Skip to content
affirmative action is a social construct


They also accuse people of racism and then say that race doesn’t exist

you’re actually medically stupid if you think that statement makes any sense at all.

Witch burnings happened. That doesn´t necesarily mean witches really existed.

Some of the most horrible cases of racism in action, like the genocide in Rwanda and the various atrocities in ex-Yugoslavia, actually were carried out between groups that were not just “racially” but even culturally close to each other. In Japan there were (are still to some degree) a severly discriminated group called burrakumin who were, basically, just Japanese. They didn´t have a different ethnic background or a different religion or anything, anthropologists aren´t even clear on how they came to be seen as a distinct group.
Racism is socio-psychological phenomenon, and often doesn´t make much sense, but that is little help to the people that fall victim to it.

race is real and biological stay mad

“Racism” = noticing that the races are different

Also, ethnostates have no racism problem, no “white privilege,” and so on. If they really cared about “racism” they’d be White Nationalists and push for White homelands and White ethnostates.

I guess “Race is a social construct, therefore we need Racial diversity in our society where race is a social construct.” Is too hard to grasp?

If races don’t exist what’s the point of having different races coexist? An all-white society should be identical to a mixed or all-black society, so there’s no meaning in actively trying to make a society racially diverse.

Races do exist *Socially *. They dont exist scientifically in any significant degree.

We are all homo sapiens.

Nah, Africans are more genetically distant from some other Africans, then Europeans are distant from Asians. Eurasians might be close enough to be called the same, but Africans are certainly not.

And Aboriginals? Geddafuckouttaheeee….

Also the Jewish predisposition to schizophrenia blows you the fuck out.

If race is a social construct, distinguishing between races is not possible to do in the same manner as, say, distinguishing between life and death, which is necessary to enforce murder laws, or really any custom that revolves around an objective distinction. Thus setting any policies or making any sort of moral argument on a strictly social distinction immediately fail, as, by definition, they can’t defeat the question, “Why not change society so that the distinction doesn’t even exist? Why improve the ‘diversity’ of this distinction, rather than simply, as a society, choosing to ignore the distinction, thus causing it to cease to exist, since society chooses what social distinctions are made?”

However, that question isn’t even needed to defeat the conclusion, since the logic is invalid, as it’s in the form:

1. All A is (B with respect to C).
2. Therefore ((D with respect to A) with respect to C) is “good”.

Where A is “Race”, B is “Social Construct”, C is “Our Society”, and D is “Diversity”. There is no known set of semantics, formal nor otherwise, propositional nor first-order, where statement 2 follows from statement 1.

Stone’s implication in the comic is that there exists no such semantics, since they couldn’t possibly be consistent.

Stone is a racist and a anti-semite. That alone is reason for societies (none of which are objectively perfect) to bring as much diversity as possible to the table to do away with racism and antisemitism as much as possible.

We’re striving for a better world and not a utopia.

But proximity to diversity causes racism and anti-semitism and thus under your own moral logic it is bad.

I disagree with Blarg’s proposed methodology of killing harmful bigots. I agree with his distaste for harmful bigots, because it is true that they have done more harm to the world than the liberal left has.
Worth remembering is that the antisemetism and nazism that stonetoss supports was the original political movement to use the justification “the end justifies the means” with the holocaust.
Also, proximity to diversity does not cause racism and anti-semetism. Diversity is a prerequisite for it, but not the cause. Look at Toronto, Canada, where I’m from. It’s one of the most diverse cities in North America, and it has top of the line infrastructure, education, institutions, and economic oppurtunities. The only reason it hasn’t brought bigotry with it is because the Toronto government has made it their highest priority to encourage diversity and culture sharing. The various events and cultural festivals are meant to be fun, so that people associate the new cultural groups moving in with the fun of their cultures. It’s working, and Toronto is one of the fastest growing cities in North America. It’s something to be emulated.

…is there a point here? The nuclear family is a social construct. Property and industry are social constructs. Are they not necessary either?

Once something is constructed, either by social or physical means, and has persisted for centuries, it has meaning. Saying something is a social construct doesn’t suddenly invalidate its existence, it simple points out its etiology.

To be fair, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say that race is a social construct, not even the most extreme social “leftists”. Did you actually hear anyone say this? Because I’m worried you’re strawmanning their camp.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar