Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Yaarel" data-source="post: 8863793" data-attributes="member: 58172">The above quote is the part that coheres with reallife racism. The &quot;revisionism&quot; is to intentionally prevent racism.When biological traits and cultural traits are confused together, then the perception is that cultural traits are inherently biological. (Some forumers refer to this as making culture bioessential.) When this happens, value systems such as patriotism become actual racism. The perception is, the other cultures are less human, and to mix with them makes ones own biology less pure. All of this worldview is hatespeech translated into a pseudoscience.Tolkien is riddled with this kind of racist way of thinking. As are some parts of D&amp;D traditions. − Because of the failure to distinguish what is inherent with what is learned.Modern genetics has shown that the what separates one humans appearance and an other humans appearance is genetically trivial. We all come from the same ancestors − recently. (Our ancestral Homo sapiens probably resemble Ethiopians today.)The important distinctions are cultural − and there are many styles of being human.There seems to be confusion between different meanings of the English word &quot;people&quot;.1. &quot;people&quot; (plural) = persons, the nonstandard plural of &quot;person&quot;: one person, two people.2. &quot;the people&quot; (plural) = the citizens of a government.3. &quot;a people&quot; (singular) = an autonomous ethnicity: one people, two peoples.(Note, the citizens of the US are both plural &quot;the people&quot; in contrast to the government, and singular &quot;a people&quot; as a melting-pot ethnicity.)The quote from Wikipedia is definition 1: &quot;any plurality of persons considered as a whole&quot;. It even says, the plural of person.Examples of taking a group of persons &quot;as a whole&quot;:The joke: &quot;There are two kinds of people. Those who divide the world into two kinds of people. And those who dont.&quot;= two kinds of &quot;persons&quot;≠ two kinds of &quot;peoples&quot;&quot;I'll have my people call your people.&quot;= my persons and your persons≠ my ethnicity and your ethnicityD&amp;D people versus Pathfinder people.= persons who prefer D&amp;D versus persons who prefer Pathfinder≠ an ethnicity of D&amp;D versus an ethnicity of PathfinderFor the English word &quot;people&quot;: definition 1 (&quot;persons&quot;) is common and normal. But definition 3 (&quot;an ethnicity&quot;) is rare, and seems to be causing confusion.Even definition 2 (&quot;the citizens&quot; versus the government) is uncommon − and often misleading since it is unlikely every citizen participates in the generalization. For example, to say, During the French Revolution the people overthrew the aristocracy, wrongly implies that every French nonaristocrat stopped supporting the aristocracy.All in all, the term &quot;a people&quot; seems to confuse, and worse, seems able to cohere with a racist worldview.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Yaarel, post: 8863793, member: 58172"] The above quote is the part that coheres with reallife racism. The "revisionism" is to intentionally prevent racism. When biological traits and cultural traits are confused together, then the perception is that cultural traits are inherently biological. (Some forumers refer to this as making culture bioessential.) When this happens, value systems such as patriotism become actual racism. The perception is, the other cultures are less human, and to mix with them makes ones own biology less pure. All of this worldview is hatespeech translated into a pseudoscience. Tolkien is riddled with this kind of racist way of thinking. As are some parts of D&D traditions. − Because of the failure to distinguish what is inherent with what is learned. Modern genetics has shown that the what separates one humans appearance and an other humans appearance is genetically trivial. We all come from the same ancestors − recently. (Our ancestral [I]Homo sapiens[/I] probably resemble Ethiopians today.) The important distinctions are cultural − and there are many styles of being human. There seems to be confusion between different meanings of the English word "people". 1. "people" ([B]plural[/B]) = persons, the nonstandard plural of "person": one person, two people. 2. "the people" (plural) = the citizens of a government. 3. "a people" ([B]singular[/B]) = an autonomous ethnicity: one people, two peoples. (Note, the citizens of the US are both plural "the people" in contrast to the government, and singular "a people" as a melting-pot ethnicity.) The quote from Wikipedia is definition 1: "any plurality of persons considered as a whole". It even says, the plural of person. Examples of taking a group of persons "as a whole": The joke: "There are two kinds of people. Those who divide the world into two kinds of people. And those who dont." = two kinds of "persons" ≠ two kinds of "peoples" "I'll have my people call your people." = my persons and your persons ≠ my ethnicity and your ethnicity D&D people versus Pathfinder people. = persons who prefer D&D versus persons who prefer Pathfinder ≠ an ethnicity of D&D versus an ethnicity of Pathfinder For the English word "people": definition 1 ("persons") is common and normal. But definition 3 ("an ethnicity") is rare, and seems to be causing confusion. Even definition 2 ("the citizens" versus the government) is uncommon − and often misleading since it is unlikely every citizen participates in the generalization. For example, to say, During the French Revolution the people overthrew the aristocracy, wrongly implies that every French nonaristocrat stopped supporting the aristocracy. All in all, the term "a people" seems to confuse, and worse, seems able to cohere with a racist worldview. [/QUOTE]

Verification