The Rational and Individualist Case Against Racism

re: The Rational and Individualist Case Against Racism

racist — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:11:05 GMT

No need to repeat. I also rejected racism as a kind of unproductive, and socialist collectivism. Sorry for articulating my inappropriate comments. Don't get me wrong: I am an empiricist, subjectivist, anti-nationalist, anti-close-minded, anti-emotionist, anti-essentialist, anti-conformist, anti-statistics, pro-creativity, anti-statistical-reasoning, anti-taxonomy, anti-hierarchy and anti-central-planning.

re: The Rational and Individualist Case Against Racism

Brainpolice — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:04:55 GMT

In response to my charge that racism and nationalism are forms of collectivism, Torsten writes:

"If that is "collectivist" abstractions, so would be the McDonalds, the Christians, the New Yorkers, and The Ford motor company employees. If according to this a "racist" or nationalist would have to be a "collectivist" with necessity, so would be any republican, good father, competent mayor, boss or pastor. Personally I think you are attaching a meaning to the term "collectivist" that is too broad (anything that is grouping people somehow together), but I still think you should start a special thread on your essay. Then we can discuss that in detail. Let us know here once, you've started this thread."

I respond:

My point is that nationalists tend to treat nations as if they were entities/personalities in themselves, and racists tend to treat races as if they are entities/personalities in themselves. In other words, the individual components of a given nation or race are ignored, while the whole is treated as being an identity in itself. A nationalist view of "America vs. Iraq", for example, treats each as a collective irrespective of its individual components. Perhaps "holism" is a better word then collectivism. All I am doing is being a methedological individualist. I believe methedological individualism makes nationalism and racism to be illogical ideologies.

Put bluntly: nations DO NOT EXIST. Individuals do. This is why I consider nationalism to be collectivist, for it anthropromorphicizes territories and treats all of those within it as being part of a uniform whole, as combining to constitute an entity. The same is true of racism. Races, in terms of an entity resulting from combining people who share certain features, DO NOT EXIST. The racist thinks in terms of an entire white race vs. an entire black race, as collective entities. This is why I consider racism collectivist. I admit that I am also critisizing them from a radically materialist perspective.

re: The Rational and Individualist Case Against Racism

Brainpolice — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:03:15 GMT

I understand that you're sort of devil's advocating, I'm not going to pull a race card on you. You're right that racists would endlessly try to cite biological and I.Q. statistics and such. It's just that even if the statistics are accepted, their conclusions do not logically follow. And I am of course very skeptical of statistical aggregation and interpretation thereof, particuarly in the social sciences.

re: The Rational and Individualist Case Against Racism

racist — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:54:12 GMT

Your argument may still be easily flunked by racists.

Some racists DO believe that every individual in a given race is inferior than every individual in some other race. Racists cite evolutionary evidence as a proof that it is impossible find any individual of a given race have better intellectual abilities than any individual of some other race. Most cite the statistic that the average IQs of Africans are only 60-70 when the average IQ of Europeans is 100. Thus, it is nearly impossible to have one African have a high IQ.

They would cite studies of IQs of adopted children, rich children. These statistics, even written by anti-racists, nearly all suggest that there is a biological and racial component of intelligence (even if hidden variables are eliminated). Many prominent anti-racists have been converted to racists.

You are right in some arguments that correlation does not imply causation. Jews are rich because they are intelligent, not because they are greedy. Altruism is detrimental for laissez-faire capitalism.

There are many anti-state racists.

Conclusion: Racism is difficult for an average person to refute.

P.S. I am not a racist. I believe that different races have different abilities -- no race is superior. Jews have superior verbal abilities. Northeast Asians are spatially superior. But in the practical sense, I do not favor ANY state discrimination nor discrimination of myself. We don't need racism, especially in this technological world. We already have genetic manipulation technologies and technologies that increases smartness. I am just portraying my knowledge of racial differences in a rude way.

re: The Rational and Individualist Case Against Racism

Brainpolice — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:33:07 GMT

The statistics that racists tend to cite do nothing to prove that AN INDIVIDUAL from a given race INHERENTLY has hampered abilities by virtue of being part of that given race. They treat correlation as causation and tend to ignore the nurture side of the equation completely. Furthermore, even if AN INDIVIDUAL from a given race does have hampered abilities, this does not negate the benefits from associating and trading with them.

I have not made the egalitarian claim that every race has equal features. I have rejected the racist claim that everyone within a given race have equal features, or rather, that they must inherently think and act like X by virtue of being born within a particular race. And again, entire races are not uniform, no entire "race" can be categorized with having uniform mental and moral abilities. The people within a given race are individuals who vary among eachother.

I support your right to disciminate on your own property. However, I cannot help but feel that many racists are not content with merely a right to disciminate in a voluntary or propertarian context. I see many of them as demanding the right to force others to disciminate likewise, to use the state to discriminate as if it were private property and to make discrimination and exclusion of immigrants mandatory practise.

re: The Rational and Individualist Case Against Racism

racist — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:38:51 GMT

But racists would criticize your opinion on the history miscegenation. Racists would claim that there is no miscgenation. They would cite genetic evidence as a proof. Racists would cite IQ tests that tend to significantly favor a particular race. As the general population considers that every race has equal features, racists would encourage separatism as a practical method of preserving one race's inherent superior mental and moral abilities. Racists would criticise the anti-racists lack of knowledge. As America becomes more multicultural however, it would be almost impossible to legislate racist discrimination. They would legislate anti-immigration laws. Some racists are anti-capitalist, but some are pro-capitalist.