patrick.net

What makes racism wrong? Philosophical question.

marcus says

Patrick says

The analogy between human races and breeds of dog is in fact quite accurate. It's even an understatement of the reality.

The different breeds of dogs definitely have different physical and mental characteristics. No one would seriously deny this.

Yet to call attention to the fact that humans also come in different breeds is met with outrage and denial.

Dog breeds have been separate for less than 50,000 years. But the differences are considerable.

Human races have been separate for 100,000 years at least, but we are supposed to pretend that the differences do not exist.

Forgetting about arguing this for now (although you're wrong), what I would like to know is this.

So you don't think that this assertion on it's own is not racist ?

How do you define racism ?

If you're goal is to help people, cultural vs genetic is core to the discussion.

Todays PC cult of diversity would NEVER allow scientific, helpful research on such a topic and you know it.

The big problem, is that the left today ALSO wants every to accept that differences of outcomes in life are signs of racism from white people. This is itself racist as fuck, but the left seems cool with it.

Studies which identify the racial and cultural differences in aptitude would be called tools of white supremacy or something equally as cartoonish.

Therefore memes like Patrick's are important to remind people that the PC cult of diversity is tyrannical, wrong, and standing in the way of societal progress.

You are talking about supremacy of “one better than other”. I’m not talking about that. I see that every time economy downturns people get into groups of like looking. Blacks only hang with blacks, Mexican with Mexican, etc... basic racism is survival instinct. And all the inclusivity and presence that everyone is sane is unnatural. You still haven’t answered what makes racism morally wrong.

marcus says

:
Another thing you might want to realize is that accepting race as a mostly a social and cultural construct, but that differences in intelligence , character, ethics, empathy and many other attributes vary within each race FAR FAR more than they might between races on avg, if they even do, is good for white people as they become a minority.

Perpetuating the idea that some races are better than others is not in anyone's best interest. The reasons for this should be obvious, even if you can not imagine yourself as a member of the oppressed group.

Meritocracy should be supported independent of race so that they are not ever conflated as being interdependent.

Fortwaynemobile says

What makes racism wrong? Philosophical question.

marcus says

What if differences in outcome are partially the result of racism ? That's not racist to believe that. Racial oppression is natural - we know that.

Its racist if you think the world power system is a vast male white supremacist conspiracy. This is repackaged anti-semitism. Replace Jewry w straight white males and you wouldnt know the difference.

I've only ever witnessed race being an asset to the underachieving races. You are free to believe whatever you want, but I doubt you will find real world evidence to suggest racism, especially white racism against blacks. It's not a thing here

marcus says

Better for us all to take race out of it. This is why I said this:

marcus says

Meritocracy should be supported independent of race so that they are not conflated as being interdependent.

This is exactly what every trump supporter wants. The mainstream left would label you a nazi for suggesting to "take race out of it"

The left could never leave race out of it. All of their identity politics would instantly cease to exist.

Who would they blame if they couldn't blame white people?

They tried this a long time ago. Certain problems were blamed on a lack of equality, and there were genuine, large equality shortcomings back then. Large improvements to equality were made, and certain things improved, yet other things stubbornly didn't. This is when they realized they needed to abruptly change course before they had no more excuses remaining, and so they started the grand lie which blames all of societies ills on white people and their "raycism", ensuring that they had a durable scapegoat to blame all future failures and shortcomings on.

marcus says

that's an oversimplification

Yes, but a high-fidelity one.

Endless iterations of "X is holding them back! . No, um, shit ... actually Y is actually holding them backl!!!"

I'm glad to see society trying to bring all of it's parts up together, but it should be done legitimately. Extravagant lies that appeal to people's racism, by stoking contempt and jealousy of white success is sure as hell a good way to make white people resentful, while misleading others away from their true problems. Knowing the truth gives you a chance to improve, while being told a lie stifles your efforts.

"lets fight racism by making people racist towards white people!!"

I think native Americans are kinda off topic. And you didn't explicitly say it, but my magic crystal ball tells me that you brought it up so that you could attempt to make white people look bad via more anti-white racial line drawing. I think that's pretty lame. I don't share you implied "racist reality". Relations between such extremely different cultures are fragile, and escalate quickly like a fire in a pile of leaves. The back and forth escalation on the frontier was determined by the actions of few people on each side, and misunderstandings of a lot of ppl on each side, which makes each group distrust the other side. Word spread after each conflict to distant people on each side, who then get 10th-hand info filled with embellishments and inaccuracies, making both sides do the exact same thing - hate the other side. Now, all future interactions between those groups are loaded with gunpowder, ready to go off, and they do. The same result would likely have happened even if 99.9% of the settlers were peaceful, because that 1/1000 nutjob killer in every group decided to kill an indian or a white, and its just too hard to recover from that. Eventually, the indians obviously succumbed to the superior might of the frontiersmen.

Peace was difficult between these groups, and the outcome was mostly due to circumstances and the realities of violent human nature in such a precarious situation. Humans just have a strong ingroup / outgroup bias. My point being, if you took other groups, such as hispanics, or blacks, or asians, and substituted them for the white settlers, you'd have probably gotten a very similar result, if not worse. It's not like the indians treated each other well lol. Didn't they enslave other tribes, brutally scalping the shit out of each other?? For THOUSANDS of years??? White culture arrived are DID make earnest attempts at peace with them. i'm tired of hearing characterizations that paint the indians as peacful nature lovers, and the whites as violent invaders. neither were true.

I think you should examine your anti white bias.

Lately I get defensive about just about all anti-white propaganda because it comes from all angles in a torrent of dishonesty. I don't deny that white people have done and still do bad things (everyone does), but the problem is that there is an asymmetric focus on the "negatives that whites do". The positives that whites do are often irrelevant in these anti-white contexts. The positives of non-whites is brought up, and celebrated, while the negatives of non-whites is off limits. In summary:

If talking about whites: list negatives, do not list positives.
If talking about non-whites: list positives, attack ppl that list negatives (#punchnazis)

This distinction is drawn upon purely racial lines, and so is blatantly and overtly racist.

For example, w/ the indian topic, all that ever gets mentioned is the negatives that the whites did. They never mentioned the negatives that the indians did, nor the positives that the whites did. Of course public sentiment of the left or those exposed to leftist opinions is largely anti-white to such an extreme that there's actually a meaningful # of americans that believe thanksgiving should be abolished or deemed racist / white supremacist. I think these people are very confused and victims of their own political/ideological confirmation bias.

You mention a negative (desire for land acquisition, probably driven by greed or money lust). True, but I think these points are VERY legitimate:
- Just about all humans lust for land and money. its human nature. indians lusted for white made items, and traded with us for them.
- peace was attempted, hard, many times. it didn't work, and both sides had major blame. sodium reacts with water and explodes.
- show me a peaceful non-white culture that doesnt have blood in its past encounters with other cultures. they pretty much all do, and often were MUCH more brutal.
- the indians werent but a small fraction of what the land could support, so it makes sense for more of the land to be used by others. if we did the whole "indians were there first, leave the continent alone" then this bountiful land mass that supports hundreds of millions today would have remained occupied by a small fraction, as indian life style had poor land efficiency. instead, its resources fueled the western expansions that has brought miracles in peace, science, and medical innovation, improving the lives of BILLIONS
- indian life today is vastly improved. they would still be scalping and enslaving each other if it werent for our cultural influence.
- its not brought up often, but the indians were quite the savages. I think if you compared their actions w/ the white ppls (ie over the prior 500 hundred years), the indians would look pretty bad.

Comparisons MUST be done on a relative basis, else they have little chance of being valid. White ppl must be judged in comparison to other humans of the same era. white ppl are constantly chastised for enslaving blacks, which they did. But theyre NEVER given any credit for the abolition of slavery. Slavery has been common a part of this WORLD, in TONS of cultures and countries for THOUSANDS of years. Yet those evil, "raycist white ppl" came to america and enslaved the blacks (who still enslave each other in africa to this day). But, then BOOM within 200 years the "evil raycist whites" abolished slavery (the popular way humans treat outsiders for thousands of years), and their cultural influence on the world has almost totally eradicated world slavery, at least wherever they could. Most whites didnt even own slaves, and it was whites with their well tuned moral compasses that went to war against slavery to fight against other whites. Summary: the world, made of mostly non-whites, brutally enslaved each other for thousands of years. A small white minority enslaved blacks for 200 yrs in america, then grew a coincidence, then eradicated it wordwide.

Yet to this day, theres tons of despicable people who focus on all the negatives, and none of the positives. They take advantage of white guilt - guilt that whites feel when they see hopeless black ghettos. We try to help them due to our compassionate nature, and so weve just keep quiet when ppl say some of the minorities arent doing well because of white oppression and racism, but deep down most of know that racism accounts for maybe like 5% of their problems, while the rest of the problems are in their hands. libs are out of touch with reality and think racism and oppression are 90% responsible.

they are certainly the white mans burden to bear.

marcus says

How do you define racism ?

Special privilege or restriction based solely on color of skin or other physical characteristics.

marcus says

Almost nobody does this, but sure there is a small fraction of the left (less than 10% of democrats imo)

Its probably less but they are loud and the ones who hold MSM by their lady balls, apparently.

HMMM! I wonder where the cash came from?

marcus says

:

Just BeCause?

Doncha think that's a bit racist, @marcus ?

Tenpoundbass says

HMMM! I wonder where the cash came from?

Talking about my Generation

marcus says

:
I don't get it. Is it that eating meatless meat risks making you want to be a girl ?

@marcus,
Estrogens in soy - they mimic female hormones and in extreme cases men start growing boobs and have decreased testosterone levels

www.youtube.com/embed/7MQLWTqLYb0

marcus says

:

Show me a single "trumper" who wants war?

To all the Commiefags worried Trump will bring us to war. Forgets Bath House Barry did thousands of Drone strikes.
Also don't sweat it, Trump assured the Iranians, that we just spent 2 trillion on updating our weapon systems, because the Commiefags in Congress wouldn't let Trump spend a trillion of the defense spending on our border wall. "Use it to beef up our defenses instead!" They bemoaned.

We thanks! That's exactly what Trump did. Nobody dies today but Towel heads and Floor Smoochers.

Not going to cry for Suleimani, but it's important to remember that the Saudis are the primary source of funding and ideology for terrorism in the world.

Iran is insignificant compared to Saudi Arabia's support for terror.

Someone remind me, why are the Saudis considered our "friends" after 9/11?

I think it's time we start with them young, to balance out the Anti Chirstian, Anti American sentiment the Democrats have fomented for decades in this country.

Patrick says

Not going to cry for Suleimani, but it's important to remember that the Saudis are the primary source of funding and ideology for terrorism in the world.

The Middle East is a Jenga Tower, and for some strange Reason, Iran has been the one Plank in all of Middle East we're not allowed to pull on.
Yet they have so much pull and influence in all of the world politics. The Geopolicy allows bad Saudis hide behind Iran. Iran exports the radicals to the Countries, where they can recruit and do Irans bidding, in the name of the Host Country.

Iran has been pulling this shit for over 40 years. They kill and strike and then they are untouchable. Our own leaders give them immunity to do virtually anything to this country.
That alone gives Deep State creeps willing to do global damage and weaken America, a place to hide their Bones.
Nuetralize Iran, then the two faced, double dealing people in SA and other Middle Eastern countries, wont have a Safe space to run to, to remain untouchable.

Iran affords so much of what is going on in the implementation, the exploitation, the revenue and politics of the response to terror, and the facititating of both terrorists and their acts.

They have got to Go! Then it will all end. If this was SA in the hot seat and we took them out. Nothing would change, because extreme Islam factions are a direct export of Iran. They just use host countries to facilitate it. Just look at Gengeral Fuckface Salami, he was in Iraq, doing shit, that would have only perpetuated us to be there for the foreseeable future. And was willing patsy of John Kerry, and the Deep State Spooks, to drag Trump into a Bengahzi crisis. So History would razz Trump for criticizing Obama while failing to stop his own Bengahzi.
If this thing had gone the other way and Trump did not take out Salami. Pelosi would be sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate come this Monday morning. It was the fucking plan.

Anyone hear John Kerry make a comment? I mean Iran was his Secretary of State Baby. And his Logan Act crime against Trump, to create a new insurance policy as soon as the Democrats realized the Mueller investigation was coming up *Goose Eggs.


Goose Eggs shaped like a "Zero"

And I would add to the above, lets not forget the Narrative, that Iran and Iraq are two different kinds of Muslims, they hate each other, and we're there keeping Iraq safe from Iran.
Yet, the Iraq parliament just saw fit to condemn the US for the attack and are shouting "alah ak bar!" and death to America now along with Iran. They want the US out now, that's because Iran, the country actually running shit in the Middle east. Wants us out.


And we very well may leave. And like Trump said, as long as Iran doesn't do anything make him bomb them back. Then he wont.
But there's no doubt, the days of walking on eggshells worried if the Iranians will like it or not, after they kill an American or destroy our interests are clearly over.

Tenpoundbass says

But there's no doubt, the days of walking on eggshells worried if the Iranians will like it or not, after they kill an American or destroy our interests are clearly over.

That's the key.

First the shitlibs acted like the Embassy Attacks were Trump's Benghazi.
Then they acted like responding to the Attacks by retaliating against Quds Force leader - himself in Iraq directing everything - was some kind of over the top response.
Now they're acting like pulling our Troops out of Iraq per their request is ... sabre rattling.

But apparently withdrawing our Troops from the Syrian-Turkish border was ABSOLUTELY! INSANE! ORANGEMANBAD

Again, Oikophobia and the Red-Green Alliance are frameworks that explain why Leftists behave this way, otherwise it's completely unfathomable.

They want US Troops in the Middle East to be attacked, but never, ever to respond. Why? Weaken the credibility, military morale, and prestige of the US so the Left-Islamist-Russo alliance can strengthen while the West weakens.

Tenpoundbass says

Iran affords so much of what is going on in the implementation, the exploitation, the revenue and politics of the response to terror, and the facititating of both terrorists and their acts.

I think this is entirely wrong.

Iran is being accused of Saudi Arabia's crimes.

The Saudis are loving this.

marcus says

:

That's, like, oh my God, Oikophobia to the Max.

I like what Freedom Fighters in Iran think:

marcus says

:

Who sees us like this Marcus? I think you are projecting your anti-US hate.