About rightful racism as opposed to hating a race just because of racial differences

[Hossfly]

 

[Statistikhengst]

You are making a high level indepth debate into a low level trivial nonsense. Of course all people are people & of course they have rights. That has nothing to do with how this is not racism & how it is a rightful racism even if you choose to pursue equivocation.

There is no such thing as "rightful" racism. That is just plain old bullshit.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Allow me to cite a bit of wisdom from Louis Farrakhan. At one time, he famously said (not verbatim), "Anti-Semite used to mean someone who hates Jews; it has come to mean someone whom Jews don't like."

And so it is with "racist." In our culture, a "racist" is anyone whom Liberals don't like because of any comment about any person who is, or who is perceived to be, "different."

People who oppose illegal immigration are "racist." You could look it up. The fact that Mexicans are the same race as Europeans is irrelevant. People who point out that Blacks, in general, do anything, say anything, feel anything, or look a certain way, are "racist." The arguable truth of the observation is irrelevant.

In our culture, with black African physical traits are not perceived to be attractive. And that's a kind understatement. Even "Black" women agree, because they do everything they can to negate their natural hair, their natural skin color, and so on. Parenthetically, one might note that white-on-Black rape does not exist. Essentially never happens. It's ignored in FBI statistics because it is so rare as not to be measurable. Black women in porn are near non-existent. Nobody fantasizes about copulating with Serena Williams.

Black women who essentially look like beautiful white women who happen to have dark-pigmented skin are undeniably pretty. there are numerous examples. But women who have Black hair, Black lips, Black noses, and Black skin tone...forget about it.

And having typed these facts, most who read them - especially those who have been brainwashed by the American public school system - will have already branded me a "racist."

If I point out that "Black" basketball players have longer arms and legs, proportionately, than people of European stock, and that trait, along with dramatically more "fast twitch" muscles, is what makes them better basketball players. It's not playing endlessly in playgrounds when they are young; lots of white kids do the same, but they can't jump up, spin around, go out for coffee, and dunk a basketball on the way back down to earth. No white person can do that. Never happen.

And making this observation - not even controversial to anyone not blinded by politically correct sunglasses - makes me a racist.

I have to life with that, I suppose.

Uhm, no.

But nice try.

Better luck next time.

Have you considered playing with tonka toys instead? That may be more your league....

 

[northpolarbear]

I don't want to be compared to the level of people downgrading my very valid points to as if "all people having equal rights & values" is threatened like an easy to see dumb version of racism instead of the adjacent point I am making.

 

[northpolarbear]

There is such a thing as rightful racism, & I just provided the logic on it. Either stick to the logic or don't bother. I clearly made the point how whether something is rightful or not is not what you call it nor which unit is used but the action itself. Hence, I declared that this is not racism & it is a rightful racism even if you call it that.

 

[northpolarbear]

If something is rightful "when it works the same without involving the unit of race but some other unit", then it is rightful even when it happens to apply in the unit of race.

 

[northpolarbear]

Otherwise, you are not saying whether an "action" is wrongful or rightful. You are saying whether an "unit" is wrongful or rightful, which makes no sense. We are not talking whether an unit (an entity) is wrongful or rightful. We are talking an action (hating or being appalled) to that entity.

 

[presonorek]

In my book, people are people and one is equal to the other.

You can share your crayons with me any time.

 

[northpolarbear]

Whether in an "office look" or not, like I said, "easy to see dumb down version". Clearly was not the point I called for a debate.

 

[northpolarbear]

Let me organize what we have so far. I'm gone by the way. Looks like we are done on this topic & my point is valid without any point (other than dumbing down what I meant into something you can see easier, which is not relevant) made against the logic.

About rightful racism as opposed to hating a race just because of racial differences.

First of all, I don't consider this racism. Second of all, whether this is called racism or not (you grouping it with the racism of hating a race just because of being a different race is an equivocation; they are still different), it is right (rightful & moral). Third of all, it is legal anyway; the laws do not force you in these.

I want to talk about the different forms of racism. I don't consider this racism, but let's just call this "many different forms of racism" for now. It is a rightful racism.

It is within my right to not date an Asian because of the unique unfavorable facial traits (see my photo if you want to bullshit this as racism; "that" is the point I want to make) which "happen to apply" in the unit of race. In the reality, you just want to date pretty faces "regardless of the race". You just don't want to date ugly faces "regardless of race". Some types of "ugly faces" (let's not get into what ugly is as such is just deterrence & henpecking) just happen to belong in the unit of race. You are not hating that racial face just because of it is a different face; you hate it because it is ugly; it is just that the ugly face happens to be in the unit of race when it might as well be in the unit of "the family next door" or "the town over there". Another example & point I want to make is about hating a country. If a country did something wrong to you, you can hate it rightfully. You are not hating it just because it is a different country. You are hating it because it did something wrong; it is just that the culprits just happen to be in the unit of country when it can just as well be in the unit of a town within your own country or a giant corporation. The same logic goes for the unit of an ethnicity, race or whatever in terms of hating it because "you did something wrong", not because you are a different group.

The idea is that whether something is rightful or not is dependent only on the action itself regardless of the unit. If something is rightful on some other unit, then it should be rightful in the unit of race as well. As for being rightful on some other unit, it is entitled morally & rightfully (there's nothing wrong with it aside from being your rightful, natural, valid, consequential, logical response), not just legally (it is your legal right as well). Hence, even when the unit happens to become in the unit of race, it is still rightful because the action itself is a rightful action. That's the logic.

The word rightful clearly exists in dictionary however you want to bullshit philosophically which is no more deterrence than claiming what ugly is. By rightful, think "entitled", just, natural, consequential. It was obvious. Rightful as in "that should happen". The point is how that is not racism & how that is a rightful racism even if you call it that.

Also, when certain attributes happen to be assigned better or inconvenient to the unit of race, then that is just how the truth is. For example, Caucasian is more "Western" ideal of beauty whether you call it good looking or not. There shouldn't be any distortion of facts just because that exposes how some race is "better" or "less convenient" in any attribute.

This is not about open mindness but about the "actual reality" & the facts as well as rightful entitlements. Not to mention how you pausing your thinking is clearly not about open mindness but clearly about how you want to see & what you want to have.

You are making a high level indepth debate into a low level trivial nonsense. Of course all people are people & of course they have rights. That has nothing to do with how this is not racism & how it is a rightful racism even if you choose to pursue equivocation.

Of course all people have equal values & equal rights. So what? That is not pertinent to this topic.

I don't want to be compared to the level of people downgrading my very valid points to as if "all people having equal rights & values" is threatened like an easy to see dumb version of racism instead of the adjacent point I am making.

There is such a thing as rightful racism, & I just provided the logic on it. Either stick to the logic or don't bother. I clearly made the point how whether something is rightful or not is not what you call it nor which unit is used but the action itself. Hence, I declared that this is not racism & it is a rightful racism even if you call it that.

If something is rightful "when it works the same without involving the unit of race but some other unit", then it is rightful even when it happens to apply in the unit of race.

Otherwise, you are not saying whether an "action" is wrongful or rightful. You are saying whether an "unit" is wrongful or rightful, which makes no sense. We are not talking whether an unit (an entity) is wrongful or rightful. We are talking an action (hating or being appalled) to that entity.

Being rightful means being legitimate just like the definition of rightful says. When I say rightful, it means legitimate. When dictionary says rightful, it says legitimate. I'm just going to use the term rightful as it makes sense anyway even without going over the definition.

You couldn't perceive such facts on rightful (or "legitimate") racism despite me explaining to you until this much detail as you are idiots. Seriously, what did you think I meant? Nothing? I clearly meant "something". You are clearly dumb idiots & need this much detail explained.

Yes, it's like black people preferring to date white woman. I prefer white woman too, & it is my right instead of "racism" against Asians. Or I can just date white woman without having to close my eyes. Anyway, the point works in any attribute, not just face. I was talking in general.

 

[northpolarbear]

Also, I was obviously looking for an insight & a debate validly referring to my logic, not dumbing down what I meant into something easier to grasp like a grade 1's textbook on racism. if you ask me, such typical straightforward racism is an illusion especially today. Today is more about polishing the things right, of the borders & corners of the arbitrary concepts. An example is minority getting more options with job employment because employers have quota for minorities. Setting things right would be removing this system. I am talking reverse racism; the racism-phobia distorting the society into something it shouldn't be with many rights taken away.

 

[Asclepias]

I couldn't get any debate from some other forum (no one responding), so re-posting here.

About rightful racism as opposed to hating a race just because of racial differences.

First of all, I don't consider this racism. Second of all, whether this is called racism or not (you grouping it with the racism of hating a race just because of being a different race is an equivocation; they are still different), it is right (rightful & moral). Third of all, it is legal anyway; the laws do not force you in these.

I want to talk about the different forms of racism. I don't consider this racism, but let's just call this "many different forms of racism" for now. It is a rightful racism.

It is within my right to not date an Asian because of the unique unfavorable facial traits (see my photo if you want to bullshit this as racism; "that" is the point I want to make) which "happen to apply" in the unit of race. In the reality, you just want to date pretty faces "regardless of the race". You just don't want to date ugly faces "regardless of race". Some types of "ugly faces" (let's not get into what ugly is as such is just deterrence & henpecking) just happen to belong in the unit of race. You are not hating that racial face just because of it is a different face; you hate it because it is ugly; it is just that the ugly face happens to be in the unit of race when it might as well be in the unit of "the family next door" or "the town over there". Another example & point I want to make is about hating a country. If a country did something wrong to you, you can hate it rightfully. You are not hating it just because it is a different country. You are hating it because it did something wrong; it is just that the culprits just happen to be in the unit of country when it can just as well be in the unit of a town within your own country or a giant corporation. The same logic goes for the unit of an ethnicity, race or whatever in terms of hating it because "you did something wrong", not because you are a different group.

The idea is that whether something is rightful or not is dependent only on the action itself regardless of the unit. If something is rightful on some other unit, then it should be rightful in the unit of race as well. As for being rightful on some other unit, it is entitled morally & rightfully (there's nothing wrong with it aside from being your rightful, natural, valid, consequential, logical response), not just legally (it is your legal right as well). Hence, even when the unit happens to become in the unit of race, it is still rightful because the action itself is a rightful action. That's the logic.

There is no such thing as rightful racism dumb ass. Racism is a system where one "race" benefits at the detriment to another perceived lesser race/races. The word you are looking for is probably bigot.

 

[Asclepias]

There is such a thing as rightful racism, & I just provided the logic on it. Either stick to the logic or don't bother. I clearly made the point how whether something is rightful or not is not what you call it nor which unit is used but the action itself. Hence, I declared that this is not racism & it is a rightful racism even if you call it that.

You provided your opinion. It had nothing to do with logic whatsoever.

 

[northpolarbear]

There is such a thing as rightful racism, & I just provided the logic on it. Either stick to the logic or don't bother. I clearly made the point how whether something is rightful or not is not what you call it nor which unit is used but the action itself. Hence, I declared that this is not racism & it is a rightful racism even if you call it that.

You provided your opinion. It had nothing to do with logic whatsoever.

I provided "logic" with the concept of "action" & "unit" being isolated. If you don't understand what that means, you clearly skipped that part & you are not smart enough to sense that there is something wrong it.

 

[northpolarbear]

There is a such thing as rightful (legitimate right) racism, & that's when there is a reason for hatred (or rather repulsion) "regardless of the race" when it just "happens to be" in the unit of race. Otherwise, you are focusing on the unit of the target, not on the action itself. If you are saying whether an unit (an entity) is wrongful or rightful, you discern anything about the action itself being rightful or wrongful as "that's not what you are focusing". Hence, rightful racism exists because the unit (the entity) target is irrelevant in the action being rightful or not.

 

[northpolarbear]

See how the dumber people all avoid getting into the concept of unit & action isolation? There is no debate going on.

 

[northpolarbear]

What you want to see & what you want to have (like "there's no rightful racism") is not given a shit nor important. That's not logic. What I pointed out with action & unit target isolation is logic. As I said, this is either not racism or it is a rightful racism. "There's no rightful racism" is not a logic. That's a claim without support, which is rejected. I clearly showed how a racism can be rightful or have "legitimate right".

 

[Meathead]

We are all homo sapiens. That makes me far more open and accepting than you will ever be.

"Sapien" means wise, so no. You're definitely a "homo" though. I'll give you that.

 

[Correll]

Yes, it's like black people preferring to date white woman. I prefer white woman too, & it is my right instead of "racism" against Asians.

Penis is a penis, vagina a vagina. Close your eyes and racial preferences disappear.

Err, no.

 

[northpolarbear]

Also, you claiming "hate the sin, not the person" is irrelevant & not of this topic. Also, it is the victim's right (it is rightful & legitimate) to hate the person (culprit), not just the sin. It is moral, rightful, legal to hate the person, not just the sin.

We are clearly not talking about the unit of target; we are talking about the unit of sin while the unit of target happens to be in terms of race.

This isn't about what's superior or inferior neither. This is about different races, ethnicities, countries having different attributes & liking or hating an attribute.