The world's wealth is distributed purposefully only by governments and charitable individuals/companies, you're talking about wealth redistribution on a global scale, that's called foreign aid or charity.

In any case, I haven't heard any practical ideas put forward by you, I support wealth redistribution and foreign aid but I prioritise wealth redistribution because the responsibility to look after your neighbours and constituents (as a government) should be prioritised helping people across the world. Not to mention, we have far greater control over what happens in our own countries.

When we talk about race, it's a superficial divider and really everyone is benefited if we stop making it interpretatively relevant. Huge amounts of wealth redistribution towards developing countries is a very unselfish act and you aren't fulfilling a responsibility that I can make sense of. Honestly, things, like tackling global warming or supporting some of our scientific endeavours, are more important global pursuits. Upgrading infrastructure, more support to education/health care and etc.

I actually despise altruism without any practical grounding, when it's not at the expense of something else then why not but it ends badly more than it works out. I think if a country is on the right path and needs some help then they should get it and they do. For countries that are complete disasters, there's really only violent solutions and so far, the US has not been doing a good job with that approach at all.

We've taken totally different views on what comes after race-based interpretations, for you, it's with that barrier and the other similar barriers out of the way, everyone can help each other now. For me, it's one less thing to distract individuals from ignorant ways of thinking, now they can focus on better looking after themselves rather than looking at the world in such an unproductive way. Without nationality or culture being important, we're quickly running out of reasons to even care about anyone beyond yourself or immediate friends/family.

I think because people are afraid of imperialism and the West does not have a good track record of positive results after big interventions, there's not much we can do about the bad governments around the world. Most of the good ones are quickly becoming rich and time is the only remaining ingredient to their success.

Poverty still exists in the US and it shouldn't be ignored by the US government just because they're doing better than citizens in other countries which have nothing to do with anything. Though I'm still just guessing as to what you even want since all you've done is try to suggest a contradiction in my thinking which isn't there.

You keep trying to conflate nationalities and the economies and governments of a country to make your argument relatable to race-based interpretation. If you asked me, a Russian tourist has come to visit America, should people who dislike Putin or have biases against Russian/Russian people be inhospitable towards him? Of course, the answer is they shouldn't and that's more comparable to this thread's main topic.

You'll find that this point is not as easy to extrapolate to foreign aid as you're making it out because I'm not even making a moral argument here. The basis for thinking that way is illogical and tribal, it leads to incorrect conclusions and it presents itself as an interpretative focus which distracts from things which should be more important and are more important from a pragmatic perspective.

I'm not trying to create equality, I want the individual and their traits to be taken as the appropriate level of interpretative relevance when dealing with others, yourself, history and etc. Now to compare the US with India and say that there are only insignificant cultural differences between the two countries, I'm pretty sure isn't your intention but obviously, that's untrue.

The question of whether the US government should treat citizens of India as equal to their own citizens is to me, a fairly odd question. You want the US to redistribute their wealth TO India? The economy of America to feed its wealth into India?

This thread should be deleted, OP is either trolling or stupid. Much like most of his threads really.

A disparity between my views race and nationality? Does that have anything to do with wealth redistribution?

Analysis as only the individual level is not possible when discussing government level policies like wealth redistribution but it is when you're talking about race-based interpretation. You're now conflating the individual level analysis of it being wrong to have race-based interpretations and the government level analysis of a government's ideal foreign aid commitments?

I don't really mind nationality-based interpretations provided they're positive because they're inclusive and do more good than harm in my estimation. Maybe in the distant future, they won't be necessary but for now, I think they're good. It's also just the way the world has been organised into nations, I think there are many benefits to this but regardless of my views, that's how it is. Foreign aid is a thing and you may want more of it and fair enough but governments should prioritise those they preside over.

As far as I remember, I never talked about national-identity with regards to wealth but you seem to want the disparities between nations to be reduced to national identity.

I don't think there's a meaningful difference between being white, black or Asian but I won't agree if one were to say there's no meaningful difference between Australia, Zimbabwe and China. I also don't agree that a poor individual in Australia should be treated the same as the country of Zimbabwe, it's not the same.

What's really important to understand is that the difference between Zimbabwe and Australia is not national identity. It's like taking one business and comparing it to another, different leaders, different systems, different circumstances and they're both watching their own numbers. It's normal that a business doesn't try to fix the practices of other businesses or worries about their circumstances.

The main reason that I don't care as much about Zimbabwe as Australia is that I have nothing to add to Zimbabwe other than money. I can send money to people there but I have literally no say in what goes on there and money isn't their problem. Same for most of these poorer countries, their problems are bigger than that. I think I can make a small difference someday to the West if I continue to sharpen my arguments and succeed to convince some people to think in the ways I think are better, all I can do for Zimbabwe is send money, that's probably the main reason for my disinterest in trying to help there.

It's easy to justify harming others. I don't understand OP, you're asking if there's any "what" justification? Reasonable? Sustainable? I think we live in a blessed society where there are very few long-term sensible reasons for harming others but that's only because there are punishments for it. If you harmed someone else and gained something of substantial value from it and there were no repercussions, isn't your condemnation rather meaningless?

In a society with the proper protections, hurting others is the same as hurting yourself or at least taking a big risk. I'm against hurting yourself or taking huge risks like that, I can't accept that as a rational way to behave. Revenge, for the ego, jealousy and so on, fleeting and if you could just deal with it some other way, then you and your family/friends would be so much better off.

If it were 100% certain you could kill someone for 1-10x your annual salary with 0% chance of any kind of repercussions, external or internal consequences. Curtailing yourself for your ideals has an appeal to some people but for specifically that person, a choice to harm seems pragmatic.

Some other things I'm willing to argue about
- If you're raised to harm others
- If you live in a place where harming others is rewarding (Joining a violent group in a poor country or a violent political party like Nazi Germany/Soviet Union)
- Dealing with bullies/offensive remarks/actions (I wouldn't but I think their argument is better than "no harm irrespective of circumstances"
- Use of necessary force to reclaim stolen property
- Retaliation (sticking up for yourself despite non-violent solutions existing)
- I'd include a bunch of political/military reasons for violence but I assume we're leaving those out

I could probably come up with more, significantly I'm not saying the aforementioned justifications for violence are necessarily the best options. Most of the time, there's a better way of handling things but in so far as would they have justification for doing what violence in those situations, I'd say they did. Not really advocating violence, I can't think of any non-self defence reason for me to hurt someone but I think reasonable justifications exist (if that was what you're asking for, you didn't say).

It's rare for it to happen but on this occasion, an agreement has been reached.

I think there are a few reasons why this occurs.

1. Different answers for different people

Self-explanatory, we're not the same. Someone who is born with a proclivity for depression is simply not going to think the same way as someone who's generally always happy. There are many very influential nature/nurture differences which lead to different perspectives, needs, values and so on.

2. Different values, interpretations, predictions and so on.

There are many examples to give for each of these things.
Values:
Many topics in philosophy come down to assessing things by assessing the methods and outcomes, to do this, we need to say what is a good method or a good outcome, that is the very simplified version of value. When we talk about these topics where value matters, there are many reasons to value different things. So your answer that something is good and my answer that same thing is bad, we can both be correct according to what we value, correct in valuing that thing by virtue of our sound and valid reasoning and this probably means neither of us has a reason to change our minds.

Interpretation:
We might both agree that society oversexualizes things, we may both agree freedom is good but degrading men and women as sex objects is bad. However, if I think that oversexualising is the byproduct of freedom and don't see it as degrading anyone but you think it is degrading men and women as sex objects, although we value the same things, our interpretations make us disagree on our attitudes towards the oversexualisation that we both agree is taking place. There are many complex reasons that make us think as we do and we may both be right based on our interpretation on what "degrading" means, which neither of us is willing to change our minds on (but with valid and sound reasoning for our positions) and so neither has any reason to change their mind.

Interpretation is a big one really, it's hard to believe you will agree with anyone on anything if you go down the interpretative chain deep enough.

Predictions:
Now here, I think people can be wrong but sometimes it's very hard or impossible to know. Slippery slope arguments are an okay example, if something is not wrong in of itself but I think it will lead to more problems and you think that's a fallacy or that I'm wrong, our conclusions could be very different. Prediction and interpretation are interlinked but predictions deserve their own mention, our reasoning is based on an understanding that isn't necessarily true but it's too complex to know for certain, people have their experiences and biases. This can create premises which lead to disagreements, this is a big one I think, many threads on this forum currently are based on disagreements of what will and will not work as a solution for problems most agree exist and can be fixed.

Well, that's enough for now, there are many reasons. I think that it's important to note that as @Terrapin Station says, most topics entail a lot of disagreement, I'd say the aforementioned reasons account for a lot of it and can be applied to many different contexts.

It's also important to note that in philosophy, a lot of the fun comes from disagreeing with each other, we like to argue. In business or science, we need to establish very early on what success looks like and try to work through disagreements to get the core results we're looking for. In philosophy, if someone is just agreeing with me, I'll keep extrapolating my position until we find something to argue about and if we ever agree, that's just the end of conversation and I'll move onto a new topic to disagree with people on.

I call that dark nihilism because basically nihilists only say "there is no objective meaning to life" and now you have to determine what that means. Does it mean there's no reason to live? Does it mean you should live how you want to live? What does it mean? Dark Nihilists say, well there's no point to anything then.

For me, nihilism means there is no higher meaning than personal meaning, which means that all that's left for me to do is deal with my own interpretations and using pragmatism as a guide, determine where to go based on what is working and what is not working.

Dark nihilism is a contradiction to me, you've said there's no objective meaning so that means there's no reason to do anything but you've taken the lack of objective meaning as meaning there's no reason to do anything. That must be your own subjective interpretation, if it can make you feel so strongly in that negative way, then why are you against one causing you to feel positively about life?

I know that the disparity between my own interpretations surrounding the lack of meaning in life and other nihilists mean that there's very little connection between me and other nihilists. The choice of what to do with the acknowledgement of nihilism is yours.

I am responding to sethry and his comments, OP already said that the guy committed to watching his drinking. The question OP asked, I've just taken for granted that we assume you are not yourself when you are drunk.

I don't drink, so I can't really comment but who you are includes your inhibitions, I also think that being drunk raises particular interpretations over others. My dad when he's drunk is much, much quicker to anger and offend than when he's sober. I don't think of my father as being the same person when he's sober vs drunk, it's just too different. So my answer to OP is, no, you can't inform yourself about the sober man by observing him while he's drunk.

If he does watch his drinking around OP then this is a good thing and she shouldn't worry about how he was while drunk, in my opinion.

If you don't have a reason to expect change then it's foolish to wait.

Being respectful is basic, it's BASIC. Having basic manners and etiquette are necessary to be even taken seriously as a partner for anyone with some self-respect and sense. That doesn't give you the right to get seriously drunk and act like an ass, you aren't now such a valuable commodity that people should put up with all of your problems.

OP can do what she wants but whether the guy is or is not being himself while drunk, what is he saying while sober? It's not "sorry I made you feel uncomfortable and disgusted by my actions while I was hammered, I don't want to put you through that again, I'm going to commit to not getting so drunk around you or whatever else". That's again, the fairly common respectful and chivalrous way to deal with that situation if that's the type of guy he is.

If he doesn't care now, he's going to care less once they've gotten comfortable and he feels he doesn't have to work as hard to keep her around. But you think he's great because he's showing some basic human decency in a circumstance when he's got a lot to benefit from doing so.

As I said, even if we grant that the man is not himself when he's gotten too drunk, it doesn't take away his responsibility. If he had a friend who continually disrespected your girlfriend while he weren't around, he isn't responsible for what his friend did but it is his responsibility to do something about it. It isn't good enough for him to just be a good guy who does nothing about his disrespectful friend, if he cares about his girlfriend then you shouldn't allow her to be disrespected.

Another way to look at it is that as the girlfriend, the boyfriend has basically told you that he won't do anything about his friend. if she want to stop being in the presence of this guy who disrespects her and acts in an appalling manner then she has to break up with him. He's forcing her to make a choice but I don't think it's right that the guy just acts like a bystander.

Even if you're not "you", you still interact with the people you care about and if you're hurting them or making them feel uncomfortable then you should feel responsible for that.

Imagine if a friend set you up on a date with a guy who behaved like this man while he was drunk but all of the time. Shouldn't you be angry at your friend and ask "dId you know he was like that? Why would you set me up with someone like that?" Shouldn't your friend apologise for your bad experience? Would you trust him again to set you up with someone else after two bad experiences? Probably not right?

If this guy really cares about you then he should have more respect for you than getting hammered in your presence and making you feel uncomfortable. You should demand that respect.

It's just technically true that wealth redistribution within a country and charity towards other countries are different things. A discussion on what to do about poverty in the world beyond the West is just an entirely different topic, it doesn't undermine a desire for wealth redistribution within a country, something which would be performed by a government. The responsibility of a government is to their people, not all people.

You want to discuss an entirely different topic then make a new thread for it but I don't get what it's got to do with what is being discussed here.

A belief that an interpretation can be objective in of itself is a rejection of nihilism. I do not enjoy debates about nihilism, I do not think there is any real counterargument to it and people just throw assertions at me without thinking them through.

Your essay describes your own interpretation, that is all you will ever have access to and you will either learn to be satisfied with it or become a bigot who aims to subjugate other interpretations as lesser or wrong with whatever reasoning or argumentation you have at your disposal.

Sanders may sound revolutionary from an American perspective but he's mostly advocating for things that most of the West is already doing. The problem is the way he is advocating for it doesn't appear to be as balanced or as sensible as what the other countries did, really focusing on the top 1% or .1% and not really being mathematically correct in his statements. I don't like his deviations from the norm, they range from bad to terrible.


Sure, I haven't noticed any problems of the same scale as the others with Biden but I am not as knowledgable of him as the others.

Enlighten me. I won't play guessing games.

I agree with your level of analysis. It is preferable to focus on the present individual and the interpretative relevance of race being reduced is always a positive outcome. We agree much more than I thought initially, I didn't think it was the case due to how others in this thread have recounted history to me, as though it justified maintaining the racialised perspectives of the past. I do not deny the history, it is in part an acknowledgement of the past to want a different future. Racism is not the problem anymore, it is the interpretative relevance of race. The drive to end racism through race-based solutions perpetuates this problem, that's why it isn't going away.

I would not bother to invite other races to share in the success and failures of the people who lived in countries now called the West if it didn't seem people yearn for that kind of interpretation. I condemn all race-based interpretation so, if you're a citizen of a Western country then feel free to make those Western people your "we". I have not seen what a society without this kind of historical "we" would look like and I don't know if it'd be better or worse but with this, nobody has to give that up.

The next problem for me is the emphasis of interpretations based on racial representation in important occupations and statistical differences by race in the many contexts it's brought up. Terms like "white privilege" are so pernicious because they force racialisation of every applicable context and questioning that makes you an enemy of the facts, a part of the problem. The problem isn't that people are oblivious to the statistical probability of being advantaged or disadvantaged by their race. I'm not even aware of any argumentation of how promoting awareness of these issues will lead to any kind of resolution. That's not even present in the thinking.

On this forum, many people bring it up all the time, like awareness solves something when actually this interpretation being prioritised as a tool for understanding and as a compass for guiding moral action is counterproductive as it is a propellant of race-based interpretations. Everyone is hyper-aware of the enemy but nobody knows where or who he is. It's madness.

If we became focused on reducing the interpretative relevance of race, we'd be out of this mess so quickly. Nobody can complain except precisely those who still think race is important. Half of the problems would disappear as a result and the other half become social problems that are not characterised non-racially and I think that will help in being able to tackle them. They aren't easy issues but they're a lot harder when you add tribalism to the equation.

Great video. I think people don't understand that living with basically nothing but some housing and basic stuff is not what people want. They generally will want to work and go on holidays and buy the stuff they want and the many good things that come with becoming a functioning member of society.

You're preaching to the choir a bit, I haven't heard anyone in this thread dispute that wealth inequality is often characterised by the social circumstances for different races in the past. Nobody is denying that blacks were systematically oppressed, that past governments have specifically and overtly favoured whites over blacks. The question is what to do about it and how to characterise the current social circumstances, determining how dominant this information is in our understanding of the present.

There are many truths on many different levels of analysis and while when looking at the group, blacks are clearly disadvantaged, when looking at the individual we have what comes with being poor, their individual circumstances which may or may not be parts of trends of a culture specific to the race such as rates of fatherlessness or access to drugs and temptations to do crime. The individual has the odds stacked against him in a variety of ways but he must still take responsibility for his actions and circumstances if he wants to improve as a person and have a better future.

What perspective takes priority? That's the question.

So, race-blind, class-based redistribution of wealth is the key step (there are various mechanisms to do this -- it's been done before). — Bitter Crank

I'm glad you agree, this is the way forward.

On the group level, what I believe is that particularly in America, racial and ethnic histories take priority over nationality. This is an obstacle to race-blindness, a big one, particularly when many have an interpretation of America and indeed the West's both achievements and mistakes prior the civil rights movement having only to do with the white race. I want three things, first race-blind solutions or improvements to issues such as wealth inequality, crime, education and etc. Race-based interpretations to be demonized no matter who is doing it and thirdly for national and cultural identities to take over the role currently held by racial and ethnic identities.

Many believe that a white American can take responsibility for the achievements of the West, the technology and prosperity developed before the civil rights and must shoulder the burden of imperialism and slavery. While black Americans are still former slaves who had all these atrocities done to them and are now feeling the aftereffects of that. I think there should be some kind of discussion on what an American is and when you are that, you are now the extenuation of America's past and you can make of that what you want but you are not different based on race. Black Americans are now citizens of the country that used to practice slavery, they should view it that way instead of seeing themselves as former slaves. What are your thoughts on this?


There's a huge difference between wealth inequality in a country and differences in wealth between countries. Wealth inequality is a social issue, it's known to increase crime, it's a moral issue, it's an issue of responsibility, it's an issue of looking after your own and explaining the inequality in a way which makes sense within the system. There are many examples where governments assist their own citizens and it's not undermined by the fact they don't extend that same level of assistance to citizens of other countries.

What wasn't an accident? I accept the historical grounding for the imbalance in wealth between whites vs blacks as groups.

Debating wealth redistribution is another thread but provided there's no racial element, I am a strong believer in it. Without wealth redistribution, I'd basically be saying just ignore the plight of the black individuals and let them fend for themselves and that wouldn't be as convincing to those who want to help regardless of their motivations. It is precisely because I believe in wealth redistribution that I can argue as I do. Redirect our compassion for the good of reducing these unnecessary racial tensions.

I genuinely think the main problem is less that America is insane for voting for Trump but rather that between Hillary, Cruz, Sanders and Trump, you're really screwed no matter who you choose. The political powers that be need to get their act together and put a candidate forward that isn't a complete disaster. I also don't know if you can blame Americans too much, American democracy is suspect and the Russians are not the problem.

The prospect of his indictment is only as interesting as the competency of the person who might replace him. If you say it can't be worse then you're just asking for it.

You've laid out the problem but you haven't told me what you want to do. My answer is to reduce the interpretative relevance of race, stop focusing on whether those struggling in poverty are white and black and aim to tackle problems without racialising them. So let's lay things out:
1. We're both trying to reduce poverty
2. We both recognise that a variety of problems within society that impact people and need to be fixed

The ability to create wealth is often tied to how much wealth you currently have and when you look at black Americans as a group, there's not much wealth there. That doesn't mean poor white families have it easier, it just means there were historical imbalances between whites and blacks and so generally speaking, whites have most of the wealth.

Points 1 & 2 are enough, that's the best help we can give white or black communities which are struggling and what I want you to do is step in and tell me why it's not good enough to you.

You want to add:
3. Prioritise poor black communities over poor white communities?
4. Make special rules and exceptions that only apply to people based on race?

The problem here is twofold, first:
These are only problems when you focus on the racial differences

Take 500 people, 250 of them black and 250 of them white, we lift 250 of them out of poverty. Provided we're not selected based on race, to me, there's no racial element here. I am really happy for those 250 people and best of luck to them. You're going to be happy/upset based on whether they're white or black? That's not something you can do when you prioritise the individual and reduce the interpretative relevance of the racial differences.

You perpetuate the race problem.

If you helped the 250 black people, people are going to notice that and you add to the cycle of resentment and tribalism. Helping to reduce poverty becomes a political, racialised issue with all kinds of unnecessary baggage. You haven't lifted more than 250 people out of poverty, you're not outperforming the colour-blind perspective but my god, have things suddenly got so much more complicated. You legitimise white people making race interpretatively relevant, you give racist ideas credibility because when I tell them race doesn't matter and just treat people as individuals, they point to you and say but he's not!

As for culture, I don't know, if they weren't poor then the majority, they'd try to make better lives for themselves, I know that.

Prejudice based on race is wrong, dealing with people based on their race isn't productive. I already think your way of thinking is an obstacle to reducing poverty in America because the focus is so laden in the negativity of racial differences and claims of racism. Rules 3 & 4 are not helping anyone, least of all the black individuals that you claim to care about. So many people just take it for granted that they should think racially but honestly, I don't think I'll ever lose on this topic with another pragmatist, You need to refuse to give up your racialised perspective to have a chance of holding your own.

I don't know how witnessing helps anything, compassion doesn't come from recognition of the negative, it comes from a value held in the subject, either intrinsic, presently or in their possible future. If you don't have that, you don't get compassion. That's what people need to be convinced of, to prepare them for the systematic harm of others, that the victims have no value.

Interpretations of value of any kind are the impetus for compassion - for a Buddhist, I suppose that reincarnation gives all living beings value and that's the basis for their compassion.

I've always believed that if something can be uttered by anyone, we shouldn't focus on the someone that actually uttered it. It's also important to not just be convinced you're right but actually know why and specifically know what you're banking on for your side to be right.

Sometimes, I have difficulties pegging down exactly what Western culture actually is but I've got no issues saying what Australian culture is. I think Australia is, generally speaking, doing a really great job of assimilating immigrants to our core values. Even though I don't like Islam as a religion for example, when I meet an Australian Muslim, I usually feel our similarities as Australians are more than enough for me to overlook differences caused by the religion.

I also think groups like the alt-right overexaggerate agreement between whites, it's not there. I don't share a culture with whites, I don't share values with whites and I'd feel much more comfortable with an Australian of any race or ethnicity than a white person from Europe/America in thinking our views/values are more relatable. That's why I want assimilation on the important things, I want to control immigration because I want to protect that.

I feel a bit worn out talking about this subject, I don't think people have coherent outlooks on these issues. They think the alt-right are deluded for thinking their culture is under attack while also making claims that different races are living in their own worlds, believing they've got to be prioritised above white people and that other races don't even have to share in the nation's history, their ethnic histories take precedence. Can't people even put 1 and 1 together? Can't the understanding go a little bit deeper than just being tolerant? I hope they can at least articulate our disagreement in a way which doesn't just insult me.


That's basically what we're dealing with. I made a thread earlier.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5160/the-capacity-to-answer-unasked-questions

Where I basically tried to explain why despite being in a time of a historic level of rejection of racism to the point where even the alt-right (from my experience) try hard not to sound racist but it's still at the forefront of everything? When a product is unpopular, it just disappears from sight. Any publicity is good publicity, is what it comes down to. So long as these idiots keep going on about identity politics and maintaining their racialised perspectives, they're perpetuating and giving life to the very way of thinking they claim to despise.

The thing with nihilism, in general, is that it is a rejection of this notion of an objective meaning of life. Interpretation creates meaning, everyone has access to it and there are no limitations. The problem is that people want a meaning that unifies and is shared and that is really a cultural thing. They seek all kinds of legitimacy that aren't needed, that's the problem.

The thing is while I'm happy to acquiesce that we can't compare the alt-right with opinions from a generalised list of countries, people are still in this thread not making any sense in their criticism of particular aspects of the alt-right. They share the racialised perspectives, they emphasise racial differences, they think in terms of racial/ethnic histories and their defence is a historical interpretation. White people talking about how to advance some kind of agenda for furthering the wealth and success of white people is wrong but they are advocating for doing that for black people and they see no hypocrisy.

I think if someone came into the forum and said "I hate white people" that they would also probably get banned or at least, who in their right mind would think that's acceptable? The problem is when people start to justify things with their interpretations and delude themselves into thinking they've got facts supporting their race-based agendas.

Pauline Hanson is probably the strangest politician I know of in her openness about anti-Islam, you've set a really high bar for me. Similar criticism of Islam outside of the west is never going to receive the same level of coverage as that and Islam isn't even a race or ethnicity which is what I am focusing on. Also, depending on the level of hostility and visibility, I'm not saying that we as a society aren't going to criticise examples of racism.

There is no point though in continuing this conversation, NKBJ's pointing out my fallacious thinking made me realise that members of the alt-right are specifically members because of their ethnocentric and racialised perspectives while people living in countries around the world are not citizens of those countries because of their ethnocentric and racialised perspectives and so I am not comparing apples with apples. I didn't start this thread with the intention of arguing this point but as Anaxagoras suggested, I would have been better off not talking about the alt-right to begin with.

Most of what we've talked about has been about that and I realise now that I am making a stupid comparison and so I acquiece my earlier arguments to you. I try to argue things with strength so that I look like an idiot if I'm wrong so I won't forget it, I'm hardly bragging but I succeeded here with that.

Give me a template, I am naming names and giving my reasoning, the question is whether or not the alt-right is being treated to greater criticism and consequences for their ethnocentric perspectives because they're white or not. When I talk about the alt-right, they're deplorable but if we talk about those elements in China, are we going to hear the same kind of rhetoric from the people who hate the alt-right or are they going to brush over it? I'm not sure whether I'm in the wrong or you are, for the quality of my examples but you're not giving me much to work with.

China, Japan, South Korea are nations which are wealthy like the West, you'd assume people would want to go there but they're some of the most ethnically homogeneous nations in the world.

Many countries in the middle east are infamous for their treatment of workers from India and Africa. Most of the nations there are not easy to immigrate to and any lack of ethnic hegemony can be explained historically.

Africa and South America are notoriously having difficulties with racism and tribalism, you see the same in many countries in Eastern Europe who for the most part are also trying to maintain their ethnic hegemony. Countries in SEA are often ethnically diverse but once again, extremely racist countries with very complicated situations. India is the same once again, it's not like there's no celebration of culture, my thread was never about a celebration of culture to begin with but the ways in which people are looking through a collectivist, racial lens which is similar to the alt-right.

I would say Jews in the West are another example of alt-right thinking but it appears the Jewish race is a controversial topic so I won't bother talking about that. If you want to try to go specifically into something to analyse it more deeply, pick a country and we can do some research.. — Judaka

I've talked broadly and I've asked if you wanted to go into it more deeply then we can but pick a country, I am confident to give examples in anything I've listed. I prefer you choose so there's no problems.

You're asking for examples of it within the West or outside? I've given plenty of examples of the latter to you... I also need to ask what does it mean for something to "have already been criticised"? When we talk about the alt-right, particular aspects of their ethnocentric and racialised motivations make them deplorable, not criticised but make them considered a hate group. Now Anaxagoras, for instance, disagrees with that and says that the alt-right is more than just what I've laid out and you might agree with that, that's fine.

I've been exposed to a lot of talk from example, immigrants to China from across the world and their difficulties in living in China because of their nationality and race, you get the same type of comments in SK/Japan and I wouldn't have difficulties giving examples across the world. The term "racism" has been confusing so far, let me explain my stance a little. I would personally like to call any significant interpretative relevance on race racism but that's not where most people stand, they would say any negative interpretative relevance was racist. With that definition, we've got to determine how to characterise interpretations of different racial/ethnic groups. Both in whether it's negative and whether it's got more to do with language/cultural barriers, all of these things are factors.

So by the general definition of racism, if I point out that your race has serious implications for you and a lot of meaning to others when you're living in Japan, that isn't me saying that Japan is racist. We can talk in more detail when I ascertain whether you want to talk about within the west or outside.


Fair enough, that is a fallacy as you've pointed out, my apologies. I did say I am white though, first two lines of my OP.

I'm not part of the alt-right, actually I'm a hardcore individualist who cares about ideas and principles but I won't ignore the fact that race is important to most people just because I'm white. — Judaka

I don't really feel like going into it right now but certainly, it's far, far, far less to resolve all poverty in America than just stealing all the .1% wealth. Such extremes aren't necessary, people just wrongly believe poverty is a character flaw and that redistribution isn't even fair but I believe things will change, eventually. It is more of a cultural problem than a logistical problem though.

There are many reasons why people think suicide is wrong and I could go on all day but I will emphasise what I think the main ones are:
1. Empathy
We empathise with both the individual and their family/friends, the results force us to contend with suicide as a thing which is caused by and brings about misery and pain.

2. Lost potential
The person who killed themselves could have changed their mind and gone on to do anything. Had a happy life with a family, being a respectable person with a respectable job and being a real asset to the community. So it's sad that we don't get to see that possibility come to fruition.

3. Suicide is not always done for even remotely wise reasons
If you specifically talk about examples where suicide seems understandable then you'll get different attitudes to suicide in general. Young people kill themselves over bad grades, breakups, fights with friends and while all of these reasons might seem really good at the time for that person, outside, people can't possibly agree with the actions.

4. The actual act
Most of the time with suicide, we're talking about possibly violent (even extremely violent) methods being done by people alone and most likely, troubled by many things. The setting for suicide and the actual method are not pleasant and that cannot be separated from the act.

5. The perspective of the family/friends
Whether it's suicide or not, saying that the person who died was better off dead even if it's because they themselves wanted that isn't going to go down well. You're not going to be able to sell this perspective to people and especially not the actual family/friends of the victim except in special circumstances.

So there you have it, I think you can find special circumstances where the above things have been eliminated. A person with a debilitating disease who has no potential for a good life, who is making an understandable choice in a peaceful manner surrounded by family and friends who have more or less accepted the choice. Give people something like that and you will actually get support for the act, in my opinion.

You can't just extrapolate me disagreeing with racial/ethnic pride and histories to

Perhaps you are asserting that society does not exist, and are throwing out culture as well. "it's all individual activity. Nothing else." — Bitter Crank

. I'm certainly not always happy with how simplistically people talk about society and culture but I don't reject either of the terms meaning.

You also can't honestly extrapolate me saying sharing a skin colour is insufficient for interpretations like pride, guilt and the like to me denying that the past continues to impact the present/future in a variety of ways. We as philosophers constantly look back to the past and past people to learn but I am not going to take your post seriously, it's relevance to my assertion is not there.

Careful observers? No, pathological observers might say that and I'm sure they do. It doesn't take much effort to put emphasis on particular differences, what exactly people want to do about it is something else entirely. I'm pretty sure we've talked about the importance of wealth redistribution and likely we'd agree generally on the importance of education, reducing crime and other important social issues.

Do we also want to discriminate against people who need help based on the reason that they need help? If we've got a predominantly black city and a predominantly white city and they're both struggling with the same serious social issues, does it really matter that across the country, other white people who have nothing to do with this city whatsoever are better off than black people across the country who have absolutely nothing to do with the struggling city in question?

If we're talking about helping two struggling people to find a job, they've got families to support and their situations are nearly identical but one of them is black and one of them is white, does it matter? If the whtie person might have an easier time in some situations than the black man, should we also ask who of them is more attractive? If the black man is miles better looking, surely that's a huge advantage for him. What if the black man is far more intelligent? Surely, intelligent people generally have it better than less intelligent people?

Like honestly, what do you want to do? Nobody here is denying the past, blacks as a group are disadvantaged by their history but once you strip the racial focus and start caring about individuals and towns/cities, what is the advantage in continuing the same racialised thinking that created the very problems you're talking about? Nobody is going to convince me that adopting a pahological racialised perspective and evaluation of society to have any advantages which aren't only visible to those who similarly evaluate and percieve based on racial differences.

So what is it that you have accomplished and are proud of, that DID NOT DEPEND on the efforts of people who lived and died before you? — Bitter Crank

My grandfather is dead, I wouldn't be alive without him, so nothing, happy? What a dumb question.

I am a moral relativist but surely anyone can find something to value particular cultures above others from a pragmatic standpoint. Alternatively looking at a country like Iraq, it's obvious they'd be better off being split into three new countries, sharing a government with people who think so differently to you, that's no way to live.

Whites have nothing to be proud of except what that individual achieved for themselves or was a part of themselves. It amazes me how someone can take responsibility for or take pride in individuals who lived ages before them as their own based on such a superficial similarity. The modern white American has more in common with a modern black American than he does with the white Americans who killed the native Americans or owned slaves but all the same, people want to take responsibility for that.

What's more amazing is that the time being talked about you'd think whites all got along but of course, they absolutely didn't even within a specific culture. With their disagreements and even contempt based on differences in religion, class, politics, region and you name it really. You've had no chance tracking down what your actual ancestors were doing not that it would matter. Racial histories are just stupid.

I am really not sure about the Jews, perhaps genetically they're caucasian but I wonder how old this knowledge is and what interpretations preceded any new understanding based on any scientific discoveries.

I suppose that is technically true when we look at what the word fact means but only because interpretation is required to utilise arguments of causation. Do you think though he is perhaps underestimating the role of the unconscious mind in interpretation? To ascribe values to an automated process seems inappropriate right?

I mean you didn't give me an answer, you asked me a question and and I think I gave you a comprehensive answer. You're saying think that black people are oppressed, that this makes their instances of racialised thinking and rhetoric less egregious than when white groups, like the alt-right do it, despite being guilty of race-based motivations and perspectives, is that right?

It is not like you are the only one to give an answer, some said it was inconsistent and others said it wasn't and others just disagreed with the question altogether but everyone has their own reasoning and your answer is just one possible answer. I don't know what more to say, I walk away from our conversation more aware of how others think on the subject, good talk.

I think being highlighted here is the mistake of philosophers who can't separate fact from interpretation. Interpretations stack up on top of each other and build something complex and thoughtful but each building block is personal truth and betrays the intention of a universal claim. I may be wrong and I haven't read the book and so I probably shouldn't be commenting at all but that was what I thought of while reading the passage.

I don't know why you're asking me if I agree or disagree with your statement, I have heard your answer and appreciate you explaining your thought process.