Was Hitler a racist or an anti-semite? Was Churchill a racist or an elitist? Was Darwin a racist or a Darwinist?
The problem with the concept of racism is that it doesn't explain anything. It's mostly a term of abuse meant to punish and discipline anyone who dares to question the equality thesis.
This is probably why Noah decided to not even define the concept of racism, because there simply isn't an agreed definition (and that's on purpose). We would all be better off if we could retire the concept and stop obsessing over it so much.
"But is there such a thing as “a” racist? There are certainly people who are very racist, such as Adolf Hitler, or skinheads that go around beating up black people. We can all agree that the label “racist” applies to them."
Or blacks that go around beating white and Asian people, which is the most prevalent.
"On average, members of each race have a moderate preference for their own race: blacks prefer blacks; Asians prefer Asians etc. The only exception are white liberals, who have moderate preference against their own race."
White liberals are virtue signaling. The chart does show that whites are the least 'racist'.
You have a fixation on Adolf Hitler.
The term racist has been so bastardized that it is meaningless.
To your point about liberals, paradoxically they are signaling to their in-group, “other white liberals” their virtue. In a sense they are simply betraying their own for power.
Racist needs to become a term like Right-winger. You can be soft-right, centre-right, hard-right, extreme right. To a Leftie 'Right-wing' is innately a slur word, but it isn't to others.
Leftists cannot avoid calling every Right-Wing position racist, because they must always be pushing towards a new unpopular consensus and the only way to succeed is to point to the villains; real or maligned, in the struggle for the old one. To paraphrase that famous manifesto, this means that
- Racism is already recognized as a mainstream force by the dominant political powers, and it is time for racists to come out of the shadows and declare their aims, means and reasoning.
This is easily your worst article ever. When you specify the exact meaning of the word "racist", or deny being one yourself, all you do is legitimise the term. In reality, the word "racist" exists only as a pejorative used against right wingers - it is not a valid moral or political category. Stop denying it, start rejecting it.
Why does everyone (except white non-liberals) like whites the least? What have we done to deserve their dislike, other than a bit of empire building and colonialism? Well heck, even those races that haven't managed to build empires or colonise other lands didn't do so out of the kindness of their hearts. They just weren't capable of it.
And don't all the great things we have done in the past and still do make up for it? Who invented practically EVERYTHING in the modern world? Whose oldsters volunteer to clean our rivers and canals in their free time? Damned if I've seen many people of colour doing such voluntary work.
It would be nice to know who those blacks, Hispanics and Asians have in mind when they view us so negatively. Are they thinking of those cringing, self-loathing lefties, or Nazis and neo-Nazis, , or sink estate residents, or the harmless, effete, waddling-wobbling run-of-the-mill white people? Or all of us?
"What have we done to deserve their dislike, other than a bit of empire building and colonialism? Well heck, even those races that haven't managed to build empires or colonise other lands didn't do so out of the kindness of their hearts. They just weren't capable of it."
Yes, they were capable of it - and they did it. Every "race", throughout human history, has engaged in empire building & colonialism. Part of the current problem is that this is not being taught (or recognized), except for "whites", of course.
You are of course right. Certainly the Ottomans were very successful empire builders. However, many others were empire builders in a local way. It was the Europeans that conquered the world.
I was also thinking of small countries like Switzerland, Andorra and Liechtenstein. A doctrine of aggressive expansion would be an odd look for such minnows.
It’s because of envy. Whites colonized the world and only whites created modern civilization. So it’s envy & desire for power by using white guilt to obtain status.
But in Latin America, often most non-whites are whites supremists. They expect whites to rule & provide. Their TV & movies are all white people. The saying goes “improve the race” meaning your kids should be more white 😂.
The real problem in the West is the myth of guilt. Until white people stop worshiping guilt nothing will change.
Acceptance of externally assigned guilt seems to me to be a phenomenon most exemplified by European white cultures. This means that an individual, fully functional adult would not feel a sense of guilt unless they were told by an external entity that they should. This differs from internally assigned guilt that an individual might feel if he has betrayed or otherwise disadvantaged another individual within his/her affection and/or kinship group.
Sometimes I wonder if whites, as a biologically distinct group (race) possess somehow an intrinsic evolved characteristic that makes the individual excessively empathetic and this, combined with the teachings of Christianity, have made those of NW European descent more susceptible to assigned guilt, which at this point is a
means of manipulation.
Within my experience, you see nothing corresponding to this is east Asian racial groups. Not saying there's no guilt; I'm saying there is no, or little, externally assigned guilt, beyond the kinship group.
> Acceptance of externally assigned guilt seems to me to be a phenomenon most exemplified by European white cultures.
I've heard the exact opposite stereotype. That Western culture is based on (internally assigned) guilt, and Eastern culture is based on (externally visible) shame.
A feature of western Christian culture are teachings of behaviors that are good/bad, as determined by God, the ultimate authority and father figure. The idea of no stealing from a stranger, is a behavior that seem to be widely acceptable in all traditional cultures since the target is not a member of the family/kinship/tribal/ethnic group. So Christianity prohibits such behavior against the out groups, whereas without any such prohibition, the normal practice would be guilt-free opportunism. The desired behavior, and this would ostensibly apply to all humans, not only those within the sect, is clarified publicly by a religious leader in public address (sermon, mass).
These are not laws, but what are thought of as moral behaviors that any practitioner of modern Christianity is *expected* to follow. This would be accepting foreigners and Indiand, e.g., as equally worthy as themselves, and not to be exploited. To fail to do so--and boy, it sure did happen, huh?--was expected to be followed by a righteous sense of guilt by the person who violated the religious tenets. Of course, they might *never* have felt this without the external religious instruction from the pastor/priest, and possibly still do not truly feel any guilt, but must act as if they did if they want to stay in the congregation; nd they may not feel actual guilt, but will feel shame when judged by the group they are a part of. Unless they have confession and absolution, like Catholics.
However, as we focus on increasingly closer groups--e.g. kinship or nuclear family groups--the need to externally prohibit these behaviors is less--we don't need a priest to tell us not to steal from our widowed mom--and ultimately many will not steal from these close groups purely out of reluctance to harm them. There are noteworthy exceptions in dysfunctional situations, but the general trend is to self-inhibit opportunism when it harms members of an associated group. At that level, no one needs to tell the individual that they've wronged a person who "counts"; they know it themselves, and this is internally derived guilt, as opposed to a code of behavior imposed from without that would not normal trigger self-inhibitions, like in the first example.
East Asian ideas of guilt and shame are not congruent; exploiting an advantage over an out group may not be lauded, but it falls within acceptability/comprehension.
Guilt is driven internally by failed family duties, and in this case the shame is owned by the individual, not the family. But if a traditional public behavior is violated so that it is apparent to all, the entire family will be assigned, and feel, shame. Note that the members of that family, whose son may have stolen from a shopkeeper and is caught, do not feel *guilt*, only shame: the son ostensibly should feel both guilt and shame.
I speculate that if such a violation of a public behavior in NOT know, publicly, the family will hide it and feel no shame, and only the individual violator may feel guilt. Maybe.
So what has developed in western cultures at the demise of traditional religions, is the rise of public voices of morality; an extreme example is Greta Thunberg. he must *tell* you what to feel guilt about, apparently. They take the place of the pastor/priest, and very many people in western democracy feel the need to heed these new moral leaders.
There is very, very much less of this phenomenon in east Asian cultures.
Anyway, that's how it looks to me, and I could be wrong. :^)
"Racism" isn't a binary any more than intelligence.
The world is an endless sea of black swans mating with butterfly effects. Modeling is it impossible, as is predicting the future. "All maps are wrong; some maps are useful" is a concise summary of why command economies fail. They model society and then manage as if the model is accurate.
Cause and effect are still worth studying because understanding them can improve our decision-making, and thus our outcomes. We just need to appreciate the limits of our knowledge.
I think that this is demonstrably objectively accurate, and the challenge is to resist over-valuing those characteristics that your own racial group excels in.
One must be open to admitting that one's own racial group will come in 2nd or 3rd or less to other groups in some measurable attributes when objectively compared to the other such groups.
And I think that a hell of a lot of people have serious problems with this...maybe insurmountable problems.
"I’d say that most people (of all races) are at least slightly racist." I think Morgan Freeman said that.
Even so, what's the best comeback if someone calls you or describes you in public, without a shred of evidence, a racist? I one time threatened to sue for defamation, and that worked pretty well.
How do we distinguish actual heretics from those who are unfairly maligned as such? Is it even a coherent/meaningful question to those of us who are atheists?
I'm aware that there actually are people who just really don't like people of other races, and are willing to be rude or worse to them on that basis. And in such cases I'm happy to say, ok, sure, that really is racism and that's not cool.
But the word has been abused as a new word for "heretic", I think it's beyond redemption. Sure, you could say everyone is a little bit racist, ie ethnocentric... It's a normal human tendency to prefer others who are genetically and/or culturally similar that is only a problem when taken to an extreme. But to call that racism is to take an extremely judgmental attitude about it... To imply that it's inherently evil. You never hear anyone say, "We're all a little bit evil, and that's fine...just don't be TOO evil."
You never hear anyone say, "We're all a little bit evil, and that's fine...just don't be TOO evil."
That's because 'evil' is an extreme adjective used for the extreme end of bad. In the same way, 'I'm a little bit furious' makes no sense. I'm mildly racist does make sense. I seem to remember Kingsley Amis and Philip Larkin admitting that they - or was it Amis and Larkin talking about their parents? - were very mildy racist, all delivered in a manner suggesting, 'and that's perfectly alright'. As it is.
The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
In my opinion, the capacity for "good" and "evil" exists to some degree in every functional adult human, and which trait is ascendant, and when, and to what degree, is dictated by the physical/social environment.
Since it was Solzhenitsyn who said this I'm willing to give it a pass. However, I find it a bit saccharine. It reads like something from the Bible. In short, I don't agree with the great Aleksandr. I know people who are very lovely and I know people who are vicious and nasty and while no one is an angel and no one is a devil, the Solzhenitsyn quote has the effect of lumping them all together, which I think does a disservice to the lovely ones and shows the nasty ones in too flattering a light.
Are you racist against water? Well I like SOME water (but not too much) and I also like things OTHER than water as well.
Quantity, plurality, opportunity cost and cost benefit analysis are mental tools beyond midwits and social warriors.
And since race is a taboo topic most intelligent people avoid it as well since intelligent people are easily hacked through cost benefits (sure it makes me a bit sad, but it also makes other people VERY happy so the greater good is served)
'Are you racist against water? Well I like SOME water (but not too much) and I also like things OTHER than water as well.'
Usually analogies clarify. Gotta say, this analogy didn't clarify anything for me.
'...intelligent people are easily hacked through cost benefits...'
I don't know what that means. I know what 'intelligent people' means and I know what 'hacking' means and I have a very vague understanding of what 'cost benefit analysis' is. It's just the confluence of the three ideas that short-circuited my brain. Is this like saying, 'Intelligent people usually think about the consequences before voicing their opinion on race'?
Most intelligent people don’t know or think about race because they are not around diversity & it’s not comfortable & they are busy. For them just promote “beautiful people having more children”. They respond well to it.
The positive intelligent people think that bioengineering will fix racial issues. The negative intelligent people think W people deserve punishment. The positive people avoid "well what do we do until bioengineering fixes everything". And the negative people avoid having to answer for their crimes by instead pointing at others who they want dealt with first.
It does when combined with enough material assets to insulate you from constant reminders of reality.
You know, this is really only an issue in western democracies. I can assure you that few, if any, intelligent Chinese nationals have any of the problems we're discussing.
To the extent that being well-off corrolates with intelligence that might be true i.e., while being well-off can keep the worst diversities at arm's length, I'm not sure that intelligence does. An intelligent working class person still has to mix with diversity.
What may be the case is that like tends to mix with like and intelligent whites only ever meet intelligent diversities. These whites then make the false assumption that all diversities are just as intelligent and urbane as the ones they know.
"An intelligent working class person still has to mix with diversity."
yes, I agree with this.
...and...
"What may be the case is that like tends to mix with like and intelligent whites only ever meet intelligent diversities."
There are important nuances to this. The *cultural* tendencies towards *professed* racial magnaminity is not uniform. I'd say that western whites for reasons that I don't fully understand seem compelled to display this trait, while E. Asians make no such attempt, substituting either silence or if pressed (seldom happens) evasion.
Yes, you're probably right that magnanimity is asymmetrical. In the West we have clearly all been programmed to view a preference for one's own race as small-minded bigotry, and I don't think that necessarily a bad thing - though it is an unnatural thing.
Your point about East Asians could well be true, though I suspect more so of Chinese than Japanese. My experience of the latter over the last 20 years has only been positive, but I think the Chinese are a different kettle of fish.
Was Hitler a racist or an anti-semite? Was Churchill a racist or an elitist? Was Darwin a racist or a Darwinist?
The problem with the concept of racism is that it doesn't explain anything. It's mostly a term of abuse meant to punish and discipline anyone who dares to question the equality thesis.
This is probably why Noah decided to not even define the concept of racism, because there simply isn't an agreed definition (and that's on purpose). We would all be better off if we could retire the concept and stop obsessing over it so much.
I’m racist 👋🏻. Diversity sucks 👎🏻
#metoo
“ A Racist is anyone winning an argument with a liberal or sadly with a libertarian “
Peter Brimelow
Very good. Yes, like saying, 'Are you a fat?' or 'He's a clever'. Perhaps things on a sliding scale shouldn't be used as nouns.
"But is there such a thing as “a” racist? There are certainly people who are very racist, such as Adolf Hitler, or skinheads that go around beating up black people. We can all agree that the label “racist” applies to them."
Or blacks that go around beating white and Asian people, which is the most prevalent.
"On average, members of each race have a moderate preference for their own race: blacks prefer blacks; Asians prefer Asians etc. The only exception are white liberals, who have moderate preference against their own race."
White liberals are virtue signaling. The chart does show that whites are the least 'racist'.
You have a fixation on Adolf Hitler.
The term racist has been so bastardized that it is meaningless.
To your point about liberals, paradoxically they are signaling to their in-group, “other white liberals” their virtue. In a sense they are simply betraying their own for power.
Indeed, they are.
In group preference is completely normal around the World.
Only White people struggle with this issue. That's why they are being replaced.
Racist needs to become a term like Right-winger. You can be soft-right, centre-right, hard-right, extreme right. To a Leftie 'Right-wing' is innately a slur word, but it isn't to others.
Leftists cannot avoid calling every Right-Wing position racist, because they must always be pushing towards a new unpopular consensus and the only way to succeed is to point to the villains; real or maligned, in the struggle for the old one. To paraphrase that famous manifesto, this means that
- Racism is already recognized as a mainstream force by the dominant political powers, and it is time for racists to come out of the shadows and declare their aims, means and reasoning.
Full disclosure: I of course am a racist.
This image might be worth including into the post, since it illustrates what some people interpret as racism: https://zerocontradictions.net/images/leftist-guide-to-racism.jpg
This is easily your worst article ever. When you specify the exact meaning of the word "racist", or deny being one yourself, all you do is legitimise the term. In reality, the word "racist" exists only as a pejorative used against right wingers - it is not a valid moral or political category. Stop denying it, start rejecting it.
Start owning it. Make it funny. A racist is anyone who talks about race.
Why does everyone (except white non-liberals) like whites the least? What have we done to deserve their dislike, other than a bit of empire building and colonialism? Well heck, even those races that haven't managed to build empires or colonise other lands didn't do so out of the kindness of their hearts. They just weren't capable of it.
And don't all the great things we have done in the past and still do make up for it? Who invented practically EVERYTHING in the modern world? Whose oldsters volunteer to clean our rivers and canals in their free time? Damned if I've seen many people of colour doing such voluntary work.
It would be nice to know who those blacks, Hispanics and Asians have in mind when they view us so negatively. Are they thinking of those cringing, self-loathing lefties, or Nazis and neo-Nazis, , or sink estate residents, or the harmless, effete, waddling-wobbling run-of-the-mill white people? Or all of us?
"What have we done to deserve their dislike, other than a bit of empire building and colonialism? Well heck, even those races that haven't managed to build empires or colonise other lands didn't do so out of the kindness of their hearts. They just weren't capable of it."
Yes, they were capable of it - and they did it. Every "race", throughout human history, has engaged in empire building & colonialism. Part of the current problem is that this is not being taught (or recognized), except for "whites", of course.
You are of course right. Certainly the Ottomans were very successful empire builders. However, many others were empire builders in a local way. It was the Europeans that conquered the world.
I was also thinking of small countries like Switzerland, Andorra and Liechtenstein. A doctrine of aggressive expansion would be an odd look for such minnows.
It’s because of envy. Whites colonized the world and only whites created modern civilization. So it’s envy & desire for power by using white guilt to obtain status.
But in Latin America, often most non-whites are whites supremists. They expect whites to rule & provide. Their TV & movies are all white people. The saying goes “improve the race” meaning your kids should be more white 😂.
The real problem in the West is the myth of guilt. Until white people stop worshiping guilt nothing will change.
Acceptance of externally assigned guilt seems to me to be a phenomenon most exemplified by European white cultures. This means that an individual, fully functional adult would not feel a sense of guilt unless they were told by an external entity that they should. This differs from internally assigned guilt that an individual might feel if he has betrayed or otherwise disadvantaged another individual within his/her affection and/or kinship group.
Sometimes I wonder if whites, as a biologically distinct group (race) possess somehow an intrinsic evolved characteristic that makes the individual excessively empathetic and this, combined with the teachings of Christianity, have made those of NW European descent more susceptible to assigned guilt, which at this point is a
means of manipulation.
Within my experience, you see nothing corresponding to this is east Asian racial groups. Not saying there's no guilt; I'm saying there is no, or little, externally assigned guilt, beyond the kinship group.
> Acceptance of externally assigned guilt seems to me to be a phenomenon most exemplified by European white cultures.
I've heard the exact opposite stereotype. That Western culture is based on (internally assigned) guilt, and Eastern culture is based on (externally visible) shame.
I want to be clear on what we're talking about...
A feature of western Christian culture are teachings of behaviors that are good/bad, as determined by God, the ultimate authority and father figure. The idea of no stealing from a stranger, is a behavior that seem to be widely acceptable in all traditional cultures since the target is not a member of the family/kinship/tribal/ethnic group. So Christianity prohibits such behavior against the out groups, whereas without any such prohibition, the normal practice would be guilt-free opportunism. The desired behavior, and this would ostensibly apply to all humans, not only those within the sect, is clarified publicly by a religious leader in public address (sermon, mass).
These are not laws, but what are thought of as moral behaviors that any practitioner of modern Christianity is *expected* to follow. This would be accepting foreigners and Indiand, e.g., as equally worthy as themselves, and not to be exploited. To fail to do so--and boy, it sure did happen, huh?--was expected to be followed by a righteous sense of guilt by the person who violated the religious tenets. Of course, they might *never* have felt this without the external religious instruction from the pastor/priest, and possibly still do not truly feel any guilt, but must act as if they did if they want to stay in the congregation; nd they may not feel actual guilt, but will feel shame when judged by the group they are a part of. Unless they have confession and absolution, like Catholics.
However, as we focus on increasingly closer groups--e.g. kinship or nuclear family groups--the need to externally prohibit these behaviors is less--we don't need a priest to tell us not to steal from our widowed mom--and ultimately many will not steal from these close groups purely out of reluctance to harm them. There are noteworthy exceptions in dysfunctional situations, but the general trend is to self-inhibit opportunism when it harms members of an associated group. At that level, no one needs to tell the individual that they've wronged a person who "counts"; they know it themselves, and this is internally derived guilt, as opposed to a code of behavior imposed from without that would not normal trigger self-inhibitions, like in the first example.
East Asian ideas of guilt and shame are not congruent; exploiting an advantage over an out group may not be lauded, but it falls within acceptability/comprehension.
Guilt is driven internally by failed family duties, and in this case the shame is owned by the individual, not the family. But if a traditional public behavior is violated so that it is apparent to all, the entire family will be assigned, and feel, shame. Note that the members of that family, whose son may have stolen from a shopkeeper and is caught, do not feel *guilt*, only shame: the son ostensibly should feel both guilt and shame.
I speculate that if such a violation of a public behavior in NOT know, publicly, the family will hide it and feel no shame, and only the individual violator may feel guilt. Maybe.
So what has developed in western cultures at the demise of traditional religions, is the rise of public voices of morality; an extreme example is Greta Thunberg. he must *tell* you what to feel guilt about, apparently. They take the place of the pastor/priest, and very many people in western democracy feel the need to heed these new moral leaders.
There is very, very much less of this phenomenon in east Asian cultures.
Anyway, that's how it looks to me, and I could be wrong. :^)
"Racism" isn't a binary any more than intelligence.
The world is an endless sea of black swans mating with butterfly effects. Modeling is it impossible, as is predicting the future. "All maps are wrong; some maps are useful" is a concise summary of why command economies fail. They model society and then manage as if the model is accurate.
Cause and effect are still worth studying because understanding them can improve our decision-making, and thus our outcomes. We just need to appreciate the limits of our knowledge.
Let's keep pretend nobody is better than anyone else, despite the glaring evidence in our faces.
I think that this is demonstrably objectively accurate, and the challenge is to resist over-valuing those characteristics that your own racial group excels in.
One must be open to admitting that one's own racial group will come in 2nd or 3rd or less to other groups in some measurable attributes when objectively compared to the other such groups.
And I think that a hell of a lot of people have serious problems with this...maybe insurmountable problems.
"I’d say that most people (of all races) are at least slightly racist." I think Morgan Freeman said that.
Even so, what's the best comeback if someone calls you or describes you in public, without a shred of evidence, a racist? I one time threatened to sue for defamation, and that worked pretty well.
How about this for a comeback :
“ I m not racist - some of my best friends are 8th century Islamists that don’t t use toilet paper or soap and who throw Gay people off of roofs “
I’m not racist you’re just ugly
LOL
How do we distinguish actual heretics from those who are unfairly maligned as such? Is it even a coherent/meaningful question to those of us who are atheists?
I'm aware that there actually are people who just really don't like people of other races, and are willing to be rude or worse to them on that basis. And in such cases I'm happy to say, ok, sure, that really is racism and that's not cool.
But the word has been abused as a new word for "heretic", I think it's beyond redemption. Sure, you could say everyone is a little bit racist, ie ethnocentric... It's a normal human tendency to prefer others who are genetically and/or culturally similar that is only a problem when taken to an extreme. But to call that racism is to take an extremely judgmental attitude about it... To imply that it's inherently evil. You never hear anyone say, "We're all a little bit evil, and that's fine...just don't be TOO evil."
You never hear anyone say, "We're all a little bit evil, and that's fine...just don't be TOO evil."
That's because 'evil' is an extreme adjective used for the extreme end of bad. In the same way, 'I'm a little bit furious' makes no sense. I'm mildly racist does make sense. I seem to remember Kingsley Amis and Philip Larkin admitting that they - or was it Amis and Larkin talking about their parents? - were very mildy racist, all delivered in a manner suggesting, 'and that's perfectly alright'. As it is.
The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
In my opinion, the capacity for "good" and "evil" exists to some degree in every functional adult human, and which trait is ascendant, and when, and to what degree, is dictated by the physical/social environment.
Since it was Solzhenitsyn who said this I'm willing to give it a pass. However, I find it a bit saccharine. It reads like something from the Bible. In short, I don't agree with the great Aleksandr. I know people who are very lovely and I know people who are vicious and nasty and while no one is an angel and no one is a devil, the Solzhenitsyn quote has the effect of lumping them all together, which I think does a disservice to the lovely ones and shows the nasty ones in too flattering a light.
Are you racist against water? Well I like SOME water (but not too much) and I also like things OTHER than water as well.
Quantity, plurality, opportunity cost and cost benefit analysis are mental tools beyond midwits and social warriors.
And since race is a taboo topic most intelligent people avoid it as well since intelligent people are easily hacked through cost benefits (sure it makes me a bit sad, but it also makes other people VERY happy so the greater good is served)
'Are you racist against water? Well I like SOME water (but not too much) and I also like things OTHER than water as well.'
Usually analogies clarify. Gotta say, this analogy didn't clarify anything for me.
'...intelligent people are easily hacked through cost benefits...'
I don't know what that means. I know what 'intelligent people' means and I know what 'hacking' means and I have a very vague understanding of what 'cost benefit analysis' is. It's just the confluence of the three ideas that short-circuited my brain. Is this like saying, 'Intelligent people usually think about the consequences before voicing their opinion on race'?
Most intelligent people don’t know or think about race because they are not around diversity & it’s not comfortable & they are busy. For them just promote “beautiful people having more children”. They respond well to it.
Yes. It's a convenient artifice that lets them close the door on the world and enjoy TV programming of their choice.
Figuratively.
They love watching black sports teams. I can’t stand watching anyone else do anything much less people so obviously ugly and “other”.
The positive intelligent people think that bioengineering will fix racial issues. The negative intelligent people think W people deserve punishment. The positive people avoid "well what do we do until bioengineering fixes everything". And the negative people avoid having to answer for their crimes by instead pointing at others who they want dealt with first.
Being intelligent allows you to avoid having to deal with things you don't want to.
It does when combined with enough material assets to insulate you from constant reminders of reality.
You know, this is really only an issue in western democracies. I can assure you that few, if any, intelligent Chinese nationals have any of the problems we're discussing.
To the extent that being well-off corrolates with intelligence that might be true i.e., while being well-off can keep the worst diversities at arm's length, I'm not sure that intelligence does. An intelligent working class person still has to mix with diversity.
What may be the case is that like tends to mix with like and intelligent whites only ever meet intelligent diversities. These whites then make the false assumption that all diversities are just as intelligent and urbane as the ones they know.
"An intelligent working class person still has to mix with diversity."
yes, I agree with this.
...and...
"What may be the case is that like tends to mix with like and intelligent whites only ever meet intelligent diversities."
There are important nuances to this. The *cultural* tendencies towards *professed* racial magnaminity is not uniform. I'd say that western whites for reasons that I don't fully understand seem compelled to display this trait, while E. Asians make no such attempt, substituting either silence or if pressed (seldom happens) evasion.
Yes, you're probably right that magnanimity is asymmetrical. In the West we have clearly all been programmed to view a preference for one's own race as small-minded bigotry, and I don't think that necessarily a bad thing - though it is an unnatural thing.
Your point about East Asians could well be true, though I suspect more so of Chinese than Japanese. My experience of the latter over the last 20 years has only been positive, but I think the Chinese are a different kettle of fish.