Consider, would one say that racism is always evil? If not, then racism isn't always a bad thing, and the word loses its essence. So one must insist that racism is always evil. Let's ask now if segregation is always evil. If it's not, then it can't be racism.

Now consider my discussion about this very issue with the <tuna>. He brought up segregation too, but he ran into a big problem and left the discussion with his tail between his legs.

Have a look at this excellent discussion here Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #253506)

Yes, the <tuna> brought up segregation as proof of racism, but, then when I brought up recent news stories featuring black students calling for black only safe spaces, and no whites allowed day at college, the <tuna> wouldn't call that racism.

I brought up the Hamilton Play, in which a casting call went out for non-whites only. Hamilton was white, but they were making a black only play of it. This is the play that singled out VP Pence and lectured him on social justice warrior crapola.

We see then that segregation is not racism, because if it was, the libs would be forced to admit that blacks are racist, and since racism is a word meant to control white people, they don't want to do that.

<Sugardom>, let's look at other examples of segregation. Consider churches. A church is a place where the gov't doesn't force integration of races or anything else. You can go as you please, to each their own. In America, more than 85% of churches are almost, if not entirely, one race. Blacks go to "black churches" and whites go to their churches. Are there some exceptions? Sure, but largely, the people choose to segregate themselves.

Are they all racists? If so, then racism loses it's essence.

Just ask your local liberal if all-black churches are racist because the blacks segregate themselves and see what they say.

Clearly, segregation does not automatically imply racism.

I will go further now, and insist that forced integration is immoral and is not a remedy for segregation. Segregation may be what the gov't at the time thought would work best to make society orderly, given the preferences of the people at the time - which by the way haven't changed much. Just consider again the blacks calling for segregation recently.

Did you know, <sd>, that this year, Harvard had it's first ever black only graduation ceremony? Blacks called for it. Segregation is not racism, and if it was, blacks don't seem to mind it!

Forced integration is the immoral thing here. Segregation is kind of natural, as folks tend to go to all white or all black churches for a reason: people generally prefer the company of those that are like them.

But first we must back all the way up to the top of this post, because we still need to know exactly what racism is and what makes it evil.

I've gone on at length about segregation, and I do hope you follow that link (we argued again in May but the tuna ran away. If he denies it I will post all the links).

The earliest link in our discussion is here: Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #250487)

You'll see, if you bother to read it, that the <tuna> was unable to define racism, and that all of his attempts to do so failed, and that he gave up trying to define it. You'll also see his argument from segregation and other things.

I'm an advocate for philosophy and free speech. There are "no go zones" in America now when it comes to free speech. Old soldier boys ought to care about free speech, lest everything they fought for be a lie.

I aim for peace.

There is a lot of division in this country right now stemming from a lie called racism. If the whole country knew it was a lie, they would string up the liars and celebrate together as brothers and free men.

These words are introduced in order to manipulate the masses and it's done by intellectual liberals.>

<intellectual liberals>

When the KKK was hanging and burning negroes, wasn't that racism?>

< SugarDom: How about this definition:

Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.>

<sugardom>, you agreed with that segregation is not racism? Did you read my last post?

Okay, to your definition. First, it doesn't say if racism is evil. If racism is not evil, then there should be no problem with it.

What is meant by superior race? Did you know that the average IQ of a black man is 85, while the average IQ of whites is about 100 and for northern Asians it's 105?

This means that northern Asians have, on the whole, superior IQ. Is it racism to believe in this "racial" superiority?

Black people tend to win running races in the Olympics year after year. The fastest runners how generally been blacks. When the next Olympics comes up, and it's time for the running races, are we "racist" to "prejudge" (example of prejudice here) that a black is likely to win?

Now there's the antagonism example. Antagonism happens between people of all races all the time. When you antagonize someone, you say stuff to them that you know will bother them. You can call them short, fat, stupid or black. When we antagonize someone and call the ugly, there is no special word for that. It's just antagonism. When we antagonize someone and call them stupid, there's not special word for that, it's just antagonism. But when we antagonize someone and call them a ni**er, there's suddenly a special word for it.

Why is that?

But let's look at bit closer. There are two things going on. First is the antagonism and second is racism. Racism is supposed to be a thing in itself. We know what antagonism is, and we say it's a bad thing, so it's bad to antagonize anyone for any reason. It seems to me that it is really the antagonism that is the understandable and condemnable thing here, where as racism is just sort of a blank page for antagonism to be written on. Take out the antagonism and what is left to racism?

Can't we just say that antagonism is wrong under any condition, and that racism without antagonism is really just a nebulous concept?

<KKK>

Back then, the KKK was thought to be just bad, evil. It was wrong. The KKK stood for hate. It wasn't a thing called racism, as if racism is a thing at all, let alone a good thing or a bad thing. Hate was sufficient and accurate. Hate is real, racism is not.

So what about the lynchings, right?

The KKK lynched whites too. Was that racism? The KKK burned crosses on white lawns too, was that racism? It was all part of their movement and it was all done for the same reasons, so if it's not racism when they lynched whites or burned crosses on white lawns, then it's not racism when they did it to blacks either. If it is, then it makes racism a superfluous, arbitrary word.

Throughout history there have been conflicts where one people try to get another people out of their land or in order in society. This has happened since the beginning of time. Yes, it's ugly, but it's all through history, and it was never called racism. It is just the dynamic between the conquerors and the conquered; those who order their society and those being ordered. The KKK came in the direct aftermath of the civil war. They were the Antifa of their time.

They were rebelling against changes they didn't want to see. In their time, blacks were taken from Africa where they lived like savages compared to Europeans. They were thought of as distinctly inferior not because of their color (racism) but because of how they lived and how their societies were. They were naked, dancing around fires, had no two-story structures to live in - they were primitive people.

It had nothing to do with color. It just so happened that all the whites could see that the primitive people happened to be black. It's not that they were thought primitive because they were black. Their culture was observed as inferior, and they were taken as slaves. Then, suddenly, the slaves were set free.

Now there was a disruption in class order and the kind of folks that were in the KKK didn't like it. Imagine the slaves with the same rights as non-primitive people, voting and everything. It was an outrage to them.

This had nothing to do with being black, per se. It just so happened that the slave class in this country was almost all black.

<Jim> brought up violence against blacks as proof that racism is real and racism is evil. But I told him that everyone is against violence and that I wasn't talking about violence. I was talking about just racism. Is racism okay if it's not violent?

If it is, then racism isn't always evil and the word loses its essence.

If we agree that lynching is violence and violence is wrong, then we are in agreement. But the specific topic at hand is not violence or lynching, which we agree about, but racism alone. Is racism without lynching evil? If so, why?

Is black on white violence more evil than black on black violence? If not, then the word racism (because it's black on white) is superfluous. It adds nothing. It can be shaved off with Occam's Razor.

We agree that antagonism is not a fine thing. Is racism without antagonism still evil? If so, why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racis...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...

Our battle is spiritual, not physical, so it has nothing to do with color.

Sure, someone can disagree but if they don't engage on a reason by reason basis then the disagreement is hollow. They really just state their dislike for my statement rather than express a truth about reality.

E.g. "Jews are all money hoarders", "Black males are all rapists", "White men can't jump" etc. I think we can identify certain statements to be racist as such.

Probably man is inherently "racist" in the sense that we naturally identify with others who look like us and tend to group ourselves accordingly. Biologically this makes sense. But we are not forced to act on this instinct; so here we may have a chance to identify actual "racists", although I agree the definition is murky. And as pointed out, some "prejudices" are more or less factual.

As for liberalism, this may have a slightly different meaning in the US than in Europe. A liberal in my country will normally be politically on the right wing, as liberalism promotes as little governmental intervention on the individual as possible, whereas left-wing politicians typically advocate a larger public sector. But essentially a liberal wants to set free the individual from societal constraints, be they governmental, cultural or religious.

You tell me.

Is racism always evil?

If it is, then generalizing would have to always be evil too, and it's not. So I don't think that's an adequate definition.

<E.g. "Jews are all money hoarders", "Black males are all rapists", "White men can't jump" etc. I think we can identify certain statements to be racist as such.>

Why?

<But you are right that an atheist can only proclaim his <own> moral stand on the statement you make, it is not possible to put forth an <objective> claim that your statement is morally flawed. Be aware though, that the atheist can say the same about you; that Christianity is a human construction from which you have <chosen> to adopt certain moral standings, but they are no more objective than any other.>

Yes, the atheist cannot say, "That's wrong", when I state that <It's better to be a racist than a liberal>. We agree.

The atheist cannot turn the tables on the theist as in your example, because he presupposes the truth of atheism.

If the atheist wants to say that theism is just a human construction, then he needs to have arguments and evidence for this proposition:

1. God does not exist.

As a proposition, this is either true or false. It needs to be true for the atheist to begin making claims about morality being a mere human construct.

If it is, then generalizing would have to always be evil too, and it's not. So I don't think that's an adequate definition.>

I did not venture into the question of evil here, I merely wanted to try a definition of racism. You put forward the proposal that racism does not exist, so I wanted to clarify a very narrow definition. If indeed racism does not exist then the discussion of its being evil is futile, hence some kind of defintion is needed.

I personally would not say that "racism" in my definition is essentially "evil", but <actions> springing from this could well be "evil" in my moral book.

<The atheist cannot turn the tables on the theist as in your example, because he presupposes the truth of atheism.

If the atheist wants to say that theism is just a human construction, then he needs to have arguments and evidence for this proposition:

1. God does not exist. >

No. First the other way round. This proposition can only be made in answer to the proposition:

1. God exists

But if racism has a moral component, then it is part of the concept, and part of the definition.

<I personally would not say that "racism" in my definition is essentially "evil", but <actions> springing from this could well be "evil" in my moral book.>

Let's isolate racism and just look at that alone. We probably agree already that abuse, violence and murder are evil, or wrong, or bad. Attaching the word racism to such concepts gives us a compound concept where racism itself still needs to be categorized morally.

Adding the word racist to an act of violence doesn't make the act more violent or more evil. If a black man shoots another black man dead in the street and steals his wallet, it's not a morally superior action to a black man shooting a white man dead because he's white. The moral problem here is murder.

If someone were to say, stubbornly, that yes, racism makes it worse, then that brings us around to the first point - what makes racism evil? If we attach the concept of racism to concepts of violence, how does racism make the violence worse? What uniqueness does it add to the compound concept?

None.

<No. First the other way round. This proposition can only be made in answer to the proposition:

1. God exists >

You are factually wrong here. To posit the proposition, "God does not exist" is to make a positive claim to knowledge. It is to say that you know some truth about the universe, and as such it carries a burden of proof.

You need to understand that this is a proposition:

1. God does not exist.

This is known as the fallacy of The Presumption of Atheism.

This is not an area of belief per se, but then again, every area is an area of belief. Empirical science is based on belief. Logical positivism is based on belief. Verificationism is based on belief. Descartes showed that hundreds of years ago.

Anyway, anyone who posits a proposition carries a burden of proof for that proposition. You can't just assume that atheism is the default position. That is fallacious.

<Troller>, I could leave tons of links, but I'm short on time.

Let me direct you to an atheist blog (a quite popular one) called Common Sense Atheism. A reader was of the same mind as you and asked the blogger, who is quite influential among atheist circles, if the atheist carries a burden of proof.

< Do you think that, in the absence of compelling arguments either way, we ought to favor atheism? That is, do you think that atheism is the default position, and that the burden of proof is on the theist? If so, why do you think that?

The burden of proof is NOT on skeptics of flying spaghetti monsters, cosmic teacups, fairies, etc.

But the burden of proof IS on skeptics of other minds, the external world, the reality of the past, the uniformity of nature, etc.

Do you think that atheism is in the former category, instead of the latter? If so, why?

That’s an excellent question, cartesian. Here is a brief answer:

I think the burden of proof falls on whoever makes a positive claim.>

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=597

I think that for the most part, racism is a subset of liberalism.>

Two white Democrats in West Virginia:

W#1: How do I get to the Robert Byrd,
Exalted Cyclops, Education Center?

W#2: Easy, go 3 blocks down to Lynch
street. Make a left on to Robert Byrd,
Exalted Cyclops Boulevard. Pass the
Robert Byrd, Exalted Cyclops library.
Past the Robert Byrd, Exalted Cyclops children's center. Under the Robert Byrd, Exalted Cyclops Memorial underpass. Make a left on Exit Number 1. Go 5 blocks down to Hood street, and make a left on to Privilege street. It's the large white building on the left. There's a plaque on the wall:

<I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. — Robert C. Byrd>

Hillary Clinton:

Absolutely and without a doubt, unless you've read Plato's The Republic, you're not an educated person.>

Bobby Fischer:

I had a different attitude by the time I attended college, but even then I thought I should get more courses to do with my major rather than all of these high-school like core courses. That is, if you go to college for, say, English, you should be up to your neck in related courses rather than learning about biology, higher level math classes and so on.

This brings us around to another question. We know that the kids aren't coming out of high school or college prepared to make a living in the world. There are lots of useless degrees and areas of study that people spend big money on, and then they end up with a junk degree. To this end it also seems that our high school are failing students as well.

< Will anyone in Washington ever listen?

Congress has tried to sneak through amnesties three times in a little more than a decade. Every time, the American people somehow found out — despite the best efforts of the press — rose up in a rage and killed the proposed bills.

In 2006, President Bush got the brilliant idea to push amnesty on the country. His party was wiped out the very next time voters could get to the polls.

Liberals like to claim that their brave opposition to the Iraq War led to the midterm slaughter, but, as I recall, they were against that war in the 2004 presidential election, too, and Bush won. An April 2006 Washington Post–ABC News poll — taken about a month after Bush launched his amnesty crusade — showed that more Americans approved of Bush’s handling of the Iraq War than approved of his handling of immigration. In nearly every poll on Bush’s handling of immigration that year, a huge majority of the public disapproved.

Three years ago, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his seat to an unknown economics professor, Dave Brat, by a whopping 55 percent to 45 percent, despite outspending Brat 40-to-1. It was the first time in history a member of leadership had lost a primary. Brat had explicitly attacked Cantor for supporting amnesty. (This despite Cantor being one of the “Young Guns”!)

Most spectacularly, last year, an utterly implausible presidential candidate crushed all his opponents — including the media — and won the White House by promising to deport illegals and build a wall.

The media imagine that President Trump’s deficiencies are an argument for not taking his positions seriously. Oh no — it’s just the reverse. The fact that Trump’s supporters implacably stick by him, through every horror, proves they are willing to put up with any lunacy if it means getting that agenda.

How many different ways can Americans express that they want a whole lot less immigration and absolutely no amnesties?

We already tried amnesty once. The 1986 amnesty under Reagan was supposed to be a one-time fix. We’d forgive the estimated 1 million illegal aliens living here and, in exchange, draconian measures would be imposed on any employer ever caught hiring an illegal again — up to a $10,000 fine per illegal and jail time for repeat offenders.

We never got the employer sanctions.

There weren’t 1 million illegals — it was 4 million.

It wasn’t a one-time fix. In another real-world example of “incentives,” the first amnesty led to a never-ending stream of illegals across our border, confident of getting in on the next amnesty. Today, there are at least 40 million illegals living in the U.S. (Eleven million is nonsense — they’ve been claiming that since 1986. See Adios, America

And now, once again, politicians are lobbying for the exact same policy that was a complete failure last time. When it comes to immigration, it’s always Groundhog Day!

We’re told the DACA amnesty will apply only to a very small, discrete group of unbelievably fantastic illegals — who melt Ivanka’s heart by refilling her water glass at Cipriani with such alacrity!

Not only that, but there will be strict requirements on who qualifies for a DACA amnesty.

None of which will ever be enforced.

Congress has passed laws requiring that immigrants pay back taxes, learn English, not collect welfare and have good moral character. That’s not too onerous, right? It’s not like we’re requiring them to have any skills or talents that would be valuable to America.

Every single one of these requirements has been scuttled by immigration bureaucrats, federal judges and Democratic presidents. All of ’em. Our immigration bureaucracy is so dedicated to destroying America that it’s made citizens of thousands of convicted felons.

If you don’t understand how that could happen, you have no idea how much our cultural elites hate this country. Their governing philosophy is: Anyone we bring in is at least better than an American!

This nation is mind-bogglingly generous. But decades of lies make it impossible for even the most tender-hearted American to fall for this bait-and-switch one more time.

Every politician swears up and down that he wants a “secure border.” But then these same politicians go absolutely berserk when Trump says he wants to build a wall.

They say we’ll get enforcement right after the amnesty. That’s obviously absurd. When the tub is overflowing, water pouring out of the faucet, across the carpets, down the stairs, up the dining room walls, we don’t debate whether we’re going to dry clean the curtains or throw them out. We don’t argue about whether to use a mop or towels. FIRST: Turn off the water.

COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION>

https://www.amren.com/commentary/20...