Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Racism, Non-racism, Anti-racism

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 7:00:03 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I used to define racism as "judging a person based on race." But I have a logical problem with this definition, even though I like its simplicity. That is: what then, is anti-racism? Anti-racism would seem to be, then, "refusing to judge a person simply based on race," which I was content with keeping as my meaning up until recently. There are a couple problems with this definition:
1) Anti-racism should not be the same as non-racism.
2) It is arbitrary to pick race as a criterion to judge; there must be an underlying reason as to why we find race so special. Otherwise, we could choose any of an infinite number of criteria to judge people by. IOWs, there is something more to simply "judgment based on race" to the meaning of racism, which is why racism has always been so important in culture.

That extra piece, I believe now, is that such a judgment must be NEGATIVE. That is, we judge other races as negative because they do not fit our idea of centrism - they are not like us. If a non-racial being from another planet were to come here, they would be capable of my original meaning, that of judgment based on race without the necessary negative component. They would see different colors and perhaps ascribe qualities or detriments to each as they see fit (subjectively). But as racial beings ourselves, we must see race through the lens of centrism. I look out and see blacks and asians and others through my centric white lens, and therefore my judgment tends to be negative.

Therefore, my definitions would be as follows:
Racism: judging a person of a different race negatively.
Non-racism: refusing to judge another person based on race.
Anti-racism: judging a person of a different race positively.

I believe what frustrates liberals about conservatives is that they see them as racist. And what frustrates conservatives about liberals is that they see them as anti-racist. Liberals strive to be non-racist, but overshoot the mark and instead become anti-racist.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 9:13:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 7:00:03 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I used to define racism as "judging a person based on race." But I have a logical problem with this definition, even though I like its simplicity. That is: what then, is anti-racism? Anti-racism would seem to be, then, "refusing to judge a person simply based on race," which I was content with keeping as my meaning up until recently. There are a couple problems with this definition:
1) Anti-racism should not be the same as non-racism.
2) It is arbitrary to pick race as a criterion to judge; there must be an underlying reason as to why we find race so special. Otherwise, we could choose any of an infinite number of criteria to judge people by. IOWs, there is something more to simply "judgment based on race" to the meaning of racism, which is why racism has always been so important in culture.

That extra piece, I believe now, is that such a judgment must be NEGATIVE. That is, we judge other races as negative because they do not fit our idea of centrism - they are not like us. If a non-racial being from another planet were to come here, they would be capable of my original meaning, that of judgment based on race without the necessary negative component. They would see different colors and perhaps ascribe qualities or detriments to each as they see fit (subjectively). But as racial beings ourselves, we must see race through the lens of centrism. I look out and see blacks and asians and others through my centric white lens, and therefore my judgment tends to be negative.

Therefore, my definitions would be as follows:
Racism: judging a person of a different race negatively.
Non-racism: refusing to judge another person based on race.
Anti-racism: judging a person of a different race positively.

I believe what frustrates liberals about conservatives is that they see them as racist. And what frustrates conservatives about liberals is that they see them as anti-racist. Liberals strive to be non-racist, but overshoot the mark and instead become anti-racist.

It's true that most liberals are not racist per your second definition. Liberals don't judge people of different races more positively than their own. That seems like pure fiction and some misguided attempt to prove that liberalism and conservatism are equally meritorious viewpoints. They are not and twisting the ideology to make it seem so doesn't do anything to help. Many conservatives are racist. The vast of liberals are not. The goal should be to understand why conservatives are racist, what experiences they've had to make them racist, and educate them accordingly to minimize racism, not to pretend that liberals also have a non-existent flaw and to find a non-existent "middle-ground."
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 9:37:33 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 9:13:32 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 7/4/2016 7:00:03 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I used to define racism as "judging a person based on race." But I have a logical problem with this definition, even though I like its simplicity. That is: what then, is anti-racism? Anti-racism would seem to be, then, "refusing to judge a person simply based on race," which I was content with keeping as my meaning up until recently. There are a couple problems with this definition:
1) Anti-racism should not be the same as non-racism.
2) It is arbitrary to pick race as a criterion to judge; there must be an underlying reason as to why we find race so special. Otherwise, we could choose any of an infinite number of criteria to judge people by. IOWs, there is something more to simply "judgment based on race" to the meaning of racism, which is why racism has always been so important in culture.

That extra piece, I believe now, is that such a judgment must be NEGATIVE. That is, we judge other races as negative because they do not fit our idea of centrism - they are not like us. If a non-racial being from another planet were to come here, they would be capable of my original meaning, that of judgment based on race without the necessary negative component. They would see different colors and perhaps ascribe qualities or detriments to each as they see fit (subjectively). But as racial beings ourselves, we must see race through the lens of centrism. I look out and see blacks and asians and others through my centric white lens, and therefore my judgment tends to be negative.

Therefore, my definitions would be as follows:
Racism: judging a person of a different race negatively.
Non-racism: refusing to judge another person based on race.
Anti-racism: judging a person of a different race positively.

I believe what frustrates liberals about conservatives is that they see them as racist. And what frustrates conservatives about liberals is that they see them as anti-racist. Liberals strive to be non-racist, but overshoot the mark and instead become anti-racist.

It's true that most liberals are not racist per your second definition. Liberals don't judge people of different races more positively than their own. That seems like pure fiction and some misguided attempt to prove that liberalism and conservatism are equally meritorious viewpoints. They are not and twisting the ideology to make it seem so doesn't do anything to help. Many conservatives are racist. The vast of liberals are not. The goal should be to understand why conservatives are racist, what experiences they've had to make them racist, and educate them accordingly to minimize racism, not to pretend that liberals also have a non-existent flaw and to find a non-existent "middle-ground."

I remember when you had significant power on this site, and one might ask how this came to be.

I, for one, find that you argument is backwards, in the sense that the rationale used is to not only detriment your opposing side by stating that one ideology is equatable to racism, but also to bolster your own side by stating that your ideology is the anti-racist ideology, which simply isn't the case. There is no statistic that backs up your asinine claim that most conservatives are racist, and there is no evidence to prove that most liberals happen to lack racist views.

When progressives are called out for their anti-white verbiage, they try to justify their claim as innocuous and change the definition of racism itself to fit their own view, going from simply having prejudice against a group of people to using political power to oppress a group of people.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 9:45:27 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 9:37:33 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
I remember when you had significant power on this site, and one might ask how this came to be.

I, for one, find that you argument is backwards, in the sense that the rationale used is to not only detriment your opposing side by stating that one ideology is equatable to racism, but also to bolster your own side by stating that your ideology is the anti-racist ideology, which simply isn't the case. There is no statistic that backs up your asinine claim that most conservatives are racist, and there is no evidence to prove that most liberals happen to lack racist views.

When progressives are called out for their anti-white verbiage, they try to justify their claim as innocuous and change the definition of racism itself to fit their own view, going from simply having prejudice against a group of people to using political power to oppress a group of people.

1. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. There is only one person who has had any real "power" on the site and that is Airmax. I used to be a vote moderator for a while before I stepped down. None of that is relevant to the argument I've made here.

2. I didn't say liberalism is an "anti-racist" ideology. Perhaps you should read more closely. What I said was racism is a part of conservative ideology just like gun rights, death penalty, preventing people from getting abortions, as well as supporting low taxes for big businesses and an anti-welfare state. Liberalism as an ideology is typically against all of that. That's how ideologies are defined in broad categories although there are variations and nuances.

3. I don't see the link between anti-white verbiage and liberalism. They are conflicting viewpoints.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 9:53:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 9:45:27 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 7/4/2016 9:37:33 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
I remember when you had significant power on this site, and one might ask how this came to be.

I, for one, find that you argument is backwards, in the sense that the rationale used is to not only detriment your opposing side by stating that one ideology is equatable to racism, but also to bolster your own side by stating that your ideology is the anti-racist ideology, which simply isn't the case. There is no statistic that backs up your asinine claim that most conservatives are racist, and there is no evidence to prove that most liberals happen to lack racist views.

When progressives are called out for their anti-white verbiage, they try to justify their claim as innocuous and change the definition of racism itself to fit their own view, going from simply having prejudice against a group of people to using political power to oppress a group of people.

1. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. There is only one person who has had any real "power" on the site and that is Airmax. I used to be a vote moderator for a while before I stepped down. None of that is relevant to the argument I've made here.

Vote moderation is power.


2. I didn't say liberalism is an "anti-racist" ideology. Perhaps you should read more closely. What I said was racism is a part of conservative ideology just like gun rights, death penalty, preventing people from getting abortions, as well as supporting low taxes for big businesses and an anti-welfare state. Liberalism as an ideology is typically against all of that. That's how ideologies are defined in broad categories although there are variations and nuances.

"It's true that most liberals are not racist per your second definition. Liberals don't judge people of different races more positively than their own. That seems like pure fiction and some misguided attempt to prove that liberalism and conservatism are equally meritorious viewpoints. They are not and twisting the ideology to make it seem so doesn't do anything to help. Many conservatives are racist. The vast of liberals are not. The goal should be to understand why conservatives are racist, what experiences they've had to make them racist, and educate them accordingly to minimize racism, not to pretend that liberals also have a non-existent flaw and to find a non-existent "middle-ground."

This is exactly what you said, and in this, you've stated that 1. "It's true that most liberals are not racist per your second definition." 2. "Liberals don't judge people of different races more positively than their own." 3. "Many conservatives are racist. The vast of liberals are not. "

Perhaps you should read your own written text more closely, or at least try to remember what you wrote in the first place. Racism, is by no means, a part of conservative ideology, and simply stating that the belief in the superiority/inferiority of a group of people is a basis for conservatism is absolutely asinine. Neither liberalism nor conservatism espouse racist views in total, but both groups are guilty of some level of prejudice against groups of people, which is undeniable. Liberalism, as an ideology, has twisted into the belief that blacks are severely disadvantaged as a result of whites and therefore, as whites are the largest taxpaying block, they must be the de facto suppliers for these failed social programs that aid under-performing blacks and other minorities. Ideas such as "white privilege", "multiculturalism" and various other beliefs in white dominance, white responsibility for slavery, and the idea that blacks must be cared for by white taxpayer funds are entirely liberal ideas, irregardless of your denouncement of such.


3. I don't see the link between anti-white verbiage and liberalism. They are conflicting viewpoints.

No, they simply are not, for reasons outlined above. I have never seen a group of people so opposed to whites than liberals and the generally socially left crowd.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 9:53:55 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
No point in re-defining words. There is a general idea of what these words mean. Not sure what one is trying to accomplish by using their own personal definition.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
keithprosser
Posts: 2,029
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 10:58:20 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I have to agree that there is no point having private defintions. In partcular,

Anti-racism: judging a person of a different race positively.

is very non-standard. Anti-racism is generally taken to mean oppostion (especially active opposition) to racism. If a word for 'positive racism' is required para-racism might work, based on the Greek 'Para' meaning "beside, near, issuing from, against, contrary to, etc" (dictionary.com). For example a slave cowed into feeling inferior to foreign masters would be 'para-racist'.

Is it possible that, for example, anti-Semitism is at least partly driven by para-racism?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 8:04:42 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 9:37:33 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
There is no statistic that backs up your asinine claim that most conservatives are racist, and there is no evidence to prove that most liberals happen to lack racist views.

I'm not sure if most conservatives are racist, but most racists are conservative.

In relation to the political spectrum, tribalism breaks down into three components:
(1) ethnocentricity
(2) religiosity
(3) sexual in/tolerance

High measures of ethnocentricity, religiosity, and sexual intolerance are commonly associated with one another. Individuals with this cluster of traits tend to have political views on the right. Attraction to out-groups (xenophilia), secularism, and higher sexual tolerance are well correlated with political views on the left.

This is probably because conservatives are more likely to emphasize group values, such as prioritizing the reproduction and defense of their ethnic group, over other possible competing interests (e.g., personal pleasure, education or career choices made at the expense of family).

On the other hand, more xenophilic, secular, and sexually tolerant people are more likely to see equal (or even greater) value in out-groups, and to reproduce with them. Thus, liberals place relatively greater importance on individualism and less on in-group values.

http://www.alternet.org...
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 8:09:10 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 7:00:03 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Therefore, my definitions would be as follows:
Racism: judging a person of a different race negatively.
Non-racism: refusing to judge another person based on race.
Anti-racism: judging a person of a different race positively.

I believe what frustrates liberals about conservatives is that they see them as racist. And what frustrates conservatives about liberals is that they see them as anti-racist. Liberals strive to be non-racist, but overshoot the mark and instead become anti-racist.

Many would argue that your description of "non-racism" is impossible.

I'm not sure liberals are anti-racist. Perhaps some liberals wish to ignore or reject data that poses an inconvenient narrative. For example, many liberals turn a blind eye to black crime rates or want to pretend that many recent terrorists aren't radical Muslims. I don't think that's judging race (or religion) positively so much as not stereotyping them negatively. Anti-racism per your definition is when someone says something like "Blacks are good at basketball." Even racist conservatives can admit that blacks are good at some stuff... like crime.

Just kidding.
President of DDO
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 8:22:57 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 8:04:42 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/4/2016 9:37:33 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
There is no statistic that backs up your asinine claim that most conservatives are racist, and there is no evidence to prove that most liberals happen to lack racist views.

I'm not sure if most conservatives are racist, but most racists are conservative.

In relation to the political spectrum, tribalism breaks down into three components:
(1) ethnocentricity
(2) religiosity
(3) sexual in/tolerance

High measures of ethnocentricity, religiosity, and sexual intolerance are commonly associated with one another. Individuals with this cluster of traits tend to have political views on the right. Attraction to out-groups (xenophilia), secularism, and higher sexual tolerance are well correlated with political views on the left.

This is probably because conservatives are more likely to emphasize group values, such as prioritizing the reproduction and defense of their ethnic group, over other possible competing interests (e.g., personal pleasure, education or career choices made at the expense of family).

On the other hand, more xenophilic, secular, and sexually tolerant people are more likely to see equal (or even greater) value in out-groups, and to reproduce with them. Thus, liberals place relatively greater importance on individualism and less on in-group values.

http://www.alternet.org...

I wouldn't categorize liberals as xenophilic (which goes into similar territory that R0b says in the OP). I'm liberal and fairly neutral towards people of all ethnicities, not favoring people of ethnic groups outside mine. Other than that, agree with all of this.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 8:25:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
And I don't think it's at all impossible to not judge a person by their race. That's what we should be doing in every interaction with another human being.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 8:39:47 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 8:25:18 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
And I don't think it's at all impossible to not judge a person by their race. That's what we should be doing in every interaction with another human being.

It is impossible according to neuroscience. Consider the racial empathy gap, a phenomenon backed by a massive amount of scientific evidence showing that all of us see other races as less sensitive to pain than ourselves.

http://journals.plos.org...

One reason for this is racially biased differences in cognitive and emotion-related brain regions, including the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Studies reveal that people showed more implicit preferences for faces of their own race and less reactivity to pain in someone from another race. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. We "see ourselves" and thus empathize more with people who look like us. This has been observed all over the world throughout history.

"The most damaging part of the racial empathy gap is that we bury it in the subconscious in layers of denial to protect our social reputation." This website (below) describes more than a dozen studies related to this topic of judgment based on race, though there is a ton of other research that focuses on our bias in particular. For example, when given pictures of 4 year old black boys, people were far more likely to presume the toys in their hands were guns vs. looking at white children holding the same objects. I can look for that study later.

https://aeon.co...
President of DDO
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 8:42:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 8:04:42 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/4/2016 9:37:33 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
There is no statistic that backs up your asinine claim that most conservatives are racist, and there is no evidence to prove that most liberals happen to lack racist views.

I'm not sure if most conservatives are racist, but most racists are conservative.

In relation to the political spectrum, tribalism breaks down into three components:
(1) ethnocentricity
(2) religiosity
(3) sexual in/tolerance

High measures of ethnocentricity, religiosity, and sexual intolerance are commonly associated with one another. Individuals with this cluster of traits tend to have political views on the right. Attraction to out-groups (xenophilia), secularism, and higher sexual tolerance are well correlated with political views on the left.

This is probably because conservatives are more likely to emphasize group values, such as prioritizing the reproduction and defense of their ethnic group, over other possible competing interests (e.g., personal pleasure, education or career choices made at the expense of family).

On the other hand, more xenophilic, secular, and sexually tolerant people are more likely to see equal (or even greater) value in out-groups, and to reproduce with them. Thus, liberals place relatively greater importance on individualism and less on in-group values.

http://www.alternet.org...

I think that this hit very close to what the truth of the situation is, though I also think that there is an incredibly potent animus against white, European culture amongst some leftist subcultures, often rooted in fanatical and myopic anti-colonialism, and that this vague disdain for anything associated with Western tradition animates larger portions of the Left.

I also think that true revulsion against out-groups isn't what you see in large swathes on the right. I think that a considerable amount of people on the right hate people on the left more than they hate blacks, Muslims, or gays, if they even really hate those groups at all. They loathe a stereotype (the BLM activist, or the ingrateful refugee, or the arrogant, pithy gay man). When they meet a member of the groups which they supposedly hate who flouts the liberal stereotype, they usually embrace them very warmly. Gay men, for example, have seen a huge growth in support among the right recently, with the people who are reticent being increasingly irrelevant outliers like the moral majority, because some gays have been abandoning the left in a forcible ways which highlight just how dissimilar to the stereotype they are.

At the root of it, I think, is that conservatives see value in traditional Western society and rally around what they perceive as attacks of it. Progressives, on the other hand, have coalesced into an alliance which often acts as an agonist to those values so, because all humans are tribalistic to some degree, the hostility between both camps increases until each one sees the other as an amalgamation of everything which their ideology has singled out as 'bad' parts of human nature.

'Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all unifying agents. It pulls and whirls the individual away from his own self, makes him oblivious of his weal and fortune, frees him of jealousness and self-seeking. He becomes an anonymous particle quivering with a craving to fuse and coalesce with his like into one flaming mass. Heine suggests that what Christian love cannot do is effected by a common hatred.

Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil. Usually the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the vividness and tangibility of its devil.'
- Eric Hoffer -
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 8:45:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 8:39:47 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/5/2016 8:25:18 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
And I don't think it's at all impossible to not judge a person by their race. That's what we should be doing in every interaction with another human being.

It is impossible according to neuroscience. Consider the racial empathy gap, a phenomenon backed by a massive amount of scientific evidence showing that all of us see other races as less sensitive to pain than ourselves.

http://journals.plos.org...

One reason for this is racially biased differences in cognitive and emotion-related brain regions, including the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Studies reveal that people showed more implicit preferences for faces of their own race and less reactivity to pain in someone from another race. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. We "see ourselves" and thus empathize more with people who look like us. This has been observed all over the world throughout history.

"The most damaging part of the racial empathy gap is that we bury it in the subconscious in layers of denial to protect our social reputation." This website (below) describes more than a dozen studies related to this topic of judgment based on race, though there is a ton of other research that focuses on our bias in particular. For example, when given pictures of 4 year old black boys, people were far more likely to presume the toys in their hands were guns vs. looking at white children holding the same objects. I can look for that study later.

https://aeon.co...

Yes, +1,000.

We will never get anywhere discussing racism until we realize that tribalism and in-group preference are a part of human nature, and adjust for that.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 8:58:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 8:39:47 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/5/2016 8:25:18 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
And I don't think it's at all impossible to not judge a person by their race. That's what we should be doing in every interaction with another human being.

It is impossible according to neuroscience. Consider the racial empathy gap, a phenomenon backed by a massive amount of scientific evidence showing that all of us see other races as less sensitive to pain than ourselves.

http://journals.plos.org...

One reason for this is racially biased differences in cognitive and emotion-related brain regions, including the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Studies reveal that people showed more implicit preferences for faces of their own race and less reactivity to pain in someone from another race. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. We "see ourselves" and thus empathize more with people who look like us. This has been observed all over the world throughout history.

"The most damaging part of the racial empathy gap is that we bury it in the subconscious in layers of denial to protect our social reputation." This website (below) describes more than a dozen studies related to this topic of judgment based on race, though there is a ton of other research that focuses on our bias in particular. For example, when given pictures of 4 year old black boys, people were far more likely to presume the toys in their hands were guns vs. looking at white children holding the same objects. I can look for that study later.

https://aeon.co...

What do you mean people? All people or just white people? I'm assuming only white/black test subjects and audiences were chosen based on how you phrased this.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 9:28:24 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Liberals tend to see non whites as weak and needing babying. If you assume conservatives are racist. Which ones would you rather deal with? The racist who treats you like a man? Or the one who treats you as a baby? As an inferior?
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 9:29:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 8:45:43 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
We will never get anywhere discussing racism until we realize that tribalism and in-group preference are a part of human nature, and adjust for that.

So much this
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 9:58:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
When I think of "anti-racism" I think of people fighting against racist thought and behavior in order to curb its influence, and when I think of "non-racism " I think of someone who does not engage in racist behavior, whatever that is.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 10:00:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 9:58:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
When I think of "anti-racism" I think of people fighting against racist thought and behavior in order to curb its influence, and when I think of "non-racism " I think of someone who does not engage in racist behavior, whatever that is.
The former just makes me think of those who actively self-identify with the label (like Tim Wise).
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 10:09:04 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Also, I think that judging someone more positively just because of their race is still racism. For instance, if a white jury acquits a white person because they like the defendant's race, I don't know what to call that except racism.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 10:10:12 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 10:00:18 PM, someloser wrote:
At 7/5/2016 9:58:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
When I think of "anti-racism" I think of people fighting against racist thought and behavior in order to curb its influence, and when I think of "non-racism " I think of someone who does not engage in racist behavior, whatever that is.
The former just makes me think of those who actively self-identify with the label (like Tim Wise).

Tim Wise is who I think of when I think of anti-racist lol..
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 12:02:11 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 9:28:24 PM, Wylted wrote:
Liberals tend to see non whites as weak and needing babying. If you assume conservatives are racist. Which ones would you rather deal with? The racist who treats you like a man? Or the one who treats you as a baby? As an inferior?

I don't know why you keep assuming all liberals are white. You are projecting hard. I showed you the stats. Conservatives in the United States are overwhelmingly white but liberals are not. There is no uniform way liberals "see" non-whites as the many diverse experiences of liberals differ from person to person.

Perhaps more accurately put, whatever the race of the liberal in question, the underlying ideology is about treating everyone equally whereas the conservative ideology is more centered on treating their own ethnic group better.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 12:17:48 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 12:02:11 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 7/5/2016 9:28:24 PM, Wylted wrote:
Liberals tend to see non whites as weak and needing babying. If you assume conservatives are racist. Which ones would you rather deal with? The racist who treats you like a man? Or the one who treats you as a baby? As an inferior?

I don't know why you keep assuming all liberals are white. You are projecting hard. I showed you the stats. Conservatives in the United States are overwhelmingly white but liberals are not. There is no uniform way liberals "see" non-whites as the many diverse experiences of liberals differ from person to person.

Perhaps more accurately put, whatever the race of the liberal in question, the underlying ideology is about treating everyone equally whereas the conservative ideology is more centered on treating their own ethnic group better.

I'm obviously only referring to white liberals and made no claims that all liberals were whites. The political elite on the left is predominantly white, and yes they know exactly what they are doing. They are aware of the damage they cause the black community. I am aware non whites are in the Democratic party. I am also aware that those who are, have been hoodwinked by the Democratic party. I'm not going to blame the common man who has no time to study politics, for the damage that con artists who have fooled them, have done.

Nope, the working man does not get the blame for the liberal elites or the evil Neocons.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 12:29:07 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 12:17:48 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 7/6/2016 12:02:11 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 7/5/2016 9:28:24 PM, Wylted wrote:
Liberals tend to see non whites as weak and needing babying. If you assume conservatives are racist. Which ones would you rather deal with? The racist who treats you like a man? Or the one who treats you as a baby? As an inferior?

I don't know why you keep assuming all liberals are white. You are projecting hard. I showed you the stats. Conservatives in the United States are overwhelmingly white but liberals are not. There is no uniform way liberals "see" non-whites as the many diverse experiences of liberals differ from person to person.

Perhaps more accurately put, whatever the race of the liberal in question, the underlying ideology is about treating everyone equally whereas the conservative ideology is more centered on treating their own ethnic group better.

I'm obviously only referring to white liberals and made no claims that all liberals were whites.

You said "liberals," not "white liberals" which does make it seem like you were either referring to liberals of all races or that you think all liberals are white thus not needing to qualify it. I don't know which it is.

The political elite on the left is predominantly white, and yes they know exactly what they are doing. They are aware of the damage they cause the black community. I am aware non whites are in the Democratic party. I am also aware that those who are, have been hoodwinked by the Democratic party. I'm not going to blame the common man who has no time to study politics, for the damage that con artists who have fooled them, have done.

Nope, the working man does not get the blame for the liberal elites or the evil Neocons.

Sure. "Obama is a puppet controlled by those evil liberal whites." I don't think I even need to respond to anything here.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 12:45:45 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
You said "liberals," not "white liberals" which does make it seem like you were either referring to liberals of all races or that you think all liberals are white thus not needing to qualify it. I don't know which it is.

No, just use common sense. I obviously meant white liberals, and not even all of the white ones. How is that even hard to infer? Unless I put the word "all" before liberal, than you should use some common sense to figure out what I mean. I am not bashing 57% of the population. Wow.

The political elite on the left is predominantly white, and yes they know exactly what they are doing. They are aware of the damage they cause the black community. I am aware non whites are in the Democratic party. I am also aware that those who are, have been hoodwinked by the Democratic party. I'm not going to blame the common man who has no time to study politics, for the damage that con artists who have fooled them, have done.

Nope, the working man does not get the blame for the liberal elites or the evil Neocons.

Sure. "Obama is a puppet controlled by those evil liberal whites." I don't think I even need to respond to anything here.

Obama is white. I think you are kinda stupid if some half white person who went to predominantly white schools and was exclusively raised by a white hippy and her white mother is somehow black.

The only thing black about that evil bastardd is his skin color. Also common sense tells you that even the group "white liberal elite" has a few non whites in it. These are just imperfect terms to identify certain groups of people. Terms to make abstract concepts mpre easy to grasp. Wht are you playing semantics here? You know exactly what I mean.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 12:51:11 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Everyone else gets that language is inexact and used to explain complex topics right? Or am I crazy?
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 12:59:58 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 12:45:45 AM, Wylted wrote:
You said "liberals," not "white liberals" which does make it seem like you were either referring to liberals of all races or that you think all liberals are white thus not needing to qualify it. I don't know which it is.

No, just use common sense. I obviously meant white liberals, and not even all of the white ones. How is that even hard to infer? Unless I put the word "all" before liberal, than you should use some common sense to figure out what I mean. I am not bashing 57% of the population. Wow.

How am I supposed to infer that you mean solely white liberals when you say "liberals" unless I also assume that you think all (or nearly all) liberals are white?

Obama is white. I think you are kinda stupid if some half white person who went to predominantly white schools and was exclusively raised by a white hippy and her white mother is somehow black.

The only thing black about that evil bastardd is his skin color. Also common sense tells you that even the group "white liberal elite" has a few non whites in it. These are just imperfect terms to identify certain groups of people. Terms to make abstract concepts mpre easy to grasp. Wht are you playing semantics here? You know exactly what I mean.

https://youtu.be...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 2:53:17 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 12:59:58 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 7/6/2016 12:45:45 AM, Wylted wrote:
You said "liberals," not "white liberals" which does make it seem like you were either referring to liberals of all races or that you think all liberals are white thus not needing to qualify it. I don't know which it is.

No, just use common sense. I obviously meant white liberals, and not even all of the white ones. How is that even hard to infer? Unless I put the word "all" before liberal, than you should use some common sense to figure out what I mean. I am not bashing 57% of the population. Wow.

How am I supposed to infer that you mean solely white liberals when you say "liberals" unless I also assume that you think all (or nearly all) liberals are white?

Because it's common sense. Just like when Americans say they support the military. They don't mean every countries military or every member of the American military. It's just common sense. The words I support the military is enough. Nobody is dumb enough to ask if every member of every military is American, or if every military is American.

When people say terms like "liberal" or "conservative", you need to look at the context, because both words can mean a million differebt things. When I say it sometimes but rarely it is a blanket term. A lot of times I use the word to refer to SJWs, sometimes I use the word to refer to leftists, sometimes progressives or sometimes to refer to libertarians, who are the only people deserving of using the word. Sometimes I mean just the liberal elite, depending on how I use it, it could refer to the top 100 elite, top 1,000 or top 10,000. Language is imprecise, it's why we juat need to use common sense to make some assumptions

Obama is white. I think you are kinda stupid if some half white person who went to predominantly white schools and was exclusively raised by a white hippy and her white mother is somehow black.

The only thing black about that evil bastardd is his skin color. Also common sense tells you that even the group "white liberal elite" has a few non whites in it. These are just imperfect terms to identify certain groups of people. Terms to make abstract concepts mpre easy to grasp. Wht are you playing semantics here? You know exactly what I mean.

https://youtu.be...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 3:49:46 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 2:53:17 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 7/6/2016 12:59:58 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 7/6/2016 12:45:45 AM, Wylted wrote:
You said "liberals," not "white liberals" which does make it seem like you were either referring to liberals of all races or that you think all liberals are white thus not needing to qualify it. I don't know which it is.

No, just use common sense. I obviously meant white liberals, and not even all of the white ones. How is that even hard to infer? Unless I put the word "all" before liberal, than you should use some common sense to figure out what I mean. I am not bashing 57% of the population. Wow.

How am I supposed to infer that you mean solely white liberals when you say "liberals" unless I also assume that you think all (or nearly all) liberals are white?

Because it's common sense. Just like when Americans say they support the military. They don't mean every countries military or every member of the American military. It's just common sense. The words I support the military is enough. Nobody is dumb enough to ask if every member of every military is American, or if every military is American.

When people say terms like "liberal" or "conservative", you need to look at the context, because both words can mean a million differebt things. When I say it sometimes but rarely it is a blanket term. A lot of times I use the word to refer to SJWs, sometimes I use the word to refer to leftists, sometimes progressives or sometimes to refer to libertarians, who are the only people deserving of using the word. Sometimes I mean just the liberal elite, depending on how I use it, it could refer to the top 100 elite, top 1,000 or top 10,000. Language is imprecise, it's why we juat need to use common sense to make some assumptions

Common sense is to assume you are referring to liberals when you say liberals, not "white liberals."

Your military analogy doesn't make sense because each country has its own military and when a member of a country refers to it, they mean their country's military.

If your analogy is to work, then by "liberals," I assume you refer to American liberals, not liberals in Britain or China or Canada. Why in the world would I assume you are referring to white liberals unless it is specified? If you refer to the military, are you only referring to white soldiers?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 4:05:42 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 3:49:46 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 7/6/2016 2:53:17 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 7/6/2016 12:59:58 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 7/6/2016 12:45:45 AM, Wylted wrote:
You said "liberals," not "white liberals" which does make it seem like you were either referring to liberals of all races or that you think all liberals are white thus not needing to qualify it. I don't know which it is.

No, just use common sense. I obviously meant white liberals, and not even all of the white ones. How is that even hard to infer? Unless I put the word "all" before liberal, than you should use some common sense to figure out what I mean. I am not bashing 57% of the population. Wow.

How am I supposed to infer that you mean solely white liberals when you say "liberals" unless I also assume that you think all (or nearly all) liberals are white?

Because it's common sense. Just like when Americans say they support the military. They don't mean every countries military or every member of the American military. It's just common sense. The words I support the military is enough. Nobody is dumb enough to ask if every member of every military is American, or if every military is American.

When people say terms like "liberal" or "conservative", you need to look at the context, because both words can mean a million differebt things. When I say it sometimes but rarely it is a blanket term. A lot of times I use the word to refer to SJWs, sometimes I use the word to refer to leftists, sometimes progressives or sometimes to refer to libertarians, who are the only people deserving of using the word. Sometimes I mean just the liberal elite, depending on how I use it, it could refer to the top 100 elite, top 1,000 or top 10,000. Language is imprecise, it's why we juat need to use common sense to make some assumptions

Common sense is to assume you are referring to liberals when you say liberals, not "white liberals."

Your military analogy doesn't make sense because each country has its own military and when a member of a country refers to it, they mean their country's military.

If your analogy is to work, then by "liberals," I assume you refer to American liberals, not liberals in Britain or China or Canada. Why in the world would I assume you are referring to white liberals unless it is specified? If you refer to the military, are you only referring to white soldiers?

Depends on the context. If I say the military coddles blacks, I would be referring to white military brass only.

Though certainly 1 or 2 black military brass may qualify as well.

F-16, Are you trolling me or are you incapable of understanding how words are being used unless it is spelled out for you? In order for me to have explained that in a way for you to understand it would have probably taken me two extra paragraphs, and since most people do not need the 2 extra paragraphs to understand that properly, it would be pointless.

I encapsulate large concepts in very little words, and expect people to figure out through hints and context the full meaning.

Reread what I said earlier about depending on what subject I am talking about, the word liberal can mean any 1 of 1,000 things.

I almost don't even want to explain this though. I half expect you are trolling me and knew precisely what I meant, as anyone reading should have.