solving racism

[LuckyR]

What even is 'racism', to you, exactly?

Racism is discrimination based on "race". Race, of course is a subjective term that has no objective meaning, that is it means whatever folks want it to mean. Or to put it a different way, races don't exist first, then individuals use racial distinction to discriminate. Instead individuals choose to discriminate first, then races are created along the lines thst the individual prefers to discriminate along.

Great. The definition I use is more or less the exact same.

Now 'we' can accept and agree that every adult human being, in the days when this is being written, is 'racist'.

Technically true. Though since "race" is a subjective term, as stated, there are various levels of quality in different types of discrimination. Personally I do not treat every human I encounter equally. That is, I discriminate based upon an individual's past behavior. I don't apologize for that.

[Age]

Racism is discrimination based on "race". Race, of course is a subjective term that has no objective meaning, that is it means whatever folks want it to mean. Or to put it a different way, races don't exist first, then individuals use racial distinction to discriminate. Instead individuals choose to discriminate first, then races are created along the lines thst the individual prefers to discriminate along.

Great. The definition I use is more or less the exact same.

Now 'we' can accept and agree that every adult human being, in the days when this is being written, is 'racist'.

Technically true. Though since "race" is a subjective term, as stated, there are various levels of quality in different types of discrimination.

But, all forms of discrimination, or separation, based on 'race', is a form of racism.

Personally I do not treat every human I encounter equally.

A bit off topic, but okay.

That is, I discriminate based upon an individual's past behavior.

And what do ’you’ based other human beings past behaviours on, exactly?

I don't apologize for that.

Okay, but that you mentioned what you just have, here, might mean that your past behaviour/s of discriminating others upon their past behaviors might be some thing others could discriminate, and judge you, upon, also.

[Belinda]

Great. The definition I use is more or less the exact same.

Now 'we' can accept and agree that every adult human being, in the days when this is being written, is 'racist'.

Technically true. Though since "race" is a subjective term, as stated, there are various levels of quality in different types of discrimination.

But, all forms of discrimination, or separation, based on 'race', is a form of racism.

Personally I do not treat every human I encounter equally.

A bit off topic, but okay.

That is, I discriminate based upon an individual's past behavior.

And what do ’you’ based other human beings past behaviours on, exactly?

I don't apologize for that.

Okay, but that you mentioned what you just have, here, might mean that your past behaviour/s of discriminating others upon their past behaviors might be some thing others could discriminate, and judge you, upon, also.

That is okay for Lucky or any other private person to discriminate for good reason of easing communications, or exercising professional authority to help a client or a patient. However politicians should not institutionalise racism or any other divisive ism.

[LuckyR]

Technically true. Though since "race" is a subjective term, as stated, there are various levels of quality in different types of discrimination.

But, all forms of discrimination, or separation, based on 'race', is a form of racism.

Personally I do not treat every human I encounter equally.

A bit off topic, but okay.

That is, I discriminate based upon an individual's past behavior.

And what do ’you’ based other human beings past behaviours on, exactly?

I don't apologize for that.

Okay, but that you mentioned what you just have, here, might mean that your past behaviour/s of discriminating others upon their past behaviors might be some thing others could discriminate, and judge you, upon, also.

That is okay for Lucky or any other private person to discriminate for good reason of easing communications, or exercising professional authority to help a client or a patient. However politicians should not institutionalise racism or any other divisive ism.

Very true, but the vast majority of current racism isnt of the overt, legally sanctioned variety. It's at the level of subjective selection (hiring, promotions, loans and housing sales), not objective exclusion, like apartheid.

[LuckyR]

Great. The definition I use is more or less the exact same.

Now 'we' can accept and agree that every adult human being, in the days when this is being written, is 'racist'.

Technically true. Though since "race" is a subjective term, as stated, there are various levels of quality in different types of discrimination.

But, all forms of discrimination, or separation, based on 'race', is a form of racism.

Personally I do not treat every human I encounter equally.

A bit off topic, but okay.

That is, I discriminate based upon an individual's past behavior.

And what do ’you’ based other human beings past behaviours on, exactly?

I don't apologize for that.

Okay, but that you mentioned what you just have, here, might mean that your past behaviour/s of discriminating others upon their past behaviors might be some thing others could discriminate, and judge you, upon, also.

I fully expect to be discriminated for and against based on my past behavior. That's part of what shapes my behavior. I've had pretty good success in this area, as it happens.

[Belinda]

But, all forms of discrimination, or separation, based on 'race', is a form of racism.


A bit off topic, but okay.


And what do ’you’ based other human beings past behaviours on, exactly?



Okay, but that you mentioned what you just have, here, might mean that your past behaviour/s of discriminating others upon their past behaviors might be some thing others could discriminate, and judge you, upon, also.

That is okay for Lucky or any other private person to discriminate for good reason of easing communications, or exercising professional authority to help a client or a patient. However politicians should not institutionalise racism or any other divisive ism.

Very true, but the vast majority of current racism isnt of the overt, legally sanctioned variety. It's at the level of subjective selection (hiring, promotions, loans and housing sales), not objective exclusion, like apartheid.

That is my impression too ,now you point it out. Can we quantify that and correlate it with other variables such as crime, social class, institutionalised racism ,or poverty.
My guess is that poverty leads to fear of strangers or any perceived other ,which is reflected in subjective selection such as you mention. Not only poverty, but also other vulnerabilities such as clinical or mild paranoia, and lack of autonomy because of bad health or inferior education cause social divisions such as racist divisions.

Other aspects of personal appearance such as fat, outre apparel, old age, signs of poverty such as poor dentition, tallness, shortness, accent, ethnic minority, can be targets for people who have hypo-paranoia.

"Solve poverty and and you solve racism." wrote Martin Peter Clarke. Poverty is part of the complex. Capitalism is invested in social imbalance.

[MikeNovack]

Capitalism is invested in social imbalance.

Not as meaningful as you might think. Perhaps better put, in a capitalist society, a society where it is the capitalists are "the few who rule society, who run the show", capitalism will be invested in imbalance.

But that's not a property of capitalism but of being "the few who rule society, who run the show". There is no other way for "a few" to rule/dominate. As soon as thy fail to keep all the rest disunited, they will lose control. The only way the few can rule the many is by keeping the many fighting among themselves.

[Belinda]

Capitalism is invested in social imbalance.

Not as meaningful as you might think. Perhaps better put, in a capitalist society, a society where it is the capitalists are "the few who rule society, who run the show", capitalism will be invested in imbalance.

But that's not a property of capitalism but of being "the few who rule society, who run the show". There is no other way for "a few" to rule/dominate. As soon as thy fail to keep all the rest disunited, they will lose control. The only way the few can rule the many is by keeping the many fighting among themselves.

All societies are and were based upon means of production. Capitalism is a means of production that requires a permanent source of labour which is not where the owners of capital come from.

There is always a power elite,even if that be only one man or woman.

If the king dies when he is past being a defender or a producer another king is elected; unless capitalism requires a permanent ruling elite which in days gone by was a monarch upheld by progeniture . Capitalism depends upon a permanent social class of workers to serve production, and also a permanent social class of owners of capital.not necessarily real estate but capital of another sort. Even in this age of automation workers are still needed for all large capitalist enterprises.

I understand how social divisiveness works to keep the workers ignorant of who their real enemies are.

[Age]

Technically true. Though since "race" is a subjective term, as stated, there are various levels of quality in different types of discrimination.

But, all forms of discrimination, or separation, based on 'race', is a form of racism.

Personally I do not treat every human I encounter equally.

A bit off topic, but okay.

That is, I discriminate based upon an individual's past behavior.

And what do ’you’ based other human beings past behaviours on, exactly?

I don't apologize for that.

Okay, but that you mentioned what you just have, here, might mean that your past behaviour/s of discriminating others upon their past behaviors might be some thing others could discriminate, and judge you, upon, also.

That is okay for Lucky or any other private person to discriminate for good reason of easing communications, or exercising professional authority to help a client or a patient.

Will you provide examples of 'easing communications' through discrimination?

If no, then why not?

However politicians should not institutionalise racism or any other divisive ism.

'Should' any other human being institutionalize racism or any other divisive ism, or only the ones called and labelled with the divisive word "politicians' should not do 'this'?

[Age]

Technically true. Though since "race" is a subjective term, as stated, there are various levels of quality in different types of discrimination.

But, all forms of discrimination, or separation, based on 'race', is a form of racism.

Personally I do not treat every human I encounter equally.

A bit off topic, but okay.

That is, I discriminate based upon an individual's past behavior.

And what do ’you’ based other human beings past behaviours on, exactly?

I don't apologize for that.

Okay, but that you mentioned what you just have, here, might mean that your past behaviour/s of discriminating others upon their past behaviors might be some thing others could discriminate, and judge you, upon, also.

I fully expect to be discriminated for and against based on my past behavior. That's part of what shapes my behavior. I've had pretty good success in this area, as it happens.

Okay. So, 'you', 'the one', here, known as "luckyr" is a 'cry baby' and should be seen as one. Thus, 'you' should be separated from adults and treated as a 'cry baby', correct?

If no, then why not?

[Age]

That's part of what shapes my behavior.

I do not know of a human behaviour that was not partly 'shaped' by previous behaviours and discriminative views or judging.

I've had pretty good success in this area, as it happens.

What is 'good success', here, based upon and relative to, exactly?

Every human behaviour is just, naturally, partly based upon previous behaviour, and others judging and/or discriminating, anyway. Therefore, in a sense, every human being could claim to have so-called 'good success' in having their 'current' behaviour 'shaped'.

But, what even is 'good' or 'bad' behaviour based up and on, exactly, anyway?

[Belinda]

That's part of what shapes my behavior.

I do not know of a human behaviour that was not partly 'shaped' by previous behaviours and discriminative views or judging.

I've had pretty good success in this area, as it happens.

What is 'good success', here, based upon and relative to, exactly?

Every human behaviour is just, naturally, partly based upon previous behaviour, and others judging and/or discriminating, anyway. Therefore, in a sense, every human being could claim to have so-called 'good success' in having their 'current' behaviour 'shaped'.

But, what even is 'good' or 'bad' behaviour based up and on, exactly, anyway?

I 'm curious about Lucky's actual experience in judging from past behaviours. I suppose a busy professional who is serving a client has to take a short cut like this rather than judge each instance of an individual's behaviour as a separate event. But in a court of law I don't think it would do to categorise someone based on past behaviours. For instance if a woman alleged she was raped an ad hominem verdict against her would be wrong.

Ad hominem is okay if and when the allegation is made by a witness as in the high profile case where Mandy Rice-Davies was a witness (He would say that wouldn't he!)But ad hominem is unfair when someone is punished on ad hominem grounds.

[Age]

That is okay for Lucky or any other private person to discriminate for good reason of easing communications, or exercising professional authority to help a client or a patient. However politicians should not institutionalise racism or any other divisive ism.

Very true, but the vast majority of current racism isnt of the overt, legally sanctioned variety. It's at the level of subjective selection (hiring, promotions, loans and housing sales), not objective exclusion, like apartheid.

That is my impression too ,now you point it out. Can we quantify that and correlate it with other variables such as crime, social class, institutionalised racism ,or poverty.
My guess is that poverty leads to fear of strangers or any perceived other ,which is reflected in subjective selection such as you mention. Not only poverty, but also other vulnerabilities such as clinical or mild paranoia, and lack of autonomy because of bad health or inferior education cause social divisions such as racist divisions.

Other aspects of personal appearance such as fat, outre apparel, old age, signs of poverty such as poor dentition, tallness, shortness, accent, ethnic minority, can be targets for people who have hypo-paranoia.

'They' belong under the tem or word 'separatism', and not necessarily under, 'racism'.

'Racism' is in regards to what is considered the 'race' of you human beings.

"Solve poverty and and you solve racism." wrote Martin Peter Clarke

If you solve 'poverty', then you solve 'poverty'. 'Racism' is some thing completely different.

. Poverty is part of the complex. Capitalism is invested in social imbalance.

[Belinda]

Very true, but the vast majority of current racism isnt of the overt, legally sanctioned variety. It's at the level of subjective selection (hiring, promotions, loans and housing sales), not objective exclusion, like apartheid.

That is my impression too ,now you point it out. Can we quantify that and correlate it with other variables such as crime, social class, institutionalised racism ,or poverty.
My guess is that poverty leads to fear of strangers or any perceived other ,which is reflected in subjective selection such as you mention. Not only poverty, but also other vulnerabilities such as clinical or mild paranoia, and lack of autonomy because of bad health or inferior education cause social divisions such as racist divisions.

Other aspects of personal appearance such as fat, outre apparel, old age, signs of poverty such as poor dentition, tallness, shortness, accent, ethnic minority, can be targets for people who have hypo-paranoia.

'They' belong under the tem or word 'separatism', and not necessarily under, 'racism'.

'Racism' is in regards to what is considered the 'race' of you human beings.

"Solve poverty and and you solve racism." wrote Martin Peter Clarke

If you solve 'poverty', then you solve 'poverty'. 'Racism' is some thing completely different.

. Poverty is part of the complex. Capitalism is invested in social imbalance.

There is a connection between poverty and racism, Age. The connection is as follows:

* A man is suffering from being poor, He is hungry and poorly educated due to poverty.

*He looks for the cause of his poverty

* He blames a minority group of people whom he distinguishes by their ethnic customs or appearance .As poorly educated he is unable to place blame where blame is due.

*A common result is the man becomes what we call a 'racist'.

[Age]

That is my impression too ,now you point it out. Can we quantify that and correlate it with other variables such as crime, social class, institutionalised racism ,or poverty.
My guess is that poverty leads to fear of strangers or any perceived other ,which is reflected in subjective selection such as you mention. Not only poverty, but also other vulnerabilities such as clinical or mild paranoia, and lack of autonomy because of bad health or inferior education cause social divisions such as racist divisions.

Other aspects of personal appearance such as fat, outre apparel, old age, signs of poverty such as poor dentition, tallness, shortness, accent, ethnic minority, can be targets for people who have hypo-paranoia.

'They' belong under the tem or word 'separatism', and not necessarily under, 'racism'.

'Racism' is in regards to what is considered the 'race' of you human beings.

"Solve poverty and and you solve racism." wrote Martin Peter Clarke

If you solve 'poverty', then you solve 'poverty'. 'Racism' is some thing completely different.

. Poverty is part of the complex. Capitalism is invested in social imbalance.

There is a connection between poverty and racism, Age. The connection is as follows:

* A man is suffering from being poor, He is hungry and poorly educated due to poverty.

*He looks for the cause of his poverty

* He blames a minority group of people whom he distinguishes by their ethnic customs or appearance .As poorly educated he is unable to place blame where blame is due.

*A common result is the man becomes what we call a 'racist'.

Has anyone ever blamed their hunger on a 'minority group?

If yes, then who, where, when, and why, exactly?