Not logged in. Log in.

A Neat Annihilation of Racism

by Darkademic in Philosophy   0 comments

I've been debating on these past few weeks, and I just posted what I regard as one of my most succinct yet crushing arguments against racism/ethno-nationalism.

After a long back-and-forth speaking in terms of abstractions; the concept of race, definitions of pride, whether race is a scientifically valid category etc. I decided to finally boil everything down to a real-world choice. I asked him to state whether he'd prefer a violent, leftist, moron of a white person who opposes all of his beliefs, or a well-mannered, friendly black person who is sympathetic to his beliefs. He hasn't responded yet at the time of writing this, but it's possible he'll resort to the ridiculous "genes are valuable in and of themselves" argument - suggesting that genes are valuable by virtue of their existence, and not because of any actual observable effects that they have. That's the only thing he can do other than admitting defeat, as I see it.

My post went as follows:

I'll elaborate on my reason for asking.

If you favour a violent, leftist moron who opposes your most deeply-held beliefs over a friendly, well-mannered black person (who let's say is at least sympathetic to your beliefs), due to the fact that the former is white, then it shows that your capacity to judge people rationally is crippled beyond belief, that you would sacrifice potentially rewarding relationships for the sake of genes in and of themselves, and that your interactions with people are informed by imagined or anticipated behaviour (i.e. this is how a black person "should" behave) ahead of actual, observed behaviour. Following this logic, if the weather report said it was going to be cold and rain heavily, but upon looking outside it was warm and dry, you'd still go out in your coat with your umbrella up.

If you favour the black person, the practical side of all of your previous arguments is wiped out, because it shows that you regard character traits specific to any individual as taking priority over racial generalisations. It shows that you acknowledge that even though someone might be more genetically distant, they may actually be more similar in their behaviour and values, and more importantly that they may be better people.

This is what I meant by translating your ideas into a practical context. Your whole reason for favouring people who are more genetically similar is (or at least should be, to make any sense whatsoever) that it leads to tangible benefits - e.g. cultural similarity, less conflict etc. - but if it can be demonstrated that you would gain more from interacting with a SINGLE non-white person versus ANY specific white person (which it absolutely can), then it shows you've identified the wrong cause of the tangible benefits mentioned above. It shows that something other than race is responsible for culture, behaviour, intelligence, creativity and whether you're able to get along with someone.

I can only hope you eventually realise what the true cause of these things is.

Comments (0)

No comments posted yet.

Comments on this entry are now closed.