"there's no such thing as white culture, sweetie"
TLDR: if race isn't real/ it's a social construct then how can we have race related quotas/ race crimes etc?
Every so often I get somebody responding to me disputing that there is such a thing as white/ European culture or identity etc- usually in a passive aggressive way like the thread title which amuses me.
To prove this they usually say that the Irish were discriminated to a certain extent in America, or genetically it might be because somebody from the UK might be more related to someone from Mongolia than someone from Mongolia etc.
But these people also seen to be the ones who support left wing identity politics such as reparations, black history and civil rights for minorities and racism etc.
If what they are saying is true surely society should be absolutely colour blind: where racism is a legal impossibility because we're all human.
Their argument seems to be:
'race isn't real, but racists think it's real so we have to think it's real to show that it isn't real'
Every so often I get somebody responding to me disputing that there is such a thing as white/ European culture or identity etc- usually in a passive aggressive way like the thread title which amuses me.
To prove this they usually say that the Irish were discriminated to a certain extent in America, or genetically it might be because somebody from the UK might be more related to someone from Mongolia than someone from Mongolia etc.
But these people also seen to be the ones who support left wing identity politics such as reparations, black history and civil rights for minorities and racism etc.
If what they are saying is true surely society should be absolutely colour blind: where racism is a legal impossibility because we're all human.
Their argument seems to be:
'race isn't real, but racists think it's real so we have to think it's real to show that it isn't real'
Scroll to see replies
If what they are saying is true surely society should be absolutely colour blind: where racism is a legal impossibility because we're all human.
This should be the ideal. Racialists on both sides of the political extremes seem to disagree.
'race isn't real, but racists think it's real so we have to think it's real to show that it isn't real'
We don't have to think it's real. Not everyone subscribes to either your identity politics or that of the left.
Original post by Ascend
This should be the ideal. Racialists on both sides of the political extremes seem to disagree.
We don't have to think it's real. Not everyone subscribes to either your identity politics or that of the left.
We don't have to think it's real. Not everyone subscribes to either your identity politics or that of the left.
Supporting civil rights and discrimination laws is "both sides of the political extremes"?
Well actually if it's for instance law we do.
I think that either everyone should be allowed to do identity politics or nobody should.
Original post by Starship Trooper
Supporting civil rights and discrimination laws is "both sides of the political extremes"?
Well actually if it's for instance law we do.
I think that either everyone should be allowed to do identity politics or nobody should.
Well actually if it's for instance law we do.
I think that either everyone should be allowed to do identity politics or nobody should.
The ideal is for all sides to accept the reality that 'race' (however you define it) has no political significance beyond those adamant on irrationally discriminating for it. Historically in the pre-modern West, the discrimination went overwhelmingly in one direction (negative, racist 'whites' vs minorities). Much has been done to correct this during modernism but, in the process, created a victimhood culture for the postmodernists who have simply submitted to the idea of white supremacy. Now, all tribes are scrambling for grievance points. Even white supremacists are viewing themselves as victims! It's like a new currency; a social capital.
MLK's Dream has been derailed. Getting back on track means accepting the utter insignificance of race in politics (just as we have done with religion) and continuing to fight against any discrimination based on skin colour.
This is where you need to show your cards now. Otherwise the conversation will be pointless.
(edited 3 years ago)
I reject this idea that I am being deceptive or disingenuous with any of my views and challenge you to find any cases of this.
*They're almost entirely concerning my views as a Christian Conservative on issues such as LGBT stuff. Whilst I would like to limit immigration this is not because I am a closet White Nationalist or something (I can go into why not)
I will address your main point below
*They're almost entirely concerning my views as a Christian Conservative on issues such as LGBT stuff. Whilst I would like to limit immigration this is not because I am a closet White Nationalist or something (I can go into why not)
I will address your main point below
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by Ascend
The ideal is for all sides to accept the reality that 'race' (however you define it) has no political significance beyond those adamant on irrationally discriminating for it.
Historically in the pre-modern West, the discrimination went overwhelmingly in one direction (negative, racist 'whites' vs minorities).
Much has been done to correct this during modernism but, in the process, created a victimhood culture for the postmodernists who have simply submitted to the idea of white supremacy. Now, all tribes are scrambling for grievance points. Even white supremacists are viewing themselves as victims! It's like a new currency; a social capital. MLK's Dream has been derailed.
Getting back on track means accepting the utter insignificance of race in politics.
[Whilst] continuing to fight against any discrimination based on skin colour.
Historically in the pre-modern West, the discrimination went overwhelmingly in one direction (negative, racist 'whites' vs minorities).
Much has been done to correct this during modernism but, in the process, created a victimhood culture for the postmodernists who have simply submitted to the idea of white supremacy. Now, all tribes are scrambling for grievance points. Even white supremacists are viewing themselves as victims! It's like a new currency; a social capital. MLK's Dream has been derailed.
Getting back on track means accepting the utter insignificance of race in politics.
[Whilst] continuing to fight against any discrimination based on skin colour.
How is advocating for identity politics "irrational"? Eg I think it's perfectly rational behaviour if it can benefit you/ your group. Put it like this, why wouldnt you choose to get special/ preferential treatment? That seems to be far more irrational!
Sure, but how can we correct this if it's impossible for the wrongful party "whites" to be identified.
I agree! But I think this position you have said is considered by many as far right: see the response to "All Lives Matter!"
But it's not insignificant it's endemic.
At what point can you objectively say that discriminating against skin colour is now not a problem? And more importantly, even if such a position was possible why on earth would these minority groups give up on their preferential treatment?
Put it like this' if the government said 'ST you've been wrongly oppressed by the government so we will introduce measures to benefit you and your family indefinitely until we've made up for it'
I guarantee centuries from now my descendants would be fighting tooth and nail to keep those benefits and insisting that we still face some sort of oppression real or imagined. And this is perfectly rational behaviour:
Eg observe the following hate crime hoaxes:
https://www.newyorkupstate.com/capital-region/2017/03/jewish_man_arrested_after_spray_painting_swastikas_on_his_own_home_in_upstate_ny.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_assault_of_Jussie_Smollett
Original post by Starship Trooper
How is advocating for identity politics "irrational"? Eg I think it's perfectly rational behaviour if it can benefit you/ your group. Put it like this, why wouldnt you choose to get special/ preferential treatment? That seems to be far more irrational!
Sure, but how can we correct this if it's impossible for the wrongful party "whites" to be identified.
I agree! But I think this position you have said is considered by many as far right: see the response to "All Lives Matter!"
But it's not insignificant it's endemic.
At what point can you objectively say that discriminating against skin colour is now not a problem? And more importantly, even if such a position was possible why on earth would these minority groups give up on their preferential treatment?
Put it like this' if the government said 'ST you've been wrongly oppressed by the government so we will introduce measures to benefit you and your family indefinitely until we've made up for it'
I guarantee centuries from now my descendants would be fighting tooth and nail to keep those benefits and insisting that we still face some sort of oppression real or imagined. And this is perfectly rational behaviour:
Eg observe the following hate crime hoaxes:
https://www.newyorkupstate.com/capital-region/2017/03/jewish_man_arrested_after_spray_painting_swastikas_on_his_own_home_in_upstate_ny.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_assault_of_Jussie_Smollett
Sure, but how can we correct this if it's impossible for the wrongful party "whites" to be identified.
I agree! But I think this position you have said is considered by many as far right: see the response to "All Lives Matter!"
But it's not insignificant it's endemic.
At what point can you objectively say that discriminating against skin colour is now not a problem? And more importantly, even if such a position was possible why on earth would these minority groups give up on their preferential treatment?
Put it like this' if the government said 'ST you've been wrongly oppressed by the government so we will introduce measures to benefit you and your family indefinitely until we've made up for it'
I guarantee centuries from now my descendants would be fighting tooth and nail to keep those benefits and insisting that we still face some sort of oppression real or imagined. And this is perfectly rational behaviour:
Eg observe the following hate crime hoaxes:
https://www.newyorkupstate.com/capital-region/2017/03/jewish_man_arrested_after_spray_painting_swastikas_on_his_own_home_in_upstate_ny.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_assault_of_Jussie_Smollett
I mean following that logic it's perfectly rational to mug someone if you won't get caught. After all, it benefits you. And that person could probably earn that money back so where's the issue? (I've seen this used as an excuse for looting lol)
I think a lot of people (or at least I) would feel bad benefiting at the expense of someone else. Equally, I'd imagine a lot of people would feel bad (though not the idpolly types you'er talking about) about undue preferential treatment, because that preferential treatment doesn't exist in a void and is at the expense of someone else. Particularly with quotas.
(edited 3 years ago)
I would agree that there's no such thing as white culture, since it seems silly to attach/credit culture to race, when it's maximally attached to what country you're living in or are from, and more specifically attached to your local community/who you surround yourself with. It's not like eg. British culture is/was solely moulded by White Brits, other ethnic groups have also helped shape it, so it's a pretty narrow lens to look through. The culture in say Eastern Europe is going to be much different to here (with regards to racism and homophobia for example), so seems weird to lump it all together.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by _gcx
I mean following that logic it's perfectly rational to mug someone if you won't get caught.After all, it benefits you. And that person could probably earn that money back so where's the issue? (I've seen this used as an excuse for looting lol)
I think a lot of people (or at least I) would feel bad benefiting at the expense of someone else. Equally, I'd imagine a lot of people would feel bad (though not the idpolly types you'er talking about) about undue preferential treatment, because that preferential treatment doesn't exist in a void and is at the expense of someone else. Particularly with quotas.
I think a lot of people (or at least I) would feel bad benefiting at the expense of someone else. Equally, I'd imagine a lot of people would feel bad (though not the idpolly types you'er talking about) about undue preferential treatment, because that preferential treatment doesn't exist in a void and is at the expense of someone else. Particularly with quotas.
Well yes that's absolutely correct. If you could steak some one and get away with it it would be rational to do so. That's why I base my morality around my religion rather than the law or some idea of inherent human good/ rationality.
On your second point , well perhaps but it seems like you're resting a lot on the charity of people, many of whom you acknowledge wouldn't care. Additionally people are all too ready and eager to believe their own delusions over the truth esp if they benefit from it.
@Ascend
I will regale you with a story from when I was a liberal that really woke me up on this issue.
I used to be friends with a Nigerian guy who was a big Thatcher / Milton Friedman fan. When it came to politics to my surprise he voted Labour despite thinking their policies were wrong/ harmful to society. Why? Because he benefited from them and as he out it he could always go back home. And he wasn't wrong!
Original post by Starship Trooper
Well yes that's absolutely correct. If you could steak some one and get away with it it would be rational to do so. That's why I base my morality around my religion rather than the law or some idea of inherent human good/ rationality.
On your second point , well perhaps but it seems like you're resting a lot on the charity of people, many of whom you acknowledge wouldn't care. Additionally people are all too ready and eager to believe their own delusions over the truth esp if they benefit from it.
@Ascend
I will regale you with a story from when I was a liberal that really woke me up on this issue.
I used to be friends with a Nigerian guy who was a big Thatcher / Milton Friedman fan. When it came to politics to my surprise he voted Labour despite thinking their policies were wrong/ harmful to society. Why? Because he benefited from them and as he out it he could always go back home. And he wasn't wrong!
On your second point , well perhaps but it seems like you're resting a lot on the charity of people, many of whom you acknowledge wouldn't care. Additionally people are all too ready and eager to believe their own delusions over the truth esp if they benefit from it.
@Ascend
I will regale you with a story from when I was a liberal that really woke me up on this issue.
I used to be friends with a Nigerian guy who was a big Thatcher / Milton Friedman fan. When it came to politics to my surprise he voted Labour despite thinking their policies were wrong/ harmful to society. Why? Because he benefited from them and as he out it he could always go back home. And he wasn't wrong!
But it's pretty easy to "logic" this type of morality, no? You are hurting another person, that person does not want to be hurt, and if you were in the position of your victim you would not want that to be done to you, so you should not do that thing, and one can consider that action "wrong". This of course relies on caring for your fellow human being. You don't need some higher authority to tell you this one would think.
Original post by _gcx
But it's pretty easy to "logic" this type of morality, no? You are hurting another person, that person does not want to be hurt, and if you were in the position of your victim you would not want that to be done to you, so you should not do that thing, and one can consider that action "wrong". This of course relies on caring for your fellow human being. You don't need some higher authority to tell you this one would think.
Sure you could make that abstract argument. But it doesn't necessarily follow.
Liberals love to use this 'what if the shoe was on the other foot' kind of mentality to create invisible handcuffs for people. I don't think it works.
Because the obvious answer is 'but i'm not in their shoes so why should I care?' And there is nothing irrational about thus. Better me than you. Empathy only goes so far.
The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must
Original post by Starship Trooper
Sure you could make that abstract argument. But it doesn't necessarily follow.
Liberals love to use this 'what if the shoe was on the other foot' kind of mentality to create invisible handcuffs for people. I don't think it works.
Because the obvious answer is 'but i'm not in their shoes so why should I care?' And there is nothing irrational about thus. Better me than you. Empathy only goes so far.
The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must
Liberals love to use this 'what if the shoe was on the other foot' kind of mentality to create invisible handcuffs for people. I don't think it works.
Because the obvious answer is 'but i'm not in their shoes so why should I care?' And there is nothing irrational about thus. Better me than you. Empathy only goes so far.
The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must
Well with that logic, that train of thought is an obvious non-starter. But it troubles me that the only thing stopping people from committing mass genocide is the fear of other-worldly repercussions.
Nope religion doesn't stop that either. It's called Human Nature.
Augustine expounded on this in City of God. Basically humans will always be fallible no matter what system they devise and utopia is impossible. We should aim for the stars but understand that things are temporary and we are always going to fall down eventually and to some extent the higher we aim the greater we fall and this has happened throughout history esp see the Soviet Union and in time our own liberal democracy.
Augustine expounded on this in City of God. Basically humans will always be fallible no matter what system they devise and utopia is impossible. We should aim for the stars but understand that things are temporary and we are always going to fall down eventually and to some extent the higher we aim the greater we fall and this has happened throughout history esp see the Soviet Union and in time our own liberal democracy.
Original post by Starship Trooper
Nope religion doesn't stop that either. It's called Human Nature.
Augustine expounded on this in City of God. Basically humans will always be fallible no matter what system they devise and utopia is impossible. We should aim for the stars but understand that things are temporary and we are always going to fall down eventually and to some extent the higher we aim the greater we fall and this has happened throughout history esp see the Soviet Union and in time our own liberal democracy.
Augustine expounded on this in City of God. Basically humans will always be fallible no matter what system they devise and utopia is impossible. We should aim for the stars but understand that things are temporary and we are always going to fall down eventually and to some extent the higher we aim the greater we fall and this has happened throughout history esp see the Soviet Union and in time our own liberal democracy.
I'm curious, what do you think will supplant liberal democracy?
Original post by Sabertooth
I'm curious, what do you think will supplant liberal democracy?
That remains to be seen and may be different upon where it is you're referring to and how long it takes liberal democracy to die and a multitude of other factors in play.
I think we are heading to something where for instance the dominant parties are basically more or less the same and are controlled by the same group of special interests to the point where basically nobody votes and everyone knows it's corrupt which is kinda happening in the US and goes on already in the third world. Essentially Democracy in name only where real power lies in the hands of a few ultra wealthy corporations similar to various dystopian 90s sci fi films but without any of the cool stuff. Eg instead of judge dredd it will be Amazon peace corps coming into your house and sterilising you to fight climate change or something.
If we assume that race is a socio-cultural construct then that is not suggesting that race is not real. It is simply suggesting race is not physical.
I don't have your experience OP. If somebody is asserting to me information about discrimination of Irish people then that would suggest to me that there is an Irish cultural identity, primarily comprised people who's skin is white. That is a (dominantly) white cultural identity within Europe. Other European cultural identities exist. Since there is often shared culture and social norms across European countries there is therefore a (thin) layer of common European cultural/racial identity. So whoever is trying to disprove this by citing examples of the thing they claim doesn't exist only appears to be shooting themself in the foot.
Furthermore, if you're suggesting you have met somebody who claims that race is constructed (a claim I agree with) then they seem to be very confused if they are trying to prove that by making a point about genetics, which are not socially or culturally constructed.
So this person would seem confused. And I am unsure that attaching their views on identity to particular political ideologies is going to be very helpful.
I don't have your experience OP. If somebody is asserting to me information about discrimination of Irish people then that would suggest to me that there is an Irish cultural identity, primarily comprised people who's skin is white. That is a (dominantly) white cultural identity within Europe. Other European cultural identities exist. Since there is often shared culture and social norms across European countries there is therefore a (thin) layer of common European cultural/racial identity. So whoever is trying to disprove this by citing examples of the thing they claim doesn't exist only appears to be shooting themself in the foot.
Furthermore, if you're suggesting you have met somebody who claims that race is constructed (a claim I agree with) then they seem to be very confused if they are trying to prove that by making a point about genetics, which are not socially or culturally constructed.
So this person would seem confused. And I am unsure that attaching their views on identity to particular political ideologies is going to be very helpful.
Original post by 04MR17
If we assume that race is a socio-cultural construct then that is not suggesting that race is not real. It is simply suggesting race is not physical.
Sorry I only just noticed this comment.
Please explain how race can be "real" but not "physical" and define what you mean by those terms.
Original post by Starship Trooper
Sorry I only just noticed this comment.
Please explain how race can be "real" but not "physical" and define what you mean by those terms.
Please explain how race can be "real" but not "physical" and define what you mean by those terms.
If you use
; you will find that...Real means a thing that exists
Physical refers to a thing that is tangible and concrete - that can be measured or identified through the senses
Original post by 04MR17
If you use ; you will find that...
Real means a thing that exists
Physical refers to a thing that is tangible and concrete - that can be measured or identified through the senses
; you will find that...Real means a thing that exists
Physical refers to a thing that is tangible and concrete - that can be measured or identified through the senses
Is love real? Love isn't always physical. So love is an abstract concept that most people (correct me if I'm wrong) believe exists
Ok I understood what your terms meant and I just wanted to be sure you were using them in the correct context. In that case then I agree with you. But I think that reinforces my argument.
if race isn't a "tangible and concrete" concept that can't be "measured or identified"
then surely measures to address things like "racial inequality" are impossible/ wrong/ irrational?
To use your example it would be like the government forming a commission to make people "love" each other more.
@TCA2b
Original post by Starship Trooper
Ok I understood what your terms meant and I just wanted to be sure you were using them in the correct context. In that case then I agree with you. But I think that reinforces my argument.
if race isn't a "tangible and concrete" concept that can't be "measured or identified"
then surely measures to address things like "racial inequality" are impossible/ wrong/ irrational?
To use your example it would be like the government forming a commission to make people "love" each other more.
@TCA2b
if race isn't a "tangible and concrete" concept that can't be "measured or identified"
then surely measures to address things like "racial inequality" are impossible/ wrong/ irrational?
To use your example it would be like the government forming a commission to make people "love" each other more.
@TCA2b
So you are suggesting that governments should not act on abstract concepts?
So we shouldn't have ministers with portfolio for Culture, Defence, Justice or ministers without portfolio?
All the above are abstract concepts, and like race, the abstract concept has representations of it in physical form.
I also didn't say race cannot be measured or identified, please don't misquote me. I said a physical thing (which race is not) is a thing that is measured or identified using the senses.
Since race is an important part of identity construction, it can certainly be identified.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
