I did read it.
Your suggestion is racist.
There is no such thing as “white men”.
No such thing as white men as they’re akin to unicorns as to not being real at all. Hmm, but then that would presume there is no white male patriarchy or whiteness to destroy.
At least be consistent.
This claim should be unpacked.
Start with the idea of ‘whiteness’. What does that mean? What is the “collective sense of identity” among white people? When did it develop, and in what context? If you look at the history of European immigration into the United States, you don’t see a collective sense of self identity between e.g. the Protestant English and Germans and the Catholic Irish and Italians. They may have recognized each other as ‘white’, but the descendants of early settlers would sooner have lumped the later-arriving European immigrants in with recently freed black slaves than with themselves.
White people are not a single culture, they don’t have a single history, they are not historically a collective. The only unifying feature of whiteness-qua-whiteness is the de jure racism that assigned rights according to race.
To some extent that’s true of black people as well: Africa is culturally diverse, and more recent waves of African immigrants are culturally distinct from Americans descended from slaves. And it’s certainly true of non-white people more generally. But it matters that one collective identity is ‘beneficiaries of a system that we agree is bad’, and another is ‘victims of a system that we agree is bad’.
So, to the extent that whiteness-qua-whiteness is an identity build around a racist system, it is arguably true that a subsidiary goal of anti-racism is to destroy it. If racism is bad, then identities that are built around racist systems are bad are bad (c.f. Nazi, Confederate, Klansman, etc.).
But I say that this is a subsidiary goal because the overarching goal of antiracism is more to get people to notice this kind of thing, to notice that it still has effects in the world, and take affirmative steps to reduce those effects.
Needless to say, this is all quite different from a goal of “all white people are gotten rid of everywhere on planet earth”. The point is that an identity is bad (it’s bad to feel a personal allegiance to whiteness-qua-whiteness), and not that a label is bad (though it may not be useful in all situations where it’s used) – and especially not that the people who descriptively fit that label are bad or deserve bad things.
That last would be racism.
And racism is bad.
1 Like
There’s actually many similarities between ethnically and racially European people, saying different European nationalities of European people have nothing in common is a pretty bold assertion.
Now there is one thing the anti racist crowd will say that all ethnic and racial white Europeans have in common interestingly enough where that is the racial exploitation of all people of color. It’s the original sin of all white people together worldwide that binds them that they must constantly atone for in collective acts of penance.
Will respond more later.
1 Like
I didn’t say that. I said they don’t share a collective sense of identity historically, and they are not a single culture. They have plenty in common, but all human cultures have plenty in common.
This is the kind of thing that makes me think you’re just going off of tweets. Antiracism is not anti-white.
That said, there are plenty of people who actually are racist against white people who call themselves antiracist and say racist things under the banner of antiracism. And if you base your understanding on their tweets, you’ll be confused about antiracism as a school of thought.
When a pseudo-intellectual liberal twat pretends he doesn’t understand what “white” means…or what a “European race” refers to, to protect his idiotic narrative that no evolution occurred for over 70, 000 years, then there’s no use in dealing with his psychosis.
Saying ‘races’ exist does not imply violence, exploitation, nor hatred…no more than saying species exists and that they have sub-species, with distinct recognizable physical and mental traits…inherited ranges of potentials.
But indoctrination is formidable when it is supported by deep human insecurities and fears.
1 Like
No one said any of those things.
Knowing your self-serving naive narratives,… I said them.
Europeans are part of Indo-Europan culture, designated by a linguistic family tree.
Two branches of tribes that descended south, after a long period of living in extremely adverse circumstances - during the Ice Age, to conquer lesser tribes…some migrating eastward, into northern India, and some westward, into northern Europe.
Their white skin, a product of these adverse environmental conditions, is but ONE of their traits.
The other is their features and their psychology…their Faustian spirit.
Now you can pretend you do not understand what “white” means, hypocrite…like you pretend you don’t understand what “black” refers to…
Does it refer to skin pigmentation…like the one found in many places, or does it refer to sub-Saharan Negroes?
Let your American psychosis guide you, hypocrite.
1 Like
Is reconciling sub-species in the feline species, caused by hatred…does it imply the eradication of all felines?
Does ti imply exploitation of felines?
What about sub-species in the canine species family?
What about sub-species among primates?
Now things are becoming personal, right?
So, ALL species have distinct sub-species, with their own particular physical and mental ranges of distinct traits…except one…ONE.
Guess which one.
Why?
Wlel, because postmodern, liberal twats, sensitive to nature’s injustices and knowing the historical products of such disparities - desperate to make them social in origin - say so…
They construct infantile narratives to rationalize their personal preferences…which is the true source of their despair.
Their “humanitarianism” has very personal roots…most of them cannot fully appreciate.
the old “fear” accusation is really a projection. they fear what this implies for them, personally, if we recognize that human disparities are primarily genetic, not social in origin.
1 Like
Language is to culture what DNA is to an organism.
Linguistic families delineate human ethnic/racial groups.
I know the issues with language and how it can be transferred to another race/culture and how it can be contaminated/diluted and even substituted by another culture…
All part of genetics.
Physical intercourse, mixes genes; linguistic intercourse mixes cultures.
Genes/Memes
1 Like
It’s a reductio ad absurdum parody of what you imagine “The Left” your hated bugbear is saying. Yes, there people out there making that mistake. Is anyone here do you reckon?
I don’t get out much. Online I encounter far more people getting whipped up against “wokeness” than anyone claiming to be woke or doing or saying anything in favor of it. So,
maybe it’s just whatever milieu one travels in or something. I’m guessing you live in a blue state whereas I live in a red one.
(Responding to OP)
1 Like
Actually I live in a very red republican state politically (Well, it used to be. That’s quickly changing in the other direction now. ), but even still we have our share of people wrapped in identity politics, especially with Californian neoliberal migrating transplants. Not enough they have to ruin their own state but they have to go everywhere else to do much the same.
You would think supposedly people who are familiarized with philosophy would be the same for global history as well, but more and more they’re not. It is a damn crime really, one can not understand the development of philosophy without understanding the many different kinds of people around the world who have contributed to it with their own distinct national or individual characteristics.
Okay. So where do you encounter these folks and what do they say exactly? I can think of only one instance where anything like that has come up in 5? years and it was with a woman who was studying Critical Race Theory for a master’s degree.
1 Like
Understanding man, is the underlying focus of philosophy.
What does philosophy study?
How man relates with his increasing awareness of himself and his own existence.
Nature’s indifference is the core of modern psychology.
It tries to ‘correct’ this by replacing it with man’s care - humanism.
Man cares about himself, because the cosmos does not.
And this is where the god of Abraham comes form.
1 Like
I have been all over the United States and Canada, I have encountered these types of attitudes both online and offline on numerous occasions.
Which is why I am a Buddhist as I care not for any of the Abrahamic religions or faiths. They use humanism along with a multitude of other useless distractions from discussing the core economic/political issues of society. Unfortunately up this point it has worked because a majority of people are illiterate or uneducated, yet even the uneducated amongst us feel something is terribly wrong on an instinctual level.
Interesting. I wonder why that is. I did hear a professor from a historically black university say that white people could be racist but black people could be “racialist”. Apparently the basis for this was that the white person was of the racially dominant group while the black person was not. And I was like “huh”?
To me a racist is a person who discriminates against people on the basis of physical characteristics. By that definition, I see racism as I wide spread cultural practice throughout the world. And I see it as a mental mistake. I deny that races exist per se. What you have are different ethnic groups who define themselves a long different lines. There are in-groups and out-groups.
When I lived in Miami, FL working as a counselor, I interacted with many different ethnic groups . You had a number of Hispanic groups who discriminated between each other and labeled white people as “Anglos” and vice versa. And you had African Americans who discriminated against Haitians and vice versa.
Here’s a Google summary of the racist / racialist distinction
While often used interchangeably, “racist” and “racialist” have distinct meanings. “Racist” describes a person who believes in the superiority of one race over another, often leading to discrimination and prejudice. “Racialist,” on the other hand, can refer to someone who acknowledges racial differences but doesn’t necessarily view them as hierarchical or discriminatory.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
This term implies a belief in the inherent superiority or inferiority of different races, often used to justify discrimination, prejudice, or violence.
This term can be used more neutrally to describe someone who recognizes the existence of racial differences, often in the context of historical, social, or biological variations. Racialism may not necessarily involve negative judgment or hierarchy.
In essence:
- Racism is a harmful ideology that promotes racial hierarchy and discrimination.
- Racialism is a more neutral term that acknowledges racial differences but doesn’t necessarily imply any negative consequences.
It’s important to note that the term “racialism” is sometimes used to describe a more modern, scientific approach to understanding human diversity, while “racism” is generally associated with harmful, discriminatory beliefs. However, the distinction can be blurry, and the terms are often used synonymously in everyday language.
I don’t find it helpful. I think behavioral differences depend on individual and ethnic group identification. What do you think?
No, simple mind…‘racist’ has come to mean that…it has been socially engineered to mean that.
So, now they say ‘race realist’ to circumvent the brainwashing.
Racist means a man who admits that the human species, like every fuckin’ species, has sub-species…with their own range of what are similar traits, within a species.
Like an African and Asian elephant.
Sub-species are a mediating phase towards speciation.
Not social constructs.
In fact, the denial of such sub-categories, in only species, IS a product of social engineering.
Th entire mythology built around it, to explain how only one species has no sub-categories and how in that one species all variants are exactly the same…except in appearance, is part of the social engineering…the propaganda.
Like with free-will, how you define a concept exposes your motives…and they are not truth…but something else.
1 Like
Admitting that human races exist…is just stating the obvious.
It has nothing to do with violence, hatred, exploitation, fear…
It has to do with reality…
If this troubles you, then why do you come to philosophy forums?
Seeking what?
Truth or comfortable lies?
Nature doesn’t give a shit about your feelings, or your ideals, or your modern humanitarian values…
Race explains historical facts and performative differences in the present.
Claiming it is a social construct fuels the decrepit minds of the lefties who want to ‘cure nature’ or ‘correct’ her brutal injustices.’
Then they seek the reasons in systemic racism, leading down the path towards civil unrest and collapse.
A comforting lie is not harmless…a well-meaning lie is not without negative consequences.
1 Like