x

Deeticky

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:3/29/2010
Last Login:9/02/2015
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#13560
Highest Content Rank:#4157
Highest Comment Rank:#416
Content Thumbs: 2400 total,  2750 ,  350
Comment Thumbs: 8835 total,  9978 ,  1143
Content Level Progress: 96% (96/100)
Level 123 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 124 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 12% (12/100)
Level 286 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 287 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Subscribers:0
Content Views:110198
Times Content Favorited:163 times
Total Comments Made:2497
FJ Points:943
Favorite Tags: lol (8) | troll (5) | chan (3) | Four (3) | anonymous (2) | black (2) | Christianity (2) | comic (2) | forever (2) | murder (2)

latest user's comments

#74 - Well, the traits you listed for both men and women are pretty … 05/30/2015 on Make up your mind,... 0
#41 - Well actually, if it is indeed a "mental incapability&quo…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/29/2015 on Make up your mind,... 0
User avatar #45 - IamSofaKingdom (05/29/2015) [-]
I never stated that your biology does not influence your decision making. A man with abnormally low levels of testosterone is obviously effected by it. My point is that, that does not equate cause.

Just like the link you shared, the subjects share a common trait but that trait is also in subjects that do not exhibit the same problems. That means that it is either a coincidence or an attributing factor, not a determining one. I stated that they cannot claim they are born with it, because they are not. If it was a trait they were born with, then the traits pointed out (like your example) would mean that they would have the same problems, not a chance to.

I ended my comment saying I don't care if they live that way, go ahead and do it, just don't blame your genetics for your decision. Your last sentence is confusing because it makes it sound like you didn't read or misunderstood the end of my comment.
User avatar #75 - Deeticky (05/30/2015) [-]
I wasn't trying to argue with you in my final sentence, in fact, I think you and I agree on the notion that people should be able to make their own choice. I was just adding my own opinion. I apologize if it was confusing. Unfortunately, the Funnyjunk comments section does not allow for body language or tone, which means confusion can happen easily. I appreciate this opportunity to clarify.

I'm not trying to say that a person's gender identity is 100% controlled by their genetics. However, like you said, genetics likely at least contributed to their mental state.

In mental health, genetics aren't guarantees. Oftentimes, they simply increase or decrease the likelihood that a person will possess certain traits/ develop a certain condition. For example, the alcoholism gene runs in my family. I have a lot of alcoholic relatives, and it even though environmental factors (such as what age they had their first drink, whether they have depression or not, etc.) play a big role in their alcoholism, it would also be ignorant of me to say that the alcoholic gene had nothing to do with it. The gene made them more likely to become alcoholics than a person without the gene.

In the same way, we must look at a person's gender identity as a combination of many factors, both environmental and genetic. The main point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't attribute it 100% to genetics, but we also shouldn't pretend that genetics don't p[lay a potentially significant role.
#40 - The concept of masculinity and femininity has changed many tim…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/29/2015 on Make up your mind,... +3
User avatar #43 - drastronomy (05/29/2015) [-]
Well, that applies only to a certain extent. The traditional, universal models of masculinity implies strength (physical and emotional), intelligence, steadfastness, independence willpower and non-emotionalness. Femininity often implies fertility, compassion, love, innocence, high regard of family, and motherhood. This applies in most, if not all cultures.

I fear that society will stagnate, and eventually decay, if the genetically present steadfastness and stubbornness of man ends, and especially if it is vilified. I believe females should be feminine, as they tend to be biologically disposed to have the aforementioned traits, and the same applies to men.
User avatar #74 - Deeticky (05/30/2015) [-]
Well, the traits you listed for both men and women are pretty good traits for any person to have. They also do not contradict each other. I don't think that society would decay if people sought to possess all of those traits you listed instead of just possessing the traits assigned to their gender. In fact, i think society would thrive.
#35 - Wow, nice rebuttal! You sure showed him! 05/29/2015 on Make up your mind,... +3
#127 - I would argue that PC culture is actually meant to make discou… 05/26/2015 on White men suck / Pro-SJW #2 0
#126 - That poll was worded very poorly. It was obviously worded in s… 05/26/2015 on White men suck / Pro-SJW #2 0
#179 - TYT is a political media group. Of course they are going to pr… 05/26/2015 on Master Bait 0
#100 - Love this comment. 05/24/2015 on Master Bait +2
#99 - It seems like you are taking the words and actions of a few ex…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/24/2015 on Master Bait +1
#104 - spacedunk (05/24/2015) [-]
I am also basing it on shows like The Young Turks, who have 2+ million subs on Youtube and write "black" on every video where a black person is assaulted by the police, but never write "white" if a white person suffers the same.

TYT also employs hosts who will read a study on just 73 people, see that 30% of these 73 people would maybe sexually assault a woman if they knew it had no consequences, and will then apply that statistic to ALL of the US.
30% in that study isn't even 30 people, but leave it to TYT to spread fear of the "rape culture" anyways, regardless of facts.
User avatar #179 - Deeticky (05/26/2015) [-]
TYT is a political media group. Of course they are going to present their information in a way that satisfies their viewers, even if it means being inaccurate. That's what the popular media has been doing ever since Ronald Reagan vetoed the Fairness Doctrine. Hell, yellow journalism has been around for a lot longer than that.

Fox news, The Conservative Daily, and many others do the exact same thing that you are accusing TYT of doing. That still doesn't mean it's ok for me to assume that all conservatives believe that Obama is going to institute martial law in order to take away everyone's guns.


#318 - But, like I said earlier, science has shown that is not the ca… 05/24/2015 on Fat Logic 2 - Diet Coke... 0
#492 - Ruspanic stated the case pretty well in comments #409 and #412… 05/24/2015 on Bill Nye never fails to win... 0
#111 - The vast majority of these university-related cases happen bec…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/24/2015 on White men suck / Pro-SJW #2 0
User avatar #126 - Deeticky (05/26/2015) [-]
That poll was worded very poorly. It was obviously worded in such a way so as to encourage people to support making hate speech illegal. Notice how the number of Republicans who opposed the idea was only 10% higher than the number who supported it. In fact, more than a third of the republicans polled supported making hate speech illegal. Here's the thing: I guarantee you that if the poll had said "do you support laws that limit people's free speech?" Like the Breitbert article claimed, the vast majority of people in both parties would have said no.
User avatar #112 - pebar (05/24/2015) [-]
so the law/constitution is on the side against such restrictions

it's still the "PC culture" that's trying to restrict legitimate speech/ideas and not just trying to keep discourse civil
User avatar #127 - Deeticky (05/26/2015) [-]
I would argue that PC culture is actually meant to make discourse more civil. For example, let's say that another unarmed black man is shot to death by a police officer. People would argue with each other over whether the shooting was justified or not, right? Now, if somebody tries to argue something along the lines of "He is a nigger so he deserved it.", PC culture dictates that person would be ridiculed as a racist (and rightly so). What this does is it puts more responsibility on people to argue justification of the shooting based on logic and reason (Was the officer injured? Were people's lives in danger? Is there an applicable legal precedent for this shooting? etc.) instead of just allowing the loudest racists to have their say.

Even though I support PC culture, I don't support the idea of legal penalties on people's free speech. Are there cases where PC culture has gone too far? Of course. But this doesn't mean that the whole system is flawed. I think it's wonderful that racists are being ridiculed instead of being taken more seriously, like they would have been 50 years ago.
#110 - My friend, did you even read your own source? 1: She… 05/24/2015 on White men suck / Pro-SJW #2 0
#75 - Yes, I know negro means black in Spanish. It also means Black … 05/23/2015 on White men suck / Pro-SJW #2 +2
#178 - Look, I think most people who are fat would be able to lose th…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/23/2015 on Fat Logic 2 - Diet Coke... 0
#190 - anon (05/23/2015) [-]
But it's caused by a character flaw.
Laziness.
User avatar #318 - Deeticky (05/24/2015) [-]
But, like I said earlier, science has shown that is not the case. There are a large number of factors that influence obesity, and while laziness can definitely contribute, it is not the root cause of obesity.
#346 - I think what I'm trying to get at is that the term "race&… 05/23/2015 on Bill Nye never fails to win... +1
#345 - While you are correct, facial structure differences tend to ma…  [+] (7 new replies) 05/23/2015 on Bill Nye never fails to win... +1
User avatar #383 - thatoneiranianguy (05/23/2015) [-]
Black, White, Asian, Native American etc are not races.

Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid etc are considered races.

Pigmentation of the skin however does not necessarily have to be based on race, rather there being geographic common similarities. As there are black skinned Caucasoids that exist.

Then you even have subgroups, such as Caucasoid Aryans (Persians,etc) or Caucasoid Semites (Jews, Arabs,etc) and then even more subgroups and so on.
User avatar #492 - Deeticky (05/24/2015) [-]
Ruspanic stated the case pretty well in comments #409 and #412. I would just add that I was getting my list of races from the U.S. Census. I think that is a good list to use when discussing race relations in America, because it is a list that everybody has seen, and it is a list that heavily influences U.S. cultural norms regarding race.
User avatar #409 - Ruspanic (05/23/2015) [-]
Considered by whom? "Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid" are no longer scientifically valid terms. There's not really any basis for saying that those are races, while "black white, asian" etc are not races. The classification is fairly subjective and based on general perceptions rather than clear biological distinctions.
There's also not a clear difference between race and ethnicity, except that "race" is generally broader and ethnicity may have a cultural component.
User avatar #410 - thatoneiranianguy (05/23/2015) [-]
These terms are still heavily used in the fields of biological and forensic anthropology.
User avatar #412 - Ruspanic (05/23/2015) [-]
They might be broad classifications, but "race" is a term with a great deal of social implications that is largely defined by society, not science. In the US, the races are usually "white, black, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander" with an optional box for "Latino" which is an ethnic designation rather than a race. Middle-Easterners generally go with "white" while Indians and Pakistanis go with "Asian".
Meanwhile, black people are all just black, whether they're of African, Caribbean or Australian Aboriginal origin. Black-white mixes might be considered mixed or black, but almost never white unless they can "pass" for white. It's pretty arbitrary, but that's just how we conceive of races.
User avatar #415 - thatoneiranianguy (05/23/2015) [-]
Sure, there is a social theory as to how we perceive race - but how we commonly perceive race, as you describe - is inherently wrong.
User avatar #418 - Ruspanic (05/23/2015) [-]
It can only be "wrong" is there is some objectively "right" way to perceive race. Which there isn't.
#341 - Because when people talk about notions of race in society, the…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/23/2015 on Bill Nye never fails to win... +1
User avatar #344 - durkadurka (05/23/2015) [-]
Sure this is true, but those ideas are more a function of location. Culture might add greater significance to race, but that doesn't make race a product of culture.
User avatar #346 - Deeticky (05/23/2015) [-]
I think what I'm trying to get at is that the term "race" in our society is a very broad term that encompasses a lot of ideas, both cultural and and scientific, as opposed to terms like "pigmentation" or "heritable traits" which are much more easily quantifiable scientifically.
#338 - Yeah, damn humanity. Maybe robot overlords wouldn't be such a … 05/23/2015 on Bill Nye never fails to win... +3
#334 - I think what Bill is trying to get at is that pigmentation is …  [+] (13 new replies) 05/23/2015 on Bill Nye never fails to win... +3
User avatar #335 - durkadurka (05/23/2015) [-]
How is it culturally constructed? The difference is pigmentation.
User avatar #341 - Deeticky (05/23/2015) [-]
Because when people talk about notions of race in society, there are a lot of cultural ideas and imagery connected to the term "race" and racial classifications that go beyond skin pigmentation. Racial stereotypes are a good example of this. Those stereotypes are by and large culturally-constructed and not based in genetics.
User avatar #344 - durkadurka (05/23/2015) [-]
Sure this is true, but those ideas are more a function of location. Culture might add greater significance to race, but that doesn't make race a product of culture.
User avatar #346 - Deeticky (05/23/2015) [-]
I think what I'm trying to get at is that the term "race" in our society is a very broad term that encompasses a lot of ideas, both cultural and and scientific, as opposed to terms like "pigmentation" or "heritable traits" which are much more easily quantifiable scientifically.
User avatar #340 - hydraetis (05/23/2015) [-]
There's also the difference in facial structure.
#345 - Deeticky (05/23/2015) [-]
While you are correct, facial structure differences tend to manifest based ethnic heritage (See attached image) instead of race (Race being things like Black, White, Asian, Native American, etc).
User avatar #383 - thatoneiranianguy (05/23/2015) [-]
Black, White, Asian, Native American etc are not races.

Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid etc are considered races.

Pigmentation of the skin however does not necessarily have to be based on race, rather there being geographic common similarities. As there are black skinned Caucasoids that exist.

Then you even have subgroups, such as Caucasoid Aryans (Persians,etc) or Caucasoid Semites (Jews, Arabs,etc) and then even more subgroups and so on.
User avatar #492 - Deeticky (05/24/2015) [-]
Ruspanic stated the case pretty well in comments #409 and #412. I would just add that I was getting my list of races from the U.S. Census. I think that is a good list to use when discussing race relations in America, because it is a list that everybody has seen, and it is a list that heavily influences U.S. cultural norms regarding race.
User avatar #409 - Ruspanic (05/23/2015) [-]
Considered by whom? "Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid" are no longer scientifically valid terms. There's not really any basis for saying that those are races, while "black white, asian" etc are not races. The classification is fairly subjective and based on general perceptions rather than clear biological distinctions.
There's also not a clear difference between race and ethnicity, except that "race" is generally broader and ethnicity may have a cultural component.
User avatar #410 - thatoneiranianguy (05/23/2015) [-]
These terms are still heavily used in the fields of biological and forensic anthropology.
User avatar #412 - Ruspanic (05/23/2015) [-]
They might be broad classifications, but "race" is a term with a great deal of social implications that is largely defined by society, not science. In the US, the races are usually "white, black, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander" with an optional box for "Latino" which is an ethnic designation rather than a race. Middle-Easterners generally go with "white" while Indians and Pakistanis go with "Asian".
Meanwhile, black people are all just black, whether they're of African, Caribbean or Australian Aboriginal origin. Black-white mixes might be considered mixed or black, but almost never white unless they can "pass" for white. It's pretty arbitrary, but that's just how we conceive of races.
User avatar #415 - thatoneiranianguy (05/23/2015) [-]
Sure, there is a social theory as to how we perceive race - but how we commonly perceive race, as you describe - is inherently wrong.
User avatar #418 - Ruspanic (05/23/2015) [-]
It can only be "wrong" is there is some objectively "right" way to perceive race. Which there isn't.
#332 - The sad thing is that the zealots have a lot of power politica…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/23/2015 on Bill Nye never fails to win... +3
User avatar #333 - carneymaster (05/23/2015) [-]
yeah i understand it. but i had alot of respect for him because of those shows he did for kids. we all grew up thinking he was a man of science and above things like that. ohwell hes human.
#338 - Deeticky (05/23/2015) [-]
Yeah, damn humanity. Maybe robot overlords wouldn't be such a bad thing after all.
#69 - Pretty much every criticism of SJWs on this site has also been… 05/23/2015 on White men suck / Pro-SJW #2 0
#68 - Isn't it lovely? 05/23/2015 on White men suck / Pro-SJW #2 +1
#67 - From what I've seen, PC culture is not about creating laws whi…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/23/2015 on White men suck / Pro-SJW #2 0
#105 - pebar (05/23/2015) [-]
except when students are being expelled from college for not signing a petition.....
www.thefire.org/cases/missouri-state-university-political-litmus-test-in-school-of-social-work/
more here >>#102

political correctness limits free speech beyond imagination, it's not about keeping public discourse civil
User avatar #110 - Deeticky (05/24/2015) [-]
My friend, did you even read your own source?

1: She wasn't expelled, she was only threatened with expulsion.

2: The settlement was in her favor, meaning that the school was in the wrong, and the justice system ensured she was compensated just like she was supposed to be.

See, that event only helps to prove my point: The law protected that woman's right to free speech.
User avatar #72 - cackrel (05/23/2015) [-]
But yet, being PC about something is limiting due to the fact that you're saying some words are no no words while others are not.
I can refer to a crime wave in the hoods as committed by socially injust and financially inept African Americans, which in a sense would be labeled by some people as racist.
Or I can say, they were being niggers.
Also, negro, is that a racist word? It simply means black in Spanish you know.
You can also see by the word faggot on how that has changed since time on and again.
It doesn't mean homosexual anymore, rather, a person being a douche, ya know.
A faggot.
User avatar #75 - Deeticky (05/23/2015) [-]
Yes, I know negro means black in Spanish. It also means Black in Italian (Which I study). The Latin root word is actually Niger (which is pretty close to nigger, right?).

Here's the thing: PC is people telling you that you shouldn't say offensive things because they are hurtful, divisive, and unscientific. Think about your example. You mentioned hood criminals being "socially unjust and financially inept African Americans." Notice how that type of phrasing incorporates multiple issues (Income inequality, social norms, and racial relations) into the issue of hood crime. If you just say "they are niggers" then you are ignoring those other issues in favor of the racial component. That's just one of the reasons that it is better to articulate your position clearly and accurately instead of just using offensive terms.

Also, under the Untied States' Constitution, Freedom of Speech is a legal protection, not a social protection. That means that you have a right to say something offensive if you want to, but other people also have a right to tell you that what you said was offensive, racist, sexist, etc. Your freedom of speech would only be violated if the government were to fine you, imprison you, or attack you simply for what you said. It is also worth noting that the Supreme Court, in Schenck v. United States (1919) has already ruled that Freedom of Speech is not universal (i.e. it is illegal to cause a panic by screaming "fire" in a crowded movie theater).
#128 - I would. The Bull-Moose party is basically like the progressiv… 05/15/2015 on Tumblr Goodness +3

items

Total unique items point value: 1870 / Total items point value: 2370
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#8 - evilhomer ONLINE (06/21/2014) [-]
User avatar #7 - atomicman (01/17/2014) [-]
If only we got to meet each other in person. I'm sure we'd be become great friends.
#4 - traffy (01/02/2014) [-]
**traffy rolls 65**
**traffy rolls 65**
User avatar #1 - CannonFodder (10/26/2012) [-]
I hadn't been on FJ for ~ 1.5 years so I don't know what has/hasn't been done. Just couldn't be ****** studying so drew that instead. Didn't mean to annoy peeps but cheers for the feedback man
User avatar #5 to #1 - traffy (01/02/2014) [-]
you should shut the **** up
User avatar #6 to #5 - CannonFodder (01/04/2014) [-]
Lol care
 Friends (0)