/lit/ - Literature

Racism is a spook.

better have a definition first

not being obtuse, it could figuratively mean "bad thing"

I wouldn't ever use the word "objectively" in the same page as morality, but if by "racism" you mean the position that considers discrimination based on physical characteristics legit, then, at least from my point of view, it is wrong because, even if there were some differences, those aren't usually big enough to presume anything about a person and getting to know the actual abilities of someone is a more viable method of selection.

Most racism is actually culturalism.

there is no race, simply groups of people who need to be eradicated for the greater good of the world

>>4811558
winner

wether or not there's human races is as arbitrary as wether or not Pluto is a planet. there's no exact definition of "race".

>>4811562
who is that then

If empathy is a form of objective morality, and racism is a rationalization for lack of empathy, then yes, racism is objectively wrong.

Do you mean 'bad' or 'incorrect' when you say 'wrong'?

>>4811580
"injust" "evil" is more along the lines of what I meant

Racism and xenophobia is a natural state of mind, just like being wary of strangers is natural.

I have the racism of Borges or Schopenhauer.
I would say recognizing that certain races are inferior is good but being extremely violent towards these groups is bad.

>>4811646
>natural state of mind

all of my kéks

>>4811651
I love Borges' racism.

>>4811646
Being cautious of strangers is quite handy, but that doesn't have to imply racism. If the in-group includes people with different racial features then race simply stops to be one of the factors that make you weary of others.

People with ginger friends are less weary of an approaching unidentifiable ginger in the distance than people without ginger friends because the latter have reason to doubt the ginger for being ginger for the simple reason that they can conclude that gingerness implies 'not one of my people'.

>>4811660
Apparently, Invisible Man by Ellison attempts to debunk Borges's style of racism.

>>4811651
>Schopenhauer attributed civilizational primacy to the northern "white races" due to their sensitivity and creativity (except for the ancient Egyptians and Hindus whom he saw as equal):

>The highest civilization and culture, apart from the ancient Hindus and Egyptians, are found exclusively among the white races; and even with many dark peoples, the ruling caste or race is fairer in colour than the rest and has, therefore, evidently immigrated, for example, the Brahmans, the Incas, and the rulers of the South Sea Islands. All this is due to the fact that necessity is the mother of invention because those tribes that emigrated early to the north, and there gradually became white, had to develop all their intellectual powers and invent and perfect all the arts in their struggle with need, want and misery, which in their many forms were brought about by the climate. This they had to do in order to make up for the parsimony of nature and out of it all came their high civilization.[44]

>Despite this, he was adamantly against differing treatment of races, was fervently anti-slavery, and supported the abolitionist movement in the United States. He describes the treatment of "[our] innocent black brothers whom force and injustice have delivered into [the slave-master's] devilish clutches" as "belonging to the blackest pages of mankind's criminal record".[45]

Why was he so based, bros?

>>4811562
>simply groups of people who need to be eradicated for the greater good of the world
You mean bankers and multinational company owners?

>>4811542
No.
However we can say "racism" is a natural reaction

>>4811722

nah, they kill less people than thug niggers do

>>4811797
10/10

>>4811784
There's a lot of fucking retarded natural reactions.

>>4811569
>there's no exact definition of "race"
no you geniouse, but racism is based on race as a social construct... which does fucking exist you fucking dweeb

>>4811784
>EvolaKid
edgy wow

>>4811722
I'll agree with that statement. String them all up. Hang them from all the lampposts in New York City.

>>4811863
KAMPF DEM KAPITAL, MOM!

>>4811722
Are bankers a race?
inb4 the Jews

>>4811797
invalid argument, thug niggers mostly kill each other.

>>4811845
you pleb; speciation means that when given the chance, you wouldn't breed with a certain group (although offspring is still viable). as long as there are whites who only want whites then they are part of the master species, the white species. Groids are obviously part of an older branch of man because they will fuck anything (they have nowhere to fuck but up). I for one welcome speciation, imagine a future where homo dwarfus and homo masterus live together in harmony ruling the galaxy. midgets are cool.

>>4811867
No. Does this question have anything to do with my previous post?

>>4811874
>are obviously part of an older branch of man
It's not like I was taking this post seriously, but this lack of understanding of how evolution works is just cringeworthy.

>>4811722
aka the juice

>>4811819
such as?

>>4811542
well it's not /objectively/ wrong
when something is morally wrong there's nothing incorrect about it, the word is being used totally differently.
anyway, yes.

>>4811874
KEK

>>4811887
Shitting your pants when you're scared, getting up all of a sudden and hit your head with a shelf when the doorbell rings when you were sleeping, getting hard in public, etc.

>>4811655
is this sort of thing actually a main point of foucault's, or just that you've only seen that one debate

>>4811542

"Racism" remains undefined so it can be used against people.

If it means being superior to other races, you'd need to say at what. Being superior "just like that" doesn't mean much for any serious conversation.

>>4811881
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incipient_speciation

suck it, pleb

as long as there are white females who remain masterrace due to a primal desire to rather than a social one than whites are on there way to a new species

on dwarves; I know that dwarves are born from normal parents, but as long as dwarves breed together for long enough (not possible in the past), I am sure that the genetic drift will create a new species of dwarves. I am jealous of dwarves in their inherent break from the rest of humanity (it could be argued that it is a simple morphological defect and they are simply a social group, but time will change that)

nigger this isn't evolution, is a dog not still a wolf? this is simply speciation

>>4811910
I am sad to0 bring the news to mein brothers that there will never truly be a species of downies. The glorious people of down syndrome will always have a 25% conception rate of non-downie; rather disheartening that they did not truly break from the largest branch of homo sapiens.

On whites, the problem is that we are too beautiful and universally aesthetic

>>4811955
>I am sad to0 bring the news to mein brothers that there will never truly be a species of downies. The glorious people of down syndrome will always have a 25% conception rate of non-downie; rather disheartening that they did not truly break from the largest branch of homo sapiens.
Downies can simply go Spartan and reck the non-downs down the rock. Just like Africans beat albinos to death and such. You can keep culling perpetually.

>>4811960
This is true, they could treat the non-downie as being defective and chuck themn off a cliff.

The downie conception ratio is 25% non-downie, 50% downie, and 25% non-conception (both sperm and egg have an extra chromosome). I am hoping that a 48 chromosome entirely new branch of humans homo downsius will burst forth from the womb of a 47chromosome proto downie

Anyone else wish EvolaKid would just stop making posts?

This thread could do with some music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DohRa9lsx0Q

>>4811555
> not all wild animals are dangerous
> have preconceived notions about all of them to be safe
> this is not right or logical

Everyone is racist whether consciously or not. I doubt anybody on earth treats every race exactly the same. there is a reason racism exists and has been around forever. Tribe mentality (identifying as a race and/or treating other races differently) has good and bad effects, but it is innate.

>>4811881
care to explain how evolution affects physical differences only?
quit being delusional

>>4811974
The non-conception will be a natural population control blessing that allows them to be more sustainable and I imagine the downie people will have a beautiful mythology where the lesser non-downies will be seen as rightful slaves as designated by the gods and some will be spared from the cliff chuck to serve downdom. They will be neutered and forced to serve downies and will never overcome downie rule.

God it will be glorious. Imagine downie jousting fests with tiny ponies and normalfag eunuch slaves as lowly squires. Spayed aryan models in the downie brothels. genius professors reduced to candy cellar bookkeeping for their downy lords, fully realising that they are inferior weaklings because downies are immune to existential crises and will never succumb to nihilism.

>>4812001
I explained this in another thread. Basically, the mind is but a calculator and its trick is awareness and manipulation of the body. The mind evolved separate to the body, it is something different. People put our actions down to irrational stimuli (inherent sexuality, criminality, etc.) but this is erroneous. The mind as standard is but a calculator, perhaps some very basic will to survive along with that. Otherwise you're negating evolution pretty much.

>>4812016
you are a true brother

>>4811699
Indian here, Brahmins/Brahmans weren't the highest caste

>>4812045
Shut the fuck up you brown monkey.

>>4812046
>Red monkey

>>4812045
Huh?

>>4811910
You are a retard. I know what's speciation. If you READ what I quoted is the concept of nigger being an older branch. It's like arguing with a creationist who asks how come there are still monkeys.

>>4811955
>On whites, the problem is that we are too beautiful and universally aesthetic
I'm white, but looking at amerifats, rednecks and inbred britfags I can only say you're blind or fucking ignorant.

>>4811976
Me.
There are already intelligent reactionary and religionfags. We don't need that dumb-ass.

>>4812070
a wolf is an older branch of a dog, a homo sapien will be an older branch of a midget (or already is). I'm sure that niggers have their own genetic drift, I was asserting more of a hierarchy- besides niggers look like homo erectus so eat a dick.

You probably didn't even read the wiki; it basically says people who fell primally superior and sexually select for themselves are indeed superior

>>4811542


no we cant, because 'objectively', youre always 'racist', so your choice is then doing better or worse kinds of racism.

>>4811992
Your example is faulty because I assumed that there are no big differences usually between different people big enough that you can easily say "this guy is better than that guy" by just looking at them.
Instead, you can easily say that, 99.9999% of times, a lion will be less good at protecting a gazelle than a raccoon.

Tribe mentality, like everything, should be questioned with rationality.

>>4812159
>there are no big differences usually between different people big enough that you can easily say "this guy is better than that guy"
color of skin is a good indicator

>>4812170
Would you say a white guy is automatically better than a black guy in what situations?

>>4812179
in modern society, duh. let me guess; you will reply with something akin to "black people are better at sports so hah"

I live in Baltimore, where do you live?

>>4811542
Can we really say that any action or belief is wrong?
Can we really say that saying that any action or belief is wrong, is wrong?
Can we really say that saying, doing, or believing anything is wrong?

>>4812190


yes

>>4812195
So then it is agreed that all things are right and wrong, and NOT right and wrong, simultaneously.

>>4812186
Well yes, I guess when it comes to sport you can say black people are pretty good at it, but would you exclude a white guy just because he's white? I wont because I know that there is a good chance that he might be better.

I'm not saying that judging someone's ability solely on looks is inherently bad, I'd automatically prefer a 1.80m tall fit guy rather than a 1.70m tall woman for a job in a quarry, but this choice should have a certain margin of "justice" in it.
In principle I believe someone should be judged solely on their abilities but I understand that sometimes you can be easily pragmatic about it.

I'm European by the way.

>>4812201


i agreed that we could *say* saying, doing, or believing anything is wrong, not that we actually mean it :^)

(such a statement is self-destructing anyways, and still implies a more transcendent teleological framework from which we use to pass judgment on things, as we do in all things).

>>4812212
You are only hypothetically talking about race, I have practical knowledge of it. There are black people I like, but that doesn't change the reality that the ghetto is a thing and the people who live in it will never give more than they take which is fucking annoying.

Question Eurobro: Why do you guys take Muslims, but won't relieve Americans of our niggers? Only people who don't live next to iggers would argue in favor of them. Please take them.

>>4812238
>but won't relieve Americans of our niggers? Only people who don't live next to iggers would argue in favor of them. Please take them.
Starter for 10, what continent is separated from Europe by the strait of Gibraltar and the Mediterranean Sea?

>>4812212
>We're all the same except black ppl who are better ;^)
>I'm european btw

Brainwashed faggot.

>implying its wrong to be wary of blacks When they're 8x more likely to commit violent crime according to three fbi

>>4812238
When it comes to culture I agree with you, ghetto niggers or towelhead sandniggers are deeply impaired by their culture and are not compatible with ours.

If it was for me there would be no open borders in Europe and only certified skilled people that are certain to contribute to society would be allowed.

>>4812271
>reading comprehension

>>4812086
>a wolf is an older branch of a dog
They have common ancestors. What you mean is dogs have changed more in less times BECAUSE we applied eugenics to them. Note this doesn't imply they are superior to a wolf, they aren't.
In "natural" cases (where there wasn't a species voluntarily mating individuals from another species to get the results they wanted) weak individuals are the ones who start adding changes to the species (ex: how the first amphibians appeared). But anyway, current niggers have little to do with ancient times niggers, like we have little to do with neanderthals, but even that old branch stuff being true this doesn't imply a retarded hierarchy since a species that hasn't changed is a species that was already adapted so it didn't need to change.

All your shit is retarded and you know nothing about what you're talking about. And there's no wikipedia article that can change this. Now get back to your shithole (we all know where it is) where you can spread your propaganda to your mentally handicapped friends and never come back.

>>4812170
>color of skin is a good indicator
Mental capabilities and retarded beliefs are a far better indicator.

>>4812267
no idea what you are saying; are you implying that you would rather have africans than second-hand niggers than you are a greedy europoor, plz take

>>4812297
I think it is ridiculous that even if the majority were against immigration, it would still happen. We are serfs still livin' under feudalism.

Don't let the Turks into your country, it was the immigrant Turks that committed genocide against th Armenians, The Turkish government allowed the Turks from Eastern Europe territory of the Ottoman Empire to flood the Armenian territory and kill them all and live in their houses. That could be you Europe.

>>4812333


one often indicates the other.

>>4812324
your post refuted absolutely nothing

>since a species that hasn't changed is a species that was already adapted so it didn't need to change
Who brought up Aborigines?

Did you read the wikipedia article because I can explain it to you if it was too much for you?

>weak individuals are the ones who start adding changes to the species

wrong, if they are weak then they are bred out; specialized (aka strong) individuals in the group branch off into their own species (like how frogs are awesome)

http://www.examiner.com/article/blue-skinned-people-of-kentucky-fugate-family-were-inbreeders

If bluebies only fuck bluebies then they are in the proccess of speciation and genetically drifting away.