Racism and Stigma Cause STD's to Skyrocket

[Jimmy Jazz]

Leftists are the true enemy of minorities/people of color.

just use the term minorities. People of Color is a garbage term propagated by the left to manipulate people.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

just use the term minorities. People of Color is a garbage term propagated by the left to manipulate people.

I particularly enjoy using colored people now. There is nothing better then giving somebody a blank confused look after they correct you to people of color. If you just stare at them without speaking, they try to explain and things get real awkward for them

 

[Scrody]

This post actually solidifies my position. If you disagree then I must be right

 

[SammyPops]

I'm really old school. I still call it venereal disease and AIDS.

This always reminds me of black dudes smoking cools in Nam movies.

 

[Johnny Mac]

 

[irish_thug]

I particularly enjoy using colored people now. There is nothing better then giving somebody a blank confused look after they correct you to people of color. If you just stare at them without speaking, they try to explain and things get real awkward for them

I use "of colour" to describe anything that's black now. Black car = car of colour, black cat = cat of colour.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Okay, so single mothers are telling their children not to use protection and not to seek sexual health checkups? Is it your argument that it's the father's role to pass along that wisdom?

Just trying to make sense of your logic here, since you seem to keep making conclusions where the premises are completely disjointed.

Single mothers have less time and money to invest in their children than married couples do on average so of course being born to a single mother is going to increase your chances of a whole host of negative outcomes, STDs included.

Right, but this would not then impute to the disparities by class, color, and sexual orientation, unless you think that black folks, poor folks, and gay folks are just naturally less responsible.

In the case of gay men I think that's absolutely the case. Men take more risks and when men are having sex with other men, instead of women, the risk taking gets taken to a new level.

 

[Islam Imamate]

By the way, you know X was bisexual and had a fair amount of gay sex, right? In fact, there is a good amount of evidence that he had prostituted himself to men.

Otherwise, you're right. Joining the Nation of Islam bound him to its moral dictates. But I didn't want you to have a fainting spell when you realize you were appropriating the words of a gay boy.

And yet he stopped having sex with men and got married. If anything, that only supports DP's point; Malcolm X had homosexual desires and acted on them but ultimately devoted himself to a monogamous lifestyle which is less conducive to the transmission of STDs. If most bisexual men would limit or cease their sex with other men and devote themselves to a monogamous heterosexual marriage they would reduce their chances of contracting an STD.

Christopher Lasch wrote an excellent essay in 1986 that focused on the decline of the left and the family that is still relevant today. It reminds me a lot of you and your immature radicalism. I highly recommend you read the entire essay.

Why the Left Has No Future

Unable to explain the persistence of religion, pro-family attitudes, and an ethic of personal accountability except as an expression of false consciousness-as the product of brainwashing or of an irrational attachment to “simple and easy answers” after “two decades of social upheaval-the Left finds itself without a following. Since it refuses to take popular attitudes seriously-to “pander” to “the existing popular consciousness,” in Lillian Rubin’s curious and revealing phrase-it can hope to reform society only in the face of popular opposition or indifference.

...the American Left has had to choose, in effect, between two equally futile and self-defeating strategies: either to wait helplessly for the revolution, while fulminating against “capitalism,” or to try to gain its objectives by outflanking public opinion, giving up the hope of creating a popular constituency for social reform, and relying instead on the courts, the mass media, and the administrative bureaucracy. As militant outsiders or bureaucratic insiders, radicals have succeeded only in laying the basis of a conservative movement that has managed to present itself, infuriatingly, as a form of cultural populism, even though its own program, espe-cially its economic program, seeks only to perpetuate the existing distribution of wealth and power-indeed, to reverse most of the democratic gains actually achieved over the last five decades.

...it would be foolish to blame feminism for the collapse of the family. But it is equally foolish to pretend that feminism is compatible with the family. Feminism is itself an outgrowth of liberalism, among other things, and it shares liberalism’s belief in individual rights, contractual relations, and the primacy of justice, all of which make it impossible to understand the nature or the value of spontaneous cooperation.

People still cherish the stability of long-term marital and intergenerational commitments, in other words, but find little support for them in a capitalist economy or in the prevailing ideology of individual rights. Liberal societies tend to undermine family life, even though most of them profess a sentimental attachment to “family values.” This tendency has been present from the very beginning of the liberal capitalist order, in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Very interesting read. On the one hand I would say I am a leftist and I think that there is value to some of the solutions the left suggests here. Reexamining the role of housing and education policy as it relates to the STD issue and trying to expand access to healthcare are things that likely would help alleviate the situation.

That said, there's only so much policy can do and its well documented that the traditional nuclear family arrangement is correlated with a range of positive outcomes. I understand the aversion to the "family values" idea from the left in the US because the GOP uses it as an election slogan and as a club to hit scapegoats over the head with. But that need not mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Family values take hits from both sides as the article points out; the left is dominated by a cosmopolitan ethos that has an aversion to traditional family structures while the political right endorses an economic program that undermines families despite their ostensible support for family values.

Funny enough if you wanted to try to find a combination of economic social justice with traditional family values you'd find something pretty close in the Islamic tradition. The idea of communitarianism that the author refers to strikes me as not entirely dissimilar to what you find in some Muslim majority countries where you find privatized welfare systems operated on a communitarian basis to look after the most vulnerable which in and of itself inculcates this communitarian Islamic ethos. I don't want to praise it too much for obvious reasons, it has its own issues to say the least(definitely in practice) but its interesting to think about nonetheless.

 

[Rematch]

So racism is now spreading VD at an alarming rate... in California? Damn racism will fuck anybody.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

And yet he stopped having sex with men and got married. If anything, that only supports DP's point; Malcolm X had homosexual desires and acted on them but ultimately devoted himself to a monogamous lifestyle which is less conducive to the transmission of STDs. If most bisexual men would limit or cease their sex with other men and devote themselves to a monogamous heterosexual marriage they would reduce their chances of contracting an STD.

Very interesting read. On the one hand I would say I am a leftist and I think that there is value to some of the solutions the left suggests here. Reexamining the role of housing and education policy as it relates to the STD issue and trying to expand access to healthcare are things that likely would help alleviate the situation.

That said, there's only so much policy can do and its well documented that the traditional nuclear family arrangement is correlated with a range of positive outcomes. I understand the aversion to the "family values" idea from the left in the US because the GOP uses it as an election slogan and as a club to hit scapegoats over the head with. But that need not mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Family values take this from both sides as the article points out; the left is dominated by a cosmopolitan ethos that has an aversion to traditional family structures while the political right endorses an economic program that undermines families despite their ostensible support for family values.

Funny enough if you wanted to try to find a combination of economic social justice with traditional family values you'd find something pretty close in the Islamic tradition. The idea of communitarianism that the author refers to strikes me as not entirely dissimilar to what you find in some Muslim majority countries where you find privatized welfare systems operated on a communitarian basis to look after the most vulnerable which in and of itself inculcates this communitarian Islamic ethos. I don't want to praise it too much for obvious reasons, it has its own issues to say the least(definitely in practice) but its interesting to think about nonetheless.

The author, Christopher Lasch, began his academic career by analyzing social issues through a Marxist and Freudian lens. He hated leftist radicals, but greatly respected leftist thinking. Eventually, towards the end of his life, he turned more towards religion and at one point labeled himself a communitarian populist. He was big on family and a traditional way of living that included restraint, rigor and discipline.


I have been listening to Abdal Hakim Murad a lot lately and I have noticed he talks about the importance of the extended family and the community all being responsible for raising children. There is a lot I am starting to admire in Islam. There is far more to it than just the radical violence we always see in the media. I really appreciate the strong stance on traditional family roles as well as the emphasis on restraint when it comes to sex and food.



I have also started listening to some videos by Hakim Archuletta

 

[fartamis1982]

How the fuck do you expect them to protect themselves when the magnums are locked up?

 

[Islam Imamate]

The author, Christopher Lasch, began his academic career by analyzing social issues through a Marxist and Freudian lens. He hated leftist radicals, but greatly respected leftist thinking. Eventually, towards the end of his life, he turned more towards religion and at one point labeled himself a communitarian populist. He was big on family and a traditional way of living that included restraint, rigor and discipline.

I got that sense from, specifically this part which I found interesting.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that socialism-"careful now! "-appeals to Lichtman, as it appeals to so many of those "radicals" who covet the reputation of radicalism without its attendant risks, just because it is mildly unpopular (though destined, of course, for ultimate success) and therefore retains a faint afterglow of the dangerous and forbidden, at the same time providing all the intellectual comfort of a safe, predictable, fixed, unchanging body of dogmas.

I've felt the same way to an extent. I call it pseudo-radicalism, a stance which in theory seems very radical but in practice leads to a cloistering in the ivory tower and a circle jerk of publishing and citation that has little to no impact outside the narrow circle for which this material was created. Chomsky has also talked about something like this, about how certain modern intellectuals have dissociated themselves from popular struggle only to exchange incomprehensible jargon with one another.

I have been listening to Abdal Hakim Murad a lot lately and I have noticed he talks about the importance of the extended family and the community all being responsible for raising children. There is a lot I am starting to admire in Islam. There is far more to it than just the radical violence we always see in the media. I really appreciate the strong stance on traditional family roles as well as the emphasis on restraint when it comes to sex and food.



I have also started listening to some videos by Hakim Archuletta

Both interesting videos but there's one point that Hakim Murad makes that I think has a wide and deep relevance to the plight of the Muslim world and the failure of the Islamists. Specifically, how the preconditions in which Islamic norms and tradition thrived have been utterly obliterated by modernity and how a failure to appreciate this and a willingness to simply apply these norms without regard to that fact can create gross injustices.

For instance, the sharia courts of the medieval and early modern periods were less like criminal courts and more like private adjudication courts of last resort. Most of the time disputes were resolved by community elders but if they couldn't do it you would pay a fee to have a sharia judge(from your school of jurisprudence of choice) lay down a final, binding judgement. And that was a very important service these courts provided.

But modern Islamists want to apply the sharia in a different manner. They want to harness the awesome power of the modern state, unprecedented in Islamic history which was dominated by weak, household based states, to create an inquisitorial regime that can invade and mold every aspect of its subjects lives to fit a very narrow and mutually exclusive conception of what it is to be a Muslim.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

I got that sense from, specifically this part which I found interesting.

I've felt the same way to an extent. I call it pseudo-radicalism, a stance which in theory seems very radical but in practice leads to a cloistering in the ivory tower and a circle jerk of publishing and citation that has little to no impact outside the narrow circle for which this material was created. Chomsky has also talked about something like this, about how certain modern intellectuals have dissociated themselves from popular struggle only to exchange incomprehensible jargon with one another.

Both interesting videos but there's one point that Hakim Murad makes that I think has a wide and deep relevance to the plight of the Muslim world and the failure of the Islamists. Specifically, how the preconditions in which Islamic norms and tradition thrived have been utterly obliterated by modernity and how a failure to appreciate this and a willingness to simply apply these norms without regard to that fact can create gross injustices.

For instance, the sharia courts of the medieval and early modern periods were less like criminal courts and more like private adjudication courts of last resort. Most of the time disputes were resolved by community elders but if they couldn't do it you would pay a fee to have a sharia judge(from your school of jurisprudence of choice) lay down a final, binding judgement. And that was a very important service these courts provided.

But modern Islamists want to apply the sharia in a different manner. They want to harness the awesome power of the modern state, unprecedented in Islamic history which was dominated by weak, household based states, to create an inquisitorial regime that can invade and mold every aspect of its subjects lives to fit a very narrow and mutually exclusive conception of what it is to be a Muslim.

Hakim Murad is brilliant when it comes to analyzing and criticizing Western culture and the hollowness of post-modernist thinking and how it negatively effects the rest of the world. I have noticed in many videos he heavily discourages the tendency for people to want the state to solve all of their problems. Recently, I have been reading or listening to thinkers who have a theological and philosophical background or at least have some kind of religious influence in their thinking. There seems to be something about having some religious influence in one's thinking that deepens his or her capacity to analyze ideas and problems.

I greatly appreciate what Murak has to say. The only criticism I have of him at this point is that he is not the most exciting speaker.

 

[Greoric]

Okay, so then black people then lack restraint, discipline, and responsibility compared to white people?

We're talking about demographic disproportionalities, so you can't just make your moralistic arguments without imputing them to the context at hand.

I say black persons and Latino persons are more likely to be poor and that is the primarily reason they disproportionately have STI's: because they have lower access to education and healthcare. You say black people and Latino people disproportionately get STI's because they are inherently less disciplined and responsible than the comparatively wise white folks.

Am I summarizing our disagreement correctly?

Amazing to consider populations separated by 50,000 years in completely different ecological environments would also differ in something like deferred gratification or impulse control, instead of just the number of melanocytes in their skin.

 

[Trotsky]

Amazing to consider populations separated by 50,000 years in completely different ecological environments would also differ in something like deferred gratification or impulse control, instead of just the number of melanocytes in their skin.

This would be something fairly easy to quantify and trace neurologically, yes?

I have very little patience for pseudoscience that lends toward the suggestion that I am naturally an impulsive, lustful brute whose people lack the restraint and responsibility of disciplined white folks.

 

[Greoric]

You're a fucking moron. It's less apparent in the Sports Bar, so maybe stick to sports topic where the necessary level of intelligence isn't as glaringly out of your reach.

This sub forum certainly does have a selection element to it.... interesting there we are again.... a selection event, and it happens in days or weeks. I wonder what could possibly happen over tens of thousands of years of communities being isolated and reproducing in different environments... Maybe just a skin color change?

 

[Greoric]

This would be something fairly easy to quantify and trace neurologically, yes?

I have very little patience for pseudoscience that lends toward the suggestion that I am naturally an impulsive, lustful brute whose people lack the restraint and responsibility of disciplined white folks.

In something like an IQ distribution curve? Absolutely. Or how about a deferred gratification test, where child participants with African descent decided NOT to defer gratification to eat a treat now, instead of in 10 minutes as compared to participants of Asian or Northern European descent?

Edit: Stanford marshmallow experiment:

Mischel reported a significant ethnic difference, with Indian children showing far more ability to delay gratification as compared to African students, as well as large age differences, and that "Comparison of the 'high' versus 'low' socioeconomic groups on the experimental choice did not yield a significant difference".[6] Absence of the father was prevalent in the African-descent group but occurred only once in the East Indian group, and this variable showed the strongest link to delay of gratification, with children from intact families showing superior ability to delay.

If you want to read the methods and conclusions: http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037/h0041895

 

[Judge]

I'm not sure why you continue to try to turn this into a racial issue.

Because all racists see is a person's race. I think that explains exactly what he is doing.

Why are you so concerned about peoples dick size?
Duuurrrrrrr

I will send anyone with a bigger dick than me to the GRAVE . . . guess how many I have killed??? Zero. Yeah, check that out, dude.

You're a fucking moron. It's less apparent in the Sports Bar, so maybe stick to sports topic where the necessary level of intelligence isn't as glaringly out of your reach.

The Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens), commonly known as the betta, is a popular fish in the aquarium trade.Bettas are a member of the gourami family and are known to be highly territorial. Males in particular are prone to high levels of aggression and will attack each other if housed in the same tank.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I greatly appreciate what Murak has to say. The only criticism I have of him at this point is that he is not the most exciting speaker.

I like the way he speaks, its very relaxing and pleasant to me. Then again, I also like the way Chomsky speaks and plenty of people who respect him admit he bores them to death.