Exterminating White People As A Solution

[CallumM]

Wow. Thank you for posting this, i'm going to post this on my forum too - I hope you don't mind

 

This is rediculous and quite... strange, perhaps even scary. I personally haven't heard such things said with so much passion which maybe makes it even more bonechilling. I myself am white - my best friend is actually black - we (obviously) have no problems with each other's backgrounds and I have to say I don't even think, "oh look, that man is black".. I just kinda accept it. I agree that it all boils down to natural instinct of when we were living in trees, if we study apes, we find they kill and are basically rivals with other groups and will kill each other - I am not saying we should follow our instinct, i'm saying we should be able to overcome them to find peace and a better life. My philosophy is, if you don't harm me, I wont harm you - I think that's the way forward.

[Jelx]

I'm not legally obligated to save either of them.

 

Anyway, SkepticLance's response seems most accurate.

[Aardvark]

What if there were two children on the tracks, one black and one white, both equidistant from where you are standing, and you can save one child but not both. Which one do you save?

 

I'd like to know what conclusions you expect to be able to draw from the answers to that question. What are you attempting to discover/prove/indicate?

 

For myself, i'd save the white child.

 

What does that answer tell you?

[Dak]

maybe that you value or feel kinship for whites at least a little more than blacks?

 

i'd save either.

[Dave]

Just before you read this, you should note that I particularly dislike the choose-one-or-the-other style questions. You can't boil down particularly complex issues (such as racism) to a simple case analysis question. Also, I'm hoping that Phi doesn't come after me with the beating stick for belittling his question

 

I'm hopeful that most normal people would, in a relaxed environment such as this, say that they would just pick 'at random'. However, if this were to actually happen, then the last thing that you're going to be doing is thinking rationally. Just the time pressure alone and the amount of adrenaline rushing through your body would be enough to make the vast majority of people act solely on instinct.

 

My point? It's not racism if a black guy goes for the black baby and a white guy goes for the white baby, as eloquently pointed out by SkepticLance. The only way to eradicate any racial bias from this problem is by letting them both die. That's a possibility that I hope most people would not even consider.

[Dak]

Just before you read this, you should note that I particularly dislike the choose-one-or-the-other style questions. You can't boil down particularly complex issues (such as racism) to a simple case analysis question. Also, I'm hoping that Phi doesn't come after me with the beating stick for belittling his question

 

i dunno... if you truly dont see any fundamental difference between white and black people, then shouldn't the question read as more-or-less 'there are two childeren, which do you save' or 'there are two childeren, one blond and one ginger, which do you save'?

 

ie, picking at random would be the only option.

 

 

I'm hopeful that most normal people would, in a relaxed environment such as this, say that they would just pick 'at random'. However, if this were to actually happen, then the last thing that you're going to be doing is thinking rationally. Just the time pressure alone and the amount of adrenaline rushing through your body would be enough to make the vast majority of people act solely on instinct.

 

My point? It's not racism if a black guy goes for the black baby and a white guy goes for the white baby, as eloquently pointed out by SkepticLance. The only way to eradicate any racial bias from this problem is by letting them both die. That's a possibility that I hope most people would not even consider.

 

it's not racism if a black guy happens to go for a black baby and vice-a-versa, as choosing randomly will give a 50/50 chance of that anyway, but, if they actually state that there prefference is to save someone of their own colour over someone of a different colour, i think that implies a certain amount of inherent racism..?

 

not that inherent racism makes you racist, per se, anymore than a preinclination to violence means that you neccesarily go around beating people up. all you can expect of people is that they try to control their less plesant aspects, not that they dont have them, nor that they can't be forced out in certain situations. but, i think picking a colour to prefferentially save demonstrates that a fundamental distinction is being made between people of different colours (hence my comment to aardvark wasn't 'you are a racist shit')

 

mind, i can see skeptic's point about being a parent and saving the one that is the same colour as your own child.

[YT2095]

 

I'm hopeful that most normal people would, in a relaxed environment such as this, say that they would just pick 'at random'. However, if this were to actually happen, then the last thing that you're going to be doing is thinking rationally. Just the time pressure alone and the amount of adrenaline rushing through your body would be enough to make the vast majority of people act solely on instinct.

 

that`s exactly why I answered "the one I saw first" because I`de already be heading in that direction at a rate of knots and would have no time think/change my mind.

[SkepticLance]

All humans, to some degree, have an instinct for parenting and nurturing. It is stronger among those who already have children.

 

This instinct, the result of millions of years of evolution, is strongest towards one's own children, and second in strength towards children that look like one's own. No-one would consider anyone had done something wrong if that person saved a human child instead of a kitten. This is simply instinct at work.

 

If the choice is between black/white babies, you will choose the colour of your own child. Again, I say, this is not racism. It is just instinct, and any conclusion of racism is a distortion of the facts.

[Dak]

rape and murder are also 'instincts at work'; the fact that something is instinctive doesn't make it neccesarily ok.

 

racist = discrimination for/against someone/people based on their race.

 

if your arguing that people would prefferentially and instinctively save a baby that looked like their own, then that's one thing, and not, imo, racist in spirit, as is more to do with emotions and similarities in appearence (tho unless you're a parent with one black child and one white child, it'd still be racist in effect)

 

if your arguing that people, even without childeren, would prefferentially and instinctively save a baby that, phenotypically, suggested that it has a more-similar genome, then yes, this is natural, but also it is racist in this case (given that its giving prefferential treatment to ones own skin-colour at the expence of the other). if someone chooses a white baby with blond hair over a white baby with ginger hair because they, themselves, have blond hair, then this is inherently discriminatory in the same way.

 

like i said, having a bit of inherent racism doesn't exactly make you a nazi, but it's still racist, by definition. i certainly wouldn't hold what someone chose to do in a split-second, working under pressure and on instincts, against them, as long as they suppressed any racist instincts they had at other times, but its still racist.

 

anyway, it's not neccesary to obey ones instincts. as a male, it'd be instinct to rape any attractive females that i come across, as long as i wont get caught by any bigger males. no matter how short-a-time i was given to make my descision, i'd never bow to this instinct (or even feel it, tbh, having displaced it with the belief that rape is wrong)

[Dr. Dalek]

rape and murder are also 'instincts at work'; the fact that something is instinctive doesn't make it neccesarily ok.

I would describe them more as instincts gone awry.

 

if your arguing that people would prefferentially and instinctively save a baby that looked like their own, then that's one thing, and not, imo, racist in spirit, as is more to do with emotions and similarities in appearence

Makes sense to me.

However if it is in terms of instinct or some sense of familiarlarity rather than racism than the question would mean the same as asking "Would you save the black babe or a puppy" "the white babe or a babe lynx".No matter what the combination the one you have the closest natural affinity toward will win out.

[SkepticLance]

Dak,

We are in serious danger of arguing semantics. By your very tight definition of 'racist' you are correct. However, that is a seriously unforgiving and inflexible definition. Racism as an evil is not quite the same as the natural desire to save one's own children, or children similar to.

[john5746]

like i said, having a bit of inherent racism doesn't exactly make you a nazi, but it's still racist, by definition. i certainly wouldn't hold what someone chose to do in a split-second, working under pressure and on instincts, against them, as long as they suppressed any racist instincts they had at other times, but its still racist.

 

I think this is one argument for supporting affirmitive action. If we change the scenario to two people interviewing, all things being equal, will a white person be more likely to hire a white person? A male hire a male? Multiply this over the aggregate and it is reasonable to see that a corrective action may be required. Applying it on the individual level however ends up with a more explicit form of racism.

 

 

anyway, it's not neccesary to obey ones instincts. as a male, it'd be instinct to rape any attractive females that i come across, as long as i wont get caught by any bigger males. no matter how short-a-time i was given to make my descision, i'd never bow to this instinct (or even feel it, tbh, having displaced it with the belief that rape is wrong)

 

I don't agree with this assertion. As a male, I don't have the instinct to rape someone. I would be more promiscous than I am, but rape requires hatred, IMO. I don't hate every attractive female that I come across. This was a sexist remark and deeply offended me. My lawyer will contact you soon

[ParanoiA]

Dak-

 

Sounds to me like you're equating natural in-group / out-group psychology with racism or some other kind of -ism.

 

When we are fighting our instinctual in/out group programming we are doing a noble thing - and we are fighting nature in the process. The same nature that is responsible for ours and every other animal's existence on this earth. From sucking your mother's nipple after a few hours of existence to giving you the adrenaline you need to fight off an attacker.

 

So, if white people choose the white baby or black people choose the black baby, I see it as pre-programmed default wiring. We simply didn't have the time and strength to overcome our natural tendencies. Similar to your take, except that I give more credit to humans than you do. I don't see it as racist in the least. It wasn't a concious decision to be racist or unfair.

 

Everytime someone does something that isn't racist, they had to overcome pre-existing wiring deep in the fundamental architecture of the brain. Our lack of need for such in/out group programming is a recent development and will take a long, long time to evolve out of us, particularly since there is still a need for some in/out group behavior.

 

I guess I just don't see it as pessimistic as you do. I'm amazed we aren't more violent and segragated.

[Dak]

ok, to clarify again, when i said racist, i meant racist as in 'discriminates based upon race', not neccesarily 'racist' as in 'someone who does that is a racist'.

 

theres a subtle difference, and the difference is the difference between someone who will consiously discriminate based on race, and someone who, consiously, believes there to be no significant difference between races that makes one more worthy than the other, but, subconciously, still has the inclination to discriminate.

 

the first part of john's post illustrates, imo, why it's useful to recognise this instinct as racist (which, imo, is obvious to the point of being a tautology: an instinct that discriminates based upon race is racist): even people who, conciously, believe the two skin-colours to be equal can still be predisposed to racism/can actually be racist, even without realising it, and it raises a few significant questions, such as 'to what extent does the racism manifest itself', 'how to stop it', 'does it actually make the person a bad person', etc.

 

fwiw, imo the answres are 'too often', 'with a stick', and 'no', but whatever the answres, i think they're inportant questions to ask, as are the questions 'do i have this instinct' and 'how do i guard against it'.

 

passing it off as 'natural, and thus ok' is, imo, brushing a legitimate concern under the carpet and accepting it -- tho, as i think was skeptic's main point, labeling someone as 'racist' for having this instinct would be too unforgiving and over-zelous, imo.

 

Racism as an evil is not quite the same as the natural desire to save one's own children, or children similar to.

 

agreed. but, are you trying to apply this thinking to non-parents?

 

also, reguardless of the reason, racism is still racism in effect. and if it can manifest itself in one way, like john said it might manifest itself in others.

 

I don't agree with this assertion. As a male, I don't have the instinct to rape someone. I would be more promiscous than I am, but rape requires hatred, IMO. I don't hate every attractive female that I come across. This was a sexist remark and deeply offended me. My lawyer will contact you soon

 

ph33r the ninja-pc-lawyers a shiruken of +1/+5 against NPCs whizzed past my ear as i typed it </overly obscure 'humour'>

 

but it is a natural instinct that we would all have (at least, the more dominant ones of us) if we didn't actively suppress/over-ride it. like i said, i wouldn't feel the inclination, having displaced the instinct with the belief that rape is wrong; but it's an instinct that i would, naturally, have had were it not for consious intervention, i suppose.

 

my point was just that it's possible to deny what would naturally be ones instincts, which aren't allways correct.

 

Dak-

 

Sounds to me like you're equating natural in-group / out-group psychology with racism or some other kind of -ism.

 

if your natural in-group is white and out-group black (or vica-versa), and you give prefferential treatment to your in-group, then it is, by definition, racist.

 

like i said, it doesn't neccecitate you to belive that one skin-colour is superior to another, so it doesn't make you a racist, but its still racist, and can still make you act racistly.

[aguy2]

This is why we tend to see "pro-black" as anti-white. Just like most would cite pro-white as anti-black. Just semantics? I don't know.

 

I, for one, am sick and tired of being refered to as "white". I am a "European/American" and have been making loud and persistent objections whenever I hear this objectionable and inaccurate cognomen.

aguy2

[ParanoiA]

theres a subtle difference, and the difference is the difference between someone who will consiously discriminate based on race, and someone who, consiously, believes there to be no significant difference between races that makes one more worthy than the other[/b'], but, subconciously, still has the inclination to discriminate.

 

See, this is why I take issue with you. In-group / out-group association is not based on race - it can be based on race, but not limited to that. So if I make a series of in-group or out-group decisions and preferences and one of those is a black / white grouping, I'm not making a decision of worth or value - but rather of preferential grouping based on comfort, empathy, familiarity.

 

Where as a racist decision is based on value or worth, superiority versus inferiority.

 

There's a difference there. In this split second decison, you're not making a racist decision you're making a in-group/out-group decision.

 

You may be right that technically that's discrimination based on race, but that's a disingenuous conclusion that deserves a more accurate description.

 

I, for one, am sick and tired of being refered to as "white". I am a "European/American" and have been making loud and persistent objections whenever I hear this objectionable and inaccurate cognomen.

 

I hope you're not serious. How do I know you're a European/American? If I see you on the street, you could be an australian-american. There's plenty of countries you could be from - but no matter what, you're white. It's just pragmatic.

 

I've noticed "black" isn't a non-PC term really anymore. I wonder if it's for similar reasons.

 

There are white people in Africa, so if they came to america then wouldn't they be african-americans?

[aguy2]

re: unexceptable verbalizations of an idiotic presumption of a "White/Black racist dichotomy

I hope you're not serious.

 

I am as serious as a heart attack. In an economic situation, if you would insist on using such objectional terminology, you would find your butt in the office explaining yourself. In a situation where the office would not be an option, you would find my face in yours, and if that didn't work, you could very well find my fist there. Are you willing to fight for your 'right' to call me what I am not?

 

How do I know you're a European/American?

 

You don't, and that is the point I am willing to fight for. You can not make any accurate judgements concerning my cultural background based on myelin concentrations. Such determinations can only be accurately ascertained by actually knowing what my individual cultural situation is.

 

If I see you on the street

 

Your instantaneuos 'street' decisions based on a white/black dichotomy are pragmatically inaccurate and socially unexceptable.

 

 

you could be an australian-american. There's plenty of countries you could be from - but no matter what, you're white.

 

I am not "White", and if you insist that I am, I can and will accurately label you as someone who is making 'racist street decisions' and should be treated as such.

 

There are white people in Africa, so if they came to america then wouldn't they be african-americans?

 

They would most likely be European/African/Americans, unless they were North African/Americans. We exist in a complicated world, and if our world thrives, it will most likely became more complex, and not let the forces of entropy degrade it to increasingly simplistic rest states.

aguy2(amen)

[john5746]

Skin color is a visible attribute, place of origin is not. If you have blue eyes and are offended that someone refers to you as a blue-eyed person, then you have a problem.

[ParanoiA]

I am as serious as a heart attack. In an economic situation, if you would insist on using such objectional terminology, you would find your butt in the office explaining yourself. In a situation where the office would not be an option, you would find my face in yours, and if that didn't work, you could very well find my fist there. Are you willing to fight for your 'right' to call me what I am not?

 

You are white. And I will fight for my right to call you what you are. It would be stupid to try to explain to a police officer "yes sir, I saw the man that raped that lady. I can't tell you his race because it would be racist to refer to his obvious skin color, and I have no idea where he's from to say it all PC like. Good luck catching him..."

 

Try to live in the real world rather than inundating yourself with overblown drama. You're white. So am I. Get over it.

 

You don't, and that is the point I am willing to fight for. You can not make any accurate judgements concerning my cultural background based on myelin concentrations. Such determinations can only be accurately ascertained by actually knowing what my individual cultural situation is.

 

Gee, that's nice for parties and such. But it's not pragmatic to get to know every tom dick and harry on the street just so I can reference their attributes for some practical purpose.

 

They would most likely be European/African/Americans, unless they were North African/Americans. We exist in a complicated world, and if our world thrives, it will most likely became more complex, and not let the forces of entropy degrade it to increasingly simplistic rest states.

 

Yes we exist in a complicated world. Which is why I we should reference each other with pragmatic terms. White and Black are such terms.

[Pangloss]

I, for one, am sick and tired of being refered to as "white". I am a "European/American" and have been making loud and persistent objections whenever I hear this objectionable and inaccurate cognomen.

 

I am as serious as a heart attack. In an economic situation, if you would insist on using such objectional terminology, you would find your butt in the office explaining yourself. In a situation where the office would not be an option, you would find my face in yours, and if that didn't work, you could very well find my fist there. Are you willing to fight for your 'right' to call me what I am not?

 

I am not "White", and if you insist that I am, I can and will accurately label you as someone who is making 'racist street decisions' and should be treated as such.

 

Wow, I thought you were being sarcastic. Good lord, has white guilt really taken us this far?

 

Can I still be white? Please? Who do I need to get permission from for this? Please let me know so I can send my tax-deductible "donation" in immediately and receive my papers of Racial Authenticity.

 

If not, can I just go ahead and blame you for everything? I'm kinda tired of haivng to be the Bad Guy all the time, but sounds like you don't mind a bit. Thanks!

[aguy2]

Wow, I thought you were being sarcastic. Good lord, has white guilt really taken us this far?

 

Can I still be white? Please?

 

Of course you can call yourself 'white'; you just shouldn't call me 'white' if I find the term objectionable, even though a person with normal eyesight could spot a pimple on my butt from 1/4 mile away.

 

I'm kinda tired of haivng to be the Bad Guy all the time, but sounds like you don't mind a bit. Thanks!

 

Other than some possible confusion of the messenger with the message, you are probably right about my willingness to be the Bad Guy if necessary.

aguy2(amen)

[aguy2]

Skin color is a visible attribute, place of origin is not. If you have blue eyes and are offended that someone refers to you as a blue-eyed person, then you have a problem.

 

But if you call me a 'blue-eyed devil', then the problem is quite likely going to be yours.

aguy2

[ParanoiA]

But if you call me a 'blue-eyed devil', then the problem is quite likely going to be yours.

aguy2

 

But nobody called you a white devil...just white. That's your skin color.

[Pangloss]

Of course you can call yourself 'white'; you just shouldn't call me 'white' if I find the term objectionable, even though a person with normal eyesight could spot a pimple on my butt from 1/4 mile away.

 

Personally I have no problem with you wanting to be called something specific. You happen to favor the term "magenta with a hint of mauve", that's just fine by me. Just be sure and let us know, and polite society will happily comply. Just as soon as we stop laughing at you.

 

But when I mark your race down on my government-mandated taxation and immigration forms, don't expect me to cross out "white" and write in "magenta with a hint of mauve". Your personal crusade really isn't going to become my problem, and if you push it the only one getting called into any offices for explanations is you.

 

As for dealing with your fists, in most quarters I think you will find your opponent laughing too hard to even bother. I know I am.

[aguy2]

As for dealing with your fists, in most quarters I think you will find your opponent laughing too hard to even bother. I know I am.

 

I don't really mind being the Bad Guy or even laughed at, seeing as I usually express my objections as light hearted as possible; just so long as those around me know I am 'right' not 'white'.

aguy2