latter is inherently, if inspecifically, threatening and the former is not. BLM is about racial equality and 'racial superiority' is about racial inequality, which is again inherently threatening in the context of the US (though, is there a country or culture where "racial superiority" does not have a negative history?). If an employee was in being belligerent or making their colleagues feel unsafe, and wouldn't stop, I'd feel obliged to let them go. (So if a supporter of BLM was doing in it a confrontational or belligerent way, I'd have to let them go, but that wouldn't be about BLM, it would be about them being a [tool].)

Making policy on the basis of our shared opinion that the racist is harmful and the BLM supporter is not is actually a recipe for total disaster and, ultimately, the complete destruction of the rule of law. Due process needs to be based on actual harms done, not on an opinion - even a widely-shared, consensus opinion - that someone's statements or beliefs are just bad or wrong in some abstract sense.

Throughout most of US history questioning the existence of God would have been considered "inherently threatening." During the 1960s and 70s many people were punished for opposing the Vietnam War as this was considered "inherently threatening." Hell, in the 50s and 60s advocacy for civil rights and racial equality was deemed by many to be "inherently threatening" and people who engaged in those movements were treated accordingly. The left rightfully had a whole free speech movement to put a stop to that crap and it's fairly distressing to see those lessons have apparently been unlearned.

If people are entitled to due process, then you can't just proceed against them based on a vague notion that their statements or beliefs are "threatening." You need to show actual harm, an actual crime. Now, I think that in most cases where people are "cancelled" for racist or sexist behavior, it will be downright easy to show actual harm from their actions or statements, as in my example where the employee is fired after creating a hostile work environment for her non-white coworkers. In that example the employee has not been fired because she has "harmful" views, she has been fired because she - to put it in the sanitized language of the HR communication - did not work well with others.

I can't get your main idea, blacks can or cannot be racist? I think they cannot.

Of course individual black people can be racially prejudiced. Louis Farrakhan is an example of a black man who has referred to Jewish people as termites and cockroaches. This is bigotry.
How much individual prejudice actually matters as far as driving social outcomes is a whole nother question. While it's certainly difficult to see how the individual predjuces of black people contribute to negative outcomes for any white people, I actually am of the opinion that it is not primarily the racist attitudes of white people that is driving negative outcomes for black people in society today (such as the fact that the average black household's net worth is far less than that of the average white household).

I don't want to brush your evidence aside completely, like you did to me,

Sorry, perhaps I missed something, but what evidence did you provide for your initial position? For that matter, what exactly is there disagreement on wrt to the content of the tweets I posted? That intersex people exist is a readily verifiable fact. That biological sex is not straightforward to define is a matter of interpretation but I don't see any real basis for factual disagreement with anything in those tweets.

Still it makes me wonder what particular "racist" institutions or policies that we have in society today in the U.S. that are indeed deemed bad, because from what I've learned something being "racist" is open up to interpretation.

So this is something that really could be its own thread entirely but some starting points:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-f...cs-of-racial-inequality-in-the-united-states/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_inequality_in_the_United_States#Racial_wealth_gap

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/n...t-across-wealth-health-and-beyond/3201129001/

When we look at these comprehensive racial disparities we conclude that there are social causes for them, because as has been pointed out accurately race is a biological fiction. It is exclusively of social significance. Black people do not have much less wealth because they are somehow inherently less capable of accumulating wealth.