We are all racists?

[Brazilda]

Racist is defined as a person who believes a race is superior to another. I'm going to assume we all agree that the races are not equal. If they aren't equal then some races must be superior/inferior. If you believe a race is superior to another you are by definition a racist. 

 

I'm posting this here because I've never heard this argument before but it seems very obvious. Maybe I'm mistaken about something?? 

[Tyler H]

Racist is defined as a person who believes a race is superior to another. I'm going to assume we all agree that the races are not equal. If they aren't equal then some races must be superior/inferior. If you believe a race is superior to another you are by definition a racist. 

 

I'm posting this here because I've never heard this argument before but it seems very obvious. Maybe I'm mistaken about something??

 

Saying things aren't equal doesn't require that they be hierarchical. One race may be "superior" to another in certain areas of human abilities but who's to say what areas are the most important? It's all very subjective. Even if we hold intelligence to be the most important human ability, why do we then decide to divide by race first and then intelligence? Why not divide people by height first and then say the 5'8" people are superior to all because we happen to have the most intelligent people on average!!

Also, when brought down to the individual level the argument breaks down. One person of one race can't say he is objectively superior to one person of another race based solely on their skin color, ethnic background, or the achievements of other individuals he has no connection to other than the fact that he has placed himself in a category with them by separating the categories by race. Facts can't be racist, saying Asians are smarter on average than Caucasians is not racist. Saying William Hung is smarter than Ben Carson is racist. I'm not calling our favorite Ricky Martin cover singer stupid, actually I think he's pretty smart (Berkley) - I'm just saying assuming he's smarter than Ben Carson based on their races would be racist. In summation if you say this individual person is [this attribute] (not one scientifically linked to race or a definitional descriptor - i.e. skin color, hair type, genes, etc.) because they are [race] - that's racist.

 

Im not sure I articulated correctly exactly what I meant to say, but let me know if this is helpful.

[AnonymousCoward2]

Well, it depends on your perception of race and the relation between the members and the collective.

 

Let me explain:

 

Statement 1: Race A scores higher than race B on IQ-test, by this premises race A is deemed superior to race B as IQ is the benchmark stat in the racial hierarchy.

 

Does the above statement implicate that:

 

1. All members of race A are more intelligent than race B?

2. Members of race A are in general more intelligent than those of race B?

 

Clearly we cannot say anything about 1, as we do not know. However, 2 is by nature of argument true. 

 

Statement 2. The distribution of IQ is normally distributed for both races, the difference is that race A has an higher overall mean. 

 

Clearly we must then refute 1. whilst 2. still holds up to scrutiny. Conclusively thus; A race can be superior on a collective level without all members being superior on an individual level. The question then becomes do you define racist as someone:

 

- Stating a fact about different overall characteristics of different groups into two non-mutually exclusive sets. 

- Irrationally extrapolating average different group differences to create two mutually exclusive sets. 

 

And btw, "believe" is something you do in church - I rather stick with the facts.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Racist is defined as a person who believes a race is superior to another. I'm going to assume we all agree that the races are not equal. If they aren't equal then some races must be superior/inferior. If you believe a race is superior to another you are by definition a racist. 

 

I'm posting this here because I've never heard this argument before but it seems very obvious. Maybe I'm mistaken about something?? 

 

You know what I love about the word "racist"? It means something different to everyone.

 

Using your definition, yes we are all racists because we acknowledge there is no equality among the races. While not everyone would admit that because most people, even Stef I'd say, skirt around "coming out" because of the "negative connotations" the word "racist" has. However if you believe in IQ, and consider IQ a valid way of measuring people, then collectively the "Master Race" at the moment is the Singaporeans at 110 and the...Omega Race (?) Would be the Equatorial Gunieans at 59.

 

If Racism is merely the acknowledging that there is more than one race, (which I found a more common definition as a millennial, as nearly all callers of racist try to deny even race exists), then we who have eyes to see at least basic skin color if not bone structure are racist.

 

Again, I assume most people here are just "in the closet" as it were but we cannot logically not be called racist, either because of definition A or B above. And I see no problem with that. Heck, 100 years ago racist meant somebody who studied bio-diversity as a science. Basically anthropology. 

Saying things aren't equal doesn't require that they be hierarchical. One race may be "superior" to another in certain areas of human abilities but who's to say what areas are the most important? It's all very subjective. Even if we hold intelligence to be the most important human ability, why do we then decide to divide by race first and then intelligence? Why not divide people by height first and then say the 5'8" people are superior to all because we happen to have the most intelligent people on average!!

 

First off, I don't know if you are but I'll say it anyway, please don't get all "I'am Not A RACIST!!>!>!" hysterical on me just because "racist" is the White equivalent to nigger. 

 

I think superiority can be objectively measured if we're willing to settle upon what makes a nation or race superior. Any child can figure out simply by looking at pictures that there is no equality. If individuals are unequal, it stands to reason collectives (which are just multiple individuals grouped by common characteristics) are also unequal. 

 

Intelligence, specifically IQ, seems very reliable as a measure for the value of a nation and its culture.White and East Asians have the highest IQs, as well as the most functional and powerful societies historically and presently whereas the other races are living essentially like their ancestors from B.C. If that isn't enough grounds for "racism" I don't know what is. Be it "hierarchical" (what does that even mean? One being the best followed by a runner up down to a bottom? Political or military dominance? I'll assume a mixture of the three) or de facto (as in which race has the best survival characteristics in the long term, which can be argued. If mere living is enough than any reproductively successful race could steal the gold but I'll instead focus the meaning of "de facto" to mean "the race that is best armed, materially and mentally, to be dominant in the future" in which case the Chinese and the Russians, as sub-groups of the East Asian and White races would be competing for the top), the fact that races are unequal and that it can be easily demonstrated through history (I assume you aren't some anti-history conspiracy theorist) should make you at least subconsciously racist. 

 

 

 

Also, when brought down to the individual level the argument breaks down. One person of one race can't say he is objectively superior to one person of another race based solely on their skin color, ethnic background...

 

If we're arguing IQ or national development as measures of race, then how could you say "superior based on skin color/ethnicity"? Don't straw-man me, man! If I said I'm superior than the average black it isn't because I'm White it's because my IQ and achievement for my age is higher than the average black, and if I extended that to race I'd say most Whites are superior to the average black based on IQ, therefore (considering all that IQ ties into, if using only that measure and not history as a brutal measure), Whites are superior to blacks. At least on aggregate. 

 

...or the achievements of other individuals he has no connection to other than the fact that he has placed himself in a category with them by separating the categories by race. Facts can't be racist, saying Asians are smarter on average than Caucasians is not racist. Saying William Hung is smarter than Ben Carson is racist. I'm not calling our favorite Ricky Martin cover singer stupid, actually I think he's pretty smart (Berkley) - I'm just saying assuming he's smarter than Ben Carson based on their races would be racist. In summation if you say this individual person is [this attribute] (not one scientifically linked to race or a definitional descriptor - i.e. skin color, hair type, genes, etc.) because they are [race] - that's racist.

 

How is saying "William Hung is smarter then Ben Carson" racist? I only know the latter, therefore I assume the former is another doctor or something to that effect. If you think Hung is smarter than Carson, and have some evidence (either a straight IQ test or maybe a review of their life choices, etc.) then it'd be fair to say Hung is smarter than Carson and therefore superior, although if they're roughly similar in the top-tier than what superiority one has over the other is small and subjected to being surmounted. Meaning Carson and Hung might switch places as they make better or worse life choices...

 

However this is cherry picking. Even if we compare the exceptional members of the races to go head-to-head, as it were, it wouldn't mean much as they are "exceptional" and therefore not "standard".

 

But then, I would be interested in why there aren't any historically relevant black philosophers, great black rulers (i.e., ones like Augustus or Charlemagne), or great black inventors.  The East Asians can be neck-in-neck with Whites because they like us have great philosophers and rulers, not to mention the generally reliable IQ measure, although we were superior for the past few centuries thanks to inventiveness. 

 

 

Im not sure I articulated correctly exactly what I meant to say, but let me know if this is helpful.

 

Well, I did enjoy breaking down your paragraph and attempting to hit the various points I disagreed with. 

[Tyler H]

You know what I love about the word "racist"? It means something different to everyone.

 

Using your definition, yes we are all racists because we acknowledge there is no equality among the races. While not everyone would admit that because most people, even Stef I'd say, skirt around "coming out" because of the "negative connotations" the word "racist" has. However if you believe in IQ, and consider IQ a valid way of measuring people, then collectively the "Master Race" at the moment is the Singaporeans at 110 and the...Omega Race (?) Would be the Equatorial Gunieans at 59.

 

If Racism is merely the acknowledging that there is more than one race, (which I found a more common definition as a millennial, as nearly all callers of racist try to deny even race exists), then we who have eyes to see at least basic skin color if not bone structure are racist.

 

Again, I assume most people here are just "in the closet" as it were but we cannot logically not be called racist, either because of definition A or B above. And I see no problem with that. Heck, 100 years ago racist meant somebody who studied bio-diversity as a science. Basically anthropology. 

But Singaporeans and Equatorial Guineans aren't races.  There are only 3, Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negroid.  What I was saying in my earlier post is that it is arbitrary how you divide people up when your focus is intelligence.  

[RCali]

Well, considering the following definition:

- a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

- hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

 

I'm a racist. Considering the achievements of each individual civilization... Western pulls ahead... Massively. Whites don't have the highest average IQ in the world... But no one comes close in terms of creativity. I do think these are the most important aspects for the evolution of human kind and more and more, lately, I've been thinking... Whites just seem like the best for the future. Having said that, it matters only for my own reproduction.

For that second part of the definition, I do not hate other races and I'm not intolerant of them. I'm intolerant of a lot of culture that comes with them, though, such as african culture for blacks. They speak really loudly and they don't give much of a shit for their children. They come from violent backgrounds, very commonly.

 

Maybe I am a racist. Who cares. What matters is that I respect each person's individual moral rights. Which I do, and will fight to protect them, no matter what race they are.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

But Singaporeans and Equatorial Guineans aren't races.  There are only 3, Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negroid.  What I was saying in my earlier post is that it is arbitrary how you divide people up when your focus is intelligence.  

 

As to who is a race is also uniquely defined historically. 500 years ago every nation was in itself a race. It is rather new for race to be simplified for the sake of science or global politics.

 

However if the argument is IQ by large aggregate, then clearly the dominant race is the East Asians (I am not using the oldspeak of "-oids" or grouping extremely different peoples together, such as Indians/Pakistanis with Chinese or Turks/Arabs with Germans/Slavs). Historically the baton of dominance was handed back and forth between Italians and Chinese, later Germans, English, and French. For the past couple centuries, Americans (believe it or not there was a time when Americans could be defined ethnically without sensitivity to "minorities"), Englishmen, Germans, and the Japanese were the main batonists. 

 

IQ by nation is arguably more relevant than IQ by race, although races are hardly so internally different as to not be easily stamped collectively (assuming you use the racial scheme of: European Whites, American Whites, African Blacks, American Blacks, East Asians, West Asians, Central Asians, Australian Whites, Australian Blacks, Amerindians, and Hispanics--for lack of a better collective term).

 

I have another post waiting to be moderated, so please wait for it.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

But Singaporeans and Equatorial Guineans aren't races.  There are only 3, Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negroid.  What I was saying in my earlier post is that it is arbitrary how you divide people up when your focus is intelligence.  

Wait, how can you quote me before my posts even show up?

[Brazilda]

The subjectivity of superiority is definitely relevant. However I do not believe individuals to be relevant. If you judge a race you are looking for averages. So if mongoloids have the highest average IQ and you find a caucasian who is smarter than a mongoloid that doesn't really matter since we are judging entire races, not individuals. I think you can still believe mongoloids have a superior average IQ while acknowledging there are exceptions where individual mongoloids may be less intelligent than members of another race. 

 

Going back to your ben carson william hung example I think you are right to say assuming hung is smarter is racist... but so what? If all you know about the two people is their race doesn't it make sense to assume hung is smarter because his race on average is smarter? 

 

I think all of this circles back to the definition of racist. I don't think you need to believe every single person from x race is superior to qualify a racist. I think saying x race is in general or on average superior could qualify as racist. 

 

All of this can be tossed out of the window by subjectivity because one person might think of lower intelligence as superior... You probably are generally happier, have less of a conscious, more likely to breed, etc if you are lower intelligence.

[Will Torbald]

A racist judges individual people for their ethnicity. A racialist judges races based on their stats. If I see a black person, I don't know how smart he is. If I see a group of a thousand black people, I can probably predict their average IQ and income within 2% margin of error.

[EclecticIdealist]

Racism is prejudice and discrimination toward individuals or groups based on stereotypes, characteristics or qualities associated with a specific race or ethnicity. The prejudice or discrimination may be positive or negative. Racial supremacy or racial inferiority is a perception or bias based on which qualities or characteristics are justified as being more important than others.

[DCLugi]

Is assuming that a particular group is not capable of helping themselves, racist?

 

Is assuming that a particular group with a lower IQ on average will not do well in the free market, racist?

[EclecticIdealist]

Is assuming that a particular group is not capable of helping themselves, racist?

 

Is assuming that a particular group with a lower IQ on average will not do well in the free market, racist?

Assumptions are prejudices by definition.  Assumptions based on race are racist assumptions.

[Cruiser]

Assumptions are prejudices by definition.  Assumptions based on race are racist assumptions.

What about a child who knows nothing about race but chooses to play with children in school who look similar to himself and his parents, is that also racism? 

[LancierDombre]

The word racist is one of the most extreme cases of concept crepe I can think of.  It used to refer to someone who believed a person's place and rights in society should be determined by their race.  However, after it rightly became seen as despicable in people's minds, ambitious and parasitical sophists began to expand the definition little by little.  They borrowed the negative baggage of the word's historical meaning to attack people and ideas that were inconvenient to their purposes.  Now the word's meaning is so overused that anyone who believes things that are demonstrably true are routinely called racist.  The word racist is like a spoiled rich heir, it might look similar but it lives off the moral content of its ancestor, contributing nothing to society or discussion.  Now, it has no clear moral content.  The word is just eye-rollingly boring.

[Will Torbald]

Assumptions are prejudices by definition.  Assumptions based on race are racist assumptions.

 

Not an answer. Lots of virtue signaling.

[A4E]

Is a crow superior to a feminist? One is able to use logic, the other is not.

[Donnadogsoth]

Racist is defined as a person who believes a race is superior to another. I'm going to assume we all agree that the races are not equal. If they aren't equal then some races must be superior/inferior. If you believe a race is superior to another you are by definition a racist. 

 

I'm posting this here because I've never heard this argument before but it seems very obvious. Maybe I'm mistaken about something?? 

 

Any sort of racial preference must be racist according to the definition you've supplied.

 

The word undergirding "racist" is "prejudiced".  But racists are not prejudiced.  To be prejudiced is to judge before evidence, but I've never met anyone who judged anyone or anything prior to some sort of evidence.  To do so would be to judge based on zero predicates about a subject.  Does that make sense to anyone?  Does anyone do that?

 

No, what is going on with racists is postjudice.  A white boy of dating age sees an eligible black girl and thinks "yuck" and avoids dating her.  Racist?  Definitely.  Prejudiced?  Not at all.  He's basing his decision on her appearance (a predicate), and possibly what he knows about the typical class, education level, speech and behaviour patterns (more predicates) of blacks.

 

Anti-racists might say the boy should do more "legwork" in getting to know the girl.  See if she matches his personality.  Maybe blacks aren't so bad class, education, speech and behaviour-wise.  Maybe she's a diamond in the rough.  Then he might be ready to date her, to "give her a chance."

 

But this argument can be said by anti-homophobes to heterosexuals.  A heterosexual boy of dating age sees an eligible boy and thinks "yuck" as above.  Postjudice.  But that's homophobic, he should get to know the homosexual boy, maybe he smells nice, maybe he's got a great personality and lovely eyes.  Explore your own sexuality, they'll say, don't just toss away a chance at happiness or even just a good time because of your prejudice.

 

Postjudice can always be lit as though it were prejudice if the judgements you make aren't what the cultural Marxists like; if you haven't explored enough predicates to make you want to sleep with someone.  But no one thinks like that.  Let it be known that you're a racist and do you think the cultural Marxists are going to try to transcend their prejudices and get to know the real you?  Or are they going to go "yuck!" and start tar-barking to everyone in earshot?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Not an answer. Lots of virtue signaling.

 

Yeah, that's how I saw it. Felt like P.C. Principle had arrived.

 

The word racist is really just a silencer to arguments. 

 

However in terms of actually being a racist, simply identifying there is race is racist therefore just say you're a racist and disarm your opposition. They can't insult you if you don't find them insulting. 

 

I'm probably one of the few people here who actually is a White Nationalist and "White Supremacist" (I assume that means I'd like a Roman peace and not world domination), therefore I don't disagree with being called racist so long as it is accurate.

 

To have prejudice assumes a lack of knowledge, however most if not all racists either recognize racial differences as the result of awareness or some scientific justification like IQ. In the end it is a selected survival trait to build a sense of collectivism right off the bat. 

 

I take Donnadogsgoth(?)'s stance for the basic application and definition, but I'd go a step further and try to disarm whatever negative potency the word holds for you so you can stand your ground in intellectual battles, be they personal or interpersonal. 

EDIT: And now all my posts appear at the snap of a finger. 

 

Come on, Stef! I'm going crazy here! 

[Donnadogsoth]

The word racist is really just a silencer to arguments. 

 

However in terms of actually being a racist, simply identifying there is race is racist therefore just say you're a racist and disarm your opposition. They can't insult you if you don't find them insulting. 

 

In other words, the word is like a balloon.  Expand its scope so much it pops.

[Tyler H]

 

Saying things aren't equal doesn't require that they be hierarchical. One race may be "superior" to another in certain areas of human abilities but who's to say what areas are the most important? It's all very subjective. Even if we hold intelligence to be the most important human ability, why do we then decide to divide by race first and then intelligence? Why not divide people by height first and then say the 5'8" people are superior to all because we happen to have the most intelligent people on average!!

 

First off, I don't know if you are but I'll say it anyway, please don't get all "I'am Not A RACIST!!>!>!"  hysterical on me just because "racist" is the White equivalent to nigger. Poisoning the well. 

 

I think superiority can be objectively measured if we're willing to settle upon what makes a nation or race superior. Any child can figure out simply by looking at pictures that there is no equality. If individuals are unequal, it stands to reason collectives (which are just multiple individuals grouped by common characteristics) are also unequal. No one said everyone was equal.

 

Intelligence, specifically IQ, seems very reliable as a measure for the value of a nation and its culture.White and East Asians have the highest IQs, as well as the most functional and powerful societies historically and presently whereas the other races are living essentially like their ancestors from B.C. If that isn't enough grounds for "racism" I don't know what is. Be it "hierarchical" (what does that even mean? 

hi·er·ar·chi·cal

ˌhī(ə)ˈrärkək(ə)l/

adjective

 

1. of the nature of a hierarchy; arranged in order of rank.

    

    

    

   Just because things aren't equal doesn't mean one is objectively better than the other.

One being the best followed by a runner up down to a bottom? Political or military dominance? I'll assume a mixture of the three) or de facto (as in which race has the best survival characteristics in the long term, which can be argued. If mere living is enough than any reproductively successful race could steal the gold but I'll instead focus the meaning of "de facto" to mean "the race that is best armed, materially and mentally, to be dominant in the future" in which case the Chinese and the Russians, as sub-groups of the East Asian and White races would be competing for the top), the fact that races are unequal and that it can be easily demonstrated through history (I assume you aren't some anti-history conspiracy theorist) More poisoning the well  should make you at least subconsciously racist. 

 

 

 

Also, when brought down to the individual level the argument breaks down. One person of one race can't say he is objectively superior to one person of another race based solely on their skin color, ethnic background...

 

If we're arguing IQ or national development as measures of race, then how could you say "superior based on skin color/ethnicity"? Don't straw-man me, Don't know how I could possibly be strawmanning you when you're replying to my response to Brazilda man! If I said I'm superior than the average black it isn't because I'm White it's because my IQ and achievement for my age is higher than the average black, ​and if I extended that to race I'd say most Whites are superior to the average black based on IQ, therefore (considering all that IQ ties into, if using only that measure and not history as a brutal measure), Whites are superior to blacks. At least on aggregate. 

 

...or the achievements of other individuals he has no connection to other than the fact that he has placed himself in a category with them by separating the categories by race. Facts can't be racist, saying Asians are smarter on average than Caucasians is not racist. Saying William Hung is smarter than Ben Carson is racist. I'm not calling our favorite Ricky Martin cover singer stupid, actually I think he's pretty smart (Berkley) - I'm just saying assuming he's smarter than Ben Carson based on their races would be racist. In summation if you say this individual person is [this attribute] (not one scientifically linked to race or a definitional descriptor - i.e. skin color, hair type, genes, etc.) because they are [race] - that's racist.

 

How is saying "William Hung is smarter then Ben Carson" racist? I misspoke here, or mistyped.  I meant to add in that if you said that only knowing their race and nothing else, as I did in the next sentence.  I only know the latter, therefore I assume the former is another doctor or something to that effect.  Lol, no. If you think Hung is smarter than Carson, and have some evidence (either a straight IQ test or maybe a review of their life choices, etc.) then it'd be fair to say Hung is smarter than Carson and therefore superior, although if they're roughly similar in the top-tier than what superiority one has over the other is small and subjected to being surmounted. Meaning Carson and Hung might switch places as they make better or worse life choices...  I'd like to add here as well that if you saw a chinese guy and a black guy in suits and were asked which was smarter, you may say the chinese guy on statistics but you wouldn't be too sure. If the chinese guy was wearing a velour track suit and a shirt down to his knees smoking a cigarette and the black guy had a suit on your answer would probably be different.  

 

However this is cherry picking. Even if we compare the exceptional members of the races to go head-to-head, as it were, it wouldn't mean much as they are "exceptional" and therefore not "standard".  It's not cherry picking because it's not important who the stand-ins are, I was just using them as an example to show what I consider to be a racist statement.

 

But then, I would be interested in why there aren't any historically relevant black philosophers, great black rulers (i.e., ones like Augustus or Charlemagne), or great black inventors.  The East Asians can be neck-in-neck with Whites because they like us have great philosophers and rulers, not to mention the generally reliable IQ measure, although we were superior for the past few centuries thanks to inventiveness. 

 

 

Im not sure I articulated correctly exactly what I meant to say, but let me know if this is helpful.

 

Well, I did enjoy breaking down your paragraph and attempting to hit the various points I disagreed with. 

As I said in posts that for some reason haven't been posted yet, the dictionary definition of racist could be interpreted to include anyone who thinks that there are differences in the races that would lend a subjective but widely accepted form of "superiority" to one or another.  I argue that, colloquially, racist has another meaning and we should be identifying this colloquial definition and working with that.

[EclecticIdealist]

What about a child who knows nothing about race but chooses to play with children in school who look similar to himself and his parents, is that also racism? 

If the child knows nothing about race, but chooses to play ONLY with those who share the physical qualities characterizing members of his race BECAUSE they share those physical qualities, and not because they find those particular qualities attractive in the children they choose to play with, or unattractive in the children they choose to not play with, it is racism.

 

Not an answer. Lots of virtue signaling.

Inaccurate and Ironically self-descriptive post.

[EclecticIdealist]

The word undergirding "racist" is "prejudiced".  But racists are not prejudiced.  To be prejudiced is to judge before evidence, but I've never met anyone who judged anyone or anything prior to some sort of evidence.  To do so would be to judge based on zero predicates about a subject.  Does that make sense to anyone?  Does anyone do that?

On the contrary, racists are prejudiced. Racism is not generally prejudice towards or against a race as a whole, but most often prejudice towards or against an individual or group of people based upon their race and the assumed conformity to negative or positive racial stereotypes.

 

No, what is going on with racists is postjudice.  A white boy of dating age sees an eligible black girl and thinks "yuck" and avoids dating her.  Racist?  Definitely.  Prejudiced?  Not at all.  He's basing his decision on her appearance (a predicate), and possibly what he knows about the typical class, education level, speech and behaviour patterns (more predicates) of blacks.

But this IS prejudice, because he does not know whether this particular girl's education level, speech, or behavior patterns are stereotypical. He is merely assuming they are on the basis of her racial categorization. If he says "yuck" simply because he is not attracted to her physical appearance, this is not racism, this is a response to her appearance not conforming to his personal preference. If on the other hand, he assumes that a girl he has never seen before will be "yucky" in his eyes merely on the basis of her racial background, this is far more likely to be racist (although it may not be if he is not attracted to the physical appearance characteristics most commonly associated with one race, even when found in a person of a different race whose other members he finds attractive).

 

A heterosexual boy of dating age sees an eligible boy and thinks "yuck" as above.  Postjudice.  But that's homophobic, he should get to know the homosexual boy, maybe he smells nice, maybe he's got a great personality and lovely eyes.  Explore your own sexuality, they'll say, don't just toss away a chance at happiness or even just a good time because of your prejudice.

Generally speaking, this is not what people accusing others of being "homophobic" are talking about. Generally speaking, those accusing others of being "homophobic" are accusing them of judging homosexuals to conform to all the negative stereotypes associated with them, especially including the notion that they wish to "recruit" others to their sexual orientation by way of unwanted aggressive sexual advances, or that all or most have life-altering STDs that may be contracted by too close proximity or incidental physical contact such as shaking hands or using the same bathroom stall.

 

However in terms of actually being a racist, simply identifying there is race is racist therefore just say you're a racist and disarm your opposition. They can't insult you if you don't find them insulting. 

Actually, simply identifying the existence of race is not racist. Suggesting that people ought to be treated differently on no other basis than their categorization within one race or another is racist.

 

I'm probably one of the few people here who actually is a White Nationalist and "White Supremacist" (I assume that means I'd like a Roman peace and not world domination), therefore I don't disagree with being called racist so long as it is accurate.

Would it be bigoted or unfairly prejudicial to assume that as a White Nationalist and White Supremacist, you're also of inferior intelligence than the average person of Western European descent, have a propensity for violence, are anti-semitic, particularly against Jews, and consider Adolph Hitler a hero of the Aryan Race? I'm merely asking on the basis that these are common stereotypes justifiably associated with self-proclaimed White Nationalists and White Supremacists. If you consider it to be unfairly prejudicial to consider such things to be almost certainly true of you, perhaps you could then explain how or why it is unjustly prejudicial in contrast to the similarly prejudicial views towards or against individual members of various races based solely on their racial classification.

[Donnadogsoth]

If the child knows nothing about race, but chooses to play ONLY with those who share the physical qualities characterizing members of his race BECAUSE they share those physical qualities, and not because they find those particular qualities attractive in the children they choose to play with, or unattractive in the children they choose to not play with, it is racism.

 

So, if a child finds an alien race repulsive and doesn't want to play with them, that's not racism?

[RCali]

 

 

So basically, you accept that races have differences, but you reject that races have differences. OK.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Actually, simply identifying the existence of race is not racist. Suggesting that people ought to be treated differently on no other basis than their categorization within one race or another is racist.

The definition of racist differs depending on the person using it (in my experience). In my generation, the dog whistle of racist is used to denote those who believe in the existence of "more than one race", or of those who acknowledge the differences between races. 

 

Suggesting that people ought to be collectively treated different based on their collective isn't just racist, it's survival. If a bunch of men with red armbands shouting "death to Nationalism; hail Lenin" were marching in the street I would be foolish not to assume they're violent Communists. 

Would it be bigoted or unfairly prejudicial to assume that as a White Nationalist and White Supremacist, you're also of inferior intelligence than the average person of Western European descent, have a propensity for violence, are anti-semitic, particularly against Jews, and consider Adolph Hitler a hero of the Aryan Race? I'm merely asking on the basis that these are common stereotypes justifiably associated with self-proclaimed White Nationalists and White Supremacists. If you consider it to be unfairly prejudicial to consider such things to be almost certainly true of you, perhaps you could then explain how or why it is unjustly prejudicial in contrast to the similarly prejudicial views towards or against individual members of various races based solely on their racial classification.

No, that would be fair (at least 75% of it) given that most WN I know tend to be anti-semitic, against Jews, consider Adolf Hitler a hero, and believe in the use of force. For inferior intelliegence...I can't say because while I've known a few anally clenched internet comrades I haven't met any in real life to be able to accurately judge them collectively. There isn't much data, if any data, in terms of those who are most likely to subscribe as "White Nationalist" and no data for "White Supremacist" as few if any actually self-identify as "White Supremacist". 

 

If I am an exception to any of these conditions that does not make me the rule, or change the rule. It just makes me the exception.

 

Namely, I consider Jews to be the most intelligent race of beings in terms of raw survival and tribal power, and am therefore pro-Jew anti-Muslim as far as the Semitic races go. I have an IQ of 145, but since that is a few standard deviations above the White norm the chances are something like 1 in 5,000, no one is obligated to take that at face value without paperwork or demonstration. I can't say what the average White Nationalist IQ is but apparently the IQ of the average American Cuckservative is slightly higher than the average Democrat, and while White Nationalists disdain Cuckservatives we are often lumped together as their extreme cousins....

 

As for Adolf Hitler; why couldn't he have been a "National Capitalist?" Then he would have gone places with the Germans.

 

Do I have a propensity for violence? I take boxing, but I don't start the fights I finish them. Politically however, I don't mind the idea of using force to subdue political opposition. I do, however, oppose the use of force to "win an argument" or suppress the freedom of speech.

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

As I said in posts that for some reason haven't been posted yet, the dictionary definition of racist could be interpreted to include anyone who thinks that there are differences in the races that would lend a subjective but widely accepted form of "superiority" to one or another.  I argue that, colloquially, racist has another meaning and we should be identifying this colloquial definition and working with that.

Didn't mean to "poison the well" (except for the first part because all those !! sounded frantic). Although I did mean to come off strong. 

 

However, if peoples are objectively unequal do they not objectively rank differently based on qualities? If I had to rate races (I really mean nationalities here) by height, wouldn't I put the big Swedes and Dutchmen on top and the Vietnamese on the bottom? If I had to rate IQ, wouldn't I put either Jews or Singaporeans on top and Equatorial Guineans on the bottom? If I believed IQ to be the main measure of a people's compacity for higher thought and self-organization, and for the sake of a standard, capability in becoming like a White/Western nation, then wouldn't IQ be the golden rule for determining which societies are objectively superior relative to others?

 

If East Asians have the highest IQ and in general and the most able to adapt Western customs, then East Asians are the most likely friends of anyone sharing the umbrella ideology of libertarianism. Not saying China is a free market (quite the opposite it is), but Chinese people are among the best able to assimilate into a free market-based country, like say America. 

 

Meanwhile anything darker than Mehmet seems to have an IQ south of 100, which is below optimal for a free market and very likely to result in crime and violence.

 

However if you mean objective standard, as in best fit for their own environments....

 

Well, the Afrikaners and Rhodesians were doing very well in Africa until the West decided to abandon them and team against them. Meanwhile East Asians do very well in White societies, therefore Whites and East Asians would be (using the fitness measure) neck-in-neck as #1 and #2 for adaptability to disparate environments.

 

 For a colloquial definition of racism, judging by the way people my age group (16-20) use it, it would mean either "Someone who believes there to be more than the Human Race" or; "Someone who asserts races are genetically and/or culturally dissimilar". 

 

I know older people say racism is synonymous with prejudice or superiority complex, but that definition is woefully uncommon for my generation. 

 

EDIT: I said cherry picking to mean for this case: "using exceptions to define a norm". I.e., using the best of Asians and Blacks to weigh their races, which judging by the best of them would be neck-and-neck, which is not proportionate to their aggregates. 

 

I realize I misused the term, which actually means choosing examples to best fit a narrative. 

Edited August 28, 2016 by Augustus

[Donnadogsoth]

 

 

On the contrary, racists are prejudiced. Racism is not generally prejudice towards or against a race as a whole, but most often prejudice towards or against an individual or group of people based upon their race and the assumed conformity to negative or positive racial stereotypes.

 

Why is one obligated to investigate every last detail of someone else, before deciding that one doesn't like them or wish to have carnal relations with them?

 

Suppose one finds all members of an alien race to be revolting-looking and repulsive to date.  Is that enough to satisfy you that one is postjudiced?

 

 

But this IS prejudice, because he does not know whether this particular girl's education level, speech, or behavior patterns are stereotypical. He is merely assuming they are on the basis of her racial categorization. If he says "yuck" simply because he is not attracted to her physical appearance, this is not racism, this is a response to her appearance not conforming to his personal preference. If on the other hand, he assumes that a girl he has never seen before will be "yucky" in his eyes merely on the basis of her racial background, this is far more likely to be racist (although it may not be if he is not attracted to the physical appearance characteristics most commonly associated with one race, even when found in a person of a different race whose other members he finds attractive).

 

1.  Find me any member of the Left (since the Left controls the official definitions right now) who would agree that rejecting a girl because she's physically repulsive because she's a member of an alien race, is not racism.

 

2. Everything is playing the odds and there aren't enough hours in the day to investigate everything.  Do all single mothers have tough nipples?  I can't be bothered to find out.  Are all blacks criminals?  No, but you'll certainly live your life safer by avoiding black neighbourhoods.  These are postjudice, judgements after evidence has been presented.  You may think it's insufficient evidence, but then what is?  Prejudice would be selecting a resume at random and deciding before looking at it not to hire that person regardless of their qualifications.

 

 

Generally speaking, this is not what people accusing others of being "homophobic" are talking about. Generally speaking, those accusing others of being "homophobic" are accusing them of judging homosexuals to conform to all the negative stereotypes associated with them, especially including the notion that they wish to "recruit" others to their sexual orientation by way of unwanted aggressive sexual advances, or that all or most have life-altering STDs that may be contracted by too close proximity or incidental physical contact such as shaking hands or using the same bathroom stall.

 

 

Wait for it.  If “sexual racism” is a thing now, with sanctimonious Left-wing Gay people telling other Gay people they shouldn't reject sexual partners on racial grounds, that mentality is going to seep into heterosexual life, too, as I'm sure it's already doing, and once we're patting ourselves on the back about how un-sexually-racist we are, why wouldn't “sexual homophobia” be the next on the list?

[EclecticIdealist]

So basically, you accept that races have differences, but you reject that races have differences. OK.

So basically, you can read, but you can't comprehend what you read.

[RCali]

So basically, you can read, but you can't comprehend what you read.

Yes. Wait, no. I don't know.

[RCali]

On the contrary, racists are prejudiced. Racism is not generally prejudice towards or against a race as a whole, but most often prejudice towards or against an individual or group of people based upon their race and the assumed conformity to negative or positive racial stereotypes.

 

Racism is not prejudice towards a race but prejudice against an individual that's of a certain race...????

[EclecticIdealist]

(redundant)

[EclecticIdealist]

Racism is not prejudice towards a race but prejudice against an individual that's of a certain race...????

Generally, an instance or act of racism is not prejudice manifest toward or against an entire race of people, but prejudice toward or against an individual or small group of people classified as members of that race...

 

My apologies for my previous attempt at conveying my thought which was less than clear.

[EclecticIdealist]

So, if a child finds an alien race repulsive and doesn't want to play with them, that's not racism?

Asked and answered already.

 

The definition of racist differs depending on the person using it (in my experience). In my generation, the dog whistle of racist is used to denote those who believe in the existence of "more than one race", or of those who acknowledge the differences between races. 

 

Not everyone uses terms "correctly". I would not consider the definition proffered above as commonly used to be racist, nor do I believe it to be the common understanding for most people above the age of 25.

 

Suggesting that people ought to be collectively treated different based on their collective isn't just racist, it's survival. If a bunch of men with red armbands shouting "death to Nationalism; hail Lenin" were marching in the street I would be foolish not to assume they're violent Communists.

 

This is not the same thing as classifying an entire race of people as being superior or inferior, inherently more inclined to moral or immoral behavior, or in some other way deserving of different treatment based solely upon race. If the men in the street with the red armbands were all of the same ethnicity or race, it would be racist to assume that all members of such a race are militant Marxists.

 

Politically however, I don't mind the idea of using force to subdue political opposition. I do, however, oppose the use of force to "win an argument" or suppress the freedom of speech.

 

Would you please elaborate on what precisely you mean on "the idea of using force to subdue political opposition", since this seems to be in direct contradiction to your next statement about opposing "the use of force to 'win an argument'".

 

Meanwhile anything darker than Mehmet seems to have an IQ south of 100, which is below optimal for a free market and very likely to result in crime and violence.

 

That's racist. 

 

 

Why is one obligated to investigate every last detail of someone else, before deciding that one doesn't like them or wish to have carnal relations with them?

Of course one is not obligated to investigate every last detail of someone else. I am simply stating that prejudging a person one does not know, or has not even seen as being undesirable solely on their race is racist.

 

Suppose one finds all members of an alien race to be revolting-looking and repulsive to date.  Is that enough to satisfy you that one is postjudiced?

Again, if one finds all members of an alien race to be revolting-looking based on physical characteristics that one would find revolting-looking in one's own race, it would not be racist, or "postjudiced". If, on the other hand, one did not find such characteristics revolting-looking in one's own race, then the bias would certainly indicate racism, not a revulsion to particular physical characteristics.

 

1.  Find me any member of the Left (since the Left controls the official definitions right now) who would agree that rejecting a girl because she's physically repulsive because she's a member of an alien race, is not racism.

 

The Left does not control the official definitions of words. While I agree that "Political Correctness" has certainly gotten out of hand, I also believe that many people are unnecessarily mean or insensitive towards others who are different from themselves; especially those they may happen to look down on for whatever the reason. This happens regardless of which side of the political aisle one might happen to find themselves. Rejecting a girl based on one's actually finding her physically repulsive on looks (or smell or some other physical quality) alone is not racist; finding her physically repulsive BECAUSE she's a member of an alien race and not because of her looks (or smell or some other physical quality) is.  In short, if you happen to be attracted or repulsed by the shape or size of a person's nose or lips or eyes, etc.; or the color or texture of their skin or various other qualities, that isn't racist. If you you are repulsed by these because of their race, that would be racist.

2. Everything is playing the odds and there aren't enough hours in the day to investigate everything. Do all single mothers have tough nipples?  I can't be bothered to find out.  Are all blacks criminals?  No, but you'll certainly live your life safer by avoiding black neighbourhoods.  These are postjudice, judgements after evidence has been presented.

You are misunderstanding what prejudice is.  Prejudice is judging any individual or small group of individuals to have the stereotypical qualities or characteristics attributed to all or a substantially large number of members of a larger group of which they are identified as members. The prejudice may be positive or negative, and in a great many instances statistically unwarranted. Most people of every ethnic and racial group are non-violent, non-criminals. To treat any given individual as though they are likely a violent criminal for no other reason than because they happen to be Black or Hispanic is to engage in racial prejudice. One can argue that such prejudice is warranted or justified on the basis of statistical data, but again, one would be wrong to do so. Nevertheless, one would be statistically more likely to be robbed by going somewhere where such robberies are more likely to occur, which means poor, black neighborhoods which appear have higher incidences of crime should be avoided, regardless of one's race. Furthermore, police officers should be far more cautious answering calls regarding a domestic disturbance to neighborhoods where there are high levels of poverty and a propensity for drug abuse than to neighborhoods of affluence where such incidences are far rarer and disputes are resolved through less violent or nonviolent means. The amount of education attained, and a belief in corporal punishment, and prejudicial attitudes towards members of other races and of the opposite sex is a far better indicator of a propensity for violence and criminal behavior than is race

 

You may think it's insufficient evidence, but then what is?  Prejudice would be selecting a resume at random and deciding before looking at it not to hire that person regardless of their qualifications.

Especially if such decision is made on the basis of the person's name or the quality of the paper or some other non-rational means of classifying the applicant as being unsuitable for the position without actual evaluation of their qualifications.

 

Wait for it.  If “sexual racism” is a thing now, with sanctimonious Left-wing Gay people telling other Gay people they shouldn't reject sexual partners on racial grounds, that mentality is going to seep into heterosexual life, too, as I'm sure it's already doing, and once we're patting ourselves on the back about how un-sexually-racist we are, why wouldn't “sexual homophobia” be the next on the list?

Again, while I don't doubt that there are many who are very open to virtually any voluntary sexual partner or experience, to shame people for only being attracted to whomever they are attracted to certainly runs contrary to the ideal of liberty and freedom in selecting one's sexual partner(s) commonly shared by most people in modern Western society (and increasingly in Eastern societies as well). I'm not worried at all that there are already some who seek to shame heterosexuals for not being more open to potential homosexual partners. I would only be concerned if notions of shaming people into accepting sexual partners, whatever the sexual orientation, became prevalent, especially among teens and children who are most susceptible to such manipulation.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

 This is not the same thing as classifying an entire race of people as being superior or inferior, inherently more inclined to moral or immoral behavior, or in some other way deserving of different treatment based solely upon race. If the men in the street with the red armbands were all of the same ethnicity or race, it would be racist to assume that all members of such a race are militant Marxists.

 

 

 

While it would be inaccurate to assume a majority of people of a race are militant marxists, it is accurate to assume, for instance, that a majority of a race subscribe to a religion. For example, most Whites are Christian (with specific denominations being common to specific sub-groups), most Arabians/Persians are Muslim, most Asians subscribe to a form of Buddhism, and most Africans (not American Blacks) subscribe to some form of pagan voodoo/tribal religion.

 

I guess it would be racist to assume, Johnny Dunn, for instance, is Catholic but since Johnny's Irish it is most likely he's Catholic. 

 

Would you please elaborate on what precisely you mean on "the idea of using force to subdue political opposition", since this seems to be in direct contradiction to your next statement about opposing "the use of force to 'win an argument'".
 

Meaning; while I'm against men in brown shirts interrupting debates I am not against said men interrupting Al Sharpton from starting a riot. Or, in political militants forcing favorable regime change. Or the suppression of criminal/treasonous elements by force. None of these generalized scenarios have anything to do with free speech, as they're all a matter of using violence against a violent opposition in order to redirect the violence in a favorable direction.

 

In terms of an argument, literal arguments like the one we're having, I would consider it very cowardly to use force to "win" because (at least to me) it is a declaration of defeat. Likewise I'd extrapolate semi-secluded debates to include public debates. If I had a "National Capitalist" party debating a man from the Socialist party, I would not encourage the use of force to win the argument, just make sure the other party didn't try to force his way either. On the other hand, if the Socialist party demonstrated in the streets then that is an act of terrorism against their opposition and a challenge to combat. In such an instance I'd be in favor of leading or sending people to push back their columns and ranks. 

 

Does this make sense? In short, actual debates or general comments should not be suppressed, but rabble rousing and mob driving should be.

 

Also, I should mention I'd say freedom of speech is fine even if the speaker is saying very unfavorable things about a politician, but he should expect a direct physical retaliation from said politician if his words aren't  things to argue but mere insults.

 

And naturally there shouldn't be a law against the use of certain words, phrases, or ideas. All ideas should be spoken freely. It is only when rabble rousing and fist raising is involved that I believe force is desirable. 

 

That's racist. 

 

Why, yes it is. Facts are very racist. A good question would be; what is wrong with being racist?