[BigSteve]

Yes, I know why you believe what you do, so that is not what I asked. I was more interested in why you decided to confront me about my supposed cowardice.

So, when you asked me "Anyway, why do you want to believe that I am motivated by fear?", you weren't asking me why I wanted to believe something, despite the fact that, clearly, you did, in fact, ask me why I wanted to believe something?

Do you have anything to say about racism?

Sure do. And when I decide it's appropriate to share those thoughts, I will...

[blackjack21]

Oh goody! Racism discussions! We haven't had too many since Obama went out of fashion. It's so much fun to piss off white leftists.

@blackjack21 a bias is not racism, rule 2 violation

In some of its forms, racism is a bias.

It seems to me that "racist" and "racism" have become the main go to words for liberals to use in demonizing all conservatives that disagree with their politics.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

I could give all kinds of examples, but it would just be a waste of my time since you liberals will not even believe Trump did not collude with the Russians, regardless of what the Mueller Report says.

I think the establishment doesn't like Russians, because they are white, Christian, and anti-gay.

The Mueller report also said that it did not exonerate Trump of any obstruction. I guess you missed that one.

Federal government prosecutors do not exonerate anybody. The burden of proof is on them, and they failed to establish proof that Trump violated any laws. They didn't even establish probable cause that he violated any laws.

No one on Pofo calls people racist unless they actually say racist things.

PoFo is a pretty small world. It happens in the general population quite a bit.

My ideological goals are to destroy capitalism, return all land to the colonised, and get rid of all hierarchical power structures.

Ha. Good luck with that.

a hierarchical power structure that was created as a way of maintaining and rationalising imperialism.

Hierarchies exist independently of imperialism. Even chickens have a pecking order. Would you seriously argue that chickens are imperialists?

@Rich. I can't tell if I am laughing at what you said, or at you for saying it.

So you don't understand yourself? You know what the ancients used to say... Know thyself.

This is a litmus test for who gets to hang out with me. Since hanging out with me provides no significant social benefits...

Who wants to hang out with you, given there are no significant social benefits?

Can you give an example of how science supports racism?

Science makes distinctions. Anti-racism likes to ignore distinctions that are politically inconvenient.

I don't actually care who POD hangs out with.

I don't either, but with such a broad definition of racism, he/she seems to be limiting income generating activity. I'm not a fan of left wing politics, but I work with people of that stripe all the time.

The studies in genetics and IQ, genes and criminality, etc., are all extremely relevant and pushing a very interesting narrative that no one wants to really touch with a ten foot pole.

Indeed. I find it interesting that nearly 3/4s of all the knife crime in the UK is among non-whites. With all the emphasis on multiculturalism, I'm also puzzled as to why the English want to stop knife crimes among non-English people.

Are you claiming that racist people should be allowed to say racist things and should then be protected from the consequences of such actions?

Yes.

Are you saying employers should be forced to hire (or keep employing) racist people even if it gives the company a bad image?

No, provided the employer can establish that the person is racist; otherwise, the employer could be held liable for defamation.

Yes, I believe people should be able to express themselves without repercussions if their expressions do not harm others.

The problem is that "harm" may involve things the law is ill equipped to address--such as a person's "feelings." Should a person be allowed to say something like, "I do not like you, because you are transgender"?

You seem to think that people should be able to express their wish to harm others and take away the rights of others

Generally, that's what justice systems do.

Are you claiming that racist people should be allowed to say racist things and should then be protected from the consequences of such actions? Yes or no?

Yes. I believe in freedom of speech. Do you? Or do you think you should be able to...

force everyone else to shut up

Why would anyone in England hate Muslims?

Indeed. Obviously, knives are the problem.

Bullshit photoshopped signs, and the Ginger was probably putting those signs up.

What makes you think gingers cannot be Muslim?

And since YOUR (not our) country is a liberal democracy, then people who openly advocate for ideologies that go against the basic tenets of liberal democracy should not be treated as those who are consistent with these basic tenets.

I live in the United States. It is a federal republic. I am allowed to advocate for ideologies that go against the basic tenets of liberalism, provided I do so lawfully and peacefully. The law requires that the government treat everyone equally before the law. Political tests are not allowed.

Feel free to show that there are important differences in athletics between the races.

Your last try to do so failed because it showed that athletic prowess in a certain field was actually quite diverse among a single racial group and was specific to a certain subtribe only.

Well, the obvious issue is that you will just play semantics. The phenotype of the average Kenyan differs significantly from the average Pygmy. However, you will argue that because they have dark skin, they are the same race. Biologically, there is more genetic difference among Africans than any other population group on Earth.

Yes it is also often a sign of a lack of intelligence because racists lack the ability to employ nuance.

How do you figure? John Kerry may think "nuance" is a virtue. Nuance means making subtle distinctions. Distinctions are at the heart of racism. Pants-of-dog is making crude distinctions between black and white, but ignoring distinctions of people with a similar skin color, such as the Nilotese and the Pygmy.

All racism must be condemned.

Why? What does "condemned" mean to you? Does it merely mean that you run around saying, "I condemn racism! I condemn ALL racism!"?

You are deliberately ignoring history so that you can falsely claim that avowed bigots deserve the same protections as people who are actually targeted by bigotry and discrimination.

Avowed bigots are entitled to the same protections as those they discriminate against as a matter of law in the United States, for example.

This not only ignores the historical reality if oppression, but also ignores the basic tenets of liberal democracy.

Liberal democracy doesn't necessarily embrace racial equality. Most liberal democracies have a history of racism.

And since YOUR (not our) country is a liberal democracy, then people who openly advocate for ideologies that go against the basic tenets of liberal democracy should not be treated as those who are consistent with these basic tenets.

The United States is a federated republic, not a liberal democracy. The United States requires equal treatment before the law for people or persons with agency. "Should" is a normative statement, not a positive statement.

And since YOUR (not our) country is a liberal democracy, then people who openly advocate for ideologies that go against the basic tenets of liberal democracy should not be treated as those who are consistent with these basic tenets.

Hereditary differences aren't due to geography. If you as a white man impregnate a white woman in Thailand, you will not end up with a baby with Thai characteristics just because you are in Thailand. The traits are hereditary.

2. Racism, as a belief, is irrational.

So is love.

The social construct of race is an excuse to discriminate against other humans.

So is law, religion, ethnicity, language, culture, and so forth. Discrimination is common among humans, and other social animals that live in groups.

What is the reason, then, that East Africans are good long distance runners, if it is not genetic?

Would it be "racist" to say that they learn to run away from the cops at a young age? I think it is the ratio between femur and tibia length coupled with the ratio of the torso to overall leg length, coupled with overall height to a significant degree. For example, Michael Phelps is an excellent swimmer, but he would be a lousy sprinter. You can say Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt are equal before the law, but in a competitive swimming match or sprint, they are not equal at all.

Since not all East Africans are good runners, this question is based on a wrong premise.

Western Science is a social construct that employs concepts like "central tendency." Not all East Africans are good runners. However, there is a central tendency for the best long distance runners to have genetic heritage from East Africa. When controlling for socially defined "races," it is what Western scientists call "statistically significant."

I still remember this White Olympic sprinter during the time I was running track in high school.

Did he have problems with the law when he was young?

I always wondered why folks aren't screaming about Yellow supremacy since Orientals beat Whites.

The Ivy League schools actively discriminate against Asian students.

Also, the term "oriental" to refer to Asian people is outdated and no longer used.

I just got back from the Middle East, and they use it there. Oriental just means "Eastern."

Are red and yellow distinct colors? What happens when you mix them? Is orange proof that red and yellow don't exist.

Maybe it's proof that Donald Trump is Asian and Native American!

Can they tell if you are Black or White? No. Kill the messenger!

Apparently, artificial intelligence is racist. It seems to be able to tell.
Princeton researchers discover why AI become racist and sexist
Rise of the racist robots – how AI is learning all our worst impulses
Racist, Sexist AI Could Be A Bigger Problem Than Lost Jobs

I suspect resistance to tropical diseases and parasites is more important.

Some think that sickle cell anemia is an adaptation to malaria.

Given our lack of fur and long evolutionary history in the tropics, surviving winter at higher latitude basically requires technology and planning, as well as accumulation and transmission of knowledge.

It also requires acquisition and storage of foodstuffs and fuel. Possibly this is a rationale for delayed gratification as an evolutionary advantage. White people probably seem plotting and greedy to non-whites.

Some of the Nazis of World War II had doctorate degrees. I think racism is not necessarily a mark of lack of education. Rather it's a lack of BOTH education and critical thinking skills TOGETHER.

How do you figure? Joseph Mengele was well educated. Are you suggesting he just graduated from a diploma mill, but was otherwise dense as a sack of rocks?

Black and white people can be prescribed different medicine for their conditions because they have different reactions; black and white people have different sets of congenital diseases that affect them.

This is true. Failure to take race into account in a medical context is both unethical and potentially malpractice. For example, Propranolol isn't as effective a beta blocker for blacks as for whites, but Labetalol is more effective. So in the exam room with closed doors, you had better be racist as a health care provider. However, you have to check it at the exam door when you get back into the hall, or you will be considered unethical and unwoke.

[Politics_Observer]

@blackjack21

How do you figure? Joseph Mengele was well educated. Are you suggesting he just graduated from a diploma mill, but was otherwise dense as a sack of rocks?

I did not phrase what I meant to say correctly in the post you quoted me on. My apologies for the confusion. I meant to say that some racists are very well educated. Some of Germany's Nazis during World War II were very well educated and I was trying to cite the German Nazis from World War II as an example of racists who were very well educated, yet racist regardless. And that education alone, by itself is not the entire package towards combating racism (though it helps but education alone is not the entire solution to combating racism).

You want people who have BOTH an excellent education AND very well developed critical thinking skills IN ADDITION to strong character development. Evil people can be very well educated and sometimes they can also have very well developed critical thinking skills. You can also be well educated, have a lot of knowledge and yet, still not have critical thinking skills. So, I think character development should also be emphasized in public schools and colleges and universities in addition to education and critical thinking skills. A combination of these three helps to combat racism.

In my view, what some of the Nazis lacked was not education, but rather most of all character development and to some degree critical thinking skills. For example, as a computer programmer, you have to have very well developed critical thinking skills to solve problems and write code. I would say a computer programmer has much better developed critical thinking skills than a lot of other majors. So, it's important that other majors also emphasize critical thinking skills at the college and university level.

In addition, character development is important and that doesn't come by just merely taking a course on ethics for example. Their are many ways in which good character is developed. So I think part of the education process should be engaging in activities that have been proven to develop people's character in a positive manner. Good character is hard to develop, perhaps harder than getting an education and developing good critical thinking skills for most people in my opinion. It's very tough for most people to develop good character in my experience. Developing good character is very hard for anybody to do.

[Hindsite]

Did he have problems with the law when he was young?

I do not know about his youth. I basically remember him as a white guy that won the Olympic 100 meter dash and the first man to run it in ten seconds flat and was known for his fast reaction time to the starting gun.

[blackjack21]

In my view, what some of the Nazis lacked was not education, but rather most of all character development and to some degree critical thinking skills. For example, as a computer programmer, you have to have very well developed critical thinking skills to solve problems and write code. I would say a computer programmer has much better developed critical thinking skills than a lot of other majors. So, it's important that other majors also emphasize critical thinking skills at the college and university level.

Well, I think you are very right on the point of computer programming skill being something that ought to be encouraged. I tend to agree with people who consider it "the new literacy." However, I think your point on character development implies more of a religious character than you may think, but my conclusion is based in part on my life experience.

I actually met a Waffen SS officer who worked at Auschwitz. To be more specific, he was more or less a supply chain manager--determining what parts needed to be manufactured, while many of his fellow officers were enforcing slave labor on the factory floors. At Nuremberg, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison (he didn't kill anybody), and he served six years of it before Operation Paper Clip sprung him. His brother was the paymaster for Otto Pohl's group. Most of the guys running slaves or killing Jews were hung. This Nazi struck me as both well educated and a critical thinker; however, he did not hold a universal value on all human life. I distinctly remember this drunk hippy guy by the pool, and I remember the Nazi saying, "He is a nice guy, but he is crazy." It was chilling, but funny. The funny part is that the hippy guy was a nut--harmless, but useless. So the Nazi was spot on. The chilling part? I don't think the Nazi (in his late 70s at the time, but in really good shape) would have had any moral qualms whatsoever with drawing a Luger and shooting that hippy in the head. In his mindset, he would be doing the world a favor--getting rid of what Hitler would have called "a useless eater". On the one hand, I'd say you need to experience that kind of thing first hand, but on the other hand ignorance is bliss. That wasn't a racial scenario, because the hippy was a white guy. However, to see the world however briefly through the eyes of a real Waffen SS Nazi is an eye opener. Nothing I had seen in terms of anti-Nazi propaganda had prepared me for that, because they never tell the Nazi side of the story from the subjective point of view of the Nazi. I will never forget him saying, "Vee had zee French on zeir knees. Vee vere soooo close." Just the pain in his voice, like a lost championship game. Decades after the war, after the fall of the Soviet Union, but that Nazi mindset was only shrouded by the modern liberal world insofar as avoiding saying anything that would cause a ruckus among liberals.

I do not know about his youth. I basically remember him as a white guy that won the Olympic 100 meter dash and the first man to run it in ten seconds flat and was known for his fast reaction time to the starting gun.

I was kidding, of course.

[Pants-of-dog]

So, when you asked me "Anyway, why do you want to believe that I am motivated by fear?", you weren't asking me why I wanted to believe something, despite the fact that, clearly, you did, in fact, ask me why I wanted to believe something?

No, I was asking you why you want to believe I am acting out of fear.

And the reason was because I wanted to know what prompts someone to accuse strangers of cowardice.

Sure do. And when I decide it's appropriate to share those thoughts, I will...

Please do not reply to me unless you do. Thanks.

[BigSteve]

No, I was asking you why you want to believe I am acting out of fear.

And, again, I don't "want" to believe anything. I just believe something or I don't.

As I look out my office window on this bright, northeastern Florida morning, I don't "want" to believe the sky is blue and my lawn is green. I simply believe they are, because what I see; what's being presented to me, tells me it's so.

And the reason was because I wanted to know what prompts someone to accuse strangers of cowardice.

I never accused you of cowardice, so please stop lying...

Please do not reply to me unless you do. Thanks.

I'll reply when I choose to, and you'll either deal with that or you won't. I don't really care either way.

You asked me if I had anything to say about racism. I replied that I do. That's an appropriate response to your question. There's no reason for me to elaborate, though, because you never asked for that.

What would you like to know regarding my thoughts on racism?

[Patrickov]

You asked me if I had anything to say about racism. I replied that I do.

That's an appropriate response to your question. There's no reason for me to elaborate, though, because you never asked for that.

What would you like to know regarding my thoughts on racism?

With all due respect, I see neither PoD asking you about your view on racism, nor your response on that matter whatsoever. For almost two discussion pages, you just intimidate PoD on your belief that "PoD didn't want to have an honest discussion with Verv out of fear". (Reference: #15008715, #15008722 and #15008724)

If you were saying you had voted in this thread's poll, then I am eager to know what your vote was (regrettably I forgot mine so I admit there wouldn't be equal value exchange of information).

[BigSteve]

With all due respect, I see neither PoD asking you about your view on racism, nor your response on that matter whatsoever. For almost two discussion pages, you just intimidate PoD on your belief that "PoD didn't want to have an honest discussion with Verv out of fear". (Reference: #15008715, #15008722 and #15008724)

If you were saying you had voted in this thread's poll, then I am eager to know what your vote was (regrettably I forgot mine so I admit there wouldn't be equal value exchange of information).

Since you're so good with numbers, try this one: 15008740. In that post PoD quite clearly asks "Do you have anything to say about racism?"

I responded that I do. That answers his question.

I have no idea, though, what he'd like to discuss regarding racism. I could say "Racism begins with the letter R". That's saying something about "racism". I could say that "racism" is bad but, then again, I don't know anyone who really believes it's good.

I answered his question...

[Patrickov]

Since you're so good with numbers, try this one: 15008740. In that post PoD quite clearly asks "Do you have anything to say about racism?"

I responded that I do. That answers his question.

I have no idea, though, what he'd like to discuss regarding racism. I could say "Racism begins with the letter R". That's saying something about "racism". I could say that "racism" is bad but, then again, I don't know anyone who really believes it's good.

I answered his question...

I am glad that my question actually led to something I have overlooked. My sincere gratitude.

IMHO his seemed to asked that question as an attempt to keep the discussion on topic. If you had difficulty doing that (e.g. knowing precisely what you are expected to share) you always have the rights to stop.

[Pants-of-dog]

And, again, I don't "want" to believe anything. I just believe something or I don't.

As I look out my office window on this bright, northeastern Florida morning, I don't "want" to believe the sky is blue and my lawn is green. I simply believe they are, because what I see; what's being presented to me, tells me it's so.

Why do you go around calling people cowards?

I never accused you of cowardice, so please stop lying...

Why are you pretending that you did not claim I was afraid?

I'll reply when I choose to, and you'll either deal with that or you won't. I don't really care either way.

You asked me if I had anything to say about racism. I replied that I do. That's an appropriate response to your question. There's no reason for me to elaborate, though, because you never asked for that.

What would you like to know regarding my thoughts on racism?

[Suntzu]

Without race how can there be racism?

[BigSteve]

If you had difficulty doing that (e.g. knowing precisely what you are expected to share) you always have the rights to stop.

Or perhaps he'll catch the hint and be more clear next time.

Or perhaps not...

[BigSteve]

Why do you go around calling people cowards?

If you can show where I called you a coward, I'll buy you a house.

Otherwise, your nonsense is nothing but lies...

Why are you pretending that you did not claim I was afraid?

Because I never made that claim.

I said what I said. Words mean things. If you can't comprehend what was actually said, I don't care...

[Politics_Observer]

@blackjack21

However, I think your point on character development implies more of a religious character than you may think, but my conclusion is based in part on my life experience.

Not necessarily. Character development can come through hard times. It doesn't necessarily come through going to church for example. Sure, some values found in religions can help to build good character. Another important aspect to character development is the importance of empathy and looking out for your fellow man. Also seeing that left wing hippies make important contributions to society too. Some in entrepreneurship and some in the arts and some in technology. I see some though not all wealthy people who lack good character because the privileged lifestyle they have shields them from hard and tough times and this ultimately causes a lack of character. Hardship, service and challenge is part though not all of what develops good character. It doesn't have to come from religion. Having certain values that are respected by most people whether they be religious or not is part of character development too.

[Pants-of-dog]

If you can show where I called you a coward, I'll buy you a house.

Otherwise, your nonsense is nothing but lies...

Because I never made that claim.

I said what I said. Words mean things. If you can't comprehend what was actually said, I don't care...

Anyway, do you think that the concept of race is scientifically sound? Or is it a social construct?

[BigSteve]

:|

Anyway, do you think that the concept of race is scientifically sound? Or is it a social construct?

I think it can be both.

Certainly there are differences between people who have 1,000 years worth of descendants in Norway and someone who has 1,000 years worth of descendants from Nairobi, and perhaps there needs to be a way to recognize that those differences exist. In this case, "race" is a label used only to describe a concept which is scientifically sound. People are different. Pretending they're not doesn't make them the same.

But there's also the social construct, which I believe is used primarily for reasons of political expediency. It's a way to divide people not based on their physical differences, but on their social and economic differences. I've been told that I have no idea what it's like to be poor because I'm not black. That's essentially saying that only black people can be poor. That's a racist comment, and it's one more often than not uttered by blacks. The fact of the matter is that I was raised by a single mother who worked two jobs just to put food on the table for my brother and me.

We weren't rich; far from it, in fact. We spent a Helluva' lot more time being closer to being poor than we ever were to being rich.

The social concept of "race" tells some folks that people who are different can't possibly suffer the same woes...

[Truth To Power]

Anyway, do you think that the concept of race is scientifically sound? Or is it a social construct?

Race is the culturally constructed interpretation of scientifically established genetic clusters. The cultural interpretation focuses on the visible manifestations of those genetic clusters in phenotypes of skin and eye color, hair color and form, facial features and body proportions, because that is what we can see. The genetic clusters probably also include genes that moderate behavior, whether or not any of them are the same as the genes that control the physical racial phenotypes. Racism can be defined as considering the behavior genes to have a causal link to the physical racial phenotypes, which is not yet supported by science AFAIK, or as considering such links to be likely real but merely statistical, which is. Two quite different views, with very different implications.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think it can be both.

Certainly there are differences between people who have 1,000 years worth of descendants in Norway and someone who has 1,000 years worth of descendants from Nairobi, and perhaps there needs to be a way to recognize that those differences exist. In this case, "race" is a label used only to describe a concept which is scientifically sound. People are different. Pretending they're not doesn't make them the same.

What is this scientifically sound concept for which we use race as a label?

But there's also the social construct, which I believe is used primarily for reasons of political expediency. It's a way to divide people not based on their physical differences, but on their social and economic differences.

Are you saying that racism does not focus on physical differences like skin colour?

[BigSteve]

What is this scientifically sound concept for which we use race as a label?

In this case, the label is just to acknowledge that there are differences between two entities...

Are you saying that racism does not focus on physical differences like skin colour?

It does, but only as a means to accomplish the larger goal of creating division between people...