Racism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Is Racism a mark for a lack of education or intelligence?

Lack of Education
1
3%
Lack of Intelligence
3
8%
Both
11
29%
Neither
13
34%
Other
10
26%
By peaclock
#14998946
Racism or discrimination or hatred versus very large groups of people that share something in common.

Is it a sign of lack of education or intelligence?
By Atlantis
#14998950
Other, potential xenophobia exists in all people. It comes to the surface due to external conditions. Extreme situations such as wars, economic hardship, natural disasters, such as earthquakes (for example Koreans were persecuted after the 1923 Earthquake in Japan), famines, etc., may bring out racism in a people. Populist politicians often stir up xenophobia as a means for achieving their political aims. Very intelligent and highly educated people can become racists. Intelligence without compassion leads to racism.
By Truth To Power
#14998960
peaclock wrote:Racism or discrimination or hatred versus very large groups of people that share something in common.

Is it a sign of lack of education or intelligence?

That depends entirely on what they share in common. If it is a false and evil belief system like fascism, communism or Islam, then it is completely intelligent and rational to expect them to do evil, and they do.

The problem with racism is that there are indisputable statistical relationships between the visible, physical characteristics we call race (skin, eye and hair color, hair type and distribution, facial features, body proportions, etc.), which are genetically determined, and behavior/personality characteristics that have varying degrees of genetic and environmental causes. It is not known how many of the genes that determine the visible physical characteristics we associate with race are the same as the genes that affect personality and behavior, if any. There may be only statistical links, not causal ones. But if there is a causal link, that would make racism to that extent rational. Probably AI will soon be able to tell us which specific genes, if any, influence both behavioral characteristics and the visible physical characteristics we associate with different races. There have already been discoveries of specific genes that affect, e.g., intelligence, and their frequency is almost certain to vary between racial populations, though I don't believe any of them are thought to affect outward physical appearance.
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14998992
This obviously depends on how we define racism, since the term is undefined, the argument too remains ambiguous.

If we simply mean the belief that it is morally acceptable to discriminate against others purely on the basis of race or ethnicity, this position is not contingent on factors of intelligence or education. After all, many of the thinkers behind historically "racist" ideologies were very intelligent and well-educated.

Like any other position, it must be dealt with as a set of propositions with the truth or falsity of such being challenged and settled in course of valid argumentation.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14999007
It's ignorance based on a lack of education. It's also learned from parents and others. In most situations, you won't find children ever being racist.

People who travel a lot are far less likely to retain racist ideals.
By Hindsite
#14999018
Suntzu wrote:Race is just a social construct. :lol:

I agree. The liberal Democrats call anyone that disagrees with them racist.
By peaclock
#14999021
i mean, rascism is there, oftrn becaise of conflicts in the past or generalisation( nit all muslims are bad, but the rotten ones put the good ones in a bad daylight) why cant people look over this and be more intelligent than their feelings? at least thats what i try to do
By Hindsite
#14999025
peaclock wrote:i mean, rascism is there, oftrn becaise of conflicts in the past or generalisation( nit all muslims are bad, but the rotten ones put the good ones in a bad daylight) why cant people look over this and be more intelligent than their feelings? at least thats what i try to do

Use your common sense, it is because the evil they do and promote is too bad to look over.
By Truth To Power
#14999452
peaclock wrote:i mean, rascism is there, oftrn becaise of conflicts in the past or generalisation( nit all muslims are bad, but the rotten ones put the good ones in a bad daylight)

"Muslim" is not a race. It describes an adherent of the religious belief system known as Islam that was founded by the prophet Mohammed in the 7th century. Being opposed to Islam and its adherents is no more racist than being opposed to monarchy, communism, or fascism and their adherents.
User avatar
By ThirdTerm
#14999466
It is basic animal instincts common among living organisms. Violence has been observed in humans and animals alike, which is associated with male duties such as defending the breeding territory and building dens. To breed successfully, animals need a variety of resources including territories, food, and mates. For instance, owls and crows are at war with each other all the time and crows know instinctively that an owl is a mortal enemy.



Organisms are inherently competitive, yet cooperation is widespread. Genes cooperate in genomes; cells cooperate in tissues; individuals cooperate in societies. Animal societies, in which collective action emerges from cooperation among individuals, represent extreme social complexity. Such societies are not only common in insects, mammals, and birds, but exist even in simple species like amoebas (Figure 1). Animal societies vary in structure from eusocial insect colonies with a single reproductive female supported by hundreds, thousands, or even millions of non-breeding workers, to cooperatively breeding groups of vertebrates with one or more breeders and a small number of non-breeding helpers. Given the diversity of social taxa, why do some species form complex societies, while other closely related species do not? Within these societies, why do some individuals attempt to reproduce, while others delay their own reproductive efforts to help raise the offspring of others? Determining the answers to these and other questions requires considering how and why groups form, and how individual behavioral roles are determined within groups.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowled ... x-13236526
User avatar
By blackjack21
#14999469
Godstud wrote:In most situations, you won't find children ever being racist.

CNN says you are wrong: Study: White and black children biased toward lighter skin

peacock wrote:and we were so different in the past? the rich countries are the ones who ivented rascism

In all likelihood, homo sapiens sapiens killed off all other homo sapiens branches like Denisovan and Neanderthal. Racism isn't unique to Europe, or even exclusive to skin color. For example, African pygmies face genocide as other Africans see them as less than human. Of course, Europeans did this too, but it is an innate human tendency. Here is a recent example:

Congo charges 34 with genocide in inter-ethnic fighting
User avatar
By Godstud
#14999475
@blackjack21 a bias is not racism, rule 2 violation
By Hindsite
#14999483
peaclock wrote:and we were so different in the past? the rich countries are the ones who ivented rascism

I think it was Black people that invented racism.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14999493
Yes @Hindsite It certainly wasn't the KKK or anyone like that who demonstrated racism, it was the primary victims of it. What a stupid fucking statement! :knife:
User avatar
By Verv
#14999512
There is a lot of attachment to the concept of 'racism' because it is a litmus test for liberals.

Indeed, it has been the litmus test since the 1960s -- and the goalposts on what racism is seems to always be shifting until you are considered a racist if you do not want to actively "dismantle whiteness" and you can be accused of "dog whistling" if you are doing anything besides actively affirming diversity.

So, this poll might as well just be "So, people who disagree with us are ignorant or stupid, am I right?" and it throws in the other options not because there is an actual desire to come to some sort of truth... but because it helps disguise it as a poll.
By layman
#14999513
THe ultra modern concept of racism is the “system” of disadvantage that affects certain groups. This is why it is now transcending race into religious groups like Muslims.

Before this we have the modern science or racialism which graded races based on category’s and cognitive ability.

In a larger and more global sense, people naturally put individuals into in groups and out groups based on learned behaviour. Children who do this tend to do in based on experience also. Those groups can be race.

In my opinion, The core of all this is likely in our genes as well. It’s based in our very early tribal society’s Where outside groups were extremely dangerous and more distinct by appearance.

It just too strong, widespread and impactful a trait to be purely learned.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#14999533
In my opinion, The core of all this is likely in our genes as well. It’s based in our very early tribal society’s Where outside groups were extremely dangerous and more distinct by appearance.

It just too strong, widespread and impactful a trait to be purely learned.

That is exactly right. Take a read of Sapiens. Harari touches on the fact that Neanderthals, Denisovans, etc. "disappeared". What the left doesn't want to touch is that modern humans virtually liquidated their competing cousins. Genocide itself is part of our nature, which is why leftism is a terrible place for white people to be these days--not unlike Jews who embraced Nazism and thought that their Jewishness would just fade away and be sublimated into German/Nazi qualities only to find out to their horror that the Nazis were not simply looking for active supporters, but really saw the Aryan race as a necessary superior race and had a corresponding need to wipe out Jews as competitors. Leftists hate white people now, and those of us whites who are not leftists need to defend ourselves and leave our refractive cousins to their doom with the left.

That is also why I point out the genocidal threat to pygmies, because even the Congolese see them as less than human. There is often a fine line between who they want to kill and who they want to keep as pets. For example, it was sort of chic for white actresses to adopt black African children in the early 2000s. I believe Madonna, Angelina Jolie and Charlize Theron all have adopted black African kids. Interestingly, once they do this, their relationships with white men fall apart and nobody wants to date them in spite of their millions. Charlize Theron was recently whining that she's "shockingly available" and some man needs to "grow a pair" and ask her out. Yet, she's got an African boy she's raising as gender neutral/transgender--dressing the kid up in tutus and such. Clearly, she's not telling her "son" to grow a pair. To my view, these actresses just have pet Africans.

I think Nancy Pelosi is finding out to her horror that the minorities will simply take over the Democratic party and turn it into an anti-white, anti-capitalist and anti-Christian party.

Indeed, it has been the litmus test since the 1960s -- and the goalposts on what racism is seems to always be shifting until you are considered a racist if you do not want to actively "dismantle whiteness" and you can be accused of "dog whistling" if you are doing anything besides actively affirming diversity.

That is exactly where they are now, and why it now takes someone like Trump to win as a Republican, because the cuckolds like the George Wills of the Republican party cannot do it. You simply cannot be friends with your enemy. Interestingly, I saw a study that physically strong men disagree with socialism and wealth redistribution. Whereas, weak men support socialism. This may be why the left is trying to soy up men and make them more feminine.
By Pants-of-dog
#14999539
Verv wrote:There is a lot of attachment to the concept of 'racism' because it is a litmus test for liberals.

Indeed, it has been the litmus test since the 1960s -- and the goalposts on what racism is seems to always be shifting until you are considered a racist if you do not want to actively "dismantle whiteness" and you can be accused of "dog whistling" if you are doing anything besides actively affirming diversity.

So, this poll might as well just be "So, people who disagree with us are ignorant or stupid, am I right?" and it throws in the other options not because there is an actual desire to come to some sort of truth... but because it helps disguise it as a poll.


I find there is a lot of musing about the motives of liberals on the part of conservatives.

For example, this post is not about the origins of racism, or why so many people are racist, but instead seems to be a rant demonising liberals for calling out racism when they see it.

Is racism, or the lack of it, important to progressives? Of course it is. Is it a litmus test? In certain respects, yes. I will not date, be friends with, or work with, openly racist people. Why anyone else would care about these personal preferences of mine is a mystery, though.

Are the goalposts of racism shifting? No. What is happening is that we are learning more and more about how racism looks and acts in modern societies. And we are discovering that racism is more than lynchings and offensive words.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 13
Syrian war thread

Skinster you dont seem concerned when your heroes […]

Election 2020

Never heard of Marrianne Williamson. Trump is goi[…]

July 22, Monday Dismay over Bull Run or Manassa[…]

We could stop it, if we made an actual effort. B[…]