/sci/ - Science & Math

I think it might have something to do with their dogmatic upbringing.

Jews

>>6398577
Missionaries doing retarded shit in the name of their church.

>>6398577

I'm against racists, but don't have white guilt.

So please don't conflate me with the "sorry" gentlemen in that picture.

>>6398602
this

>>6398603
>I'm against racists, but don't have white guilt.
Cognitive dissonance. The only reason you'd be against racism is because of white guilt.

>>6398609
>>/pol/

>>6398612
>you

Why are you not feeling guilty for your ancestors' crimes? What's wrong with you, OP? Are you degenerate or something?

>>6398609
>mfw /pol/esmokers imply that given the universal set of all people and the subset of racists, the complementary set to the subset of racists is the subset of people with white guilt.
>in other words, this anon just implied that you're either a racist or you have white guilt.

>>6398621
>mfw /pol/esmokers imply that given the universal set of all people and the subset of racists, the complementary set to the subset of racists is the subset of people with white guilt.
Actually no, because there are those who don't care. So lets not draw faulty conclusions just so you can make a false dichotomy with your strawman here.

But seriously, according to those against racism racism benefits white people. So you're either stupid or brainwashed into feeling guilty to be against it.

>>6398626
lol
>implying that nullifies the argument.

>>6398632
>implying there was a legitimate argument to nullify in the first place
elle oh elle

>>6398638
/pol/esmoker's first logic

>>6398649
Seriously, you don't think that an environment where it is fashionable to 'hate whitey' might have had a profound influence on your current ideology? Doesn't that invalidate everything you guys have been saying about how environment is more important than genetics?

If you're a scientist or someone scientifically inclined you should question yourself because right now you're regurgitating popular mantras. Just saying you don't do this because of white guilt seems like a defense mechanism more than anything else, to blunt any damage to your ego or whatever that sees yourself like a freethinker.

>>6398659
This shit is everywhere.

>>6398609

Does that include racism against white people? Because I'm against that, too. I'm against racism, period, regardless of who it's directed at, and I don't experience white guilt.


But you're too retarded to take extraneous circumstances into account.

>>6398666
>Does that include racism against white people? Because I'm against that
What about race-based affirmative action?

>I don't experience white guilt
Repeating this ad nauseam doesn't make it true.

>But you're too retarded to take extraneous circumstances into account.
Such as? The culture you grew up in?

>>6398626
If you really didn't care, you wouldn't be in this thread trying to convince people of the tired, regurgitated platitude "anti-racism = anti-white and/or white guilt."

>>6398673
>>6398673
I never said I didn't care, you assholes made me care. I didn't care about race until I met antiracists and realized you weren't about eliminating racism, rather white people.

>>6398577
Mods delete this thread, where are the janitors?
>>>/pol/ fuck off you anti scientific edgy conservatives

>>6398672
>Repeating this ad nauseam doesn't make it true.

I would ask you the same question.

Besides, I'm not retarded enough to feel guilty for past injustices I was not alive for, regardless of how much they shaped the society I live in.

>>6398626

>But seriously, according to those against racism racism benefits white people

You assume a category "those against racism." The only trait that can be universally applied to this category is "against racism."

You then try to universally apply a second trait to this category: "think racism benefits white people."

You then try to deny the existence of people who think racism is abhorrent, but that it doesn't necessarily benefit white people in all situations (such as myself, I think racism on the part of white people alienates white people from other races: Not a benefit. I also think racism against white people, which does exist, also does NOT benefit white people)

The only set of people who universally believe racism benefits white people are of the category "people who think racism benefits white people."

You are trying to promote the notion that "I am against racism" is some kind of code-phrase for "I think racism benefits white people." But that is simply not true. It only means

"I am against racism."

>>6398678
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/kill-whitey-its-the-right-thing-to-do/

>>6398683
>I would ask you the same question.

Goddamit. I meant to say "I would say the same thing to you."

Opponents, feel free to take my lack of proofreading and extrapolate it as an utter lack of intelligence on my part, and evidence that all outstanding opinions I have are wrong. I know you will anyway, because this is 4chan, and you guys prey on small mistakes and try to turn them into big ones.

>>6398682
>implying I'm a conservative or against science

>>6398659
lol, the fact that people understand that it is wrong to discriminate based on skin color is independent of 'white guilt'. You haven't consider the fact that people may have non-white friends or simply see the flaws in racialism considering that there are many non-whites that are the polar opposite of what racialists label them? Guilt implies that an individual was the cause of oppression in the first place, it is entirely possible that a white person has nothing to do with the oppression of blacks so what would they be guilty for? Sympathy maybe but not guilt.

pol your shitposting is futile

>>6398678

>I didn't care about race until I met antiracists and realized you weren't about eliminating racism, rather white people.

I'm a white person, I'm against racism, and I haven't committed suicide yet.

Something's not right here...

Oh, it's you. You mentally translate "Racists are stupid, and suck." as "I hate white people."

How about instead of putting extra opinions in our mouths, and judging all anti-racists according to the behavior of fringe nutjob leftists (like the ones in OPs pic), how about you simply take the phrase "I am against racism" for granted, and take it to mean exactly what it literally means.

There's no symbolism going on here, you're just putting it there so you can feel justified in disliking all people who aren't racist.

This isn't science or math

>>6398683
>You assume a category "those against racism." The only trait that can be universally applied to this category is "against racism."
The point was to look for reasons why.
>You then try to universally apply a second trait to this category: "think racism benefits white people."
Well it is commonly said white people benefited from oppressing people through racism and the gains were greater than the costs of alienation.
>You then try to deny the existence of people who think racism is abhorrent, but that it doesn't necessarily benefit white people in all situations (such as myself, I think racism on the part of white people alienates white people from other races: Not a benefit. I also think racism against white people, which does exist, also does NOT benefit white people)
This seems like a post hoc justification so it suits your argument in this thread. Why does it matter if you're alienated from people of other races if it means greater wealth for you?

>>6398705
You're ruling out the possibility of people with other goals than greater wealth for only themselves.

>>6398690
>implying that sympathy is not a product of guilt

>Guilt implies that an individual was the cause of oppression in the first place
There is the whole guilty by association thing very common to antiracists.

>>6398697
>how about you simply take the phrase "I am against racism" for granted, and take it to mean exactly what it literally means.
Because it doesn't seem that simple. You seem too involved in this for there it to be a matter of you having this opinion and no associated memories that swayed you to this position. It's like you almost feel obligated to hate the racist here.

>>6398705
>if it means greater wealth for you?

It doesn't. I'm poor. So were most white people during slavery, who were yeoman farmers: That is, farmers who couldn't afford slaves.

> This seems like a post hoc justification so it suits your argument in this thread

You mean, just like:
>Well it is commonly said white people benefited from oppressing people through racism and the gains were greater than the costs of alienation.

I have never heard this, and it most certainly isn't "commonly said."

How about you just stop being racist, and stop trying to come up with what you think are "scholarly, intelligent" justifications for it.

I don't need a justification for being not racist. The justification is I don't walk around harboring hatred for people needlessly, based on little more than genetic information, and I don't walk around wondering which of my white-appearing friends are actually part black or part hispanic, so I can lay around thinking they're inferior, without having done anything.

>>6398710
I said earlier it's either guilt or stupidity. That falls under the later.

Fuck all of you

>>6398705
not that guy but whilst oppression of others may benefit the average white guy economically, the same cannot be said for every white individual. Therefore being white and against racism does not automatically mean you want to sacrifice a position or advantage.

Just shut the fuck up and judge people as individuals already, and not monolithic genetic categories which gradually grow more muddled with interbreeding anyway.

You can yell your dumb shit until you're old and hoarse, the future will not belong to racists.

This is starting to feel more and more like a Christian Nazi Pedo guy thread

>>6398577
>>>/pol/

>>6398715
>I have never heard this, and it most certainly isn't "commonly said."
What is white privilege?

>I don't need a justification for being not racist.
If you were this you wouldn't care about racism, rather you are here staunchly attaching any position which is racist no matter how slightly.

>>6398713
Ok, I'll bite: how so?

pol pls go

>>6398722
>Christards
>racist
Pick one

>>6398577
>Keep /pol/ in /pol/. In essence: Don't shitpost.
Rule 3.

>>6398733
I was referring to a long time shitposter from /lgbt/\

>inb4 Opie changes the topic to this instead

>>6398726
Really? Putting ideology or whatever over self interest is the epitome of stupidity. Looking out for your own self interest is what puts you ahead, it's stupid to sacrifice your own well being to others. People (regardless of race) aren't sacrificial animals, it's just sad when people make themselves into such things.

>>6398711
>implying that sympathy is not a product of guilt
yes i am implying that

noun: sympathy

1.
feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune.

So you are telling me you have to have caused suffering to feel empathetic?

>There is the whole guilty by association thing very common to antiracists.
Not everybody believes they are personally responsible for the wrongdoings others

>>6398743
>So you are telling me you have to have caused suffering to feel empathetic?
Not directly, also has to do with perception. Your subconscious due to all this propaganda everywhere may be influenced to feel some sort of an obligation to these people and with that a remorse for past actions of people with your skin color where you even develop a hostility towards them. Or you may just be an outlier in all this.

>>6398746
Co-operation has actually been a key in humans' survival thus far and altruism helps ensure the propagation of our species. I can't see humans surviving very long if everyone is in it only for themselves.

Sources:

http://www.umass.edu/preferen/A%20Cooperative%20Species/ACS%20Ch%2013%20Human%20Cooperation%20and%20its%20Evolution.pdf

http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Richerson/CultEvolcoopPTRSB.pdf


Sage since this isn't too /sci/ related

>>6398756
So in order for someone to recognize and have sympathy for the plight of others they have some relation to the cause? Surely you cannot believe this, if a man was dying in the street i would call 911 not because i had guilt but rather i have empathy for fellow humans regardless. Selflessness occurs universally without the prerequisites you are trying to impose here.

>>6398762
>Co-operation has actually been a key in humans' survival thus far and altruism helps ensure the propagation of our species. I can't see humans surviving very long if everyone is in it only for themselves.
But you don't need to cooperate with everyone, that's the mistake here. You only need to cooperate with enough people. Also at the same time we're competing with each other within the species which means not all cooperation if beneficial form the point of view of the individual.

>>6398762
Take Universal Altruist (U), and Kin Altruist (K). U individuals care for any member of the species indiscriminately. K individuals care for their closer of kin only. In both cases, the caring behaviour costs the altruist something in terms of personal survival. Every time a K individual behaves altruistically, it is especially likely to benefit another K individual rather than a U individual. U individuals, on the other hand, give altruism to K and U individuals indiscriminately, since this is defining characteristic of U behavior. Therefore K genes are bound to spread through the population at the expense of U genes.

>>6398767
>So in order for someone to recognize and have sympathy for the plight of others they have some relation to the cause?
Yes actually, take a look at sociopaths and psychopaths, neither relates to others so they don't experience empathy or even sympathy. In this case the relation came through upbringing and the endless media that says it's our duty to care for PoC.

Anyway I'm out for the night, here's something to read while I'm gone:

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001071

>>6398777
Psychopaths are lacking the certain neural areas related to empathy. And your assertion that someone has to be conditioned in order to act selflessly is false, if you cannot understand why then i take it you probably have some unsavory personality traits yourself.

>>6398684

study sounds like BS tbh.

why are the mods allowing these threads

>>6398809
the 'wired' article links to his personal webpage, which links back to the 'wired' article as the source for the study...

That's clearly Simon Pegg