Philosophy Now Forum

https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2023/07/ ... ral-video/

Most people are against the woke due to the inherent hypocritical racism. You can't cure a disease by throwing more of the same disease at it. This article about a party member in India peeing on a poor caste member in India is disgusting. What's the best way for a society to reduce racism?

I don't think Racism will change until people, who are Racist without knowing it, are shown the error of their ways. This is very difficult, and many times, might not be worth the effort. Some individuals can become "not racist" of their own accord and decision, but those with Self-Consciousness and a deeper sense of Morality, are too rare to expect in life. They will, usually, come to the 'Right' point of view of their own accord, and without much help.

So this leaves the majority of people, who are Racist without knowing it, and are resistant against any exposure of their own (Confirmation) biases. You can prove these types wrong in arguments, debates, and publicly, but it doesn't do much good, because they Regress, and eventually return with their Racism unchanged. Because they likely have no intention to change their beliefs on a deep level.

What the Far-Left proposes, is Deception. Hide their own Racism, accuse their political opposition of it first (against Conservatives), and then let them suffer the cost of the other side's moral failings. This is how Neolibiberalism has risen to prominence now in the West, and is currently the de facto manner of "Morality" as "Social Justice". Accuse others what you are guilty of, and let them suffer the costs of the accusation. A constant 'Offensive' politicking mentality.

The ultimate problem of this method, is that it exacts no actual social, cultural, or moral changes in society, but tends to make things worse in the long run. And they don't care...as long as they aren't paying the cost. But eventually the cost becomes too much to bear for the overall society.


What is the result?

Civil Disorder, BLM-Antifa Riots, French Riots, Kyle Rittenhouse, Street Killings, eventually leading to societal Calamity, and the rise of Fascists required to re-impose Order, Law, and Civility.

Civility by means of Threat of Violence...Tyranny.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 11:56 am
What the Far-Left proposes, is Deception. Hide their own Racism,

I suppose you admire the far right for not hiding theirs.

So what's the deal here? is Constantine a spare account created by GrandWizard22 to use after he gets banned for all the nasty stuff he's written about jews and black people?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 2:02 pm So what's the deal here? is Constantine a spare account created by GrandWizard22 to use after he gets banned for all the nasty stuff he's written about jews and black people?

And gay people.

Constantine wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 11:27 am https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2023/07/ ... ral-video/

Most people are against the woke due to the inherent hypocritical racism. You can't cure a disease by throwing more of the same disease at it. This article about a party member in India peeing on a poor caste member in India is disgusting. What's the best way for a society to reduce racism?

K: the question here is this, is this a true statement? that 'WOKE"
is "inherent hypocritical racism" true? and the use of "most people"
is seriously fuzzy.. can we get some names here? who exactly
thinks that being "WOKE is inherently racist'?''

so instead of a very vague statement, let's get down to
some specifics...because it's very hard to argue for or against,
such vague statements...

Kropotkin

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 2:02 pm So what's the deal here? is Constantine a spare account created by GrandWizard22 to use after he gets banned for all the nasty stuff he's written about jews and black people?

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 2:06 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 2:02 pm So what's the deal here? is Constantine a spare account created by GrandWizard22 to use after he gets banned for all the nasty stuff he's written about jews and black people?

And gay people.

There two replies have nothing to do with the topic at hand. And I'm pro LGBT. I just want more categorical rigor, less wokeness and not inventing imaginary terms.

So what is Harbals solution to actual racism. Actual racism. What is Flash Dangerpants? Again.... actual racism. Woke is racism. You can't fight racism with racism and expect positive results.

Constantine wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 2:39 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 2:02 pm So what's the deal here? is Constantine a spare account created by GrandWizard22 to use after he gets banned for all the nasty stuff he's written about jews and black people?

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 2:06 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 2:02 pm So what's the deal here? is Constantine a spare account created by GrandWizard22 to use after he gets banned for all the nasty stuff he's written about jews and black people?

And gay people.

There two replies have nothing to do with the topic at hand. And I'm pro LGBT. I just want more categorical rigor, less wokeness and not inventing imaginary terms.

So what is Harbals solution to actual racism. Actual racism. What is Flash Dangerpants? Again.... actual racism. Woke is racism. You can't fight racism with racism and expect positive results.

My solution is to make all the races look the same, and get everyone to speak English. That should calm things down for a bit, until we find another basis on which to discriminate against one another. It's part of our nature, I'm afraid; we are a very tribal species.

A couple of preliminary statements:

It would be, and it largely is, impossible to calmly and rationally discuss racism, race, and so many of the extremely hot topics that have been made impossible to talk about. Inevitably, and predictably, the thread shows itself, right at the start, degenerating into emoted argument.

The term "racism" and "racist" are terms that are defined exclusively by one faction. It is a term which masks a general and underhanded use of power. That power is wielded extremely broadly and, when one examines those who use it in this way, one discovers something akin to 'deviousness'.

If we were to focus, for example, on the recent events in France (we do need a context to talk about these things) one will have noticed that more or less immediately the activist Left/Progressives frame the issue under the broad generalization of "racism". The triggering event (a kid who got shot) becomes a justification for what follows: absolute mayhem and the unleashing of destructive activity.

Because racism is the cause, they say, the result is justified destruction. This is how their *arguments* actually function. But there is a truth that, when seen and explained, renders this assertion as false. The reaction (rioting, burning, looting, general destruction) is encouraged and fomented by specific factions with specific purposes. A general attitude that enables and justifies destructive activity has been established as good and necessary and as I say as justifiable. Those who have this attitude encourage these destructive episodes. It serves various purposes they have.

But in relation to that we'd have to stop and examine certain 'activist agendas' in some depth.

In order to see it in some sort of relief I would suggest a thought-experiment: imagine if in regard to some action or of criminality associated with the Algerian or Moroccan minority, that thousands of those who identify with Marine Le Pen and the National Rally had gone out on a comparable rampage, burning cars, neighborhoods, and buildings. How would this bee seen and how would it be presented in the various periodicals and in the media generally?

The thought experiment, if carried out by someone capable of sound reasoning, clearly points to the actual nature of the issue. And my suggestion is that if it is proposed that *the real nature of the issues* be talked about -- carefully, rationally, and calmly -- that every effort will be make by dedicated zealots (of what we too loosely call *wokism* and yet we are stuck with the term to the degree that it remains undefined) to stop any such conversation from occurring.

And here is an important core: The Progressive Left necessarily dedicates itself to inhibiting conversation, blocking conversation, and in defining any suggestion that a fuller and mature conversation could take place (or should take place) as racism-in-itself. Why? It is fairly simple.

In many places it is not really that *race* is the issue. France is a good example but there are 10 different European countries that could be mentioned. It hinges into many other factors and considerations. But if it is reduced to *race* and if the term *racist* and *racism* is then applied -- always with explanation points and tremendous moral condemnation -- any of the real and related considerations are made impossible to discuss. Any other considerations are described as being those of the Ultra-Right, of neo-fascists -- just as one very easily observes on this forum and most forums.

The conversation is rendered impossible as a result -- and this of course is the intended purpose: to render the conversation impossible.

Constantine wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 2:39 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 2:02 pm So what's the deal here? is Constantine a spare account created by GrandWizard22 to use after he gets banned for all the nasty stuff he's written about jews and black people?

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 2:06 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 2:02 pm So what's the deal here? is Constantine a spare account created by GrandWizard22 to use after he gets banned for all the nasty stuff he's written about jews and black people?

And gay people.

There two replies have nothing to do with the topic at hand. And I'm pro LGBT. I just want more categorical rigor, less wokeness and not inventing imaginary terms.

So what is Harbals solution to actual racism. Actual racism. What is Flash Dangerpants? Again.... actual racism. Woke is racism. You can't fight racism with racism and expect positive results.

K: and once again, to say "WOKE is racism" you have to actually
prove this... where is the evidence that ''WOKISM" is in fact,
racist? these statements are broad statements that play into
prior biases, prejudices, but do they have any factual basis?

Kropotkin

Constantine: So what is Harbal's solution to actual racism. Actual racism. What is Flash Dangerpants? Again.... actual racism. Woke is racism. You can't fight racism with racism and expect positive results.

Harbal: My solution is to make all the races look the same, and get everyone to speak English. That should calm things down for a bit, until we find another basis on which to discriminate against one another. It's part of our nature, I'm afraid; we are a very tribal species.

In fact, to better understand the actual argumentative dynamic here -- and I might also add the word 'unfortunately' -- we would have to stop and linger over the the use of the term *racism*. It has become established that to see things in terms of race, to acknowledge racial difference as real or important, is morally reprehensible and bordering into definitions infused with a sense of *evil*.

But we would need to examine the manifestation of this ideological position, an anthropological stance really, in order to better understand it. The ideology of anti-racism is part-and-parcel of larger and more complex political and social ideologies that have risen in recent times and been universalized. Some part of the larger ideological manifestation has been associated with Americanism which is, naturally, an entire political and social ideology that is very self-assertive and couches itself in moral righteousness. It tends to believe that all peoples of the Earth must see things in those terms and if they don't then they will be morally condemned and otherwise fought against until they do.

The terms racist and racism are really very complex and their use involves all sorts of pre-assumptions and impositions of value.

The first order of business is to be able to examine some other culture that has ideas or traditions that could, from an Americanist perspective be described by zealots as 'racist', and to dismantle the use of the term. That is, to invalidate its use or suggest it is problematic. This is certainly not hard, but for the committed zealot it drives them up a wall of sorts.

So if you said to, for example, a Nigerian: "You must allow diversity! You must take into your population hundreds of thousands of Whites (or millions) and you must blend with them because this is right and good!" you would find yourself in a situation where the term racist and racism become themselves problematized. They might say: "Well, we are not racist as you define it but we do wish to preserve ourselves in the way that we define preservation. We do not acknowledge your power to work against our own sense of what is proper and good". You could apply the same example to, say, Japan or even to China (both with large, generally homogenous populations).

So when seen in this way the entire issue is platformed differently. If Nigerians or Japanese proposed that they wanted to conserve their own culture, or even their somatic (physical) being and 'purity' through avoiding intermixing, they would not be condemned for it even by zealous Progressive activists. Their rights would be respected. And here the issue of *right* comes to the fore.

So Constantine's position has to be examined as an expression of Americanism. I use this term pretty generally insofar as America has defined an entire range of attitudes and policies as being the right and the good ones. I do not know if Constantine is American or European or Australian. But these ideological positions operate very similarly in the English-speaking world.

Actual racism -- that is actual concern for the structure of one's culture and one's people -- is in fact defensible. But do notice that when the term *racism* is inserted, and wherever it is inserted, the entire phrase becomes contaminated.

So what if it is switched out for *race consciousness* in combination with *cultural consciousness*? It is quite possible to see it in a different way. But the anti-racist activist -- those unique denizens of our own *woke* overclasses -- fiercely object to seeing these matters with a more nuanced lens. The structure of their own activism is in danger of being undermined and that is plainly intolerable.

Let the games begin!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 4:28 pm
Actual racism -- that is actual concern for the structure of one's culture and one's people -- is in fact defensible. But do notice that when the term *racism* is inserted, and wherever it is inserted, the entire phrase becomes contaminated.

I think you are trying to dress something pretty base up in more respectable clothes. My feeling is that any antipathy we feel towards other races is more to do with an instictive hostility towards the outsider. It is more to do with tribalism than concern for one's culture, in my uneducated, unthinking, empty headed opinion.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 4:40 pm Let the games begin!

Let the entertainment begin!

My feeling is that any antipathy we feel towards other races is more to do with an instinctive hostility towards the outsider. It is more to do with tribalism than concern for one's culture, in my uneducated, unthinking, empty headed opinion.

You are very right to point out that physical differences produce reactions in hominids. There is an instinct that kicks into motion. Something determined by evolutionary biology I’d imagine. So your point is valid.

All the people I have read who put forward oppositional arguments to excessive immigration (Jared Taylor, Renaud Camus for example), and who are labeled “racists”, have a coherent and articulate position based in sound reasoning. I do not think it merely hostility for the outsider.