What games do you like? What are your favorite games? — Purple Pond

Hard to pick favorites, but here are the games that I have played the most over the years:

Colonization
Civilization (all of them)
Diablo 2 (Path of Exile is a tolerable replacement - Diablo 3 had good gameplay but crap character build, so no reason to replay)
FIFA Soccer games since at least 1998
Endless Space
Lord of Ultima/Crown of the Gods
Battle Brothers
Total War: Warhammer 1 & 2
Mario Kart (I think it was the one for the gamecube)
Star Wars Battlefront (I think it was on Playstation 2)
Destiny/COD/Halo

Coming up on 30 years of games, no wonder I suck at philosophy :smile:

I just happen to believe that using racism to correct racism defeats that purpose at the start. I also believe that using racism at the institutional level is dangerous. — NOS4A2

Definitions of racism typically include the idea of viewing one's race as superior. Slavery, assumes superiority. Apartheid, assumes superiority. Affirmative action and similar policies do no such thing. They are RACIAL (as in related to race) government policies, they are not RACIST. I get that you still may not like them, but it would save you a lot of debate to phrase things more appropriately.

I am interested what you think about how racism could be addressed without racial policies?

uh, so a claim without any proof isn't contestable? MMMMkaaaaaaay.................. — Harry Hindu

Why would someone want/need proof that the sun will rise tomorrow? There is plenty of evidence, just zero proof.

The wheels of history grind slowly — uncanni

indeed. I guess as long as things are moving in the right direction there is reason to think positively (I don't know if the Trump movement is society moving backwards or a highlighting of the problem that may actually speed up the improvements we want? - maybe both?)

I'm in SC, one of the most backasswards southern states; — uncanni

Well the first state to secede probably hung on to that "Lost Cause" garbage longer than most (I say that like they are done believing such nonsense, ugh).

because it's a catch-22 to expect middle class values, understanding and behavior from the latter group. — uncanni

Your understanding of sociology seems to be at a higher level than my own, but I agree that projection and assumption of values as "right", leads to entire groups of people being labelled "wrong" for simply existing.

students from the underclass tend to come from so much familial trauma, all the pernicious effects of either inner city or rural southern poverty and lousy k-12 education, that sometimes I'm afraid that I can't help them at all: their defenses and modes of behavior are too set. — uncanni

:yikes: My life has been too easy, so I can only feel bad...there is almost no way I can relate.

One does the best one can. — uncanni

Well thanks for doing it. I am working in a relatively affluent area, so, while I can't afford rent, my job is fairly easy as I am not exposed to major systemic problems (I suppose the top level education received in affluent areas IS part of the systemic problem as funding stays local).

What I call the Obama backlash — uncanni

Indeed, if Trump has emboldened the racists in public, the election of Obama got them grumbling, people were just more careful to not mention race specifically...but every time I heard "Obama is the worst president in US history", it simply reeked of racism as there were no other factors that could possibly justify such an assertion (and unfortunately, I heard that whopper quite a bit).

I l taught for 18 years in TX--the scariest and most provincial place I've ever lived. — uncanni

Yeah, I don't remember exactly, but it was recent, sometime in the last 5 years or so, that Texas was sued over textbooks calling slaves "workers". Very worrisome when considering that textbook companies prioritize their content for Texas as the state school board buys ALL books for every public school in the state.

Thanks for the added perspective.

The usa's foundational fictions deny the supreme importance of genocide and slavery in forging this great democracy, — uncanni

I was about to say "the good new is", but that seems wholly inappropriate, how about "a reason for some hope" - I received my high school history teaching credentials in 2013; many teachers are far more liberal, and are teaching U.S. history in a way that is at least trying to be true to the facts rather than CREATING a narrative. Ironically, this gets called "revisionist history" by those who think the founding fathers are deities, slavery was a minor issue (ie Texas textbooks calling slaves "workers"), america is the best country that has ever existed, and America is a model that is the only reason freedom and democracy exist anywhere in the world :roll:

I get this more accurate instruction of history does very little to help people who are currently suffering, but it may give us reason to think people will be more supportive of their plight in the future. I guess that is easy to say as someone who does not have to suffer from these same problems.

social institutions are permeated with white supremacy. You just have to come out of denial. — uncanni

What always shocks me is that we know for sure that Jim Crow laws were only made illegal in the 1960s. So until then, white supremacy was basically a government policy...why do people think there are no remaining aspects of white supremacy in government, our legal system, people's behavior's (even people who are not white supremacists will have old habits), etc?

I hear about the subtle and not so subtle operations of white supremacy every day, and I see their effects on my students. This is no democracy; there is no equality. — uncanni

How does the future look from your perspective? Am I overly optimistic in my hopes that things will be improving as more liberal (accurate?) understandings of history become the norm in school classrooms? Is it just a privilege to have the time to worry about the distant future?

You may not have noticed but if you point out the reality of racism in any form, Harry Hindu will find a way to accuse you of racism. It's his one game here and he never ever gets tired of it. — Baden

haha, I am slowly learning. But ego gets in the way. If they just heard one more perspective maybe it would change their mind...and of course I have that perfect perspective ready to go :roll:

Sometimes I read a whole bunch of careful, intelligent, evidenced arguments being denied (or flipped as you mentioned), and think maybe if I phrase this in a simpler (dumber) way it will work. Like I said, I am learning slowly (I was actually trying to do his flip thing back to him, but I should know you can't out flip The Flipper).

Are you saying that all black people don't want any whites to ever be hired? — Harry Hindu

Not sure where that comes from? Are you saying that all whites don't ever want a black person to be hired?

Are you saying that all black people don't want any whites to ever be hired? Isn't that racist to put all black people into the same box, as if they all think the same because they have the same skin color? — Harry Hindu

Nope. Just saying that FAR more black people have been NOT HIRED because they are black for the last 50 years than those who were hired to fill diversity quotas (and obviously it was WAY worse before the civil rights movement). This does not seem all that contestable to me, but if you require absolute proof, I can't do that...but I also cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow despite having a lot of information suggesting that it will.

Was the white guy hired because he was white? — Pfhorrest

It would be tough to prove, but at some point statistical likelihood comes into play.

Every time an employer hires a person because they are black. I'm a current participant in the job market. — Harry Hindu

Hahhaha. Imagine how black people feel every time a white person is hired.

Yeah. I don't know if you agree with the following but there is a difference between having a day off after 8 days and the next week or so working 14 days in a row. Having a set schedule (every 10 days as you said) is important for the psychology of a person. Being at the whim of all of your employers in terms of days off really messes with a poor person's emotional health. Government workers get saturday and sundays off every week, i'm not sure why a poor person can't consistently get every 10th day off. I like to do it in multiples of 7 because (14, 21, 28) it would be less cumbersome considering that is what government workers are on (7 days).

Perhaps this is what you were getting at. I just wanted to clarify the need for consistency. — christian2017

Yep, that seems all good to me. I was really just saying, "don't call it blue laws because that will confuse people as to your true goal". I think other than that, I largely agreed.

Some attribute the concept of the Sabbath or Blue laws as religious and in accordance with denying the notion of separation of church and state. — christian2017

I think I agree with your overall point (assuming it is an economic one), but blue laws ARE religious (the fact that you also refer to them as Sabbath Laws highlights this). I think using these terms only adds confusion.

Why not propose a "labor law" that requires a day off for every ten worked (or whatever you think is best), even if you have 2 (or 9) jobs?

If you had just said, "there is a new trend in labor. Due to the gig economy and people holding multiple jobs, some people are working 7, 14, 21 or 100 days in a row without a day off. This is an atrocity. Surely there should be a law that guarantees these people an occasional day off", I think there would be less confusion and you would get a more direct discussion. Although Harry Hindu and any free market min-archists would still be arguing, haha.

In the latter quote he's questioning whether there is systemic racism in the US, by which I assume he means racism that is an aspect of the system. With a narrow definition of "system" as the government, Harry is right. If there is some other system that is exhibiting racism, someone should just point it out to Harry. My own opinion is that racism is primarily the same as sexism: — frank

Just so we are clear, can we admit that at some point in history there WAS DEFINITELY systemic racism in the USA? When did it end 100%? What date/ court ruling/ law passage suddenly eliminated ALL remaining vestiges of systemic racism? Same with systemic sexism...surely ALL systemic sexism did not end with the right to vote? Or the passage of some amendment?

Also, assuming all systemic racism has been eliminated (I do not agree with this, but for the sake of argument), surely there are lasting effects? I assume you are more ok admitting that there is systemic classism? Surely our system has clear benefits for wealthier people...or not? Aren't the people who WERE subject to systemic racism in the past, FAR more likely to be poor on average? Aren't the people who formerly embraced systemic racism likely to retain or pass on SOME of those feelings? I can agree that each generation will lose SOME of those outdated notions, but it will take time.

And, you strongly implied with "narrow definition" that you are aware that there is more to "the system" than the government. Segregation was "systemic" whether it was de facto or de jure. Economics are a system as much as any government. Mainstream social norms are a system as much as government.

I'm dubious of your move from "me and mine" anthropology to "Nazi" ideology which seems to suggest "whiteness" - racial essentialism - in your implicit critique of tribalist "white privilege" (supremacy). — 180 Proof

I think you are on to something here, but I am too stupid. Each time I read it, I have a slightly different understanding. Can you dumb this down for me a bit?

If I drop the little example of Nazis (even for the point I was TRYING to make, it was a bad example) does it solve the problem or is something still lingering?

heat without much light - I find questionable. — 180 Proof

That is about what I was thinking. As I thought about how I would take this theory further (if there seemed to be something to it), I couldn't think of how to make it more complete or rigorous. So that probably suggests it would never have much explanatory power.

Sometimes I just enjoy shouting out what happens to be on my mind and see what people think.

Just my 2 bits. — 180 Proof

Thanks for that :smile:

Hume is correct because he rightly identifies causal relations to be a feature of existing states, rather than being formed out of concepts of laws we imagine. "Laws" only function to describe when states are acting that way. — TheWillowOfDarkness

So far, I entirely agree with Ron Cram. However, based on my understanding of what he and Hume are saying, I can't see why anyone would have EVER taken Hume seriously. Now obviously, Hume WAS and IS taken seriously in philosophy circles. So, I must be missing something. I feel I am way off, so it may require some patience on your part (so I will understand if you ignore this entirely, haha).

Hume is correct because he rightly identifies causal relations to be a feature of existing states — TheWillowOfDarkness

I will show my ignorance immediately. First off, when you say "identifies causal relations" you mean "identify what appear to be causal relations", right? If that is right then we are saying that "what appears to be causal relations are actually just things that exist that are not in any way causally related"...right?

Wouldn't cause and effect work to explain the way things "appear" in the same way that math explains things?

If there is NO cause and effect, doesn't that render science as no more valid than magic? So how should we interpret the repeat-ability of experiments?

rather than being formed out of concepts of laws we imagine. "Laws" only function to describe when states are acting that way. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't feel the need to refer to any "laws" in order to understand cause and effect? Wouldn't understanding of cause and effect come WAY before the creation of any laws? What are the laws based on if cause and effect is meaningless?

Wait, Is he just saying that cause and effect are subjective not objective? No that can't be it, as cause and effect can be demonstrated objectively (through a repeat-able experiment) as well as ANY concept can be, right?

As you can probably tell, I don't get it. I am willing to read a little, but if you point me at whole books, I will just concede that you know more than me and move on with my day (I am already willing to concede that you know more than me, but I am not yet willing to move on with my day, haha).

Doesn't make any social ill somehow 'kind of good' or a segue to philosophy that we should appreciate. — boethius

Fair enough. I would be happy to live in an ideal world where moral philosophy is unnecessary because all is good (whatever that even means). Until then, Yes, all of those negatives you mentioned will act as inspiration for those who disagree. I don't think that means I am defending them as "good"? Just finding a silver lining?

If there were no social ills and because of this people didn't philosophize much, just enjoyed life. I would take that bargain. — boethius

Haha. Well you beat me to it. Yes, as I said above, I am happy to take that deal as well.

Please, join a course or group or internet forum that can be argued to be welcoming critical thought on religious and theological matters for a year ... then become a Mormon for a year ... then report back on the appreciation of critical thinking and exposure to challenges to beliefs and assumption in each group. — boethius

I don't think I have said anything that suggests I disagree with what you are getting at here.

If mormonism is right it is not the case it was a serious approach to theology that turned out to be correct, but rather that "serious theology is entirely wrong, that critical thinking is not a path to the truth". — boethius

Here is where I am getting confused. Can you point me to the best example of "serious theology" using critical thinking to find the truth? You mean like Thomas Aquinas? Are his ideas examples of better critical thinking? I have never seen serious theology using critical thinking as a path to the truth? Doesn't theology typically (always?) start with the "truth" then use critical thinking in an attempt to justify or prove the already known "truth"?

:chin: — 180 Proof

This really isn't true. — Hanover

Well, it felt like some hypothetical BS. I gave it a shot, haha.

The Nazis limited their tribe to Aryans, specifically excluding the neighboring Slavs (who were very much white). — Hanover

wait, isn't this evidence in my favor (sort of)? by LIMITING their tribe they were weaker? Although it does point out some poor analysis in my original proposal :grimace: .

The idea of all whites being of the same tribe seems an American thing, — Hanover

I can agree that the white unity thing peaks in America, but imperialism suggests it was (is?) a world problem. Even when white countries were competing they were united against the other. White countries fought other white countries for glory, white countries fought non-white countries so they could profit. After WW2, things change. White people invent new divisions of "me and mine" - Communism vs Capitalism, but they still don't count people of color as participating in the same game (nonaligned countries, China could be on Team Communist only if they acknowledged that Russia is the leader).

In Ireland, the Catholics can hate the Protestants. In Scotland , they can hold hostilities toward the English. In the US, these groups can't be distinguished. — Hanover

Wait, they absolutely can be distinguished (not to say that I necessarily disagree with where you are going). It is just that they and we (christians and non) have decided their similarities far outweigh the differences. Based on a picture, it might be easier to identify the difference between a white and a black person. However, based on a phone conversation (or internet forum discussion), it would be easier to identify the catholic vs protestant.

Well @180 Proof, what do you think? I am not too sensitive. If the idea is terrible, let me hear it. I guess @Hanover let me hear it, and I responded with some vague not quite agreeing or disagreeing (Sorry Hanover, that is all I got for now), so that may not inspire you to engage, haha.

I disagree here that Ayn Rand is "useful to get interested in philosophy" — boethius

I don't disagree with much of what you have said, and yet I was certainly inspired to learn more about philosophy after arguing with Randians. If something seems obviously wrong, but is embraced by many, one can be compelled to research. I would say that Rand has inspired many to learn more about philosophy in the same way that religion inspires those disinclined to agree with it to study more philosophy. And I am talking EARLY stages of inspiration (like zero formal philosophy education). Someone earning a PHD in philosophy will NOT be inspired by Rand.

And by the way, haha, have you had a few bad experiences with the mormons? Why are their ideas more ludicrous than the rest of the christians? Jesus showing up in america and planting some golden tablets doesn't seem any crazier than much of the bible? I guess the whole baptizing dead people thing is a bit nuts, but no more so than many prescriptions in the book of Leviticus.

Same story. Everywhere.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces — Rolf

hahaha. So I clicked on the link. Then went ugh, this Jungian archetypal hero nonsense. But then I read a bit...then forgot why I was reading. I came back and glanced at the OP again, and it finally made sense. I like the joke :grin:

I believe in honesty. Everybody lies, I do myself. Yet if i don't believe in honesty, the there can be no communication. — unenlightened

Huh?

I said:

Fine, I will bite. "I have faith in a god that does not exist" seems nonsensical to me. Can you tell me how you define "faith", "god", and "exist" and then I can see if it starts to make any sense. — ZhouBoTong

Are you saying I lied? I don't get it? Maybe you are responding to a different person or thread?

More democracy, not less. — StreetlightX

Ah, but what if people vote for more government power? Should we get rid of the bill of rights?

So my response applies more to this thread, I should add the question, what if 51% of the country want impeachment?

The second one is obviously taken to extremes that do not represent your position. But they all suggest a problem with a simplified statement of "more democracy, not less". I hear, "more of the democracy I want, less of the democracy I don't want." Jim Crow was the direct result of more democracy.

What do you mean? — Wallows

"Possible" matches closest with "imaginary". I was thinking of worlds that do exist, not those that might.

Maybe the enhanced intelligence could be powerful enough to prevent hacking. It’s all highly speculative at this point, as far as I know. — praxis

Agreed on highly speculative. But wouldn't AI be smarter and more powerful than any enhancements? Were all the enhancements developed entirely in secret with NOTHING leaked or caught on camera that the AI would have access to? Couldn't the AI come up with FAR better enhancements? IF AI is everything they fear (I am highly speculative of that), then we can only bow down to our overlords.

Can two beings from sperate possible worlds fall in love out of the set of all possible worlds? — Wallows

Does "worlds" mean "planets"? or do you mean separate worlds like Romeo and Juliet were from different worlds? Just in case, I have also seen people using "worlds" to mean "universe."

I have a tendency to be very over-literal in my interpretations. I may be missing something?

Now that I see @Pfhorrest's response, I realize I entirely missed the "possible" part. Once we are discussing "possible" worlds, isn't anything possible?

Posting an Ayn Rand question should lead to immediate banning. — Banno

Well, only if they agree with her, haha. I get that even if one disagrees, Ayn Rand is inferior philosophy, but she spews some crazy shit that could spark philosophical interest...especially when one does a quick google search and it seems like much of the world agrees with her. I think Ayn Rand might actually do a good job of sparking people's interest in philosophy...then they happily learn she was doing philosophy rather poorly.

Who the hell would trust their brain (their being) to a corporation (even one started up by Elon Musk)? — Bitter Crank

As someone who generally likes the idea of being enhanced, I entirely agree with this. They even made a movie titled "Gamer" about 10 years ago that showed the potential dystopian result of people handing their brains over to a corporation (it even has the guy from Dexter as an Elon Musk/Steve Jobs type baddie). Unless you like crappy action movies, I can't really recommend it, but it did warn against this behavior.

I thought I remembered Musk saying something to the effect that human intelligence enhancement might help keep us in the game (of life) once true AI was developed. — praxis

I find Musk's logic a little strange in this case. So, AI gets invented and it is everything he feared. These brain implants...are they connected to the internet or anything outside the human? If so, doesn't Neuralink just give the AI direct access to our brains? And the chips would have to be connected to the outside world in some way, or every software update would require brain surgery.

There was also a religious justification for enslaving Africans ( and not Arabs or Chinese or Indians) in their largely, but not entirely mythical nakedness and lack of sexual shame, which put them amongst the beasts rather than the descendants of Adam and Eve. — unenlightened

This is an interesting idea that certainly rings true. Their lack of civilization was used as evidence of their inferiority (made more clear and justified by religious comparisons). Good addition.

The ancient Greeks traded in foreign slaves as it was deemed immoral to enslave a fellow Greek.

The Spartans were equal opportunity slavers though... — VagabondSpectre

Thanks for the input. Since you have some knowledge on the subject, do you know what happened to the children of slaves in Greece? Were they automatically slaves? Or were they born free? Or did it vary? I can quickly find the answer to Roman slavery (typically, you were born a slave), but I am not finding a clear answer on Greece.

"Why did the British (in our case) select Africans as the slave of choice? Could they have selected some other group: Aboriginals, South Asians, Arabs...? — Bitter Crank

convenient — Bitter Crank

triangular trade — Bitter Crank

I agree so far. Even if the Spanish had heavily settled the west coast of the Americas, Asia and Australia are still too far for any convenient trade (that Blue Planet show emphasized how BIG the Pacific Ocean is).

Why did the Africans sell their own kind into slavery? — Bitter Crank

Everything you said here seems accurate and this shit is crazy:

[Among the last states to abolish slavery were Saudi Arabia and Yemen, which abolished slavery in 1962 under pressure from Britain; Oman in 1970; and Mauritania in 1905, 1981, and again in August 2007.] — Bitter Crank

U.S. history always makes it seem like we are the last place on earth to free slaves...while I knew that was not true, I would not have expected such recent abolition (or attempted abolition in Mauritania) dates.

One other side theory I have related to this involves tribalism, civilization, and globalism (I will try to keep it short as it is probably stupid anyway). People are naturally tribal. We care for and protect "me and mine" and fear the "other". As people, then tribes, then cities, then civilizations grow, so to does the size of "me and mine". This suggests that the first groups to grow the size of their "me and mine" is going to have a big advantage over those who can only trust a smaller group. Europeans were the first to claim a whole race as "me and mine" and therefore had huge advantages over smaller societies (the Nazi's showed where the emphasis on "me and mine" gets taken too far). Before WW2, Japan tried this with its Asia for Asians policy. Too bad they treated the Chinese and Koreans horrifically. So, the Africans on the coast did not view it as selling their "own kind" into slavery. They were selling "others" to some even stranger "others". I may need to explain further, but don't view what I am saying as particularly significant...does this paragraph make enough sense? Am I saying anything more than what is obvious to everyone?

We are debating degrees of suffering here, not whether there was suffering. — Bitter Crank

Yes, and I have the tendency to debate minutia. Overall, I see no problems with your position (I am sure whether I agreed or not was seriously stressing you out, haha). And of course I am happy to admit that all slavery is wrong unless it is entirely voluntary (which as far as I know has never existed - but I hesitate to accept absolutes so I have to leave a little wiggle room).

Gladiators might have had the worst labor--fighting to the death. — Bitter Crank

Agreed...except for the 1 out of a million Messi or Ronaldo of gladiating. For the humongous, super-athletic, combat genius, being a gladiator was a path to fame, freedom, and sex...but this changes nothing in our discussion, just added for a chuckle.

Here's a clip from I Claudius, where Livia, Emperor Augustus's wife gives the gladiators a pep talk. — Bitter Crank

Dang, I am typically bored by older movies, but this is a pretty darned good speech. And while the Lady giving it is not necessarily racist, she has the same blindness that I was referring to. Are you seriously telling these men, with a straight face, that they need to stop all these dumb little tricks they use to NOT DIE? Why do they give a shit what you say? Hell if I am going to die anyway, maybe I should just kill this lady giving this stupid speech?

Yes. I'd be skeptical of any claim about what most of any group of millions of people thought over 100 years ago.(Or even today, since no one is polling enough people for claims like that in my opinion.) — Terrapin Station

Ok, ok. I apologize. I should have learned your nature by now. Everything you have said is fair in this context. Sorry, but I have been conditioned to the fact that, typically, when someone says "I am not convinced" it is a soft way of saying "I disagree". I understand, that on a philosophy site, people are more careful with their words and I should read them to mean exactly what they say...old habits, my bad.

I'm skeptical that most people even think about stuff like that. — Terrapin Station

Again, that seems fair. But for me, I would at least view it as condoning, or an acceptance, of racism, whether or not they were "racist", they were part of the problem (assuming we buy into the whole democracy thing - which I guess I don't entirely so maybe I should ease up a little).

You must think that people are far less motivated by monetary concerns than what seems to be the case to me. — Terrapin Station

I think I am with you on the motivation. Just that I would call that motivation (for money) a moral shortcoming (a petty concern is maybe being too nice, a major moral flaw is possibly more accurate). Beside the Ayn Rand crowd, most philosophies will consider that blind drive for money (at the expense of more significant moral concerns) to be immoral (right? I may be wrong with my limited knowledge of philosophy, but all MAJOR moral systems seem opposed). Now, morality is one area I agree with you that it is ALL subjective. But, subjectively, I can still make judgements based on the information I have available.

I have faith in a god that does not exist." then if you want to engage, you cannot just let it pass that there is a contradiction in the terms according to how you understand them, you have elucidate to me what that contradiction is and thus enable me to begin to see which words we are using differently and what hidden premises are being invoked. — unenlightened

Fine, I will bite. "I have faith in a god that does not exist" seems nonsensical to me. Can you tell me how you define "faith", "god", and "exist" and then I can see if it starts to make any sense.

My understanding of slavery in Rome, at least, was that it was hereditary, but the Romans allowed some (limited) avenues of escape from bondage. — Bitter Crank

Well I looked it up and you are right here. I am not sure if Greece was not hereditary or I just made that shit up. Either way, Rome had way more slaves so it would be the more important comparison. But after thinking, I don't think it changes any of the points I just made in my last response. Still important to know we are operating with the right facts.

My objection to slavery is not that it was racist, but that it was extremely exploitative, extremely dehumanizing, and extremely cruel. — Bitter Crank

Phew. I wasn't sure where you were going with the argument. I am more OK with this direction...but I may still argue a little, haha.

Racism, to my way of thinking, does not make slavery worse. — Bitter Crank

Surely, slavery for the child's tutor was "better" slavery in the salt mines? In the same way, racial slavery had the potential to be worse. Also, racial slavery in a country where "all men are created equal" is stating that they (slaves) are not men. This is dehumanizing for the slave, but it also affects the owner. If they are not men, maybe severe beatings are the only way they will learn. Non-racial slavery would understand that NO ONE WANTS to be a slave. Racial slavery assumes that they are happiest and most fulfilled as slaves.

So I am not going to say that racial slavery is worse than the worst forms of non-racial slavery. The point is, racial slavery almost guarantees that slavery is the worst form, savage and brutal.

Racism, could not make slavery worse. — Bitter Crank

Again, you would have to sell me on "all slavery is equally bad" before I could accept this. Your tutor vs mines example seems to show some forms are worse.

Being reduced to chattel property and treated as an object can't be topped. — Bitter Crank

Sure it can. Being nicely treated as property is way better than being horrifically treated as property. I can admit all slavery is entirely wrong. But to say it as if it is some "infinite" that can't be topped seems to ignore reality. Kind of like saying "there is nothing worse than death"...well what about "torture then death"...sounds worse.

You know, Karl Marx identified "wage slavery" as the curse of the working class. The employer doesn't exactly "own" the worker, but the worker is entirely dependent on the "wage-paying class" for their minimal sustenance. In one of his examples, he said a farmer could use a Negro slave to re-roof a barn. Or he could hire an Irishman to do it. Which worker was the better deal? The Irishman of course. — Bitter Crank

I obviously generally agree with Marx's analysis of capitalist society. However, if I combine this paragraph with your previous idea that all slavery is equally (maximally) bad, then aren't you suggesting that being stuck working 40 hour a week jobs we dislike until death is equally bad to the enslavement of Africans that occurred in America for a couple hundred years? I can agree it is bad, I might even agree with "wage slavery", but you are going to struggle to convince me that my life is nearly as bad as a slave in Alabama in the mid 1800s. And you would NEVER be able to convince me to CHOOSE 1800s american slavery over modern wage slavery.

Capitalism can use slaves, but it is cheaper to use more disposable employees. From the capitalist's point of view, the purpose of hiring a worker is to exploit his labor as much as possible and pay him no more than it takes to keep him on the job. Since the worker is dependent on labor, the amount that it takes to keep him coming back is not that much. — Bitter Crank

You don't need to convince of me of your economic ideas. I was partially on-board when I started at this site, and you have convinced me enough that I would happily vote for you as Labor Tsar, should the opportunity arise. And I do believe that if ALL economic problems are solved, then racism would only be a minor annoyance. However, with all of the progress society has made, economic progress does not seem to be one that is going anywhere (it is too emotional, too personal, and too complicated). However, racial progress has been tackled legally. While there are setbacks, each legal step is progress (however slow).

Note that I'm not making the claim that "most Americans were not racist." Rather I'm skeptical about the claim that most were. — Terrapin Station

Ok, just to measure where we are at; are you equally skeptical of the claim, "prior to the Civil War, most Americans were NOT racist"...?

That's not what I'm getting at. (And I'm not sure why you'd read it that way. The quote that's a response to is me simply saying that I don't know/don't remember enough about what Jefferson or Washington said.) — Terrapin Station

Fair enough, I think I was just having a hissy-fit anyway.

"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" — Terrapin Station

Social Darwinism and the White Man's Burden were popular at the time (both clearly and explicitly expressed "an inherent superiority of a particular race"). Doesn't a lack of backlash count as a type of tacit acceptance?

Thomas Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal". He owned slaves that did nothing wrong other than being born black. What possible justification is MORE likely than racism?
— ZhouBoTong

I had just explained the monetary motivations, for example. — Terrapin Station

Yes, but they are VERY petty. How serious is the rest of the world supposed to take his words in the Declaration of Independence if a minor personal financial concern is enough for him to abandon the principles entirely? (notice if he is racist he does not have to abandon his principles - that is why I hold it up as a MORE LIKELY reason)

If I can provide a letter from FDR referring to "white supremacy", is that evidence of racism?
— ZhouBoTong

If he's claiming something like white supremacy, sure. — Terrapin Station

I may have to track that down. A quick search suggests I need a j-stor account. It was written in the 1920s (before he was president). Discussing Hawaii, he described the Japanese as a potential threat to white supremacy.

I wouldn't at all doubt that some presidents were racist, by the way. — Terrapin Station

The trouble is I would want to show that MOST were (are), haha.

William Shockley, a Nobel laureate who was the co-inventor of semiconductors, supposedly said that whites have superior intelligence. That would be sufficient to count as racist (of course). — Terrapin Station

Imperialism was practiced for about a century and was based on one groups "superiority" over the others, right? As Europeans countries raced to claim Africa until only Liberia (American founded country for returning slaves) and Ethiopia (whooped the weak ass Italians in a tiny war) remained independent; were they treating the Africans as equals?

While that doesn't show most people were racist, it shows that most "white" countries were racist?

We have had a good run for the last couple weeks. I am alternating between complete agreement in one thread, to utter disbelief in the next. Fun times.

Yeah, but you're saying that most Americans were racist — Terrapin Station

I would say you have the higher burden of proof. But, of course, I can't prove I knew the thoughts of every American...but I would be willing to bet everything I owned on "most".

Can we admit that "most" "white" countries were racist at this time? Imperialism and the race for Africa were surely racist, right? (racist defined as one group viewing themselves superior to another based on the vaguely defined idea of race - I am worried you are thinking of racism as I like/don't like a certain group. That is more modern racism. The superiority is the real problem though. Humans like dogs, they are not viewed as equals - and I am fine if you want to say I am racist against dogs, haha).

If I had enough info about things they said where I considered some of those things racist, sure. I don't know enough about either for that, really, though. — Terrapin Station

Now I get you are the King of Subjectivity, but at some point we have to work with what we have. Based on your quote above (yes taken to extremes), there is not ONE SINGLE HUMAN that we can call racist. Additionally, there is NOT ONE SINGLE HUMAN that we could call christian, or atheist, or a fan of Liverpool FC...right? Even if they act christian, and call themselves christian, we don't know whether they are just taking a piss or not. what am I missing?

If I can provide a letter from FDR referring to "white supremacy", is that evidence of racism? And FDR was one of the most racially progressive presidents in history up to that point (he knew white people wouldn't vote for someone who cared about minoritites so he had his wife work to help them, while he appeased the white folk.)

This is also not saying that they weren't racist. I'd need far more info about them than I have — Terrapin Station

Thomas Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal". He owned slaves that did nothing wrong other than being born black. What possible justification is MORE likely than racism?

Racism hinges on their beliefs, — Terrapin Station

Right. Which we can never know for sure. But we can make some pretty solid assumptions based on their words and deeds.

Also, voting for someone isn't at all indicative of agreeing with all or even most of the policies they support. — Terrapin Station

Right. But that is how we got trump, right? "sure he is a scumbag, but look at that stock market!"

Do you think this was true in the Roman Empire or for other Mediterranean Basin slave-holding cultures going back 1 or 2 millennia BCE? — Bitter Crank

Yes, but not to the same extent.

Was the fatal flaw in Anglo-American slavery that the slaves were pretty much exclusively African? — Bitter Crank

For me where slavery goes from an inappropriate method of labor usage (I don't think you think you are suggesting that the Roman slave system was something we should emulate?), to an atrocity, is a nice simple line...once slavery is hereditary, it is now a nasty transformative force. As soon as a slave owner claims that baby as an asset, they are viewing that baby and its people as somehow "lesser". And yes I am happy to concede that most business owners and shareholders absolutely view their employees as "lesser", but it is obviously nowhere near as extreme.

Was the fatal flaw in Anglo-American slavery that the slaves were pretty much exclusively African? — Bitter Crank

I think the hereditary nature is more the "fatal flaw", but it being almost exclusively African is what makes it racist by definition (I am happy to concede that it "makes it APPEAR racist by definition" - I obviously don't know what these people are actually thinking; there are things that look like ducks, but are not ducks, but I am gonna call it a duck until I have information suggesting otherwise).

Slavery in the Roman empire varied from employment of Greek slaves as tutors for one's children to extremely harsh labor regimes in mining. — Bitter Crank

The tutors were likely treated way better by their owners. The worse the slaves were treated, the greater the degradation of the owners. But if their owners had just written monumental documents on the ideal that "all men are created equal", then, unless a crime was committed, even enslaving a tutor is a humongous hypocrisy that will require the owner to use all sorts of cognitive bias to justify (to themselves). Hell, just having to call someone "Dominus" all day divides people into classes of betters and lessers (not sure if that is a real thing or just pop culture, haha).

Anglo-American slaves performed a fairly narrow range of labor in fields, farmyard, and house, and the exploitation seems to have more intense and systematic than slavery under the Romans. — Bitter Crank

And I would argue that a little racism made it much more justified to be more "intense and systematic". While I am sure it existed at times, do you know of hereditary slavery ever being common in Greece or Rome? A quick google search hints at what I already thought, it wasn't common...but that doesn't help a ton.

I was going to say something close to this, but thought I should defend my view for a change. — frank

Yes, I felt a little bad after I sent that, since I had asked for more of an argument...and you gave one. But as I was responding I was realizing that we(I) were really whining over some small stuff. As long as we are all aware that racism was a significant force, I don't need to argue over "most significant" - everyone will have a different perspective.

Why should we think of racism as the primary problem? — frank

I typed for a while, but then changed my mind and deleted it

As long as everyone admits that racism was a major problem, and that segregation was certainly racist, I don't care what we call primary causes.

There is technically not anything logically impossible about an omnipotent being creating something that it then cannot move. That's just equivalent to resigning a small piece of its omnipotence. Before the creation of the thing, it's omnipotent. Then it creates a limit to its omnipotence, which is within its power to do. After that it's not omnipotent anymore. But while it was omnipotent, it had the power to create limits to its own omnipotence, without contradiction. — Pfhorrest

This is reasonable. But it suggests an understanding of "omnipotent" that I don't think we can ever have. Omnipotence is like saying black holes have INFINITE density. It means something in the abstract, that doesn't match reality. Why can't it be perfectly possible for an omnipotent being to do ANYTHING? Even if it contradicts physics, or logic, or human language...so what?

I will agree with @Bartricks on this one.