Racism is a nonsense, malicious term

Author: Mesmer ,

Posts

Hot
Total: 151
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 56
0
1
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
0
1
4
--> @Ragnar
In short: You're confusing the term nonsense with Mesmer dislikes. If the word "racism" were nonsense, no one would have a clue what you're talking about.
No.

I'll provide a more thorough deconstruction of the term.

If "racist" meant only people who showed/had racial animosity to others, purely because of their race, I can agree with this sensical usage of "racist". It is intelligible. It is also part of the current "racist" definition that people commonly use. We agree on this.

However, "racist" isn't wholly that definition. It also has a nonsensical part which conflates racial animosity with mere mention of race. For example, when the notion of races having different I.Qs is brought up, as you guessed was in the J.P Rushton and David Suzuki debate, Rushton's research is dismissed out of hand because it is "racist", NOT because it flawed. You could argue that the research is wrong, that Rushton had racial animosity himself, but the arguments he posited themselves cannot be "racist" their function is to find truth (i.e. what are the various I.Qs of human races). THAT's the nonsense -- labelling scientific claims about race as racial animosity. THAT is not intelligible. 

Now, just so this distinction is crystal clear, **if** people were to go on and say that well, because Whites have superior I.Q. to African Americans, we should kick African Americans out of America, that is racial animosity as embodies the sensical part of the definition for "racist". If we stop one short of that, if we just say that Whites have superior I.Q. to African Americans, then this doesn't demonstrate racial animosity.

Let's take a different, practical example. Let's say we saw a Jew carrying shopping bags down the street. I see the Jew's knees shaking, the bags wobbling all over the place, and so I say, "That Jew is struggling to carry those bags". Yes, that's not a positive thing to say, but it's what I deem to be the truth. Now, you could turn around and say, "You must hate Jews. You are racist." So, functionally, we've turned a non-positive empirical description into something that is ascribed as having racial animosity which axiomatically cannot be truthful, if we use the term "racist" there. So: perceived truth =/= ever truth, is what we get when we use the term "racist" in that way, which I hope you can see as nonsense.

Again, for clarity, **some** of the definition of "racist" IS intelligible and something I can agree with you on. However, not **all** of the definition is intelligible, and thus this renders the definition nonsense.

Hopefully that is clear now.

I enjoy being taller, but if I were too tall I would have related heart problems. Height is only better relative to some given task; while I am able to lift things off the top shelf more easily than a short person, they can get the bottom more easily; working together with those who are different leads to greater utility.
Within your first sentence, you're already starting to objectivize how tall someone should be: "but if I were too tall...". Clearly, even if only subconsciously, you already agree that certain heights are better than others.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but height plays a major role in what people subconsciously think of you, and thus correlates with desirable life outcomes. Height effects your ability: to attract a sexual partner (especially for men), ability to play most sports, ability to move up faster at corporate jobs (only minor correlation to be fair), ability to instantly garner respect of people (for the most part), ability to be seen as a leader etc. Happy to provide sources if need be.

Therefore, I think we can safely say that having more height (to an extent, as you've indicated) is more desirable -- it isn't all subjective.

Simplifying this down on just intelligence: imagine a society made up primarily of copies of the greatest genius: With that staggering intellect, he's unhappily forced to engage in every low intellect trade to keep the society going, thereby making it torture. Of course on this I do not speak of racism, but Rickism.
We know the real world outcomes of top-end intelligences with people like Terence Tao (I.Q. 230), Marilyn Vos Savant (I.Q. 228) and Christopher Hirata (I.Q. 225) who aren't being tortured by boredom, but are instead flourishing in life Here Is The Highest Possible IQ And The People Who Hold The World Record | Science Trends . So, for now, more intelligence is better for the top-end people, and for the average Joe, surely you agree that they would benefit from more intelligence. So, objectively, more intelligence is currently better for everyone.

I'll assume you agree that being physically more attractive is desirable, given that you didn't address it.

Anyway, my overall point is that most people can agree that having certain traits or better traits is desirable, and your 'everything is subjective' spin isn't congruent with reality. Therefore, it remains possible to select for positive human traits (e.g. higher I.Q.), and then determine which race of humans are genetically better than others.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 4,895
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
--> @Mesmer
As you exemplified above, neither certain traits nor better traits, are necessarily perfect traits....In fact, certain traits can be profoundly undesirable.

Desirability  would seem to depend  as much upon the circumstance, as it does upon the trait itself. 


And better at what?

Wherein do you see the necessity for a specific betterness?

I would suggest, technological development.


I would also suggest that a diverse gene pool is always beneficial.

Pedigrees have a tendency to develop genetic flaws.
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 81
0
1
4
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
0
1
4
--> @Mesmer
I am arguing that 'behavioral trait', in this instance, doesn't have to be voluntary. Unless 'behavioral trait' is in every circumstance 'involuntary' (even your source doesn't agree with you: "In humans, behavioral traits are often learned rather than instinctive" (i.e. often means not always)), then you can't make this absolutist argument.
An instinctive action is not the same as an automatic biological process - such as growing hair or the beating of the heart. It is not controversial that the skin of different races has different biological traits.
Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,914
5
9
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
9
10
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 386
2
4
8
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
2
4
8
--> @Mesmer
(1) that it is a outdated framework (and why that would matter)
the creator the the IQ test
literally
doesnt value the IQ test



(3) that intelligence is subjective
there is no empirical standard for intelligence
there never has been one
there never will be one
animals are seen to be incredibly unintelligent compared to humans
but that is due to certain applications of frameworks
those of which being incomplete, you cant exactly put faith in a framework thats trying to measure something with no many causes, factors, processes,
especially without the understanding of intelligence or medical/scientific  approaches of sophisticated value that we just dont have
and also to be subjective just means that there is no objective truth to it
one person can consider foraging in early anprim societies
to be insanely intelligent
compared to how humans now even with technology and rapid scientific testing/scientific method
still believe anti-vax for example
does any of that not make sense

Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 56
0
1
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
0
1
4
--> @MarkWebberFan
I think those "others" include factors which are region-specific. The source you mentioned is using a useful metric, enough to know the general trend of racism but not the specific reasons for it. I think one of the specific reasons why an arab would act racist towards a non-arab has more to do with islam and its close ties to the arab culture. For example, Qatar had provoked the international community about its abusive treatment of muslim labor workers from non-arab countries. I think these factors are ultimately region-specific. I don't know much about the west's racial tolerance. I do maintain that experience has more influence on any kind of racism.
True. I didn't provide a great example, due to the confounding variables you listed.

I'll provide a better argument now to support the idea that racial disliking/hatred of other races is, at least, somewhat innate.

My argument in short: Research shows that people who like others who have closer similarity to themselves. Furthermore, as a trait becomes more heritable, the more important it becomes for friends/spouses/social groups etc. Therefore, people prefer the company of those people who are genetically more similar to them.

We consistently see that friends and spouses are more similar in many ways. Berscheid and Hatfield's (1969) performed social experiments with people to find that people are "more likely to desire a relationship with those that were seen to share attitudes. They found that the more important a shared attitude, the higher the attraction rating. For example, two people who both prefer the same type of toothpaste were not as attracted to each other as two people who shared the same religious beliefs.Similarity-Attraction Paradigm: Definition & Criticisms | Study.com

Bryne (1971) later steelmans this idea with his work, which unfortunately is behind a paywall The Attraction Paradigm - Donn Erwin Byrne - Google Books . However, we get glimpses at his work with a key result from one of his earlier works: the attraction paradigm byrne - Bing images , and a defense in 1986 of his work against criticism: (PDF) The Attraction Hypothesis. Do Similar Attitudes Affect Anything? (researchgate.net) . 

Specifically for spouses, Luo and Klohen (2005) showed that newlyweds had substantial similarity in attitudes (although, interestingly, only a "little" on personality). Moreover, this similarity mattered greatly in more important things like religion (which echoes Bercheid and Hatfield's claim) psp-882304.pdf (apa.org) . Caspi and Herbener (1990) also found that, "Consistent with other research, the results point to homogamy as a basic norm in marriage," but this study also seems to be locked behind a paywall Continuity and change: Assortative marriage and the consistency of personality in adulthood. - PsycNET (apa.org) .

We can attribute at least some of these preferences for beliefs to genes, and then argue that people like other people with similar genes to them.

Christakis and Fowler (2013) produced a jargon-heavy, somewhat mathematically dense read (at least I found it difficult to read) that says: "More than any other species, humans form social ties to individuals who are neither kin nor mates, and these ties tend to be with similar people. Here, we show that this similarity extends to genotypes.Microsoft Word - FANS v3.4.docx (arxiv.org) . It should be noted that this study suggests genomic homophily only correlates to likeability (i.e. isn't causation). A specific example involves the fact that "friends tend to have genotypes that yield similar senses of smell", in that in "the 174 most homophilic genes (top 1% [of what they tested]), olfactory transduction pathway [was] significantly overrepresented". In plain English: your sense of smell is quite important in the friends you select (something I would have disagreed with before reading this paper).

As for spouses being genetically similar, we have Domingue et al (2014) which found that "spouses are more genetically similar than two individuals chose at random" Genetic and educational assortative mating among US adults | PNAS . It should be noted that this effect is only one-third the magnitude of "educational similarity", which shows that genomic similarity absolutely does not account for the only reason why people like each other (at least according to all this research). 

We can then show that human races are genetically different, and therefore conclude that, at best, people who are more genetically different won't like each other as much (i.e. becoming indifferent), and may be disliking or hateful of those dissimilar to themselves, depending on how important the difference is.

So, people of the same race are more likely to be genetically similar to people of differing races, according to Witherspoon et al 2007. Moreover, if enough of the genome is measured, the likelihood that people of the same race will be genetically similar, when compared to people of a different race, approaches 100% (but doesn't reach it) genet67355 351..359 (nih.gov) .
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 56
0
1
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
0
1
4
--> @rbelivb
An instinctive action is not the same as an automatic biological process
There are many problems with your argument:

(1) "Behavioral trait" isn't a generically accepted term. Your definitions are a way to interpret the term "behavioral", but there isn't a universally accepted definition.

(2) What is to say that laughing isn't an automatic biological process, in response to something funny? Is it not true that sometimes people cannot help but laugh, even when they shouldn't? I don't think you've drawn a clear-enough line between the two. Perhaps this highlights Wikipedia's poor usage of the term, in that "behavioral trait" is not concretely defined, hence this conversation.

(3) You've now asserted a distinction between "instinctive action" and "automatic biological process", but the website you reference says, "In humans, behavioral traits are often learned rather than instinctive." Again, even the website you quote doesn't agree with you, because it believes instinct can play part in the "automatic biological process" **sometimes**, whereas you believe it **never** has a place in the "automatic biological process". In other words, the website you quoted has an opinion on the definition that contradicts yours.

(4) Furthermore, if I were to hypothetically grant you this distinction (i.e. accept your definition of "behavioral traits", if I am to argue that African Americans have lower intelligence than Whites, then people shouldn't be able to label that as "racist" (according to Wikipedia's definition), with your distinction in mind. The reason being is that the existence of intelligence is "an automatic biological process", not an "instinctive action".

It is not controversial that the skin of different races has different biological traits.
As it shouldn't be.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 56
0
1
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
0
1
4
--> @drlebronski
(1) that it is a outdated framework (and why that would matter)
the creator the the IQ test
literally
doesnt value the IQ test
This isn't doesn't determine the validity of I.Q, as the validity rests within an examination of I.Q itself.

So, you haven't argued as to why I.Q is outdated, you've only presented what someone thinks of it.

This posting style is a waste of people's time. If you think this paper disproves what I said, then you need to provide the argument. The fact that you haven't suggests you don't understand what you posted, haven't read what you posted (especially since you posted only the abstract, when the PDF version of the full-text was a click away), or you're too lazy to make good arguments.

Do better.

(3) there is no empirical standard for intelligence
What do you mean by "empirical standard" for intelligence?

(3) there never has been one
there never will be one
So you can predict all of the future?

(3) animals are seen to be incredibly unintelligent compared to humans but that is due to certain applications of frameworks
They're seen that way due to behavior. I agree that this alone wouldn't be a great metric to judge intelligence by, but when we have standardized tests that have a large amount of objectivity, we don't need to rely on mere observations. 

There's an entire Wikipedia page on 'Animal Cognition' and the ways animal intelligence has been tested Animal cognition - Wikipedia
There's abundant data on standardized intelligence tests that animal have undergone (I'll post one due to my time constraints) Animal IQ Ranking - Bing images 

Have you never looked at any of these?

(3) those of which being incomplete
Why are they incomplete?

(3) you cant exactly put faith in a framework thats trying to measure something with no many causes, factors, processes,
especially without the understanding of intelligence or medical/scientific  approaches of sophisticated value that we just dont have
Can you prove that humans don't have an "understanding of intelligence or medical/scientific approaches of sophisticated value" required to determine the I.Qs of people/animals?

one person can consider foraging in early anprim societies
to be insanely intelligent
Would not a standardized I.Q. test be better to objectively (as much as humanly possible) the intelligence of said creature? Why should this whimsical opinion be preferred?

compared to how humans now even with technology and rapid scientific testing/scientific method
still believe anti-vax for example
So the fact that some people are anti-vaxers means that we can't use I.Q. tests.

Got it.

FYI the scientific method hasn't changed.

rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 81
0
1
4
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
0
1
4
--> @Mesmer
As it shouldn't be.
You have entirely missed my point. You are attempting a reductio of wikipedia's definition of racism by using a fringe application of the term "behavioral trait".

Black people have darker skin - is this a behavior? Would that be a reasonable reductio?

Furthermore, if I were to hypothetically grant you this distinction (i.e. accept your definition of "behavioral traits", if I am to argue that African Americans have lower intelligence than Whites, then people shouldn't be able to label that as "racist" (according to Wikipedia's definition), with your distinction in mind. The reason being is that the existence of intelligence is "an automatic biological process", not an "instinctive action".
Yes, intelligence is not a behavior, but it is a capacity which determines behavior. If you claim that one race is more intelligent than another, then it is reasonable to infer that you believe that those races "possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance" and that they "can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another".
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 56
0
1
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
0
1
4
--> @rbelivb
Firstly, you missed responding to several of my points, all of which are reasons why your interpretation of "behavioral traits" is flawed:

(1) "Behavioral trait" isn't a generically accepted term. Your definitions are a way to interpret the term "behavioral", but there isn't a universally accepted definition.

(2) What is to say that laughing isn't an automatic biological process, in response to something funny? Is it not true that sometimes people cannot help but laugh, even when they shouldn't? I don't think you've drawn a clear-enough line between the two. Perhaps this highlights Wikipedia's poor usage of the term, in that "behavioral trait" is not concretely defined, hence this conversation.

(3) You've now asserted a distinction between "instinctive action" and "automatic biological process", but the website you reference says, "In humans, behavioral traits are often learned rather than instinctive." Again, even the website you quote doesn't agree with you, because it believes instinct can play part in the "automatic biological process" **sometimes**, whereas you believe it **never** has a place in the "automatic biological process". In other words, the website you quoted has an opinion on the definition that contradicts yours.

I'll assume you conceded them.

You have entirely missed my point. You are attempting a reductio of wikipedia's definition of racism by using a fringe application of the term "behavioral trait".

Black people have darker skin - is this a behavior? Would that be a reasonable reductio?
It's funny that you describe my application of the term as "fringe", when I established in my previous post to you that: (1) there isn't a universally accepted definition, (2) the term isn't defined by Wikipedia itself, and (3) your own citation didn't agree with your definition. It's also funny that you ignored all three of these points in your response to me.

I'll rephrase my argument in clear English so you might get it this time: the definition of "behavioral traits" is up for debate, due to no universal definition.

Skin is a noun, whilst sweating is a verb. Unless you can think of a way to "darker skin", that's not reasonable. 

Yes, intelligence is not a behavior, but it is a capacity which determines behavior.
We agree on this.

If you claim that one race is more intelligent than another, then it is reasonable to infer that you believe that those races "possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance" and that they "can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another".
Again, your definition of behavioral trait contradicts claiming intelligence as a behavioral trait, in that you have argued that behavioral traits cannot be an "automatic biological process", whereas the existence of intelligence is an "automatic biological process". Therefore, using your definition of "behavioral trait" (which I only granted to you for a hypothetical), we CAN judge people's intelligence in a discriminatory way WITHOUT acting in a "racist" (according to Wikipedia) way BECAUSE intelligence is, in your words: an "automatic biological process".
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 81
0
1
4
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
0
1
4
--> @Mesmer
"Behavioral trait" isn't a generically accepted term. Your definitions are a way to interpret the term "behavioral", but there isn't a universally accepted definition.
Your argument seems to be that since the first sentence of the wikipedia article on racism cannot support a strict, all-encompassing division between what is or is not racist, therefore the entire concept is illegible. Even granting that we found some case of a behavior differing between races which was not considered racist, this still would not mean the entire concept of racism was senseless. That is simply not how definitions work - no word has such a strict definition, especially in softer sciences like psychology or sociology.

The same wikipedia article verifies this, since it does not offer the first sentence as an all-encompassing definition, but continues:

"It may also mean prejudicediscrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity.[2][3] Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. These views can take the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems in which different races are ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities."

So I think these debates about the scope of the definition are somewhat beside the point anyway. In order to use the word racism, nobody is required to provide an absolute criteria by which in every situation we can say what is or is not racist. Instead, we require only to distinguish appropriate from inappropriate uses of the term commonly enough to make practical use of it.

I think this debate would be more productive if conservatives could get away from this attempt at refuting the idea that "all people are exactly identical in all respects" - which nobody has ever said, and is a ridiculous strawman even to bring up, but the falsehood of which conservatives seem addicted to reminding us all. Instead, it is more useful to see racism as involving those differences being relatively significant, especially when relating to that person's virtue or value to society. Racism also has the connotation of a personal prejudice toward a group on the basis of race.
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 81
0
1
4
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
0
1
4
There is nothing in the wikipedia article that actually prohibits the idea that different races sweat at different rates, or necessitates it being racist. If the definition is ambiguous, then the case of sweating is on the far side of that ambiguity, and we can safely leave distinctions around sweating-rates out of the concept of racism without the entire idea becoming meaningless.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 9,093
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Intelligence_06
TRIBALIST.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 56
0
1
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
0
1
4
--> @rbelivb
I'm not sure if you're partially blind or intentionally not responding to all of what I said (this is the second time you've done this). My very latter point needed to be responded to because it demonstrates how your argument contradicts itself **even if we agree* with your definition of "behavioral traits". 

You saidIf you claim that one race is more intelligent than another, then it is reasonable to infer that you believe that those races "possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance" and that they "can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another".

I responded withAgain, your definition of behavioral trait contradicts claiming intelligence as a behavioral trait, in that you have argued that behavioral traits cannot be an "automatic biological process", whereas the existence of intelligence is an "automatic biological process". Therefore, using your definition of "behavioral trait" (which I only granted to you for a hypothetical), we CAN judge people's intelligence in a discriminatory way WITHOUT acting in a "racist" (according to Wikipedia) way BECAUSE intelligence is, in your words: an "automatic biological process".

Even if you were to prove me wrong on the definition, you **cannot* be right due to this internal contradiction. This is a fatal concession to make for your argument.

Anyway, let's see if I can uphold my interpretation of the definition.

Your argument seems to be that since the first sentence of the wikipedia article on racism cannot support a strict, all-encompassing division between what is or is not racist, therefore the entire concept is illegible. Even granting that we found some case of a behavior differing between races which was not considered racist, this still would not mean the entire concept of racism was senseless.
So what you're saying is that despite the definition sometimes not describing accurately the thing it's meant to describe, it still makes sense. So if I were to say that, "I have two dogs," and you looked at my animals and saw that one was a dog and one was an owl, does my definition of "dog" make sense?

Why not have a definition that **does** represent what it is describing? Here, I can make one for you: racial hatred. What is a term to describe someone who wants to bash Asians because they are Asians? Racial hatred. What is a term to describe Black South Africans wanting to necklace White South Africans due to the color of their skin? Racial hatred.

That is simply not how definitions work - no word has such a strict definition, especially in softer sciences like psychology or sociology.
So now you're the authority on all definitions. You going to quote the world renowned reference.com again? Just make sure it agrees with you this time.

The same wikipedia article verifies this, since it does not offer the first sentence as an all-encompassing definition, but continues:

"It may also mean prejudicediscrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity.[2][3] Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. These views can take the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems in which different races are ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities."
I specifically addressed the other definition due to its nonsensical usage of the term "behavioral traits". 

This "may also mean" definition is also nonsense, but is far trickier to address because it's folly lies in the liberal, inaccurate application of "prejudice, discrimination or antagonism", wherein these terms allow benign, normal human behavior to turn into heinous "racist" crimes against usually colored people. It's a lot of inductive work to show that this is probably true. For example, the assembling of White groups is regarded by colored anti-racists as 'racist' due to the exclusion of colored people. Brooklyn school cutting gifted program to boost diversity  - New York Daily News (nydailynews.com)  New LAFD recruit class is nearly all male, overwhelmingly white - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

Frankly, I didn't address this part in my OP I wanted to destroy the other nonsense definition in short order.

So I think these debates about the scope of the definition are somewhat beside the point anyway. In order to use the word racism, nobody is required to provide an absolute criteria by which in every situation we can say what is or is not racist. Instead, we require only to distinguish appropriate from inappropriate uses of the term commonly enough to make practical use of it.
No.

I've dismantled the "behavioral traits" part of the definition. I've reduced you to the point wherein you're (probably) outright ignoring criticism of your interpretation of the definition of "behavioral traits". We're not "besides the point" on that.

Anyway, the whole point of a definition is to define what is and what is not part of the word. Saying that "nobody is required to provide an absolute criteria" contradicts what a definition should be. The definition should be able to clearly demarcate wherein something is and is not the term, in every situation. Funnily enough, when we accept your notion of, "we require only to distinguish appropriate from inappropriate uses of the term commonly enough", we get pants-on-head special-ed definitions that end up being whatever people feel like. That's how we get arguments saying that 'you can't be racist to White people'. you can't be racist to white people - Bing images .

I think this debate would be more productive if conservatives could get away from this attempt at refuting the idea that "all people are exactly identical in all respects" - which nobody has ever said, and is a ridiculous strawman even to bring up, but the falsehood of which conservatives seem addicted to reminding us all. Instead, it is more useful to see racism as involving those differences being relatively significant, especially when relating to that person's virtue or value to society. Racism also has the connotation of a personal prejudice toward a group on the basis of race.
I'm not conservative.

The fact is that you're fine agreeing that different races sweat different amounts, but as soon as I suggest that races have different intelligence levels, it's "racist".  You're the one saying that all races are identical when it comes to intelligence, and then saying that "nobody" believes that the races are "exactly identical in all respects".

Did evolution only apply to people from the neck down, and somehow, people of all races, despite evolving in different environments, despite having different brain sizes and skull shapes, have EXACTLY the same level of intelligence?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 9,093
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @drlebronski
one person can consider foraging in early anprim societies
to be insanely intelligent

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 9,093
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Mesmer
The fact is that you're fine agreeing that different races sweat different amounts, but as soon as I suggest that races have different intelligence levels, it's "racist".  You're the one saying that all races are identical when it comes to intelligence, and then saying that "nobody" believes that the races are "exactly identical in all respects".
In the exact same way that SOME women can lift more weight than SOME men, there are always going to be SOME people of any particular SKIN-TONE that are "smarter" than SOME people of any particular SKIN-TONE.

Qualifying and or Disqualifying someone for a particular task, based purely on their SKIN-TONE would seem to be counter-productive in most cases.

And at the same time, "RACISM" doesn't seem any more or less "evil" than any other logical fallacy.
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 81
0
1
4
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
0
1
4
--> @Mesmer
your definition of behavioral trait contradicts claiming intelligence as a behavioral trait
I didn't say that, I said that it determines behavior. Therefore if you believe one group is more intelligent, then that implies that you believe "that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance".

For the rest of it you are contradicting my statements about definitions. My point is that for any definition you give, especially for broad subjects like politics or psychology, I could give an example which seems to fit the term but doesn't fit your given definition, or vice versa. It is impossible to provide a completely airtight definition for terms like racism. Ethics and moral philosophy have the same problem, but we do not say that all ethical distinctions are meaningless for this reason.

The fact is that you're fine agreeing that different races sweat different amounts, but as soon as I suggest that races have different intelligence levels, it's "racist".  You're the one saying that all races are identical when it comes to intelligence, and then saying that "nobody" believes that the races are "exactly identical in all respects".
I would not make any broad statement about intelligence like that. And yes, I would say that making sweeping judgments about the comparative intelligence of different races qualifies as racist.

Did evolution only apply to people from the neck down, and somehow, people of all races, despite evolving in different environments, despite having different brain sizes and skull shapes, have EXACTLY the same level of intelligence?
The null hypothesis in psychology states that different groups should be assumed not to vary unless sufficient concrete evidence exists to prove otherwise. Therefore it is not my question to answer, instead if some racist wants to argue that case, they would have the burden of proof in doing so.
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 81
0
1
4
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
0
1
4
The fact is that you're fine agreeing that different races sweat different amounts, but as soon as I suggest that races have different intelligence levels, it's "racist". 
And the fact that you seem to think this self-evidently indicates some kind of hypocrisy is surprising. Anti-racists do not need to argue that all people of all races are identical in every respect. But they do argue that the claims of racists - that races differ in ways that are significant enough make broad claims about their comparative merit, and that this means their roles in society should naturally be different - are unfounded.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 9,093
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @rbelivb
Anti-racists do not need to argue that all people of all races are identical in every respect.
Well stated.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 56
0
1
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
0
1
4
--> @rbelivb
Once again, for the third time, you've failed to address every point I've made, some of which already respond to the points you make here. One that isn't addressed at all in your response is this one: 

Your wordsYour argument seems to be that since the first sentence of the wikipedia article on racism cannot support a strict, all-encompassing division between what is or is not racist, therefore the entire concept is illegible. Even granting that we found some case of a behavior differing between races which was not considered racist, this still would not mean the entire concept of racism was senseless.

My words: "So what you're saying is that despite the definition sometimes not describing accurately the thing it's meant to describe, it still makes sense. So if I were to say that, "I have two dogs," and you looked at my animals and saw that one was a dog and one was an owl, does my definition of "dog" make sense?

Why not have a definition that **does** represent what it is describing? Here, I can make one for you: racial hatred. What is a term to describe someone who wants to bash Asians because they are Asians? Racial hatred. What is a term to describe Black South Africans wanting to necklace White South Africans due to the color of their skin? Racial hatred."

This is extremely important to address because it vindicates the OP -- it shows that "racism" is a nonsense term (and also that there are better terms we could easily use).

I didn't say that, I said that it determines behavior. Therefore if you believe one group is more intelligent, then that implies that you believe "that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance".
You didn't *literally* say that, but it's a necessary implication of your argument because, according to your words, intelligence isn't a "behavioral trait", it exists as an "automatic biological process". Again, in your words, the differences in racial ability to sweat cannot be judged as "racist" because it's an "automatic biological process", and your same logic applies to intelligence because that is also an "automatic biological process". Yet when I mention that races have differing levels of intelligence, you have labelled that as "racist", despite it contradicting your definitional framework.

Therefore, even if I were to accept your definitions (I still don't), you cannot avoid this contradiction.

For the rest of it you are contradicting my statements about definitions.
Your statements **are** contradictory (as, again, is illustrated above). Me stating the contradictions doesn't make them contradictions LOL.

My point is that for any definition you give, especially for broad subjects like politics or psychology, I could give an example which seems to fit the term but doesn't fit your given definition, or vice versa. It is impossible to provide a completely airtight definition for terms like racism. Ethics and moral philosophy have the same problem, but we do not say that all ethical distinctions are meaningless for this reason.
You haven't demonstrated this at all, and the leniency issue that comes with being this generous about definitions is addressed in this section which you failed to address:  

"Anyway, the whole point of a definition is to define what is and what is not part of the word. Saying that "nobody is required to provide an absolute criteria" contradicts what a definition should be. The definition should be able to clearly demarcate wherein something is and is not the term, in every situation. Funnily enough, when we accept your notion of, "we require only to distinguish appropriate from inappropriate uses of the term commonly enough", we get pants-on-head special-ed definitions that end up being whatever people feel like. That's how we get arguments saying that 'you can't be racist to White people'. you can't be racist to white people - Bing images ."

The null hypothesis in psychology states that different groups should be assumed not to vary unless sufficient concrete evidence exists to prove otherwise. Therefore it is not my question to answer, instead if some racist wants to argue that case, they would have the burden of proof in doing so.
Yeah nice try, but you've already answered the question through the implication of your own words: "I would say that making sweeping judgments about the comparative intelligence of different races qualifies as racist." You **already** believe that people of all races, despite evolving in different environments, despite having different brain sizes and skull shapes, have EXACTLY the same level of intelligence.

Yet another contradiction you've made.

Now, we're going to watch you respond to only half of what I wrote (again).
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 56
0
1
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
0
1
4
--> @3RU7AL
"Anti-racists do not need to argue that all people of all races are identical in every respect." -- rbelivb

He's technically not wrong in saying this, but it's a strawman of the opposition's argument. 

Everyone agrees that racial differences in sweating capacity is acceptable. That's why I chose that example for the OP: race realists, progressives, liberals etc. can all agree with this. So, people can agree that racial differences can exist.

The problem arises when I.Q. is mentioned. This is where "anti-racists" typically (not always) put their blinders on and dismiss **any** data or argument as being "racist", without examining it (or understanding it). One of the points of this thread is get to people away from nonsense definitions like "racist", and move people into determining whether race realism is right or not. So, anti-racists actually need to argue that, overall, all races are identical in intelligence (instead of saying "racist" and calling it a day) -- that's the contention that needs to be addressed, not the strawman he created above.

Just to clarify the race realist position, we're talking about the average of the race's I.Qs, not the individual's I.Q. It's entirely possible to have an African American with 120 I.Q who is smarter than a White, Asian or Jew, whilst have the average of the entire African American population be 85 I.Q. which is below the average of White, Asian and Jewish I.Q.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 56
0
1
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
0
1
4
--> @rbelivb
And the fact that you seem to think this self-evidently indicates some kind of hypocrisy is surprising. Anti-racists do not need to argue that all people of all races are identical in every respect. But they do argue that the claims of racists - that races differ in ways that are significant enough make broad claims about their comparative merit,
Again, since you didn't get it the first 4 times: "according to your words, intelligence isn't a "behavioral trait", it exists as an "automatic biological process". Again, in your words, the differences in racial ability to sweat cannot be judged as "racist" because it's an "automatic biological process", and your same logic applies to intelligence because that is also an "automatic biological process". Yet when I mention that races have differing levels of intelligence, you have labelled that as "racist", despite it contradicting your definitional framework."

The only surprising thing is you missing this argument the first 4 times.

Anyway, if you want to argue that the data/arguments for race realism are wrong, then that's an intelligible debate (and they could be wrong). If race realists present data/arguments, and you dismiss them on the spot by calling them "racist" and failing to actually address the data/arguments, that's nonsense.

and that this means their roles in society should naturally be different - are unfounded.
Quote where I said or implied this or admit you're strawmanning.

It appears you have a penchant for engaging strawmans, considering that you already (incorrectly) called me a conservative: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com)
Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,914
5
9
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
9
10
--> @Mesmer
I'll provide a more thorough deconstruction of the term...
You can stand on one foot, pat your head, and rub your belly. None of that denies meaning and intelligible ideas to the term racism.

As previously summarized: "In short: You're confusing the term nonsense with Mesmer dislikes. If the word "racism" were nonsense, no one would have a clue what you're talking about."
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 56
0
1
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
0
1
4
Ragnar hasn't addressed any of the counter-argument I provided here: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) .

Instead, he has restated his conclusion.

This is functionally a concession, of which I accept.
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 81
0
1
4
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
0
1
4
--> @Mesmer
Once again, for the third time, you've failed to address every point I've made
In some of these examples I have ignored where you have misunderstood my words or simply said the opposite of what I said without much argument.

You didn't *literally* say that, but it's a necessary implication of your argument because, according to your words, intelligence isn't a "behavioral trait", it exists as an "automatic biological process". Again, in your words, the differences in racial ability to sweat cannot be judged as "racist" because it's an "automatic biological process", and your same logic applies to intelligence because that is also an "automatic biological process". Yet when I mention that races have differing levels of intelligence, you have labelled that as "racist", despite it contradicting your definitional framework.
Intelligence itself is not a behavior, but it determines behavior. Sweating is literally surface-level and has no implications for behavior.

Saying that "nobody is required to provide an absolute criteria" contradicts what a definition should be
Then I would challenge you to provide the absolute criteria of the terms "hatred" and "racial hatred" .

Yeah nice try, but you've already answered the question through the implication of your own words: "I would say that making sweeping judgments about the comparative intelligence of different races qualifies as racist." You **already** believe that people of all races, despite evolving in different environments, despite having different brain sizes and skull shapes, have EXACTLY the same level of intelligence.
This is a false dichotomy: either I make broad sweeping judgments about the comparative intelligence of different races, or I believe that all races have an exactly identical average IQ score. 

Quote where I said or implied this or admit you're strawmanning.
Then I don't understand why this argument would be important, unless it is being used to argue against things like affirmative action.