Are you a racist?

[Urwrongx1000]

You're walking down a sidewalk in London with your 6 year old child a few feet away from you on your left. You're visiting and touring, on vacation. There's another child walking with his or her parent on your right, also a few feet away. Then, out of nowhere, a truck comes barreling down the sidewalk, headed straight for you. On reflex, you can dive to save one of the children. Your own child, to the left, pushing him or her out of the way. Or you can save the stranger's child to the right.

Which will you choose? Left, your own child? Or right, the stranger's child?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot to add one little detail. Your own child, biologically, is your same race. The stranger's child, is a different race.

So, are you a racist, or aren't you?

[phyllo]

What does that have to do with racism? You made one child a member of your family.

If you had said that you are equidistant from two children, neither is related to you, but one is your race and the other is a different race, then it may be about racism ...

[Urwrongx1000]

Sooo, you chose left and you're guilty??

[URUZ]

We all have in group preference, especially for family. That isn't racism. Racism is when you value yourself and others primarily in terms of race, and see the world through that lens. It's categorically different than value-preference for your own family or for people more alike to yourself than not alike.

The left will never eradicate in group preference like they want to, simply because it's hard wired into our biology, and because it's rational to prioritize people closer to you in terms of value, although it's irrational to allow that prioritization to become the sole factor in how you value others.

[Urwrongx1000]

We all have in group preference, especially for family. That isn't racism.

You're wrong. Racism is in-group preference.

[URUZ]

No, it isn't the same thing, as I already explained.

Racism is pure tribalism as ideology. In group preference is entirely different. But I can see how you could confuse the two, since both involve making "selections".

[AutSider]

People discriminate based on blood, we prefer those sharing our own blood, stronger preferences to weaker preferences:

family -> immediate tribe (neighborhood/village/city) -> nation -> race -> species

Only within the family there is very little serious infighting in general. Any serious bruising is discouraged, at most playfighting or a slap for physical discipline.

Within the tribe there will already be some conflict. Within a nation there will be differences between people in different regions, which can be cause for some minor conflict too.
An example of this is football fans of different cities/regions. Serious bruising happens but murder is discouraged.

Between nations is where conflict really begins. At this point murder is just what happens in war. In absence of national conflict, people will revert to the above tribal conflict.
You can't tell a Serb or Croat apart by looking at them the way you can with race, but due to warring for centuries they've almost become sort of blood enemies, which is stupid in the global context, but it is what it is.

The conflict between races is even stronger. Other races tend to come from extremely different geographical areas and have extremely different blood, behavioral tendencies, appearance, way of life, etc.
I would say the racial conflict is the strongest type of conflict for humans. In absence of racial conflict, people will tend towards nation-based conflict.

Species conflict is not really relevant as humans can typically easily dominate other species, and even adopt some as harmless pets. If some alien species arrived which posed a serious threat to all humans, that is the only thing that might unify all human races, at least for a short while. In absence of that, racial conflict will be most important.

[Only_Humean]

We all have in group preference, especially for family. That isn't racism.

You're wrong. Racism is in-group preference.

That doesn't mean that in-group preference is racism.

[Urwrongx1000]

Looks like everybody is choosing their own child, lots of racists here...

[phyllo]

Troll account?

Sock puppet?

[James S Saint]

Looks like everybody is choosing their own child, lots of racists here...

Drones don't learn very fast. They can't see past their programming. And tend to get indignant toward any who challenges them - self-righteous.

Racism is about making decisions based upon race instead of some other more relevant issue. Of course in the current purely programmed society, racism is choosing anything other than blacks and feminism is choosing anything other than women regardless of any other issue .. aka "racism" and "feminism".

It's just a manipulative mind game so as to allow one particular race to conquer the entire Earth for themselves.

[Urwrongx1000]

It seems that a huge majority of humanity is "racist". The main problem is not racism, but political correctness. Liberals and Lefties are duplicitous and conniving, espousing how "evil", mean, cruel, and unfair racism is, while practicing it themselves. I'm not certain if Liberal-Left are aware of what they're doing, or unaware. Most of them seem unaware. Thus, they are lying to themselves. Perhaps they are repeating anti-racist mantra they learn in public schools, television, public programming, mass media, pop songs, pop culture, and movies. However, they say one thing, but do another, which is to practice "racism" (in-group preference) while denouncing it.

It's a clever trick. Conservative-Rights are more about "open racism", saying things and commenting in ways that the liberal-left deems atrocious. However, both sides are "racist" but in different ways. It's more about honesty versus dishonesty.

Unfortunately for the Liberal-Left, you cannot force people to congregate and fit together. Segregation is a natural tendency. Forcing boys and girls, blacks and whites, into public school classrooms, has only denigrated and handicapped the u.s. education system over the past 70 years.

If you force "all races" together, into a box, people will still immediately seek out their own kind first and foremost. Instincts.

[James S Saint]

If you force "all races" together, into a box, people will still immediately seek out their own kind first and foremost. Instincts.

The "trick" is in being programmed into thinking that such is bad. By such programming, one forgets to look at the real issues at hand having nothing to do with "in-group" mentality.

The originating idea for the programming involves averages. If the average person is family biased and we trick a great many into being anti-family, the average will work out to be "no racism". And that is true.

But do you see the actual trick in that?

What is wrong with the average being non-racist?

[Urwrongx1000]

Looks like everybody is choosing their own child, lots of racists here...

Drones don't learn very fast. They can't see past their programming. And tend to get indignant toward any who challenges them - self-righteous.

Racism is about making decisions based upon race instead of some other more relevant issue. Of course in the current purely programmed society, racism is choosing anything other than blacks and feminism is choosing anything other than women regardless of any other issue .. aka "racism" and "feminism".

It's just a manipulative mind game so as to allow one particular race to conquer the entire Earth for themselves.

Difficult to argue against...

It always seemed counter-intuitive to me that people would accept "racism" and "feminism" as ideologies, claiming to be victims, does that then mean that black people can be "racist" against whites or other races, or that women can be "sexist" against men? However I don't want to pretend that these ideologies are legitimate anyway. Perhaps some black people were victimized, as slaves, but how many out of all black-Africans? And women too, how many, of all women, have been victimized and brutalized by men, and for what reasons? So one man beats his wife, and therefore, all men are bad and evil?

The modern incarnations of racist and feminist ideologies are lackluster and unimpressive. How long, how many decades, centuries, ought a person or group remain victims?

Isn't being a victim an admission of being a weakling? When do these groups or individuals, begin to take responsibility for themselves? Never?

[Jakob]

You're walking down a sidewalk in London with your 6 year old child a few feet away from you on your left. You're visiting and touring, on vacation. There's another child walking with his or her parent on your right, also a few feet away. Then, out of nowhere, a truck comes barreling down the sidewalk, headed straight for you. On reflex, you can dive to save one of the children. Your own child, to the left, pushing him or her out of the way. Or you can save the stranger's child to the right.

Which will you choose? Left, your own child? Or right, the stranger's child?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot to add one little detail. Your own child, biologically, is your same race. The stranger's child, is a different race.

So, are you a racist, or aren't you?

Im not a racist, and you are. We dont need your retarded story to get that.

You dont have to get all pathetic to justify your racism. Just be a racist, its totally cool. Transgender, anorexic, racist, all cool bro. Wear it with pride. Confront those saps in public. Have balls, grow hair on them, etc.

[James S Saint]

When do these groups or individuals, begin to take responsibility for themselves?

Never

[Urwrongx1000]

Im not a racist, and you are. We dont need your retarded story to get that.

You dont have to get all pathetic to justify your racism. Just be a racist, its totally cool. Transgender, anorexic, racist, all cool bro. Wear it with pride. Confront those saps in public. Have balls, grow hair on them, etc.

You're childless?

And if you had a child, you are willing to sacrifice him/her? An impressive suggestion, albeit unrealistic. I doubt you would be willing to sacrifice your own child for your ideals. However, perhaps you are a true crusader. However the rare occurrences of "social justice", unfortunately, do not validate or prove what you wish it did.

[URUZ]

Caring for your own child over other children is a way nature figured out how to tighten the link within particular genetic lineages thus giving them more chances to survive. This ups the competition between lineages, which is what nature "wants".

Race is a derivative genetic construct, and as such is subservient to the individual familial genetic lineage. Different lineages cluster into tribal groups, this is still the case even in our modern world (a recent study in the U.K. showed how even today English people still live more or less amongst their own genetic "tribes"). But the problem with racism is that "race" isn't the coherent construct racists think it is. Many different tribal lineages exist within a given race, and within those tribal lineages are many different individual familial lineages. And of course each familial and tribal lineage criss-crosses with others, just as different racial genetics also mix.

Culture and society do not reduce to race. Race is a derivative, secondary construct that maps only partly upon cultural-societal groups, and is also secondary to the naturally selective imperative at work at the individual-familial level. Race is far too abstract and imprecise to really mean anything at all.

Racists are thus irrationally putting a vague and imprecise, derivative construct over other more significant and real things, namely the culture-society and the individual-family. To be racist means to not understand what culture, society, individual and family all mean.

[Only_Humean]

OP, you're currently in violation of forum rule 2.2:
2.2 Arguments should be made in good faith: no trolling. If a moderator sees a poster presenting an argument and dismissing any counterpoints without engaging them, or suspects someone of presenting arguments purely for the sake of inflaming debate or annoying other posters, a warning may be issued.

[James S Saint]

OP, you're currently in violation of forum rule 2.2:
2.2 Arguments should be made in good faith: no trolling. If a moderator sees a poster presenting an argument and dismissing any counterpoints without engaging them, or suspects someone of presenting arguments purely for the sake of inflaming debate or annoying other posters, a warning may be issued.

For whatever it's worth, my compliments.

[Urwrongx1000]

The "dishonest" ones are the ones preaching to others to "not be racist", while themselves, are with impunity.

[Urwrongx1000]

Caring for your own child over other children is a way nature figured out how to tighten the link within particular genetic lineages thus giving them more chances to survive. This ups the competition between lineages, which is what nature "wants".

Race is a derivative genetic construct, and as such is subservient to the individual familial genetic lineage. Different lineages cluster into tribal groups, this is still the case even in our modern world (a recent study in the U.K. showed how even today English people still live more or less amongst their own genetic "tribes"). But the problem with racism is that "race" isn't the coherent construct racists think it is. Many different tribal lineages exist within a given race, and within those tribal lineages are many different individual familial lineages. And of course each familial and tribal lineage criss-crosses with others, just as different racial genetics also mix.

Culture and society do not reduce to race. Race is a derivative, secondary construct that maps only partly upon cultural-societal groups, and is also secondary to the naturally selective imperative at work at the individual-familial level. Race is far too abstract and imprecise to really mean anything at all.

Racists are thus irrationally putting a vague and imprecise, derivative construct over other more significant and real things, namely the culture-society and the individual-family. To be racist means to not understand what culture, society, individual and family all mean.

Are you suggesting that members of the same family, blood kin, are not of the same race?

[URUZ]

Caring for your own child over other children is a way nature figured out how to tighten the link within particular genetic lineages thus giving them more chances to survive. This ups the competition between lineages, which is what nature "wants".

Race is a derivative genetic construct, and as such is subservient to the individual familial genetic lineage. Different lineages cluster into tribal groups, this is still the case even in our modern world (a recent study in the U.K. showed how even today English people still live more or less amongst their own genetic "tribes"). But the problem with racism is that "race" isn't the coherent construct racists think it is. Many different tribal lineages exist within a given race, and within those tribal lineages are many different individual familial lineages. And of course each familial and tribal lineage criss-crosses with others, just as different racial genetics also mix.

Culture and society do not reduce to race. Race is a derivative, secondary construct that maps only partly upon cultural-societal groups, and is also secondary to the naturally selective imperative at work at the individual-familial level. Race is far too abstract and imprecise to really mean anything at all.

Racists are thus irrationally putting a vague and imprecise, derivative construct over other more significant and real things, namely the culture-society and the individual-family. To be racist means to not understand what culture, society, individual and family all mean.

Are you suggesting that members of the same family, blood kin, are not of the same race?

Are you suggesting that members of the same family, blood kin, are not of the same species?

How dare you be speciesist! Lol.

Your kid happens to have the same color hair as you.... I'm sure that is why you would save your kid, because you really really really care about the hair color being the same? C'mon, man.

You're committing a logical error. The reason why we prefer our own children to other children is not because our own children are our own race. In fact, the other child could also be our own race, but we would still prefer our own child. Here is a problem for you: you have a child with someone of a different race than you, and now your child is mixed race; you are in a situation where your child and another child are in danger, and the other child happens to be the exact same race as you. What do you do?

You save your own child first, of course.

Racism is a fucking disease of humanity, the cure is having a fucking brain. I wish you well in your treatment course.

[Urwrongx1000]

Race mixing and miscegenation is a recent, new world phenomenon, that requires excessive ideological crusading to convince people to do.

Historically, the races did not mix, and do not. The costs are too high, and rewards too low. Mixed race children and people are instinctively identified as outsiders of the main world races. Shunned too, in many cases.

You can't use a rarity, an exception, as the rule.

And yes, to prefer your own child, is to prefer your own race and specie.

[URUZ]

Race mixing and miscegenation is a recent, new world phenomenon, that requires excessive ideological crusading to convince people to do.

Historically, the races did not mix, and do not. The costs are too high, and rewards too low. Mixed race children and people are instinctively identified as outsiders of the main world races. Shunned too, in many cases.

You can't use a rarity, an exception, as the rule.

And yes, to prefer your own child, is to prefer your own race and specie.

You just ignored my entire point. Ok then.

Carry on.