Ok maybe you'd follow this up by asking why one would identify with something other then themselves... at some point the answer will just be because we are that kind of beings, social beings. Individualism is a later ideological invention. — ChatteringMonkey

Good luck convincing this group of that. It’s sounding like a religious revival meeting.

yeah it does surprise me that this even needs saying.

People feel like certain groups, be it nations, sportsteams, parties are part of their identity... that's to say there's no stark difference between them feeling pride in accomplishing something themselves or the group they identify with accomplishing something.

Ok maybe you'd follow this up by asking why one would identify with something other then themselves... at some point the answer will just be because we are that kind of beings, social beings. Individualism is a later ideological invention. — ChatteringMonkey

:up: Your post brings to mind one of my favorite quotes:

"In itself life is insipid, because it is a simple "being there." So, for man, existing becomes a poetic task, like the playwright's or the novelist's: that of inventing a plot for his existence, giving it a character which will make it both suggestive and appealing. ... ... serious examination should lead us to realize how distasteful existence in the universe must be for a creature - man, for example - who finds it essential to divert himself." J.O. y Gasset.

I wanted to compare it to golf, but since it's such a solo thing you don't see much in the way of pride for what the single person does. I wanted to then extend that thought to all the solo sports in the Olympics, but that has a sovereign flag attached to it. Seems like BS to me, but I often fall right in with the crowd. :yikes: :blush:

Seems like BS to me, but I often fall right in with the crowd. :yikes: :blush: — James Riley

A sure sign that you are a philosopher!

quotes:

"In itself life is insipid, because it is a simple "being there." So, for man, existing becomes a poetic task, like the playwright's or the novelist's: that of inventing a plot for his existence, giving it a character which will make it both suggestive and appealing. ... .. — James Riley

And so the static notions inherited from classical physics rear their ugly head. Gasset was a student of Heidegger, but apparently didn’t read him very well. I would prefer to say that life in itself, as ‘being there’ , is incessant change and transformation. We need to invent plots in order to impose some
order on and find patterns in what would otherwise be an overwhelming chaos.

We need to invent plots in order to impose some
order on and find patterns — Joshs

I don't know Heidegger, but perhaps y Gasset read him very well and just disagreed with, and improved upon him. Wouldn't your progressive building upon a past have the student move beyond the teacher? Or is y Gasset just a step back, an aberration, an F student of Heidegger? The invention of incessant change and transformation is the invented plot and order imposed by those who lack the context of eons; those who fear, and try to avoid the honesty of how insipid their life is. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The invention of incessant change and transformation is the invented plot and order imposed by those who lack the context of eons ... — James Riley

:fire:

The more things change, the more they stay the same. — James Riley

Or things continue to be the same differently. You’re not a fan of Heraclitus or James?

Or things continue to be the same differently. You’re not a fan of Heraclitus or James? — Joshs

I'm gonna stop right here and say something I have no good reason to say, other than my gut:

You seem like a very well-read, intelligent person with excellent retention. However, I don't see a whole lot of analytics, or thinking on your own two feet.

Here's my point: I don't know who Heideger is, and I put Heraclitus behind me forty years ago. If I want to run a guy up the flag pole, I quote him like I did y Gasset, or I give a summary of the position held as it relates to the subject at hand. But when I see a bunch of names thrown around without any piggin string on the merits, I'm wondering if someone is trying the old "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit" ruse. Or, as we used to say in the law: "If the facts aren't on your side, argue the hell out of the law. If the law is not on your side, argue the hell out of the facts."

Like I said, you are probably just smarter than me so I shouldn't call you out. But you might be aware that if you can't make your own case without name dropping, I'm going to be suspect. Just know you are talking to a dummy, not a philosophy professor.

t if you can't make your own case without name dropping, I'm going to be suspect. — James Riley

All I meant was , Heraclitus said, "You cannot step into the same river twice, for other waters are continually flowing on“ and James said “ Consciousness... does not appear to itself chopped up in bits. Such words as 'chain' or 'train' do not describe it fitly as it presents itself in the first instance. It is nothing jointed; it flows. A 'river' or a 'stream' are the metaphors by which it is most naturally described. In talking of it hereafter, let us call it the stream of thought, of consciousness, or of subjective life. Source of the expression 'stream of consciousness’.

See, now that wasn't so hard. :grin:

Anyway, my mom just sent me sermon she got at church (she's a Christian) and it had an analogy from physics about the wave to the particle. I'd read about it years ago, but it was new to her. What was new to me was the context of racism and the drilling down more particularly on the idea that the first thing you notice about someone often dictates what you see, and often to the exclusion of the rest of them; i.e. wave to particle. Sometimes it's best to step back and see the river instead of the molecule going by. Sometimes it's best to see the molecule, or even the sediment carried by the river and the "damage" that it does, taking boulders, in microscopic pieces, to the sea.

But having studied the geology of my own area, I've read there was a ancient rocky mountains here that eroded to the ocean, only to have another set rise up to what we have today. If it repeats on a scale like that, then the wave is going nowhere in the hydrologic cycle. Above, below, and on the Earth, it is a wet and (to me) sacred hoop.

Racism is in humans nature indeed. It comes from Ego. So it's "given" to people since their birth. And of course societies, in the way they are formed, make it even easier for racism to flourish.
All people are racists even if they are too scared to admit it even to themselves. They are just those who are Logical enough as to criticize their own beliefs and thoughts and realize what is wrong and tame their racism.
But the vast majority are just hypocrites. And the ridiculous thing is that those who yell, fight, make all the fuss and blame everyone for racism, those are usually the greatest racists! Just too busy accusing everyone else as to actually realize it.

It's not a false pretense. You brought up a conspiracy theory rooted in a belief of a dominant New World Order orchestrating cultural and racial genocide. I brought up a statistic. To respond in such a way to a statistic, to deny the facts that lead to unrest, and to assume that it is reflective in a conspiratorial belief, is foolish. People have grievances rooted in fact. Not every person who knows that fact believes it comes from a grand conspiracy. Rejecting the fact of the decline of the White population and projecting this conspiracy onto the simple, factual statement is the most reactionary and unhelpful way to respond to truth.

Since bad news is what sells, what we typically get from the mainstream news-media are unending cases of interracial disharmony. ...

While there’s research indicating that infants demonstrate a preference for caregivers of their own race, any future racial biases and bigotries generally are environmentally acquired. Adult racist sentiments are often cemented by a misguided yet strong sense of entitlement, perhaps also acquired from one’s environment.

One means of proactively preventing this social/societal problem may be by allowing young children to become accustomed to other races in a harmoniously positive manner. The early years are typically the best time to instill and even solidify positive social-interaction life skills/traits, like interracial harmonization, into a very young brain. Human infancy is the prime (if not the only) time to instill and even solidify positive social-interaction characteristics into a very young mind.

Irrational racist sentiment can be handed down generation to generation. If it’s deliberate, it’s something I strongly feel amounts to a form of child abuse: to rear one’s impressionably very young children in an environment of overt bigotry — especially against other races and/or sub-racial groups (i.e. ethnicities). Not only does it fail to prepare children for the practical reality of an increasingly racially/ethnically diverse and populous society and workplace, it also makes it so much less likely those children will be emotionally content or (preferably) harmonious with their multicultural/-racial surroundings.

Children reared into their adolescence and, eventually, young adulthood this way can often be angry yet not fully realize at precisely what. Then they may feel left with little choice but to move to another part of the land, where their race or ethnicity predominates, preferably overwhelmingly so. If not for themselves, parents then should do their young children a big favor and NOT pass down onto their very impressionable offspring racially/ethnically bigoted feelings and perceptions, nor implicit stereotypes and ‘humor’, for that matter. Ironically, such rearing can make life much harder for one’s own children.

It's normal to be drawn to that which is like you. But it's very stigmatized to express that now. — Lil

With a slight change to "It's optimal to be directed to that which you like, but it's stigmatized to express this."

That just about sums up all of humanity's problems throughout (pre)history. The 'modern' era (ie. last several millennia) has been punctuated by how this is being slowly realised and ignored with a fanatical fastidiousness.

Hi, I am a white guy who lived in a black community for five years, One thing I noticed, accommodations were less than ideal. I knew a number of blacks who could be living under better circumstances but, they were more comfortable living with black people than living with white people. This is unstated, but if a white person stated that they were more comfortable living with whites, wouldn't they run the risk of being called racist? A certain commonness of many aspects I suggest is at least, less stressful than dealing with many differences.

Is Racism Natural? — Lil

Racism: "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized." (Oxford LEXICO)

On the other hand, not feeling affinity or even feeling repulse for people of another race, is natural, but in the same way as you can also feel for people having certain characteristics or demonstrating certain behavior that repel you. So

I have voted "No", of course, although I believe that the answer to this question is so obvious that it almost has no meaning for me. But of course, I accept the 45% (up to this point) of the people who answered "Yes", since the is a democratic place. I only find it deplorable to feel that racism is natural. But I believe this is because most of them just don't know what racism actually means and don't care to look it up! (People in general rarely do that, esp. for terms that are commonly used.) And then, we have of course the racists themselves, who believe that racism is natural. What else could they believe?

Perhaps the answer is in the fact that all people are more at ease in commonality. People tend to speak of racism as something that is the property of the white man, is this so, is it not found in all cultures, all peoples. The racist desires purity, commonality of a kind to the point of hatred and violence but if the problem of racism was solved, and the great melting pot of variety played itself out, the outcome would be a purity of kind, the commonality, we would after a time, all look alike and possibly behave alike. The racist would then be in nirvana.

Is racism natural? — Lil

Is being an asshole natural? Or is having the disposition to be an asshole natural?

I think almost everything is learned behaviour.