Companies Censoring Speech

Wendy, if I am missing your point, please chalk it up to a deficit in my ability rather than my good faith.

There was another thread discussing the meaning of ‘racism’ where I flesh out some of the nuance, but for present purposes, I’ll say it this way: racism is treating people as members of a race first and as individuals second. “Treating people” can including mere thought (though I don’t suppose there’s such a thing as a thought that does not affect action), can include adopting ideologies that require or entail “treating people”, etc.

Note also, as I say in that thread, I don’t think racism is necessarily a moral failing, though it often is.

That definition tracks the definitions you provided (but with which you disagree), since treating someone as a member of a race first means prejudging them or discriminating against them. I disagree that racism requires a belief that “ones own race is superior”; a black person who discriminates against other black people in favor of white people seems pretty clearly racist to me.

Inevitable? On what time scale? Will the whole world eventually sort by race (despite a well-established history of racially distinct populations mixing)?

IYO, there is currently pretty strong assortative mating in western cultures, i.e. exactly the kind of “discriminative and selective pressure” you’re describing, it’s just not based on race so much as wealth and educational attainment.

And all the unemployed white men and those unable to go to college with a historic low of white males attending college, how do you figure that in your extrapolations? What happens next with a large population of disenfranchised individuals? I don’t think you have thought much of any of this out clearly.

Also, what happens when an indigenous population that is hated, targeted, or vilified becomes the next ethnic minority? You will have to do better in your points being addressed to me as I am not your average ILP poster you’re already acquainted with. The United States is one economic collapse away from total social chaos.

I am unable to meet everyone individually…what now? 99.999% are not treated as anything but passerbys.

If noticing difference means treating somebody realistically based on differences, then I do treat people realistically, but not based on their race first, but on their sexual gender (not their make believe sex gender), then physical dispositions which includes all other outward appearances (height, weight, race, facial expression, voice, gestures, clothing, etc.).

If I do meet them individually that is placed against all the other data that has accumulated and their nature is finally weighed on a personal level before I render my decision about who they may be.

You make no observations about people in groups and treat those people realistically from your observations? I know you do since you pegged me erroneously as apart of the white nationalist supremacists terrorist or are your powers of judgement unable to discern a more personal side to my nature from all (and it’s a lot of sharing) that I’ve revealed on ILP.

If I do not meet them on an individual level then they are realistically categorized based on my observations from a distance. Sorry, gender first…height, weight, then race down the line.

As for how I treat people…in groups they are treated according to their behaviors, not their skin color, but there are behaviors which trigger my discrimination often exhibited by groups of alike individuals.

So if I meet you individually, you will be recognized as an individual. If I am witness to you in a group exhibiting group behaviors, then you will be judged as part of that group. I act according to the behaviors exhibited, but many negative interactions with groups and individuals who share the same categories of identity can spawn prejudices.

I don’t simply see colored skin and automatically treat them poorly based on their skin color.

How so?

Otto, you still haven’t indicated what time scale you’re talking about. If you had said at any time in the past few millennia that any geographic area would become more racially homogeneous, you would have been wrong. The trend for basically all of recorded history across all the world has been towards greater diversity. That doesn’t mean that going forward that trend will continue, but that is clearly the baseline against which we’re making our predictions.

And when we’re making those predictions, it’s a poor methodology to look at trends that have been visible for only at most the past few decades (college enrollment), and are only tangentially related to what we actually want to predict (mass movements to create a race-based political and geographic entity). The more established trend, the trend in the variable we’re actually discussing, is towards more diversity.

This isn’t about you, it’s about white nationalism and whether it’s racist. Since you’ve denied being a white nationalist, what you do is not even a data point in that discussion.

Similar to points I made in the other thread about racism, I don’t think it’s accurate to describe what is happening as “treating [people] realistically based on differences”. People don’t use double blind studies or other rigorous methods for coming to their beliefs about what differences exist or how they express themselves. Rather, they rely on media depictions, oral histories, anecdotal evidence, etc. Moreover, when people aren’t using any rigor, they are bad statisticians, and they fail to take into account non-biology differences when they stereotype around things like race and gender. They rely on race and gender in particular because of their salience, not because of any demonstrated explanatory value.

Treating someone “realistically” requires a rigorous investigation of reality, not just relying on whatever ill-supported opinion forms after watching Shaft.

The ever decreasing circles of care down to “identity with blood”, combined with the obsession with genetic ‘purity’, seems to point toward keeping it in the family.

Can you give some examples of the set of traits you consider “white”?

What sorts of weird absurdities?

Diversity doesn’t mean all out total assimilation, integration, conformity, or absorption. That is not diversity.

It is helpful in these discussions to inject some socio economic discussions into the fold as well.

Carleas wrote

You’re so funny having a discussion about me and my views on racism that now it’s no longer about me since I had reasonable discussion points and questions that you want to ignore. Okay, let’s discuss your racism against your own race.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vybuyVVsyG0[/youtube]
John Derbyshire: Does race denialism have a future?

Do you practice race denialism, Carleas?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02vvYDxXQ3w[/youtube]
Helmuth Nyborg: What made Europe great and what could destroy it.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZzP2Hp_B-Q[/youtube]
Jared Taylor: Has the white man turned a corner?

I agree…you are racist, Carleas, and you are treating people unrealistically based on similarities.

Otto, “diversity” also even more clearly doesn’t mean a racially pure ethnostate.

Over all recorded history, across the whole planet, the world has gotten less and less like the one you’re predicting. That’s the baseline.

And your evidence that the trend is going to reverse (and that that reversal is inevitable) is less than a decade of college enrollment numbers in one country. Do I have that right?

Yes, it does. Race, culture, and languages all throughout history stem originally from isolated homogenous areas but now this international globalization project seeks to undermine all of that in eradication. Once again, white Europeans around the world make up only 8% of the global population where this number will greatly reduce within the next couple of decades. Then they say the eradication or genocide of white Europeans is ridiculous where it is not!

The global project that you and others support or promote will have grave damning consequences!

I’m saying that the backlash from all of this is inevitable where rebellion and revolution is very much guaranteed. You cannot expect an entire race and cultures to boldy embrace extinction without the slightest protest or rebellion. That’s just stupid and naive.

None of that suggests that people will start prioritizing their whiteness over all the other traits that modernity threatens, and revolt for the purpose of creating a white ethnostate. People that are dissatisfied with the way the world is working will more likely prioritize economic, national, and political identities over racial ones. The disenfranchised unskilled laborers have more in common on economic dimensions than racial, and they have almost nothing in common with the wealthy white people in the 1%.

You speak from the perspective of economic materialism and profit incentives only. This sort of thinking is short sighted, myopic, and ignores the law of unintended consequences where to be frank there will be many if western civilization continues to go down this route of globalization whether you care to admit it or not. As a big city attorney Carleas I don’t expect you to understand these things because lets be honest your lifestyle is pretty much insulated away from all of this but the majority of people are not so lucky to say the same.

If you knew anything at all you wouldn’t separate political or national identity from race and culture as they are one in the same. The wealthy white Europeans much like their Ashkenazi counterparts have sacrificed western cultural or racial identity in the name of profit. If you were wise you would understand this is all a part of a much greater problem.

Lol.

But this illustrates exactly my point. You don’t care what race I am, you care whether I live in a city (which I take as a proxy for globalist outlook), and what I do for a living (which I assume is a proxy for wealth). You can make common cause with black people living in Detroit much more easily than you can with white people living in New York. That’s a problem for your “inevitable” ethnostate. Your own coalition is not racial, it’s economics, it’s class, it’s politics.

He already knew of your white hating whiteness, Carleas.

Everyone has in group preference. That extends to culture, race, skin color, language, mannerisms, etc. it doesn’t mean you hate people who are different, it just means you have natural preference and comfort with those who are like you, who can relate to you and who you can relate to.

I don’t hate other families just because I put my own family first. Likewise with my culture and my race.

Race actually means something. Biologically, race is a collection of similar genes that are not too similar that they would lead to loss of variability and incest-like problems, but similar enough that they tend to perpetuate and reinforce each other phenotypically. Different races are ways of concentrating certain genetic tendencies and perpetuating them. And different races will obviously have different such tendencies. But remember that different race does not mean different species. We can all still breed cross-racially and mix up those racial genetic groups; Darwin wrote about how this causes a weakening of the gene pool, because it dilutes those particular genetic traits that the race had cultivated over so many thousands of years; he also wrote about his observations that race mixing leads the offspring to tend to be more aggressive.

I’m not saying race mixing is necessarily bad, but these are just things to keep in mind. Pure breeds can also have behavioral issues, ideally you want some balance of racial homogeneity with some relatively small degree of mixing. Think about Europe as a good example, and especially America, where most “white” Americans have racial heritage from different “white” European lineages. Race is not a bad thing nor is having an in group preference for your own race, or for your culture.

At the end of the day the individual bears responsibility for him or herself. Placing race on a pedestal and calling yourself a white or black supremacist is simply abnegating your individual self-responsibility. Racism is bad not because race isn’t important, but because racism is a tribal collectivist socialist ideology that places the group above the individual and judges individuals more based on their membership in such groups than on the individual themselves.

Racism is stupid. But so is the Leftist race denialism and stoking hatred of “white people” and shaming them for simply valuing their own racial heritage. No other race on the planet gets shamed by leftists, except “white” races. This is what pisses us off. It is simply more cultural Marxist creep into western civilization, and we strongly oppose that.

Don’t tell me I can’t value my own race or my own culture above other races and cultures. I don’t tend to think that way normally, but if pushed I will certainly not go along with denigrating and shaming my own race and culture based on these absurd radical leftist dogmas. And I want my own race and culture to keep existing, as I’m sure every person anywhere (except white leftists of course) want their own race and culture, whatever it is, to keep existing. Nothing wrong with that. Again, valuing your own race or culture doesn’t mean you hate other races and cultures.

No, I am saying people like you don’t care about things generally because you profit from globalism and are insulated away from its negative effects.
Typically self hating white liberals stem from the cities or college campuses where your entire outlook is one indocrinated by globalist ideology.

You’re so removed from reality on the street that you’re unfamiliar with the negative effects of globalization. It is no surprise you only see things from an economic profit based vantage point as that is a view held by people of privilege everywhere.

Yes these have been my observations as well. Liberals defending globalization tend to work for the government in some direct or indirect capacity, such as being teachers or college professors or working for non-profits that receive government funding. Bottom line is that liberalism-leftism in America is just a way for certain people to try and keep profiting. It is sycophantism, even if only at a more unconscious level (i.e. they intuitively know that if they do not support more state powers and globalist expansions then this will end up hurting them personally somehow). It’s just narrow self-interest masking as some kind of weird altruism, with a fair dose of psychological issues such as resentment and mental laziness thrown in on top.

The primary reason anyone defends globalization and the massive expansion of the state and “elites” that it represents is simply the maxim, “don’t bite the hand that feeds.” These people are content to sell the future and their fellows down the toilet so long as their own personal status quo isn’t interrupted.

Pretty good analysis.