Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1560153)

I like to thing of myself as very logical. Are you saying that I wouldn't be logical if I was in the minority?

Quit being so damned racist, Soulflower.

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1560150)

*facepalm*

Did you even read what I said?

Originally Posted by Soulflower (Post 1560157)

I don't understand this.

Can you please explain?

Originally Posted by Soulflower (Post 1560154)

Nice response

But regardless the technical terminology of the word, I still believe science is discriminatory against minorities. I study a social science so I know this.

Also, I am not interpreting the word as "racist"

I have seen it used a racial slur.

Originally Posted by Soulflower (Post 1560149)

The Honkeys created the scientific method.

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1560162)

You saying that we disagree with you because we're white is a stupid idea to me. I was mocking it.

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1560162)

You do know that there is a difference between social sciences and physical sciences, correct? I study a social science as well (communications), but I'm not going to go around touting about what Stephen Hawking's true nature is. What you're referring to is a result of culture changing, the science itself did not start off as racist. The world about the scientific standards that were set changed to make them seem racist, which is why someone could misalign the term to use it as a slur. That's why I'm saying that you're misinterpreting the word because you're seeing it through a lens of your own culture and not being open minded enough to contextualize the origin of it.

Just to play devil's advocate, do you have any examples of science being discriminate against minorities? The only one that comes to mind is the syphilis case.

Originally Posted by Soulflower (Post 1560154)

Nice response

But regardless the technical terminology of the word, I still believe science is discriminatory against minorities. I study a social science so I know this.

Also, I am not interpreting the word as "racist"

I have seen it used a racial slur.

Originally Posted by Soulflower (Post 1560177)

It is technically not a social science

There probably are some social dimensions to the field that incorporates some elements of social science but I would not define communications as a social science. It falls more under mass media relations or journalism in my opinion but I am aware not all majors have the same curriculum. So maybe your curriculum is more based on social sciences.

I have never heard Communications ever refereed to as a social science.

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1560171)

You're entirely missing my point about culture changing.

And yeah huh, communications studies is totally a social science. You can agree with a few of my points, I won't think any less of you.

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1560181)

Studying the effects of the media, marketing, advertising, etc. is what makes it a social science because it studies society. I guess you learn something new everyday, because it's pretty commonly referred to as a social science.

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls (Post 1560184)

In all fairness I've studied at 3 different colleges and any program they had called communications was more business oriented than "Studying the effects of the media, marketing, advertising, etc.". You might learn a small amount about that stuff along the way but it wasn't a science curriculum by any means.

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth (Post 1560186)

it doesn't even matter since everybody knows social science isn't real science anyway

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls (Post 1560180)

So society made negroid a racial slur not science. It's no different from the word bitch in how it has been transformed.

Originally Posted by Soulflower (Post 1560182)

I personally don't consider it the same as Psychology, Sociology or a Human Family Service degree and depending on the school and curriculum its more concentrated in journalism and mass media relations at least that is what it was at the school I went too.

What I have to learn is different from what you have to learn. So maybe that is why you don't understand where I am coming from with the diversity argument.

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth (Post 1560190)

no thanks, i don't need a pardon atm

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1560179)

This thread = http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/427...ing-head-o.gif

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls (Post 1560198)

Just about any subject can be scientific if you approach it the right way. stfu or reported. :D

Originally Posted by Soulflower (Post 1560132)

The Batlord said that the word is not used as a racial slur because its a scientific word and I am telling him that it is. Just because it is a scientific word doesn't mean it has not been used as a racial slur.

Originally Posted by Soulflower (Post 1560136)

If you were a minority and someone called you that, trust me baby you would not like it....

Originally Posted by Soulflower (Post 1560148)

My point is its important for everyone to be open minded and not be bias. Its easy for someone who is part of the "majority" to say "Oh that is not a racial slur its a scientific term." They wouldn't know because they haven't been called it.

Originally Posted by Soulflower (Post 1560154)

Nice response

But regardless the technical terminology of the word, I still believe science is discriminatory against minorities. I study a social science so I know this.

Also, I am not interpreting the word as "racist"

I have seen it used a racial slur.

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls (Post 1560198)

Just about any subject can be scientific if you approach it the right way. stfu or reported. :D

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1560202)

What? I never said any such thing. I just said that it's a scientific term and wasn't created as a racial slur. I never said that it was never used in a racist context.



Of course I would never just call some random black person a negroid. I'd only use it in a discussion where it was clear that we were talking about science. I'm not an idiot.



You're being biased by reacting to a scientific term based solely on its history of being used as a slur. We're being objective by acknowledging its being created as a scientific term.



Sure, the scientific community has its biases -- though science itself is neutral by definition. Yes, faulty scientific reasoning was once used to justify eugenics by biased white supremacists to justify their racism, but ultimately it was science itself that proved that the "scientific" claims made by the Nazis about their genetic superiority were nonsense. If my memory serves me correctly, the Nazi's own scientific research proved themselves wrong, even if they weren't willing to accept it.

Science might not give us answers right away, but ultimately the scientific method will eventually weed out the bull**** from the facts. Whether the scientific method was developed by any single race, its core nature is colorblind.

Originally Posted by Soulflower (Post 1560203)

I understand that fields are different but fields such as psychology, sociology, social work, family studies etc have to learn similar social science theories unlike "Communications."

The receipts were given and Communications is a social science however that doesn't mean you learn the same social scientific theories as psychology or even a family students degree. Its very different in that respect.


Also, I never said I was an expert in anything. I said what I was currently studying and learning in a field. However, I am not an expert or claiming to know everything about any particular field but yes diversity,immigration, social issues, etc those are areas that I am passionate about and have real interest in as well as psychology.

Further more, I never said I was an expert in anthropology either. Since anthropology is a type of social science, I posed the question, "Why can't we question scientific ideals or concepts?" Never have I claimed to be an expert in that area.

I like questioning things and I think everybody should do that. I don't think we should accept things as is.

Originally Posted by Soulflower (Post 1560207)

No you said that it was NOT a slur. You were not open to the idea that it could be a racial slur and insisted it was a scientific term which justified the usage of the word.

THATS being bias.

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1560209)

Yes, the social sciences realm is quite diverse (diverse means that there are several different types of fields under that umbrella term). Just because some do not study the exact same things does not mean that one invalidates the other because of this, that's actually one of the reasons why they're different fields. I know, crazy right? We'll come to a civil disagreement if you're willing though: I'll consider things by their generally agreed upon definitions and you can cherrypick which definitions you use to back up your arguments best.

And you implied that you knew how racist science can be by addressing that you're a social sciences major, as if that gives you insight to the standards for physical sciences (which seems to be the opposite of the case based off of this thread.

Originally Posted by Soulflower (Post 1560216)

Also, I am not suggesting that since you are learning about Communications that you can not understand certain theories about other social sciences. However, when you learn about certain fields compared to others you do have better insight and understanding about certain themes and issues. For example, if you are not expose to diversity issues, or have to work hands on in clinics in the urban communities you might not understand where I am coming from with some of my arguments. ONCE again, you don't have to learn this in a classroom setting BUT sometimes it does help to get some type of exposure to these issues.

Originally Posted by Soulflower (Post 1560207)

No you said that it was NOT a slur. You were not open to the idea that it could be a racial slur and insisted it was a scientific term which justified the usage of the word.

THATS being bias.

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1560082)

But it's not necessarily a racial slur. I think it's been replaced with "congoid", but I'm pretty sure that's purely a name change just so it doesn't sound offensive, and therefore means the exact same thing. If you want to interpret negroid as racist then I can't do anything about that, but that doesn't mean you get to judge others for not sharing your particular views on language.

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1560221)

Show me a quote where I said that. If I did then I'll retract it, but you probably just misinterpreted it and are putting words into my mouth.

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1560110)

But it's not necessarily a racial slur. I think it's been replaced with "congoid", but I'm pretty sure that's purely a name change just so it doesn't sound offensive, and therefore means the exact same thing. If you want to interpret negroid as racist then I can't do anything about that, but that doesn't mean you get to judge others for not sharing your particular views on language.

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1560110)

So if it's not racist then it's still potentially a perfectly valid scientific term. So why shouldn't it be usable? Lot's of things about science offend people, but that doesn't mean that it should bow to social pressure.