Skin color is just another type of variation within the human genome. Racism is a category error where one's skin color is inferred to have a casual relationship with some other characteristic where it doesn't - like one's performance on the job or on the track, or in this case - that if you have white skin then your white skins makes you hate blacks.

I don't think it's skin color strictly speaking, but why do blacks dominate on the track? The most straight-forward, common reason relates to the quantity of fast-twitch muscle fibers and bigger bone structure we see in black athletes.

If you someone wants to deny this then I guess they'd need to argue that white runners, hispanic, runners, and asian runners apparently just don't work as hard or it's not in their culture which is stupid.

In any case it's important to look at the whole person rather than just immediately define them by a superficial aspect of them. I think that's what a lot of racism is - considering race as central to identity.

The reason blacks are faster is because they have I think on average a higher amount of fast twitch muscles. That's just the case. I'm pretty sure even sociologists accept this explanation. Of course there are plenty of slow blacks too.

Do you have an alternative explanation for why blacks dominate sprinting?

Tim, it's not just American blacks. Blacks from all over the world dominate sprinting; it's not even close. You have Jamaican blacks, Canadian blacks, doesn't matter.

In any case I agree that race is largely socially constructed and even if one race tends to be better at athletics or any particular area on average that doesn't mean that they're "superior." Genetics is not fate. The Irish, Greeks, Italians and Jews were at one point not considered "white" and to me the question of whether they really are "white" is ridiculous.

Are we on the same page as accepting the science that there is no such thing as race?

I believe race is to a large extent socially constructed, but I can't ignore biology entirely: It's no mistake that our greatest athletes and fastest sprinters are black. That relates to fast twitch muscles, but I don't think there's an immutable biological basis.

Maybe not 99.9%. Maybe 100%, Or maybe 96.2%. And some more racist than others. The point is that you have not defined racist and I have. Being something-ist seems to be as water to a fish. Why do not you take a moment and try to figure out exactly what you think racism is - maybe you will understand then that it's all not-so-simple, although aspects of it certainly should be.

Ok, I'll define it as someone who holds the belief that one race is superior to another. I'd also include in the definition the idea that racial groups inherently possess certain qualities that their members exhibit.

99.9%.

99.9% of white people are racist? Are you white? If so, then you're basically admitting that you're racist. Why should I listen to a racist on the subject of race relations? If you're not white then how do you know that virtually all whites are racist.

Damn it, ya got us. Why'd Atwater have to spill the beans? He told you not to quote him! Guess us neolibs got a lot of repair work to do now.

On a more serious note, when the other side isn't just misinformed - but also have racist intentions or motivations - productive rational discussion isn't really worth it anymore. Discussion breaks down and everyone just starts trolling each other when we give up actually trying to reason with the opposition. Good, rational discussion was the reason I came to this forum and it's a part of good philosophy. It's a shame that apparently it's no longer possible when it comes to politics or one's political philosophy.

I am tired of the systemic Asian Supremacy of the United States. We need to stop the systemic Asian supremacy immediately.

(1) You acknowledge the reality of global systemic racism.

Depends on the definition. If we say a given policy - even if not intended to be racist - can have consequences which disproportionately harm a minority group then sure. If we're talking about explicit racism then I don't think so. I'll agree that people tend to favor their in-group.

(2) You know that it's almost always white supremacist in nature,

This is a difficult discussion to have since it's extremely broad and we need to take into account social, political, and economic factors. You could have one without the other: For instance, in South Africa while whites are likely to be richer due to historical injustices today they will never attain political power as a disliked minority and they are subject to racial attacks at a fairly high rate. You also have strong affirmative action laws which systemically disfavor whites. In China a white man may be able to find a job, but I would doubt his ability to enter into positions of real power. Same with Japan. This topic is extremely complicated partially because I don't consider the world as having really even a unified system. I think it's more plausible to just to consider it a collection of countries each with its own unique culture and perspectives. To call India or China "white supremacist" seems silly to me.

Let me clarify, sure, if I was told "hey, you're about to be born somewhere in the world, would you rather be white?" I'd say yes. If I was told "hey, you're about to be born into such-and-such a country or community, would you rather be white?" My answer could very well be "no." Sometimes strongly no.

Whole world mate.

Sure, if we took the entire world in aggregate I would rather be white but if we were to confine our discussion to a given community or country you'd often choose not to be white in our pre-birth scenario.

Prosaically, the chances of being in a position of economic, social and political opportunity depend heavily on whether one is white or not.

We're talking about the US, I take it? In other countries I take it we could talk about black or Asian privilege? Did you know that Asians actually have higher median household incomes than whites in the "white supremacist" United States?

There's no plan! It's all been a happy accident.

Ok great, we're on the same page now. If there is such a plot then we live in a horribly disgusting racist state. Or maybe it's just the police department... or does the policy go higher? In any case you being able to recognize this plot indicates an enormous degree of insight that I just haven't attained yet.

Disproportionate murder of black people by police or just in general? Blacks in the US disproportionately commit murder, and when they do murder they disproportionately murder other black people. If a given group commits a greater share of the crime in a country then you'd expect them to have disproportionate contact with the police.

We could still have a problem here - it's hard to get clean statistics - but we're leagues away from the holocaust unless you believe that there is a universal covert plan in police departments to just murder black people. Is this what you believe? Do police departments have secret plans to kill black men?

Ok.

When the US has explicit policy forcing black people into ghettos or encourages the boycott or destruction of black owned businesses you let me know and I'll join up with you.

Are you familiar with the Wannsee conference? Are you familiar with the official racial policies of Nazi Germany? They didn't even try to hide it.

White men get lynched by state apparatuses on a regular basis as well. Cops must hate white people.

I'm willing to accept the disproportionate murder or Jews but certainly not the systemic murder of Jews. Don't make everything about race.

The way Jews were treated in 1930s Germany is not remotely comparable to the way blacks are treated in the US currently.

Did the war save Jewish lives or cost Jewish lives? I don't think it is knowable; we only have the war happening, not the alternative. Not to mention all the other lives.

The war certainly saved Jewish lives - not just Jewish lives, but also gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled, etc. Without the war there would have been no limit to Hitler's regime - no counterforce. Hitler would have just continued unopposed into more and more countries and Europe's Jewish population would have been virtually wiped out.

This is difficult, and I urge you to caution. It was before my time that Britain declared war on Germany and plunged the world into a conflagration that cost millions of lives, mainly on the basis that "Jewish lives matter."

No, it was because the Nazis invaded Poland.

As consumerism is a recent issue, most philosophers in the past didn’t discuss much about it, at most some criticised capitalism which is the roots of consumerism.

The roots of consumerism (i.e. an obsession with purchasing and material things often as a means of status signaling) is as old as time. It's a part of human nature and we can see it in antiquity well before capitalism was remotely a thing. Capitalism just allowed people to indulge it a little better given capitalism's propensity to create and encourage wealth creation.

I wouldn't be surprised if personal experience plays a bigger role in making someone a racist than we might at first realize. Bad experiences with another group can really color someone's perspective and I don't know how many people are truly immune from this. Maybe after the first bad experience we might reason "oh well that's only one bad apple" but after two or three you could start to think "well my people would never behave this way!" and once that thought starts creeping in you're already over the hill.

Great post. Thank you for sharing your experiences.

I don't know about organic, but I think this conception of the state is an interesting one and I've been thinking about it for a while. I was originally just tempted to view it as a collection of individuals and that does seem to be the most straight-forward approach but... I'm kind of liking the one I've been thinking of now. Feel free to poke holes or add to it.

It's interesting to think about. Imagine two tribes back in ancient times and the individuals in the tribes are generally friendly, however one of the tribes gradually starts becoming much, much more powerful than the other. Even though the individuals may still remain friendly, the relationship between the groups has likely changed. If a grievance or dispute were to arrive everyone knows who's the boss. An interest of the smaller group here may be to band together with other weaker tribes even if the leadership of the tribe doesn't recognize this and personally likes the individuals in the stronger tribe. Who knows how things will be in later years.

I understand it's people, but it's also rules and laws and judges. It's a complex system. A threat can still exist to a state even if no one in the government grasps it as a threat. A state can still have interests even if no individual mind grasps it as well.

By state do you mean the machinations of the state; the unelected members, the permanent established bureaucrats, or the elected government?

None of those. I guess I'm talking about an abstraction, maybe.

I believe the primary function or purpose of a state is protection: maybe that's protection from other nations or protection of rights... either way, it's about security. if the state is unable to provide adequate security we say it's a "weak state" or a "failed state." I think history also teaches us that governments tend to grow, at least once they've established stability.

Hey Brett, I didn't mean to abandon the discussion. In any case you've thrown a lot of questions at me and I'll start with one or two and I guess we'll go from there. I'd rather explore 1-2 questions deeply then go after 5-6 and have everything be shallow/branch off.

Individualism, of the individual, is like the idea that all men are equal. Nature says differently, but we chose to try and live by the idea. But it constantly need picking up as it stumbles.

I hear this point often, but there's a lot to unpack with the word "equal." If individualism is saying that all men are equal in talent or ability then it's obviously stupid. I think what it's saying is that all men have inherent equal value - e.g. a king's life is ultimately worth the same as a poor man's per se. In any case, broadly speaking I conceive of individualism as just any philosophy which emphasizes the individual and their ability to pursue their own ends unencumbered.

If the idea and value of individuality is so important and valuable then why does it threaten the state? And why is it a threat and is that a good or bad thing

I think it can come to threaten the state because the state ultimately wants to maintain a monopoly on force and it's concerned with power. Note that I'm considering "the state" here as kind of its own entity apart from the individuals composing it. I hope I'm being clear here. As one example of this, lets say Trump and even the US Government as a whole is friendly with Russia. Lets say Trump likes Putin are two are friends.

Well, even still Russia is a growing nation and has historically been expansionist and not too long ago annexed part of Ukraine. Russia is also active in Latin/South America. Even though the two leaders might like each other, the states are in some sort of tension as both vie for power and influence. Both each have powerful space programs.

In any case, I think individualism can threaten the state if an individual accrues considerable power or threatens to undermine the state's power through maybe technology or something along those lines. The battle for encryption/privacy between the state and cypherpunks is what I have in mind here.

Correct - it depends on which way that he meant it. If he meant it by the definition that you described then I guess the insult loses its humor a little.

What's funny about this issue is that it's actually united liberals and conservatives against the lunatic fringe who support/are sympathetic to either violence against police or violence towards businesses/looting. I follow right-wing twitter and even the conservative hosts are talking about the need for police reform and obviously the injustice of the Floyd murder.

I was called a "one note liberal" earlier which is kind of funny because I don't remember the last time I was ever called a liberal. I'm center-right/libertarian.

If we feel bad about the homeless guy do we also feel bad about black and minority-owned businesses in low income areas being torched and looted? Do our sympathies extend to small white-owned businesses in low-income areas? I'm just not sure where people who are sympathetic to the riots draw the line.

In any case, the proposals by @fdrake seem reasonable and I've been supporting body cameras and increased transparency by the police forces for a while now.

Good post.

A rational discussion HERE is possible - not only that I believe that is the point of this kind of forum.

While there may be some sort of rational discussion to be found here in this thread, I don't think it can be had with those who for no serious reason support destroying local businesses and in turn the communities that house these businesses. It's just destruction for the sake of destruction. Simply having righteous anger doesn't entitle one to a blank cheque when it comes to violence and no one can seriously entertain this viewpoint intellectually speaking.

Good. No one cares about harmless protests.

Man, those local business owners must have really, really had it coming. I never realized you hated small business owners so much.

Well, if conceiving reality is toxic then so be it because this is the way the powerful act as though they conceive. I think you are not so naive as to not know that.

So where does the middle class fall in this divide? How about the upper middle class? How about the wealthy disabled kid? Does he still qualify as one of the elite? Where do wealthy minorities fall? Do blacks who own their own successful businesses qualify as elites?

I understand there are elites out there... I just think there are a lot of shades of grey and when it comes to social class in America some people define elite as $1M net worth, others as $10M, or $100M... it's not always clear. Then you take into account that someone may be disabled or very awkward or unattractive. I do stand against laws that favor the elite, by the way, like accredited investor rules.

I think its toxic though to have an entire mindset or mentality just based on "punching up" or fighting those with privilege. Pretty much everyone is both privileged or unprivileged in certain ways.

I think conceiving of politics as a war of one group against another or how to elevate my group above others is essentially toxic. I'd say this even in the case of a poor person who supports his class: His view doesn't take into account race, disability, appearance, health, body type, etc. - you can't account for everything which might victimize a person. We should work to empower people and protect their basic rights, not view politics as a war of my group against yours.

And for the record I disagree with the 2008 bailouts.

It seems to me you've been trying to draw (or at least entertain) some sort of connection between destroying businesses/rioting to ending systemic racism and I'm just not seeing it.

We both agree that no one should looting private businesses so... It's possible I misunderstood you I've got a lot of responses to get to here.

I didn't make it about you, you did. See I don't claim to care too much about strangers' economic situations, so I don't have to defend it. Stick to abstracts like 'justice' is my advice. You know - ideas.

...You asked me what I personally do about hunger, so I took that as a personal question.

Yeah, it helps when you don't care about strangers' economic situations when you're advocating or condoning burning down their businesses and destroying their jobs. Nice little mental buffer you've got there - leave the problem of how to get food on their table or their bills paid without their source of income to them. Sure, we're philosophers why bother with economics?

So, again, the moral foundation your argument rests on is nothing but politically-loaded quicksand and there is no reason for anyone not sharing your skewed perspective to accept it.

Are you really saying this in regard to my opinion that one shouldn't go around setting fire to businesses and now possibly homes? Is that what you're saying?

From there, we move on to tactics. Could it work?

Even on this front it fails. Does burning down target lead to ending systemic justice? No. When I asked you for an explanation you conveniently didn't address this.

So, what's utterly horrible is to expect the poor to play Jesus while the rich and powerful are the only ones allowed to be Machiavellian.

So burn down their businesses. Stick it to the man, you think the CEO of Wal-Mart or Target will be visiting the local homeless shelter or food bank? No, who gets hurt is disporportionately those on the lower end of the totem pole of the company that they're working for; in other words, those more likely to be living paycheck to paycheck. Even socialist states or communists states have their own elite; and in the off chance you were able to somehow re-set society and turn everything back to 0 you'd just get another class of elites developing, so...

Do you? Really? What do you do about it?

Well, I don't destroy their places of work for one. I feel like this is becoming more about me than anything ideas-based so I don't see how it's too relevant. Nonetheless, I'm a pretty generous tipper and I'm happy to give personal financial advise/help people figure out a budget.

Thing is that a jury gets to decide that unless they convince him to plead guilty for the good of the country. So you never know.

Should we riot over a jury decision? It's one thing not to prosecute cops, but it's another when they have their day in court. As long as the prosecution and judge do their jobs.

A jury decision is a citizenry thing. It's different if a judge gives the cop a BS light sentence.

This is 100% spot on. In reality I couldn't actually riot regardless since... I'm a state employee but I was just conveying my dismay. But yeah - it is a jury decision and while unfortunate.... I wouldn't actually riot.