Somebody please get back to documentaries before Kael righteously closes the thread. Again. Anthony, what do you think of those I linked in my last post?
Actually, I do consider this discussion to be on topic as it actually debates the content of the documentary.
I haven't watched any of those you linked (it was a series, right?) but I did add it to my watch list.
I'll get back to them as soon as I have watched them.
... Shouldn't this all be in another thread?
Fun fact: the Roswell UFO documents have recently been de-classified. Includes design docs for a military saucer-shaped aircraft.
Do you know if there is some major documentary that covers these de-classified documentaries? I'll certainly be interested in watching it if there is one. (Not some independant tinfoiler, pls)
Oh you mean I should waste my time about your ignorance and subjectivity and waste pages where you will tell me again how you are right and how SCIENCE says 'there is no proof' - wasting my time with a kid that claims he knows more than a lot smarter people, nah not gonna happen.
Btw I am not talking about human evolution now, I am objective and as such I agreed with the posts you showed that there is more evidence about it than other origins.
We are talking about secrecy which it seems you are clueless about and argue for the sake of arguing. Since you are gonna repeat like a broken recorder 'SCIENCE this SCIENCE THAT SCIENCE BLA BLA BLA' - do you have any clue of the meaning of secrecy?
Example: At area 51 (oh wait it doesn't exist!!) they are developing some super new bomber with newest technology. Some guy who worked there speaks about it even though he wasn't supposed to reveal details.
You: 'There is no scientific evidence that such airplane exists' - Really? Ahahahahah because no one showed it to you or to the public? Shut up kid about things you do not understand.
And the same goes for Secret Societies, read some books if you have no clue what ur talking. I can agree about natural processes and SCIENCE yes, but about secret things and SCIENCE face it - these two do not go together because whatever is kept well, you won't go far with science during the investigation.
This is all really out of topic and as you seem to be enthusiastic to discuss it, I recommend you create a seperate thread of it or PM me so we can discuss it.
Also;
Oh you mean I should waste my time about your ignorance and subjectivity and waste pages where you will tell me again how you are right and how SCIENCE says 'there is no proof' - wasting my time with a kid that claims he knows more than a lot smarter people, nah not gonna happen.
If you don't like hearing other people views or talking to people disagreeing with you and arguing for another sake, I recommend you stop debating and keep your conversations with yourself.
He doesn't refer to any sort of race. He refers to how people do not actually know what racism is anymore. And that they see racism and feel oppressed although they aren't.
Actually both he and some of the people he interviews refers to racial subdivision several times, and does not call it ethnic groups. He even mentions near the end that race is not a social construct.
First of all, maybe that study doesn't even exist, wasn't even made, and what's wrong with him personally making his own study? That's what scientists do right? Making their own studies?
I'm not sure if there is a study or not, and I would certainly encourage him to do one, but if you call that documentary a valid or reasonable study (it certainly is some sort of study, but you'd have to value it) - I just don't know anymore.
Furthermore, they show 4-5 people with the same mentality. As in, they all reacted the same way most of the times, and they all gave the same answers. no answers or reactions. What that means is that they are representatives to a certain type of thinking, which other people besides them have, but simply adding more people to that group would just have been more footage of different people basically repeating the same ideas.
Yes, and this is where the documentary shows it's irrationality. He speaks of a nationwide confusion of what racism is, against who it is conducted and who it is that practices it - yet he allows 5 people (I counted 5 people being interviewed right of the head, I'm not sure if this is the actual number presented in the video) to represent the whole population.
I understand the problematic in interviewing the entire nation, or even a majority. But a couple of hundreds, or even thousands wouldn't harm the cause but in fact, do the quite opposite.
and even if he didn't have to show them all in the video, he could have made a study and just refered to it in the documentary.
In fact, it's hard to consider this to be a valid documentary because of it's irrationalities.
To take this video seriously I would have to see a study shown on a bigger amount of people, some real statistics instead of 5 people.
This guy isn't talking about everyone, he is talking about a certain group of people, which might or might not be the majority of americans. And that group of people is wrong because they basically say that 5+7 = 13 but 10+3 =/= 13 because 3 is a magic number.
You're absolutely right, he is not talking about everyone, not even a majority.
He is talking about 5 people.
Conclussion is "white caucasians make the tests", as in that group believes that white caucasians aren't better at taking a test, but the test itself is made by white caucasians and that it somehow gives an advantage to white kids.
I agree, this is an extremely silly conclusions.
Edit Edit: But the documentary is not about The KKK. The documentary is about a group of people, who say "I see racism everyday". And than they are asked to back-up their statement. And from there the inconsistencies start. Either they don't know how to answer, or they answer in such a way that they contradict themselves.
But it's quite funny because the documentary itself is inconsistent, as I already pointed out. The very beginning dialogue speaks of a majority of people seeing racism everywhere, media sprouting it out and so on. But then he presents no actual evidence and insteads just interviews half a dozen of people and let them represent the entire group. It's irrational.
The author doesn't try to prove anything from a biological standpoint, but from a psychological one.
You can actually explain psychological behaviours with biology, it's called the Biological Perspective, but that's another
discussion 
.
Also, I know of no psychological study that involved 5 people or less.
That people do not accurately perceive what true racism is, and that it is because of the media. This goes hand in hand with a line from the thread "Sex as Concept?" which sounds like this
I actually agree, most of the people interviewed in the video though were absolutely clueless, even if some did have some good points.
And this is a phenomenon which happens today. It is LIVE. It is not something you would find in a science book, or rather it has nothing to do with science in biology, but it might have something to do with science in psychology. However you cannot make a real scientific study about this, because all in all, the degeneration of a concepts meaning (ie sex, racism), is due to a shifting in the moral view or moral values of society.
Example:
We have concept A. The majority of the society awards a certain moral value and a certain definition to concept A. Let's say they award moral value + and definition +. But three generations later, the moral value and definition of said A changes from ++ to --.
Why is this happening? Because the majority have changed their perception about the matter.
Can this change be scientifically studied (like biological things can be studied in biology)? No. Because you cannot measure in anyway, shape or form a concept or a moral value.
Yes, in Psychology you can make scientific studies. But you can only measure results. You can measure how many people asses value + to concept A. But it stops there. You cannot go into the "Why" of concepts through science.
Psychology is a field in science, and most psychological studies submit to the scientific method. And even if they're not a science in the same definition as math or physics would be (absolute truth) - it is still scientific. And Psychology pretty much answers the "Why" in most cases, so does biology if you are to compare.
Also changes in morals are often studied within sociocultural evolution, if we are to take a biology example. And there are almost countless of other scientific fields studying and offering explanations to changes of morals, I just mentioned one.
(but still quite amusing)
