Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Scientific viewpoint of F-1 racing's social politicising of Hamilton's skin color

  1. Apr 15, 2007 #1
    I gradually built this set of comments up till I decided it was appropriate to post here! If this gets taken down and I get banned, you know the dark ages are coming!

    "What I posted at a F-1 message board . . . I felt compelled to post it here because I've seen F-1 threads here through the years.

    "I've been an F-1 fan since about 88 when I noticed F-1 news in the back of my autoweek mags . . . I started getting up early in the morning(usa) to watch these things, and except for a four year stint with the military, I havn't missed a beat! I mean to say this because I've wanted to register and talk F-1, but I never got around to it, but then I heard 'speedvision' guy's(I really wish I could hear european F-1 guys instead of these dweebs . . . more to follow on these guys); now, after reading the Ecclestone rant(which is one of his best moves so far!), I feel compelled to register and say what needs to be said!

    Also, as an American, I'm amazed at how the media is using the fact that Hamilton is black as some form of brownie points. I mean I don't know what else to call it! It's like why are they bringing it up? What did F-1 do to worry about his skin color? Is F-1 worried about rascism? This is social conditioning at its best!

    Let me get straight to the point, Europe has never had a rascism problem(maybe religious problems, but they seem to be beyond that more than the U.S.!), Why, are F-1 people trying to take sides? Nobody in F-1 has done anything to blacks; nobody in F-1 has any prior history about American white/black relations, they don't need to bring it up!

    The media is just bringing it up because 1) they're scared of being called a rascist, and 2) it is 'popular' to not be; it is 'popular' to take sides as quickly as possible because they are affraid. You want to know where Nazyism comes from? You want to know where rascism comes from? You want to know why Christianity took down the Roman empire? Because of incrowding! Because 99% of humanity then and now are now solid individuals based on reason, but are hollows who jump on the latest social-political bandwagon to save their asses. If rascism was popular, the majority would be rascist; if nazyism was popular, the majority would turn nazy. The majority goes to whatever religion is popular . . . ;

    Hamilton has had no history of rascism; he hasn't had to worry about it! He doesn't need or deserve black panther coddling!"

    I'd like to further add that I see much the same social-politicalness in the selection of ideas in transhumanism and 'nanotech ethics' guys. I mean with the center for responsible nanotechnology guys, these guys got the morality of a George Lucas(Han Solo is edited to fire and kill Greedo after Greedo fires now because Georgie boy feels the need to be ethical; and Will Smith's shooting of a billboard in a shooting gallery in "Men in Black" because as he says "she's reading Quantum Mechanics; she's going to do something!") I mean Bill Joy and these 'nanotech ethicists are dweeb evil.

    The Encore channel's have been showing "Tombstone", and I've been struck by its model of immature evil ones; there seems to be two kinds which seem to fit my experiences down here in San Diego. There are the hardcore wacko gangsters dressed up in red sashes, and then there's the dweebs who 'upon trying there best to think deeply, side with the gangsters.' As one of the non-gangstes said of the dweeb evil, "and all they did was laugh at him." Dweeb evil often turns into actual gangsters!

    I just don't feel like continuing;

    Well, for this blog(this set of thoughts has been added to as I've gone from one messageboard after another with it!), I'll add a couple more comments.

    Rascisms based on skin color is a great example of non-scientists thinking. People who don't know about selecting 'relevant' properties when drawing things up logically is basically what's going on here. I mean, what's remarkable is that the non-scientists will accuse scientific people of being rascist to take sides real quick; but wait! If I scientist is rascist, then he is no scientist because a real scientist would know that a persons color has nothing to do with anything outside of the fact that a person with genetic predisposition towards more color is because their ancestors had been living in sunnyer places."
  2. jcsd
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Can you help with the solution or looking for help too?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Similar Discussions: Scientific viewpoint of F-1 racing's social politicising of Hamilton's skin color
  1. The color of color (Replies: 74)

  2. Socializing (Replies: 14)

  3. Omlet skin (Replies: 19)