Devoid of character? Why do you say that? — frank

Well I assume by racism you are referring to the manner of considering another person inferior or superior on the basis of race.

I am a racist in that I think that there are real racial differences between races. I think that white people need to use more sun block than black people, I think that black people are better at rap and singing the blues than white people, I think that on the whole black American culture has more of an insight into the pain of discrimination than white people generally do. I think Asian immigrants generally have a more disciplined work ethic than white westerners... and so on

I am certain that I may be right or wrong in some of these assumptions but they are all essentially racist, I make the same assumptions of my children in that I love them equally but being familiar with them I think one might be better or worse at certain tasks than another might be.

In respect of 'negative racism' I don't think that it actually exist. It is merely a euphemism for 'hatred' 'greed' 'resentment' 'self-interest' etc.

I am not a Christian but I think the Christian ideal of hating hatred is itself a more fruitful engagement with the hatred that is contained within negative racism.

Those who profess 'negative racism' are to be pitied by Philosophy and reviled by social systems.

Character in my estimation is one thing that makes humans different to animals. Ones character is an outward reflection of the depth of ones thought. Negative racists possess no depth of thought and as such no character.

M

I think I just didn't understand what you were saying. Sorry. — frank

You’re good. I responded a bit aggressively. I agree with your overall point that a compassionate approach is better than a vilifying one. I disagree that the the two hatreds are on the same level. I do think that the ability to paint someone as ‘racist’ is sometimes wielded cynically by people playing power games. But I think that needs to be disentangled from the larger dynamic. The office example was meant to highlight how it’s not a symmetrical vilification.

There’s a difference between defending a tradition and defending a tradition from people who you identify as inherently bad. Anyway, I have a link to an article you might like that I’ll send you when I’m free. (& it’s not an article that condescendingly ‘educates’ you on why you’re wrong. I sincerely think you’d like it)

"Evil" is open to interpretation and personal opinion. Effectively, therefore, people can be regarded by other people as evil. It merely requires qualification by those who use the term. How it stacks against certain acts, etc.

I think there is a way to both escape racism and escape being a racist.

Just don't identify oneself as any race.

And if you come across someone who wants to define you as a race then merely regard them as either a bit unintelligent (thereby merely has particular limitations) or is just a bit silly.

Racism is an ugly fruit of a natural plant. That's what I'm saying. The people who embrace it are not necessarily ugly at heart. One of the most important reasons for seeing this is that counter intolerance is just as ugly as the primary type. If we label racist people as vermin, we have dehumanized them and shut the door on them. We have failed to realize that people can change.

Agree?

I don't think that 'racism' is natural, I don't even believe it is correct terminology since there is only one human race which is comprised of separate ethnic groups. I don't necessarily disagree that those who embrace some form of bigotry are 'ugly at heart', but that conclusion is only possible if it can be viewed from a position the outside the biased position.

While bias is natural, it also follows norms. As societal norms begin to condone such biases it becomes the easier for bias proponents to express opinions without fear of societal backlash. Here is a video with Don Lemon describing how norms are shifting in the United States.

Since you introduced this into the matter, perhaps a video rebuttal of Don Lemon is appropriate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dltK5r4GBec

I think there is a way to both escape racism and escape being a racist.

Just don't identify oneself as any race.

And if you come across someone who wants to define you as a race then merely regard them as either a bit unintelligent (thereby merely has particular limitations) or is just a bit silly. — Dalai Dahmer

Funny story: I took a class in post-colonialism taught by a black Jamaican professor. When I told her about reading how race doesn't exist according to science, she told me that those findings were white, male privileged attempts to erase people's identities...

Racism arises from a misunderstanding, not evil intent. Perhaps the most abysmal aspect of racism is that it's nothing personal. The target race is just "vermin" or what have you. It's no more evil than identifying rats as pests. — frank

Racists, like everyone else are not evil. I don't usually recommend regular crime novels, but John Grisham's book The Chamber really makes a good case as to how racists are people too. (And, yes, the book IS better than the movie ;)).
That being said, racism does arise from some fundamental psychological traits. I think most racists are insecure about themselves (yes, even loud-mouthed bullies like Trump can be insecure...in fact, especially such people are insecure). Whatever the issue is that they feel poorly about, they like having someone or some group to point to and tell themselves "I may be stupid/poor/fat/alone/a criminal/whatever, but at least I'm not one of them!"

An example of the potential ugliness of reverse prejudice is found in Othello. All it took was a few white lies and a stolen handkerchief to make Othello go murderous on a woman who truly loved him. If he had read my OP and understood it, he might have realized that it's foolish and dangerous to harbor fear and vengefulness.

This example came to me today as I was driving along and out of nowhere an Othello-Alien mashup went through my mind where John Hurt plays Othello and the alien that bursts out of his chest is the horrific outcome of his vulnerability to Iago's scheming (Iago played by Ian Holm, Ash the Robot).

I don't think that 'racism' is natural, I don't even believe it is correct terminology since there is only one human race which is comprised of separate ethnic groups — Cavacava

It's a social construction. :razz:

Yes, I think it is a normative construction, a way of talking which assumes that the words we use are what are expected of us as members of the same group or culture.

Social Construction has two flavors: Weak & Strong, where the Weak view assumes certain foundational realities or brute facts and Strong constructionist denies any such brute realities. Where do you think "racism" lies?

What's an example of a foundational reality?

Something that exist independently of men like a mountain or something for which no other explanation is possible or necessary.

If there were no valleys, there would be no mountains, so I'm not sure mountains are really independent. Plus mountains are very explainable.

Yes my explanation was not the best. Here is an explanation

A mountain is a product of analysis. It's a gear from the cuckoo clock.

In most cases where the word "race" is used, whatever humanity that happens to be on the scene has been analyzed in some way. Sometimes the word is referring to culture, as in the Persian race. The unique characteristics of the Persian culture are not fictional. They're as real as mountains.

I'd say look to context to know what's meant.

yeah. She’s part of the identity politics problem. She doesn’t realise she is choosing to remain on the plantation or she knows and is getting her sense of power over others by attempting to reach the apex of the whole identity politics pyramid scheme.

Racism is a mixture of two things: a high level of the psychological trait of "disgust", and a confusion between averages and stereotypes.

Disgust was actually quite important in the archaic past (people who look too different from one's own people bring different diseases that one's own tribe won't have the immunity to cope with), but it's less meaningful now with modern medicine, so in a sense it's a trait that for politeness' sake we ought to control (like other impulses that are out of place in a modern open society full of relative strangers, like being quick to anger).

The other problem was well illustrated in a diagram in James Damore's famous essay. Different racial/ethnic groups have different groupings of traits, and different averages with regard to given traits. A stereotype takes the average as representative of the race or ethnic group. As a quick and dirty guide, it's not inherently problematic, and in the past, stereotypes were treated more or less light-heartedly. In essence, a stereotype is a blend of statistical categorization and categorical categorization.

If you combine these two factors (high psychological disgust and stereotyping), that's when you get racism proper (I don't mean the modern Left's thing of calling anyone to the Right of Mao a "racist", that's just pure garbage and is bringing the Left into disrepute, and is of course, ironically, itself an example of stereotyping). When you have a person high in disgust who's also stereotyping and doesn't understand that a stereotype is just an average, then they tend to literally pre-judge everyone from the stereotyped group as if they're necessarily going to fit the stereotype.

Whereas the classical liberal position is to take cognizance of stereotypes and averages, certainly (they are important for public policy and for personal behaviour in relation to groups), but to await an individual's manifest behaviour before judging them as an individual. (IOW they may fit the stereotype or they may not, you have to wait and see.)

The overall problem is that people do not want to dispense with prejudice, they just want to condemn the prejudices they dislike.

Who cares if someone is racist? If dumb beliefs are a sign of poor character, then we all lack good character.

The problem isn't that someone is racist. It is if that racism manifests itself in pernicious ways.

We have civil rights laws that address this in areas, such as employment. We engage in social measures in private settings outside of the law, like shunning a Nazi.

Some people cannot just countenance allowing someone a belief that they find repugnant. It goes back to some wanting to control others' thoughts, like religious, government, etc.

The problem isn't that someone is racist. It is if that racism manifests itself in pernicious ways. — Kamikaze Butter

It's not a problem to society unless it manifests perniciously. Could it not eat away a person's mind and heart though?

It's not a problem to society unless it manifests perniciously. Could it not eat away a person's mind and heart though? — frank

What is the best way to change people's hearts and minds?

Has anyone ever negotiated? What happens when you simply refuse to consider the other party's position? They dig their heels in. They will not budge without coercion.

I've seen the old trope of complaints regarding calling out those intolerant of intolerant people. But there is no logic in that.

You mentioned evil in your OP. Is racism evil? No, it is not.

Trump is considered by many to be a racist. Okay, so what? Some of our greatest Presidents have been racists. In fact, we have a monument to one of the alleged greatest, who is from the modern era - Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

How can people speak with moral authority authority about the wrongness of racism, when this country put up an idol to a racist? Trump is compared to Hitler, but he has done nothing worse than FDR.

Ah, but it was a different time, right? That is the most common excuse used. However, that confirms exactly what I have come to believe - morality is an exercise in subjectivity. It is all opinion. Do people like having their opinion dictated to them. I would say for the most part no.

I submit that a racist is entitled to their belief. I in no way say people should sit quietly in the face of racism, but the counter must come from a place of respect, as we are merely arguing opinion. As I stated before, a world without prejudice is not the principle we are seeking to implement. Given all the mixed messages our society has floating about regarding racism, pretending not to be racist makes one morally superior is absurd.

I in no way say people should sit quietly in the face of racism, but the counter must come from a place of respect, as we are merely arguing opinion. — Kamikaze Butter

The counter should come from respect because the racist is human.

Racism, like so much of capitalist ideology, depends on antiquated thinking.. There is only one 'race' of humans nowadays, jokingly called Homo Sapiens.

Capitalism is supremely non-racist. If you have money, Capitalism loves you no matter what you look like.

It inevitably uses racism, however, as it uses every other thing that divides the mugs.

Racism, like so much of capitalist ideology, depends on antiquated thinking. — iolo

How is that exactly?

It inevitably uses racism, however, as it uses every other thing that divides the mugs. — iolo

Like a Taoist master, capitalism does without doing.

What would be more dangerous than racism would be criminalizing it.

Capitalism is a system by which the vast majority are defrauded of much of the value of their labour in order to transfer it to a few very rich crooks. To do this it must keep the mugs living totally in the past.

I like the topic creep. From racism to capitalism......as if it's even remotely necessary. Apparently, no non-capitalists are racists. Or, if one is a capitalist, he/she is de facto a racist.

I guess we should add slave owner to that list of defects.