ADVERTISEMENT

'Racism' is a Matter of Definition

Mar 24, 2017
192
95
28
Racism is action and not wrongthink.


By Winston Reilly • August 24, 2020
Discrimination is part of everyday life, and though it often carries a negative connotation, it is an essential practice. For example, we discriminate against the kinds of TV programs or people we don’t like, between fact and fiction, and among activities of varying risk.

But discrimination is an act; before that, it is an opinion. Until recently the term “racism” (or sexism, or ageism) was associated with acts based on bigotry rather than merit. Systemic discrimination (e.g. racism) meant that those behaviors were widespread and baked into procedures or rules.

That has changed. The term “racism” no longer describes acts of discrimination. “Systemic racism” has become a general perception of phenomena, unburdened by the need to demonstrate rules or existing practices that institutionalize it; individual contributors to this overall pattern may not even be evident.

This could all pass without any great trauma, except that politicians, employers, and the media have refused to recognize the importance of action and instead are behaving as if the word “racism” carries the same import as it once did. This has ironically opened the door to true racism: taking action against others based purely on their imputed beliefs, or even their race.

Countless people have been treated much like the victims of the McCarthy anti-Communist witch hunts, losing their jobs and reputations based on the most meager—and sometimes, absent—evidence. A phrase subject to twisted interpretation may be enough. Just saying “blue lives matter” is contorted to mean that caring for law enforcement is a racist belief.

Persecuting people based on their beliefs or thoughts is fascistic and discriminatory at the most basic level. Yet, that is what far too many companies and institutions are doing.

Opportunity redistribution (also known as affirmative action) based on race has brought systemic racism into the mainstream. It is justified as reparations for past discrimination, regardless of whether the beneficiary or the victim of the redistribution has any connection to it.

The Justice Department found Yale University put in place rules in its admissions process that unambiguously discriminated in favor of blacks to the detriment of Asians and whites. Yale is by no means unique. Harvard University does something similar, but the courts were not persuaded that race was a sufficiently dispositive factor in admissions to cross the line.

Real-world systemic racism is also found in the public educational system, which supposedly exists mostly to serve students. Yet, teachers’ unions contract with cities to deny accountability for its members, which would help ensure the delivery of an adequate education.

School choice should be a cause célèbre for the activists demanding an end to racial inequities. Yet they are nowhere to be seen or heard as the unions press to eliminate charter schools that demonstrably offer better futures for many students, mainly underprivileged minorities, especially blacks. By this institutionalized effort to limit access to private education, these unions are perpetuating the economic deprivation cycle endemic to minority communities. This form of systemic racism may have the most severe long-term effect of any type of discrimination.

The U.S. Constitution not only enshrines equality under the law, but in many places clearly states that opportunities are to accrue to all individuals whenever possible, and the Declaration of Independence refers to the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These documents do not refer to any duty of redistribution of opportunity or equal outcomes, but only to equality of opportunity and redress of direct grievances according to law. The founding documents and current body of law do not systematically and selectively deprive a race of opportunity. Only specific entities that do so can be systemically racist.

At an individual level, the epithet “racist” is being leveled at individuals based on innate characteristics rather than any act of discrimination. This is best described as “imputed racism” and should not carry much, if any, weight.


The charge may be leveled simply because a person is white and of European ancestry. Or because he grew up in a two-parent household that valued education and hard work. Or because she fared well in the genetic lottery when it comes to intelligence and an analytical nature, allowing her to be successful by virtue of achievement. Or because he wants to feel safe and secure. Or because she believes in rationality, objectivity, and facts, and is skeptical that there is such a thing as “my truth.” Every person (only whites, by the way) forced to attend a “training” course like that which was required of employees of the city of Seattle would have been harangued until he or she accepted being (faux) racist.

In fact, the Seattle “training” process is racist at its core because it assumes that skin color directly begets values. Seattle is not the only government or corporate entity using this racist approach to curry favor with activists. In the process, it is manifesting what the psychiatric literature calls “projection”—ascribing to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself.

Black Lives Matter broadly and falsely imputes racism as a tool to force support of “racial justice.” If they really cared about black lives surviving and thriving, they would win support by being focused on black-on-black crime and the public school system in the places with the largest black populations. In 2018 (the last year of comprehensive FBI statistics), almost 90 percent of the 2,925 homicides with black victims were perpetrated by black offenders. Given that most shooting victims survive, that means that well over 10,000 blacks were shot by others of the same race.

This number dwarfs the 19 police shootings of unarmed black suspects in 2019 (half of whom were violently attacking the officer at the time of the shooting), yet seemingly BLM exists to seek redress only for this tiniest fraction of the problem. How does defunding or reducing police presence show actual concern for black lives? (Such policies do exactly the opposite, of course.)

Perhaps the worst indictment of racial justice activism is its willingness to dismiss personal responsibility. They claim that prison populations not aligned with racial demographics constitute evidence of racism rather than of personal choice or circumstance. They deflect as racist the observation that most black children are born out of wedlock and live in one-parent households, which is why so many black youths lack the guidance to grow into productive citizens instead of seeing opportunity only in crime rather than in work and achievement. This kind of denial and suppression is fundamentally racist in its impact.

In the end, it is mostly the complicity of institutions and companies that indulge this imputed racism that perpetuates the distortion of race relations. They allow it to metastasize by punishing its targets regardless of justification, sometimes while supporting programs that reek of bona fide systemic racism. It is well past time for that to end. Get the definitions, and the accusations, right.


Link
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThunderCat98
Definitions matter because understanding cannot come without commonality in the meaning of words.

So you’re telling me that if people have different meanings for words, they won’t understand each other?

Wow. You really bring some deep, enlightening shit to this board.
 
John McWhorter writes about this kind of stuff. I think he's a better writer than what you're posting. It's kind of his thing - he's a black linguist at Colombia.

He's no fan of Trump (and voted Obama), but he does have a book coming out about how woke social justice is now a religion...seems interesting when I hear him talking about this and other topics on podcasts I listen to.


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/racism-concept-change/594526/
 
Last edited:
August 17, 2020 0 Comments
Sam Ben-Meir
The Supreme Court decided on June 15 that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination. Discrimination ‘because of sex’ is unlawful. But what is it that makes discrimination morally wrong? It is useful to examine this from a Kantian standpoint because Immanuel Kant lays the foundation for recognizing the inherent dignity of every individual – and discrimination is indeed an affront to human dignity.
Kant’s moral philosophy – or deontology (‘deon’ referring to duty) – maintains that what makes an act right is that it is done for the sake of the moral law. Consequences, intended or otherwise, are irrelevant in determining the moral worth of an action. What matters is whether the action is motivated by duty, which is to say, respect for the moral law.
Kant offered several formulations of the moral law which he described as a categorical imperative, as opposed to a hypothetical imperative. A hypothetical imperative says “If you want to accomplish x… then you must do y.” A categorical imperative on the other hand says, “Do x!” Your ends, aims or desires are irrelevant. That is what makes it categorical: it is not conditional upon anything. It commands us all the same irrespective of empirical or psychological contingencies.
..............
according to Kant, .....knowledge is limited to the world of phenomena, or appearances. To the extent that our knowledge is bound by phenomena, nothing in the world including ourselves is free – as Kant observed: “[If] I were only a part of the world of sense [all my actions] would be assumed to conform wholly to the natural law of desires and inclinations, i.e., to the heteronomy of nature.” But it is also because our knowledge is limited that we are allowed to think of ourselves as free; and indeed, for the sake of morality we have to. We do not know what we are in ourselves, so to speak: “Even as to himself, the human being cannot claim to cognize what he is in himself…” – for we cannot know things in themselves, or the world as noumena. And since we cannot know, it is possible that we are free as noumenal beings.
What then is morally wrong with discrimination from a Kantian standpoint? When we discriminate against persons what we are effectively doing is saying this person or group of people lack moral worth. We have moral worth because we have the capacity for autonomy or freedom. That is why one is to be treated always as an end-in-itself, because we are rational agents capable of acting on the basis of a law that reason itself legislates. When I am prejudiced against someone I am, consciously or not, denying their capacity for moral freedom.
........................................

From a Kantian standpoint discrimination based on race – or religion, or gender – is fundamentally wrong. It is wrong, first of all, because it is dehumanizing, a denial of human dignity. When I racially discriminate, I am denying the person’s intrinsic self-worth, I am, in fact, denying their very right to exist, whether I know it or not. The moral law demands that I treat every individual as a free person equal to everyone else. If the moral law grants each of us a kind of infinite worth, it does not grant someone greater worth than anyone else.
As Patrick Linden, a professor of philosophy at New York University, said to me in an email, it is “more consonant with Kant’s ethics to disregard group membership – black, white, sex, tribe, etc. – and focus on the person as a source of freedom and value. To treat a person on the basis of their essential humanity rather than according to other categories they may be members of. That is what we want to be the universal law. This is why Kant is usually seen as morally opposed to affirmative action whatever its expedience may be. It also contradicts traditionalist understandings of workplace gender segregation.”
Discrimination is morally egregious when we use it to justify treating another human being as anything less than a human being, as anything less than a person possessed with inherent dignity, and immeasurable intrinsic value. Each one of us is an end-in-itself, a citizen within a “kingdom of ends,” as Kant put it. When I discriminate, I do not treat that person any longer as an end-in-themselves – I identify them with some group of which they are a member and allow that to define who and what they are. What I have invariably overlooked is their humanity: when I respect their humanity, I treat them with dignity, because I know they have the capacity for moral freedom and therefore infinite worth.


Unlike Winston Reilly, Sam Ben-Meir is using his real name. Your article is found in a right wing propaganda website and uses William Reilly as a Pseudonym. Both authors seem in agreement about affirmative action, but that about it. Immanuel Kant was a great thinker and philosopher. He does not take a simplistic approach to racism, nor does he blame or accuse institutions for racism. Please read the entire article at the following website. It was too large to post.

 

No shit, moron. How about you go back to the numerous instances of me explaining what "defund" the police really means over the last couple of months on here. The entire point was showing that there are different definitions and meanings of "defund," and I explained that.

You try to post what you consider are these deep thoughts that require high intellect, when in reality, they are as simply as "if people have different definitions of a word, it may cause confusion or disagreement."
 
Wow, never realized just how big a racist greed truly is, until reading this thread. Should have known though, due to already having two strikes against him. Strike one is being a far left radical. Strike two is being from out Wayne. Strike three, his own words.

are all scientologists racist? If so, greed can go to bat with four strikes.
 
Last edited:
exceptionally stupid as well. it's really amazing when he pushes the anger and stupidity levels to even new highs.
________IQ88
 
You wrote a pretty interesting article, and I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, racism has become a state of mind, and we, as humans, have this racist side in our subconscious. It will be very hard to change that, but it is possible. That is why there are more and more organizations that are trying to impose non-discriminatory ideas on people. It is slow, but it is an achievable process. If you are interested in this subject, find more on globalnews.ca, you won't be disappointed.
 
Last edited:
He's no fan of Trump (and voted Obama), but he does have a book coming out about how woke social justice is now a religion...seems interesting when I hear him talking about this and other topics on podcasts I listen to.
I have always believed politics to be like a religion to liberals. By nature people desire to believe in something and since many liberals aren't necessarily religious, politics and government become their gods.

Like a religious fanatic who interjects their god into every conversation, I have liberal friends that politicize every single statement they hear no matter how benign. From hearing "it's a beautiful day" to "information related to COVID is overwhelming and confusing", they simply cannot carry on a casual, non-political conversation without making it about politics.

This fervor and commitment is likely one of the primary reasons they have been so successful in defining the battles and narrative of the ongoing Culture War so you have to hand that to them.
 
You say quite a bit of stupid shit, but considering the obsession and idolatry of Trump by you deplorables, it's absurdly dumb to claim liberals are the ones making politics a religion.
Because politics is a false religion its followers can never be truly satisfied, that is why liberals just keep searching and searching for more laws, rules, regulations and government programs. They will never find the socialist promised land of Utopia.

As a result of this unfulfilling and never-ending quest, liberals are generally bitter, angry and resentful of anyone more successful or even ones that have fun, constantly lashing out with personal attacks on and name-calling of anyone who fits those categories. Ring familiar?

Liberals by nature lump people into groups, or voting blocs while conservatives focus on the value and worth of the individual. For instance you lump me into a group you derisively call deplorables while I view you as an angry young man who needs something more in his life.

I know who my God is and it isn't DJT or politics. My God is more fulfilling than any law or social program can ever be. I hope one day you can find the Cure for your unhappiness and anger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmeriKenny
Because politics is a false religion its followers can never be truly satisfied, that is why liberals just keep searching and searching for more laws, rules, regulations and government programs. They will never find the socialist promised land of Utopia.

As a result of this unfulfilling and never-ending quest, liberals are generally bitter, angry and resentful of anyone more successful or even ones that have fun, constantly lashing out with personal attacks on and name-calling of anyone who fits those categories. Ring familiar?

Liberals by nature lump people into groups, or voting blocs while conservatives focus on the value and worth of the individual. For instance you lump me into a group you derisively call deplorables while I view you as an angry young man who needs something more in his life.

Nothing you typed had anything to do with what I posted that refuted your accusation.

The left has never - not even during JFK days - idolized a politician like you deplorables did with Trump. And it is still ongoing. No matter how deplorable Trump's words or actions were, you sheep lined up behind him, all the while showing your ass trying to justify his words and actions.

Again, there is nothing from the left even close to the worshipping of a politician that you deplorables have shown for Trump. That alone voids your argument.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT