Magnetic Synthesizer Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 Why I think I am doing this: I'm not sure what the optimal behavior is in regards to the marxist left and to a lesser extent, actual racists (??? meaning) and the alternatives are rather polarized, where one or more are likely to stand clearly detrimental in comparison to the rest. For example, should I hold the position that I am a racist, and others are wrong for being one or the other? Depends what kind of racist. Disclosure of preliminary position: I believe there are aggregate differences between races. Where the degree to which some traits are present, and the distribution of that presence, is different between, for example, japanese, caucasians, non-caucasian whites, blacks, etc This will likely be true in absolute terms if you select any criteria to categorize people into two or more populations and then prevalence of any trait. Though you will at-least sometimes not be able to overcome methodological uncertainty or reach practical relevance. Does this belief make me racist? Because if it does. Then it would be absurd to deny it if it is indeed the correct position. It would just be a ridiculous opening for abuse as the calling of non-racists racists (same with sexist, etc) causing a defensive reaction. '' ;You're a peaceful person.' 'No I'm not I swear! Please stop calling me that! Here's a bullet in your face!' '' / a little humour. ''RACIST'' current google definition: a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another. Second part makes me a racist. Here's why. I will refer to the ideal of ''lowest prevalence of Non-Aggression across time'' Given my (excluding obscure exceptions) ideals, some individuals are more conducive to my ideals (meaning they lead reality towards my ideals) than others. They are superior. It is highly unlikely for the sum of two genetic groups of humans to be equally superior in regard to this ideal. In my view, a more complete case would involve methodological individualism explaining how these differences promote or undermine NAP violations on a mass scale. A huge task I do not expect anyone to accomplish with absolute precision. Though I think anyone disagreeing is intellectually dishonest. ''RACISM'' ''the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. noun: racism'' Here, in my understanding, I am not a racist (if defined as belief in racism) because I do not believe in characteristics or abilities specific to that race. Maybe some genes are unique, but frankly I don't care. I think ''characteristics'' in this context, refers to a more prominent difference. Furthermore this definition of racism, does not talk about statistical prevalence, rather the absolute (assuming no race mixing) existence and non existence of a trait, respectively in each race. An example of a difference not ''prominent'' in the intent of the definition: Two races have statistically equal intelligence, but each has a different configuration of genes, that achieve the same thing. Maybe one gene configuration is more resilient to DNA damage, lets assume that's not the case. I don't think believing in any such finding makes someone a racist, or does it? Verdict: I think we should group 'racists' of the type that discriminate based on prejudice of other's behavior that has a real statistical reality and merit to it with 'non-racists'. In other words, we shouldn't group everyone who is not race blind together into ''racists''. For example, we shouldn't call people who acknowledge facts presented in this presentation as racists: The Truth About America's Survival _ Demographics and the 2016 Election (found on youtube.com) We should only group people who discriminate against other races regardless of those race's behavior. So: Race Denier: SJWs Race Realist: haven't thought a lot about this one. Racists: discriminate against other races regardless of those race's behavior. Debate: Should we have more words, different definitions, who do we call who and how do we respond to us or others being called racist? In case you wanted to know about the author: As of now, I may be mostly race blind in my daily dealings, but when it comes to policy decisions on a mass scale, such as state policies, I will take race into consideration. Though I am starting to accumulate experience and would rather predict that I will discriminate more rather than less in the future in subtle ways (in fact, even though I am unable to point to past discrimination, I expect to already discriminate subliminally/subconsciously)
Donnadogsoth Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 According to modern Left-wing and allied usages, "Racist" =a white person "Racism"=anything a white person thinks, says, or does Both words are intended to cause white people to disappear, whether from the conversation or the planet.
Rventurelli Posted February 15, 2017 Posted February 15, 2017 In my definition, racism is when someone wants to rule over other races, not seeing them as people.
Gloria Posted February 25, 2017 Posted February 25, 2017 I think I was shy about this post last weekend. It is very sensitive to me. I would like to introduce a consideration. Any treatment of an individual that reflects any preconceived opinion based on anything other than previous experience with said individual is prejudice, and if it's specific to the person's race it's racist. Let's call this micro racism. The problem I think we are having now is upon reflection of a group's (when a certain demographic is in the majority) behavior, especially when that reflection takes on a negative tone or is critical; while although based on observations of systemic behaviors or outcomes, some still try to say this is racist. i.e., public schools in the inner city are failing. some would say that is a racist statement. It may in fact be true, and it may in fact be an analysis of a population that is homogeneous. Any true analysis, based on facts, is not racist. Does this sound correct?
Donnadogsoth Posted February 26, 2017 Posted February 26, 2017 I think I was shy about this post last weekend. It is very sensitive to me. I would like to introduce a consideration. Any treatment of an individual that reflects any preconceived opinion based on anything other than previous experience with said individual is prejudice, and if it's specific to the person's race it's racist. Let's call this micro racism. The problem I think we are having now is upon reflection of a group's (when a certain demographic is in the majority) behavior, especially when that reflection takes on a negative tone or is critical; while although based on observations of systemic behaviors or outcomes, some still try to say this is racist. i.e., public schools in the inner city are failing. some would say that is a racist statement. It may in fact be true, and it may in fact be an analysis of a population that is homogeneous. Any true analysis, based on facts, is not racist. Does this sound correct? Oh, but it is racist to speak facts that are politically incorrect. Remember the Left is playing a Machiavellian game with these words, using them to push, prod, and goad whites into the concentration camps. Objectivity and rationality left the building a long time ago when it comes to Left hot-button issues like racism and sexism &c.
Gloria Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 Oh, but it is racist to speak facts that are politically incorrect. Remember the Left is playing a Machiavellian game with these words, using them to push, prod, and goad whites into the concentration camps. Objectivity and rationality left the building a long time ago when it comes to Left hot-button issues like racism and sexism &c. I will further ponder your position. My deeper concern at the moment is if we truly have the freedom to discuss this topic while allowing for change of heart and moreover the confidentiality one needs to openly discuss such subjects so as to mediate in good faith without fear of some future retaliation. My fear is not of you, clearly you have based your position of some reflection, but I am new to this forum and as of now not knowing and secure in the agenda of all participants, etc. Here ya go: Thanks for sharing! I watched the entire view and will contemplate these thoughts :-)
Gloria Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 Here ya go: Thanks! I watched the entire video and will ponder this further ...hope this doesn't post twice! LOL Great video!!!
Donnadogsoth Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 I will further ponder your position. My deeper concern at the moment is if we truly have the freedom to discuss this topic while allowing for change of heart and moreover the confidentiality one needs to openly discuss such subjects so as to mediate in good faith without fear of some future retaliation. My fear is not of you, clearly you have based your position of some reflection, but I am new to this forum and as of now not knowing and secure in the agenda of all participants, etc. The best ground for discussing these matters is that of principle. Suggestion: what is the principle of "conservation" that Western society should deploy in order to save it from the unfettered principle of "egalitarianism"?
Recommended Posts