'Whites Can Be Black if They Wish' says Lecturers' Union

[mahagonny]

The arguments and beliefs on this thread just make me despair.

Why don't you refute them? You've been invited. You're a person too.

[Hegemony]

I see no indication that many people on this thread are genuinely open to rethinking their positions. What I see are bigotry, abrasiveness,  and people who get a lot of pleasure from baiting other people. So I won't be checking this thread again; no need to try to bait me as well.

[mahagonny]

I see no indication that many people on this thread are genuinely open to rethinking their positions. What I see are bigotry, abrasiveness,  and people who get a lot of pleasure from baiting other people. So I won't be checking this thread again; no need to try to bait me as well.

Last word freak. You could always talk to John McWhorter, if you have the chops. Who knows? He might be reading.

[financeguy]

I find it odd that someone says people (presumably including me) are not open to changing their views when my entire point is to tell someone to try to convince and persuade me rather than simply tell me how inherently immoral I am by virtue of group inclusion. This shouldn't be so hard, which is why I believe many do not even want a solution. Having the issue is more important than solving it. Either way, try to convince me to change my mind with logic and reason and I'm at least listening. Tell me why I "should" because of how bad I am or that someone else is owed a particular viewpoint and I cease to be willing to have the conversation.

[marshwiggle]

I see no indication that many people on this thread are genuinely open to rethinking their positions.

The irony is that, without indicating which people you seem to think are "genuinely open to rethinking their positions", it's impossible to examine the veracity of this claim.

[Parasaurolophus]

I find it odd that someone says people (presumably including me) are not open to changing their views when my entire point is to tell someone to try to convince and persuade me rather than simply tell me how inherently immoral I am by virtue of group inclusion. This shouldn't be so hard, which is why I believe many do not even want a solution. Having the issue is more important than solving it. Either way, try to convince me to change my mind with logic and reason and I'm at least listening. Tell me why I "should" because of how bad I am or that someone else is owed a particular viewpoint and I cease to be willing to have the conversation.

Nobody in this thread or another has said you're inherently immoral by virtue of group membership. They have said you're wrong about things like group differences in IQ and the BS evolutionary explanations you put forward, that you and others are fundamentally misunderstanding and misconstruing social construction, or that you're mischaracterizing the concept of privilege.

Put another way (in the terms you seem to prefer): where's your evidence that anyone here has said you're immoral in virtue of your group membership?

[marshwiggle]

Put another way (in the terms you seem to prefer): where's your evidence that anyone here has said you're immoral in virtue of your group membership?

Is "whiteness" a real thing and does it someone inherently racist?

[Parasaurolophus]

Put another way (in the terms you seem to prefer): where's your evidence that anyone here has said you're immoral in virtue of your group membership?

Is "whiteness" a real thing and does it someone inherently racist?

It's as real as any other social kind, but it's clearly not a natural kind. And I wouldn't think it makes anyone inherently racist, no.

[Caracal]

I find it odd that someone says people (presumably including me) are not open to changing their views when my entire point is to tell someone to try to convince and persuade me rather than simply tell me how inherently immoral I am by virtue of group inclusion. This shouldn't be so hard, which is why I believe many do not even want a solution. Having the issue is more important than solving it. Either way, try to convince me to change my mind with logic and reason and I'm at least listening. Tell me why I "should" because of how bad I am or that someone else is owed a particular viewpoint and I cease to be willing to have the conversation.

Nobody in this thread or another has said you're inherently immoral by virtue of group membership. They have said you're wrong about things like group differences in IQ and the BS evolutionary explanations you put forward, that you and others are fundamentally misunderstanding and misconstruing social construction, or that you're mischaracterizing the concept of privilege.

Put another way (in the terms you seem to prefer): where's your evidence that anyone here has said you're immoral in virtue of your group membership?

Yeah, there's a lot of that going on in this thread. The responses from various people don't have much to do with what anybody is actually saying. I f you just create an imaginary version of the enemy, I guess you don't have to bother trying to figure out if anything you are saying makes sense.

[financeguy]

Parasaurolophus, I'm not sure I would say people are not inherently racist, depending on how one defines that term. It is pretty obvious that many forms of own group preference including those related to race are as universal to humans as anything else.

If running into a burning building full of children, do we have a preference to save our own child or just any child? I think everyone knows the obvious answer to that question and many of the same tribal attitudes people hold toward family are also held toward race or other group identities. 

The fact that someone may have an innate character trait or that humans as a whole have this trait does not make it a positive. My default assumption is the view of the American rather than French revolutionaries: Flaws in man are the norm rather than the exception and must be checked rather than just "let's find the 'right' ones."

An innate own group preference for those like themselves is something I view as a human "norm" that's built into the operating system just like greed, laziness, shortsightedness or any of our other characteristics that need to be met with disincentives rather than ignored as something unusual or in need of explanation.

[marshwiggle]

An innate own group preference for those like themselves is something I view as a human "norm" that's built into the operating system just like greed, laziness, shortsightedness or any of our other characteristics that need to be met with disincentives rather than ignored as something unusual or in need of explanation.

Ironically, white liberals actually have an out-group bias.

From the article:

The organization GenForward, of the University of Chicago, recently surveyed a number of people from ages 18 to 34. Of the four ethnic groups—whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians—whites had the lowest in-group bias. Asked their opinion about whites becoming a minority, projected to happen in about thirty years, 57 percent of white liberals said that that would be a strength for the country.

Ain't self-loathing a great thing........

[financeguy]

I'm very skeptical of what people say when in contradiction to what they do. No one in the history of voter surveys has said they voted for the one who was taller but based on experience it's undeniable that we associate height with leadership ability. I'm actually surprised no one brought up this trait as opposed to Hillary's gender. A female the same height as Trump would have been viewed much differently, perhaps not without a different set of challenges. Of course no one believes themselves swayed by such "irrational" points.

The fact that whites state an out group preference is more about the social disincentive to say otherwise that those in other groups will not face. I forget which actress was doing a red carpet interview before the Oscars or Emmys and was asked who she was rooting for. She responded with "Whoever's black." or something similar such as "all the blacks nominated." The fact that I can't even remember who this was last year shows that it wasn't really seen as a big deal by anyone. Even if that were the position held by a white actor, they would not only be unlikely to say so, but may also make a comment along the lines of "hoping to see some diversity this year" which would presume out group preference. At what cost to him?

I suppose I'm just a bit exhausted by getting lectured by people who are not immune from the same issues they bemoan in whites. I live in a major metropolitan area and can tell you the multiple minority groups that live in areas where there are next to no whites are not suddenly getting along with each other in harmony independent of these pesky immoral racists. They're at each others throats as well, with absolutely no desire to conceal the sentiment for public consumption. One need only survey a small portion of the graffiti from only the most recent riot (small by our "historical" standards) to tell exactly what these groups think of one another! Can someone please tell me where this isn't the case? Whites are not racist; people are racist.

[Caracal]

An innate own group preference for those like themselves is something I view as a human "norm" that's built into the operating system just like greed, laziness, shortsightedness or any of our other characteristics that need to be met with disincentives rather than ignored as something unusual or in need of explanation.

Ironically, white liberals actually have an out-group bias.

From the article:

The organization GenForward, of the University of Chicago, recently surveyed a number of people from ages 18 to 34. Of the four ethnic groups—whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians—whites had the lowest in-group bias. Asked their opinion about whites becoming a minority, projected to happen in about thirty years, 57 percent of white liberals said that that would be a strength for the country.

Ain't self-loathing a great thing........

This is getting very Stormfront.

[Caracal]

Parasaurolophus, I'm not sure I would say people are not inherently racist, depending on how one defines that term. It is pretty obvious that many forms of own group preference including those related to race are as universal to humans as anything else.

If running into a burning building full of children, do we have a preference to save our own child or just any child? I think everyone knows the obvious answer to that question and many of the same tribal attitudes people hold toward family are also held toward race or other group identities. 

An innate own group preference for those like themselves is something I view as a human "norm" that's built into the operating system just like greed, laziness, shortsightedness or any of our other characteristics that need to be met with disincentives rather than ignored as something unusual or in need of explanation.

As a historian, I'm always kind of amazed at the way lots of people just sort of think race is just some natural phenomenon. Sure, on some level, humans as social creatures are probably attuned to think in terms of difference, although I'll leave that to the psychologists. Race, however, is a relatively recent concept that ties skin color to identity. The Romans and Greeks, for example, noticed skin color, but it was things like culture and language that distinguished Greeks and Romans from Barbarians.

Race developed at this very particular moment, and the story is complicated, but really it crystallizes as a system of domination centered around slavery. This isn't controversial or disputed, when you look at slave codes, you can see how increasingly black and slave become synonymous terms. It isn't like any of this is ancient history, either, that's how race functions, as a system of domination and power. So, when you try to pretend that it is normal for people to like "people like them," you're just ignoring this whole history. There's nothing natural about it. That's also why, by the way, expressing pride in being white, or wanting white people to continue to be the dominant group in the United States, is a staple of racist, white supremacist thought.

[marshwiggle]

Race developed at this very particular moment, and the story is complicated, but really it crystallizes as a system of domination centered around slavery. This isn't controversial or disputed, when you look at slave codes, you can see how increasingly black and slave become synonymous terms. It isn't like any of this is ancient history, either, that's how race functions, as a system of domination and power. So, when you try to pretend that it is normal for people to like "people like them," you're just ignoring this whole history. There's nothing natural about it. That's also why, by the way, expressing pride in being white, or wanting white people to continue to be the dominant group in the United States, is a staple of racist, white supremacist thought.

Wanting whites (or any other group) to be a minority is likewise a staple of racist thought.  The ethnic makeup of the country is pretty much irrelevant; what matters is shared values. Twenty years from now, who knows where most immigration will be from, AND IT DOESN'T MATTER. A society where all people are respected is the goal, not one with racial bean-counters making sure that there is appropriate "representation" in every slice of society.