politicartoons | Hate Free Zone!

No, I said the only objective definition that is valid is the one where judging an individual's character solely on race is erroneous.

If that's what racism was limited to, then I'd say run with it. But, that's not the case. So, from there I moved to tackle the moral argument that is actually being used when people invoke the term 'racist', This version is simply absent of merit because you can't have one group behaving ethnocentrically and holding that as moral or morally neutral while another group behaving in similar fashion is immoral. In the absence of objectivity you end up with this sort of inconsistency. That's why its nonsense.

If a dark-skinned hiring manager is presented with two candidates, one light-skinned and one dark-skinned, and he hires the one that is _less_ qualified for the job just because he likes their dark skin, does that strike you as a problem?

It should be a problem for me, right? Because that would be racism. That's what we're all told to think. And I should be shocked and appalled, but I'm not because I understand people are innately ethnocentric. So, his nepotism is something I completely understand. Why should I fault him for favoring his own people over another? Pretending people don't actually do this is ridiculous. I prefer to deal with reality as it is.

And, in this case, that manager's actions came with a cost. If the manager is willing to accept that, then that's the bed he made.

Clearly, from an economical standpoint I think it's a horrible idea because it's better for the business when you get the right people for the job.

Personally, I am of the mind that people ought to be free to associate with whomever they choose. So unless I'm an owner of that commercial entity, it's really none of my business.

"Dealing with reality as it is" is not the same as being passive. You/we can do things.

I agree with you that from an economical standpoint it's a horrible idea for the employer. Indeed the whole economy suffers. I also feel I need to point out that it's a horrible idea for the employee - who is being denied livelihood.

Based on that I'm willing to take it a step further and say that we should make such discrimination - where provable - a crime, because it goes against a basic American principle of equal application of the law ("equal protection", as the 14th amendment puts it.)

As Justice Harlan put it, back in 1896:

"In view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens."

See, I'm of the opinion that the tribalism you accept as inevitable is something that can be shaped, and that it should be shaped - by laws and by people - where possible.

"Equal application of the law," is in reference to enforcement of a law. So that principle is limited to government. I don't see how it applies to that employer/employee scenario.

What you're doing is setting up a law that dictates hiring methodology. And in doing so, you're adopting a moral theory that deems tribalism as immoral.

But, without tribalism we wouldn't be here today. From an evolutionary standpoint it's been a damn good trait, right? Otherwise it would've been weeded out.

So, why should I suddenly hold it as immoral? That sort of in-group preference has been very good to my people. And look how it's been really good for Jewish people.

I'd say it's far more pragmatic to behave with respect to this sort of in-group preference.

Well, without slavery "we wouldn't be here today". Without death camps, massive pollution, and really terrible pop music, "we wouldn't be here today". That's not a justification for anything.

Interpreting the aspirations of man through the lens of evolution is at best an arbitrary business, and at worst, a dangerous one. "Survival of the fittest" is a great description of the mechanism that drives evolution, but it's important to note that it's only referring to survival, (and when you dig below the surface, it's only referring to the survival of genes.) Humans are freakin' professionals at survival. We've spread to all corners of the earth and relentlessly exterminated just about every beast that could take us down, including rival sub-species of homo sapiens.

For about a thousand years now, it's been more a matter of deciding what shape humanity should take beyond mere survival. And Darwinism does not - cannot - have anything to say about that.

If you want to debate that point I'd be happy to.

Wars are often fought over resources. The sides are chosen via tribalism. Some wars, though, are fought over tribalism itself. "This whole economy sucks because of those goddamn Jews" is the classic example. The tribe - or even any quality of its people - is not responsible for the current bad situation, and eradicating that tribe will not resolve the situation. But, because the people have not been inoculated against racism, the idea takes hold, and the lines form, and cooperation breaks down. And before you know it a demagogue is marching troops across Europe in order to Make Europe Great Again.

I think you and I can agree that this is wasteful, misguided, and worth opposing.

"Well, without slavery "we wouldn't be here today". Without death camps, massive pollution, and really terrible pop music, "we wouldn't be here today". That's not a justification for anything."

The onus is on you to justify your moral argument. You presented an ought. I presented an is. And, now you're straw manning that is. So let me clarify: We have adaptations that affect our behavior. Without those adaptations we wouldn't be where we are today. They're operating automatically within us. So, will power can only take you so far. So, my point was that we have these drivers within us and overriding them is easier said than actually done. Or better said, you're assuming it can even be done. More so, these drivers (not just tribalism) aren't distributed equally to everyone or group. In other words, my genetic pool is going to have different sensitivity in genetic expression than another genetic pool. For example, Ashkenazi Jews have higher verbal IQs than every other genetic pool. That is an advantage they have.

But back to tribalism. My point was that tribalism is an innate quality that isn't taught. It's part of our genetic programming. And, your point is that we ought to suppress this drive. And, you present this because you have a preference for a moral argument called multiculturalism -- which does not coincide with our innate drive. Tribalism in and of itself is not a moral argument.

So the question is why ought I adopt your preference? And here is the kicker in today's discourse: Those that do not share/adopt this preference are in turn ostracized by calling them racists. But, none of that condemnation actually establishes the merits of this moral theory. It simply asserted axiomatically.

But again, I have no reason to accept your morality. Instead, I have every reason to denounce it. As I pointed out in another post, it's not pragmatic for my people.

Also, your classic example isn't historically accurate. The Jews weren't scapegoats. They had sects that were waging war in the region. But, every story needs its devil. And in today's dogma, that devil is Hitler. It's an over simplified good vs evil story. We love our archetypal stories, right? But things are a lot more complicated than they've been depicted.

So, what is it that you think you're actually opposing?

If you're pushing multiculturalism, you're not opposing war. Instead, you're fueling war against white people given that this is only magically happening in white countries. And, anti-white sentiment is on the rise. This is not a coincidence. This is tribalism expressing itself. In the US the demographics shifted from 90% white to 60% white. So, it's no surprise that as the minority groups got larger, they're becoming bolder. (Again, completely understandable that non-whites would push for this outcome.)

But, if you want to believe races don't exist; that it's just a social construct... well... you and the few that believe this stuff are the only ones. Everyone else has no qualms about behaving ethnocentrically.

If we're talking about the difference between "ought" and "is", I might as well back up and ask you to justify your claim that all the other races are engaged in a race war. Wouldn't it make more sense to claim that they are just individuals trying the best they can to survive?

You say I'm asking that everyone "suppress" their innate tribalism? No, that's a strawman. I've consistently advocated that we can shape our tribalism, in ourselves and our immediate communities, to increase its effectiveness for things that matter, and decrease it for things that don't. I think the clearest place where you and I disagree is over what matters and what doesn't.

For example, your claim about Jews and verbal IQs is another of those bad-confidence-interval statistics. But based on it, I assume you would want everyone to place all Jews in their in-group. I might ask for something different. I would ask that people look directly for people with a high verbal IQ and place those people in their in group. You can figure that out just by talking to them for a few minutes.

Actually I wouldn't even ask for that. Because I've met a number of people with high verbal IQs who were also sociopaths!!

My point is, we have a choice in what we decide are good factors, or bad factors, in building our tribe. Tribalism is instinctive, yes. But the shape and quality of those tribes is deliberately flexible.

Do you think that skin color correlates with something important, consistently enough to place skin color itself on the list, and teach your kids and friends and family through your own words and behavior that skin color is something they should use to judge other things?

I'm going to skip over your appalling attempt to re-characterize the Jews as aggressors in Germany.

You ask: Why is this only happening in "white" countries?
Answer: A hypothetical "war against white people" can obviously only happen where white people are. So, your question is kind of redundant.

Are you claiming that there aren't race-based conflicts elsewhere in the world, that do not involve white people at all? There are PLENTY. The US has tried to intervene in a number of them. Want a list?

Haha.... "I'm going to skip over your appalling attempt to re-characterize the Jews as aggressors in Germany."

That's because you've been taught to see things one way. Don't listen to me. Listen to this rabbi:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTYSv_YQOVo

I'm pretty sure I'm claiming there are race based conflicts everywhere, but only white people are being made out to be racist for considering ethnocentric policies. So, where are the integration policies of Israel, China, or Japan? Are they racist for being ethnocentric?

Ooooohkay. I just listened to that Rabbi. He's reading an excerpt from Main Kampf where Hitler describes the Jews as basically intent on killing all good Germans. The Rabbi explains that Hitler is justifying his stance by using a twisted view of what happened in Russia, since the Jews were partially complicit in their own destruction there.

Then the Rabbi brings up Wagner, and talks about how even before the Nazis rose to power, Wagner expressed a deep hatred for the Jews for textbook racist and also hilariously paranoid reasons -- that they were "infiltrating" German culture by pretending not to be Jewish, so they could subvert German art and culture and turn it all Jewy. Yeah, Wagner wrote some great music, but he was a real piece of work.

Do you even read your own stuff before you post it here???

That doesn't sound like we watched the same video. The rabbi never said anything like that. You're putting words in his mouth.

The rabbi is warning fellow Jews not to abandon the Torah like the Jews that caused the Russian Revolution and also those that tried to abandon their own people to become German. The rabbi substantiated Hitler's and Wagner's points.

He never said anything about them being twisted. That's something YOU are projecting onto the rabbi's speech because that is YOUR bias regarding those events.

LOL. Yes, it's true, that Rabbi doesn't want his people to assimilate, and he's using Hitler and Wagner's own inane words to buttress his claim that assimilation is what caused their (the Jews) downfall. He also knows he's making a controversial statement that goes against both the Torah and the attitude of his own community (he points out examples of both).

But you're trying to make a leap even beyond that. Are you honestly trying to equate the Jews' partial assimilation into German society as an act of war?

Why did you suddenly omit Bolshevism? The rabbi was also talking about the murderous Bolsheviks that killed 66 million Russians from 1918 to 1957.

The Bolsheviks were Jews. And their politics is what was being assimilated into Germany. This is what the rabbi is pointing out.

That's pretty damn significant point you're glossing over.

Show me where he, or anyone for that matter, says that the Jews assimilating in Germany were also promoting Bolshevik politics.

I don't consider that significant, because I don't consider assimilation to be an act of war. Do you?

That's what the rabbi is referencing when he was reading Hitler's words. And he said, yeah, this happened, and that's why Hitler denounced the Jews.

And then he goes on to point out how media and art were being transformed in Germany by substantiating Wagner.

This is the same stuff Ayn Rand was pointing out in her books. This deconstruction of the host culture is what they do. And you arrogantly give lip service to the critique of art I showed you.

It's subversion tactics. It's psychological warfare.

But because you don't think this way you assume others don't think this way. And that's the problem with all this equality nonsense. It makes one blind to difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA

There are 3 forms of conquest. What I'm presenting here to you is one of them.

That rabbi is telling his people to stop this nonsense because it goes against the Torah.

No. He said Hitler claimed this was happening. Same with Wagner.

As I said before, and as the Rabbi has made clear, assimilation does not go against the Torah.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. Your use of the phrase "host culture" and "psychological warfare", and your blinkered attitude towards art, pretty much puts you in a completely different mental space from me.

50 years ago, it was The Reds and their Communist Agenda. 100 years ago, it was The Yellow Peril, and ... something to do with opium and raping white women or whatever. These people were intent on infiltrating our culture so that the evil Chinese and/or Russians could occupy our infrastructure "intact", and win a war without firing a shot. Similar smaller uproars happened in various parts of the US over the Japanese, the Irish, the Italians, the French, all manner of black people, Mexicans of course, anyone from a Muslim country ... basically everyone everywhere except for maybe the Swiss. (Maybe. Not if they were atheists.)

It was bigoted bullshit every time, designed to scare up support for demagogues, and it remains bigoted bullshit now. Are you just looking for a fight, because you feel better when you have an enemy? It's been hard enough getting you to even explain what your side is, what the enemy is, or even what's at stake. I mean, so far, a bunch of modern art and a piece of avant-garde architecture is all you're put on the table. What else you got??

Hate Free Zone!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject