A rose by any other name.

As far as I'm concerned, racism hasn't changed much. People are just better at hiding it and ignoring it. There isn't the "burn a cross on your lawn" in your face racism so much as there is the "I didn't realize I was being racist" racism. A lot of people I know don't intend to be racist. There isn't any malicious intent at all. But every day, we're reminded of how separated we still are.

Consider this:

~The typical, average "flesh colored" band-aid is what color?

~Why do we still say "black/Latino/Hispanic man" when referring to someone who is not white while telling a story? We don't say "white man" in conversations.

~ How many "minority" actors/actresses star in prime time shows on major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS)? Take reality shows and count the number of "minorities" to the number of whites. Predominantly white. With your 1 or 2 "gotta have 'em for drama" black folks, your "oh no you didn't..., white trash" Latino girl, or "quiet, meek and mild" Asian.

~And on that note, what kind of african americans do they have on tv? Stereotypically loud, rambunctious and out of control. Always ready to start something. Hmmmm...
Latinos represented on tv? Yeah, like 1. George Lopez who is funny but can't possible represent the entire Latino population.
Asians? I can't really think of any right now......

Just to name a few. I don't think that people do it on purpose. But I know people do it. Not just white people. All people. To some degree, everyone is prejudice.

The KKK is the most abhorrant group. They must be ashamed of themselves because they wear masks to cover their faces. Being proud of your ancestry and heritage is good. Everyone should be. Being proud that you hate is just ignorant. I feel sorry for those people. I just feel so sorry for them.

0 Replies

Vivien wrote:

It's a case of not blaming the whole for the abominations of the few - we had it with Northern Ireland with 2 factions claiming to be Christian, who thought nothing of bombing and killing each other in the name of that religion - you can't condemn a religion worldwide for the actions of the few.

In neither of those cases were the disputes religious. They were political disputes that became a little contaminated by old religious emnities. However the Irish civil wars are a rebellion of the irish catholics against the invading english protestants. The two religions would have gotten along without anywhere near as much bloodshed had one group not invaded the other.

Likewise the muslim suicide bombers aren't religiously motivated. They're attacking their political enemies and drawing a bit of strength from their religion and the ancient emnities between the two faiths.

I blame religion for a lot. But not for modern terrorism.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Behaving according to the culture you were brought up in is not restricting your "true personality"

Really? Then answer me this.

Why does the term Twinkie exist? Meaning an asian who acts white. Or the term Wigga? Meaning a white man who acts be black. Metrosexual? A straight man who acts gay. Can you deny that if people start acting in a way typical of another culture they receive massive ammounts of ridicule by people of their own culture and the culture they emulate?

Cultures punish people who attempt to stray from their cultural bounds. This is bad.

Quote:

- in fact, since that initial culture is so much a part of who you are, it's difficult to even say if you have a "true" personality" that isn't made up only of that.

The random variations occuring within your genetic code along with personal innovation and exposure to other cultures is more than sufficient to allow someone to act in a non-traditional manner. That their culture was in influence in this process does not mean that their deviations are therefore cultural.

Quote:

Before you go saying it's reverse racism, you should look at your own culture. How often do you purposefully do something that's a little alien to the way you were brought up in liu of something that feels more natural?

Quite frequently, but then I am by nature somewhat deliberately perverse. I'm sorry but I'm not actually sure of the relevance of this question. Could you explain what you meant by it please?

Quote:

It's not a response to racism, it's a facet of being human.

You say that like it's necessarily a good thing.

0 Replies

Bella Dea wrote:

~The typical, average "flesh colored" band-aid is what color?

Lol, good point. I've never noticed that one.

Quote:

~Why do we still say "black/Latino/Hispanic man" when referring to someone who is not white while telling a story? We don't say "white man" in conversations.

Unless it's relevant to the story I imagine it's included as a distinguishing feature that enables the listener to build a mental picture of the event. To me the assumption that unless otherwise mentioned someone is white isn't all that strange since the population in my country is very heavily tilted towards white europeans (up until the fifties there was an openly racist immigration policy which refused to let anyone in who wasn't white. Fortunately we had a fantastic prime minister who ended that and brought in a lot of reforms that fixed up our country.)

Quote:

~ How many "minority" actors/actresses star in prime time shows on major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS)? Take reality shows and count the number of "minorities" to the number of whites. Predominantly white. With your 1 or 2 "gotta have 'em for drama" black folks, your "oh no you didn't..., white trash" Latino girl, or "quiet, meek and mild" Asian.

We have a soap opera here called "secret life of us". One of the actors (and therefore characters) is aboriginal, yet that was never scripted. She was simply the best actress who read for the role (and she is a fantastic actress so I suspect the decision wasn't made to be P.C.) and thus was cast in it.

I was very pleased when I heard about this, since it's a welcome change from the characters whose entire character is built upon race, rather than including it as an afterthought. This is the kind of thing that needs to happen more often on TV IMHO.

Quote:

~And on that note, what kind of african americans do they have on tv? Stereotypically loud, rambunctious and out of control. Always ready to start something. Hmmmm...
Latinos represented on tv? Yeah, like 1. George Lopez who is funny but can't possible represent the entire Latino population.
Asians? I can't really think of any right now......

Asians: The serious studious type who people always go to for help with schoolwork, or the slightly sexually perverse girl are the common stereotypes I see.

This is related to my point above where I'm saying how great it is that this character wasn't written in order to be any particular race. The writers probably imagined she'd be white.

Quote:

Just to name a few. I don't think that people do it on purpose. But I know people do it. Not just white people. All people. To some degree, everyone is prejudice.

Unfortunately. Wouldn't it be great though if this could be fixed?

Quote:

The KKK is the most abhorrant group. They must be ashamed of themselves because they wear masks to cover their faces. Being proud of your ancestry and heritage is good. Everyone should be. Being proud that you hate is just ignorant. I feel sorry for those people. I just feel so sorry for them.

I'm not proud of my ancestry or heritage. Don't get my wrong, the scottish have done some wonderful things in the past and I'm not ashamed of them. But firstly I only have a right to be proud of my own deeds, that I happen to be distantly related to these people doesn't give me a right to claim their deeds as my own. Secondly I consider myself a member of the human race moreso than anything else.

0 Replies

theantibuddha wrote:

Cultures punish people who attempt to stray from their cultural bounds. This is bad.

Culture isn't a set of bounds, it's a system of meaning and interaction. Yes, people who don't act as they're expected to get the short stick. It's the nature of the beast. I'm not saying it's good when that happens, and it's not like their aren't plenty of people out there trying to change the status quo a little to fix problems like this.

However, this doesn't really have anything to do with culture obscuring "personality". Culture is culture is culture. Acting white or black or asian is no more or less a personality than any of the others. People who act out of context don't do so because they're black people born into white bodies or whatever, they do it because of outside influences. Just like white people usually act white, because of outside influences.

Quote:

The random variations occuring within your genetic code along with personal innovation and exposure to other cultures is more than sufficient to allow someone to act in a non-traditional manner. That their culture was in influence in this process does not mean that their deviations are therefore cultural.

Not necessarily, but until someone scientifically proves otherwise, I think it's pretty safe to say that whatever influence biology might have is completely eclipsed by the influence of environment. You get one set of genes when you're born, and a magnitude of cultural information, expectations, and models to follow for your whole life. Which do you think is probably more effective?

Agency (which is what I think you mean by "personal innovation") is certainly an issue too - but as I said, culture is not a binding force, it's a system of meaning. Based on what actions and motivations mean to you as a cultural entity, what you want to do is going to differ. For example, if I want to pick someone up, you can bet my approach is going to differ if he is in, say, school, versus a bar or something. It's not a matter of me wanting something that my culture prohibits or allows, it's a matter of culture giving different actions different meanings in different environments.

Being exposed to other cultures is just another way of acquiring culture. White guys who act black are not as taboo as they could be, just because there is some cultural process that is causing them to act that way that is not random. The longer people who consider themselves culturally destinct from each other have to interact, the more blurry the lines between their perceived cultures become. There was some quote from an antrhropologist (Murdock?) about culture being a continuum, but I'm blanking on it at the moment.

Quote:

Quite frequently, but then I am by nature somewhat deliberately perverse. I'm sorry but I'm not actually sure of the relevance of this question. Could you explain what you meant by it please?

You seem to be saying that it's a bad thing when people act as they're expected to in their various environments. But as I mentioned above, this is mostly due to agency. The meanings you associate to things initially are the ones you're going to feel best associating later on. That's not to say that you can't change those later (and they tend to change a lot), but people are generally uncomfortable getting set down in the middle of something they're not familiar with at all, being expected to know what to do. I'm sure you're no different. And if you think about it, there's really not much difference between trying to be what someone else wants you to and trying not to.

Quote:

Quote:
It's not a response to racism, it's a facet of being human.

You say that like it's necessarily a good thing.

Isn't it? Not saying it's better than acting another way, but it's not bad, like you're making it out to be.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Culture isn't a set of bounds, it's a system of meaning and interaction.... etc

Rufio. I understand how culture works. Nor is my understanding of personal innovation somehow magical or coming from somewhere other than genetic code, chemical environment and psychological experiences.

My point is simply that a person's parental influence on their life is not as simple as their "culture". Your parents, whether black or white may like computer games and create a heavy environment of computer games within the family home. Could this not as easily be considered the child's culture as much as those customs coming from a racial background.

Other "cultures" may have far more impact than simple racial cultures. For example if both parents are scientists (a proffession with a massive culture and expectations of those within it) then that cultural influence may be far more prevalent than the parents being black or chinese.

But no. People prepackage stereotypes on race, ethnicity and nationality and then believe that THAT package is a persons culture. Certainly people of the same race are likely to have some simularities, yet by packaging these simularities as a single monolithic culture. (which I defy you to say doesn't occur within society) elevates racial culture above the other cultural influences on a person.

What I'm saying is that no one simply has an irish culture, though they perhaps have an irish cultural influence. They may have a middle-class, irish, catholic, teaching (the occupation of the parents), literary culture. And even then that's ignoring the thousands of small things, like a family's tradition of playing monopoly on thursday nights.

Each of these things makes up a familial culture, much like proffessional cultures or social-group cultures. These other cultures of equal importance in a person's development and life, yet our society's culture takes far more notice of racial culture which tends to elevate its influence upon people's behaviour.

And THAT is a shame.

0 Replies

I sometimes forget I'm not in class and actually have to address issues I've already talked about countless times and now take for granted - sorry.

Anything you experience in the cultural world is culture - blackness, whiteness, video games, whatever. You're right that race (and even moreso, gender) tends to be elevated in comparison to those, if your race or gender are in the minority. But that's because race (and especially gender!) effect the way you do everything. Think about it - if you met someone whose gender you honestly did not know - like someone with a gender-ambiguous screen-name IMing you - would you have a protocol for interacting with them in person? You would have some idea of who they were by virtue of the fact that they have an IM screenname, and you might just automatically assume they were male, but you would still act differently with someone only depending on their gender. Another example, take the general social disapproval of transsexuals.

Yes, there is a scientist culture, a video game culture, an internet culture, a golf-playing culture, and so on and so forth, but within those there are also segments of those cultures - male video gamers are treated decidedly differently from female ones, for instance, in terms of expectations. Race isn't nearly as pervasive as gender anymore, but it's still pretty significant. It's not that race and gender "trump" "familial" culture or other group culture - they just modify it. Culture's not something that ends in one place and starts up again somewhere else. Your identity goes with you wherever you go.

Here's an interesting link I found a few years ago:
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm

Quote:

(which I defy you to say doesn't occur within society)

What? Monolithic culture surely doesn't.

And what do you mean by society taking "too much notice" or race? AA?

0 Replies

Belle Idea - but have you ever seen a white skin that Band Aid matches? I'm not a yukky pink! Designed to look repulsive I think Very Happy

0 Replies

Rufio. Please stop lecturing me on what culture is. I understand.

Sorry.

That's been brewing up inside me for a while and I just had to let it out. I have a background in psychology. I get it, I assure you that I do. If you keep on lecturing me saying things to the effect of "culture is the development of elements of commonality within a group that occurs through assosciation over time" then I will quite possibly go crazy. Okay? I know this. You know this. We agree. It doesn't need to be continously stated.

Culture is the development of elements of commonality within a group that occurs through assosciation over time. It exists in any and all environments in which multiple people interact. If you then bring a foreigner, (particularly a child) into extended interaction with this group then they will begin to develop those same elements of commonality. This is not merely a human phenomenon but has been demonstrated in animal studies throughout the primate (and possibly other) species. (see I understand). It is integral in human development and would be nigh-impossible to remove.

(now for moving BEYOND that point on which we are both agreed). I suggest that a societal culture exists in which the race a person has is regarded as one of the more important factors of their cultural melange and that this emphasis within societal culture causes the person to emulate both the stereotypical and observed mean (as in average) behaviour of that particular cultural group to an extent that they would not if said societal cultural emphasis did not exist or was less prevalent.

This societal cultural emphasis exists both within each individual racial culture (n.b. that's not each individual's racial culture) and within general western culture as a whole (and most likely non-western cultures, yet I'm not familiar enough with them to comment). Within each individual racial culture is a common belief that a person who belongs to that culture, violating any aspect of the common cultural values and behaviours, is a bad event. Also within general western culture is the cultural belief assuming that a person's behaviour will be mostly or at least largely determined by their racial origin.

Do you agree?

If you agree I also suggest that it may be possible to decrease this societal cultural emphasis on a person's race to the point where the person would develop the traits of their racial culture, without said culture impeding their absorbtion of other competing cultural traits that the person may encounter.

Do you agree?

If you agree I also suggest that if it is possible, it would be a good idea as it would increase the degree to which a given individual can vary and adapt their psychology based on the alternate cultural groups with which they assosciate

Do you agree?

That is my sole argument.

Essentially it boils down to a more complicated form of saying "racism is bad"... (though that is not to say that disagreeing with my particular points is to endorse racism, this is merely one discourse on the topic that may or may not contain factual or logical errors)

If you agree on all these points then we are in agreement and the discussion requires no more debate (though perhaps further discussion on more involved or specific issues could be continued or we could return to the original general topic of the thread). If you disagree on any of these points then specify which and we can discuss them further.

Yet let's not continue as we were, with me restating my arguments continously (albeit they were admittedly poorly phrased at times leading to potential confusion and may have contained tangents irrelevant to the discussion at large which may have been incorrect). And you continously attempting to teach me the basic nature of culture which I was well aware of yet perhaps had not succesfully communicated within prior posts.

I say this because we have posted back and forth immensely long posts and I feel that our discussion has advanced by only the smallest degrees. I can't afford to continously type thousands of words if we are achieving little in the way of communication.

Yours,
The AntiBuddha.

0 Replies

theantibuddha wrote:

Rufio. Please stop lecturing me on what culture is. I understand.

I appologize. I was just a bit unclear as to where we were disagreeing. Since you've taken the time to outline your points a little more, I think I see where the discrepancy is, and I'll try to respond without repeating myself.

Quote:

I have a background in psychology.

I think I have found the problem here. :wink:

Quote:

Culture is the development of elements of commonality within a group that occurs through assosciation over time. It exists in any and all environments in which multiple people interact. If you then bring a foreigner, (particularly a child) into extended interaction with this group then they will begin to develop those same elements of commonality. This is not merely a human phenomenon but has been demonstrated in animal studies throughout the primate (and possibly other) species. (see I understand). It is integral in human development and would be nigh-impossible to remove.

Agreed.

Quote:

I suggest that a societal culture exists in which the race a person has is regarded as one of the more important factors of their cultural melange and that this emphasis within societal culture causes the person to emulate both the stereotypical and observed mean (as in average) behaviour of that particular cultural group to an extent that they would not if said societal cultural emphasis did not exist or was less prevalent.

This societal cultural emphasis exists both within each individual racial culture (n.b. that's not each individual's racial culture) and within general western culture as a whole (and most likely non-western cultures, yet I'm not familiar enough with them to comment). Within each individual racial culture is a common belief that a person who belongs to that culture, violating any aspect of the common cultural values and behaviours, is a bad event. Also within general western culture is the cultural belief assuming that a person's behaviour will be mostly or at least largely determined by their racial origin.

Agreed.... but.... there is a reason for that being the way it is. The link I provided in my last post probably has a lot more trivia about the history of race in the US than I do, but I can outline it for you.

Race is a relatively new idea, and originates from the events surrounding the making of America, the slave trade, and various laws dictating who was White enough to be a full citizen in the time following. To bring the thread back in the sort of general direction that I think it was going originally - I've read a very interesting account of race and class in America suggesting that the KKK was originally formed as a method of subverting lower class whites, and not blacks - the elites in power created the idea of race and racial differences to prevent poor whites and poor blacks from joining forces and overturning the current oppressive power structure.

Yeah, we don't have the KKK anymore (well, not openly, at any rate), but the effects of that construction of race are still around. Virtually every country, to my knowledge, that was touched by the slave trade has similarly deep constructions and expectations of race, although they tend to divide race in different ways than we do (c.f. Latin America). The societal culture that someone is born into is not just a random configuration of elements, it is a system that had been in the making for hundreds and hundreds of years. It is not going to change quite as easily as I think you want it to.

Quote:

If you agree I also suggest that it may be possible to decrease this societal cultural emphasis on a person's race to the point where the person would develop the traits of their racial culture, without said culture impeding their absorbtion of other competing cultural traits that the person may encounter.

I've said it before, and I don't know how else to say it. Culture doesn't impede anything. No matter how pervasive one single element of your culture might be, it doesn't prevent you from being affected by every other one as well. If someone is a black scientist, you are suggesting that in the current system, they would only consider themselves black. In reality, there is a construction of their identity as black AND and scientist that is different from being white AND a scientist and also from being black AND (for example) an artist. Different aspects of culture naturally have more emphasis than others. This doesn't mean that any aspects have reduced emphasis because of the existance of other aspects.

Quote:

If you agree I also suggest that if it is possible, it would be a good idea as it would increase the degree to which a given individual can vary and adapt their psychology based on the alternate cultural groups with which they assosciate

This is where your psychological perspective runs into problems, I think. Culture, and race, and gender, and all of these things, are not individual phenomena that can be changed by individuals. No matter how someone chooses to perceive himself, he cannot change how others perceive him. You can't change the world one person at a time, the world as a whole must gradually purge itself of harmful connotations created and molded by hundreds of years of violent hateful history. Key concept, gradually. It it had been possible to acheive this as simply as you seem to think, MLK's dream would have been realized long before now.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

I appologize.

Well, it's equally my fault for not clarrifying my position. I'm sure you can see the frustration inherent in the situation though.

Quote:

I wrote:
I have a background in psychology.
I think I have found the problem here. :wink:

Lol, that wasn't kind. Not necessarily untrue but certainly unkind Razz

Quote:

Agreed.

Phewf. Basic common ground at last.

Quote:

Agreed.... but.... there is a reason for that being the way it is.

You mean an effect has a cause, gosh :wink: I would have never guessed. Razz

Quote:

the elites in power created the idea of race and racial differences to prevent poor whites and poor blacks from joining forces and overturning the current oppressive power structure.

I respectfully disagree. I believe it subconciously formed as a necessary element for accepting slave trade. People are not easily capable of causing suffering to other "human beings", bypassing this psychological restriction is usually done by persuading yourself that they're not human, at least not the same way you are. People's rationalisations to themselves to justify being part of a system with human suffering developed into a culture that was passed on to children.

I appreciate it's an entirely unrelated tangent but that's my theory on the development of said racism. I'm not saying that your explanation is impossible, in fact it may have occured alongside the events in my own. However I don't believe that the "elites" have the power to unilaterally construct such a belief across the minds of everyone and that it requires a certain active participation by the convincee as much as the convincer.

Quote:

Yeah, we don't have the KKK anymore

Yeah you do. There are modern photos of clan rallies.

Quote:

Virtually every country, to my knowledge, that was touched by the slave trade has similarly deep constructions and expectations of race,

Not only slave trade. We didn't have any slave trade in our country but still have a lot of racism against the aboriginal "savages" that were here first.

Quote:

it is a system that had been in the making for hundreds and hundreds of years. It is not going to change quite as easily as I think you want it to.

Oh, I don't think it's going to be easy. I'm just saying eventual goal here.

Quote:

I've said it before, and I don't know how else to say it. Culture doesn't impede anything.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course it does. Example: How easy is it to teach a person with a christian background (even if they don't actually believe) about evolution? Enough said. One thing in your head can make it quite difficult to learn something else. Memetics describes the principles involved here quite well.

Quote:

Key concept, gradually

Forgive me if I implied any rapidity. When I discuss social development I naturally tend to think in hundreds of years and was describing an end-point goal. The automatic nature of this mode of thought perhaps implied a degree of rapidity and simplicity that I was not envisioning.

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
the elites in power created the idea of race and racial differences to prevent poor whites and poor blacks from joining forces and overturning the current oppressive power structure.

I respectfully disagree. I believe it subconciously formed as a necessary element for accepting slave trade. People are not easily capable of causing suffering to other "human beings", bypassing this psychological restriction is usually done by persuading yourself that they're not human, at least not the same way you are. People's rationalisations to themselves to justify being part of a system with human suffering developed into a culture that was passed on to children.

I appreciate it's an entirely unrelated tangent but that's my theory on the development of said racism. I'm not saying that your explanation is impossible, in fact it may have occured alongside the events in my own. However I don't believe that the "elites" have the power to unilaterally construct such a belief across the minds of everyone and that it requires a certain active participation by the convincee as much as the convincer.

Sure. As human beings, we rationalize things. But there's a difference between saying that black people are not fully human, or are genetically inferior, and actually going out and burning down someone's house because they're black. There was a lot of rationalization going on with science as well, but it was only descrimination and a desire to unhold laws regarding property and freedom, and not largely an act of hate. The hate came in because of the class tensions, and the need for white elites to have poor white identify more strongly with the elites than with the poor blacks. We don't have the idea of genetic/biological inferiority anymore, but we still have the hate, which is what continues to emphasize race even after all pretense of scientific backing is gone.

Quote:

Quote:
Virtually every country, to my knowledge, that was touched by the slave trade has similarly deep constructions and expectations of race,

Not only slave trade. We didn't have any slave trade in our country but still have a lot of racism against the aboriginal "savages" that were here first.

Which country? Oz? I don't much about the history, but I would suppose that European ideas of race and so forth got taken down there. Those go back before the slave trade, to when America was first being scouted out, and the very first "anthropologists" were studing Native American groups to estimate how easy it would be to conquer them.

Quote:

Quote:
I've said it before, and I don't know how else to say it. Culture doesn't impede anything.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course it does. Example: How easy is it to teach a person with a christian background (even if they don't actually believe) about evolution? Enough said. One thing in your head can make it quite difficult to learn something else. Memetics describes the principles involved here quite well.

I know plenty of devout Christians who accept evolution wholeheartedly. Hell, I know a devout Christian in the southern US who teaches biology. Yes, real biology. Darwin and the finches. It's only the people who have been convinced that evolution specifically is wrong, who won't accept it, after some careful thought on the matter. I hesitate to call purposeful misinformation/brainwashing culture. If it were a belief that they did not feel the need to adamantly defend at every turn, I might be a little more willing.

A quite anecdote, about religion and science - a friend of mine is a home-care nurse, and once got an incredibly devout, conservative Christian woman as a patient. The woman refused to take her meds, because she thought that God had intended her to get sick, and that the meds were made by man, and that it was wrong of her to try to change God's will. My friend talked to her pastor/whatever, and he convinced her to take the meds - by telling her that God had given us the meds and that he meant for her to take them. Culture's not a specific set of beliefs about concrete things so much as it is a way of looking at things in an abstract context. Change the context, and the culture is applied very differently.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Sure. As human beings, we rationalize things. But there's a difference between saying that black people are not fully human, or are genetically inferior, and actually going out and burning down someone's house because they're black.

The second is difficult to do without the first.

Quote:

Which country? Oz? I don't much about the history, but I would suppose that European ideas of race and so forth got taken down there.

Pretty much take American colonial history, replace the word "indian" with "aboriginal" and you have the story of what happened to the native inhabitants. Australia was a English penal colony that was colonised in the mid 19th century (I think... me and dates are a poor mix).

Quote:

I hesitate to call purposeful misinformation/brainwashing culture.

Ah but there you have a fantastic example of either A) A culture so desperate to keep people within it that it would knowingly lie to them or B) A culture impeding peoples ability to accept a foreign concept. Either of which is my point exactly.

Quote:

A quite anecdote, about religion and science - a friend of mine is a home-care nurse, and once got an incredibly devout, conservative Christian woman as a patient. The woman refused to take her meds,

The bible should really have a government health warning on the front cover.

0 Replies

theantibuddha wrote:

Quote:
I hesitate to call purposeful misinformation/brainwashing culture.

Ah but there you have a fantastic example of either A) A culture so desperate to keep people within it that it would knowingly lie to them or B) A culture impeding peoples ability to accept a foreign concept. Either of which is my point exactly.

Well, now we're talking about intentional communities, laws, power, and authority. Formerly I was just referring to identity.

Quote:

The bible should really have a government health warning on the front cover.

*facepalm*

0 Replies

A rose by any other name.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know