/lit/ - Literature

>>16328730
What's your definition of racist?

>>16328730
>i'm 15 and just discovered ben shapiro

>>16328730
> The argument that racism as an idea is inherently bad or immoral hinges entirely on the claim that racism is factually incorrect
No, racism is bad because it leads to violence and the suppression of basic rights.

>>16328730
>If the views of racists are factually correct, then there's nothing immoral about racism, as an idea (see caveat below)
>The argument that racism as an idea is inherently bad or immoral hinges entirely on the claim that racism is factually incorrect
You don't understand how morality works.

>>16328837
I've always found this idea Liberals have very interesting. There CAN'T be innate differences between people, because if there were, then we'd have to round up all of the inferiors and wipe them out. They say this as if the one that's insane is the person with the functioning eyes. Why can't we go over here, and they go over there, and never the twain shall meet?

The answer is, of course, because the Liberal doesn't actually care about racial equality at all. Such an arrangement would be bad for Capitalism. So, it's not actually about violence, it's about GDP.

>>16328837
I dunno man, Portland, Oregon was plenty non-racist, and the Blacks are still burning the place down. You sure it's racism that causes violence, and not Blacks? They are only 13% of the population, but commit 50% of the crime and all.

>>16328730
>surrounded by niggers
>heaven

Pick 1

>>16328949
go to hell and join your kind

>>16328837
Convenient you can't be racist towards white people then

>>16328837
Does it inherently?

>>16328730
Pure sophism and word-play.

Refute this https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj7gYvE-97rAhVoj3IEHSlQDKYQFjAFegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0thbm3F_1RNZT8qZR5wmS5

>>16328970
Yeah it's pretty bad.I think the whole thing depends on using the term "racism" in different ways while pretending it's the same thing each time. The funny part is that I bet this guy complains about leftists manipulating language with their uses of the term.

>>16328960
>t. lives in an all white suburb and would never dream of raising a child anywhere that didn't have "good schools".

>>16328949
I think it's a subtle jab at WigNats. The Klansmen is a nog too.

>>16328981
>OP is dumb for seeing the problem with "Racism" and criticizing it
Well... Yeah? Of course he's using it as an amorphous slur hurled at White people, that's what it is.

>>16328730
This thread doesn't belong on /lit/. Not going to answer your main question but I am going to point out that the view that racism is based upon acknowledging a difference is factually invalid is misguided because it's using descriptive statements as the basis for normative statements, whereas it relies on purely normative principles

>>16328996
>Of course he's using it as an amorphous slur hurled at White people, that's what it is.
This. I reject the term "racism" entirely. It has no meaning other than as a leftist political tool.

>nothing inherently wrong
things have political and social consequences. saying black people on aggregate have an IQ difference of say X points less than whites (east asians are Y points more than whites) isn't a value neutral statement. you can use that to "prove" shoddily reasoned statements like "there are fewer black scientists because of real differences between blacks and whites"

>>16328730
>the important question is: are there real differences?
Yes. At least from my background in econometrics, being black does have a statistically significant negative impact on job prospects, earning potential, etc.
The real question is what causes those differences, which the statistics alone can't answer. But this has nothing to do with /lit/.

>>16329017
This is the worst example of reasoning I've ever seen.

>>16328996
If that’s the point he was trying to make, he would have made it. OP is merely using it in an inconsistent manner to make it seem benign,

>>16328730
That would be true if people thought of it as an empirical question, but they don't, they consider it a moral question, as in if you think the races are different you have failed morally. For some people I think it even elicits religious feelings of sin.

As for whether there are differences, any impartial observer would say it is more likely that there are than that every population is exactly the same on all relevant metrics. Some populations seem very different from each other, and nobody has ever managed to show two very different groups becoming the same by accounting for environmental variables.

>>16329017
So this is the high iq board I keep hearing about? Lmfao

>>16328730
There are multitude reasons for differences between race. Now go post this on pol unless you have a book you'd like to discuss.

>>16329017

Racists views are not factual. It has been proven that any claim is made from bias disguised to look as if it is evidenced. Especially so when racists call theimselves scientific. As there is no proof to support racism, it is immoral, and you OP, by your own rationality are anti-racist. I respect your perseverance to correct racists for their self serving bigotry.

>>16328837
Does acknowledging that the Dutch are genetically taller than Germans inherently lead to violence and suppression of basic rights?

Does doing the same for Japanese and Russian rates of violent crime lead to violence and suppression of basic rights?

>>16329212
>Does doing the same for Japanese and Russian rates of violent crime lead to violence and suppression of basic rights?
It should

>>16329199
>Racists views are not factual
broad statement, there are a lot of different racial views.

>It has been proven that any claim is made from bias disguised to look as if it is evidenced.

citation needed

>As there is no proof to support racism
citation needed

>>16329199
The evidence that there are differences is IQ scores, income, crime rates, brain sizes, gdp, etc. which still exist when environment is accounted for.

What is the evidence that they are the same? You said it's 'proven' so what is the proof?

here's proof race's are different. Asians are short and wear glasses, jews have tay sachs disease, blacks have sickle cell, all the best marathon runners come from two countries in africa.

>>16328837
how do you faggots simultaneously believe in "universal basic right" but disbelieve in anything from which those rights may descend

>>16328981
Racism is believing in enough hereditary, biological differences between people that they can be classified as different races.

Beyond using a neutral definition of racism there is no wordplay at play in OPs post.

>>16329013
Unless...the racist is factually correct in his statements.

Nice /lit/ thread OP

>>16329222
i shall now deconstruct each of these claims you have made, so that I may educate you and so that you can improve your worldview by battling racism.
The first claim is IQ scores. The IQ test itself fails to support the claim that it is meaningful, it bears no relation on intelligence.
Your second claim is income, which is good as you have recognised the systematic economic diasadvantage that minority groups are faced with. As we have historical evidence of welath tending towards fewwer people, within the past 50 years it wealth disparity has increased, it is very clear that wealth is a sign of systematic oppression. The distribution of wealth is of a relationship where the employer has far more power than the employee, thus you have recongised how income is a means of keeping a minority surpressed. Further, crime rate has a lin to income, aside from prevaliance of crime in poverty, there is of course the states own bias, where police are more likelyto patrol and prosecute the poor, how those who are unable to afford lawyers are more likely to be found guilty of crimes. Brain size is an interesting claim as not only is there no signifcant difference in brain size between races, but also no proof that difference in brain size justifies racism. GDP is a statistic that measures income, you read my previous refutation so you should understand why this is a form of oppression not based on any rationality or science.

Than you for becoming an anti-racist, I assume you're also interested in becoming a folloer of antifa?

>>16329279
Is this post a pol false flag or is this the best an "antiracist" can do

>>16329222
The fact is that all of those things vary far more across individuals as well as socioeconomic environment. It's not that there are no differences between races. Its that race is not a good enough determiner to ignire those others factors which have real world solutions while clinging to race which has no real world solutions. Blah blah blah segregation and ethnostates. To assume this would work or even be desirable by the earths inhabitants is a huge stretch. At the end of the day we all inhabit a planet with finite space and resources.

>>16329279
IQ correlates with ability in many activities thought to require intelligence. Black upper middle class commit more crime, have lower test scores than white lowest class. Brain size correlates with IQ and the races have significantly different sizes on average.

You didn't answer my question though, where is your evidence that when we account for environmental variables everyone turns out the same?
.

>>16329310
All I'm talking about here is the existence of average differences, nothing else.

>>16329325
I shall answer all of your questions in order to help you improve, and as the origninal post declared, be moral, as racism is immoral.
Your asked "You didn't answer my question though, where is your evidence that when we account for environmental variables everyone turns out the same?"
The answer is clearly that people are distributed among these variables.
This might sound unusualy, however your question was quite unscientific in nature, first was the assumption that everyone turns out the same, however at no point have humans ever been one the same, we all fall upon a distribution. I have now refuted all evidenced claims that you have made

>>16329358
My question wasn't precise enough, I meant to say that every population turns out the same on average once you account for environment, that is what you have to provide evidence for.

Never get over the niggas on this board who try to write like this is some academic debate chamber and not a Burmese cartoon forum

If Satan was white and God was black I'd gladly join my forces with Lucifer.

>>16329325
Whites commit more crime against children. Is this linked to biology as well or a symptom of wider societal issues?

Same as violence in minority neighborhoods it is a symptom of wider societal ills. Like inequality racial discrimination. Historic barring from generational wealth. Many things contribute to crime rates and Poverty is always the most prominent variable.

Inb4 muh pol meme comparing a white town in rural west virginia with one officer and 300 imhabitants to black Compton.

>>16328730
>The argument that racism as an idea is inherently bad or immoral hinges entirely on the claim that racism is factually incorrect - that there is no real difference between the population groups we label "races"
Incorrect, it rests on the moral judgement that people should not be treated differently solely based on race (real or perceived). Race existing does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that people should be treated better or worse based on it.

>>16328730
if they let niggers in heaven then i don't want to go

>>16329401
Rates of child abuse are higher per capita among blacks than whites in the US. Race correlates with violent crime more than poverty does.

>>16328730
I think the question boils down to that eternal one about white lies. Essentially, if racism is factual yet leads to horrible consequences, what shall we do? I would answer that truth cannot be immoral, nor can opinions or thoughts, only actions. This is why subconsciously being attracted to women is not immoral whereas lustful ideation is. Lustful ideation is a voluntary act, and can therefore be immoral.

Using this framework, holding racist opinions in and of itself is not immoral, and indeed knowing the truth, if it is racist, is not either. However, active ideation on racist ideas in excess might be slightly immoral. Of course, racist actions will then be immoral, but not qua racist, but qua intemperate. Sex and sexual thought are not immoral qua sexual, but qua perverted or intemperate, at least in my opinion.

>>16329412
Then you're going to hell, bitch

Galatians 3:28
>There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

>>16329401
You have yet to provide any data proving that when you account for environmental factors blacks and white comes out the same.

In fact, race represents a greater share of variance than ses, meaning that ses is confounding the causal race relationship and not the other way around

>>16329401
It's a symptom of there being more Whites. Whites commit domestic and sexual abuse at far lower rates than Blacks. What's your point?

>>16329421
Racism does not lead to horrible consequences, not acknowledging and dealing with racial differences does.

>>16329427
See also Philip baptising the Ethiopian

Acts 8:27-28, 38
>27 So he got up and set out. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
>38 Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and he baptized him.

>>16329433
Because I dont have to do your homework for you. There's a study that shows black children adopted by affluent families far outperform their peers. There are entire books refuting the bell curve. Poverty studies show a far greater variance in crime rate relative to income. Whites commit more crimes against children even if total number is accountes for according to FBI statistics.

>>16329463
As to your second point, yes, but if that is the case then there is no real reason to suppose racism be immoral in the first place. I was addressing the stronger position.

>>16329477
Cringe. The mismeasure of man is pseudoscientific nonsense. Find me the socioeconomic status studies, and do keep in mind that it is partly genetic itself

>>16329215
kek based

>>16329477
>There's a study that shows black children adopted by affluent families far outperform their peers
You're misunderstanding what Twin Studies are. I'm also not sure what you're arguing here, as the guy you're responding to openly admitted that IQ is not 100% of a determinant, only a major one. I'm not sure how this squares with your Progressive Schema: if IQ had no affect wouldn't this NOT be the case?

>There are entire books refuting the bell curve
No there aren't, you have no idea what the Bell Curve is trying to say.

>Poverty studies show a far greater variance in crime rate relative to income. Whites commit more crimes against children even if total number is accountes for according to FBI statistics.
The greatest determinant of criminality is race.

>Whites commit more crimes against children even if total number is accountes for according to FBI statistics.
Whites are ~60% of the US population, Blacks are 13%. Blacks commit sexual abuse against children at greatly higher rates than Whites.

The black race is responsible for a terrible terrible crime. A crime so bad that to this day we have not instinctually forgiven them. What this crime is no one knows, but everyone feels. Whatever leads men women and children of all races to look at the blacks with anything but trepidation and otherness has been earned by what judgment I know not what. Where there is culture, civilization, an appearance of letters in their eyes or calculation in their behavior, there is something always to marvel at and even feel akin to. I can look and speak and almost feel a kinship. But to the pure an apologetically black being that has no sign of anything but being black, there is that otherness yes, but there is also a justice to this unbridgeable divide that is always more than the mind can explain but not more than the guy can feel.

>>16329477
what exactly do you think the bell curve is about?

>>16329522
>What this crime is no one knows
No, we're all well aware that it's the rapes, and murders, and robberies, and arsons, and assaults that they commit.

>>16328837
What are these "basic rights" and why should they applied regardless of race?

>>16329242
From the fact that the racist is factually correct in his statements you cannot infer that one ought to believe/practice racism, or the contrary. That's deriving normative statements from purely descriptive ones, you can only infer it by supplementing it with a normative principle, eg: "one ought to believe what is factually correct"

>>16328730
>The argument that racism as an idea is inherently bad or immoral hinges entirely on the claim that racism is factually incorrect

What? The majority of people in the abolition movement did not believe blacks were equal in the sense of intelligence. Same in the civil rights movement.

I don't believe animals are equal to me, but I don't believe that they should suffer unnecessarily.

I don't know how you came to this conclusion. It's grounded only in the 21st century - even in the 90's this sort of stuff was being questioned somewhat openly.

>>16329556
That you have to believe what is factually correct is inherent to succesfully operating within the world. I assumed that we were beyond basics like breathing, drinking water and not being insane.

>>16329421
If most populations are less intelligent than whites then importing them to the west is a mistake, and might be a lethal mistake for human civilization long term.
Short term, no matter any actual differences, importing them is reducing trust in society.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x

>>16329536
I’m speaking a little more metaphysically. Some sort of divide in humanity that took place a long time ago and that has been a long time in the making. There is an otherness to the pure black being that is instinctually unlovable, uneasy, and even deathly. It’s not pure otherness, like woman or chink, it’s an otherness based on a verdict and judgment that played out a long time ago. It can’t be explained but it can be felt.

>>16329610
>Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration.
One glaring flaw with these examples is, that blacks are the great exception to integration in American society. While any other group has integrated after a few generations, blacks haven't done so in centuries.
A further flaw is, that this exception holds true in virtually any other nation where blacks and other races coexist.

>>16329655
That's because they are so far from us other people they barely qualify as human.

>>16329515
>The greatest blah blah
Poverty.
>Whites are ~60% of the US population, Blacks are 13%. Blacks commit sexual abuse against children at greatly higher rates than Whites.
Not according to FBI statistics.
>No there aren't, you have no idea what the Bell Curve is trying to say.
Stephn Gould The Mismeasure of Man
>>16329525
>what exactly do you think the bell curve is about?
It's about race and intelligence. With some utterly braindead policy proposals thrown in for flavor.
>>16329610
>If most populations are less intelligent than whites then importing them to the west is a mistake, and might be a lethal mistake for human civilization long term.
>Short term, no matter any actual differences, importing them is reducing trust in society.
So far iq hasnt been proven to be directly heritable only indirectly. Also with better material conditions IQ increases. Immigration is inevitable due to the destruction of Latin America by neoliberal robber barons. Ecological disaster impending I think a few IQ points which by the way aren't even proven to indicate intelligence or creative and critical thinking limits is a small price to pay in the face of mass extermination.

>>16329683
>That's because they are so far from us, they're barely human.

Brevity is wit, Anon.

>>16329702
English is not my native tongue.

>>16329695
You have no idea what you're talking about. You literally couldn't spend five fucking minutes to look up what the Bell Curve is about lmfao.

It's actually kind of funny, every single thing you wrote there is wrong.

>>16329695
>So far iq hasnt been proven to be directly heritable only indirectly.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Thomas-99-intelligence.pdf
This is one factor that's strongly linked to high IQ and is directly heritable, as it is genetic.

Your posts aren't that good. But I always appreciate an Advocatus Diaboli.

>>16329695
>Poverty.

People still believe this, huh?

>>16329695
>It's about race and intelligence. With some utterly braindead policy proposals thrown in for flavor.
no, its not. why would you have an opinion a book you have never read? why not take the time to actually see what its about?

fucking zoomers cant even google things now.

>>16329695
You are likely too stupid to understand what per capita is, which is why you think rates of child abuse are higher among whites

>>16328961
Yes, you can be racist towards white people.

>>16328923
>>16328969
Racism doesn’t mean “acknowledging differences between races and ethnicities. It’s denying someone something due to their race.

>>16329593
I agree with qualifications: "i ought to believe what i believe is factually true" seems more to be closer to a guiding normative principle of life, it would be absurd to think yourself without epistemological limitations, as would be absurd to believe that one ought to believe that the rock one just saw is not grey but yellow. It's not as clear cut as it looks though; this leads to an infinite regression of verification that one can try to circumvent by the apparent legitimacy of the source of your beliefs, which is not free of skepticism either (this is most clear in the case of universal statements, like the belief of the racist/non-racist). It would seem like basing normative statements on epistemic certainty is shoddy ground

>>16329737
What word would you use for 'acknowledging differences between races and ethnicities'? I think you are mistaken if you think most people wouldn't consider that racism.

>>16329726
Yeah, the weak arguments coming from the environmentalist side are pathetic. They've swiveled into attacking IQ testing as a whole and other means of obfuscation, instead of engaging with the arguments. That's a bitter rearguard battle.
Anyway, they have a few more decades at most until our understanding of the human genome becomes so good that eugenics become inevitable. No amount of ethics will stop parents from giving their children the best possible starting conditions in life.

>>16328730
>"there are fewer black scientists because of real differences between blacks and whites"
That's not a racist statement - it is simply factual.

>the important question is: are there real differences?
Of course there are. This has been well known for decades. Blacks and whites exhibit a gap in IQ and intellectual achievement generally. This is what I don't get about the "alt-right" racists -- they think people are unfamiliar with these facts. They aren't. Where people differ is in how to address the observed differences.

In any case, racism has nothing to do with any of this. Racism is hostility toward another group that is regarded as biologically inferior. As such racism is always a sin.

>>16328778
The old school one that actually said "viewing one race as superior to others". I don't think many people ever truly believed that, but rather used skin color as an indicator of culture and values (which objectively can be more civilised or not), since geographically they're not a bad way to color code things, especially in the time before print and global trade. Everyone's been trying to tack that definition down cause it proves elusive tho. How long until "systematic racism" is redefined too.

>>16329695
So far iq hasnt been proven to be directly heritable only indirectly.
You are really twisting facts with that statement.
The heritability of intelligence has now been shown to be about 80% genetic and the number is only moving upwards. It wasn't long ago people said it was about 50/50 nature vs nurture and before that it was supposedly slightly affected by genes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/#:~:text=(i)%20The%20heritability%20of%20intelligence,genetically%20about%200.60%20or%20higher.

>Also with better material conditions IQ increases.
That is only true up to a point and in the west the reverse flynn effect is currently believed to be taking place, certainly not the normal flynn effect though.

>Immigration is inevitable due to the destruction of Latin America by neoliberal robber barons.
This is false. Far worse disasters have happened in history were refugees were stopped without a problem and pretending the only immigration that is taking place is South Americans fleeing corrupt states is disingenuous. Now I know you didn't say that but you statement implies that is what you meant.

>Ecological disaster impending I think a few IQ points which by the way aren't even proven to indicate intelligence or creative and critical thinking limits is a small price to pay in the face of mass extermination.
The people who change society are the people on the right side of the bell curve. A few IQ points lower will drastically lower the amount of highly intelligent people, and having an average IQ of what is now about 85 will make high IQ people a real rarity and the decently smart people will have a difficult time finding and engaging with other similar people.

IQ by the way is by far the best single indicator or general intelligence, g, that exists. Another benefit is that it is not culturally biased.

There are wider intelligence tests that are, at least in part, culturally biased. The most popular one is WAIS-IV.
Something very interesting with WAIS-IV is that all types of intelligence, that relate to g, are related.
If your speed of thought and analytical thinking is 2 SD from the mean then your verbal intelligence is most likely within 1 SD from that.
That means being smart at one thing most likely means you are smart at other things too.
In other words you are talking out of your ass because you want to be right.

>>16329743
Nothing you've said is wrong, but believing what is true is a requirement to act in the world. Deflate your skull until you touch ground again.
Nobody is having an infinite regression of verification of truth statements in the real world. That's solely in the realm of ivory tower philosophy. Real life faces every person with challenges they have to navigate based on what is true. So the theoretical musing need to conform to the necessity of practicability.

>>16329768
>Racism is hostility toward another group that is regarded as biologically inferior. As such racism is always a sin
it’s the ignorance and stupidity that is the sin of racism, not the categories and hierarchy's of race. If we found out that a certain disease is spread by a certain gene that is exclusive to one race of people, putting them into a quarantine would be justified and it would be an act of racism.

>>16329819
Lol, no.

>>16329837
k

>>16328730
Why is Paul a nigger and why is he smoking?

>>16329837
You define racism as something bad and deny that factual statements can be racist. That's a very cheap trick.

The common definition of racism is about whether or not a person believes in inherent differences between the races and whether or not that makes one race superior (or inferior).

>>16329695
Nigga...
Ok, IQ measures your capacity for intelligence. Nothing else. There's so many other factors to determine success like upbringing, looks, money, motivation, creativity, etc etc. None of those the IQ people promise to measure, because those are "Qualitative" catagories.
Intelligence however is measured by life experience and the number of dendrites in your brain that can connect to form memories, and numbers are "Quantitative". Again, experience is qualitative, however the number of dendrites is fixed, and IQ test are an attempt to measure the one thing in life you can't change for a human. Everything else is fluid and taught, but your IQ is fixed, barring a freak accident.
This is useful, because if you find someone with a high IQ, you can successfully change the other factors to make them learn useful skills and stuff (because their brain has a high capacity to learn), however you can give a low IQ person everything and see dismal results.


That's it. That's all it is. Anything else like politics added to it is a bunch of psueds who successful derailed people like you.

>>16329851
that anon is obviously fucking retarded

>>16329851
Factual statements cannot be racist. The truth does not care. The truth doesn't believe anything. It just "is". Facts are inherently nuetral. Otherwise you're admitting racism is factually correct.

>>16329903
And why can't racism be factually correct?

>>16329851
>You define racism as something bad
False. Racism is bad, but the definition I provided didn't include badness in the definiens.

>deny that factual statements can be racist
That I do. Facts cannot be racist.

>That's a very cheap trick.
There's no "trick". It's simply what the word "racism" means.

>The common definition of racism
You getting yourself all mixed up. Racism is (a) hatred of another group based on (b) a feeling of biological superiority over that group. Both (a) and (b) concern emotive attitudes that the racist holds toward the relevant group: he both hates them and feels inherently superior to them.

>>16329923
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

You are dumb.

>I don't define racism as bad, but it is inherently a sin

>>16329909
Based

>>16329953
>posts a pop dictionary definition of a philosophical term
>claims someone else is dumb

>>16329953
They changed the definition in merriam-webster about a month ago.
SJW are a cancer on this world, they need to be purged.


https://web.archive.org/web/20200725234839/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

>>16329986
>hides behind greetexts

>>16329986
Racism is not a philosophical term

>>16328837
>No, racism is bad because it leads to violence and the suppression of basic rights.
Anti-racism (though in the US this is mostly just anti-white hatred) leads to far more violence and suppression of rights. Take for example the Rotherham rape gangs UK, these are enabled by anti-racism.

>>16329997
Pro-tip: If it ends in "-ism", it is almost always a philosophical term.

>>16329808
There are and were plenty of people that believe that whites are genetically superior, there are probably some in this thread

>>16329986
Ok, let's work with your definition. You realise that feelings can still be correct, right?
There is nothing about a feeling of biological superiority that means it must be necessarily untrue.
Imagine a species with two races. One requires only half the calories of the other and therefore members of that race feel superior. Then they're racist according to your definition, but also correct in their assesment.

Also, >>16329997, you dumb fuck.

>>16330018
woah I didn't know 'albinism' was a philosophical term

>>16328730
I don't get it, the guy on the left is obviously a Native American

>>16330018
That's some advanced autism.

>>16330022
So what do you think about OP suggesting that race is a proxy for culture and is not about genetic predispositions?

>>16329017
Did you even read what you just typed?

>>16330043
I think you have completely misunderstood OP. Understandable, since he's got cocks in his mouth.

OP's saying that if racist views are correct, they're not immoral to hold. His only caveat is that we shouldn't justify different treatment of individuals with group differences.

>>16328730
I think the honest racists will admit that culture is the issue. We dislike blacks that act black so to speak. Black people that act white are no issue at all. The leftist cucks never had to live around niggers and the only black people they meet are overly socialized and not straight up criminals. Many leftist cucks don’t even know any black people too which is funnier.

>>16330022
>You realise that feelings can still be correct, right?
No, feelings cannot be true or false.

>There is nothing about a feeling of biological superiority that means it must be necessarily untrue.
A generalized feeling of superiority is not a proposition, hence is not truth apt.

>Imagine a species with two races. One requires only half the calories of the other and therefore members of that race feel superior. Then they're racist according to your definition
No, not at all. My definition requires two things
1) a feeling of biological superiority toward a group
2) a feeling of hatred toward that group this motivated by (1)

In your example, this does not hold. You also elide from observed factual differences to a feeling of superiority ("and therefore"), which does not in fact follow logically. One can observed various statistical differences between groups without holding a holistic attitude of superiority or inferiority. Also, of course, the more calorie-efficient species in your example is not said to hold feelings of hostility toward the other species, so it diverges in that respect as well.

>but also correct in their assesment
They may be correct in their factual assessment regarding calorie expenditure, but their emotional and normative responses to that assessment are not things that can be true or false.

>>16330099
Honest racists will also believe that culture is downstream from genetics. So the culture is only an issue because biological factors are.

>>16330073
He posts that race is about culture later in the thread, I don't know if that's a rhetorical tactic because he doesn't want to defend the idea that certain races are genetically inferior or if he's being sincere though

>>16330115
Your definition is not very useful though. If you go tell people that the races have different average intelligence, the vast majority of them will call you a racist. It is not useful to use a term differently than how everyone else is using it.

>>16330115
>You also elide from observed factual differences to a feeling of superiority ("and therefore"), which does not in fact follow logically
How do you think racism got started?

Fucking hell, you're an idiot.

>Also, of course, the more calorie-efficient species in your example is not said to hold feelings of hostility toward the other species, so it diverges in that respect as well.
Yeah, I figured that one step of abstraction that was safe to leave out, since it was implied by me stating that I was keeping to your definition.

>emotional and normative responses to that assessment are not things that can be true or false.
That's bullshit. Emotions can be well founded or not. The fear people react with when they see a black man on drugs pull out a gun is definitely true.
This is one of your special definitions again, that you are using so that racism is inherently bad and wrong.

>>16330117
Culture is down stream from material actors which includes genetics but it's reductive to say that it's all genetics, if you look at whites in the US you see significant cultural differences by geography and class within the same race. If you want to say the whites in the US aren't white that's fine, my point is that factors other than race have created different cultures among them

>>16330124
The fact itself is not racist. But if you keep bringing it up in conversation, people will read between the lines and assume you are a racist.

>>16330141
It is actually worth pointing out that the whites in various parts of the US came from different stock, eg. Scottish highlands, Scottish lowlands, other parts of the British isles, Germany, Sweden, France, etc.

I saw a cool map of this once and it does sort of correspond to the various regional cultures, doesn't explain everything of course, but you can see patterns.

>>16330141
>factors other than race have created different cultures among them
And? There is still an influence of race on culture. So if we theoretize a totally equal environment, the effects of race are still constant. You're just haggling about the degree of influence of genetics. However, we can assume it to be 50% at a minimum. Most likely higher.

>>16330161
If you're concerned about culture you should be concerned about pernicious factors regardless of if they're genetic, i.e (((them)))

>>16330148
I see, the fact isn't racist, just talking about it is. So you would want us to remain silent then and ignore true facts about the world for ideologies sake.
You're not just dumb, but also an emotion driven coward.

>>16330148
No they consider the fact itself racist, because they think there is no reason anyone would think the races are different unless they were racist. And you don't have to bring it up yourself, if they ask you and you say you do think there are differences they'll still call you racist. I honestly am not sure why you're pretending this isn't true.

>>16330140
You need to enroll in an introductory logic class. As it is, you are deeply confused about the kinds of intentional vehicles that can enjoy truth-aptitude. In short, only propositions can be true or false. A fear of spiders can be present or absent, but not true or false.

>>16330173
>I see, the fact isn't racist, just talking about it is
Nope, not what I said.

>No they consider the fact itself racist
That is unintelligible.

>>16330182
You need to get some real life experience then. Just because a statement is based in emotion, doesn't make it untrue. So saying racism is based in emotion and therefore can't be true is ridiculous.

>>16330189
reply to >>16330176 in the second remark

>>16330189
>That is unintelligible.
It's quite intelligible, they see it not as a fact, but as a statement, and the only reason anyone would make the statement is ulterior racist motives. So you present something you consider a fact, but since they don't consider it a fact, but a false motivated statement, they can call it racist.

>>16330189
Man, you really need to drop your stupid definitions that are designed so that racism just can never be true. If you do that and allow the possibility that a racist statement can be factual, that makes perfect sense.

>>16330194
Facts concern the arrangement of matter in spacetime. Your hostility toward black people is a fact about your brain, not about black people as such.

>>16330217
Beliefs and emotions can both either correspond to the world or not.
Belief: spiders are dangerous
Emotion: fear/dislike of spiders
World: spiders are dangerous

>>16330230
He's playing the definition game to defend his position that racism is inherently false, because otherwise it would be a factual statement, which can't be racist in his mind.
So he'll never accept that emotions can be true, as that would mean racism could be true.

>>16330210
>the only reason anyone would make the statement is ulterior racist motives
Now you're just restating what I wrote. Facts cannot be racist, but the utterance of certain propositions (whether true or not) provides others with clues about your own attitudes. If I'm at a party and start listing off facts about my wife that put her in a negative light, people will assume that I am currently feeling hostility toward her. The mere fact that she never does dishes, or whatever, is perfectly true, and yet empty of hostility. The hostility is what people ascribe to *a person* when he rattles off a bunch negative facts about the same subject.

>>16330252
You're too obsessed with the word fact. I say a sentence and to me it's a simple fact, to someone else it's not a fact, but an example of racist dishonesty.

And there need be no emotion involved whatsoever, simply stating certain facts is considered racist by most people, the very idea of thinking there are differences is considered racism, rather than simply having beliefs.

>>16330236
>He's playing the definition game to defend his position that racism is inherently false
The only thing inherently false is your summary of my position. Racism is not a set of truth-apt propositions, therefore it is neither true NOR false. You basically attributed to me the exact opposite position to the one I articulated. Well done.

>>16330258
Any statement that logically entails normative judgments is not a fact.

>>16330270
We've already explained to you that no matter how you phrase it, no matter how impartial you seem, you will be called a racist by the majority of people simply for believing in average differences. Try it out yourself and see what happens.

If you're saying it's literally impossible to bring up the subject without them suspecting you, well then you're basically agreeing with us. If you're not saying that, then name a situation in which you can express your view that there are average differences and most people won't call you racist for doing so.

>>16328837
Then so is anti-racism, and the government.

>>16328931
I just want to let you (and anyone who cares) know that the massive leftism in Portland is a very recent development. For most of our states history there were very few liberals, and in fact Portland used to be a stronghold for the KKK. I don’t personally condone the riots happening downtown, just wanted to say that the white folk here weren’t always the nice and inclusive liberals that you see on Portlandia

>>16329737
It does not mean denying something b/c of race, it means denying complex because of precieved differences you literal under 20 child

>>16330270

>>16329768
>Racism is hostility toward another group that is regarded as biologically inferior. As such racism is always a sin.
You define racism as a feeling of superiority and then argue that feelings can never be factual. Which is the argumentative sleight of hand you're using to justify that racism can not be factual.

You have explicitly excluded factual statements that could justify superiority from racism.

You are juggling definitions, asshole.

Racism can be based in facts, simple as. It is possible that one race is inferior and another superior, like the example with calorie use showed.

>>16330314
>Portland used to be a stronghold for the KKK
So it's always been a Democrat stronghold then?

>>16330282
>We've already explained to you that no matter how you phrase it, no matter how impartial you seem, you will be called a racist by the majority of people simply for believing in average differences.
No, that's what I explained to you. Again, it's not about what people believe it's about what people choose to talk about. I can believe all those negative facts about my wife, along with the positive ones, but what I choose to *talk* about reveals my underlying attitude. This really shouldn't need to be explained unless you are autistic.

>>16330334
>Which is the argumentative sleight of hand
It's called Logic, anon.

>>16330352
>believe in however many factual statements about genetic differences you want, but do not talk about true things or you will be racist.

Holy shit, that doublethink.

>>16330352
>If you're not saying that, then name a situation in which you can express your view that there are average differences and most people won't call you racist for doing so.

By the way antiracists will ask people this question as a test to see if they're racist. In that case you can't possibly be accused of bringing it up yourself, they simply ask you what your belief is about group average differences, and if you say you think there are some theyll call you racist.

>>16330362
Are you mentally disabled?

>>16330364
>>16330352
Here ill give you an example, this notorious bit from Jezebel explains the mindset perfectly:

You know how you can tell that black people are still oppressed? Because black people are still oppressed. If you claim that you are not a racist person (or, at least, that you’re committed to working your ass off not to be one — which is really the best that any of us can promise), then you must believe that people are fundamentally born equal. So if that’s true, then in a vacuum, factors like skin color should have no effect on anyone’s success. Right? And therefore, if you really believe that all people are created equal, then when you see that drastic racial inequalities exist in the real world, the only thing that you could possibly conclude is that some external force is holding certain people back. Like…racism. Right? So congratulations! You believe in racism! Unless you don’t actually think that people are born equal. And if you don’t believe that people are born equal, then you’re a f*****g racist.

>>16330352
So just to be clear, do you believe that black people are less intelligent on average than other races?

>>16330361
You're either utterly retarded or the worst troll ever. Your logic is
>1. X = A
>2. Y = B
>3. A =/= B
>4. X = B
>5. X = Y
>"This is tots logical guuuuuuuuuuuys!"
Redefining definitions halfway through isn't just illogical, it's extremely deceptive or an indication that you're just actually delusional

>>16330364
>if you say you think there are some theyll call you racist
Those people are not interested in the facts.

In the context of psychometric research, differences between the races on IQ and scholastic achievement are brought up all the time. Nothing racist about that at all. That's different from a social situation in which you start rattling off shortcomings of some racial group. Everyone will assume you are either a racist or an autist or both.

>>16330370
>it's not about what people believe it's about what people choose to talk about.
You have said in this thread that factual statements can't be racist, but also that talking about certain factual statements makes you racist.
So yes, that is exactly what your position is. Don't talk about factually correct things or people will think of you as a racist.

>>16330389
I'm not here to defend deranged SJWs. The extent to which racial differences are inborn versus environmentally-induced is an empirical question.

>>16328730
even if that was true black people are cultural geniuses and are clearly connected to the unseen world deeper then other races so I accept their flaws for the benefits I get from their culture aka really dope music great clothes, innovations in culture and shit. I like it. go ahead burn everything to the ground. I can defend myself, I love them im not a scared bitch

>>16330398
You keep not answering me about what situation it's permissible to talk to people about this, your repeated strawman of 'autist rattling off facts out of the blue' is ridiculous, people talk about race issues constantly, your belief on this subject would come up all the time in those discussions.

In the context of psychometric research the word racism doesn't even have a definition or any real importance. The areas of social science that talk about racism as a phenomenon literally include in that definition psychometrics as an example of racist science. And this broad definition of racism is what most people think of when they hear the term.

there are obviously biological differences in race but not differences in the soul. these differences are negligible - the average biological differences between races are surely no bigger than the possible difference between men of the same race - and subject to outliers that break any rule one could put to them. outside of some dystopic social planning hellscape that wants to maximally utilize everyone's racial benefits to their optimal place in the economy it is more harm than good to call attention to these differences, which only breaks down the delicate unity of a an already fragile (but worthy) democratic social order. i will take liberty over social-sculptural-excellence any day.

we need to love one another

>>16330399
>talking about certain factual statements makes you racist.
False.

>>16330430
exactly this, most people aren't going to be outliars so we are effectively the same. if u want to talk that kind way then Jews are the most superior

>>16330420
If it's an empirical question, then the answer can be "racial differences are inborn", but then you're also arguing that discussing empirical evidence that racial differences are inborn is a sign that you're racist, which you define as a feeling of superiority, which is a feeling so you also define it as non-factual. You've created a circle of logic that terminates in "Facts can support racism but then those facts are not facts."

>>16330420
I don't think the position of that Jezebel writer is uncommon at all, it's basically the logic underlying the entire antiracist movement, especially since the civil rights movement.

>>16330430
and to conflate being a good person or someone's worth with iq or biological differences which to me don't matter is disgusting I treat each person as an individual as should all

>>16330390
With respect to IQ and academic achievement, there are well-established differences in performance between American blacks and whites. The causal origin of such differences is another matter.

>>16330430
>these differences are negligible - the average biological differences between races are surely no bigger than the possible difference between men of the same race
Imagine two boxes filled with little balls. Each ball has a number edged on them. In one box the balls are made from wood and carry only straight numbers in the other, the balls are metal and the numbers are uneven.
Is there more variation within the boxes than between? Are there still differences by which the balls can be clearly separated?
Differences within a group do not make differences between groups go away.

>>16330430
>ok guys, there are differences but let's end the debate here ignoring everything posted in this thread. Everyone is the same.

>>16328837
>if you don't make every western country majority nonwhite while promoting escalatory anti-white ideologies, then white people will kill all the black people

>>16330446
You are utterly confused. Go back and reread the thread.

>>16330436
"Choosing" to talk about them, then. You continue to flee into technicalities and minute details.

>>16330451
Literally no one argues that black people are worth less than someone else because they're black. The question is whether there are genetic factors to being black that cause higher psychological feelings of aggression, or more difficulty adjusting to aspects of modern society, which would lead to higher rates of crime. Reasonable people can then have a conversation about WHAT the black community should do for itself to come to par, but instead this is halted at the beginning with shrieking about racism. Real orgs like Cave of Adullum do ACTUAL GOOD for the black community by unknowingly compensating for these issues, but no one wants to say "Maybe we need black christian youth orgs in every black neighborhood" if they can say "White people keeping us down with the po-lice".

>>16330483
>"Choosing" to talk about them, then.
False.

>>16330485
>>16330478
Oh boy, this is the part where he starts denying reality and claiming he never said things that he explicitly said.

>>16330446
The circle is "facts can't support racism, because racism is a feeling and therefore not factual."

I fully agree with you about this Anon, btw.

>>16330489
I stand by everything I said in this thread. You clearly lack elementary reading comprehension and logical reasoning skills.

>>16330485
>False
>>16330352
>Again, it's not about what people believe it's about what people choose to talk about.

You don't have what it takes to fake it.

>>16330495
Saying you are logical and coherent won't make it so.

>>16330494
>facts can't support racism
False. I never made any claims about what attitudes facts "support" (whatever that means). Reread the thread.

>racism is a feeling and therefore not factual
Yes, racism is hostility to another group based on a feeling of superiority.

>>16330507
Reread the thread. What you choose to talk about provides fodder for the audience to make inferences about your underlying attitudes. You must be an autist if you don't understand this.

>>16330514
The feeling of superiority can be based on facts, though.

The definition of racism you are using in this very post precludes factual statements from being racist, since you call it a feeling and you defined it so that facts and feelings are seperate.

Seriously, you don't have what it takes to make this convincing. You've been seen through.

>>16330514
Ignoring everything you've said and pretending you're right it's still irrelevant.
Your argument by definition won't change how the word "racist" is commonly used.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cFzC996D7Jjds3vS9/arguing-by-definition

Racism does not exist. It's not a real objectively measurable thing in reality.

It's a made up word. It was conjured by Leon Trotsky as a political weapon to defame his traditionalist/slavophilic opponents.

There's not a person on this earth that can correctly argue that any of these "isms" and "phobias" are anything more than a mystical boogeyman used for social control.

>>16330534
And the next level of abstraction is errected by you. You are constantly retreating into ever more specifics, you coward.

So it's "Facts you choose to talk about make other people think you're a racist" now.

>>16330541
>The feeling of superiority can be based on facts, though.
I never said otherwise. What I said was that the feeling of superiority is not itself a fact, and thus cannot itself be true or false.

>The definition of racism you are using in this very post precludes factual statements from being racist, since you call it a feeling and you defined it so that facts and feelings are seperate.
Yes, and that is the correct definition.

>Seriously, you don't have what it takes to make this convincing. You've been seen through.
What are you even talking about? You sound confused and a bit schizo.

>>16330555
Imagine being this much of a moron.

>>16330569
Enlighten me.

How is it relevant to argue about what racism is here when it is not at all the way it is commonly used? It is misleading and subversive.

>>16330558
You have seriously impaired reading comprehension skills. Reread the thread.

>Facts you choose to talk about (can) make other people think you're a racist
That's all I ever said, and it shouldn't be controversial since it is the very basis of what you are bitching and moaning about. All I did was explain WHY that is the case, since you apparently suffer from autism.

>>16330484
>Literally no one argues that black people are worth less than someone else because they're black.
well that's not true right? so. don't come out the gates making such an egregious claim like this it really fucks you up for whatever you have to say next.

>>16330566
>the feeling of superiority is not itself a fact, and thus cannot itself be true or false.
Of course the feeling of superiority can be true or false. If the race in question is clearly superior, then the feeling about that is true, too. Otherwise you're saying that feeling hot also can't be true or false. Idiot.

>the correct definition
Yours is not the most common definition of racism. You're using yours because it presupposes that racism is not backed by any facts, since you claim that facts can't be racist.

I'm a mongrel and racism genuinely doesn't make sense to me, from an existential and ontological point of view it's a form of madness similar to a chicken running around without a head

>>16330594
Oh look, now you've added a "can" to it.

>>16330596
It's absolutely true. Are you literally so ignorant and naive that you think the sole reason the people who hate blacks do so is because they're morally opposed to any color darker than Burnt Sienna?

>>16330629
No no, racism is an emotion. Facts can not be racist. Therefore, no facts support racism, especially not those that show races are different.

His doublethink literally doesn't let him make that connection. We've been talking to a self-made cripple.

>>16330597
>Of course the feeling of superiority can be true or false. If the race in question is clearly superior, then the feeling about that is true, too.
Nope, attitudes (e.g. 'a feeling of superiority') describe facts about the person with the attitude, not facts about the world

>Otherwise you're saying that feeling hot also can't be true or false.
Wow, you really are a retard. A 'feeling' of superiority is a normative attitude, not a perceptual experience or qualia.

Mother's immune systems rejecting babies happens at significantly higher rates in instances of conception between races.

>>16330604
No, you fucked up YET AGAIN in your reading comprehension, so I had to correct you. You're lucky it was close enough for me not to dismiss you with a "False." again, ingrate.

>>16330650
Normative attitudes can also be true, idiot. Whenever you feel ugly, unloved and fat, that normative attitude of yourself is supported by reality.
You seem incapable of understanding that people can come to valid, true judgements on facts about the world. A feeling of superiority can be a true conclusion derived from lots of facts.

>>16330667
False.

>>16330649
>No no, racism is an emotion. Facts can not be racist.
True.

>Therefore, no facts support racism, especially not those that show races are different.
False. See: >>16330514 and >>16330566

The retard is now more deceitful than a MSM anchor so I assume it's a troll, and if not he is beyond any help.

>>16330695
As I said, he doesn't have what it takes to fake an argument. He's either a poor Advocatus Diaboli or running into self imposed limitations in his thinking.

>>16328730
What differences are you taliking about?

I will tell you one thing though, racism just is and you either accept it, embrace it, or not. It is irrelevant if it is moral or not, factually correct or not.

>>16330674
You have to distinguish the factual proposition from your emotive reaction to it. It may be a true proposition that 100% of the people who see you would describe you as "ugly", but your own consequent feeling of aesthetic inferiority is a fact about your brain, not the world.

>>16330710
>Advocatus Diaboli

>>16330710
What argument? You're having trouble articulating your objections.

>>16330659
>references some vague "studies" that align with his religious beliefs
Race is a philosophical line in the sand, nature doesn't respect the concept of race regardless of your confirmation bias

>>16330629
ah ok, so you mean "because they're colored black" and not "because they're racially black". i will agree nobody says that, but it's really on you to be a better communicator. you're not doing a very good job as spokesperson of our intelligent white race right now.

>>16330725
Except that what people think has effects in the real world and must therefore be considered as a factor when deciding your actions. So you agreeing with your mom that you're a failure is not just something in your brain, but a real life factor.
Seriously, has your mom kept you in her basement since you were born? If you had any experience with people, you'd know that opinions shape the world.

>>16330740
>It's not about X
>It's about an aspect of X
It's not my fault you clearly ignored the second line and only responded to the first.

>>16330695
You're the deranged SJW arguing that racism can be refuted based on facts alone.

>>16330739
There is a group of two howler monkeys that live in close proximity in mexico, both are capable of not only interbreeding, but producing genetically viable offspring. Despite this BOTH groups will always reject the hybrid who end up living in their own separate "hybrid zone" outside the territories of the other two species.

>>16330761
I never made any claims about whether opinions "shape the world". Obviously, human action is based on opinions and preferences about the state of the world, and human action has the power to change the world. For example, if I have a high opinion of Pynchon, and he releases a new novel, that may motivate me to purchase it, thereby causing a piece of matter to move across the surface of the earth. But this is common sense. Nothing at all to do with the truth-aptitude of "feelings" or lack thereof. Enroll in a logic course.

>>16330803
What do howler monkeys have to do with homo sapiens? Not only is it irrelevant but we're the only species that can communicate complex ideas with language.

>>16330821
Corvids can teach each other things, even without directly showing them, such as dangerous areas or creatures.

>>16330835
I clearly said complex ideas, not bare ass monkey tribalism and survival. There's a reason why racism is seen as a low IQ trait among humans

>>16330843
>There's a reason why racism is seen as a low IQ trait among humans
It's been seen that way for about 70 years and only in the West, not elsewhere in the world. I give it another 50 years max

>>16330843
By your own admission, racism is on the same level as survival.

>>16330873
This thread corroborates the intuition that racists are literal retards.

>>16330884
Yeah, like cannibalism.

>>16330884
>racism is on the same level as survival
Not necessarily, in a darkened world it might but not in the modern world where we can clearly see that people of other races aren't others anymore. Reactionaries are always in survival mode, they're scared shitless of everything, that's what makes reactionaries what they are.

>>16330897
You indulge cannibalism to survive a desperate situation.

You indulge racism to__________

>>16330887
Again it's a dogma our society has, a quasi-religious belief, it won't last, because there are only 2 ways forward, 1 whites wake up and go fascist, 2 whites die out and nonwhites don't give a single shit about being antiracst, they all hate each other.

>>16330914
to survive a desperate situation, like in prison not the real world

>>16330921
Case in point.

>>16330912
I could as easily say that progressives are delusional about the fact that societies do collapse, all civilizations will end.

>>16330921
>everyone hates eachother
This is over exaggerated all the time, most people don't hate each other. Let's not forget the increasing mixed race population that throws a wrench in racist ideologies

>>16330925
Do you have an argument? Look at the birth and immigration rates, what do you think that leads to? The Mestizo, the Arabs, the Chinese that are replacing white countries, they don't care about being good little antiracists.

>>16330923
Why would indulging racism help you survive if all people are the same?

>>16330933
Nothing ends, things just change and grow.

>>16330914
Not get my shit stolen when a band of gypsies decide to grace my town with their antics because I know what the gypsie community is like as a whole

>>16330951
Did the western Roman empire collapse?

>>16330946
In a darkened world you don't know if those "other" people are friendly or not, that's not the case anymore in the real world

>>16330933
They don't hate each other because they're not forced to care for each other. Contrary to your idea of "reactionaries" most racists really couldn't give two shits about other races, they'd rather just be left to their own people while still enjoying the other from a distance where their differences can flourish.

>>16330953
Civilization continued, parts of the western roman empire shaped the future. My point was that all existence is in a constant state of becoming.

>>16330943
Sounds like you're using an idiosyncratic definition of racism.

Ok good luck telling blacks this

>>16330971
I'd rather the next few decades and centuries of our state of becoming didn't involve large scale collapse where I live.

>>16330967
No groups are ever totally separate from each other, this applies to every microcosm in the human family. Racists are the ones with the problem, not immigrants or inter culture mingling

>>16330990
It's the right that's pushing for collapse

>>16330975
No you probably just are incapable of understanding how racist eg. Arabs are towards blacks.

>>16330961
Why would such a natural human reaction be needed even in a darkened world? Many animals live next to each other largely ignoring each other's pressence. How would racism provide enough of an advantage in a world where everyone is the same? Survival and birth rates would favor the accepting would it not?

>>16330996
>No groups are ever totally separate from each other
Never said they were, but they always had the option of keeping to themselves in that context. Most contact happened either in large metropolitan cities where each group would voluntarily ghettoize to themselves, or on the borders of territory. That's not the situation that exists today.

>>16331009
Muslim Arabs allow anyone in their mosques.

Is there another culture as nonjudgemental of other cultures as the West's?

>>16330996
No by every single metric immigrants are the problem

>>16331035
LMAO blacks are literal slaves in arab countries.

>>16331011
>Why would such a natural human reaction be needed even in a darkened world?
Racism is a conditional phenomenon
>Many animals live next to each other largely ignoring each other's pressence
Human "races" aren't separate animals, no animal is on the level of humanity.
>How would racism provide enough of an advantage in a world where everyone is the same?
It wouldn't, there's no advantage to being racist in the modern world. It's an afterglow of 18th century pseudo science
>Survival and birth rates would favor the accepting would it not?
No?

>>16331044
Western expats and colonists are certainly a problem. But immigrants from the third world to Western countries are a net positive.

>>16331035
Yeah there is also a slave trade of sub-saharan Africans in Libya at this very moment but sure, they let people into mosques.

>>16331049
>>16331057
That's just business.

>>16331057
>Yeah there is also a slave trade of sub-saharan Africans in Libya at this very moment but sure, they let people into mosques.
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/slavery-walls-fortress-europe-171128094218944.html

>>16331054
You didn't answer my question, what advantage does it provide, GIVEN that all people are the same? Why didn't the non racist peoples and cultures not out compete the racist ones?

Its all so tiresome

>>16331011
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
>Intraspecies conflict for resources/territory/mates does not exist in real life
>I will just turn my back to this unknown guy, give him a chance to crack my skull like a ripe grape, and take everything I have

>>16331055
It is literally the exact opposite lmao. colonists built infrastructure and brought technology, 3rd world immigrants bring crime, leech welfare, degrade social trust, etc.

>>16331090
Technology is pure evil. Read Uncle Ted.

>>16331070
LOL
Yes of course it has to be white people's fault that brown people are doing something bad. Just fucking unbelievable how unwilling you guys are to let nonwhites have any agency ever

>>16331085
Yes I know, racism is natural.

>>16331066
so was the atlantic slave trade, I guess america was never racist.

>>16331077
I didn't understand what you meant by that question, but the reason is that people developed far and wide apart. The biggest thing that has separated people is language, and culture is an extension of language, when you don't understand where the other people are coming from you're less trustful and start demonizing them

>>16331114
No, slavery in the US was very racist.

>>16331101
Lmao I'd have a little respect for them if the article was just blood libel on whites but it's literally "White people won't let unlimited numbers of Libyans into Europe so they're why Libya is shit".

>>16331123
No it's just business, as the other guy said.

>>16331172
It wasn't, though.

>>16329515
YOU DOUBLE NIGGER. Holy shit, if you're being genuine at all literally read the citations used in the bell curve for black and African IQ and you'll see that they're almost exclusively bullshit, cherrypicked, or misrepresentations of other data. God damn READ NIGGER before you believe literal racist propaganda

>>16331118
You have two groups of people. Both groups have different sub groups of genetically distinct populations. Group A divides themselves long those lines, they are racist. Group B does not. Beyond this they are the same, even having the same populations and genetic differences. Assuming all members of both populations are the same in the sense of capability, sociability, potentiality or whatever you want to define as meaningful and not just "skin deep," would Group B not have the distinct survival advantage over Group A? Being capable of working together if Group B were ever to come into contact with Group A, wouldn't they have an advantage? Even if they never came into contact wouldn't Group B by virtue of greater population options and less instances of death by warfare, wouldn't they breed more than Group A? Meaning that Group B would either by genetic predisposition or cultural momentum survive to modern day, while Group A either dies outright or is left as a small portion of the population?

>>16331179
anon he clearly said it was just business, don't be ridiculous.

>>16331188
That is obviously not true in the case of US slavery, though.

>>16331185
The differences between humans isn't a chasm, and genetics are continuously adapting to their environment. The largest gap between people is language and the culture that language (operating system) produced. All of these operating systems can be synthesized in various ways, similar to how certain nations are known for their specialties. Beyond all of this we're still mostly the same, racists have exaggerated cartoonish views about people both in their own group and outside of it.

>>16331238
C'mon man, west African warlords gave them a bulk deal. Just business.

>>16331244
You're still avoiding the question.

If all people are equal in all meaningful ways, racism would have been a disadvantage, yes or no?

>>16331251
The warlords weren't racist, the American slave masters were.

>>16331259
No.

>>16331259
>>16331259
already answered you
>>16331118

>>16331259
Also yes the lack of communication and demonization of people has been a disadvantage for our species, while the more we've collaborated and exchanged culture the more we've advanced

>>16331291
>demonization of people has been a disadvantage for our species
A disadvantage for most people, but an advantage for those at the top of the hierarchy. Racism is a tool that facilitates dividing and conquering the masses. It works whether or not "objective differences" exist between groups.

>>16331278
All you did was acknowledge that it exists, but you can't say WHY it exists. WHY do people demonize others if there is no advantage to doing so? WHY didn't non racist people out compete racist people? If there was no reason to distrust people different from you, we wouldn't see this behavior because it would have died off. So WHY does it exist?

>>16330430
What harm does it do to call attention to the outcomes of those differences over generations a la “systematic racism”? Surely that would be harmful no?

>>16331308
>WHY do people demonize others if there is no advantage to doing so?
Dividing and conquering is an eternally effective method of keeping the rabble at bay. Read any history book.

>>16331306
see
>>16330017
Even if it were true, it only becomes relevant if the society is multi cultural. You can't divide and conquer if there is no division.

>>16331325
The argument referred to primordial times.

>>16330967
And white people want the same thing. But apparently borders are racist

>>16331325
That would only apply to a racist people. D&C would be impossible to apply to a non racist population by definition because that group sees everyone in it as the same

>>16331359
>You can't divide and conquer if there is no division.
Of course you can. There are always divisions, and those divisions are always exacerbated by the ruling class so that they remain in power.

>>16331381
Divide and conquer works on any human population. Race is only one possible division, and can be used to divide regardless of the existence of objective racial differences. And even if everyone were a genetic clone, divisions can be created based on geography or other arbitrary characteristic. Once groups are formed, they become self-perpetuating.

>>16331244
>language and the culture that language (operating system) produced
>Believing the strong Sapir–Whorf hypothesis
The absolute state of anon

>>16331387
Point to a time that was common.

>>16331441
From the dawn of civilization to the present.

>>16331450
example

>>16329289
it's bait

>>16329388
this

>racism is just for stupid people anon flip flopped into saying that racism is actually a plot by the powerful when he couldn't come up for a reason existing in the first place

>>16331518
This is an English-only forum.

>>16328730
>you couldn't get into heaven because you acknowledge the truth
>liars shouldn't get into heaven
what does heaven have to do with the morality of racism? If you really want to argue about how to get to heaven then read the bible, lying or telling the truth about a specific topic has nothing to do with eternal salvation

>>16331555
>because you acknowledge the truth
Racism is not "true", jackass. Reread the thread.

>>16330912
>we can clearly see that people of other races aren't others anymore.
We're seeing the opposite of that, though. Or why and how would it be a good thing for monogenous societies to diversify otherwise?

>>16331325
D&C tactics have only been in use for a few thousand years. That's hardly enough time to breed a universal base level of racism into all populations of humanity.

Not to mention that most tribes stuck to their region and thus competed mainly with tribes genetically similar to theirs.

>>16331566
Racial differences that make one race more capable than another are true, however.

>>16332652
The technique of dividing and conquering exploits existing divisions. The biological basis for racism goes back to the paleolithic. Not sure what point you're trying to make.

>>16332695
That the prevalence of a young tactic can't be used to explain the existence of an old trait.

>morality is defined by numbers
kys

>>16328923
equality just doesn't exist in nature
that doesn't mean we are going to exterminate all animals on the ass end of the food chain...

also if racism is factually correct than the jews are rightfully in a position of power and we have zero reason to complain becauae we are genetically inferior beings and deserve our place as slaves ij society

>>16330556
High iq

>>16333553
It wasn't used to explain the existence of tribalism. It was used to explain the modern advantage to the ruling class of demonizing people. The powers-that-be exploit existing inclinations toward tribalism to protect themselves from losing power. See pic related.

>>16329474
>the only black saint in the bible is a eunuch

Kek.

>>16329695
>Immigration is inevitable due to the destruction of Latin America by neoliberal robber barons.

Nice try, nigger. Latin America is a nicer place than America. You’re going to see Whites immigrate TO Mexico in the near future. ANY country without blacks is superior to any country with them.

>>16330940
the increasing mixed race population that throws a wrench in racist ideologies

Wishful thinking. Blacks are treated like pests by everyone, EXCEPT for wealthy western whites. If white supremacy ever ends- there will be a mass nigger lynching planetwide.

>>16328931
It's White people raging on behalf of Blacks, they are desperate for it to be 1932 in Weimar Germany so they can live out their persecution fantasy.