all 7 comments

[–]Gravi 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Stereotypes and prejudices exist for good reason, they were often true but are they now? Not always, but 13% of the population for some reason still stands.

[–]send_nasty_stuff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Prejudice is making up your mind about someone based on only superficial investigation.

Nobody really disputes this. Not even 'racist' alt right white nationalists.

If you need to hire an intelligent person, and therefore you refuse to even interview blacks because blacks have on average lower IQs, this is a form of prejudice.

In the modern west even conservatives don't operate with this type fictitious prejudice. In fact I find conservative businesses more willing to hire competent blacks women and gays then other types of business owners because having a 'diverse' staff protects you from criticism and lawsuits. The 'prejudiced' evil white business owner idea comes from a different time period and the history of why white business owners only hired white men is distorted for political purposes. Hollywood, media, and academia has created a boogeyman of the the prejudiced white man that is inaccurate historically and presently.

Here is the definition of racism:

the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.

The definition of racism is constantly changing. The definition being used in any given scenario is always the one that paints the 'target' in a negative light and the 'victim' in a positive one. It's a political weapon and nothing more. If you go back before the word 'racism' was invented you see a world with tribes, nations and nation states that were ALL aware of racial characteristics. Everyone knew the different groups of people had different intelligence, traits and dispositions. Everyone knew that culture was downstream from the genetics not the other way around. Today this is flipped by a group of financiers that want world government with a docile, submissive, accepting mass of humans turned into service machines to the elites. If you want to run a slave state you can't have competing nations or any religions that oppose world government.

If you know someone who exhibits behaviors consistent with stereotypes of his race, then to say these behaviors are a result of his race would be racist.

What about the scenario where a scientist has exhibited a birth defect or advantage in a certain haplo group? If said scientist applied just an observation to treatment of public health policy would it be racism?

Another question I have for you. I was basically race blind growing up and through most of adulthood. I was confrontational with anyone that exhibited any signs of 'racism' in their interactions with me or others. In my entire life I only met one or two people that really held an racial observations and neither of those two saw one race as 'inferior' or superior. That being said I'm seeing an enormous number of people in my personal life and online that are becoming racially aware. When I confront these people they all say it's because they observe that they are under attack for their own racial characteristics.

Is it not ok for people to become racially aware when being attacked by others? How are you suppose to defend yourself from racial attack if you act like everyone who attacks you is doing in individually? How do you defend yourself if you're not allowed to call others to you cause? Do people not have the right to preserve themselves collectively? If a race blind 'green' person notices the teal people getting together to trick, subvert and kill them are the green people not entitled to group up and defend themselves?

If you know someone who exhibits behaviors consistent with stereotypes of his race, then to say these behaviors are a result of his race would be racist. But it would not be prejudiced.

In the world of people who believe in 'racism' prejudice is always at play because most people that believe in 'racism' also believe that the racist is 'ignorant' and has not investigated the traits of the person in question enough.

[–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Is it not ok for people to become racially aware when being attacked by others?

Awareness of all attributes is useful. The problem is that the alt-right is only aware of race, but is unaware of religion, culture, evolutionary forces, and most everything else. This is why they are morons.

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

I also wouldn't refuse to interview a person for a job based only on race, I want to give everyone a chance to demonstrate competence no matter what color they are.

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

Why is your first example a form of prejudice? Given that most blacks are stupid and you probably can't extensively interview and test every applicant, not interviewing blacks would simply be a statistically valid economisation of your time. You are also just doing the sensible and responsible thing by not exposing yourself and other staff to dangerous wildlife. Also, why would you even consider hiring blacks if white applicants were available?

Obviously the definition of racism given is just basically not being insane.

[–]fschmidt 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The meaning of "prejudice" has devolved, but originally it just meant to pre-judge. With that definition, your argument may justify prejudice but doesn't exclude it.

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

In that case most hiring would necessarily involve prejudice, since the only way to know how good the person would be as and employee would be to try them out for a few months or years.