@the_Culture_is_great's banner p

the_Culture_is_great


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2024 August 30 21:31:52 UTC

				

User ID: 3228

the_Culture_is_great


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2024 August 30 21:31:52 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 3228

I'm not disagreeing that adoptions can go wrong, and horribly so.

I'm saying that the "ghetto boy" bit paired with the "invasive species" metaphor is implying that black people specifically are the problem.

I guess I just think you should really stay away from species-based talk when discussing human subgroups, it's too easyr to be dehumanizing.

Maybe a bit pedantic, but your examples are also common idioms. The "invasive species" thing isn't, so I wanted why I felt it had such a strong negative implication.

But also if the comment implied that every black person in group of whites is a "wolf in sheep's clothing" I'd have the same issue. Those are both also very negative idioms to apply to people.

I think the "ghetto boy, invasive species" bits change the message from "be careful with adoption because you might get a bad seed" (the individual you might adopt could be bad and there's nothing you can do) to "don't adopt a black kid, they're all bad, and they're ruining everything".

I'm not going to disagree that black people as a group share common adaptations for warm climates, that's obviously true, and not the morally wrong part of the metaphor.

the fact that there are some nice invasive species doesn't change the fact that the typical attitude towards them in general is still very, very negative.

And finally any implication that subgroups of people are different species i.e. not human is also morally wrong, especially just dropped into an unrelated conversation (the original comment made no mention of race).

Black people are not a seperate species.

Sure make an argument about "we should stop subsidizing black people" (I especially agree with "don't subsidize people based on race specifically"). But don't do it in a dehumanizing way by calling them a seperate species.

The implication that a "ghetto boy" is a member of a "virulent invasive species" is both literally false, and metaphorically wrong.

I shouldn't have to explain why it's literally false.

The metaphor is wrong because in the typical understanding, the actions we should take against "invasive species" should be extreme, up to and including eradicating them from the "invaded" area.

You can make a nature/nurture point just fine without bringing these kind of implications into it.

They can't be the new Fedoras - some women actually like them

What, specifically, is wrong with these people? Is that really the best way to argue against them? Or is it just being kind of a dick when you make fun of people's appearances?

I would have said "leafs" or "canucks" but both of those are actual NHL teams (Toronto Maple Leafs and Montreal Canadians respectively).

Canucks are Vancouver, Montreal are the CanadiEns