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

[Lagayascienza]

Racism is ubiquitous and pernicious. Racists, of whatever race, should remember that even if they succeeded in "purifying" their society, there are always differences, even within groups, and if they happen to be one who has such a difference, they may find themselves at the pointy end of the discriminatory stick. Racism is crazy.

[popeye1945]

Racism is ubiquitous and pernicious. Racists, of whatever race, should remember that even if they succeeded in "purifying" their society, there are always differences, even within groups, and if they happen to be one who has such a difference, they may find themselves at the pointy end of the discriminatory stick. Racism is crazy.

EXCELLENT!

[Samana Johann]

Every person who has not reached sainthood, not abound the chain of "identification in compounds", does actually "racist". Most racist are of course self decleared "non-racist" and the most antisemitic are Semitics.

A good and conductive "racism" does tending to virtuous people, people of integrity, and eager avoid the opposite. Something most would find hard, as pseudoliberal would identify such as common racist.

[Samana Johann]

Racism is crazy.

If so, why than such discrimination?

The isdue isn't discrimination - of which is something important for all ways toward benefits - but of what makes one higher and one lower, and certain such isn't reasonable by birth, signs, color, ... yet total reasonable in regard of deeds and ways of deeds, by body, speech and mind, good householder.

[value]

Is the hate involved in racism fundamentally different from the hate that arises between nations?

Philosophy can overcome the hate, in my opinion. The root of the problem, in my opinion, is captured in the following:

“What once has been perceived as good, is put in front of the charier, and that is where the war begins...”

Ethical notions are the problem because it can result in violence and manifest a culture of hate.

Bertrand Russell has studied the roots of war and "Why Men Fight" (one of his books) and ultimately his response was a fundamental aversion of ethical notions, based on the idea that the philosophical truth is essentially neutral for anyone.

In an essay that he named "Philosophers and Pigs", Russell wrote: "It seems the essence of virtue is persecution, and it has given me a disgust of all ethical notions. Ehical notions offer little more than self-serving argument to justify violence."

Russell’s antiwar protest was so extensive that it would cost him both his job and, for a time, his personal freedom. His theoretical antidote was philosophy, and I believe that he was right.

(2020) The politics of logic by Bertrand Russell – Philosophy at war: nationalism and logical analysis
‘The [philosophical] truth, whatever it may be, ... is in its essence neutral’
https://aeon.co/essays/philosophy-at-wa ... l-analysis

In a recent topic about the place of debate in philosophy, a user commented the following:

The very idea that we have chosen a side before the discussion is a roadblock to progress. We should all be on the same team if we declare we are engaging in philosophy. We should all be not just willing, but eager to see our preconceptions be disproved, because then we truly will have learned and become wiser.

I am author of the topic The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and I have been making a case for the argument that philosophy should be held responsible.

I used a practical example of MacGyver, who, in an attempt to stop someone (a young gang member in a developing culture of hate) from seeking revenge for the murder of his brother, said "You are smarter than this" and with that incited a Lévinasian eschatological vision in him that broke the hate and the corresponding cycle of violence.

I've seen this from up close through my involvement with a critical philosophical blog on psychiatry. By showing a path of intellect and reason, people are able to overcome the most profound hate and inclinations of revenge. Staying true to an ethical self enables people to win.

Intellect and reason is a higher good than hate and revenge. Therefore my argument: philosophy can and should be held responsible.

"Within the context of reason, there is no place for hate and evil."

Kant wrote in "Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason,": "pure reason is the faculty of concepts, and concepts are not concerned with the inclinations, but only with the understanding and its object"

Therefore, according to Kant (who authored one of the most profound works on reason), pure reason cannot be the source of hate and evil, which arises from the inclinations and desires of the human will. Kant believed that every human being has the capacity to resist evil and choose the moral path, which is the path of reason.

The beautiful comment of chewybrian shows, in my opinion, that racism and hate can and should be overcome by philosophy: We should all be on the same team if we declare we are engaging in philosophy.

My argument for progress: in order to advance into a reasonable and ethical world one will need to become aware of the fundamental questionable nature of the world. A world that finds its ultimate source in pure philosophy.

"It is philosophy all the way down".

It is evident that pure philosophy doesn't allow racist hate, not by prohibiting it, but by fundamentally making it irrational, a priori.

[LuckyR]

Is the hate involved in racism fundamentally different from the hate that arises between nations?

Philosophy can overcome the hate, in my opinion.

While there exist those who hate those of other races, in my experience at the current time, the majority of racism involves favoring one's own race above others (rather than active repression of other races). You could call it too much love of one's own side rather than hatred of the other side.

[Fried Egg]

Going back to the opening post and focusing on what they said about what it means to be racist having changed over the years, I can definitely relate to this. The principle of "colour blindness" that Martin Luthor King seemed to espouse now has come under attack from some corners. The idea being (something along the lines of) that if we don't see race then we are not seeing racism itself and therefore won't be taking action to address it. Now it is important that we embrace our "race" as part of our identity and remain fully cognisant of it in ourselves and others.

I feel that this change has arisen from a gradual redefining of what the word "racism" actually means. It has moved away from focus on explicit and intentional discrimination towards inadvertent and unconscious discrimination. When many use the term racism now they are talking more about the structures and power imbalances in society and it's institutions. Therefore, one might say a society is racist, not because it is necessarily full of people who deliberately discriminate on racist grounds, but because society itself is structured along lines that benefit one race vs another. Whether or not this is true is a matter for debate but this distortion of the original meaning of racism is confusing to many people and a source of much of much of the disagreement around racism.

In one sense this is definite progress. The fact old style racism that used to be prevalent in western societies has largely been eradicated has allowed people to focus on more subtler forms of discrimination. But on the other hand it risks going too far and being counter productive (throwing the baby out with the bath water). Must we now tear up our social structures completely because they were established in a time when racial discrimination was socially acceptable? Plus I think that making everyone hyper conscious of their race is likely to only emphasise our differences and alienate us from our fellow humans. And finally it forces us to shift our focus in tackling racism away from individual behaviour and towards statistical outcomes. (i.e. we can tell a society is racist because only 1% of people in power are black when 10% of the population is black.) Society can be racists even if populated entirely by well meaning individuals who are sincerely trying not to be because they might be unconsciously inheriting racist attitudes or benefiting from social structures that are not even aware they are (i.e. because they are "privileged"). Yet this ignores the fact that disparate social outcomes might arise merely out of difference in cultural attitudes and habits.

[Sea Turtle]

If all people are the same and asexual, how would teamwork ever occur? Who would lead, Who would follow? We live by our feelings, and are motivated by our desires.

Take note of insects that have very similar members of a group. But... the leader is usually different

Much better to understand and thrive.

The modern and current racism concerns, however valid they may be are simply a tactic by the looser to survive and then win if possible. Best way to win is convince the competitor to stand down and surrender. Shame is a powerful tool.

The differences are very obvious between race and sex and or gender. For example, color is different. The physical characteristics of difference are many.

Very acceptable to protect the family, the tribe, the culture.

It also involves the conversation of rights vs privileges. It usually goes something like... "you did not do what I want, you must be racist". For example we hire a person of same race instead of a different race. Why should the other race have any complaint. being hired is a privilege not a right.

When we confuse rights and privileges, then the racist and sexist reasoning gets applied. Do we not have a RIGHT to choose. Do we have a right to protection or even to food? Most of what we consider to be rights, are simply privileges granted by our group.

What authority grants rights?

Is it good for an outsider to break a family because they insist to be a member of that family? Perhaps they could start by including the people different than them into there own family.

[LuckyR]

The modern and current racism concerns, however valid they may be are simply a tactic by the looser to survive and then win if possible. Best way to win is convince the competitor to stand down and surrender. Shame is a powerful tool.

The differences are very obvious between race and sex and or gender. For example, color is different. The physical characteristics of difference are many.

Very acceptable to protect the family, the tribe, the culture.

Alas, racism concerns are, in fact more than just a "looser" (sic) tactic. Of course asking someone not subject to racism to lecture on it's intricacies is obviously an unfair task.

You are correct that everyone uses whatever is available to make themselves more competitive. The well connected use connections, the wealthy use wealth, the physically attractive use sex appeal, the strong use threats, of course some use guilt (or shame in your parlance). But dismissing racism for that reason makes about as much sense as dismissing wealth.

Since race is a human cultural construct with little coherent meaning, the differences you reference are not as solid as you proclaim.

Though in areas of private choice I agree (as does the law) that preferences can be freely expressed. The law only intervenes when public decidions are made.

[Sea Turtle]

The modern and current racism concerns, however valid they may be are simply a tactic by the looser to survive and then win if possible. Best way to win is convince the competitor to stand down and surrender. Shame is a powerful tool.

The differences are very obvious between race and sex and or gender. For example, color is different. The physical characteristics of difference are many.

Very acceptable to protect the family, the tribe, the culture.

Alas, racism concerns are, in fact more than just a "looser" (sic) tactic. Of course asking someone not subject to racism to lecture on it's intricacies is obviously an unfair task.

You are correct that everyone uses whatever is available to make themselves more competitive. The well connected use connections, the wealthy use wealth, the physically attractive use sex appeal, the strong use threats, of course some use guilt (or shame in your parlance). But dismissing racism for that reason makes about as much sense as dismissing wealth.

Since race is a human cultural construct with little coherent meaning, the differences you reference are not as solid as you proclaim.

Though in areas of private choice I agree (as does the law) that preferences can be freely expressed. The law only intervenes when public decidions are made.

Yes, I can see your view.

Dismissing racism or race in general is probably not the best choice; I agree w/ you.

Race does exist as a category for refinement. What we do if anything with it (race) is interesting.

It is usually possible to know the race of another by only visual inspection. It may be a social construct, at the same time very clear visual differences usually exist. DNA differences are small depending on what scale we consider. Do we consider all of DNA, then yes the differences between race is tiny compared to differences between human and insect. The differences between races at DNA level does exist, with some races having larger differences from one another.

I agree is it not wise to ignore this, and not wise to dismiss it. Also, looking to reject it is no helpful. We are all one type is an attempt to gaslight the topic and overlook or focused on differences. What we find with sorting by race is not always comfortable information. Meaning we look for other reasons for the differences in an attempt to avoid the elephant in the room.

Embrace and appreciate vs obfuscation. let nature take its course, it will anyway.... Remove the anxiety, shame, jealousy, about this and replace it with encouraging each other to develop the strengths that they have. Do not try to copy and displace the winners, instead become winners from our natural strengths.

Evolution is not fair.

[LuckyR]

The modern and current racism concerns, however valid they may be are simply a tactic by the looser to survive and then win if possible. Best way to win is convince the competitor to stand down and surrender. Shame is a powerful tool.

The differences are very obvious between race and sex and or gender. For example, color is different. The physical characteristics of difference are many.

Very acceptable to protect the family, the tribe, the culture.

Alas, racism concerns are, in fact more than just a "looser" (sic) tactic. Of course asking someone not subject to racism to lecture on it's intricacies is obviously an unfair task.

You are correct that everyone uses whatever is available to make themselves more competitive. The well connected use connections, the wealthy use wealth, the physically attractive use sex appeal, the strong use threats, of course some use guilt (or shame in your parlance). But dismissing racism for that reason makes about as much sense as dismissing wealth.

Since race is a human cultural construct with little coherent meaning, the differences you reference are not as solid as you proclaim.

Though in areas of private choice I agree (as does the law) that preferences can be freely expressed. The law only intervenes when public decidions are made.

Yes, I can see your view.

Dismissing racism or race in general is probably not the best choice; I agree w/ you.

Race does exist as a category for refinement. What we do if anything with it (race) is interesting.

It is usually possible to know the race of another by only visual inspection. It may be a social construct, at the same time very clear visual differences usually exist. DNA differences are small depending on what scale we consider. Do we consider all of DNA, then yes the differences between race is tiny compared to differences between human and insect. The differences between races at DNA level does exist, with some races having larger differences from one another.

I agree is it not wise to ignore this, and not wise to dismiss it. Also, looking to reject it is no helpful. We are all one type is an attempt to gaslight the topic and overlook or focused on differences. What we find with sorting by race is not always comfortable information. Meaning we look for other reasons for the differences in an attempt to avoid the elephant in the room.

Embrace and appreciate vs obfuscation. let nature take its course, it will anyway.... Remove the anxiety, shame, jealousy, about this and replace it with encouraging each other to develop the strengths that they have. Do not try to copy and displace the winners, instead become winners from our natural strengths.

Evolution is not fair.

Actually it doesn't.

"As a taxonomic term, race defines an informal subdivision of subspecies which are physically and genetically different. However, the species Homo sapiens cannot be further subdivided into subspecies which are physically and genetically different. Thus, for H.sapiens, the species and subspecies are the same—H.sapiens sapiens (Box 1). In 2003, Phase 1 of the Human Genome Project (HGP) demonstrated that humans populating the earth today are on average 99.9% identical at the DNA level, there is no genetic basis for race, and there is more genetic variation within a race than between them [2]. In addition, genetic isolation, sharp boundaries and distinct evolutionary lineages of ‘races’ do not exist. Thus, the idea of ‘race’ as a genetic category was presumably put to rest."

So, as I mentioned, races are a human (subjective) construct, ie they don't exist objectively.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, that is my understanding of it, LuckyR. I think what confuses a lot of people is that groups who look different, but who are not genetically different in any important way, can have distinct languages, cultures and religions and it is these that form something of barrier to us seeing each other as essentially the same. There are a few tiny genetic differences that make for skin color, eye color, hair colour, shape of eyes etc., but, as you say, these genetic differences are not as great as those that occur within groups.

[LuckyR]

Yes, that is my understanding of it, LuckyR. I think what confuses a lot of people is that groups who look different, but who are not genetically different in any important way, can have distinct languages, cultures and religions and it is these that form something of barrier to us seeing each other as essentially the same. There are a few tiny genetic differences that make for skin color, eye color, hair colour, shape of eyes etc., but, as you say, these genetic differences are not as great as those that occur within groups.

Exactly. That's why scientists do research and laypersons make "common sense" assumptions.

[Fried Egg]

The fact that much of the statistical disparities that arise between the outcomes of difference "races" is largely down to cultural differences is completely ignored by both traditional racists (who like to believe that they are best explained by one race being genetically inferior to another) and by progressive anti-racists (that like to believe they are best explained by racial discrimination - be it systemic or otherwise).

But I also believe that the threat from traditional racists has dwindled to such an extent that they are far less of a worry than the progressive anti-racists (which is a part of the broader identity politics movement) who's views have become widespread and entrenched among whole swathes of society (i.e. many corporations, government institutions, universities, etc.)

[Belindi]

Going back to the opening post and focusing on what they said about what it means to be racist having changed over the years, I can definitely relate to this. The principle of "colour blindness" that Martin Luthor King seemed to espouse now has come under attack from some corners. The idea being (something along the lines of) that if we don't see race then we are not seeing racism itself and therefore won't be taking action to address it. Now it is important that we embrace our "race" as part of our identity and remain fully cognisant of it in ourselves and others.

I feel that this change has arisen from a gradual redefining of what the word "racism" actually means. It has moved away from focus on explicit and intentional discrimination towards inadvertent and unconscious discrimination. When many use the term racism now they are talking more about the structures and power imbalances in society and it's institutions. Therefore, one might say a society is racist, not because it is necessarily full of people who deliberately discriminate on racist grounds, but because society itself is structured along lines that benefit one race vs another. Whether or not this is true is a matter for debate but this distortion of the original meaning of racism is confusing to many people and a source of much of much of the disagreement around racism.

In one sense this is definite progress. The fact old style racism that used to be prevalent in western societies has largely been eradicated has allowed people to focus on more subtler forms of discrimination. But on the other hand it risks going too far and being counter productive (throwing the baby out with the bath water). Must we now tear up our social structures completely because they were established in a time when racial discrimination was socially acceptable? Plus I think that making everyone hyper conscious of their race is likely to only emphasise our differences and alienate us from our fellow humans. And finally it forces us to shift our focus in tackling racism away from individual behaviour and towards statistical outcomes. (i.e. we can tell a society is racist because only 1% of people in power are black when 10% of the population is black.) Society can be racists even if populated entirely by well meaning individuals who are sincerely trying not to be because they might be unconsciously inheriting racist attitudes or benefiting from social structures that are not even aware they are (i.e. because they are "privileged"). Yet this ignores the fact that disparate social outcomes might arise merely out of difference in cultural attitudes and habits.

Good point about old fashioned racism and modern racism.

Modern racism is being countered by welfare socialism that ensures that formerly disadvantaged people get decent housing, income, health care, and education so that individuals withing that group have a good chance to be socially mobile.