I have to agree that is a pretty good term and way to put it. I remember hearing libertarian from a bunch of my good friends. It seems the pre-trump "good" republicans became recovering libertarians and I am so sad that there were so few. If the present republican party is not vominous to you then you are at odds with me. Then that starts boiling down to respecting boundaries and there has to be the polite mask over our faces. If you do not want to put that polite mask on then you are going to have consequences. In @Paladin 's general defense he can stay the fuck out of other people's business and should not be allowed to be in a position to hire or judge anyone, but in the general public square it is a polite smile and greeting from me. You do not have to like me, have me in your home, chose to watch me on media while I do the things you don't like, and even have media that you like that might verbally insult me. You do not get to push that insulting media on me, but it can be out there. I am fine with emasculated racism. I also do not speak for members of any community. If other people are not fine with it then I act accordingly.
We report, you decide: Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other. LINK
Biological: Blacks are much more likely to develop sickle cell disease than whites. Cultural: The Japanese are less likely to rely on social welfare systems than the English, despite the similarity of their systems.
first one, sure. The second one requires expansion as to why that is and which similarities you mean. like, is there a social welfare system to rely on in the first place? If so, what does it provide in the way of supports? what's the GINI contrast on wealth inequity? while we're at it on similar systems, why is poverty in Japan growing at a steady rate?
[Devil's advocate] But if it were true and provable, wouldn't that support social programs that are based in equity, as opposed to meritocracy? In other words, doesn't that have the potential to help underperforming groups and relief them of the "just bootstrap your way up" criticism?
I only say that behavior, being rooted in biology, shouldn't be dismissed as a factor in outcomes. And what about culturally?
which point? you asked if "It's racist to say there are cultural and biological differences between racial groups?" a genetic predisposition to certain diseases? probably not going to get very much controversy. what cultural factors on the other hand can get messy without contexts like the ones I brought up. or of course, you can go with biology determining behavior as you do here... presuming inherent traits. this oughta be good.
The UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1963) already addresses that:
What qualities do you posit that black people have, rooted in biology, that make them less inclined to the behaviors that lead to success? What about it? Racism is like taking a big dump in a batch of brownie mix. Whether or not the eggs are free ranged doesn't change the fact that you're gonna have a mouth full of shit.
Sure, but the question is not whether the policies to help those groups are racist. What I am suggesting is that the recognition of cultural or biological inferiority (which Paladin is positing and you're calling racist) could have utility for those groups if it leads to the policies you quoted.
In that one particular dimension, yes. It would be unreasonable to expect every identifiable group to have equal levels of vulnerability to all diseases. Racial differences are evidence of separated human populations persisting over long periods of time, and as such we would expect mutation and natural selection to affect the genes of members of those populations in ways beyond the superficial. If your ancestors lived in areas with cows, you probably don't have the genetic disposition for lactose intolerance, for instance.
There's a lot to unpack there. To what extent is behaviour rooted in biology? That's a centuries old debate. It is to some degree for human beings generally (we aren't a blank slate, some things are just innate to us, like language) but it is less clear to what extent it accounts for differences in behaviour between individual human beings, to say nothing of differences in behaviour between entire "racial groups". What is clear is that there is more variation within such groups than there are between them - so any attempt to draw wide-ranging social conclusions based on the differences between them is certainly flirting with racism. As for culture, any correlation between that and race is incidental.
mostly white sheets, it'd seem. well, that and drawing wide ranging social conclusions based on biological distinctions (real or otherwise) is also pretty boilerplate racist.
So basically even @Paladin agrees he is a racist at this point and now is just saying there is nothing wrong with his master race ideology. Where did I put that surprised face?
I hate his social Darwinist illusions, I don't like his brutalocapitalist views at all, but I guess deep down he's okay. He just needs a little love. A hard working American citizen with some weird ideas. Show a little respect! Stupid mob mentality...
If I didn't want to be treated like a racist I simply wouldn't double down on explaining how I'm racist.