Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

As many of you know, my political philosophy is extremely simple, extermely understandable, and extremely clear in that I am simply a fundamentalist and extremist about peace and freedom, meaning, in other words, that my political philosophy is simply this: I adamantly oppose all non-consensual non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.).

Although I am a peace-loving peace-promoter, I am incidentally not personally a full-blown pacifist in that I do support the use of defensive force as needed to stop those who are committing non-defensive violence (e.g. murderers, rapists, etc.). Nonetheless, as a peace-lover, I talk about pacifists a lot, namely in terms of speaking out often in firm opposition to any violence committed against pacifists both throughout history and still to this day in modern times throughout the world.

With that in mind, I recently made the quasi-mistake of commenting on a Facebook post of a funny meme on a comedic meme page, thereby getting myself into a brief debate of sorts with some random strangers about the use of violence against racists, in the comments section on Facebook.

While that is not something I nlike to make a habit of doing, one of the commenters did make a very interesting claim. I'll paraphrase a bit, but what she essentially said is this: "There is no such thing as a pacifist racist. A person cannot be both a pacifist and a racist. Racism is inherently violent."

Typically, I don't strictly agree that "racism is inherently violent", but that may be semantics.

To elaborate, likely, her and I simply define the word 'racist' a little differently, with my definition being more broad than hers, such that my definition includes more people than hers, and such that her definition of the word is much narrower. In other words, there are people that I think are racist that she would say are not racist because they are pacifists. So presumably I'm just more willing to consider a person as being a racist than she is. I can say about someone, "yes, that person is very peaceful; yes, that person is a full-blown pacifist; but that person is a racist." She could not say that, since she thinks that pacifists by definition cannot be racist.

In that way, this question might be merely a matter of semantics, meaning her and I presumably wouldn't disagree about the facts but merely just the labels. Nonetheless, I'd like to ask it: Can a racist be a pacifist? Can a pacifist be a racist?

What do you think? And why?



It's only loosely related but nonetheless here is the meme that triggered the discussion, which itself really does relate to my overall peace- loving philosophy of live and let live:

[Sy Borg]

I think she must be referring to systemic violence, for instance, invading another nation. If not, it's just undisciplined postmodern jibber jabber.

If everyone with any degree of racism was violent, there would be a lot more violence going on. I remember my mother saying that she was polite to someone (can't remember race/colour) in a way that only a racist can be. That is, she overcompensated for her conditioned instincts,, of which she was aware.

I suppose I am a racist too. I play drums and I remember being especially chuffed when a black workmate said he loved my playing. The primitive part of my mind extrapolated irrationally, because so many of my favourite drummers are black. Of course, I have seen black people have almost no sense of rhythm and white and Asian people with incredible rhythm, but the cliché and conditioning were strong to elicit what was an inappropriate emotional reaction.

It should be said that I never committed violence on that black workmate, unless you count chats over the water cooler. Nor did I vote for my country to participate in a unilateral invasion, rather, I attended the rally against the Iraq invasion, and I never normally do such things. Maybe the woman on social media is young and immature? She may be unaware that adults are often quite aware of their conditioning - and choose to be civilised.

[Papus79]

It depends how broadly she defines racist. Someone whose just subconsciously uncomfortable with people who don't look like them due to potential for surprise or mismatched expectations could be said to have social anxiety by some, would be considered generally racist by others, but I'd be curious as to what those who would call the person in this example a racist would say if they also said that the same person had the same social anxiety around even people of their own race if they didn't seem 'just like them'.

I think we're generally a xenophobic species. People can work on that, our subconscious minds are - for better or worse - comparable to that of any other animal in the biological kingdoms and accordingly aren't typically amenable to modern political sensibilities (sorry Robin DiAngelo - I don't think any amount of 'deep work' or 'praxis' is changing that). The best you can really hope for is to treat people fairly regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender expression. When that's not enough - walk away. Past that it's levying a tax that no one can pay.

I clearly think someone could be pacifist and racist in the general sense of just being xenophobic. Heck, you could have someone whose a pacifist who just so happens to also be convinced of someone like Jared Taylor's arguments about race and IQ, it's just that - in modern times - the political contingencies make it unlikely.

I'd agree with Sy Borg above on this but aside from them being undisciplined - part of tribalism and finding enemies is also weaving simplifying fictions about them as well. It doesn't have to be 'true', it just has to optimize well for group cohesion and making a proper monster of 'the other'. Overt racism's just one way propaganda against 'the other' comes about, and watching the way US politics has Balkanized shows an incredibly wide variety of ways people can do this without going for race (they can go for liberalism, conservatism, religious faith, woke vs non-woke, LGBT vs. non, etc.).

[Count Lucanor]

As many of you know, my political philosophy is extremely simple, extermely understandable, and extremely clear in that I am simply a fundamentalist and extremist about peace and freedom, meaning, in other words, that my political philosophy is simply this: I adamantly oppose all non-consensual non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.).

Although I am a peace-loving peace-promoter, I am incidentally not personally a full-blown pacifist in that I do support the use of defensive force as needed to stop those who are committing non-defensive violence (e.g. murderers, rapists, etc.). Nonetheless, as a peace-lover, I talk about pacifists a lot, namely in terms of speaking out often in firm opposition to any violence committed against pacifists both throughout history and still to this day in modern times throughout the world.

With that in mind, I recently made the quasi-mistake of commenting on a Facebook post of a funny meme on a comedic meme page, thereby getting myself into a brief debate of sorts with some random strangers about the use of violence against racists, in the comments section on Facebook.

While that is not something I nlike to make a habit of doing, one of the commenters did make a very interesting claim. I'll paraphrase a bit, but what she essentially said is this: "There is no such thing as a pacifist racist. A person cannot be both a pacifist and a racist. Racism is inherently violent."

Typically, I don't strictly agree that "racism is inherently violent", but that may be semantics.

To elaborate, likely, her and I simply define the word 'racist' a little differently, with my definition being more broad than hers, such that my definition includes more people than hers, and such that her definition of the word is much narrower. In other words, there are people that I think are racist that she would say are not racist because they are pacifists. So presumably I'm just more willing to consider a person as being a racist than she is. I can say about someone, "yes, that person is very peaceful; yes, that person is a full-blown pacifist; but that person is a racist." She could not say that, since she thinks that pacifists by definition cannot be racist.

In that way, this question might be merely a matter of semantics, meaning her and I presumably wouldn't disagree about the facts but merely just the labels. Nonetheless, I'd like to ask it: Can a racist be a pacifist? Can a pacifist be a racist?

What do you think? And why?



It's only loosely related but nonetheless here is the meme that triggered the discussion, which itself really does relate to my overall peace- loving philosophy of live and let live:

I think the issue lies not in how she defines racism, but in how she defines violence. In the politically-correct jargon of the postmodern left, violence includes any symbolic act that offends the self-appointed members of a group that has historically been victimized by another group, to which the offender supposedly belongs.

[LuckyR]

Since this entire thread involves the relationship between labels, as many have noted those relationships depend on the exact definitions of the labels.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

I agree 100% that you can't be a pacifist and a racist. I think this because I believe it's obviously self-contradictory. It's like being a non-vegan and pacifist. It just doesn't mesh together in my opinion.

[Sy Borg]

Most people are racist. Thus, according to the thread premise, almost everyone is violent.

Most western nations are not like the US, and they are a long way from being the most racist societies. Countries like Britain and Australia, and most mainland European nations are nowhere near as racist as nations like Qatar, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Sri Lanka and Egypt. Or consider how the Bantu in the Congo barely even acknowledge pygmies as human.

Prejudice is everywhere, and it has been this way since the dawn of history, and no doubt before.

It's inbuilt for animals to hold close to those like you and to distrust those who are not familiar. What multiculturalism achieved by making different cultures more accessible was to widen the political racism divide, between those who enjoyed good experiences with migrants and those who did not.

It doesn't matter who or what you are, there will always be a gatekeeper to claim that you are evil. This begs the question, is it ethical to claim that regular everyday people are "evil?". This would qualify as "bearing false witness".

[Leontiskos]

She could not say that, since she thinks that pacifists by definition cannot be racist.

She is wrong because the definition of 'racist' does not include non-pacifism. Her claim is almost certainly a variant of the ad hominem fallacy, where one attempts to discredit their opponent in a manner that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. In short, it is demonizing the opposition.

One might hold that racism is bad and non-pacifism is bad, and in that case the racist non-pacifist would be especially bad, but it is not a tautology to call someone a racist non-pacifist. Racists can be pacifists and non-pacifists can be non-racists. We don't need much more than a dictionary to understand this.

A similar thing would occur if someone were very passionate about vegetarianism and also very passionate about racism; and whenever they get into a heated debate with a non-vegetarian they accuse their opponent of racism, and whenever they get into a heated debate with a racist they accuse their opponent of non-vegetarianism (or animal cruelty or some such thing). There is no intrinsic connection. The only connection is that the person considers both things bad, judges that their opponent is an especially bad person, and decides that especially bad persons must have a combination of bad qualities. The syllogistic claim about definitions is just a means to justify the emotional anger--the demonization.

[Stoppelmann]

Most people are racist. Thus, according to the thread premise, almost everyone is violent.

Most western nations are not like the US, and they are a long way from being the most racist societies. Countries like Britain and Australia, and most mainland European nations are nowhere near as racist as nations like Qatar, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Sri Lanka and Egypt. Or consider how the Bantu in the Congo barely even acknowledge pygmies as human.

Prejudice is everywhere, and it has been this way since the dawn of history, and no doubt before.

It's inbuilt for animals to hold close to those like you and to distrust those who are not familiar. What multiculturalism achieved by making different cultures more accessible was to widen the political racism divide, between those who enjoyed good experiences with migrants and those who did not.

It doesn't matter who or what you are, there will always be a gatekeeper to claim that you are evil. This begs the question, is it ethical to claim that regular everyday people are "evil?". This would qualify as "bearing false witness".

So, is there a spectrum of violence amongst racists, varying from those who are quietly racist to those who are extremely violently racist?

[Gertie]

In that way, this question might be merely a matter of semantics, meaning her and I presumably wouldn't disagree about the facts but merely just the labels. Nonetheless, I'd like to ask it: Can a racist be a pacifist? Can a pacifist be a racist?

What do you think? And why?

I don't see a way around having to first establish the definitions, because the definitions are what the disagreement is about...

[Gertie]

It depends how broadly she defines racist. Someone whose just subconsciously uncomfortable with people who don't look like them due to potential for surprise or mismatched expectations could be said to have social anxiety by some, would be considered generally racist by others, but I'd be curious as to what those who would call the person in this example a racist would say if they also said that the same person had the same social anxiety around even people of their own race if they didn't seem 'just like them'.

I think you can make a good case for non-physical acts of racism causing harm from denying someone a job to calling someone a racist slur. (Whether you define that in terms of non-pacifism is another matter). But it's hard to see how just a rascist belief or attitude not acted on causes harm to anyone else.

I think we're generally a xenophobic species. People can work on that, our subconscious minds are - for better or worse - comparable to that of any other animal in the biological kingdoms and accordingly aren't typically amenable to modern political sensibilities (sorry Robin DiAngelo - I don't think any amount of 'deep work' or 'praxis' is changing that). The best you can really hope for is to treat people fairly regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender expression. When that's not enough - walk away. Past that it's levying a tax that no one can pay.

I clearly think someone could be pacifist and racist in the general sense of just being xenophobic. Heck, you could have someone whose a pacifist who just so happens to also be convinced of someone like Jared Taylor's arguments about race and IQ, it's just that - in modern times - the political contingencies make it unlikely.

I'd agree with Sy Borg above on this but aside from them being undisciplined - part of tribalism and finding enemies is also weaving simplifying fictions about them as well. It doesn't have to be 'true', it just has to optimize well for group cohesion and making a proper monster of 'the other'. Overt racism's just one way propaganda against 'the other' comes about, and watching the way US politics has Balkanized shows an incredibly wide variety of ways people can do this without going for race (they can go for liberalism, conservatism, religious faith, woke vs non-woke, LGBT vs. non, etc.).

Right.

[Pattern-chaser]

So, is there a spectrum of violence amongst racists, varying from those who are quietly racist to those who are extremely violently racist?

Given empirical evidence, we must surely answer "yes" to this question?

[Sy Borg]

Most people are racist. Thus, according to the thread premise, almost everyone is violent.

Most western nations are not like the US, and they are a long way from being the most racist societies. Countries like Britain and Australia, and most mainland European nations are nowhere near as racist as nations like Qatar, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Sri Lanka and Egypt. Or consider how the Bantu in the Congo barely even acknowledge pygmies as human.

Prejudice is everywhere, and it has been this way since the dawn of history, and no doubt before.

It's inbuilt for animals to hold close to those like you and to distrust those who are not familiar. What multiculturalism achieved by making different cultures more accessible was to widen the political racism divide, between those who enjoyed good experiences with migrants and those who did not.

It doesn't matter who or what you are, there will always be a gatekeeper to claim that you are evil. This begs the question, is it ethical to claim that regular everyday people are "evil?". This would qualify as "bearing false witness".

So, is there a spectrum of violence amongst racists, varying from those who are quietly racist to those who are extremely violently racist?

Is there a spectrum of violence amongst the lest racist people? Racism and violence are not the same thing. It is possible to be violent without the slightest sense of racism.

Racism is just one "-ism" that is no better or worse than any other, despite what Americans - caught in the headlights of their own extreme racial focus - will tell you. The world is not America, for whole the whole world appears coloured or white, as if being "coloured" means membership of a larger group of blacks, Asians Arabs and the like. No, most of these groups hate each other too? Have you ever noticed close relations between black people and the Chinese? Have you seen a lot black people marrying east Asians the way they marry whites? What of the schisms between northern and central Africans? How about Bantu Africans in the Conga considering pygmies to be subhuman? How about Indians and Pakistanis? The list goes on.

How about we consider other forms of prejudice? Sexism, homophobia, disabilities, classism, religious intolerance, mental illness, body shape, political affiliation and so forth. It's as though none of these matter next to the "Great Satan", racism. Why is racism so deeply overrated, compared with other forms of prejudice? Power - the power to fight. That's why sexism is treated seriously too. Most of the other groups discriminated against don't have to power to be taken seriously; they can easily be dismissed as kooks, perverts and fools.

A single careless word about race on social media is often treated as a far more serious issue than actual physical bashing and rapes of gays and trans. Ethics and power are closer relatives than most people think.

[Stoppelmann]

So, is there a spectrum of violence amongst racists, varying from those who are quietly racist to those who are extremely violently racist?

Is there a spectrum of violence amongst the lest racist people? Racism and violence are not the same thing. It is possible to be violent without the slightest sense of racism.

Racism is just one "-ism" that is no better or worse than any other, despite what Americans - caught in the headlights of their own extreme racial focus - will tell you. The world is not America, for whole the whole world appears coloured or white, as if being "coloured" means membership of a larger group of blacks, Asians Arabs and the like. No, most of these groups hate each other too? Have you ever noticed close relations between black people and the Chinese? Have you seen a lot black people marrying east Asians the way they marry whites? What of the schisms between northern and central Africans? How about Bantu Africans in the Conga considering pygmies to be subhuman? How about Indians and Pakistanis? The list goes on.

How about we consider other forms of prejudice? Sexism, homophobia, disabilities, classism, religious intolerance, mental illness, body shape, political affiliation and so forth. It's as though none of these matter next to the "Great Satan", racism. Why is racism so deeply overrated, compared with other forms of prejudice? Power - the power to fight. That's why sexism is treated seriously too. Most of the other groups discriminated against don't have to power to be taken seriously; they can easily be dismissed as kooks, perverts and fools.

A single careless word about race on social media is often treated as a far more serious issue than actual physical bashing and rapes of gays and trans. Ethics and power are closer relatives than most people think.

Thank you for missing my point! I was asking simply if racist people are variably violent, going from not at all to extremely violent? This would have a bearing on whether they can, in fact, be pacifists and still be racist. Since I am not racist, I wouldn't know.

Since my point is more pertinent to the OP, asking about pacifism and racism, than bringing in the multitude of ways of being prejudiced, perhaps we should stay on topic.

[Leontiskos]

Thank you for missing my point! I was asking simply if racist people are variably violent, going from not at all to extremely violent? This would have a bearing on whether they can, in fact, be pacifists and still be racist. Since I am not racist, I wouldn't know.

Since my point is more pertinent to the OP, asking about pacifism and racism, than bringing in the multitude of ways of being prejudiced, perhaps we should stay on topic.

As Count Lucanor pointed out, the woman's claim could only have plausibility by adopting the bloated redefinition of "violence." Someone utilizing this erroneous definition of violence may also claim that anyone who opposes homosexuality, for any reason whatsoever, cannot be a pacifist. But then you point to the Amish, who are obviously pacifists and yet oppose homosexuality, and we find that the claim is divorced from reality.

The other thing to note is that racism is a highly contingent reality in the historical sense, and is therefore compatible with all sorts of different qualities, good and bad.