Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


John Carmack a racist?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
46 replies to this topic

#21 Net Gnome   Members   -  Reputation: 769

Posted 18 May 2012 - 02:34 PM

As pointed out by ApochPiQ, don’t read too deeply into a Twitter post. Instead of understanding that he is racist, you should understand that he seems to think everyone on Twitter knows him as well as his real-life friends and that they will get the joke. That is what he botched.


Agreed. There are things you talk about with close friends because you can be frank and candid with them as well as hyperbolic and sarcastic on subjects and they'll understand what you're talking about. Then there is twitter... where nobody truly knows you, your personality, your mannerisms, or your humor. This is why its best to avoid subjects like these in public -at all costs-.

Edited by Net Gnome, 18 May 2012 - 02:39 PM.


Sponsor:

#22 Moe   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1248

Posted 18 May 2012 - 03:24 PM

Perhaps a bit off-topic, but I think the usage of the word "black" isn't helping. If we were to stop simply calling people "black", "caucasian", or whatever other ethnicity, wouldn't that help get rid of the problem?

Malcolm Gladwell in his book "Blink" makes some interesting points about how we judge things - including people. If we hear "oh, some black kid got shot" we will certainly think different things if we were to hear "oh, some kid got shot".

We live in the 21st century. I thought we were beyond calling people by their ethnic backgrounds. I guess I am wrong.

Edited by Moe, 18 May 2012 - 03:25 PM.


#23 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 18 May 2012 - 03:41 PM

Just to be clear, I don't really empathize with the writer. I just don't appreciate people jumping to things being offensive. The statistics and conclusions made from them are upsetting, perhaps even tragic, but that is not the same as being offensive. I have a general distaste for people that expect you to tread so lightly you are not able to walk.

#24 The_Neverending_Loop   Members   -  Reputation: 603

Posted 18 May 2012 - 03:42 PM

Perhaps a bit off-topic, but I think the usage of the word "black" isn't helping. If we were to stop simply calling people "black", "caucasian", or whatever other ethnicity, wouldn't that help get rid of the problem?

Malcolm Gladwell in his book "Blink" makes some interesting points about how we judge things - including people. If we hear "oh, some black kid got shot" we will certainly think different things if we were to hear "oh, some kid got shot".

We live in the 21st century. I thought we were beyond calling people by their ethnic backgrounds. I guess I am wrong.


I agree with this guy, the more we come up with labels and names to seperate our selves from one another based on colors or beliefs the more seperated we actually become.

Except for green and purple people, like mitch hedberg said, you have to draw the line somewhere! lol

#25 szecs   Members   -  Reputation: 2107

Posted 18 May 2012 - 03:56 PM

I don't think I'm failing for anything, but it's sure I couldn't make myself understood. I only tried to say to be cautious with anybody.
I did raise my eyebrow on Obama, but saying I will be more cautious about voting for him than voting for a white man is stupid. Not being cautious because no black man is involved is ignorant and stupid. Since the article was so about blacks it came across just like that to me.
Maybe I should give up...

Edited by szecs, 18 May 2012 - 04:00 PM.


#26 jefferytitan   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1999

Posted 18 May 2012 - 04:25 PM

Whoa, that article is crazy! At the start I thought that it was odd that a "talk" was needed, but the first 5 points seemed more or less not-crazy. But then it got progressively more bizarre. In general I understand that there can be racial tension, but (not being from America) I find the level of black/white tension quite alien. Here the "black" population is so small that there's really no grounds for stereotyping. To my knowledge there isn't even a general term in common use, it's just "he's from Nigeria" or "she's from Ghana". There are people from the Pacific Islands etc who try to co-opt the black label, but it seems ridiculous given how few points of similarity there are in ancestry or history. From when I visited the states I can understand someone walking through an area and feeling out of place - I did once or twice - but I never felt any sense of menace. They were just people doing regular stuff, e.g. mowing the lawn, washing their cars, etc. Perhaps it's different in poorer areas, but I view that as an inequality problem more than a racial issue.

My personal views aside, some years back I had a nasty reminder than those you idolise are just people, flawed as anybody else. I'm a big fan of the writings of Orson Scott Card, and my blindspot was assuming he agreed with me on everything. As it turns out, he's homophobic and a very enthusiastic Mormon. That's... not me. But I still enjoy the side he shows in his books. Similarly I never really could believe Michael Jackson's protestations of innocence, but I still listen to his music on occasion. I don't know what John Carmack's true thoughts are on the issue, there could be misquoting or misunderstanding involved. But either way I still admire his work with BSP and 3D engines. My view is celebrate people's achievements, tell them when you think they're being an ass, and don't expect that everyone you admire will be someone you want to have a beer with.

#27 Mihai Moldovan   Members   -  Reputation: 127

Posted 18 May 2012 - 04:29 PM

Give John Carmack some rest, you people make me ashamed to be a part of this community.

#28 laztrezort   Members   -  Reputation: 959

Posted 18 May 2012 - 04:32 PM

A bit off-topic, but it seems to me that statistics has not been a successful decision making tool for people in general. Witness the success of gambling, lottery tickets, or the http://en.wikipedia....iki/Sally_Clark case. Statistics even lead researchers astray (problem of cause-effect).

Anyone using statistics as a basis for this kind of argument should also be advising against driving in a vehicle, eating fatty foods, eating smoked or grilled foods, being in the sun, using stairs, smoking, drinking alcohol (or just the right amount, depending on which research study statistics you are using), living in certain locales (dependant on death rates within you demographic), excersing too little, excersing too much (depending on inherited risk of heart attack), etc.

In the end, the human mind will inflate, cherry pick and warp it all to fit their own personal view of reality anyway, which makes this sort of analysis meaningless (even if well-intended, which I personally doubt.)

#29 A Brain in a Vat   Members   -  Reputation: 313

Posted 18 May 2012 - 07:01 PM

As a general rule, I don’t think very highly of people that go out of their way to take grievous offense in other people’s names. The comments sections in the meta-articles about the actual article are filled with a great many people whose company I would not enjoy.

I am a little bit tempted to try to write a thoughtful position statement, but I know that anything that strayed from orthodox political correctness would generate lots of little tempests in a teapot, and I am too busy working to argue.


So you settle for no statement at all on your position? That's pretty weak. I don't think you've given anyone the impression of being shy to give your opinion on other topics in the past. You're an influential member of this community -- one looked up to by countless game developers, to be sure, myself included. I won't go as far as saying "You owe it to us", because I don't think you as a private citizen owe us anything in particular, but it seems the right thing to do to set the record straight.

"Too busy to argue" seems like an excuse. In the time you took to set the record straight about which racist article was being referred to, you could have written a one-liner to reassure the black members of this community (or your black employees, for that matter) that you don't think they are less likely to be productive non-violent members of society because of the color of their skin. And setting the record straight doesn't imply staying around to argue about it.

Regarding the article you actually were referring to, it's just as ignorant, if not as blatantly racist.

White supremacy, in the sense of a society in which key decisions are made by white Europeans, is one of the better arrangements History has come up with.

There have of course been some blots on the record, but I don't see how it can be denied that net-net, white Europeans have made a better job of running fair and stable societies than has any other group.

This is an unfortunately selective and simplistic reading of history. How long have white Europeans been running "fair and stable societies"? For how many thousands of years were the Ottomans, the Persians, or the Han the paramount of civilization during their times? Where were the origins of civilization, and what were white Europeans doing at the time? Might a dominant civilization at any of these times throughout the millenna not have suggested they'd done a "better job of running fair and stable societies than has any other group"?

It's ignorant to mistake correlation for causation, and it's lazy and convenient to attribute race as the cause. The "logic" employed by Mr. Derbyshire could just as easily be used to assert "Male Supremacy", "Christian Supremacy", "Straight Supremacy", and "American Supremacy". I wonder how you feel about the section entitled "The Case Against Female Suffrage" in that very book you're reading, Carmack. I wonder whether you'd scrutinize a black programmer applying to id more than you'd scrutinize a white one.

I hope this isn't the last we hear from you on the topic. I don't give a shit about political correctness, but ignorance, myopia, elitism, and prejudice all rub me the wrong way.

Edited by A Brain in a Vat, 18 May 2012 - 07:17 PM.


#30 bbr125   Members   -  Reputation: 109

Posted 18 May 2012 - 08:53 PM

What is the point of this post? What do you hope to accomplish?

Let's go out on a limb and, for the sake of argument, say that he is racist. I've been following him for a while and I don't get that impression, but let's just say that he is. Then what? You're going to wag your finger at him?

All you've done is attempt to damage the reputation of another in a public forum.

#31 CodeDemon   Members   -  Reputation: 363

Posted 18 May 2012 - 10:48 PM

Regarding the article you actually were referring to, it's just as ignorant, if not as blatantly racist.


You do realize that Leon Trotsky, a key Bolshevik and leader of the Red Army during the genesis of the USSR, was the one who coined the word 'racist' and preconfigured the ideology of anti-racism so as to specifically destroy White European civilization, making it amenable to communist revolution (Source: http://www.marxists....0/hrr/index.htm). Anti-racism, like every Marxist movement, will ultimately fail in the same way that say literal Creationism has failed: it's not grounded in reality.

History will venerate John Carmack and everyone else from absense of apology, for there is no reason to apologize towards the imposition of a bankrupt ideology.

Edited by CodeDemon, 18 May 2012 - 10:55 PM.


#32 CodeDemon   Members   -  Reputation: 363

Posted 18 May 2012 - 11:23 PM

I hope this isn't the last we hear from you on the topic. I don't give a shit about political correctness, but ignorance, myopia, elitism, and prejudice all rub me the wrong way.


And I couldn't help but notice, but you say you don't care about Political Correctness, and yet you unwittingly play your role to the narrative. Perhaps its time to unplug yourself from the matrix, wake up and realize you're being played as nothing more than a pawn in a game of conquest that has been going on for over a century.


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299918/censored-race-war-thomas-sowell

Oh wait, that last editorial, like Derbyshire's, was also pulled days after being published. Gee, I wonder why. Here's the Google cache version.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ikz6UnQKS8IJ:www.nationalreview.com/articles/299918/censored-race-war-thomas-sowell+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

#33 cowsarenotevil   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2008

Posted 18 May 2012 - 11:28 PM

Well this is rapidly turning into one of the scariest threads I've ever seen here.
-~-The Cow of Darkness-~-

#34 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4688

Posted 18 May 2012 - 11:40 PM

Actually this thread is quite civil. Where did you see the scary parts? (not being snide, just asking)
Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#35 cowsarenotevil   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2008

Posted 18 May 2012 - 11:59 PM

Actually this thread is quite civil. Where did you see the scary parts? (not being snide, just asking)


I don't mean scary as uncivil, just as some pretty odd sort-of-paranoid beliefs that I would have thought was a bit farther from the mainstream. I guess I just don't spend that much time worrying about protecting "White European civilization" because it's not really in danger and who cares anyway? I see using skin color as an important indicator as, if not evil, at least very lazy and ultimately not beneficial to either party.
-~-The Cow of Darkness-~-

#36 CodeDemon   Members   -  Reputation: 363

Posted 19 May 2012 - 12:55 AM

I don't mean scary as uncivil, just as some pretty odd sort-of-paranoid beliefs that I would have thought was a bit farther from the mainstream.


There was a time when the idea that the Earth was flat instead of spherical was mainstream. Yes, there is the stigma of conspiracy and paranoia, but it's all in one's head. Judge the evidence or the argument on its own merits.

I guess I just don't spend that much time worrying about protecting "White European civilization" because it's not really in danger and who cares anyway?


At the very least, it's in the same type of danger as the Japanese civilization. With a global average fertility rate of around ~1.6 and comprising only around 8% of the World's population, White Europeans will be extinct within a matter of centuries and displaced far before then unless current trends change. Keep in mind that Japan keeps its borders much more closed to immigration than the West. Of course, things can and will change in the future, but we don't live in the future--we're responsible for the future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxUD8E-qbyI

I see using skin color as an important indicator as, if not evil, at least very lazy and ultimately not beneficial to either party.


Is it simply just skin color? And why do you think it is evil to protect something?

http://www.edge.org/...g-out-of-africa
http://www.nature.co...-planet-1.10561
http://www.pnas.org/...8/29/1109300108
http://www.ncbi.nlm....act&holding=npg
http://www.ncbi.nlm....act&holding=npg
http://www.medical-h...0537-4/abstract
http://www.nature.co.../mp201185a.html
http://www.nature.co...ll/ng.2250.html
http://www.nature.co...ll/ng.2237.html
http://www.sciencema...1/1717.abstract

Edited by CodeDemon, 19 May 2012 - 12:59 AM.


#37 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 29366

Posted 19 May 2012 - 01:10 AM

All you've done is attempt to damage the reputation of another in a public forum.

QFE - seeing this is just a thread about slandering someone's reputation (and only at all relevant because said person is well known in this community - for reasons outside of the scope of this thread), does anyone care if I close it?

#38 cowsarenotevil   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2008

Posted 19 May 2012 - 02:16 AM

(...)things(...)


Let me be clear; I have nothing against you. I think we probably just ultimately have different value systems. There are certain things that I want to see exist in the future, and there are certain things that you want to see exist in the future, and they might turn out to be mutually exclusive (in fact I'd say that's fairly certain). And that's fine.

There are certain things you're saying that I don't think are true, factually, but even if you changed your mind about all of those things I wouldn't expect or want you to change your fundamental value system, so I'm willing to not worry about those things if you are.
-~-The Cow of Darkness-~-

#39 CodeDemon   Members   -  Reputation: 363

Posted 19 May 2012 - 03:05 AM

Let me be clear; I have nothing against you. I think we probably just ultimately have different value systems. There are certain things that I want to see exist in the future, and there are certain things that you want to see exist in the future, and they might turn out to be mutually exclusive (in fact I'd say that's fairly certain). And that's fine.


This is not an argument about fundamental value systems. This is an argument about certain historical, societal, and biological truths. Objective facts aren't a projection of one's value system, they're either true or they're not. Attack my actual statements and my evidence with logic. Don't fallaciously attack my character, even if that wasn't your intention. Hiding ad hominen or strawman arguments with the illusion of apology and compromise doesn't make it acceptable.

There are certain things you're saying that I don't think are true, factually, but even if you changed your mind about all of those things I wouldn't expect or want you to change your fundamental value system, so I'm willing to not worry about those things if you are.


I have provided what I believe to be factual evidence to support my claims. Perhaps you haven't yet had the time or the motivation to fully go through what I have cited. If you don't want to argue about it, or to research it on your own time, then that's your loss.

Edited by CodeDemon, 19 May 2012 - 03:09 AM.


#40 cowsarenotevil   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2008

Posted 19 May 2012 - 03:26 AM

This is not an argument about fundamental value systems. This is an argument about certain historical, societal, and biological truths. Objective facts aren't a projection of one's value system, they're either true or they're not. Attack my actual statements and my evidence with logic. Don't fallaciously attack my character, even if that wasn't your intention. Hiding ad hominen or strawman arguments with the illusion of apology and compromise doesn't make it acceptable.


You value the continued existence of "White Europeans" as a distinct category in the future. I don't. I don't see how this is anything other than a difference in value systems, and I certainly don't see how this is a fallacious attack on your character; hence why I was willing to leave the debate at that.

And you're right: I didn't read that entire book on Marxism to see if Trotsky "preconfigured the ideology of anti-racism so as to specifically destroy White European civilization." The truth is that "anti-racism" as it would normally interpreted existed long before any of these things happened, and to imply otherwise (even if you "meant" something more specific by "anti-racism") is disingenuous and not constructive. I'd ask you to be more specific than citing an entire book with no page numbers etc., but "your belief is wrong because it was invented by a bad person" is not constructive in the first place; it's used frequently and it's typically a way to attempt to discredit perfectly reasonable beliefs by linking them, however indirectly, to some unfortunate implication.

EDIT: As for the other things you've linked to, yes, I get it, you're trying to provide the most convincing case you can that people of different races are fundamentally different in terms of both body and mind. I could try to provide a compelling counter-case, because you're right, I don't believe it, but I don't see any reason to bother because I don't care; even if everything you said was exactly the way you want it to be, it wouldn't change the fact that I like meeting lots of new people without worrying about where they come from. I know a lot of people who don't look like me and who descended from people in different countries and who have different-colored skin from me and I'm subjectively much better off for it. Different value systems. So what?

Edited by cowsarenotevil, 19 May 2012 - 03:34 AM.

-~-The Cow of Darkness-~-




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS