Do you find it odd that no country bans race-mixing [today]? And diversity as a whole is still legal?

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

My point is just because an action is not explicitly prohibited by law doesn't mean it is an admission that the action is condoned or glorified in wider society. Sometimes the common moral consensus can be lost in translation because of generational differences, language and cultural differences but it often is the mark of a bad faith political actor to assume abnormal behaviors in most human societies are considered normative in others.

An example is in a computer program, it is important to test and branch when invalid values are passed into the program. It is also known that computers are not perfect because of bugs in the hardware, quality of hardware fabrication, physical degradation of hardware, radiation and electrical interference. The programmer writing a general program doesn't really think much about these rare occurrences because it is not of immediate concern on the off chance their program crashes. If this programmer is writing software on life critical systems like pace makers, airplane and car computers it starts to matter. these edge cases won't just cause a computer crash but the possible death of human lives. The correctness mattered from the very beginning but the demands for correctness changes depending on the usage case and the environment. Space is an example where they use custom hardware to deal with the problems space causes to computers such has heat dissipation, space radiation on computer hardware, etc.

The lesson is that the importance of a value still exists even if the demand for rigidly following the value declines. Miscegenation isn't much of a issue in a mono racial society that allows a few foreigners to intermarry with the natives. It becomes a existential threat when they are a minority surrounded by foreign groups where any mixing causes irreversible damage to the original ethnic group and culture. The other reason why miscegenation might be banned in White countries first is because the difference between Blacks and Whites is vast genetically and culturally.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

My point is just because an action is not explicitly prohibited by law doesn't mean it is admission that the action is condoned or glorified in wider society. Sometimes the common moral consensus can be lost in translation because of generational differences, language and cultural differences but it often is the mark of a bad faith political actor to assume abnormal behaviors in most human societies are considered normative in others.

I mentioned to another user that everything that started off as "abnormal" had to have taken place first in a mono-racial society first. And these same societies who even recognize race is a real thing but have done nothing to actually legislate it, are sending signals that they are ok with it as far as human freedom goes.

In your example of people eating crap, this is behavior that only affects the individual. Regardless of how gross it is, when we have existing movements that allow people to do drugs or smoke cigarettes, then clearly there isn't much pressure or a general feeling that crap eating represents some kind of threat or moral panic.

But if your society does allow even one individual to mix with another race, then you are giving the invitation to let half-breeds participate in society, since they're not legally barred from voting, or owning property, or running a business etc. You say huge genetic differences are the reason for Whites to ban miscegenation first, but why not Native Indians? Or Tibetens? Or even Jews? All of which have far smaller numbers than Whites who exist globally. Or perhaps look at smaller countries where race mixing could still have a huge impact. The island of Jamaica for example, only has 3 million people. You only need to bring in a certain amount of Asian/European/Latino immigrants a year to transform that island from being mostly Black, to becoming another mixed society like the Dominican Republic is.

But even in these smaller and thus more fragile populations, they still haven't enacted all out Nuremberg or Jim Crow laws meant to preserve such cultural cohesion.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In your example of people eating crap, this is behavior that only affects the individual. Regardless of how gross it is, when we have existing movements that allow people to do drugs or smoke cigarettes, then clearly there isn't much pressure or a general feeling that crap eating represents some kind of threat or moral panic.

A individual's actions affects the community. Eating poop disgusts most people, if someone saw a person eating poop it would viscerally disgust them and reduce social trust in that community. Also if the person ingesting poop catches e. coli, salmonella or hepatitis A that may warrant a clinic or a hospital visit. People will be waiting in line longer for treatment for ailments that are not caused by poor life decisions. If you have universal health care that is a wasteful tax burden that puts a cost on the entire tax paying community.

But if your society does allow even one individual to mix with another race, then you are giving the invitation to let half-breeds participate in society, since they're not legally barred from voting, or owning property, or running a business etc. You say huge genetic differences are the reason for Whites to ban miscegenation first, but why not Native Indians?

There is already big social costs that deter miscegenation in most cultures. It is not uncommon to hear stories of interracial couples talking about being disowned from one or both sides of the family or feel their relationship has been estranged after announcing to their family their foreign spouse. Since there is big social costs for proclaiming opposition to miscegenation in Western countries, people will act passive aggressively to sabotage relationships whether they are aware of it or not. This might be hyper criticism of the foreign spouse, write them out of the family will or stop inviting them to social gatherings. Women also defer opinions from their group of friends, if all her friends disapprove of the relationship it is less likely that relationship will succeed in the long term. There probably are more variables that I have missed but they all deter miscegenation to the point of making a law is often seen as redundant. Also as some others have stated, to participate in the world economy, countries have to put on a face of political correctness.

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In your example of people eating crap, this is behavior that only affects the individual.

That's exactly the kind of thing a crap eater would say.