Conquer Club

Ray Rider wrote:And Phatscotty, I'm surprised that you would create a topic and then jeer at those such as Neoteny and Tonkaed who are willing to put time and effort into discussing it! What are you thinking?

Neoteny wrote:The way the question is worded and how "racist" could be defined are what prompts my statement. If it's a question of whether it is racist to oppose someone for office because you feel his race is less capable in office, then I'd say that it's obviously probable. If it's "as racist" to support as to oppose due to differing physical features, I'm not so sure. If you are deciding between two politically identical candidates except that one is white and one black, and I pick the white guy because I am also white (suppose I'm superficial like that), it's hard to say if I feel that's racist. Is it wrong to support the bald guy because I too am bald? It seems that if you consider race to be nearly arbitrary like I do, you can pick between "races" for something silly like similarity to oneself or something subjective like aesthetics and not necessarily be racist. I feel this because racism seems to be more about the capabilities of an individual rather than how he looks. If I acknowledge that both individuals are equally politically competent, and pick the white guy because he has the same skin tone as me, I'm not sure I would consider myself racist (nor would I consider a black man racist for doing the same thing). It seems that there's a subtle wrinkle there that you have not considered.

Neoteny wrote:Well, of course, but you're simplifying again (whether it is because you don't understand, I don't know, sorry the hypothetical bit about the identical politicians went over your head). If a white person is voting for white people because they think white people are better at politics, than it's racist. If they're voting for white people because they are better politicians who happen to be white, then it's not racist.

Neoteny wrote:I edited my post, but, more specifically and in short, racism is the view that the differences between races are significant enough to allow for one race to be superior to the other in some fashion.

As such, I think it is theoretically possible to vote based on race and not be racist, but, to add to what I said earlier, individuals (even within a race) are different enough to make the odds of that happening in reality pretty close to zero. Hence, voting based on race is not inherently racist. Voting based on the thought that one race is better than the other is.

Rustovitch wrote:I am not sure I would normally vote for a person of a different race for fear that they would pursue 'racial politics' to the detriment of my race and society.

I think that makes me a realist, not a racist.

xelabale wrote:

Rustovitch wrote:I am not sure I would normally vote for a person of a different race for fear that they would pursue 'racial politics' to the detriment of my race and society.

I think that makes me a realist, not a racist.

Fear of a different race is racism

xelabale wrote:

Neoteny wrote:The way the question is worded and how "racist" could be defined are what prompts my statement. If it's a question of whether it is racist to oppose someone for office because you feel his race is less capable in office, then I'd say that it's obviously probable. If it's "as racist" to support as to oppose due to differing physical features, I'm not so sure. If you are deciding between two politically identical candidates except that one is white and one black, and I pick the white guy because I am also white (suppose I'm superficial like that), it's hard to say if I feel that's racist. Is it wrong to support the bald guy because I too am bald? It seems that if you consider race to be nearly arbitrary like I do, you can pick between "races" for something silly like similarity to oneself or something subjective like aesthetics and not necessarily be racist. I feel this because racism seems to be more about the capabilities of an individual rather than how he looks. If I acknowledge that both individuals are equally politically competent, and pick the white guy because he has the same skin tone as me, I'm not sure I would consider myself racist (nor would I consider a black man racist for doing the same thing). It seems that there's a subtle wrinkle there that you have not considered.

That is the definition of racism.

Neoteny wrote:Well, of course, but you're simplifying again (whether it is because you don't understand, I don't know, sorry the hypothetical bit about the identical politicians went over your head). If a white person is voting for white people because they think white people are better at politics, than it's racist. If they're voting for white people because they are better politicians who happen to be white, then it's not racist.

This is true but not what you said before.

Neoteny wrote:I edited my post, but, more specifically and in short, racism is the view that the differences between races are significant enough to allow for one race to be superior to the other in some fashion.

As such, I think it is theoretically possible to vote based on race and not be racist, but, to add to what I said earlier, individuals (even within a race) are different enough to make the odds of that happening in reality pretty close to zero. Hence, voting based on race is not inherently racist. Voting based on the thought that one race is better than the other is.

This is the definition of racism.

Voting based on race alone IS racism. That's what it means. Your fine distinctions are meaningless, you even acknowledge that yourself by saying " I think it is theoretically possible to vote based on race and not be racist". Theoretically? Who gives a shit, the fact is 99.9999% of people who vote based on race ARE racist. Therefore we can categorise this as wrong and not worry about upsetting the 0.00001% of people who may theoretically have not been racist.

MeDeFe wrote:I don't know what point you're arguing against, but it is certainly not the one Neo made. Namely that voting based on race can be structurally identical to voting for a person because they have the same haircut as oneself.

MeDeFe wrote:

xelabale wrote:

Neoteny wrote:The way the question is worded and how "racist" could be defined are what prompts my statement. If it's a question of whether it is racist to oppose someone for office because you feel his race is less capable in office, then I'd say that it's obviously probable. If it's "as racist" to support as to oppose due to differing physical features, I'm not so sure. If you are deciding between two politically identical candidates except that one is white and one black, and I pick the white guy because I am also white (suppose I'm superficial like that), it's hard to say if I feel that's racist. Is it wrong to support the bald guy because I too am bald? It seems that if you consider race to be nearly arbitrary like I do, you can pick between "races" for something silly like similarity to oneself or something subjective like aesthetics and not necessarily be racist. I feel this because racism seems to be more about the capabilities of an individual rather than how he looks. If I acknowledge that both individuals are equally politically competent, and pick the white guy because he has the same skin tone as me, I'm not sure I would consider myself racist (nor would I consider a black man racist for doing the same thing). It seems that there's a subtle wrinkle there that you have not considered.

That is the definition of racism.

Neoteny wrote:Well, of course, but you're simplifying again (whether it is because you don't understand, I don't know, sorry the hypothetical bit about the identical politicians went over your head). If a white person is voting for white people because they think white people are better at politics, than it's racist. If they're voting for white people because they are better politicians who happen to be white, then it's not racist.

This is true but not what you said before.

Neoteny wrote:I edited my post, but, more specifically and in short, racism is the view that the differences between races are significant enough to allow for one race to be superior to the other in some fashion.

As such, I think it is theoretically possible to vote based on race and not be racist, but, to add to what I said earlier, individuals (even within a race) are different enough to make the odds of that happening in reality pretty close to zero. Hence, voting based on race is not inherently racist. Voting based on the thought that one race is better than the other is.

This is the definition of racism.

Voting based on race alone IS racism. That's what it means. Your fine distinctions are meaningless, you even acknowledge that yourself by saying " I think it is theoretically possible to vote based on race and not be racist". Theoretically? Who gives a shit, the fact is 99.9999% of people who vote based on race ARE racist. Therefore we can categorise this as wrong and not worry about upsetting the 0.00001% of people who may theoretically have not been racist.

But Neoteny never said to vote ONLY based on race. In his hypothetical case you have the choice between two equally qualified candidates, if one were to decide who to vote for based on the candidate's skin tone after considering all the relevant factors for the job, is it really racist? Is it as racist to vote for the person whose skin tone resembles ones own more closely, as to vote for the person whose skin tone resembles ones own less closely? And how is it any different from picking one of them over the other because he wears glasses, just like oneself?

I don't know what point you're arguing against, but it is certainly not the one Neo made. Namely that voting based on race can be structurally identical to voting for a person because they have the same haircut as oneself.

xelabale wrote:

Neoteny wrote:The way the question is worded and how "racist" could be defined are what prompts my statement. If it's a question of whether it is racist to oppose someone for office because you feel his race is less capable in office, then I'd say that it's obviously probable. If it's "as racist" to support as to oppose due to differing physical features, I'm not so sure. If you are deciding between two politically identical candidates except that one is white and one black, and I pick the white guy because I am also white (suppose I'm superficial like that), it's hard to say if I feel that's racist. Is it wrong to support the bald guy because I too am bald? It seems that if you consider race to be nearly arbitrary like I do, you can pick between "races" for something silly like similarity to oneself or something subjective like aesthetics and not necessarily be racist. I feel this because racism seems to be more about the capabilities of an individual rather than how he looks. If I acknowledge that both individuals are equally politically competent, and pick the white guy because he has the same skin tone as me, I'm not sure I would consider myself racist (nor would I consider a black man racist for doing the same thing). It seems that there's a subtle wrinkle there that you have not considered.

That is the definition of racism.

GabonX wrote:I get it.

So what you're saying is that if I only vote for blonde haired blue eyed white people because I think they’re prettier than everyone else, this is not racist..

Thanks for clarifying.

Phatscotty wrote:I see we have come a pretty good way with tolerance. There are just a few who are still dealing with issues and trying to better understand. Thank you all for participating

istanbul39 wrote:another stupid poll from the angry white man in Saint Paul....

pathetic

istanbul39 wrote:another stupid poll from the angry white man in Saint Paul....

pathetic