Does the word racism hold any philosophical value?

[fractional slacker]

As you all know and I think agree with, philosophy is first and foremost concerned with separating truth from falsehood and in turn right from wrong. One effective method of separating the right from the wrong is to run them through two filters of principle: self ownership/property rights and the non-aggression principle. 

 

If they don't violate either of those principles, the action/cause/situation can be excluded from the realm of ethics. At least that is my understanding. Correct me if I have mistated anything so far.

 

 

for example

I prefer not having my picture taken with red headed muslims from Yemen.  I have never suggested or advocated they be harmed or aggressed against.

Am I a hairist? Am I a gingerist?

 

Does the term racism have any grounding, any basis for which can be derived from philosophy?

 

 

 

[jpahmad]

As you all know and I think agree with, philosophy is first and foremost concerned with separating truth from falsehood and in turn right from wrong. One effective method of separating the right from the wrong is to run them through two filters of principle: self ownership/property rights and the non-aggression principle. 

 

If they don't violate either of those principles, the action/cause/situation can be excluded from the realm of ethics. At least that is my understanding. Correct me if I have mistated anything so far.

 

 

for example

I prefer not having my picture taken with red headed muslims from Yemen.  I have never suggested or advocated they be harmed or aggressed against.

Am I a hairist? Am I a gingerist?

 

Does the term racism have any grounding, any basis for which can be derived from philosophy?

 

I agree with you.  If there is no aggressive behavior involved, than racism is irrelevant.  I don't even use the word to describe people anymore. 

 

Usually you find that "racist" people are usually assholes all around. 

 

If the KKK wasn't directing their abusive violent behavior towards minorities, they would certainly be directing it towards each other.  They probalby already do.  These people are hateful sociopaths.  That's their problem. 

[tiepolo]

In my view the word is too vague to have any descriptive meaning, let alone philosophical value. As Ray Honeyford pointed out, some decades ago:

 

 

 

The term 'racism' ... functions not as a word with which to create insight, but as a slogan designed to suppress constructive thought. It conflates prejudice and discrimination, and thereby denies a crucial conceptual distinction. It is the icon word of those committed to the race game. And they apply it with the same sort of mindless zeal as the inquisitors voiced 'heretic' or Senator McCarthy spat out 'Commie'.

 

Any honest person would not use such a vague yet moral-judgement loaded catch-all term. They would be more clear about what they are talking about- be it racial abuse, racial pride, racial hatred, racial violence, racial discrimination, racial aesthetic preference, etc. Even 'racial prejudice' is a tricky one, since it seems to cast moral judgement on a mere ability to notice patterns. Is it 'breed prejudice' to expect a retriever to be less yappy than a terrier, or a greyhound to be faster than a corgi? 

 

By all accounts, incidentally, the word 'racism' was invented or popularised by Leon Trotsky, who as a mass-murdering Bolshevik was not someone I would care to take my moral cues from. And much of the time these days the word is used by Leftists to intimidate white people and to undermine their ability to defend their interests. These 'anti-racists' are often quite schizophrenic, claiming both to value 'diversity' and to not recognise racial differences. They are generally positive about mixed-race relationships, despite the fact that such mixing is ultimately destructive of their supposedly cherished 'diversity'. They might profess to believe that race is a social construct, but can easily enough identify neighbourhoods and schools that are 'too white', and they know who to accuse of supposedly possessing 'white privilege'. 

[Wuzzums]

These people are hateful sociopaths.  That's their problem. 

I second this. Hateful people will pick on anyone that's in reach and imagine that someone is the cause of all their misfortune. Race is just easier to spot. Hair color can be changed or hidden, so can eye color, you have to start a conversation with someone to find out their religious or political affiliation, sports teams are easier cause everybody likes to wear identifying marks, and so on. It's tribal mentality: "I have a tribe, my tribe is good, that person is different than me, that person is not of my tribe, that person is not good". Racism is just color coded hatred.

[tiepolo]

'Hate' seems to be a critical, condemnatory term that is bandied about without much thought. What is hate? Hate is a natural emotion, nothing intrinsically immoral. Some forms of hatred are justified. It is rational, healthy and proper for one to hate things that are opposed or damaging towards the things one loves. 

 

Some people are excessively hate-filled, perhaps. Hatefulness doesn't correlate to 'racism', however. Volker van der Graaf (who murdered Pim Fortuyn for being a critic of multiculturalism) is more hate-filled than John Derbyshire, who wrote a controversial 'talk' article, it seems to me!

 

It is also disingenuous to pretend that no other characteristics go along with immediately observable racial traits. (No one gets overly offended by 'White Men Can't Jump' as a film title, for example, though 'Black People Can't Ski' might ruffle a few PC feathers!). 

[Pepin]

Being racist means you are irrational, as racism is irrational. Racism is the ascription of behaviors to physical properties with no rational connection. It isn't racist to say that gingers tend to avoid the sun, as their skin is highly sensitive damage from the sun. It isn't racist to say that blacks are difficult to see at night, because their skin color is roughly the same color as darkness. It is racist to say that blacks are criminals, because this is to connect skin color and a behavior. The color of the skin is irrelevant to the behavior.

[dsayers]

Collectivizing is generalizing at best. So it's certainly not a term of precision to say the least.

 

There was a time when the word was used to ostracize those who clung to an outdated, immoral paradigm. I think this is really, REALLY important. For example, the day will come when people flee from the label of statist. As opposed to present day where they instead attack the anarchist simply because they believe their brethren are behind them. Such a word could directly oppose historical momentum.

 

Anyways, it should also be pointed out that labels in general are imprecise. Even if somebody is a racist and even if that is a blight on that person and even if society rejects such a blight, it's not all that that person is. Plus it would undoubtedly be a sign of unprocessed trauma.

[tiepolo]

Shaming words, ostracism and smear tactics are not the weapons of philosophers but of manipulative, pseudo-intellectual bullies. The aim should be to persuade through logic and reason. You could call me a 'statist' (as though that were something unsavoury) until the cows come home, but until you can tell me how to maintain an army, a criminal justice system and the roads without a state (and show me an example of that working) then I'm not going to be overly upset by it. 

[dsayers]

Shaming words, ostracism and smear tactics are not the weapons of philosophers but of manipulative, pseudo-intellectual bullies.

 

Performative contradiction. "manipulative, pseudo-intellectual bullies" are shaming words, ostracism, and a smear tactic. Calling upon a State to solve ANY issue (other than the issue of not enough violence) is the behavior of manipulative, pseudo-intellectual bullies. So you also cross your own fake claim when you say:

 

how to maintain an army, a criminal justice system and the roads without a state (and show me an example of that working)

 

Ostracism is a morally acceptable way of bringing about change. I cannot make somebody not think/act like a racist, but I can choose to not associate with them. Yes, I can also make the case to them if I'm so inclined, but it is not obligatory.

 

I don't think anybody called you a statist, but I appreciate you sharing it.

 

how to maintain an army, a criminal justice system and the roads without a state

 

Performative contradiction. With a State, you don't get criminal justice, you get stealing from people they say are bad. Also, you cannot have actual criminal justice and a State army at the same time. As for roads, they existed before the State controlled them. The idea that people could not build a flat thing without everybody being stolen from is absurd. Also, without State coercion entrenching us in oil-based transportation and/or regulatory stifling of innovation, whose to say we'd even need roads? I DO know that we don't actually have roads with a State. At least not based on the lack of maintenance I'm seeing on the roads today. This is what naturally follows a lack of accountability and competition.

 

I thank you very much for your post, tiepolo. I expect it's going to save me a fair amount of time in the future.

[tiepolo]

What do you mean by thinking and acting like a racist? That is too vague. You need to define what you are talking about. Stefan has observed that whites are more empathic, and this makes them easily exploited (the first liberals in an illiberal world.) He rightly decries the white-guilt swindle. (Some might call this 'racist', those who make a living from calling everything 'racist'). I can't find the broadcast I'm thinking about, but this one makes some similar points.

 

(Briefly from about 4 minutes in and then again from about 9 minutes in).

 

 

As for stateism, well, hmm. I'd like to believe you about the viability of an anarchic system. If I could grant you a large island to use setting up such an experimental society, then I would, and I would wish you all the best with the experiment. Meanwhile I will go with what is tried and tested, and advocate minimising what appears to be a necessary evil. 

[fractional slacker]

These 'anti-racists' are often quite schizophrenic, claiming both to value 'diversity' and to not recognise racial differences.

 

This is the part that really gets me. It is a violation of UPB saying that differences should be noticed while at the same time saying differences should not be noticed.

 

BTW, All of your post is a fantastic summation of what inspired me to start this thread. Thank you.

[tiepolo]

I think the r-word thing is wearing thin, especially because of the anti-white double standards that obviously prevail. White people have been held to a higher standard, ironically, by people who proclaim racial equality. Only whites are expected to be 'color-blind' as the Americans put it, except when it comes to advancing the interests of non-whites. Whites have had their decency and alturuism used as a weapon against them, and obliged to put up with some shoddy treatment in the name of 'anti-racism'.

 

An ex girlfriend of mine once told me that she was denied a place in her university of choice (Birmingham, UK) because they had a 'diversity target' to meet. This means a race quota, and it means she was racially discriminated against for being white British in Britain. My dad once told me a similar story about the daughter of a friend of his who applied for a job with the police in Buckinghamshire, and who was turned away because they were looking to fill the vacancy with an ethnic minority candidate. She asked 'isn't that racist?' and the reply, apparently, was along the lines, of: 'no, but what you just said was, and you could be prosecuted'! This is outrageous! There is institutional racial discrimination in these institutions, but white people are the victims, contrary to the prevailing media narrative... I am sick of it, and also of nonsensical, euphemistic phrases like 'positive discrimination' (which the Americans have under the guise of 'Affirmative Action'. All positive discrimination involves negative discrimination. 

 

I am in favour of private operators being free to discriminate on whatever basis they please, in the name of freedom of association. Refusing to hire, accommodate or serve someone is not initiation of force, and there would naturally be social and economic consequences for the antisocial people who might choose to discriminate on irrational or arbitrary grounds. But anyway... Episodes like the two examples I gave incline me to lend credence to the slogan that has been doing the rounds, i.e. that 'anti-racism is just a code-word for anti-white'. A large percentage of the time that would seem to be the case, especially where those who argue against racial discrimination are so-smeared. 

[jpahmad]

How about, instead of "hateful" we use "prick-bastard-idiot-a#$hole"  That should take care of it.

[tiepolo]

Or you could just try to point out how what they say is actually wrong, using logic, reason and evidence... Just a thought...

[fractional slacker]

The anti racist thing is another example of non compliant UPB because it says we can use discrimination to cure the problem of discrimination. That is even an insult to a fourth rate thinker. Yet this rubbish is bantered about without question.

 

It is my opinion racism is to the social marxists what the welfare state is to single moms: more excuses to expand the state.

 

Here is my approach. An open challenge:Anyone who throws around the fire-breathing scorched earth tar and feathered dragon of the word racism has a duty to answer two simple questions: What is racism? What is not racism?

 

BTW, the r-word is brilliant.

[tiepolo]

The self-styled 'anti-racists' never define it, especially those who make a living out of it. They want to be like an inquisitor with an arbitrary power to say who is and is not a heretic.* They want people to be in fear of the denunciation, since it gives them power.  So it seems to me. The original Marxists and Leninists also preferred to use smear words, slander and attack words rather than reason and logic in debate, in order to put their opponents on the defensive. If someone lobs an r-word bomb into a discussion, the person on the receiving end spends the rest of the time trying to prove they are not guilty of the vague charge rather than defending their corner. That is the intention, very often, hence the utility of the mantra, since the accuser then has to defend their definition of racism and show how it is not just a codeword for anti-white.

 

Incidentally I would quite like to hear Stefan Molyneux's definition of 'racism', since he uses the r-word as though it has some validity. The nearest he has come, to my knowledge, is a negative definition, i.e. 'it can't be racist if it's true'.

 

* Something similar applies to the word 'fascist', I've noticed, since people who fling that word never want to define it. It is a word designed to silence opponents, implying guilt by association.

[fractional slacker]

 

Incidentally I would quite like to hear Stefan Molyneux's definition of 'racism', since he uses the r-word as though it has some validity. The nearest he has come, to my knowledge, is a negative definition, i.e. 'it can't be racist if it's true'.

Seems a valid request considering he did over an hour podcast on the subject while filling in for Schiff without once giving a definition.

[Daniel Unplugged]

I'm going to try out a few definitions of racism, and see if I am racist.

 

Racism: A belief that not all races are equal. I do not believe that all races are equal, therefore I am a racist. Since the races are not equal (Whites are taller than asians, blacks can run faster than whites, asians are smarter than blacks etc.), anybody whom is in touch with reality is also racist.

 

Racism: Openly stating that all races are not equal.

I just openly stated that all races are not equal, therefore I am a racist. Anybody whom is in touch with reality, and speaks openly and honestly about racial inequality is also racist.

 

Racism: Disliking or hating a person because of their race. I do not do such things, therefore I am not racist. KKK members and like people are racists.

 

Racism: Treating people differently because of their race. I am not racist. Anybody whom supports race quota's or any form of affirmative action is racist.

 

Racism: Calling a person racist for mentioning that their own race is in some ways 'more equal' than others. I am not racist. Anybody whom calls me racist for what I've said in this post is racist.

[PatrickC]

Racism is an aesthetic. Insofar as it is just a preference. The trouble is, that for most people it has been conflated into meaning a violent act. Personally I don't particularly want to hang around people who share this preference. But for merely holding a preference it's certainly not a moral issue. I would probably categorise it within APA, as within the 'rudeness' category. Mostly because racism is to a large degree fairly irrational.

[tiepolo]

There are some pretty rational explanations for in-group preference, in evolutionary terms... 

[PatrickC]

There are some pretty rational explanations for in-group preference, in evolutionary terms... 

 

Yes, I get that.. Preference within ones own racial group makes some biological sense. But personally I find it mostly redundant I guess.

[fractional slacker]

Racism is an aesthetic. Insofar as it is just a preference. The trouble is, that for most people it has been conflated into meaning a violent act. Personally I don't particularly want to hang around people who share this preference. But for merely holding a preference it's certainly not a moral issue. I would probably categorise it within APA, as within the 'rudeness' category. Mostly because racism is to a large degree fairly irrational.

Not sure that is the case. Story du jour: Donald Sterling.He has never, to my knowledge, acted violently or advocated for violence against someone based on their race. However, he has been assigned the racist label based on his request to his girlfriend  to refrain from having her photograph taken with a certain race. He has even suggested he his fine if she screws someone from that race, just no pictures. 

So in the world of language, Sterling is bad. In reality, his actions are not bad, they are possibly the opposite. Yet without hesitation, he is known as a racist. I find this a bit strange."Racism is an aesthetic. Insofar as it is just a preference." I believe that is a tautology, yes?

[PatrickC]

Not sure that is the case. Story du jour: Donald Sterling.He has never, to my knowledge, acted violently or advocated for violence against someone based on their race. However, he has been assigned the racist label based on his request to his girlfriend  to refrain from having her photograph taken with a certain race. He has even suggested he his fine if she screws someone from that race, just no pictures. 

So in the world of language, Sterling is bad. In reality, his actions are not bad, they are possibly the opposite. Yet without hesitation, he is known as a racist. I find this a bit strange."Racism is an aesthetic. Insofar as it is just a preference." I believe that is a tautology, yes?

 

I'm not really sure I really understand what you mean by a 'tautology' in context with my earlier post. Racist views are merely preferences. which is why I would put them down to the realm of aesthetics, aka APA (Aesthetically Preferred Actions) from UPB. APA comes with a number of categories as I recall, for which 'rudeness' is one of them. You could categorize a racist as being rude I think, since it's clearly irrational to be fine that his girlfriend screws a guy from a different race, but shouldn't be in a picture with him.

 

Regarding racism meaning a violent act. Well this is clearly a cultural conflation of the facts. Much like the mindless so called 'hate crime'. These are just modern techniques to attack your enemies with. Racist, comes with all this subtext which people just add to it. Whether this particular example makes Sterling a racist, I'm not really sure. Certainly it doesn't deserve the moral hysteria being displayed in the media.

 

The Daily Mirror in typical fashion attacked Jeremy Clarkson (Top Gear) recently for apparently using the N word, which required experts to make out the word, because there was nothing recorded. This is a classic example of a left wing paper attacking a media personality who happens to be associated with the right or at least Conservatism.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-clarkson-top-gear-host-3484849

[fractional slacker]

I'm not really sure I really understand what you mean by a 'tautology' in context with my earlier post. Racist views are merely preferences.

 (sorry, I am still trying to figure out how to multiquote a post)"Racism is an aesthetic. Insofar as it is just a preference."

 

I might be obtuse, but here is how I interpret that sentence and hence why I consider it to be tautological. What does "it" refer to? I have assumed "it" to be racism. And racism is just another word for preference, yes?

 

Is there a difference between aesthetic and preference? If so, maybe I am in error calling that sentence a tautology. I think of them as the same. Sorry to be annoying. Here is how I read that sentence:

"Racism is an aesthetic. Insofar as racism is just a preference."

Would it not follow then: "Preference is an aesthetic. Insofar as (it) preference is just a preference."

[PatrickC]

Yea, as far as aesthetic means within APA, it is just a preference. The words within UPB are interchangeable. Hope that helps.

[cynicist]

I'm surprised this thread got so long. The answer is no, because philosophy deals with the truth and there is no such thing as race in reality.

[fractional slacker]

I'm surprised this thread got so long. The answer is no, because philosophy deals with the truth and there is no such thing as race in reality.

 

I don't know if that's the case. Race as an adjective is real like the color red is real, yes? Both have empirical/practical examples even if not founded through epistemology.

 

Another example of how race might have some grounding in reality is generalizations. Like Stef has said, generallyl Asians are shorter than Europeans. That has some philosophical merit being that it is a true statement.

[cynicist]

I don't know if that's the case. Race as an adjective is real like the color red is real, yes? Both have empirical/practical examples even if not founded through epistemology.

 

Another example of how race might have some grounding in reality is generalizations. Like Stef has said, generallyl Asians are shorter than Europeans. That has some philosophical merit being that it is a true statement.

 

We all belong to the same species. The problem with race is that people think it has some significance outside of describing slight differences in appearance. It's like coming up with new labels for orangutans based on the width of their noses or sheen of their fur. Yes, empirically that person might have darker colored skin, but why come up with a label for it unless you are trying to exaggerate the difference?

[fractional slacker]

IMO race is neither a problem nor an asset. It is not virtue nor vice.

That would seem a rational perspective. However, the current state of society is not exactly rational.

Imagine a celebrity or politician telling the truth about race. They would be drawn and quartered. Race and its noun/adverb -racism- represent the levers to power and wealth.

 

But like I mentioned earlier, the thing about racism today is it's just another tool to squelch speech and thought. If you point out differences of races, you are a racist. At the same time, to not recognize differences of race, you are a racist. Either way, you can be slimed with the racist tag by cultural marxists and presumed guilty until proven innocent.I have decided to no longer call it the N-word. That's too inflammatory.  I now refer to it as the 14th letter in the alaphabet word.

[tiepolo]

Races are as real as breeds of dog, or as naturally occurring subspecies in other species. Domestic dogs, with all their breeds are just one of the 39  subspecies of wolf that have been categorised (which can all interbreed if they come into contact, just as human races can). The idea that there are not human races, and distinct groups within races, is absurd. No one would mistake the photo below for pygmy in a group of Caucasians!... Environments breed for different traits the same way artificial selection does, and cultural, sexual selection also has similar consequences. All this is so obvious that it shows the prevalence of ideological subversion and egalitarian propaganda that it needs to be stated. Fractional slacker has aptly identified what a slippery thing the concept of 'racism' has become, and how it makes people try to countermand the evidence of their own eyes. Avoiding the taint of 'racism' also necessitates a lot of magical thinking, as though principles of animal breeding and Darwinian evolution do not apply to human populations.

 

Anti-Racism used to mean not mistreating people on the basis of their race, and any decent person would probably get behind that. Now, though, the cultural Marxists have made it a thought-crime even to acknowledge measurable racial differences, physical or cognitive (the latter being a matter of averages, which should not prejudge individuals).

 

The different performances of different groups, viewed though the prism of race-denying ideologies, have to be ascribed to 'oppression' or 'white privilege', (a thing which strangely doesn't seem to hold back East Asians in the classroom or blacks in certain sporting events). I think the truth is obvious to anyone who really thinks about it objectively, and who utilises Occam's razor. But most refuse to acknowledge it, due to social considerations, and fear of stigmatising labels. Noticing difference (and not blaming whites for the shortcomings of non-whites) has become associated with 'racism'. Denying difference has become associated with virtue and 'enlightenment' and 'progresssiveness' etc. So it boils down to whether one is more interested in pursuing the truth wherever it leads or in social acceptance in a PC society. 

 

 

 

 

[fractional slacker]

Not sure which is worse: politicians or race pimps.

 

[cynicist]

Races are as real as breeds of dog, or as naturally occurring subspecies in other species. Domestic dogs, with all their breeds are just one of the 39  subspecies of wolf that have been categorised (which can all interbreed if they come into contact, just as human races can). The idea that there are not human races, and distinct groups within races, is absurd. No one would mistake the photo below for pygmy in a group of Caucasians!... Environments breed for different traits the same way artificial selection does, and cultural, sexual selection also has similar consequences. All this is so obvious that it shows the prevalence of ideological subversion and egalitarian propaganda that it needs to be stated. 

 

From Wikipedia:

 

The domestic dog was accepted as a species in its own right until overwhelming evidence from behavior, vocalizations, morphology, and molecular biology led to the contemporary scientific understanding that a single species, the gray wolf, is the common ancestor for all breeds of domestic dogs.[26][27][28] In recognition of this fact, the domestic dog was reclassified in 1993 as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of the gray wolf Canis lupus, by the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists. C. l. familiaris is listed as the name for the taxon that is broadly used in the scientific community and recommended by ITIS, although Canis familiaris is a recognised synonym.[29]

 

Since that time, C. domesticus and all taxa referring to domestic dogs or subspecies of dog listed by Linnaeus, Johann Friedrich Gmelin in 1792, and Christian Smith in 1839, lost their subspecies status and have been listed as taxonomic synonyms for Canis lupus familiaris.[30]

 

If you want to come up with names to classify people based on small differences in facial features or skin tones go right ahead, but I think culture and diet are far more real differences. The characteristics that define race are completely meaningless. Yes I see that asians are on average shorter, or that the majority of people on the african continent have dark skin tones, does that have any impact on how I treat them? Then what is the purpose of categorizing these small differences?

[tiepolo]

Well, the not negligible differences in IQ and in crime rates may be worth bearing in mind, for a start, should you come to be dealing with large numbers rather than individuals. 

[cynicist]

Well, the not negligible differences in IQ and in crime rates may be worth bearing in mind, for a start, should you come to be dealing with large numbers rather than individuals. 

 

And where is the evidence that this has anything to do with an inherent attribute like 'race' instead of culture? (ie. parenting practices)

[fractional slacker]

Colin Flaherty has been slimed with the racist smear for writing a book that sites, contrary to rubbish from the MSM,  numerous statistics showing whites most often as the victims of inter racial crimes in the US.

Is that evidence that would exclude culture? If not, how could one factor out culture?

 

Here is one critic of Flaherty. Imagine if someone used this sort of BS to criticize a scientific proposition.

"In The Los Angeles Times, Robin Abcarian also felt Flaherty's numbers were out of proportion, feeling that Flaherty, amongst other conservative media personalities, were only trying to incite anxiety."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Girl_Bleed_a_Lot