RoR: Forum

Based on this philosophical framework, I rant on how cultural Marxists are advancing their ideology of prescriptive racial egalitarianism through denial of racial realities (their denial being couched in the canard "social construct"):

http://youtu.be/nnz1hVt2qLc

Post 2

Friday, August 26, 2011 - 7:49am

"Race" as an objective reality is meaningless, except in it's social context. By that I mean that some people judge people and even themselves based on physical features that have nothing to do with the content of their character. I don't care what people look like as it has no bearing on who they are and what value can be derived from a relationship with them.

Post 3

Friday, August 26, 2011 - 9:28am

So, race is an objective reality. Law should be based on objective reality, but laws against racial discrimination are wrong? I don't understand the argument.

Post 4

Friday, August 26, 2011 - 10:16am

Ethan, medical doctors would disagree with your circumscription of race's meaningfulness to social contexts only. Understanding racial genetics is important in pathology, because certain diseases (e.g., sickle cell) target certain races. I would disagree with your circumscription of human value to mind only. I don't judge actors or swimsuit models or potential sexual partners solely on the content of their character. I value aesthetics. I value mind and body.

Teresa, the argument against anti-discrimination laws is the principle of freedom of association.

Post 5

Friday, August 26, 2011 - 11:54am

Since race is real, and important to you, let me ask you a few questions.....

What Race would you consider yourself?

Do you think one race is superior to another, if so, why.

What is the most important factor in determining race?

Post 6

Friday, August 26, 2011 - 12:56pm

Ethan, I am a Caucasian.

I don't believe the concept of superiority in a moral sense can be logically derived from observation of racial differences. However, some racial phenotypes are better than others in certain delimited, objectively measurable ways. For example, black skin provides superior protection against overexposure to the sun's UV rays than white skin. That doesn't mean black skin is superior as such.

I stated how race is determined in the article.

Post 7

Friday, August 26, 2011 - 4:20pm

Teresa, the argument against anti-discrimination laws is the principle of freedom of association.

Yeah, I know that, but I don't understand how you come to that conclusion, or even why it's relevant to the article, especially since you used that aspect of law as a positive example of your assertion that "race is not a social construct."

1) Race exists.

Fine, and to echo Ed, so? Is there an argument in there somewhere? Is there are point you're making by that observation?

Lots of things exist. Some of them are just as irrelevant to our moral nature as race. Some of them are far more important, yet denied as existing at all by people I don't understand. Reason, for example.

Is there some specific reason you'd use race to assert the irreducible principle of existence when so many others exist as well?

Post 8

Friday, August 26, 2011 - 4:46pm

I assume that the reason for the article is that there are "race deniers" - people who deny that there is anything such as race.

Historically it went like this... First we had that irrational tribalism where people feared and attacked those who looked different.

Next people took those irrational responses and organized them into evil political doctrines, some of which are in existence to this day in parts of the world (with its worst examples being slavery, and the Holocaust).

The left took racism as if they were the best and only anitdote to whatever racism was left and they began creating academic theories of race. One such theory was institutional racism, another was that only people of color could be discriminated against because racism could only come from whites, and harmful or irrational policies arose from some of these focuses - like affirmative action, reparations, quotas, etc.

The lastest twist in academia is to claim that there is no such thing as race. It is, I believe, intended to bring an end to racism - but of course that intention can't be admitted. All in all it's silly idea. It is kind of dumb to be against racism while at the same time saying there are no races.

The only correct approach is to recognize that, yes, there are physiological differences but that they make no difference at all in the realms of ethics, human values, or as Martin Luther King put is, "the content of our character."

Post 9

Friday, August 26, 2011 - 4:53pm

The left is able to assign blame for racial disparities to "racism" on the premise that innate racial differences don't exist. Remedies for "racism" in turn are used as weapons to inculcate unwarranted guilt and destroy freedoms. But this was beyond the scope of my article. Regardless of negative political or social consequences, race denial is rooted in metaphysical and epistemological corruptions that I hope readers will be better able to recognize.

Post 10

Friday, August 26, 2011 - 5:16pm

Brad,

The left is able to assign blame for racial disparities to "racism" on the premise that innate racial differences don't exist. Remedies for "racism" in turn are used as weapons to inculcate unwarranted guilt and destroy freedoms.

Well, it would have helped if you had made reference to these 2 things in either an introduction or at least in an afterthought to your article. I once practiced a college lecture (I used to teach at the college level) in front of a friend with little academic experience, but with experience in the business world.

She said that I should say things at least 3 times within the lecture:

1) tell them what you are going to tell them
2) tell them
3) tell them what you told them

While this advice wouldn't have necessarily saved you the criticism you got in this thread, further advice might have. My further advice, which is free, is to explicitly state why it is that something is important. I try to do that, myself. The reason that it is important for me to try to do this is ... oops ... oh ... see? ... it has already become a habit with me!

:-)

Ed

p.s. And Steve, very well said.

Post 11

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 8:40am

If all this is so rational, why is the author hiding behind a pseudonym? Suggests some malfeasance. Also, although "race" may have objective referent, what it refers to is in constant flux if for no other reason than for interbreeding. By now it is nearly impossible to distinguish people who fit various racial categories, certainly not by color or skin pigmentation. Finally, some egalitarians are bent on corrupting language, yes, but many refer by "equality" to what the Declaration of Independence did, namely, that all human beings, by virtue of their humanity, possess certain unalienable rights. Here color or race or skin pigmentation has no relevance at all.

Post 12

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 8:48am

Excellent point Tibor!

Post 13

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 11:26am

Malfeasance?! Haha...well, I suppose I'll try to make the most of it.

Now seriously, Tibor, you can't really believe as a generalization that it's now "nearly impossible to distinguish people who fit various racial categories". The proportion of people who are so intermixed that their racial makeup is not apparent is small, and it is not difficult to distinguish such individuals from those who are visibly black, white, oriental, etc. Appeals to ignorance won't invalidate racial categories, and intermixing won't for thousands of years, if ever.

Skin color has no relevance to rights, I agree. But it does have relevance to the probability of your rights being violated. As Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute reports:

"The face of violent crime in New York, in other words, like in every other large American city, is almost exclusively black and brown... Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies. Whites, by contrast, committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the city�s population"

Post 14

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 12:40pm

So crime is genetic?

100% of the criminals were human. Damn humans!

Post 15

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 2:18pm

Brad (or anyone),

What explains the wide difference in murder rates between the states (e.g. between Maryland and Vermont)? In 2005, there was a murder rate in Maryland that was more than 7 times that of Vermont.

What explains the murder rate of the District of Columbia? In 2005, there was a murder rate in D.C. that was more than 27 times that of Vermont.

Ed

Link:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html

Post 16

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 3:43pm

Differences in policing, economy, culture, climate, population density, and racial demographics all have something to do with murder rates. There is a strong correlation specifically between the proportion of an area's black population and its murder rate. Vermont is 1.0% black; Maryland 29.4%; Washington D.C. 50.7%.

I'm not saying race itself is the sole cause of the correlation (though it would also be unreasonable to believe such a persistent correlation to be entirely coincidental), just that race has predictive value. It is useful in terms of policing and one's ability to quickly discern whether he's ventured into a dangerous part of town.

Post 17

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 4:56pm

Sorry Brad, but your last post veered off into racism. Race is nothing more than a some minor physiological characteristics like the amount of melanin in skin cells.

The commission of a crime is the product of a series of human choices. Choices are made of ideas which are also a product of human choice. A collection of ideas held by significant number of people can become a subculture and some subcultures are more opposed to various crimes than others (and that is part of where your correlations come from). There are also socio-economic demographics and those will also correlate with crime despite mixed races in a given socio-economic neighborhood.

The only correlation that will correspond with causality is a strong identification with a subculture that believes in entitlement, doesn't believe in education, and believes that people are victims who aren't responsible for their actions. That subculture is shared by some individuals in all of the races and many of the members of that subculture chose it because it fits with low self-esteem.

The correlation between blacks and crimes is driven by those subcultures that look up to criminals and gangsters, that accept a status as victims, and adopt race-based views of politics and culture. The attempt of some blacks to gain a deeper sense of identity, or a greater feeling of belonging, or to give expression to anger born of insecurity are those most likely to choose a dead-end set of beliefs that are race-based.

The difference between correlation and cause in this kind of discussion is like the difference between guilty because they look a certain way, versus guilty because they did it.

If you ask why blacks commit more crimes relative to their proportion of the population, you won't find any answers in physiology. You have to look at ideas and subcultures - those are the areas where people make the choices that form their character.

Post 18

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 5:07pm

Good rejoinder, Steve.

Ed

Post 19

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 6:03pm