[Apollo]

Well, this conversation has taken an interesting turn. I'm arguing against racial supremacy with an anti-racist who doesn't support it anyway.

You are obviously ignoring the whole point about there being the hugely possible scientific or empirical evidence for justifying racial prejudice. It matters little for this possibility if there is also a cultural and educational causation. If there are genetic differences then there are genetic differences, and there will also be cultural differences. IOW, one does not deny the other.

I say the possibility is huge, for I really do not believe that if one suss this whole shenanigan out between various ethnicities we won't find *any* difference whatsoever. That would be a miracle by itself, perhaps. I have little idea, but it matters little to me. The reason why is that my anti-racism does not stem from these empirical observations, but from my values.

Obviously, different races and ethnic groups are not completely identical in every way imaginable. I can accept that and still oppose racial supremacy and hierarchies.

I previously said that I am not using racism in its broadest sense because, technically, if you stretch it far enough, the belief that black people have black skin and whites have white skin could be considered racist. This is hardly important for most discussions, which is why I am speaking of bigotry and supremacy.

While they vary in appearance, whites, blacks, and Asians are all capable of the same achievements. They have displayed a wide range of values and attitudes. Individuals and groups of whites can resemble individuals and groups of blacks more than other groups and individuals of whites. The Caucasian world has historically been as barbaric as any other, and not always the most advanced, particularly in terms of moral development. These facts alone justify my position.

I oppose all forms of racial bigotry, institutionalized racism, and the vast majority of stereotypes because I believe they are immoral. However, I also find them extremely lacking in logic, and I think it is important to point that out.

When people shift the conversation from values to observations, then you are already losing the war and that's precisely why you say that some times it appears to you that "white supremacists" seem to win the argument: because you are valuing more this "factual" war than the war about values. If you deny them that territory is even arguable, then they lose by fiat. And this is not "whimsical" at all. That's nonsense. We have long established egalitarianism and non-racism as core values of our societies and calling them "emotions" or "fads" or other shenanigan is just ignorant waffle. Might as well call "liberty" or "democracy" as "emotional arguments" or whatever.

No, they sometimes seem to win the argument because no one in the room has enough information to counter their bull****. My opposition to them is part moral and part logical, for all the reasons I have outlined. I am not "losing the war" by daring to fight these ideas from more than one perspective.

Unfortunately, many people will still resort to lazy stereotyping as a means of classifying others. Any method that does not combat this is, at the very least, disadvantaged. It will have a harder time defeating institutionalized racism, which feeds off these stereotypes.

Emotional arguments can serve a useful purpose, and form the basis of any moral system. However, when you can bolster them with logic, it is best to do so. Does the statement "women are be just as smart as men" weaken arguments for gender equality?

EDIT: Grammar fixes for great justice.

[Luis Dias]

I see disconnected ideas here. Logic is about connecting arguments and piercing them together, to say that you justify your values with "logic" is not really saying anything other than "my ideas are coherent". Well that is something, but it doesn't inform us where you derive your morals from. "Emotional arguments" is something I also don't really care much about, I suspect you bring it up because you think that my arguments are emotionally justified. Why do you think that is the case?

What I am saying in this thread could be summed up as the naturalistic fallacy: you cannot derive an is from an ought (lol and vice versa). And if you think this is a smart thing to do, then you are really not understanding the moral problem at all.

[NGTM-1R]

You also say some ignorant things about the very concept of Utopia (the very idea of utopia is precisely that it is unattainable by design, but nevertheless you strive for it. To say that utopia is never reachable isn't exactly an intelligent criticism of it).

No, it's actually very erudite things you just don't seem to want to hear. Arguing from a utopian "let's make the world a better place" perspective is an argument that will simply not appeal to large segments of the population. You can't make the world sing its kumbayas in perfect harmony; everyone knows it, nobody will accept it as a valid reason to do anything.

Utopian arguments are a charade, a method of leading the populace by the nose, but they do not have long-term staying power. For that you need something more tangible. Your arguments against racism on these grounds would thus come with a time-to-failure even among those who find them persuasive.

In short, your argument, made purely of your own idealism, will not impact the majority of people who would otherwise engage in racist behaviors; and will eventually trigger a backlash among those it did convince.

[Apollo]

I see disconnected ideas here. Logic is about connecting arguments and piercing them together, to say that you justify your values with "logic" is not really saying anything other than "my ideas are coherent". Well that is something, but it doesn't inform us where you derive your morals from. "Emotional arguments" is something I also don't really care much about, I suspect you bring it up because you think that my arguments are emotionally justified. Why do you think that is the case?

Most white supremacists try to justify their arguments with statements like "whites are smarter than anybody else" or "white people have always been the most civilized race in the world". I believe that every individual should (ideally) have an equal chance at success, so neither of these things would justify institutionalized racism. However, as best as I can determine, they are false. And it is important to point that out.

When I first encountered white supremacist arguments, I examined them honestly. They were flawed on so many levels that I was amazed how popular they had once been.

Any moral system relies on emotions for justification. However, bits and pieces of them can be based on objective, logical statements. White supremacism stems from both the emotional desire to feel superior and the bad logic of racial hierarchies. Racial equality is justified on moral grounds, but it has the advantage of being more compatible with science. Both perspectives must be employed for a system to be as persuasive and effective as possible.

What I am saying in this thread could be summed up as the naturalistic fallacy: you cannot derive an is from an ought. And if you think this is a smart thing to do, then you are really not understanding the moral problem at all.

Bigots often employ the naturalistic fallacy themselves. I am not using it, I am simply pointing out that racial supremacy fails even on those grounds.

EDIT: Grammar fixes (because writing when hyped on caffeine makes them typos)

[Luis Dias]

NG, What on earth are you babbling about. The whole racism and slavery struggle was largely won by idealistic revolutions and movements. Do you really think it was the cynics and the "down to earths" that changed anything in history? Do you really think that it was a scientific argument that made people be aware of the wrongness of racism? That's nonsensical. It was both the ideal of egalitarianism in christianity (a double sword that one) or the scream of egalitarianism by secular writers, philosophers and politicians. Dry scientific reasoning barely made a dent in convencing anyone of anything in history.

[Mars]

NG, What on earth are you babbling about. The whole racism and slavery struggle was largely won by idealistic revolutions and movements. Do you really think it was the cynics and the "down to earths" that changed anything in history? Do you really think that it was a scientific argument that made people be aware of the wrongness of racism? That's nonsensical. It was both the ideal of egalitarianism in christianity (a double sword that one) or the scream of egalitarianism by secular writers, philosophers and politicians. Dry scientific reasoning barely made a dent in convencing anyone of anything in history.

I believe slavery was ended by the cotton gin, was it not.

[NGTM-1R]

NG, What on earth are you babbling about. The whole racism and slavery struggle was largely won by idealistic revolutions and movements. Do you really think it was the cynics and the "down to earths" that changed anything in history? Do you really think that it was a scientific argument that made people be aware of the wrongness of racism? That's nonsensical. It was both the ideal of egalitarianism in christianity (a double sword that one) or the scream of egalitarianism by secular writers, philosophers and politicians. Dry scientific reasoning barely made a dent in convencing anyone of anything in history.

You are describing initiators and claiming them to be what carries movements through to the finish line.

The slavery struggle, like the modern struggle for gay rights is currently being won, was won on the back of visibility, on the empirical evidence of one's own eyes that these are people and not different enough for slavery to be justified for them unless also justified for oneself. That's science of the most basic and most obvious sort.

We are long past the point where pure idealism can carry the movement. We are past the point where basic observational science can carry the movement. Your desire to deny it useful tools because they might be tainted in some unspecified and deeply unlikely future is a detriment to the cause and deeply irresponsible if you hold these ideals so dear.

[karajorma]

You are obviously ignoring the whole point about there being the hugely possible scientific or empirical evidence for justifying racial prejudice. It matters little for this possibility if there is also a cultural and educational causation. If there are genetic differences then there are genetic differences, and there will also be cultural differences. IOW, one does not deny the other.

I say the possibility is huge, for I really do not believe that if one suss this whole shenanigan out between various ethnicities we won't find *any* difference whatsoever. That would be a miracle by itself, perhaps. I have little idea, but it matters little to me. The reason why is that my anti-racism does not stem from these empirical observations, but from my values.

The scientific differences between the races are so small as to be unimportant when it comes to racism. It's like arguing that because women are in general physically weaker than men, they should be prevented from entering the army. While there is a truth at the core, it has been distorted in size and then used as the core of an ignorant argument.

Without the ignorance, racism can't survive. It's built on a series of lies. No scientific research will ever prove racism to be correct to a degree where any of the fundamental concepts involved in racism are even remotely close to true.

I can however see your point that you can't argue against racism based on an unscientific truism like "We're all the same under the skin." But that doesn't need to be said in order to still feel that racism does derive from ignorance. Pretty much any racist statement has a huge amount of ignorance involved in it. That's why so many people feel that racists are stupid. We simply can't believe that in this day and age, someone could still hold such an ignorant view.

On the other end of the spectrum, I think everyone can agree that South Africa's apartheid regime was absolutely racist; and with all the international pressure on them, the ruling party must have known full well what they were doing. So really, I don't see any link between ignorance and racism.

I think you're making the assumption here that the apartheid system at that point existed only due to racism. Which of course it didn't. There were a large variety of political and socio-economic reasons why the South African government wanted to continue apartheid long after it should have ended it.

You're also assuming ignorance goes away just cause a lot of people tell you it's ignorant. I only wish it was that simple to convince people.

[Luis Dias]

We are long past the point where pure idealism can carry the movement. We are past the point where basic observational science can carry the movement. Your desire to deny it useful tools because they might be tainted in some unspecified and deeply unlikely future is a detriment to the cause and deeply irresponsible if you hold these ideals so dear.

Yeah nice goalpost change. Now you already admit the importance of idealism "but not for today". I don't agree at all with this chronologic assessment. The primacy of idealism is in the logical framework, not in the "chronological" or "historical". Idealism is always at the core, you then can dress it all up with all the tools you like. What I say here is that you can't ever forget this core is at the core, if you drift and only care about  the "tools", then you will also forget why on earth you are in the "struggle" in the first place, and will commit several big mistakes on the way.

The scientific differences between the races are so small as to be unimportant when it comes to racism.

Yeah, I get that. It's fortunate that nature is less racist than we are.

It's like arguing that because women are in general physically weaker than men, they should be prevented from entering the army. While there is a truth at the core, it has been distorted in size and then used as the core of an ignorant argument.

Not the best example since it's well known that discrimination in the army is a very real thing: women get to enter it but are not expected to the same degree of endurance that men are. If this were a racial thing, we would have to conclude the army was amazingly racist...

Without the ignorance, racism can't survive. It's built on a series of lies. No scientific research will ever prove racism to be correct to a degree where any of the fundamental concepts involved in racism are even remotely close to true.

This is a faith-based claim. Genetics is exponentially increasing in its efficiency as a scientific field of research, and it will probably reach a whole lot of truths that are quite uncomfortable for us all (not thinking about racism per se, but also about consciousness, behaviors, diseases, what "we are" and so on) in not such a long time frame. It could well find out that there is a lot of scientific facts that provide good talking points for the racists. How you dismiss it a priori is something that I can't exactly follow you.

I'd even speculate that your optimism in this point is actually generated by your own idealism and not exactly from your most objective assessment of possibilities. That is, I speculate that people hope this is the case, and this hope stems from idealistic values. If it turns out to be true, we would then get a "sigh" of relief and then proclaim without a missing heartbeat "We all knew this was the case!" If it doesn't turn out to be "true", then we will all continue saying the evidence is not strong enough, etc.,etc.

[Lorric]

That's why so many people feel that racists are stupid. We simply can't believe that in this day and age, someone could still hold such an ignorant view.

Now, I don't know if I'm right or wrong, but while sometimes you can tell a person is stupid and that their racism is a product of that stupidity, or perhaps hate because of what someone/s of that race have done (for instance I once knew a woman, who was one of the nicest people I've ever met, except if she had the power, she would wipe the Japanese off the face of the Earth, as she believed them an evil race for what they did in WW2.)

However, in general, precisely because of can't believe that in this day and age, someone could still hold such an ignorant view I tend to view racists in general as people possessed of a malicious nature, using it as a means to an end, to keep people down, keep people being viewed in a negative light to cut competition for jobs and the like, to keep more opportunities open in life for themselves and advance their own interests by cutting other races out of the equation.

[redsniper]

Or sometimes it's because it's just how they were brought up and they've never really considered any other viewpoint. So we call that ignorance.

[karajorma]

This is a faith-based claim. Genetics is exponentially increasing in its efficiency as a scientific field of research, and it will probably reach a whole lot of truths that are quite uncomfortable for us all (not thinking about racism per se, but also about consciousness, behaviors, diseases, what "we are" and so on) in not such a long time frame. It could well find out that there is a lot of scientific facts that provide good talking points for the racists. How you dismiss it a priori is something that I can't exactly follow you.

Quite simply the genetic effects of race are quite obviously not that large or they'd be much more obvious. That's one reason I quoted the difference between men and women in physical strength. You don't need a scientific study to prove it, it's plainly obvious and always has been.

Whatever effect race has, it's pretty minor. For instance, if Asians really are smarter, it's by an average of an IQ point or two, a small enough number that it gets swamped out by a variety of environmental factors. It's never going to be a big enough difference to make a difference when it comes to schooling or hiring people for jobs.

Basically I'm saying that racism isn't ever going to be a suitable excuse for discrimination even based on science cause the effects have already been shown to be too small.

[Luis Dias]

Clearly you never read "The Bell Curve". I wish it was that easy, Kara.

[Apollo]

Clearly you never read "The Bell Curve". I wish it was that easy, Kara.

That really controversial book about IQ and race?

I find myself immediately wanting to throw my standard "IQ is not an entirely accurate measure of intelligence and it is greatly influenced by environmental factors" argument at it, but I think I'll read it first. Amazon has it for a fairly low price.

[Luis Dias]

Your intuition is a good one, Apollo. I did come to know "The Bell Curve" precisely by reading Gould's "The mismeasure of Man" which is also a terrific book.

[karajorma]

Clearly you never read "The Bell Curve". I wish it was that easy, Kara.

I haven't. But mainly cause I trust Stephen Jay Gould when he said it was a load of bollocks.

Seriously though. I still don't buy the argument that the difference is big enough to justify racism, and you haven't provided a single example where it does.

[Apollo]

Your intuition is a good one, Apollo. I did come to know "The Bell Curve" precisely by reading Gould's "The mismeasure of Man" which is also a terrific book.

I should probably read both, then.

I've never found this subject as uncomfortable as many people I know. I guess it's because I understand that, since every race has produced a very diverse array of personalities and skillsets, some possible differences in attributes are not an effective argument for supremacy or superiority.

Of course, I understand it as an environmental adaptation that fails to consistently differentiate people outside of physical characteristics like skin color, not some divinely-ordained hierarchy of humanity.

[Apollo]

Clearly you never read "The Bell Curve". I wish it was that easy, Kara.

I haven't. But mainly cause I trust Stephen Jay Gould when he said it was a load of bollocks.

I will as soon as I can buy it (and its counterpart). At this point it would be tremendously hypocritical of me to just dismiss it on ideological grounds.

Seriously though. I still don't buy the argument that the difference is big enough to justify racism, and you haven't provided a single example where it does.

It's no more justifiable than having different laws for different families because they display different capabilities (which they do, to a much greater extent than any of the commonly-defined "races").

[karajorma]

But Luis is arguing that it is (or at least one day may be found to be) a big enough difference.

[Apollo]

But Luis is arguing that it is (or at least one day may be found to be) a big enough difference.

It actually sounds like he's concerned we may find big enough differences to make it seem acceptable to many people. I haven't gotten the sense that he would personally condone discrimination in that case.