We are all racists?

[Donnadogsoth]

 

 

 

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.

 

Yes, it's racist to determine anything based on race, including determining that race exists at all. But it's also postjudice to the degree one knows any facts about that race, including what they look like. If everyone you ever met kicked you in the shins, are you justified in taking precautions against being kicked in the shins by the next person you meet? That's postjudice. If every black girl you ever saw repulsed you, are you justified in declining a blind date with a black girl?  Again, postjudice.

 

 

 

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.

 

I just happen to find the gestalt of their appearance unappealing, so I suppose I'm racist. Fine. I suppose if a black girl had smooth skin, that would not be revolting in the abstract, but I would still not wish to touch it; smooth skin is only desirable to me on white girls. If that's racist, then it's also homophobic as I wouldn't care to touch a man's skin no matter how smooth.

 

 

 

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.

 

The Left controls most of the mainstream media and the schools, especially the Universities, which are a breeding ground for political correctness.

 

 

 

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

 

That's all postjudice based on your knowledge of the facts of a given neighbourhood. But sometimes we don't have time to gather all the facts. Sometimes we need to make a snap judgement: do we drive at night through the black neighbourhood or the white one? Quick, make a decision!

 

 

 

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.

 

There's more to a job than qualifications, though. If I value my white workplace culture, I have to realise that the more coloured people I hire, the more coloured the workplace becomes. Not just in the sense of physical presence, but in culture. If I have a workplace of ten white people, and over time I replace half of them with Pakistanis, then I have just lopped the white culture there in half and created a piece of Pakistan. Is this fair to my white employees? Maybe they like everyone participating in Christmas and don't like the new employees praying to Mecca five times a day, and maybe they have pig figurines and have an annual company pig roast on the 4^th of July. The culture is eroding with every new coloured hire, until the point where the remaining whites flee if they can, and then we're left with a little outpost of Pakistan, and then they're calling the shots, and there are no more Christmas parties, no 4^th of July celebrations, the whites start absonding their ceramic pigs, and there is certainly no pig roast. So, no, “non-rational” means of classifying applicants aren't necessarily non-rational, provided one values one's culture as it is.

 

 

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.

 

Here we agree. 

 

[EclecticIdealist]

Yes, it's racist to determine anything based on race, including determining that race exists at all.

No. It's racist to judge and consequently treat people based solely or primarily on their racial background. It is not racist to make the observation that race (in the sense of genetic background or heritage and consequent heritable traits) exists.

 

But it's also postjudice to the degree one knows any facts about that race, including what they look like. If everyone you ever met kicked you in the shins, are you justified in taking precautions against being kicked in the shins by the next person you meet? That's postjudice.

Of course you would be justified; but that would not be postjudice to presume the next person you meet will kick you in the shins; that's still prejudice. However, considering that not everyone is kicked in the shins, one would do well to consider what one might be doing to cause EVERYONE they ever meet to kick them in the shins. In all likelihood, the problem is not a conspiracy against you, but actions and behaviors on your part that are inducing others to kick you in the shins. Alternatively, a more likely reality is that some people are kicking you in the shins, but that most are not, and that there is a conspiracy against you which your actions may or may not have anything to do with causing or perpetuating.

 

If every black girl you ever saw repulsed you, are you justified in declining a blind date with a black girl?  Again, postjudice.

You should definitely decline such a date; you'd likely be doing the girl a favor by declining a blind date with her if you are so likely to find her repulsive. But again, no, not postjudice, prejudice. You are presuming you will be repulsed by her before seeing her. Suppose through some aberration of genetics, those qualities which are responsible for her appearance are entirely caucasian. Would you still be repulsed by her simply by virtue of her being of Black ancestry?

 

I suppose if a black girl had smooth skin, that would not be revolting in the abstract, but I would still not wish to touch it... I just happen to find the gestalt of their appearance unappealing, so I suppose I'm racist. Fine.

Again, this is not necessarily racist. It is only racist if the reason the gestalt of their appearance is unappealing to you is in fact your knowledge (or presumptive belief) of their race. Incidentally, most black girls have nice, smooth skin.

 

But sometimes we don't have time to gather all the facts. Sometimes we need to make a snap judgement: do we drive at night through the black neighbourhood or the white one? Quick, make a decision!

 

Which neighborhood is more upscale/cleaner?  Crime is more closely associated with poverty than race. I'd feel safer driving through an middle-class Black neighborhood than a lower-class White neighborhood; and middle-class White neighborhood over a lower-class Black neighborhood. If It's a choice between lower-class White or lower-class Black, it depends on who is in the car with me. As I'm White, it'd be safer for me to go through a White neighborhood if I'm alone or with Black girls or women in my car. On the other hand, if there are Black boys or men in my car, I must consider not only my own safety but theirs as well, so traveling through a lower class black neighborhood might make more sense than driving through a lower class white neighborhood, especially in certain areas in the South.

 

There's more to a job than qualifications, though. If I value my white workplace culture... So, no, “non-rational” means of classifying applicants aren't necessarily non-rational, provided one values one's culture as it is.

 

Ideally, everyone should be free to be as racist or bigoted in other ways as they choose to be. I also believe that those who do so generally only harm themselves by such practices unless they engage in the use of force (including fraud, exploitation, or coercion) against others. Anecdotally, I've found racist beliefs and attitudes to be primarily the result of ignorant tradition and cultural reinforcement of stereotypes; and secondarily, of personal traumatic experiences perpetrated by members of a particular race.

[Donnadogsoth]

 

 

No. It's racist to judge and consequently treat people based solely or primarily on their racial background. It is not racist to make the observation that race (in the sense of genetic background or heritage and consequent heritable traits) exists.

 

If it's not racist to believe that races exist, what is it?

 

 

 

Of course you would be justified; but that would not be postjudice to presume the next person you meet will kick you in the shins; that's still prejudice. However, considering that not everyone is kicked in the shins, one would do well to consider what one might be doing to cause EVERYONE they ever meet to kick them in the shins. In all likelihood, the problem is not a conspiracy against you, but actions and behaviors on your part that are inducing others to kick you in the shins. Alternatively, a more likely reality is that some people are kicking you in the shins, but that most are not, and that there is a conspiracy against you which your actions may or may not have anything to do with causing or perpetuating.

 

Alright you've got me there, I agree it's prejudice against any new people. If someone had kicked me in the shins before though, my taking defensive measures upon meeting them again would be postjudice.

 

 

 

You should definitely decline such a date; you'd likely be doing the girl a favor by declining a blind date with her if you are so likely to find her repulsive. But again, no, not postjudice, prejudice. You are presuming you will be repulsed by her before seeing her. Suppose through some aberration of genetics, those qualities which are responsible for her appearance are entirely caucasian. Would you still be repulsed by her simply by virtue of her being of Black ancestry?

 

What defines race in the moment is phenotype, what defines it in the future is genotype. I might find her appealing if she looked white, but would not want to have black children by her and so would be repulsed on that count.

 

 

 

Again, this is not necessarily racist. It is only racist if the reason the gestalt of their appearance is unappealing to you is in fact your knowledge (or presumptive belief) of their race. Incidentally, most black girls have nice, smooth skin.

 

My repulsion extends beyond appearance to behaviour, language, dress, and subculture. But while a perfectly mannered, well-spoken, nicely dressed, and cultured black girl might appeal to me on those counts, it would still not be outweighed by my aversion to her appearance. I know that if we got married I would always rue waking up to a black girl instead of a white one.

 

 

 

Which neighborhood is more upscale/cleaner?  Crime is more closely associated with poverty than race. I'd feel safer driving through an middle-class Black neighborhood than a lower-class White neighborhood; and middle-class White neighborhood over a lower-class Black neighborhood. If It's a choice between lower-class White or lower-class Black, it depends on who is in the car with me. As I'm White, it'd be safer for me to go through a White neighborhood if I'm alone or with Black girls or women in my car. On the other hand, if there are Black boys or men in my car, I must consider not only my own safety but theirs as well, so traveling through a lower class black neighborhood might make more sense than driving through a lower class white neighborhood, especially in certain areas in the South.

 

Fair enough.

 

 

 

Ideally, everyone should be free to be as racist or bigoted in other ways as they choose to be. I also believe that those who do so generally only harm themselves by such practices unless they engage in the use of force (including fraud, exploitation, or coercion) against others. Anecdotally, I've found racist beliefs and attitudes to be primarily the result of ignorant tradition and cultural reinforcement of stereotypes; and secondarily, of personal traumatic experiences perpetrated by members of a particular race.

 

Is it racist to preserve Christmas and pig culture by denying entry to your society to people who will not help preserve them?

[EclecticIdealist]

If it's not racist to believe that races exist, what is it?

Is it sexist to believe that different sexes exist?  Is it religionist to believe that different religions exist? The term you're looking for is "race aware" or more generally, "educated".

 

Alright you've got me there, I agree it's prejudice against any new people. If someone had kicked me in the shins before though, my taking defensive measures upon meeting them again would be postjudice.

Yes, and prudence.

 

What defines race in the moment is phenotype, what defines it in the future is genotype. I might find her appealing if she looked white, but would not want to have black children by her and so would be repulsed on that count.

Is that because you are concerned that you might find your children physically repulsive, or is there some other concern? 

 

My repulsion extends beyond appearance to behaviour, language, dress, and subculture. But while a perfectly mannered, well-spoken, nicely dressed, and cultured black girl might appeal to me on those counts, it would still not be outweighed by my aversion to her appearance. I know that if we got married I would always rue waking up to a black girl instead of a white one.

Behavior, language, dress, and subculture are almost entirely cultural adaptations (or maladaptations). Living in New York, I have encountered hundreds, perhaps thousands of black girls of marriageable age. Their education runs the gamut from the most stereotypical middle school or high school drop-out to the professional business woman, doctor, financial analyst, or engineer. Their manner of speech runs the gamut from African to West Indian Immigrant, from Mid-western to Southern to North-eastern American accents, clear and articulate, to thick and virtually indecipherable (unless one happens to be from the Islands), loud and boisterous, to soft and demure, educated and literate to coarse and illiterate, respectful and polite, to vulgar and profane. Their clothing also runs the gamut from those wearing traditional, colorful West African and West Indian clothing to typical modern Western clothing, from clothing that is very modest to that which leaves little to the imagination, hair in virtually every style and color imaginable, and manners ranging from the very polite and "proper" to the very vulgar and crude. In short, I find that there is no valid or accurate stereotype for all Black women; rather, Black women are every bit as diverse as their White, Hispanic, and Asian counterparts, if not more so.

 

I am certain that if one so desired, one would be able to find a woman that would appeal to virtually anyone's sensibilities and preferences. Nevertheless, if one does not find a woman's appearance appealing at least as much, if not more so than the appearance of women of other races or ethnicities, I have little doubt that one would come to regret marrying even the most otherwise agreeable person when there were other options that one finds more appealing. I do not believe there to be a "right" and a "wrong" in this respect, except in the individual sense of "right for 'me'" or "wrong for 'me'". I believe that, with few exceptions and every other quality being equal, I would likely regret for the same aesthetic reasons relating to appearance choosing to marry a woman of primarily Caucasian ancestry for the same reasons that you would regret selecting a black woman, so I can appreciate the fact that certain physical features and characteristics that may be appealing to some may in turn be less attractive, if not repulsive to others.

 

Furthermore, I would definitely not want to partner with any woman who is especially loud, crude, ill-mannered, uneducated, or possessing various sub-cultural beliefs or preferences which I do not value. I am every bit as much NOT a fan of Nascar as I am NOT a fan of "Gangsta Rap". I would certainly not be well partnered with anyone who holds very strong beliefs in any of the Abrahamic religious traditions, not matter how intelligent they might otherwise be - the religious sub-cultures of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (and likely Hinduism, and others) are every bit as unattractive to me as much of what is considered the popular sub-culture of urban Black America. Fortunately for me, the woman I am with is likewise repulsed by, or at least not strongly attracted to such sub-cultures.

 

Is it racist to preserve Christmas and pig culture by denying entry to your society to people who will not help preserve them?

No. That would be a form of cultural bias, but not racism. I can certainly appreciate the desire to preserve cultural traditions one is accustomed to. I believe everyone should be allowed to attempt to do so provided they are not harming others in the process through the initiation of force, whether physical, or psychological or emotional coercion or manipulation, fraud, deception, etc. Again, the ideals of liberty and freedom of association dictates that a person is and ought to be at liberty to choose with whom they wish to associate with or whom they wish to not associate with. As long as the wishes or desires are mutual, artificial means ought not to be employed to prevent such an association (assuming all involved parties are capable of and in fact do give informed consent to such an association).

 

Incidentally, I too enjoy Christmas and as well as the very tasty flesh of swine that is properly prepared and cooked to just the right tenderness; as well as the taste and texture of bacon, especially on a nice BLT or Bacon Cheese Burger, as well as many other foods that are complemented by flavor of pork in its various cuts and forms. I found Bacon & Maple flavored Ice Cream to be surprisingly better than I imagined it would be.

[EclecticIdealist]

 

Would you please elaborate on what precisely you mean on "the idea of using force to subdue political opposition"...

 

Meaning; while I'm against men in brown shirts interrupting debates I am not against said men interrupting Al Sharpton from starting a riot.... Does this make sense? In short, actual debates or general comments should not be suppressed, but rabble rousing and mob driving should be.

 

Yes, that certainly makes sense.

 

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

 

Facts are not racist. Positions, perspectives, and the motivation behind certain actions (including speech and writing) are (sometimes) racist.  As to what is wrong with being racist, that is indeed a good question. What is right with being racist?

 

I believe racism creates an artificial division in society that is irrational, unreasonable, and ultimately destructive. Biologically speaking, racism is unquestionably destructive and stagnating, as the genetic diversity of a community correlates very strongly with the size and health of a population and inversely with the number and presence of heritable congenital defects and diseases, as well as immunological susceptibility to new diseases. The problem in society is not "race mixing" or "miscegenation", or the integration and blending of aspects from new cultures or sub-cultures, but rather just the opposite--racial segregation and multi-culturalism within the same geographical boundaries. Certain subcultures, or more precisely certain elements and aspects of sub-cultures are inherently destructive to other cultures in much the same way that parasites and viruses can be destructive to their host organisms. Symbiosis should be the norm and rule for sub-cultures, not parasitism or viral culture clash and counter-cultures. In other words, for Western Culture to survive, it must require the integration of immigrants into the greater Western culture. It must also require that the elements which are hostile or destructive to Western culture in entering or evolving sub-cultures be eliminated. A nation that is united by a dominant, primary culture is strong and vibrant and resilient to the stresses of new cultures. A nation that is divided by culture or multicultural is weak and susceptible to balkanization. A culture that eschews any outside cultural influences is subject to internal corruption, similar to cancer.

 

The key to the survival of Western Culture is to maintain and strengthen strong cultural ideals and values which help protect and maintain universal individual liberty while simultaneously engendering a strong sense of cultural unity and belonging for all members of society. It is possible, and I maintain most optimal, for society to promote its dominant culture (provided it is a healthy and beneficial one) and embrace those from different cultures, inviting them to share the healthy and beneficial aspects of their culture. In truth, it is not dissimilar to the principle of Pax Romana you referenced previously. The key is the adoption by immigrants and the rising generations of the culture and philosophy that makes Western society great, which may be summed up in a few ideals: Universal Individual Liberty, Personal Accountability,  Free-Market Capitalism (Mutually beneficial, voluntary trade), and adherence to the cardinal virtues of Kindness, Generosity, Honesty, Equity, Tolerance, and an Appreciation of others (especially those different from oneself). Any failings in Western society can be traced to a failure by large segments of society failing to embrace these ideals in one area or another. Highly damaging subcultures are working (in some cases quite deliberately in my opinion) to destroy Western Society by promoting ideals contrary to these, including a sense of Victimhood and Lack of Personal Accountability, A lack of Trustworthiness in others to exercise Individual Liberty, a destruction of Free-Market Capitalism, and a general hostility towards other members of society, especially increasingly so on the basis of Race.  I believe most of those responsible for these actions are doing so not because of a deep and abiding ideological belief in the messages they are promoting, but rather, nothing more than the pursuit of power and influence over others and the accumulation of wealth without creating or exchanging anything of value with others. Such destruction comes primarily from the Left; but there is also, to a lesser degree, a lack of Honesty, Equity, Tolerance, and Appreciation of others that is coming from the Right which only serves to exacerbate and justify the arguments from the Left.

[Donnadogsoth]

 

 

Is it sexist to believe that different sexes exist?  Is it religionist to believe that different religions exist? The term you're looking for is "race aware" or more generally, "educated".

 

People like Bill Nye tell otherwise. I'm sure his analogue exist in terms of believing the sexes exist.

http://bigthink.com/think-tank/bill-nye-race-is-a-social-construct

 

 

 

Is that because you are concerned that you might find your children physically repulsive, or is there some other concern?

 

That my children would be (a) repulsive, (b) prone to adopting “black” culture based on what they see in the mirror, and (c ) that they would be inherently non-white psychologically in the manner that Frank Raymond talks about in his interviews about the psychological differences between coloured and whites.

 

Frank Raymond - The Caucasian Mind: Transcending Biological Needs - Hour 1

 

 

 

Behavior, language, dress, and subculture are almost entirely cultural adaptations (or maladaptations)....

 

See the interview with Raymond, above. I'm not so sure the races are virtually identical psychologically. The cultures they have created for themselves, while various and intermingling with each other, can be seen as expressions of an essence, rather than an external force creating an essence. Perhaps you haven't noticed any commonalities because you haven't been looking for them.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

In order to make this easier, I'm going to break it into pieces and color mine (Augustus's) red while (Eclectic Idealist's is blue). 

 

 

 

First off, I want to define racism into two definitions so that we don't skirt around each other or call two different things the same, or one same thing two different things, etc.

 

Racism;

 

1-: The belief that there are inherent psychological and behavioral differences of races, that may or may not result in long-term incompatibility.

 

2-: The belief that any race or races is/are superior to others, either as a result of inherited genetics, culture, IQ or material wealth on aggregate. 

 

Now that that's out of the way, I'll begin hitting your points.

 

 

Facts are not racist. Positions, perspectives, and the motivation behind certain actions (including speech and writing) are (sometimes) racist.  As to what is wrong with being racist, that is indeed a good question. What is right with being racist?

 

What is right about being racist; recognizing that under Definition 1, if the races are fundamentally different mentally and internally, it would mean that the aggregates of races simply cannot co-exist peacefully without the use of tyrannical force to subdue dissent. By Definition 2, to be racist is to realize that by valuing our cultures, we are essentially saying we'd rather lvie by our own standards than by other standards, because we belief our culture is subjectively superior than the others'. For example: While the Danish racist might like Japanese culture, he considers Danish culture superior because he enjoys the ease in which he can conform to societal norms that had been etched into his very bone marrow over the course of millennia. Likewise the Japanese racist might like Danish culture, but feels more at ease and prefers his own culture for he does not have to subject himself to the long process of ethnic and cultural adaptation  and assimilation. 

 

 

I believe racism creates an artificial division in society that is irrational, unreasonable, and ultimately destructive. Biologically speaking, racism is unquestionably destructive and stagnating, as the genetic diversity of a community correlates very strongly with the size and health of a population and inversely with the number and presence of heritable congenital defects and diseases, as well as immunological susceptibility to new diseases. The problem in society is not "race mixing" or "miscegenation", or the integration and blending of aspects from new cultures or sub-cultures, but rather just the opposite--racial segregation and multi-culturalism within the same geographical boundaries. Certain subcultures, or more precisely certain elements and aspects of sub-cultures are inherently destructive to other cultures in much the same way that parasites and viruses can be destructive to their host organisms.

 

While there are genetic problems with incest, for a White man to chose a White woman he is not consciously related to, he is not significantly at risk of hereditary disorders poisoning his gene pool, at least no more than the norm. Incest and endogamy are not synonymous, for while incest has hereditary genetic springing up much more often than usual, endogamy has no known increased risk to genetic disorders, especially relative to exogamy with foreign races wherein disorders unique to that race would sprout up in the White's gene pool. This also totally disregards the deviation to the mean, and the fact that mix-race children are not even in the same racial net as other mixers of the same general pedigree (i.e. a half white half black is not of the same "racial net" as another half white half black). It also creates genetic disassociation from families to their multi-racial off-spring, as literally any random White person would share more of my genes (assuming I'm the White mixer here) then my own biracial child. Even when mixing high quality East Asians with Whites the disassociation and higher potency for sociopathy occurs. A great example, albeit an extreme one, being Stalin. 

 

 

Symbiosis should be the norm and rule for sub-cultures, not parasitism or viral culture clash and counter-cultures. In other words, for Western Culture to survive, it must require the integration of immigrants into the greater Western culture. It must also require that the elements which are hostile or destructive to Western culture in entering or evolving sub-cultures be eliminated. A nation that is united by a dominant, primary culture is strong and vibrant and resilient to the stresses of new cultures. A nation that is divided by culture or multicultural is weak and susceptible to balkanization. A culture that eschews any outside cultural influences is subject to internal corruption, similar to cancer.

 

On a cultural level, I agree that immigrating cultures must be assimilated into the host culture. On a genetic level, this may be impossible (according to Definition 1) as the races are essentially (i.e., their essence rather than merely their physique) are different and largely incompatible. Therefore by Definition 1, racism is good because it is the ability to recognize the inability for biologically incompatible peoples to assimilate. Meanwhile should amalgamation be the chosen rout, assimilation becomes impossible as the off-spring as the median of their parentage. If 100 IQ Whites mix with 75/85 IQ Africans/American-Blacks , then the median of the newly formed "Grays" would be 85/93, and while that would be a genetic upgrade (as far as IQ) goes for the blacks, it is a degrade for the Whites and both races would be effectively exterminated through exogamy. Remember, for there to be full amalgamation it is not possible for only IQ 100+ blacks to intermix, all blacks of any IQ range must mix with the Whites for their to be a full synthesis. Again, this would result in the local genocide of both components and the rise of a mongrel race functionally similar to South American Hispanics, who are themselves a large scale testimony to the failure of racial amalgamation.

 

 

The key to the survival of Western Culture is to maintain and strengthen strong cultural ideals and values which help protect and maintain universal individual liberty while simultaneously engendering a strong sense of cultural unity and belonging for all members of society. It is possible, and I maintain most optimal, for society to promote its dominant culture (provided it is a healthy and beneficial one) and embrace those from different cultures, inviting them to share the healthy and beneficial aspects of their culture. In truth, it is not dissimilar to the principle of Pax Romana you referenced previously. The key is the adoption by immigrants and the rising generations of the culture and philosophy that makes Western society great, which may be summed up in a few ideals: Universal Individual Liberty, Personal Accountability,  Free-Market Capitalism (Mutually beneficial, voluntary trade), and adherence to the cardinal virtues of Kindness, Generosity, Honesty, Equity, Tolerance, and an Appreciation of others (especially those different from oneself).

 

"Tolerance and Apathy are the last virtues of a dying society"

-Aristotle

 

For there to be a Western/White civilization, there must be intolerance towards those who come from societies that do not share the same values. Whites are unique in that we are able to feel empathy and love for non-Whites and even non-humans. While useful in Europe, it was never exploited to the point of personal genocide. Likewise we must recognize that while we can work and trade with non-whites we can not breed with them, like a man with a wolf pet. And if we do not amalgamate, we do not assimilate, therefore annihilation either quickly or slowly becomes inevitable.

 

I was not raised by Whites, outside of my single-mom household. I was raised with a variety of cultures and none of them were tolerant for more than was necessary, nor did they "respect" the "differences". I was indirectly raised by these cultures and understood from a young age that only Whites are capable in aggregate of tolerance of diversity, and the more tolerant we Whites become the less of an identity and will be have, until we're cucked out of existence. 

 

Therefore the "Western cardinal value of tolerance and appreciation" are not reciprocated by non-White ethnicities, and often not even reciprocated by White ethnic groups with each other. We must abandon tolerance, and only appreciate from the perspective of the bird-watcher who studies the birds to understand their hunting techniques, and apply them to his own life. Something I learned the Japanese often practices centuries ago, studying birds to understand their hunting behaviors in order to replicate them personally. Yet, like the Japanese never bothered to interbreed with their bird pets, I am not interested in interbreeding and intermingling (in aggregate)  with the Japanese, although I would not mind visiting or even living in their glorious society. Just never becoming Japanese, or inviting 100 million of them to rape 100 million of my own kind. Respect for boundaries often leads to mutual respect. I had a lot of Asian friends growing up, and so long as I respected their racial boundaries they respected mine and a few even treated me as a brother. Boundaries are key, for few like to have their own people or culture cucked out by others. 

 

 

Any failings in Western society can be traced to a failure by large segments of society failing to embrace these ideals in one area or another. Highly damaging subcultures are working (in some cases quite deliberately in my opinion) to destroy Western Society by promoting ideals contrary to these, including a sense of Victimhood and Lack of Personal Accountability, A lack of Trustworthiness in others to exercise Individual Liberty, a destruction of Free-Market Capitalism, and a general hostility towards other members of society, especially increasingly so on the basis of Race.  I believe most of those responsible for these actions are doing so not because of a deep and abiding ideological belief in the messages they are promoting, but rather, nothing more than the pursuit of power and influence over others and the accumulation of wealth without creating or exchanging anything of value with others. Such destruction comes primarily from the Left; but there is also, to a lesser degree, a lack of Honesty, Equity, Tolerance, and Appreciation of others that is coming from the Right which only serves to exacerbate and justify the arguments from the Left.

 

Again, I would say this is all the result of "diversity". The solution, either Assimilation, Amalgamation, or Annihilation--should we wish to live together.  A better plan would be to partition the 50 states so that each ethnic group had its own independent state, and allied with those states they preferred. I'd rather partition Mexico and Canada for the non-Whites, but using America as the picture frame, diversity is only possible with segregation and ethnic independence.

 

Ideally, if I had the power to do so, I'd simply make Mexico the living place of Blacks and Hispanics, while conquering Canada for the East Asians. This way we would live with our superior East Asian brothers while putting all of our ethnic and cultural enemies in one place.

 

The basic reason being, aggregates determine the culture, not exceptions. Black geniuses barely affect black culture like White wiggers barely affect White culture (outside of diverse mostly non-White and cucked up neighborhoods at least). Therefore we must base our racial policies on aggregates, not exceptions. 

 

...Does this make sense? If not I'll go into greater detail or rephrase the less obvious or confusing bits.

 

 

EDIT: The parts that are black were red when I posted. Perhaps there is a bug.

[EclecticIdealist]

People like Bill Nye tell otherwise. I'm sure his analogue exist in terms of believing the sexes exist.

http://bigthink.com/think-tank/bill-nye-race-is-a-social-construct

 

Again, he's not wrong in anything he says. All biological classifications are "social constructs" based on actual genetic backgrounds. What race is President Obama? Tiger Woods? Megan Fox? What race will their children be? Race is a construct every bit as much as breeds are in dogs. Yes there are distinct traits which define or make one breed different from another and people certainly have preferences for the looks, and demeanor of certain breeds or mixes of breeds over others. Similarly, race is a social construct based on the grouping of specific physical qualities or characteristics which are largely present or absent and heritable via genetics among most of the members of such a group. While the classification is a construct, it is a useful one, for certain purposes, just as political philosophies and religious ideologies are constructs which are abstract concepts applied to large groups of lesser or individual concepts, concrete objects and the relationships between those objects and concepts.

 

That my children would be (a) repulsive, (b) prone to adopting “black” culture based on what they see in the mirror, and (c ) that they would be inherently non-white psychologically in the manner that Frank Raymond talks about in his interviews about the psychological differences between coloured and whites.

 

I see. So you are concerned that you would find your children physically repulsive, prone to adopting "black culture" despite anything you might offer of greater value or any criticism of the negative aspects of "black culture", and you're concerned that the child will be inherently "non-white psychologically" in manners which Frank Raymond attributes to genetics and biology rather than culture and tradition, despite the abundant evidence to the contrary that I could offer. Though you doubtless do not need any further encouragement, let me again encourage you never to consider marrying a black woman or raising (or even influencing in any substantial way) non-white children. I truly believe you might do more harm than good, even if your actions are wholly well intentioned.

 

I'm not so sure the races are virtually identical psychologically. The cultures they have created for themselves, while various and intermingling with each other, can be seen as expressions of an essence, rather than an external force creating an essence. Perhaps you haven't noticed any commonalities because you haven't been looking for them.

 

Actually, the evidence that I have seen (anecdotal though they may be) suggests to me that every piece of evidence and example he has offered can, not only most easily, but best be explained by environmental and cultural forces that are intergenerational in effect (i.e., the effects are felt and reinforced by parents upon their children, and upon their children, and so on until they are eventually diluted) not inherent genetic or biological forces. The allegation is that there is an inherent instinct to be creative that is prevalent among Whites and is inherently lacking among Blacks. Ironically, Mr. Raymond completely ignores the vast examples of creativity on the part of people of color, in particularly Blacks as contrasted with Whites when it comes to music and the arts, dance, and athletics -- areas which do not require advanced education or capital to develop.

 

If generationally, people have sufficient leisure time to indulge in creative activities which they have seen their parents and grandparents and peers engage in, they are more likely to adopt such activities (if they have any inclination to them) themselves. I have dozens of friends many of which have or have in the past owned their own homes with garages and spare time and have never taken up working on cars or carpentry, or any other number of hobbies of that nature. I likewise have known a number of Black men who have done precisely that, or who have taken to rehabbing their home and refurbishing their automobiles or those belonging to others for fun and occasionally for profit, not only or primarily for the purposes of earning more income. I find his claims to be almost entirely self-serving to his particular narrative and not representative of the reality I have experienced -- but again, my experience is merely anecdotal; then again, so is what he has said.

[EclecticIdealist]

 

1-: The belief that there are inherent psychological and behavioral differences of races, that may or may not result in long-term incompatibility.

 

Without getting into a point by point analysis, l will simply begin by stating that your 1st definition lacks warrant.

 

What is right about being racist; recognizing that under Definition 1, if the races are fundamentally different mentally and internally, it would mean that the aggregates of races simply cannot co-exist peacefully without the use of tyrannical force to subdue dissent.

 

That's a very large If without very large data to back it up.  (Yes I'm aware of the quite questionable studies that are used to suggest otherwise.)

 

By Definition 2, to be racist is to realize that by valuing our cultures, we are essentially saying we'd rather live by our own standards than by other standards, because we belief our culture is subjectively superior than the others'. For example: While the Danish racist might like Japanese culture, he considers Danish culture superior because he enjoys the ease in which he can conform to societal norms that had been etched into his very bone marrow over the course of millennia. Likewise the Japanese racist might like Danish culture, but feels more at ease and prefers his own culture for he does not have to subject himself to the long process of ethnic and cultural adaptation  and assimilation. 

 

Not an argument in defense of racism, but in defense of culture--something I do not disagree with (for the most part).

 

This also totally disregards the deviation to the mean, and the fact that mixed-race children are not even in the same racial net as other mixers of the same general pedigree (i.e. a half-white half-black is not of the same "racial net" as another half-white half-black). It also creates genetic disassociation from families to their multi-racial offspring, as literally any random White person would share more of my genes (assuming I'm the White mixer here) then my own biracial child.

 

Not really understanding your point here other than it tends to favor or support miscegenation.

 

Even when mixing high quality East Asians with Whites the disassociation and higher potency for sociopathy occurs. A great example, albeit an extreme one, being Stalin. 

 

Actually, sociopathy is higher among Caucasians than Asians, suggesting that miscegenation with Asians would be a net-win for Caucasians (albeit a net-loss for asians).  Suggesting Stalin's sociopathy was caused by miscegenation with Asians would be an example of cherry-picking at its worst.

 

If IQ100 Whites mix with  IQ75/85 Africans/American-Blacks, then the median of the newly formed "Grays" would be 85/93, and while that would be a genetic upgrade (as far as IQ) goes for the blacks, it is a degrade for the Whites and both races would be effectively exterminated through exogamy. Remember, for there to be full amalgamation it is not possible for only IQ100+ blacks to intermix, all blacks of any IQ range must mix with the Whites for their to be a full synthesis. Again, this would result in the local genocide of both components and the rise of a mongrel race functionally similar to South American Hispanics, who are themselves a large scale testimony to the failure of racial amalgamation.

 

The plausibility of this scenario borders on the ridiculous to be utterly laughable. Voluntary miscegenation tends to occur between individuals of relatively similar IQ at a similar rate as non-miscegenation rates which means that voluntary miscegenation is highly UNLIKELY to adversely affect or degrade the overall gene pool any more or less than non-miscegenation. Of course this means that under the assumption (which I maintain is incorrect and unwarranted) that the difference in IQ of Blacks as a whole is wholly or primarily genetic, that there will never be a full voluntary amalgamation without dozens of generations of miscegenation between relatively lower IQ Whites and their similarly intelligent Black counterparts. Considering that such individuals would instead be simply breeding with lower IQ whites, by elimination of their own offspring from the "White" gene-pool under the "one drop" premise, the overall average IQ of Whites should increase. So as a racial purist, if IQ is your concern, you should be advocating for miscegenation among your lower IQ brothers and sisters in order to remove their offspring from the White gene-pool, thus raising the average intelligence of Whites.

 

 

For there to be a Western/White civilization, there must be intolerance towards those who come from societies that do not share the same values. Whites are unique in that we are able to feel empathy and love for non-Whites and even non-humans. While useful in Europe, it was never exploited to the point of personal genocide. Likewise we must recognize that while we can work and trade with non-whites we can not breed with them, like a man with a wolf pet. And if we do not amalgamate, we do not assimilate, therefore annihilation either quickly or slowly becomes inevitable.

 

No, intolerance towards individuals coming from society that do not share Western values is not the solution. Intolerance for the refusal to adapt and adopt Western values is the solution. Furthermore, it is not "Whites" but "Western Civilization" and culture, most particularly American culture, and to a lesser degree, Western European culture, which tends to be open and accepting of people of other races and cultures.

 

I was not raised by Whites, outside of my single-mom household. I was raised with a variety of cultures and none of them were tolerant for more than was necessary, nor did they "respect" the "differences". I was indirectly raised by these cultures and understood from a young age that only Whites are capable in aggregate of tolerance of diversity, and the more tolerant we Whites become the less of an identity and will be have, until we're cucked out of existence. 

 

I challenge the accuracy or your learning. What you learned is the strength or rigidity of these other cultures in maintain and sustaining themselves, and the tendency for Western Culture towards adaptation which may be a cultural evolutionary strength, but at present appears to be a cultural evolutionary weakness.

 

Therefore the "Western cardinal value of tolerance and appreciation" are not reciprocated by non-White ethnicities, and often not even reciprocated by White ethnic groups with each other.

 

Tolerance and appreciation can only come from a position of stability and strength. Furthermore, one must not tolerate or accept that which is inherently destructive. The problem is, much of what conservatives view as destructive is not, and much of what liberals view as not destructive is--especially collectivist economic and political theories, and the belief in multiculturalism rather than cultural assimilation and amalgamation. 

 

We must abandon tolerance, and only appreciate from the perspective of the bird-watcher who studies the birds to understand their hunting techniques, and apply them to his own life. Something I learned the Japanese often practices centuries ago, studying birds to understand their hunting behaviors in order to replicate them personally. Yet, like the Japanese never bothered to interbreed with their bird pets, I am not interested in interbreeding and intermingling (in aggregate) with the Japanese, although I would not mind visiting or even living in their glorious society. Just never becoming Japanese, or inviting 100 million of them to rape 100 million of my own kind. Respect for boundaries often leads to mutual respect. I had a lot of Asian friends growing up, and so long as I respected their racial boundaries they respected mine and a few even treated me as a brother. Boundaries are key, for few like to have their own people or culture cucked out by others. 

 

You seem to have a very different notion of tolerance than I do. Tolerance does not mean the adoption of those characteristics or traits which are harmful to ourselves or in this case, Western Civilization and our culture. Tolerance is much closer to what you mean by appreciating from afar (or even near, by moving in and among and allowing the same). Respect is certainly a fundamental part of tolerance.

 

Again, I would say this is all the result of "diversity". The solution, either Assimilation, Amalgamation, or Annihilation--should we wish to live together.  A better plan would be to partition the 50 states so that each ethnic group had its own independent state, and allied with those states they preferred. I'd rather partition Mexico and Canada for the non-Whites, but using America as the picture frame, diversity is only possible with segregation and ethnic independence.

 

Again, I would consider this to be a very bad idea and the very kind of balkanization that leads to the eventual destruction and overthrow of Western Civilization and the culture you wish to protect. For the world as a whole to survive as the population grows and international travel, trade, and commerce likewise expands and grows, it is necessary for a strong libertarian, (probably anarcho-libertarian) culture that overrides and pervades all other cultures around the world to grow and thrive. The notion that allegedly lower intelligent human beings would be intellectually or morally incapable of adopting such a culture is not supported by the evidence. The greatest obstacle is the pervasiveness of belief systems which help to perpetuate the violence and exploitation; in particular authoritarianism and its ideological children: government and religion.

 

Ideally, if I had the power to do so, I'd simply make Mexico the living place of Blacks and Hispanics, while conquering Canada for the East Asians. This way we would live with our superior East Asian brothers while putting all of our ethnic and cultural enemies in one place.

 

Then I'm very glad you do not have the power to do so. I very much doubt the Canadians living there would appreciate your ideological ambitions and generosity towards the East Asians at their expense. Nor do I suspect would the Blacks forced to relocate to Mexico likely be welcomed with open arms by the Hispanics.

 

The basic reason being, aggregates determine the culture, not exceptions. Black geniuses barely affect black culture like White wiggers barely affect White culture (outside of diverse mostly non-White and cucked up neighborhoods at least). Therefore we must base our racial policies on aggregates, not exceptions. 

 

Aggregates do indeed determine the culture, which seems fortunate for those of us who would apparently have no place in any culture in your "idealized" racially pure world. At present, the aggregate disagrees with you. We shouldn't have "racial policies" at all. We can, and ought to have cultural policies which we abide by in an attempt to preserve the better parts of our culture and the wisdom to adopt and assimilate those aspects from other cultures that serve to make our culture stronger and more resilient; aspects like Tolerance and Acceptance of people, but not their attempts to impose their cultural practices, something which so many other cultures seem to have learned or retained which Western, particularly American and British culture seems to be suffering from in its absence.

[Donnadogsoth]

Again, he's not wrong in anything he says. All biological classifications are "social constructs" based on actual genetic backgrounds. What race is President Obama? Tiger Woods? Megan Fox? What race will their children be? Race is largely a construct every bit as much as breeds are in dogs. Yes there are distinct traits which make one breed different from another and people certainly have preferences for the looks, and demeanor of certain breeds or mixes of breeds over others. So yes, race is a social construct, but it is a useful one, just as political philosophies and religious ideologies are constructs which are abstract concepts applied to large groups of concretes objects.

 

 

They're mixed race.  Saying race is social is like saying a small pile of sand and a large pile of sand are small and large respectively is social.  Well, no, it's scientific.  Science has to classify in order to understand.  So it generates standards that say small is small and large is large and in between is in between.  With race, we see clear phenotypic differences between the three central Continents' indigenous races, viz, black, white, yellow.  There are gradations between just as there is a gradation between the sizes of the piles of sand.  That doesn't make classifying either sets unscientific.

 

Actually, the evidence that I have seen (anecdotal though they may be) suggests to me that every piece of evidence and example he has offered can, not only most easily, but best be explained by environmental and cultural forces that are inter-generational in effect (i.e., the effects are felt and reinforced by parents upon their children, and upon their children, and so on until they are sufficiently dilluted) not inherent genetic or biological forces. The allegation is that there is an inherent instinct to be creative that is prevalent among Whites that is inherently lacking among Blacks. Ironically, he completely ignores the vast examples of creativity on the part of people of color, in particularly Blacks as contrasted by Whites when it comes to music and the arts, dance, and athletics -- areas which do not require advanced education or capital to develop. If generationally, people have sufficient leisure time to indulge in creative activities which they have seen their parents and grandparents and peers engage in, they are likely to adopt such activities (if they have any inclination to them) themselves.  I have dozens of friends many of which have or have in the past owned their own homes with garages and spare time and have never taken up working on cars or carpentry, or any other number of hobbies of that nature. I likewise have known a number of Black men who have done precisely that, or who have taken to rehabbing their home or others for fun and profit. I find his claims to be almost entirely self-serving his particular narrative and not representative of the reality I have experienced -- but again, my experience is merely anecdotal; then again, so is what he has said.

 

Even if the differences between whites and coloured are purely cultural, of which I'm not convinced, this doesn't change his thesis that white culture per se is being displaced and destroyed by alien racial immigration, the cultures of which persist.  In the case of black culture, we see this particularly perniciously as they have nursed a culture of grievance and in many cases barbarism and violence.  Also, of course, the white genotype--a form of material culture from Europe--is also disappearing, so in that regard coloured immigration will inevitably destroy white culture.

[Tyler H]

Racism;

 

1-: The belief that there are inherent psychological and behavioral differences of races, that may or may not result in long-term incompatibility.

 

I've never heard this definition before this conversation.  Also, if it "may or may not", is it necessary to include in the definition?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

I've never heard this definition before this conversation.  Also, if it "may or may not", is it necessary to include in the definition?

 

Maybe not. But I included that as in my age group people who advocate that there are no races or that there is only 1 tend to like debunking bio-diversity.

 

But like I said before, I'm guessing the first definition of racism is either unique to my generation, or simply my interpreting racism means as those who call "racist" tend to believe (if they're in my age group and locale) that there is only 1 human race, or there are fundamentally no differences between the races. 

[EclecticIdealist]

I'm guessing the first definition of racism is either unique to my generation, or simply my interpreting racism means as those who call "racist" tend to believe (if they're in my age group and locale) that there is only 1 human race, or there are fundamentally no differences between the races. 

I would imagine that really depends largely on what one considers to be a FUNDAMENTAL difference, as well as the belief as to whether such differences are determined by race or genetics rather than culture and environment. The differences between the sexes, from a genetic standpoint, are far greater than the differences between the races. With as different as men and women are, if the sexes can learn to live peacefully with one another, surely the different races of mankind can learn to do so as well. I maintain it's largely a matter of education and culture, neither or which are dictated by race.

[Tyler H]

For reference, this New York Times article is something I would consider racist.

[AccuTron]

"I believe that, with few exceptions and every other quality being equal, I would likely regret for the same aesthetic reasons relating to appearance choosing to marry a woman of primarily Caucasian ancestry"

 

EI, I am temporarily baffled; your pic is a white guy.  Do I understand you to say that you are repulsed by (all?) caucasian women?  

[EclecticIdealist]

"I believe that, with few exceptions and every other quality being equal, I would likely regret for the same aesthetic reasons relating to appearance choosing to marry a woman of primarily Caucasian ancestry"

 

EI, I am temporarily baffled; your pic is a white guy.  Do I understand you to say that you are repulsed by (all?) caucasian women?  

No, I am not repulsed by all or even most caucasian women. I am nevertheless much more sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex who share physical traits common to most asian, and many black, and mongolian phenotypes and hardly attracted at all (except in a general "they're women" way) to most caucasian women. To be clear, there are some caucasian women whom I am also attracted to; however, these are generally the exception rather than the rule and typically share many of those same qualities often more commonly found among these other groups (they may even be nominally mixed, as such women tend to be of Eastern European origin and may have some Mongolian genes adding to their dominant caucasian phenotype). I believe I am among a small group of people that tend to be found among all racial groups that are genetically inclined towards that which is different, rather than that which is similar. From as early as I can remember, I have been more attracted to women of different racial background from myself; in fact, the more different from myself they are (to a point, while still possessing the aspects of proportion and symmetry which are commonly agreed upon as markers of physical beauty) the more attractive I tend to find them.

[AccuTron]

No, I am not repulsed by all or even most caucasian women. I am nevertheless much more sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex who share physical traits common to most asian, and many black, and mongolian phenotypes and hardly attracted at all (except in a general "they're women" way) to most caucasian women. ...

 

 

Hmmm...now that you mention it...I get it.  I'll have to ponder that.  I suspect a bit (certainly in myself) of visual idealism, a term I just made up, related to wishful thinking.  But it would be a shallow mistake to stop my thinking there.

[Brainwright]

Racism is an ideology. We are not born with an ideology.

 

Prejudice is another matter. We all collect facts from both reality and from our fellow human beings. Our particular perspective can lead us to collect facts that lead to conclusions that don't work on a large scale.

 

So a cop is likely to have a bad opinion of criminals. It's not because he's criminalist, it's because he sees criminals on some of their worst days.

 

So prejudice is not a bad thing, it's just reality. Our only way to move forward in life is to collect all our facts and make new judgements.

 

This whole concept of unconscious racism is utter nonsense.

[rosencrantz]

There is an in group preference to be found among babies who cannot have been influenced either way. In the light of group selection it makes sense to prefer people who look like you over others.

[EclecticIdealist]

Prejudice is another matter. We all collect facts from both reality and from our fellow human beings. Our particular perspective can lead us to collect facts that lead to conclusions that don't work on a large scale.

We are not born with prejudice; it must be learned. Prejudice is learned through indoctrination and reinforced by confirmation bias experiences. Prejudice is more than mere bias, it is bias toward individuals or groups perceived to be members of a larger group and therefore possessing the stereotypical qualities of members of that group before actually confirming that such individuals possess the stereotypical qualities of members of the group or even whether the stereotypes associated with such a group are valid.

 

So prejudice is not a bad thing, it's just reality. Our only way to move forward in life is to collect all our facts and make new judgements.

Prejudice is not always a bad thing. It can serve to help one avoid dangerous people and situations. However, it can also be a bad thing as it can serve to cause innocent people to be condemned for actions they have not committed, or cause one to trust people who ought not be trusted (e.g., trusting someone simply because they are a member of one's religion or religious congregation).

This whole concept of unconscious racism is utter nonsense.

The idea that "the whole concept of unconscious racism is utter nonsense" reflects either a lack of education about the conscious and unconscious (more accurately termed subconscious racism), or it reflects a bias against the terminology being used. 

 

There is an in group preference to be found among babies who cannot have been influenced either way. In the light of group selection it makes sense to prefer people who look like you over others.

Baby's in-group preference is defined by their care-givers. If their caregivers are exclusively of a different race than themselves, they may exhibit a bias against someone who is of their race. If their caregivers are exclusively of their own race, they will exhibit a bias against someone who is not of their race. If their care-givers are of various different races, they will not have a preference for or against a particular race. To suggest that the babies cannot have been influenced either way is to ignore the mechanisms which define for the baby who is or is not a member of their "in-group". 

[rosencrantz]

If their caregivers are exclusively of a different race than themselves, they may exhibit a bias against someone who is of their race. 

 

Do you have a study for that?

[Brazilda]

[EclecticIdealist]

Do you have a study for that?

This is a conclusion drawn from studies I've read about how babies identify who is family and their in-group from personal experience, cues from primary care-givers, etc. I am not aware of any specific studies, only anecdotal experiences as well as my own observations of my extended family and their young children.

[Brainwright]

Baby's in-group preference is defined by their care-givers. If their caregivers are exclusively of a different race than themselves, they may exhibit a bias against someone who is of their race. If their caregivers are exclusively of their own race, they will exhibit a bias against someone who is not of their race. If their care-givers are of various different races, they will not have a preference for or against a particular race. To suggest that the babies cannot have been influenced either way is to ignore the mechanisms which define for the baby who is or is not a member of their "in-group".

I'm not a big fan of in-group preference as a 100% good thing in general. I have to dig in some time and go through the research to see if anti-social victimization has an in-group preference, too. In that way, we might be able to advance the notion that the in-group preference is a purely cognitive function, that it can be explained as simply as people act on those that are most familiar to them.

 

Not saying you've been a supporter of this sort of thinking, but the idea we should encourage in-group preferences is a bit irritating given the average individual builds their preferences on a wide range of factors and not necessarily obvious, predictable ones. Any encouragement of in-group bias will likely not produce any discernible results, as the modern race-baiting has been accompanied by a destruction of the old culture, a rigid ideological system distributed through state education, and then they encourage in-group preferences among those who have been sorted out by this policy of victimization.

 

ps. When I say prejudice, I mean it in the legal sense, not the SJW curse-word sense. Prejudice is a matter of prior judgement, and it is only a problem when, in a thorough collection of facts, the prior judgements skew things in a negative direction and corrections must be made. The in-group preference is more of a meager life-line thrown to a man drowning in a sea of bad ideas.

[EclecticIdealist]

I'm not a big fan of in-group preference as a 100% good thing in general. I have to dig in some time and go through the research to see if anti-social victimization has an in-group preference, too. In that way, we might be able to advance the notion that the in-group preference is a purely cognitive function, that it can be explained as simply as people act on those that are most familiar to them.

The studies I've read appear to indicate that in-group preferencing is a natural, likely evolutionary survival trait. It appears to be tied to our ability of discerning which humans are likely to feed and care for us and which which are likely to harm us. For the most part, humans seem to select on a hierarchy of  "who nurturers me or is like my nurturers", "who is like me (likes what I like, does what I do), "who treats members of my in-group fairly"/"who harms members of rivals to my in-group".

 

Any encouragement of in-group bias will likely not produce any discernible results, as the modern race-baiting has been accompanied by a destruction of the old culture, a rigid ideological system distributed through state education, and then they encourage in-group preferences among those who have been sorted out by this policy of victimization.

I'm don't quite understand what you meant by what you wrote above.

ps. When I say prejudice, I mean it in the legal sense, not the SJW curse-word sense. Prejudice is a matter of prior judgement, and it is only a problem when, in a thorough collection of facts, the prior judgements skew things in a negative direction and corrections must be made. The in-group preference is more of a meager life-line thrown to a man drowning in a sea of bad ideas.

Citing In-group preferences outside of sociological and psychological studies seem to be little more than the in-vogue way for people to justify being biased or prejudiced against others, sometimes in a very mean, or even vicious, and typically dehumanizing way, without doing so in an obviously anti-social or un-PC manner (e.g. racist, sexist, anti-semitic, nationalistic, etc.).