Racists Are From Another Dimension!

reply to post by shamus78

My answer is no.

Ok. Now justify that.

How can you justify that other people need to behave in accordance with your expectations? Why is it not ok for other people to not do what you want them to do?

reply to post by LordBucket


As I said, people should be nice to each other. It's quite basic and if I have to explain why, I'll feel sad.

I don't exect other people to do what I believe, that would make me some type of "-ist". That's the great thing about this world, we can actually disagree and still go on living our lives according to our personal beliefs.

And remember to eat your veges. Asparagus or not.

Mate, for a thread titled "Racists are from Another Dimension", you're getting a bit worked up. Go for a walk or have some quality time away from the computer. Just have fun.

Your Friend,
Shane

Well if what your saying is true then it's us non racists who are the inter dimensional interlopers. It's not long since racism was completely institutionalised in law and much more common place in society then it is now.

The first court case to find segregation on buses illegal in the US was in 1946 Roswell occurred just a few months later in 1947. Coincidence ?!?!?!?!?!?!

Betty and Barney Hill were abducted in 1961, the same year Americas first affirmative action laws were introduced?!?!?!?!?!?!? Coincidence

reply to post by shamus78

for a thread titled "Racists are from Another Dimension",
you're getting a bit worked up.

I simply dislike these threads where people get together to do some racist-bashing and then run away whenever someone tries to engage them intellectually.

Discrimination based on preference is both valid and proper.

Discrimination and racism are not the same at all.

Racism has to do with one's ego. and it will not end until we ALL can admit we are guilty of it.

Discrimination has more to do with one's choices. We all have our own preferences and there is nothing wrong in that.

ModernAcademia;
You're comment about the KKK and white people was racist in nature. I sure didn't see any other examples. It seems you singled whites out. Perhaps you should admit you, also, are guilty of racism. I'm guilty of it, though not to the extreme, but I do consciously try to temper it. Unfortunately, that's the most we can do.

I do agree though, it would be a great world without it.

See ya.

Originally posted by LordBucket

Discrimination based on preference is both valid and proper.

Discrimination based upon preference is also illegal if those preferences violate civil rights and you act upon them. Narrowing this down to, say the level of which brand of ketchup one prefers, is a gross oversimplification.

reply to post by BenReclused

Discrimination and racism are not the same at all.

So you accept that discrimination is ok, but it's only discrimination based on race that's not ok?

Why?

If I decide that I don't like dogs, and refuse to let them into my home, noone will consider it a question of morality. My neighbor can decide that she only wants to date tall men, and act on that decision, and she will not be accused of being evil or immoral. The mormon boy down the street can decide that he's going to marry a mormon girl, and refuse even to consider anyone who isn't, and nobody will think this odd or unusual. If a group of girls want to have a "girls night out" and tell the boys that they can't participate, that's totally ok and nobody has a problem with it.

Why is it ok to express and act upon preferences based on species, physical traits that a person can't change like height, religious and philosophical beliefs, gender, everything except race? Substitute any of these scenarios with a person who discriminates based on race, and people will have a problem with it. Why? If I don't like blacks, and refuse to let them into my house, why is that a moral issue? If the girl next door doesn't like mexicans and refuses to date them, why is that wrong? If the mormon boy refuses even to consider marrying someone of a race other than his own, why is that a problem? And if a bunch of bunch of white guys decide to have a "white's night out" and nobody else can participate, why is that bad?

When all these other types of preferences are accepted without issue, why should having racial preferences be considered a question of morality? Why is it ok to discriminate based on other qualities, but not race?

reply to post by Hefficide

Narrowing this down to, say the level of which brand
of ketchup one prefers, is a gross oversimplification.

And arbitrarily saying that preference based on race is somehow magically "different" than preferences based on other criteria is silly.

Originally posted by LordBucket

reply to post by Hefficide

 

Narrowing this down to, say the level of which brand
of ketchup one prefers, is a gross oversimplification.

And arbitrarily saying that preference based on race is somehow magically "different" than preferences based on other criteria is silly.

There is nothing magical about the difference. You not liking pickles can never lead to the violation of a pickles civil rights. A preference which can disadvantage a human being on the other hand...

Racism exists because it's promoted, directly and indirectly.
This thread is an example of both versions.
Imagine racism is almost dead, and someone comes alongs and brings it back, heals it, gives it just enough life and energy to procreate, 'bam' ..... a whole new crop of racism to carry on the cause.
Racism sucks!

reply to post by Hefficide

There is nothing magical about the difference. You not liking
pickles can never lead to the violation of a pickles civil rights.
A preference which can disadvantage a human being on the other hand...

I feel like this is an inadequete reponse to the post you're replying to. The paragraphs written in response to BenReclused's post apply equally well to yours.

Law and morality are not equivalent. Jaywalking is illegal. But I seriously doubt that anyone is going to suggest that people who jaywalk are immoral and evil for it. But racists are routinely villified. And none of the examples I gave in the post you're replying to have anything to do with legality or rights at all. Clearly law is not the issue here.

can never lead to the violation of a pickles civil rights.

Give me an example to work with. Because even if we go there...I don't think you have a lot of ground to stand on. For example, if you say that it "should" be illegal to refuse to hire someone based on race, because that creates a potential rights violation...I can very easily turn that around by pointing out that compelling someone to hire contrary to their wishes is most definitely a violation. And I think that's a stronger argument. What right does anyone have to the possessions of another? If someone owns a business, how can anyone justify that somebody else has a right to be employed by them?

In my mind, compulsion is the thing to be avoided. I perceive it as an imposition to compell someone to do something other than what they wish. It's a violation of free will, and that it why it is a moral issue. But if somebody chooses to not hire someone because of race, nobody is being compelled to do anything. The employer is simply choosing to not give someone something. Whereas if you compell them to hire, if you forbid them from choosing to not give employment to a person they don't want to hire, you're imposing upon their decision. If you really believe in rights...I don't see how you can justify that.

So pick an example to work with.

reply to post by ModernAcademia

Racists Are From Another Dimension!

Actually, they are tribalists. Racism is just another form of tribalism and if humanity is anything at all, it is tribal by nature.

The instinct to tribe reaches as far back as the caves and stretches to the 21st century. Even as we have evolved in many areas, we are still tribal.

We tribe as nations, political parties, choosing up sides in cities and organizations. We go to war to fight other tribes and battle it out from a young age on the football field.

That we chose to divide by race too, is no surprise. In point of fact, it was probably one of the very first human divisions.

Now, none of this is to condone or support bigotry. The challenge humanity faces is to improve itself and evolve away from its primitive beginnings. Even for those who disagree with interracial marriages because of tenets of their faith, there is still no call for bigotry... which is one of the lowest, crudest forms of racism.

On a closing note, I am lucky enough to live in a neighborhood that is multiracial. All those old myths have no roost here. But it is not like this everywhere. Especially in some far northern US states, old-style southern racial segregations still rule as unwritten law. I was shocked on a recent visit to a small Wisconsin town, where blacks and whites live very, very separately and don't even speak.

Tribalism dies hard.

Best

reply to post by LordBucket


If I understand your request correctly then this should suffice... A pertinent case in the history of civil rights, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. The United States

reply to post by Hefficide

If I understand your request correctly then this should suffice

Not really. I somehow doubt that your views on race discrimination are motivated by a desire to facilitate interstate commerce.

Originally posted by LordBucket

Not really. I somehow doubt that your views on race discrimination are motivated by a desire to facilitate interstate commerce.

My personal views are that there should be no racism at all. It's archaic in my opinion. It shouldn't exist in any form, even in a reversed form such as affirmative action.

My thoughts, on the other hand, concerning those who might not share my feelings, and the effects they can have upon society - has everything to do with interstate commerce and civil rights legislation. These laws were created out of a necessity and, while these laws may eventually become extraneous, I do not believe that we are there as of yet.

reply to post by Hefficide

My personal views are that there should be no racism at all.

I'm not certain what you mean by this.

Should:

1 used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness
2 used to indicate what is probable:

From your usage you don't appear to be suggesting that you think it's "probable" that racism does not exist. You seem to acknowledge that it does. So are you suggesting that it's somehow a matter of "duty" that individuals not be racist? That people are "obligated" for some reason?

The most likely interpretation seems to be that you are asserting that it is "correct" for racism to not exist. Which...seems rather vague to me. If you're suggesting that you perceive the potential for benefit if there is no racism, that at least makes sense to me. But that seems like slippery ground, as it's very likely that there are racists who perceive the potential for benefit by not having members of certain races around.

So if you want to turn the question into a costs/benefits analysis, I'm ok with that. But I'd like to be certain that's what you really mean.

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by Hefficide

 

My personal views are that there should be no racism at all.

I'm not certain what you mean by this.

"Should" is most commonly used to make recommendations or give advice. It can also be used to express obligation as well as expectation.

Source

To be specific, it was meant to express expectation.

reply to post by Hefficide

it was meant to express expectation.

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that you expect that at some point in the future, humanity will not manifest racial preference? That may be. But even if so, I'm not certain it's relevant to the conversation that I thought we were having.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Racist possess a extreme form of self HATRED so that is a sign of their vibrations emmited on the regular. So to say they are from another dimension seems far far out but they just dont fit in with everyone else. Interesting viewpoint OP.

Originally posted by LordBucket

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that you expect that at some point in the future, humanity will not manifest racial preference? That may be. But even if so, I'm not certain it's relevant to the conversation that I thought we were having.

We don't seem to be having a conversation at present, but more of an exercise in semantics. Nonetheless I will attempt, once more, to be more concise.

It is my assertion that racism is irrational and deters from societal progress. Racism is divisive and serves to separate human beings at a time when unification best serves the common interest. This divisiveness could also be used as a tool to create deliberate separations within a population, thus weakening their collective strength.

I don't know if this has to do with being part of Generation Y or not but personally, I don't give a crap about skin color. And I love it.