Message from @TEABAG!!!
Discord ID: 603789948864430080
I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
I also heavily disagree with tolerance being an objective pathway. Tolerance is a personal choice, thus it is subjective.
I honestly don't even know why you're bringing objectivity and subjectivity into this. I think that only complicates the conversation because people disagree on what constitutes what (subjective/objective).
I completely disagree with that. Social cohesion is a big factor in humankind's survival. Our weakest members must be protected, but only *if they are truly our members and if they are truly weak.*
What constitutes a member of society and what constitutes a weak person is exactly what the political debates are always about.
When a government forces its people to accept foreigners, it has the duty to make sure that the people are welcoming of them. And that starts with demands on the foreigners: do not commit crimes, be a productive member of society, learn our language and our customs, etc.
Because those same demands have also been put on the native population, it is only fair to put them on foreigners.
Social cohesion is so important to humankind that many wars have been fought over it, and many crimes have been committed over it. This is not a phenomenon of modernity, it's been going on since the existence of the human species.
Even when in theory it would be more productive to work together, in practice our instincts very often override that idea. But I guess in the west we've lost sight of this, because we've lived in our cohesive bubble for too long, and now that cohesion starts to break down we have trouble accepting that human nature is much more primitive than we thought it was.
My argument is that racism must be fought against consciously, with methodical and slow thinking, which is the difficult path. Many people will choose to ignore that alternative because of personal biases. And we're all biased. Social unrest is all but guaranteed when too many foreigners come in at once who don't appear to be integrating properly. It doesn't matter then that the weak must be protected, the priority lies on cohesion, because that's what our nature dictates.
And also, who's to say that you're on the "good side" saying you want to protect the weak? What about the rape gangs in the UK? Isn't that exactly in your own interest, too? Protecting the children from these gangs? So maybe you see how easy it is to dismantle your argument. You can't just say "it's irrational fear, it's irrational fear!" and believe this argument will get through to people.
But we always like to think of ourselves as the smart ones, I'm aware.
In fact personally I doubt that many pro-mass-immigration activists have been to a migrant school before. My father used to work at one for several years. He told me about the behavior of the students, and the customs of the families. It's very eye-opening.
But this is a bit of a rant. My original point was that racial discrimination is natural and evolutionary beneficial. My argument is that modernity has blinded us from this truth, because we've escaped the need to live as primitively as people used to.
But not living primitively, and not being primitive, are not the same thing. I'd argue we won't escape our primitive nature, and thus racial discrimination will not go away, because it still has its use, and if only to quench irrational fears.
You can beat your chest about reason and rationality all you want, that won't evolve the human consciousness.
“Racism must be fought against”
You’re on the “it’s the objective path” route again
Sigh. No, I'm not. But that's two things in one.
First of all I didn't say that I personally believe racism should be fought against. Lost in translation I guess, what I was trying to say is that racism can only be fought against consciously. Could've worded that better.
Secondly, "xyz must happen" is not an "objective path". There's nothing objective about that. If someone believes that "xyz must happen" then that can be entirely subjective.
That's why I hate when people bring up "objective/subjective", it just devolves the argument into a farce, because everyone has different ideas what those words mean.
@☩ ✠ Valka ✠ ☩
When you use wiki and it says (bint alarm) means it's been written by someone who isn't correct.
@ETBrooD I do recall that's not what I said and I will repeat myself because, I am one cautious person:
```Rational fear, is the thing that creates the opposing views of how we can discuss. However when we turn that into something else it becomes - discrimination.```
You can't irrationally come to a solution. You need to be calm and rational about it. And that's the thing - you rant and rant about shit - and your shit is not getting resolved. You need to be rational about your fears to fucking face them. And when it comes to that discrimination pathway of covert discrimination. When you become rational about it.
I never asked you to bathe your nextdoor neighbour in pigs blood did I ? Being rational - comes out with solutions . Again look at China.
@ETBrooD objectivity
``` OBJECTIVITY
the fact of being based on facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings:
Surely true objectivity in a critic is impossible?
We should not lose our objectivity as we respond to the attack.
2: the state or quality of being objective and fair:
The newspaper has a reputation for objectivity and fairness.
3: the quality of being able to make adecision or judgment in a fair way that is not influenced by personal feelings orbeliefs:
He questioned his manager's objectivity.
An auditor must always give the appearance of objectivity and impartiality.```
Cambridge dictionary
@ETBrooD
```SUBJECTIVITY
1: the influence of personal beliefs or feelings, rather than facts:
There's always an element of subjectivity in decision-making.
Accountants hate the subjectivity involved in long term forecasting.
To avoid bias, the agency eliminated subjectivity from performance evaluations.
They take a lot of the emotion and subjectivity out of the investment process.
Hilton is a commentator who delights in his subjectivity ```
I told you I don't care about the subjective/objective distinction, I wanna leave it out of the debate entirely.
If it's not possible for us to debate without using those terms then I'm not interested
As to what you said about coming to a solution (ir)rationally. You can in fact some to solutions irrationally, it's just that you're more likely to mess up. The likelihood to mess up increases with increasing irrationality, and decreases with increasing rationality.
So I agree partially with you on that, but not entirely.
To your second point, I didn't talk about resolving racial discrimination because that's not the question I was asking to have my mind changed about. My argument is that racial discrimination is natural and evolutionarily beneficial. The specific wording is important. I didn't say it's ideal, I think there are better ways, but for the evolution of man it has a purpose. The fear of the foreign protects societies, e.g. from foreign diseases, conquest, etc. It is not entirely rational, and that's because it's an evolved (inherited) trait, not a learned system of thought (e.g. math).
No but I am objectifying my argument and being irrational, is not going to work.
You cannot have these "fears" override the possibilities of cultures being able to control their own environment.
And by the way - if someone- intermarrys: 2 nd cousin, 3rd cousins, or even 1st cousin . That's a sign of them, trying to control their environment. Its just their way of dealing with their own fears because their culture means , they aren't able to be anything but DISCRIMINATE towards others.
```INTERMARRIAGE:
1: marriage between people who are from different social groups, races, orreligions:
Have ethnic tensions in the area been reduced by intermarriage?
2: marriage between people who are from the same family:
Intermarriage between close relatives is
prohibited in most societies.```
So, don't get this mixed up because, I am taking it from the Cambridge dictionary, which , I grew up on. And if they are irrational about it, then, they will attack you!!! That's overt discrimination. They are covert by excluding you. That's the way the rationale spectrum goes . You got a stone ... And you want to throw it in a pool and count the ripples - is objectivity. Which is a rational way of saying; they still don't belong, because their gene pool is diluted.
So you think culture is not under evolutionary pressure?
I just prefer people to be a little more -truthfull about - the fact that behaviour can be extensively known to make sure ; you the outsider of that group , whom doesn't belong ; gets punished. They may punish you in a number of wshd but , they do it covertly and overtly. Believe me, they have been very clear , about their environmental decisions. Even though , they have genetic defects from pursuing their ideology.
I don't think we know that at all.
You're making a very bold claim saying evolution doesn't cause culture.
No, it's not able to evolve . It can be created , but , it can't evolve if you have the same gene pool and genetic mutations and defects , that harm the population. It means you won't be able to evolve. @ETBrooD
I don't say culture evolvs, I say evolution causes culture.
That culture evolves is out of question I think
No, because if you can't advance past a certain point then , it's going to regress. This is the point - every so often - there has been a culture change in Europe . Especially, when the Berlin wall came down. All those Eastern Europeans , have been able to get married to a different set of gene pools. Now, they are able to make - genetic disorders or defects a thing of their past.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1389431
I'm not sure what your argument is
I will show you the effects in say for example Czech republic.
Evolution doesn't always progress, that's understood
And I am saying during the iron curtain that these birth defects were studied and now after one generation , it's disappeared.
You're arguing something that isn't part of my question