Why is it only white people that are racist?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jim Crow wasn't merely about prejudice. It was about creating a system that aimed to create a second class of citizens that could allow one race to refuse rights and privileges to the lower class. This included restricting access to voting, education, and justice (legalized violence and even murder). These restrictions permeated into all levels of life, and despite the ending of these laws over 50 years ago, the effects are still being dealt with.

So this whole Affirmative Action ~ racism isn't just inaccurate, it is a willful disregard to recognize history and to use the actual suffering of a race of people for decades to score some shit political points.

The problem is that those effects are cultural, not discrimination.

Cultural?

It's like the doctor trying to fix a broken arm by means of a seat belt.

It wouldn't be a TF thread if it didn't have a bad LP analogy.

The fact that he broke it by not wearing one doesn't mean it's a treatment.

This fails in reasoning because AA isn't racism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes you have.

Traditionally, racism has meant
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. or

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
(source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism)
Affirmative action is not based on that.

The opponents of affirmative action like Loren have to redefine the term "racism" in order to provide more emotive content to their position.

Racism also means taking actions based on racial differences. That's the sense I'm using it in.

That's right. The Loren Webster dictionary.

 

[Bomb#20]

As I see it, groups do not have needs; people have needs. Groups are grammatical fictions.

As for the term, people: I find, for the sake of clarity, that it's better to say: individuals (people is a group word).

That being said, you are absolutely correct. I'm a nominalist. Universals, groups, are NOT real entities. They DO NOT exist, except as terms and points of reference. ONLY individuals exist.

This is why I despise classism. There are NO classes of people. Class, classes: these are fictions, created by unwise individuals that had too much ink and too much time on their hands, over the centuries.

Stand up for the "I" .

There is no "I" in team. Right! That's why, in so many work places, this emphasis on teamwork fails, and fails miserably. Because teamwork means certain things to certain people:

• A: Yes, I like being part of the team. I will do whatever I can, in whatever capacity, to make the system function optimally. I see something needs to be done that B is assigned to do, but B is still on his lunch break, even though it's already been 45 minutes. Oh hell, I'll go ahead and do it. It has to get done.
• B: Yes, I like teamwork, too. I see A loves to work. She's a workaholic. I'll just sit back, take it easy, knowing that A will pick up my slack. Hell, she likes it! I wonder what's going on on Facebook? And, what the hell, I need another cigarette. A is here. It'll be okay.

"The revival of group hatreds in this country has dismayed and even frightened me ever since it began in the late 1960s.

When I was in high school and college, in the late 1940's - early 1950's we all remembered Hitler very well. Teachers taught us that Hitler was terrible, not because he hated the wrong group, but because hating any group is illogical, unscientific and leads ultimately to violence. Groups are grammatical fictions; only individuals exist, and each individual is different. Sometime while I was busy and didn't notice, Political Correctness took over Academia and they stopped teaching that. They started teaching that Hitler was terrible because he hated the wrong group, but it's okay to hate other groups.

Logic has nothing to do with it; logic itself is now suspect (just as it was in Nazi Germany.)

This rebellion against rationality originally intended to make Radical Feminism and its doctrine of male fungibility respectable, and it succeeded, at least in the major media, but it also made fungible group hatred respectable in general. Now the anti-Semites and all the other hate mongers are crawling out from under their rocks, and Academia does not have the ammunition to argue against them. Academia cannot argue the rational principle that hatred of any group does not make sense; they dumped that when they dumped logic (as a "male" perversion.)

The argument between Left and Right now consists only of debating which are the correct groups to hate."

- R. A. Wilson​

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is no "I" in team. Right! That's why, in so many work places, this emphasis on teamwork fails, and fails miserably. Because teamwork means certain things to certain people:

 

[bilby]

Anyone who thinks that there are no groups, only individuals, should try crossing an international border, and telling the border guards that you are an individual, so it would be unreasonable, illogical and impossible for you to have a 'nationality'.

Anyone who objects to taxes on the grounds that there are no groups, only individuals, but who does not equally strongly object to the existence of international borders on the same grounds, is a hypocrite.

 

[Toni]

Jim Crow wasn't merely about prejudice. It was about creating a system that aimed to create a second class of citizens that could allow one race to refuse rights and privileges to the lower class. This included restricting access to voting, education, and justice (legalized violence and even murder). These restrictions permeated into all levels of life, and despite the ending of these laws over 50 years ago, the effects are still being dealt with.

So this whole Affirmative Action ~ racism isn't just inaccurate, it is a willful disregard to recognize history and to use the actual suffering of a race of people for decades to score some shit political points.

The problem is that those effects are cultural, not discrimination. They can't be fixed by applying discrimination.

It's like the doctor trying to fix a broken arm by means of a seat belt. The fact that he broke it by not wearing one doesn't mean it's a treatment.

WTF.

 

[Trausti]

Not at all. Accordingly to you, as long as the proponents of the racially discriminatory policy are not openly doing so because of a belief in racial superiority/inferiority then it's not racism. It's just discrimination based on race - which you apparently approve.

Wrong again. I never claimed it the racist intent had to be open.

Correct. You're just jumping from one double standard to another to justify your hypocrisy.

 

[Trausti]

Anyone who thinks that there are no groups, only individuals, should try crossing an international border, and telling the border guards that you are an individual, so it would be unreasonable, illogical and impossible for you to have a 'nationality'.

Anyone who objects to taxes on the grounds that there are no groups, only individuals, but who does not equally strongly object to the existence of international borders on the same grounds, is a hypocrite.

You can recognize that groups exist without assigning collective guilt to a disfavored group to justify racial animus. Acknowledge groups - yes. But treat everyone as an individual. Of the many commonalities between Nazism and Communism, both "isms" put people into categories and treated them preferably or not based on those categories. Let's not do that. M'kay.

 

[bilby]

Anyone who thinks that there are no groups, only individuals, should try crossing an international border, and telling the border guards that you are an individual, so it would be unreasonable, illogical and impossible for you to have a 'nationality'.

Anyone who objects to taxes on the grounds that there are no groups, only individuals, but who does not equally strongly object to the existence of international borders on the same grounds, is a hypocrite.

You can recognize that groups exist without assigning collective guilt to a disfavored group to justify racial animus. Acknowledge groups - yes. But treat everyone as an individual. Of the many commonalities between Nazism and Communism, both "isms" put people into categories and treated them preferably or not based on those categories. Let's not do that. M'kay.

Sure, that can be a very bad thing; But that doesn't mean it always must be a bad thing.

One thing that governments in democracies do is to arbitrarily disenfranchise people below a specified age. Is that a bad idea? Should each person's right to vote be determined by their mere age, as though all 17 year olds were insufficiently mature to have an informed opinion, but all 19 year olds are sufficiently mature? Or should these people be treated as individuals, and each be assessed to determine their suitability to vote?

I am sure that there are examples of this kind of arbitrary discrimination against groups that you approve of (to the extent that you barely notice that such discrimination even exists).

And what are border controls if not assigning collective guilt to a disfavored group to justify racial animus? You allow all 'citizens' to cross; non-citizens might in some cases be allowed to cross after various degrees of scrutiny, but most are not permitted to cross the border without harsh conditions being imposed, such as a promise to do no work, or a promise to leave before a certain date. Citizens would be horrified by such restrictions. Where is the treatment of everyone as an individual here? Each person is lumped into groups which are then treated homogeneously - Citizens, Permanent Residents, Business Visitors, Tourist Visitors, Prohibited Foreign Nationals, Refugees, etc...

If you are guilty of nothing more than 'being a foreigner', then you are treated with harshness and disdain never accorded to someone who is part of the 'citizens' group.

Individuals are substantially and obviously different in character and power from the individuals who make up the group. As I said in another thread:

The fact is that definitions are derived from mass usage; One person using a word in a fashion inconsistent with the dictionary is using the word wrongly; but if a large enough pool of people use a word in a fashion inconsistent with the dictionary, then the new usage needs to be (and is) added to the dictionary - if the people who use the word in a novel way are all in one small area, then the new usage might be noted as being dialectical, regional, or specific to a particular country.

Indeed, these simple and observable facts about how words are defined, are a clear rebuttal to the crazy idea that 'collectives', 'societies' or 'groups' don't really exist, and that all that exists are individuals. IF that idea were true, then either one individual could unilaterally change the meaning of any word, and language would be impossible, which we can see it is not; OR the meanings of words could never change, which we also know to be untrue. So that idea must be false - there must be a collective (or collectives) with the power to change the meanings of words, while no individual has that power.

Therefore collectives exist, and are distinct in their abilities from individuals - the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Of course, many people find this confusing, difficult to understand, and hard to reconcile with their deep-seated beliefs about how things ought to be. But reality is under no obligation to be easy for us to understand; And pretending that things are simpler than they really are is a quick and easy way to be very badly wrong about a lot of things.

 

[Trausti]

You can recognize that groups exist without assigning collective guilt to a disfavored group to justify racial animus. Acknowledge groups - yes. But treat everyone as an individual. Of the many commonalities between Nazism and Communism, both "isms" put people into categories and treated them preferably or not based on those categories. Let's not do that. M'kay.

Sure, that can be a very bad thing; But that doesn't mean it always must be a bad thing.

One thing that governments in democracies do is to arbitrarily disenfranchise people below a specified age. Is that a bad idea? Should each person's right to vote be determined by their mere age, as though all 17 year olds were insufficiently mature to have an informed opinion, but all 19 year olds are sufficiently mature? Or should these people be treated as individuals, and each be assessed to determine their suitability to vote?

I am sure that there are examples of this kind of arbitrary discrimination against groups that you approve of (to the extent that you barely notice that such discrimination even exists).

And what are border controls if not assigning collective guilt to a disfavored group to justify racial animus? You allow all 'citizens' to cross; non-citizens might in some cases be allowed to cross after various degrees of scrutiny, but most are not permitted to cross the border without harsh conditions being imposed, such as a promise to do no work, or a promise to leave before a certain date. Citizens would be horrified by such restrictions. Where is the treatment of everyone as an individual here? Each person is lumped into groups which are then treated homogeneously - Citizens, Permanent Residents, Business Visitors, Tourist Visitors, Prohibited Foreign Nationals, Refugees, etc...

If you are guilty of nothing more than 'being a foreigner', then you are treated with harshness and disdain never accorded to someone who is part of the 'citizens' group.

Individuals are substantially and obviously different in character and power from the individuals who make up the group. As I said in another thread:

The fact is that definitions are derived from mass usage; One person using a word in a fashion inconsistent with the dictionary is using the word wrongly; but if a large enough pool of people use a word in a fashion inconsistent with the dictionary, then the new usage needs to be (and is) added to the dictionary - if the people who use the word in a novel way are all in one small area, then the new usage might be noted as being dialectical, regional, or specific to a particular country.

Indeed, these simple and observable facts about how words are defined, are a clear rebuttal to the crazy idea that 'collectives', 'societies' or 'groups' don't really exist, and that all that exists are individuals. IF that idea were true, then either one individual could unilaterally change the meaning of any word, and language would be impossible, which we can see it is not; OR the meanings of words could never change, which we also know to be untrue. So that idea must be false - there must be a collective (or collectives) with the power to change the meanings of words, while no individual has that power.

Therefore collectives exist, and are distinct in their abilities from individuals - the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Of course, many people find this confusing, difficult to understand, and hard to reconcile with their deep-seated beliefs about how things ought to be. But reality is under no obligation to be easy for us to understand; And pretending that things are simpler than they really are is a quick and easy way to be very badly wrong about a lot of things.

Comparing a government treating foreigners differently than its citizens is obvious misdirection. Foreigners are just that - not citizens of the country. But a government should not be treating its own citizens differently based on immutable characteristics like race. If you're saying that's okay, then Jim Crow was okay. I'm pretty sure you don't think that.

 

[bilby]

Sure, that can be a very bad thing; But that doesn't mean it always must be a bad thing.

One thing that governments in democracies do is to arbitrarily disenfranchise people below a specified age. Is that a bad idea? Should each person's right to vote be determined by their mere age, as though all 17 year olds were insufficiently mature to have an informed opinion, but all 19 year olds are sufficiently mature? Or should these people be treated as individuals, and each be assessed to determine their suitability to vote?

I am sure that there are examples of this kind of arbitrary discrimination against groups that you approve of (to the extent that you barely notice that such discrimination even exists).

And what are border controls if not assigning collective guilt to a disfavored group to justify racial animus? You allow all 'citizens' to cross; non-citizens might in some cases be allowed to cross after various degrees of scrutiny, but most are not permitted to cross the border without harsh conditions being imposed, such as a promise to do no work, or a promise to leave before a certain date. Citizens would be horrified by such restrictions. Where is the treatment of everyone as an individual here? Each person is lumped into groups which are then treated homogeneously - Citizens, Permanent Residents, Business Visitors, Tourist Visitors, Prohibited Foreign Nationals, Refugees, etc...

If you are guilty of nothing more than 'being a foreigner', then you are treated with harshness and disdain never accorded to someone who is part of the 'citizens' group.

Individuals are substantially and obviously different in character and power from the individuals who make up the group. As I said in another thread:

The fact is that definitions are derived from mass usage; One person using a word in a fashion inconsistent with the dictionary is using the word wrongly; but if a large enough pool of people use a word in a fashion inconsistent with the dictionary, then the new usage needs to be (and is) added to the dictionary - if the people who use the word in a novel way are all in one small area, then the new usage might be noted as being dialectical, regional, or specific to a particular country.

Indeed, these simple and observable facts about how words are defined, are a clear rebuttal to the crazy idea that 'collectives', 'societies' or 'groups' don't really exist, and that all that exists are individuals. IF that idea were true, then either one individual could unilaterally change the meaning of any word, and language would be impossible, which we can see it is not; OR the meanings of words could never change, which we also know to be untrue. So that idea must be false - there must be a collective (or collectives) with the power to change the meanings of words, while no individual has that power.

Therefore collectives exist, and are distinct in their abilities from individuals - the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Of course, many people find this confusing, difficult to understand, and hard to reconcile with their deep-seated beliefs about how things ought to be. But reality is under no obligation to be easy for us to understand; And pretending that things are simpler than they really are is a quick and easy way to be very badly wrong about a lot of things.

Comparing a government treating foreigners differently than its citizens is obvious misdirection. Foreigners are just that - not citizens of the country. But a government should not be treating its own citizens differently based on immutable characteristics like race. If you're saying that's okay, then Jim Crow was okay. I'm pretty sure you don't think that.

Australian Aborigines were not citizens of Australia until 1967. For reasons that were purely concerned with race - These are people who lived in Australia at the time, were born here, and had ancestry here further back than anyone else by several tens of thousands of years, and yet they were not 'citizens', which is an arbitrary designation used by governments.

Citizenship is clearly not a suitable or appropriate grounds on which to discriminate, if only because it means whatever the government wants it to mean. The 1935 "Nuremberg Laws" excluded German Jews from Reich citizenship.

There's no misdirection here. It's either always undesirable to treat people only as members of arbitrary groups, such as 'citizens' or 'non-citizens'; Or it isn't always undesirable to do so (even if it most often is).

It's also not reasonable to always consider individuals, to the point of denying the very existence of collectives - such things can be demonstrated to exist.

Of course, many people find this confusing, difficult to understand, and hard to reconcile with their deep-seated beliefs about how things ought to be. But reality is under no obligation to be easy for us to understand; And pretending that things are simpler than they really are is a quick and easy way to be very badly wrong about a lot of things.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anyone who thinks that there are no groups, only individuals, should try crossing an international border, and telling the border guards that you are an individual, so it would be unreasonable, illogical and impossible for you to have a 'nationality'.

Yeah, that is a bullshit attempt to try and defuse a legit claim of racism by someone. Like when my Father-In-Law made the quip about wondering where the man in the yellow hat was for Obama. I noted that such a quip was ugly and very old school racism... and he uses the response, "but Obama isn't black". I'm not even certain what the fallacy or group of fallacies are for that response, as it is so fallacious and dishonest.

- - - Updated - - -

How to tell you support white supremacy or are a troll, you post shit like that above.

 

[Toni]

Yeah, that is a bullshit attempt to try and defuse a legit claim of racism by someone. Like when my Father-In-Law made the quip about wondering where the man in the yellow hat was for Obama. I noted that such a quip was ugly and very old school racism... and he uses the response, "but Obama isn't black". I'm not even certain what the fallacy or group of fallacies are for that response, as it is so fallacious and dishonest.

- - - Updated - - -

How to tell you support white supremacy or are a troll, you post shit like that above.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Bomb#20]

Anyone who thinks that there are no groups, only individuals, should try crossing an international border, and telling the border guards that you are an individual, so it would be unreasonable, illogical and impossible for you to have a 'nationality'.

A nationality is a property. Nobody said there are no properties. Our border guards exclude people for having TB too.

Anyone who objects to taxes on the grounds that there are no groups, only individuals, but who does not equally strongly object to the existence of international borders on the same grounds, is a hypocrite.

Why the bejesus would the absence of groups be a problem for taxation? What's wrong with taxing individuals?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is that those effects are cultural, not discrimination. They can't be fixed by applying discrimination.

It's like the doctor trying to fix a broken arm by means of a seat belt. The fact that he broke it by not wearing one doesn't mean it's a treatment.

WTF.

The problem is you are looking at it as A => B, therefore fixing A will fix B.

Reality is A => B => C => B => C => D. Fixing A will do noting about D even though A was necessary for D.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Another example of rampant discrimination:

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/38636/

Call on white males last in school. It only became controversial when someone tweeted about doing it.

 

[Trausti]

Another example of rampant discrimination:

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/38636/

Call on white males last in school. It only became controversial when someone tweeted about doing it.

What's the problem? According to Jimmy and Bilby, they should accept the punishment for their collective guilt just like the Jews did in Medieval Europe. If they complain it's just further proof of the perfidy.

 

[Trausti]

Sure, that can be a very bad thing; But that doesn't mean it always must be a bad thing.

One thing that governments in democracies do is to arbitrarily disenfranchise people below a specified age. Is that a bad idea? Should each person's right to vote be determined by their mere age, as though all 17 year olds were insufficiently mature to have an informed opinion, but all 19 year olds are sufficiently mature? Or should these people be treated as individuals, and each be assessed to determine their suitability to vote?

I am sure that there are examples of this kind of arbitrary discrimination against groups that you approve of (to the extent that you barely notice that such discrimination even exists).

And what are border controls if not assigning collective guilt to a disfavored group to justify racial animus? You allow all 'citizens' to cross; non-citizens might in some cases be allowed to cross after various degrees of scrutiny, but most are not permitted to cross the border without harsh conditions being imposed, such as a promise to do no work, or a promise to leave before a certain date. Citizens would be horrified by such restrictions. Where is the treatment of everyone as an individual here? Each person is lumped into groups which are then treated homogeneously - Citizens, Permanent Residents, Business Visitors, Tourist Visitors, Prohibited Foreign Nationals, Refugees, etc...

If you are guilty of nothing more than 'being a foreigner', then you are treated with harshness and disdain never accorded to someone who is part of the 'citizens' group.

Individuals are substantially and obviously different in character and power from the individuals who make up the group. As I said in another thread:

The fact is that definitions are derived from mass usage; One person using a word in a fashion inconsistent with the dictionary is using the word wrongly; but if a large enough pool of people use a word in a fashion inconsistent with the dictionary, then the new usage needs to be (and is) added to the dictionary - if the people who use the word in a novel way are all in one small area, then the new usage might be noted as being dialectical, regional, or specific to a particular country.

Indeed, these simple and observable facts about how words are defined, are a clear rebuttal to the crazy idea that 'collectives', 'societies' or 'groups' don't really exist, and that all that exists are individuals. IF that idea were true, then either one individual could unilaterally change the meaning of any word, and language would be impossible, which we can see it is not; OR the meanings of words could never change, which we also know to be untrue. So that idea must be false - there must be a collective (or collectives) with the power to change the meanings of words, while no individual has that power.

Therefore collectives exist, and are distinct in their abilities from individuals - the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Of course, many people find this confusing, difficult to understand, and hard to reconcile with their deep-seated beliefs about how things ought to be. But reality is under no obligation to be easy for us to understand; And pretending that things are simpler than they really are is a quick and easy way to be very badly wrong about a lot of things.

Comparing a government treating foreigners differently than its citizens is obvious misdirection. Foreigners are just that - not citizens of the country. But a government should not be treating its own citizens differently based on immutable characteristics like race. If you're saying that's okay, then Jim Crow was okay. I'm pretty sure you don't think that.

Australian Aborigines were not citizens of Australia until 1967. For reasons that were purely concerned with race - These are people who lived in Australia at the time, were born here, and had ancestry here further back than anyone else by several tens of thousands of years, and yet they were not 'citizens', which is an arbitrary designation used by governments.

Citizenship is clearly not a suitable or appropriate grounds on which to discriminate, if only because it means whatever the government wants it to mean. The 1935 "Nuremberg Laws" excluded German Jews from Reich citizenship.

There's no misdirection here. It's either always undesirable to treat people only as members of arbitrary groups, such as 'citizens' or 'non-citizens'; Or it isn't always undesirable to do so (even if it most often is).

It's also not reasonable to always consider individuals, to the point of denying the very existence of collectives - such things can be demonstrated to exist.

Of course, many people find this confusing, difficult to understand, and hard to reconcile with their deep-seated beliefs about how things ought to be. But reality is under no obligation to be easy for us to understand; And pretending that things are simpler than they really are is a quick and easy way to be very badly wrong about a lot of things.

You're seriously arguing against borders? Without borders, there are no countries. If a people do not enforce their border, outsiders will move in and erect their own. This is some serious misdirection to avoid your racism.

 

[laughing dog]

Racism also means taking actions based on racial differences. That's the sense I'm using it in.

You are free to redefine words any way you wish in order to make rhetorical points. AA is not racism by the traditionally accepted meaning. And whether it is racism by your meaning depends on how it is implemented.