Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan-IW)
    Here is my post, which I made about 20 minutes ago on this thread. I think I define racism quite nicely:

    Spoiler:
    Show



    Arguably most personal characteristics are due to genetics, yet you'd find it perfectly acceptable to dislike someone on the basis of their being selfish, for example. So I don't think this is quite the right argument against racism.

    Racism is the belief in innate and significant differences between races (intelligence, empathy, work ethic, to use examples usually believed in), resulting in inequality between races. Racism such as this is quite regularly held, in a very casual, and largely harmless way (at least until effective rhetoric can whip it up).


    I'd argue racism is wrong because scientifically it is inaccurate and, more importantly, that one should judge each individual based on their own characteristics, rather than tarring races with a single brush.

    One should not confuse race with culture, as people often do. For example, one might say Asian's are harder working (sorry to use such an example). Well, I would argue it is racist to believe in this supposed and generalised view, if, crucially, the believer thinks the difference is race. If, however, they acknowledge the underlying cultural differences (which can be separated from race) as being the sole factor for inequality, then, to my mind, that is not racist. Therefore, while I personally believe in racial equality, I do not believe in cultural equality.


    Now, do your views coincide with what I am calling racist? Yes, they certainly seem to be, if we look in with any depth. You seem to be implying that 'Britain's people' are white people (the 'indigenous'), and go on to say that culturally only these indigenous are capable of achieving it (why is it that "Britain would cease to be Britain with a minority of indigenous Britons"?). For what reason is race important? It would only be if you believed that race determines ones characteristics, in which case, under the definition I outlined, you would be racist.

    "You wouldn't question an Australian aboriginal celebrating their heritage"

    This is not racism. As my first post shows, one must differentiate between race and culture, something you seem unable to do. Anyone is morally entitled to celebrate their culture, yet to celebrate race (as you seem to be implying), would be racist - it would be the celebration of the belief in racial difference.

    "Maybe you'd like to challenge how something is "morally wrong" when morals are always relative in accordance to the politics and society of the time anyway (the current state of which I simply disagree with)." What constitutes as being morally sound may change, but that doesn't mean morality alters. I don't think you're much of a philosopher, stay off that territory.

    I can assure you I will be completely indifferent when(/if) the 'indigenous' people of Britain become the minority - but then I hold no National Pride (why would one be proud of something one had no influence over? sorry, I shouldn't expose you to too many radical concepts). Yet I am an 'indigenous' Britain, and I certainly don't hate myself. I would be very willing to celebrate many elements of Britain's culture - the long standing rights of the individual, for example.

    I can assure you Peter Hitchens would not agree with you, and Bercow has had a radical alteration of belief (he was believed to be on the verge of defecting to the Labour benches for a while). But I don't doubt there are some nut heads on fringe of the party who may share your views, but I had discounted them when I only included those with reasoned thought.


    I dont even get what your trying to say speak normal.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chloem257)
    That's the kind of generalisation that COMPLETELY undermines the arguments that you make. Any argument based on generalisation and unfounded prejudice (like the arguments of the BNP, funnily enough) are inherently flawed.
    Yes; because one clumsy word uttered in the early hours of the morning completely destroys every point I've made. Even more so than claiming everyone who believes in the nation-state is a Nazi (only it wasn't late then). Generalisations. LOL. :awesome:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    This is mainly a load of individualist libertarian nonsense which ignores any collective duty - been refuted billions of times before; won't need to do it again blah blah. :yawn: And that wouldn't be my definition of racism anyway. Racism is clear contempt and hatred for people of a different race (and I don't hate anyone of other races).
    How very open-minded. Glad to see that you're open-minded enough to say that we should all be free to vote for BNP and their unfounded nonsensical claims but all other views can go and jump off a cliff. how very deeply intelligent you are
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    That's because I'm not.



    No. It's just that everyone who loves multiculturalism in this forum are ignorant middle-class liberal fools who wouldn't have experienced it at all.



    Within 30 years, whereas common consensus is 50 or 60 years before Britons become a minority. Squish. :awesome:

    These are basically a load of empty (haha) personal attacks with no counter argument anyway. So I don't exactly see how you can justify your claims. :giggle:

    My point is that the whole notion has so many holes (aforementioned ambiguity regarding the definition of indigenous Britons, and it's relevance to your argument, the fact that the figures are based on immigration rising at the same rate for the next 50 years which isn't plausible at all, and lots more obvious things which I can't be bothered to mention) that you are clearly either far stupider than you like to pretend, or deliberately arguing for the fun of it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Yes; because one clumsy word uttered in the early hours of the morning completely destroys every point I've made. Even more so than claiming everyone who believes in the nation-state is a Nazi (only it wasn't late then). Generalisations. LOL. :awesome:
    Hmmm I didn't know that time affected your reading, as I didn't say that that particular generalisation undermined your arguments. It's just a shame that the rest of them are filled with the same kind of generalised nonsense. Oh dear.

    And again, get your reading glasses on sweetheart, because I didn't claim that EVERYONE who believed in the nation-state was a nazi, I claimed that nazism is a form of nationalism that was extreme, like the far-right policies of the BNP.

    I love people who can't read. LOL :woo:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chloem257)
    How very open-minded. Glad to see that you're open-minded enough to say that we should all be free to vote for BNP and their unfounded nonsensical claims but all other views can go and jump off a cliff. how very deeply intelligent you are
    I didn't say who people should vote for, and the last time I checked, disagreeing with individualism doesn't mean I'd interfere with the democratic process to prevent people supporting it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    This is mainly a load of individualist libertarian nonsense which ignores any collective duty - been refuted billions of times before; won't need to do it again blah blah. :yawn: And that wouldn't be my definition of racism anyway. Racism is clear contempt and hatred for people of a different race (and I don't hate anyone of other races).
    Oh the lols. Good work. Hypocrisy anyone? That is such terrible and unfounded reply. I'm deeply disappointed in you. I was hoping for more flowery language used in the hope of it being able to hide the fact that what you're saying has no founding.

    And you'd also be using an incorrect definition of racism - perhaps the mainstream one, but still an incorrect one (and I'm sure you can sympathies with me in rejecting the mainstream).

    (Original post by Kutie)
    I dont even get what your trying to say speak normal.
    Hmm,

    Belief in racial inequality = Racism
    Racism = Bad
    Culture =/= Race
    [Neccessarily Benevolent = moron]

    :p:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chloem257)
    Hmmm I didn't know that time affected your reading, as I didn't say that that particular generalisation undermined your arguments. It's just a shame that the rest of them are filled with the same kind of generalised nonsense. Oh dear.

    And again, get your reading glasses on sweetheart, because I didn't claim that EVERYONE who believed in the nation-state was a nazi, I claimed that nazism is a form of nationalism that was extreme, like the far-right policies of the BNP.

    I love people who can't read. LOL :woo:
    Yes, and I clearly explained how the BNP are nothing like the Nazi Party with no response besides a load of 'Secret Agent' crap from someone else. :teeth:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    No. It's just that everyone who loves multiculturalism in this forum are ignorant middle-class liberal fools who wouldn't have experienced it at all.
    I love multiculturalism.
    So long as there are, for the most part, large geographical divides between all the many glorious cultures this world has gradually accrued, and social resistance to their merging.

    Multiculturalism in the modern sense of complete homogeneity is not multi cultural at all. It's more like "monocultural", and I find it to be most tragic.

    I'm described as racist (and sexist and whatever else) by some people (in a pejorative sense), because I am quite racially aware, and appreciate the differences between races, cultures, religions, genders, etc., etc. And, omfg, I do believe there are big differences. I think it's beautiful, and I very glad the world is so varied and full of wonder and new things to experience.

    That's precisely why I am somewhat opposed to globalisation and the merging and destruction of different cultures and traditions.



    By the way, the valid observation that people have mixed and interchanged ideas throughout all of history is really not relevant. The current rate of transition is utterly unprecedented, and that is the problem.
    It's analogous to denying obesity as a problem by citing the fact that humans have always eaten food for as long we've existed.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arturo Bandini)
    My point is that the whole notion has so many holes (aforementioned ambiguity regarding the definition of indigenous Britons, and it's relevance to your argument, the fact that the figures are based on immigration rising at the same rate for the next 50 years which isn't plausible at all, and lots more obvious things which I can't be bothered to mention) that you are clearly either far stupider than you like to pretend, or deliberately arguing for the fun of it.
    There's no ambiguity over what an indigenous Briton is. They're of English, Scot, Irish and Welsh ancestry; there are clear definitions everywhere. And, you're stupidly ignoring the fact that immigration is not the only thing that contributes to the growth of an area's ethnic genome :facepalm:

    Again, a load of pointless personal attacks with no substance. :yes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ha ha. Your're so racist(!) Not really. Though BNP policy is a bit wrong in many respects. If I vote for them then I'm a racist according to commies, leftists, anti-facists and the politically correct brigade.

    However, I do agree that some illegal immigrants do bring in some diseases from abroad since they may come from a country where health is a bit crap.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan-IW)
    Awww come on - reply. I think I'll be quite justified in thinking you've conceded defeat if you don't attempt to reply properly.
    You have a pretty limited understanding of debate if you think not replying seriously when the aim is futile (as I've experienced with essentially every individualist I've come across) is 'conceding defeat'. If I thought it was worth the time and effort I'd list a hundred criticisms of individualist libertarianism, but I simply can't be bothered. You can say you've 'won' the debate if it'll make you sleep better tonight, but, quite honestly, you shouldn't take it so seriously. :teeth:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    You have a pretty limited understanding of debate if you think not replying seriously when the aim is futile (as I've experienced with essentially every individualist I've come across) is 'conceding defeat'. If I thought it was worth the time and effort I'd list a hundred criticisms of individualist libertarianism, but I simply can't be bothered. You can say you've 'won' the debate if it'll make you sleep better tonight, but, quite honestly, you shouldn't take it so seriously. :teeth:
    Nothing in what I have said is libertarian - it is simply liberal, in the way that the UK is a liberal democracy (except perhaps the irrelevant point of patriotism - but that does not concern us with the main debate), that's a feeble attempt to dodge.
    This is really rather pathetic, and it highlights the glory of free speech - those with no substance are shown for the imbeciles they are.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan-IW)
    Nothing in what I have said is libertarian - it is simply liberal, in the way that the UK is a liberal democracy (except perhaps the irrelevant point of patriotism - but that does not concern us with the main debate), that's a feeble attempt to dodge.
    This is really rather pathetic, and it highlights the glory of free speech - those with no substance are shown for the imbeciles they are.
    :rolleyes: I think I've demonstrated my points quite clearly. Just because you and the rest of the goody two shoes self-hating apologetics on this forum don't believe in the nation doesn't mean it's wrong. To be frank, if you're not proud to be British then you don't deserve anything from Britain. :awesome:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hogo)
    It would be better if the whole world was mixed. This ***** word 'indigenous' should be taken out of the dictionary.

    Lets just live as humans and make history ourselves, instead of looking back at years gone by and trying to re -live Henry VIII eras or whatever geographical locations past culture.

    That would be fun.
    You may want the entire planet to be mixed (which is in fact a very cringeworthy prospect regardless), but the fact is that this is not happening. The West is being mixed, and the East are being allowed to keep their own traditional characteristics. It's unfair and wrong. Every peoples have a right to identity, including white people.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asian-Oly)
    Asian refers to my half of my body that is chinese, ihave no problem with the chinese as they are not extremists and dont continually suicidally bomb innocent members of the public.

    Second/third generation immigrant are you? Nick Griffin would have you on your way back to China faster than you could say 'bigot'...

    The BNP don't give a **** whether you're African, Chinese, Indian or Polish.

    It is wrong to be racist, and seeing as you wouldn't even be allowed to join the party you support on the grounds that your not of the 'white British race', you are an idiot - a racist idiot.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    Second/third generation immigrant are you? Nick Griffin would have you on your way back to China faster than you could say 'bigot'...

    The BNP don't give a **** whether you're African, Chinese, Indian or Polish.

    It is wrong to be racist, and seeing as you wouldn't even be allowed to join the party you support on the grounds that your not of the 'white British race', you are an idiot - a racist idiot.
    Your version of the BNP:








    :awesome:

    Plus, I'd still love someone to come up with a full and satisfying definition of this word, 'racism'. It's seemingly thrown about like a basketball yet no-one actually knows what they mean. Why? Because it's simply a weapon used to steer clear of any rational point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    You may want the entire planet to be mixed (which is in fact a very cringeworthy prospect regardless), but the fact is that this is not happening. The West is being mixed, and the East are being allowed to keep their own traditional characteristics. It's unfair and wrong. Every peoples have a right to identity, including white people.
    I couldn't agree more. I wish we had an equivalent of Pakistan that we could travel to so we could some how 'opt' out of this bloody multicultural experiment. I mean I wouldn't mind if it worked both ways somehow but it seems like a lot of giving by us and taking by minorities who are steadily growing to be a majority in their own right over time. I mean look at America, there are huge rifts and very little overlap between the three main ethnic groups.

    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    I think I've demonstrated my points quite clearly. Just because you and the rest of the goody two shoes self-hating apologetics on this forum don't believe in the nation doesn't mean it's wrong. To be frank, if you're not proud to be British then you don't deserve anything from Britain.
    Agreed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asian-Oly)
    Asian refers to my half of my body that is chinese, ihave no problem with the chinese as they are not extremists and dont continually suicidally bomb innocent members of the public.
    "Q: Why are you against mixed-raced relationships?


    A: We are against mixed-raced relationships because we believe that all species and races of life on this planet are beautiful and must be preserved. When whites take partners from other ethnic groups, a white family line that stretches back into deep pre-history is destroyed. And, of course, the same is true of the non-white side. We want generations that spring from us to be the same as us, look like us, and be moved by the same things as us. We feel that to preserve the rich tapestry of mankind, we must preserve ethnic differences, not ‘mish-mash’ them together."

    http://web.archive.org/web/200407050...html#mixedrace

    Idiot.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Your version of the BNP:








    :awesome:

    Plus, I'd still love someone to come up with a full and satisfying definition of this word, 'racism'. It's seemingly thrown about like a basketball yet no-one actually knows what they mean. Why? Because it's simply a weapon used to steer clear of any rational point.

    Racism is discrimination based on ethnicity. There you go.

    My 'version' of the BNP is the version thatis plain to see from their own manifesto and website (that was quite an amusing half hour actually).

    The BNP's policy is to put the interests 'white British' people before those of people of other ethinic backgrounds, this policy is discriminatory on the grounds of ethnicity and thus is racist. A party with racist policies can only be defined as racist.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.