Northwest: Home of America's Worst Racists

[Ibanez]

Racism is not hate. Do not fall into the liberal/progressive trap of thinking that anything that is contrary to liberal/progressive philosophy is "hate." Sure, racism CAN involve hate. But racism, in and of itself, is not hate.

This is what racism is:

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

That's from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; but you can find similar definitions in many places. You may not describe to it. But that is not, in and of itself, hate.

This thing of labeling things liberals/progressives disagree with as "hate" is a tactic. You need to avoid being taken in by it.

You're a fucking idiot. Racism is hate. Prejudice breeds hate.

[JohnStOnge]

You're a **** idiot. Racism is hate.

No, it is not. Say it tell you I think humans are superior to chimpanzees. Does that mean I hate chimpanzees?

You're falling into the liberal mind control game. This is totally separate from the question of whether racism is valid or justified. It's not hate. "Hate" has become defined, in liberal-speak, as "disagreeing with liberals." Calling it "hate" just adds an extra emotional dimension. But it's propaganda.

Sure, it's possible for racism to be associated with hate. But it's also completely possible to have racist beliefs while feeling no hate at all.

An example that comes to mind is Richard Hernstein. While he was alive he took the view that IQ is indeed a measure, albeit an imperfect one, of intelligence. He went on to say that IQ is heritable. And the BIG one is that he said that genetics play more of a role in differences in IQ between racial groups than environment does. That made him, to many, a "racist." But you would be hard pressed to find any indication of any feelings of hatred on his part. In fact, what you would find when he was alive that there was a lot of hate directed against him because of his honestly arrived upon views.

When he and Richard Murray co authored the book "The Bell Curve" I remember seeing things like articles headlined, "Professors of Hate." But when you read their book you find that there is not the slightest suggestion of any feelings of hate. PLENTY of suggestion of feelings of hate on the part of those attacking them though.

[JohnStOnge]

Prejudice breeds hate.

When you were a young man paying more for vehicle liability insurance than you would have with all other things being equal except that you would have been a young woman, you were experiencing prejudice. You were being pre-judged based on your sex.

Do you think the insurance company hated you?

[kalm]

You're a **** idiot. Racism is hate.

No, it is not. Say it tell you I think humans are superior to chimpanzees. Does that mean I hate chimpanzees?

You're falling into the liberal mind control game. This is totally separate from the question of whether racism is valid or justified. It's not hate. "Hate" has become defined, in liberal-speak, as "disagreeing with liberals." Calling it "hate" just adds an extra emotional dimension. But it's propaganda.

Sure, it's possible for racism to be associated with hate. But it's also completely possible to have racist beliefs while feeling no hate at all.

An example that comes to mind is Richard Hernstein. While he was alive he took the view that IQ is indeed a measure, albeit an imperfect one, of intelligence. He went on to say that IQ is heritable. And the BIG one is that he said that genetics play more of a role in differences in IQ between racial groups than environment does. That made him, to many, a "racist." But you would be hard pressed to find any indication of any feelings of hatred on his part. In fact, what you would find when he was alive that there was a lot of hate directed against him because of his honestly arrived upon views.

When he and Richard Murray co authored the book "The Bell Curve" I remember seeing things like articles headlined, "Professors of Hate." But when you read their book you find that there is not the slightest suggestion of any feelings of hate. PLENTY of suggestion of feelings of hate on the part of those attacking them though.

Kinda with JSO here. I'm becoming an ageist which I suppose is the natural course of events. That doesn't mean I hate young people though. I just suspect them of doucheness.

That said, I'd hope even JSO would agree that much racism is born of culture, hatred, and ignorance.

[JohnStOnge]

That said, I'd hope even JSO would agree that much racism is born of culture, hatred, and ignorance.

I think that culture has something to do with it. I don't know about hatred. I really don't think it's a thing where someone first hates then because they hate they believe one race is superior to another.

And I also don't know about the ignorance thing. I frankly think that if you are a totally objective person you are going to be inclined to believe that there are differences in distributions of aptitudes between what we call racial groups that cannot be entirely explained by environmental factors. I frankly think that the more you look at it the more you are going to think that.

It's like if you actually look at those National Assessment of Educational Progress data I've referenced so many times. To me you have to REALLY be biased towards NOT wanting to think there are differences between what we define as racial groups to think that you don't see differences that can't be entirely explained by environmental factors there.

To me the thing of ascribing "racism" to "ignorance" is another one of those liberal/progressive propaganda tactics. "Ignorant" is another one of those things often defined as "disagreeing with liberals."

[kalm]

That said, I'd hope even JSO would agree that much racism is born of culture, hatred, and ignorance.

I think that culture has something to do with it. I don't know about hatred. I really don't think it's a thing where someone first hates then because they hate they believe one race is superior to another.

And I also don't know about the ignorance thing. I frankly think that if you are a totally objective person you are going to be inclined to believe that there are differences in distributions of aptitudes between what we call racial groups that cannot be entirely explained by environmental factors. I frankly think that the more you look at it the more you are going to think that.

It's like if you actually look at those National Assessment of Educational Progress data I've referenced so many times. To me you have to REALLY be biased towards NOT wanting to think there are differences between what we define as racial groups to think that you don't see differences that can't be entirely explained by environmental factors there.

To me the thing of ascribing "racism" to "ignorance" is another one of those liberal/progressive propaganda tactics. "Ignorant" is another one of those things often defined as "disagreeing with liberals."

1) How many people are truly objective.

2) How many racists are truly objective.

If you regard a black person, do you assume inferiority, automatically calculate the percentage chances that he/she would be inferior, or none of the above?

BTW, what do you call a black lawyer?

[AZGrizFan]

I think that culture has something to do with it. I don't know about hatred. I really don't think it's a thing where someone first hates then because they hate they believe one race is superior to another.

And I also don't know about the ignorance thing. I frankly think that if you are a totally objective person you are going to be inclined to believe that there are differences in distributions of aptitudes between what we call racial groups that cannot be entirely explained by environmental factors. I frankly think that the more you look at it the more you are going to think that.

It's like if you actually look at those National Assessment of Educational Progress data I've referenced so many times. To me you have to REALLY be biased towards NOT wanting to think there are differences between what we define as racial groups to think that you don't see differences that can't be entirely explained by environmental factors there.

To me the thing of ascribing "racism" to "ignorance" is another one of those liberal/progressive propaganda tactics. "Ignorant" is another one of those things often defined as "disagreeing with liberals."

1) How many people are truly objective.

2) How many racists are truly objective.

If you regard a black person, do you assume inferiority, automatically calculate the percentage chances that he/she would be inferior, or none of the above?

BTW, what do you call a black lawyer?

Bigfoot.

[kalm]

1) How many people are truly objective.

2) How many racists are truly objective.

If you regard a black person, do you assume inferiority, automatically calculate the percentage chances that he/she would be inferior, or none of the above?

BTW, what do you call a black lawyer?

Bigfoot.

No. You call him a lawyer you fucking racist!

[AZGrizFan]

Bigfoot.

No. You call him a lawyer you fucking racist!

What are you talking about? I was answering question #1.

[Ibanez]

Prejudice breeds hate.

When you were a young man paying more for vehicle liability insurance than you would have with all other things being equal except that you would have been a young woman, you were experiencing prejudice. You were being pre-judged based on your sex.

Do you think the insurance company hated you?

What does that have to do with not liking people based solely on their skin color? state Farm judged me based on my peers and age and expected to pay more in damages with me as a client. They didn't look at me as a white kid, denounce me as a pox on society and then terrorize me.

Face it. You are wrong.

[Ibanez]

I refuse to Believe that people who don't like others based only because of skin color don't harbor any hate. I'm not saying everyone is hateful enough to kill, but there's a level of prejudice, hate, animosity, whatever that's there. I don't like certain people based off their actions (thugs of any color, white trash, etc...) but I wouldn't say I hate them. I'm sure the KKK or the Black Panthers aren't loving or peaceful organizations.

[CID1990]

Racism is not hate. Do not fall into the liberal/progressive trap of thinking that anything that is contrary to liberal/progressive philosophy is "hate." Sure, racism CAN involve hate. But racism, in and of itself, is not hate.

This is what racism is:



That's from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; but you can find similar definitions in many places. You may not describe to it. But that is not, in and of itself, hate.

This thing of labeling things liberals/progressives disagree with as "hate" is a tactic. You need to avoid being taken in by it.

You're a **** idiot. Racism is hate. Prejudice breeds hate.

Hate breeds suffering

the path to the dark side, that is

[Pwns]

So every liberal who thinks they're clever pointing research about relations between IQ and religiosity and political conservatism is hateful?

I think the problem is Ibanez and JSO have two different definitions of racism. Everyone has their own definition of that word. That's why I hate the word. It just stirs up emotions and doesn't advance dialogue.

[Ibanez]

So every liberal who thinks they're clever pointing research about relations between IQ and religiosity and political conservatism is hateful?

I think the problem is Ibanez and JSO have two different definitions of racism. Everyone has their own definition of that word. That's why I hate the word. It just stirs up emotions and doesn't advance dialogue.

Racism is discrimination of someone based on their race and the belief that your race is superior. There's some hate under there.

[Pwns]

So every liberal who thinks they're clever pointing research about relations between IQ and religiosity and political conservatism is hateful?

I think the problem is Ibanez and JSO have two different definitions of racism. Everyone has their own definition of that word. That's why I hate the word. It just stirs up emotions and doesn't advance dialogue.

Racism is discrimination of someone based on their race and the belief that your race is superior. There's some hate under there.

And some will say that racism is "privilege and power" and that non-whites can't be racist because of that. Some (like me) will say you have to think that traits like intelligence and impulsiveness are different across races because of genetics. Some even think it's racist to say culture (and not racism or genetics) creates the economic gap between blacks and whites. Some people seem to think you aren't racist against a group of people if you can name one person in that group of people that you like.

There's umpteen million ways the word is defined by various people. What you think racism is and what the mrkleans out there think racism is and what JSO thinks is racist are different things.

IMO, the most important thing is that you do not pre-judge someone based upon tendencies in a group that they belong to. You can do that even if you think that certain races are more intelligent on average than others.

[AZGrizFan]

When you were a young man paying more for vehicle liability insurance than you would have with all other things being equal except that you would have been a young woman, you were experiencing prejudice. You were being pre-judged based on your sex.

Do you think the insurance company hated you?

What does that have to do with not liking people based solely on their skin color? state Farm judged me based on my peers and age and expected to pay more in damages with me as a client. They didn't look at me as a white kid, denounce me as a pox on society and then terrorize me.

Face it. You are wrong.

So, if we judge a black 18 year old based off the actions of his peers are we prejudiced?

[JohnStOnge]

When you were a young man paying more for vehicle liability insurance than you would have with all other things being equal except that you would have been a young woman, you were experiencing prejudice. You were being pre-judged based on your sex.

Do you think the insurance company hated you?

What does that have to do with not liking people based solely on their skin color? state Farm judged me based on my peers and age and expected to pay more in damages with me as a client. They didn't look at me as a white kid, denounce me as a pox on society and then terrorize me.

Face it. You are wrong.

Do you not see the underlined portion as prejudice? It does not necessarily have to have anything to do with liking or disliking someone.

[kalm]

What does that have to do with not liking people based solely on their skin color? state Farm judged me based on my peers and age and expected to pay more in damages with me as a client. They didn't look at me as a white kid, denounce me as a pox on society and then terrorize me.

Face it. You are wrong.

Do you not see the underlined portion as prejudice? It does not necessarily have to have anything to do with liking or disliking someone.

State Farm does it based on analytics. I'm not certain the same amount of consideration is given by all.

[Ibanez]

What does that have to do with not liking people based solely on their skin color? state Farm judged me based on my peers and age and expected to pay more in damages with me as a client. They didn't look at me as a white kid, denounce me as a pox on society and then terrorize me.

Face it. You are wrong.

Do you not see the underlined portion as prejudice? It does not necessarily have to have anything to do with liking or disliking someone.

Prejudice is to have an opinion that isn't based on reason or actual experience. Being judged as a group based off the actions of that group isn't prejudice.

To judge is to form an opinion of someone based off evidence.

I understand there are a lot of gray areas here, but I feel as if you're using words without knowing (or you're just ignoring) their meanings.

USAA or whoever judges you based off the evidence of people your age, your driving history, your type of car and in your area to give you an insurance rate. Insurance uses evidence, not emotions.

Thinking all white are racist because of the Klan and then treating whites poorly is prejudice.

[Ibanez]

What does that have to do with not liking people based solely on their skin color? state Farm judged me based on my peers and age and expected to pay more in damages with me as a client. They didn't look at me as a white kid, denounce me as a pox on society and then terrorize me.

Face it. You are wrong.

So, if we judge a black 18 year old based off the actions of his peers are we prejudiced?

Need more information. If you are denying an 18-yr old back man a loan b/c he's he has a history of bad credit and no job, then no. That's not prejudicial. You're making a judgement based on evidence.

If you denied him a loan, because he's black and nothing else. Then yes, you're prejudicial. We all have prejudices (and yes that includes me. There's an underlying hate). I'm prejudicial against lazy people, moochers, white trash, etc..

Hate may be too strong of a word, but there's a level of dislike there.