Why is racism so villified in the West?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

He just wants to bar "those people" from his neighbourhood. He wants them 'voluntarily' segregate themselves out of his environment - after the rest of us worked so long and hard to de-segregate schools, labour unions, restaurants and neighbourhoods. He hasn't actually mentioned 'voluntary' shipments of people 'back' to where they came from. Just as well: there is no room in Europe, Africa and Asia for all the immigrants cluttering up the Americas.

Every country has their rules. Legal immigration isn’t an issue. Sending an invasion of humanity to live or die on foreign beaches and in desert wasteland, is an issue. Disingenuous and misleading to conflate the two, which of course everyone knows. Also unwarranted to attribute racism to nationalism, which is also obvious.

That's the trouble with casually tossing around an insidious slur like racism, which bullies tend to do. It affects rationality which leads to absurd assertions and views based on fantasies.

I totally agree. Flinging around the 'r' word is nothing more than a bullying tactic to silence anyone who doesn't conform to what is considered 'fashionably Politically Correct'. It's an arsehole's tactic.
The genuinely racist are proud of the fact and don't bother to hide it. They couldn't care less about some simpering, pasty, limp-dicked ''Progressive'' insult.

[Skip]

Where does he say that? [He wants to bar those people from his neighbourhood]

In the opening post.

People do their own segregating,

Money does their segregating.

Japan has almost no immigration. It doesn't want to be inundated with people of a different culture, with different values.
Being born in China doesn't automatically mean Chinese citizenship. You have to be ethnically Chinese. I assume you find both of these offensively 'racist'.

No, and I wouldn't be offended by the Native Americans deporting all these foreigners.
I am offended by the descendant of illegal immigrants refusing to share the spoils of genocide with the descendants of people kidnapped from or driven out of another lands.

[Skip]

Every country has their rules. Legal immigration isn’t an issue. Sending an invasion of humanity to live or die on foreign beaches and in desert wasteland, is an issue.

Those may or may not be issues, but neither one has been mentioned here.
Spazzola wants to keep his own neighbourhood white, in a country that has never been white.

Also unwarranted to attribute racism to nationalism, which is also obvious.

Who was doing that? Look at the title. It's racism Spazzola is defending, not nationalism.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Where does he say that? [He wants to bar those people from his neighbourhood]

In the opening post.

People do their own segregating,

Money does their segregating.

Japan has almost no immigration. It doesn't want to be inundated with people of a different culture, with different values.
Being born in China doesn't automatically mean Chinese citizenship. You have to be ethnically Chinese. I assume you find both of these offensively 'racist'.

No
I am offended by the descendant of illegal immigrants refusing to share the spoils of genocide with the descendants of people kidnapped from or driven out of another lands.

1. No, he doesn't.
2. Why not?
How racist of you to assume that 'non white' people are all poor.

[Skip]

This is maybe a controversial topic, but it is a philosophy forum, so I hope we can discuss this reasonably.

There isn't a clear unambiguous definition of racism, but for the same of the argument, let me define it as a preference, that is, you prefer some people based on their race.

Now, if you have a sexual or age preference or whatever, usually nobody cares. You can say "I would only date men" or "I prefer to hang out with young people" and you'll be fine. But if you say "I would prefer to live in a white neighborhood" you're suddenly a racist and, by consequence, an evil person and your (political) career is over, you can lose your job and get physically attacked by violent groups...

So how did this come to be? When did racism/racist become this "gotcha" term that is used for regular witch hunts ("Is person X really a racist?" "Oh, I'm sure he is, let's get him!").
My theory is that it's mostly a consequence of the horrible historical events that used some kind of racism as justification for mistreatment or violence against various groups. So as soon as someone mentions race based discrimination, there are explicit or implicit associations with the KKK or the holocaust or whatever. And at the same, it seems there's a push for the idea that racial diversity is a good thing, so anything that goes against that is bad.

If we agree that mistreatment and violence are bad and discard them completely, can there still be room for peaceful voluntary racial segregation as an acceptable form of discrimination?

vegetariantaxidermy -- How racist of you to assume that 'non white' people are all poor.

Cute. Rich Asians buy upscale real estate. Rich Arabs buy upscale real estate. Rich South Americans buy upscale real estate. They are still a minority among rich Anglos, and can't voluntarily segregate. Rich African-Americans buy upscale real estate and there are now enough of them to have predominantly black neighbourhoods. No poor whites or poor Hispanics, or poor blacks can live there. But if a rich Asian or Anglo moves in, they can't force him out. The poorest neighborhoods are more homogeneous than the rich ones: people gravitate to their familiar culture. But if an individual gets the opportunity to improve his employment, he moves to a "multicultural" working class neighbourhood. If he is successful, he moves to a mixed race suburb. And if he's blessed with athletic prowess or a talent for entertainment, he moves right on up the hill to Whiteland. https://statisticalatlas.com/place/Cali ... -Ethnicity

[Spazzola]

It's more about an irrational bias than any just sort of bias. When race is relevant to the point being made, I don't see it as racist. Attraction would be a good example...

Fair enough, but I think many people would disagree. Imagine if a famous politician said "I wouldn't date black women". He'd probably be crucified for being an evil racist.
You say it has to be irrational to qualify for racism and you admit that's hard to define. I agree. I'm not even sure a dating/aesthetic preference is rational as opposed to something purely instinctive/irrational.

Technically, I do think your preference makes you a racist (and also a sexist, because I'll just assume that you wouldn't date men either).
But the thing is, and I guess that's my main point, I don't think that makes you a bad person, because I see no indication that you want to actively harm anyone.
Discrimination of all kinds is a part of life. You can't be a normal functioning person without constantly choosing between different things, without having personal boundaries and preferences. And the same applies to societies, countries, nations... although things become much more complex there, for many reasons.
That's why I don't see the necessity to vilify countries who, for example, reject immigration, because they want to maintain a certain ethnic makeup. Obviously things are never simple and you'll never make everyone happy, political struggles will always be here. Hopefully people can learn from history and from other countries' mistakes...

[Skip]

Imagine if a famous politician said "I wouldn't date black women". He'd probably be crucified for being an evil racist.

You can imagine that, if by "crucified" you mean verbally criticized, you can imagine that, but I don't think you can cite an incident where it's actually happened; whereas, black men have certainly been brutally murdered for saying they would date a white woman.

I'm not even sure a dating/aesthetic preference is rational as opposed to something purely instinctive/irrational.

Nor does anyone try to persuade you to date anyone who does not physically appeal to you - unless your mom is trying to fix you up for the senior prom with a homely cousin.

Technically, I do think your preference makes you a racist (and also a sexist, because I'll just assume that you wouldn't date men either)...Discrimination of all kinds is a part of life. You can't be a normal functioning person without constantly choosing between different things, without having personal boundaries and preferences.

Technically, socially, legally and ethically, this whole line of examples are stinky little red herrings.

And the same applies to societies, countries, nations...

No. Not the same thing at all. Not even in the same category.
That's where your bogus argument collapses.

That's why I don't see the necessity to vilify countries who, for example, reject immigration, because they want to maintain a certain ethnic makeup.

Unless they're concurrently bombing, razing, occupying or robbing the countries from which they don't let people escape.
Or if they had no "ethnic makeup" in the first place and are trying to invent one retroactively.

Hopefully people can learn from history and from other countries' mistakes...

First they have to learn some history.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

This is maybe a controversial topic, but it is a philosophy forum, so I hope we can discuss this reasonably.

There isn't a clear unambiguous definition of racism, but for the same of the argument, let me define it as a preference, that is, you prefer some people based on their race.

Now, if you have a sexual or age preference or whatever, usually nobody cares. You can say "I would only date men" or "I prefer to hang out with young people" and you'll be fine. But if you say "I would prefer to live in a white neighborhood" you're suddenly a racist and, by consequence, an evil person and your (political) career is over, you can lose your job and get physically attacked by violent groups...

So how did this come to be? When did racism/racist become this "gotcha" term that is used for regular witch hunts ("Is person X really a racist?" "Oh, I'm sure he is, let's get him!").
My theory is that it's mostly a consequence of the horrible historical events that used some kind of racism as justification for mistreatment or violence against various groups. So as soon as someone mentions race based discrimination, there are explicit or implicit associations with the KKK or the holocaust or whatever. And at the same, it seems there's a push for the idea that racial diversity is a good thing, so anything that goes against that is bad.

If we agree that mistreatment and violence are bad and discard them completely, can there still be room for peaceful voluntary racial segregation as an acceptable form of discrimination?

vegetariantaxidermy -- How racist of you to assume that 'non white' people are all poor.

Cute. Rich Asians buy upscale real estate. Rich Arabs buy upscale real estate. Rich South Americans buy upscale real estate. They are still a minority among rich Anglos, and can't voluntarily segregate. Rich African-Americans buy upscale real estate and there are now enough of them to have predominantly black neighbourhoods. No poor whites or poor Hispanics, or poor blacks can live there. But if a rich Asian or Anglo moves in, they can't force him out. The poorest neighborhoods are more homogeneous than the rich ones: people gravitate to their familiar culture. But if an individual gets the opportunity to improve his employment, he moves to a "multicultural" working class neighbourhood. If he is successful, he moves to a mixed race suburb. And if he's blessed with athletic prowess or a talent for entertainment, he moves right on up the hill to Whiteland. https://statisticalatlas.com/place/Cali ... -Ethnicity

Do you have an idea how much of a wanker you are? Not to mention a racist? You shouldn't even be mentioning that which doesn't exist and must never be uttered. We are all citizens of the universe! And why are you giving me a link that's about Beverly Hills? Of course. If it's so in Beverley Hills then it must be so everywhere else.
As a matter of fact I've never encountered a poor Chinese or Indian. Here, the median income between the races is fairly similar, with brown and white historical citizens making up nearly half of the homeless. This is because immigrants have flooded into the country at the behest of Big Business claims of 'worker shortages' (i.e. workers who don't work for peanuts, with the result being wages that are forced down across the board) with the allure of a guaranteed job and house, and rents have been pushed through the roof due in no small part to rich, overseas property investors taking the opportunity to use our realestate market as a conveninet money-laundering service. So your little stereotyped assumptions are slightly out of date.
Psss. People can live in the same neighbourhood and still not assimilate or even know who their neighbours are.

[Skip]

Neither can poor people of any colour move into rich neighbourhoods: money segregates rich from poor, not colour.
But, until the constitution is trashed beyond recognition, which won't take much longer, white people still can't bar coloured people from moving into "their" neighbourhoods, whether they associate with one another or not.

I should've thought Beverly Hills was a pretty good example of upscale real estate. Too obscure a reference?

Changing the subject doesn't change the facts.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Neither can poor people of any colour move into rich neighbourhoods: money segregates rich from poor, not colour.
But, until the constitution is trashed beyond recognition, which won't take much longer, white people still can't bar coloured people from moving into "their" neighbourhoods, whether they associate with one another or not.

I should've thought Beverly Hills was a pretty good example of upscale real estate. Too obscure a reference?

Changing the subject doesn't change the facts.

It's just a stupid reference. You have gone from talking about 'race' to money. What is your point? You could have used a rich Indian neighbourhood in New Delhi as an example. Heck, Indians are so racist that they don't even like other Indians who have darker skin than they do.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

He just wants to bar "those people" from his neighbourhood. He wants them 'voluntarily' segregate themselves out of his environment - after the rest of us worked so long and hard to de-segregate schools, labour unions, restaurants and neighbourhoods.

I find that to be a pretty grotesque interpretation of what that means; When my sister was looking for an apartment a few years ago, she told me something along the line of "I'd like to live in a white neighborhood". I did not take that to mean that she wants to live in some sort of ethno-state neighborhood where there is not a single person of color to be found, I just took it to mean that she does not want to live in a ghetto. And I don't see how you could blame her for that, even black people don't want to live in the ghetto.

He hasn't actually mentioned 'voluntary' shipments of people 'back' to where they came from. Just as well: there is no room in Europe, Africa and Asia for all the immigrants cluttering up the Americas.

You're correct to say that he has not mentioned that - in fact, he has specifically said the opposite:

If we agree that mistreatment and violence are bad and discard them completely, can there still be room for peaceful voluntary racial segregation as an acceptable form of discrimination?

Now I agree that this is awkwardly phrased and if it were coming from someone like Richard Spencer, I definitely would have a problem with it because I would have assumed a more sinister intention. People who have an agenda like that also don't fully recognize why it has historical prevalence. For the sake of discussion and the fact that I don't know this new user (this was literally his first post) I've taken a more sympathetic interpretation.

I could have gotten hung up on a few words he chose to use like "peaceful segregation", but given everything, I don't think he actually means anything sinister by it. I'm not going to emotionally whip someone over a term that isn't the most politically correct thing to say, unless I have some reason to think it's part of something more sinister. I think this guy just wanted a genuine discussion about where we can draw the line with a judgement based on race.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Fair enough, but I think many people would disagree. Imagine if a famous politician said "I wouldn't date black women". He'd probably be crucified for being an evil racist.
You say it has to be irrational to qualify for racism and you admit that's hard to define. I agree. I'm not even sure a dating/aesthetic preference is rational as opposed to something purely instinctive/irrational.

Well I was talking more about what should be the case. I also think the vast majority of people are actually okay with such a distinction, it's just a vocal minority that gets hung up about such things

I don't think what's rational is hard to define, I think it's just hard for us to agree on; The reason why I think that a judgement of someone's race based on sexual preference is a rational judgement, is because race does actually play a part in what you find attractive. Maybe the desire itself is instinctive, or 'irrational', but the judgement of deciding not to pursue someone sexually that you're not sexually attracted to, is certainly rational. In fact, that could almost be a tautology; "you don't do what you don't want to do".

I think it's just about the best example of racial judgement that I absolutely wouldn't consider racism, because race literally plays a role in what you find attractive in the most literal way imaginable - by affecting the way someone looks.

Technically, I do think your preference makes you a racist (and also a sexist, because I'll just assume that you wouldn't date men either).
But the thing is, and I guess that's my main point, I don't think that makes you a bad person, because I see no indication that you want to actively harm anyone.

I actually think it's very important to only distinguish something as racist if it's based on an irrational discernment, due to a lot of what you're saying. We shouldn't have a negative connotation of someone who believes something that's actually true. I wouldn't even consider a faulty judgement of someone's race based on 'ignorance' as racism, because intentions also matter. And there is a specific difference between irrationality and 'ignorance', in the context of what I'm talking about.

Allow me to devise an intentionally exaggerated, absurd analogy in order to demonstrate why I think intentions are important; Imagine you had some sort of judge who was trying to decide who was the perpetrator of a murder, with several suspects on the table. One of them is white, and the judge is genuinely under the impression that 100% of all murders are caused by white people - not by ill-conceived notions, but by misunderstanding a study that he looked into, in the most honest pursuit of truth he could have mustered. He then automatically chooses the white person, without considering any evidence whatsoever.

Is this judge racist? Why? Because if he and his information were correct, that was, objectively, the only right answer to choose. So why would we call the intentions of someone who just would have matched the reality of the situation and found the most plausible perpetrator, racist? I realize that if we were to translate this analogy into a real situation, there definitely would be a lot of issues like we wouldn't be able to assume he didn't have a hidden agenda, but why that's why I say it's an absurd analogy. I'm sticking to it because it still demonstrates a crucial point, racism needs to exist as a bad principle higher than any form of mere ignorance, because when trying to apply something to someone's intentions, we can't look at anything but the intention.

That's why I don't see the necessity to vilify countries who, for example, reject immigration, because they want to maintain a certain ethnic makeup. Obviously things are never simple and you'll never make everyone happy, political struggles will always be here. Hopefully people can learn from history and from other countries' mistakes...

That is definitely not an argument I would use against immigration...

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

You can imagine that, if by "crucified" you mean verbally criticized, you can imagine that, but I don't think you can cite an incident where it's actually happened; whereas, black men have certainly been brutally murdered for saying they would date a white woman.

I mean, there's a whole wikipedia article about it. As far as modern examples, there was the tyler oakley debacle on twitter a few years back. I think there was a more recent one that was even more infamous, but I wasn't able to find it. In a broader context that's less relevant, there was that porn star who committed suicide after saying she wouldn't have sex with a bi-dude

[HexHammer]

Why is racism so villified in the West?

It really should be a self explanatory question, especially if you know the history. Apparently you are glaringly ignorant.

If you were just looking at the title of the thread, I agree it seemed pretty bad. But in his OP, I think he does bring up some points good for discussion. There is an interesting difference in the way people typically see a judgement of someone based on their race in certain situations.

He was pretty clear to differentiate that from actual discrimination, like barring someone from an establishment.

No, they have been answered over and over, very clearly defined in psychological terms etc, spelled out!

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

It really should be a self explanatory question, especially if you know the history. Apparently you are glaringly ignorant.

If you were just looking at the title of the thread, I agree it seemed pretty bad. But in his OP, I think he does bring up some points good for discussion. There is an interesting difference in the way people typically see a judgement of someone based on their race in certain situations.

He was pretty clear to differentiate that from actual discrimination, like barring someone from an establishment.

No, they have been answered over and over, very clearly defined in psychological terms etc, spelled out!

What do you mean? What exactly has been answered and clearly defined?