Whites Go Away?

Debate and discussion on racism and related issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 668 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Whites Go Away?

Post #1

Post by Purple Knight »

Question for Debate: If all the white people moved to Mars, would it hurt anyone, even if they remained racist?

I think racists have, if not a good point, a good question, when they continue to wonder why POCs strive to come to majority-white countries only to be discriminated against.

The reason it's not a good point is because the issue is entangled with resources. People will go where resources are despite the political or social system, so you can't claim, as racists try to claim with this question, that POCs are heading into majority-white countries in order to exploit white guilt and gain by that exploitation, and we can't trust the incredulity that nobody would intentionally go where they're so harshly discriminated against and victimised. Because there is no control group of a majority-white area without disproportionate resources and prosperity, one cannot rule out the possibility that POCs come into an environment where they are victimised because they still expect an overall better life, which of course doesn't negate the discrimination or make it okay. People may move to locations with a high murder rate for some benefit that outweighs the risk, but that doesn't mean don't punish the murderers.

Seeking justice isn't suddenly some impropriety just because you are, overall, better off in the environment where the injustice exists. It might seem like looking a gift horse in the mouth, it might seem rude, but it isn't. The analogy is rightly closer to an abusive parent who claims that because they give their child so much, the child is wrong to report a beating. Even if he came from the house next door where he got worse beatings, no. No. Justice doesn't play quid-pro-quo games or ask that people sacrifice it to return favours. Justice is justice.

That's why I'm asking the hypothetical, and disentangling the question from resources. Imagine all the white people just move away, taking no or very few resources with them. They no longer have direct interaction with Earthlings; they are Martians now, and they're isolationist. They have their own media, and they advise Earthlings not to tune in, and in fact they encrypt anything broadcast that Earthlings might tune into, though of course it's possible to descramble if you're really intent on it; we'll say you can watch Martian TV with a black-market box developed for just such a purpose (they're expensive, because you must pay to maintain a satellite relay, so imagine about $250/month). Even if the Martians go full-on Nazi, railing to each other about how bad all the other races are and how great it is to be white, worst case scenario, most racist possible, does it even matter if they're all gone? Or does their existence in that racist state continue to harm those they discriminate against even while completely removed from those other people?

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 668 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: Whites Go Away?

Post #31

Post by Purple Knight »

Bust Nak wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 2:28 pm That's why I mentioned reparations, i.e. consciously giving 5 to the Black guy and 1 to the white guy, while the left hand unconsciously takes 2 back, leaving him with 3, 2 the the white guy and 1 left for myself. Is that still racist?
The idea is that your left hand just goes harder and makes up for whatever your conscious mind does. I don't think this is out of line with reality since the subconscious has access to the conscious knowledge, while the reverse is not true.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 2:28 pmWhile we are here, lets say the Black guy with 3, now goes to give 1 to another white guy, gives 1 to another Black guy, unconsciously takes back the 1 from the white guy, is that racist?
No, because his race is not the dominant race with power. While he skews the result, he's skewing the result in the direction of fairness rather than away from it.

But frankly I don't know why we're going for a system where he does have power because then it's all just racist again. Maybe this is okay, because whites are guilty of the large bulk of atrocities of history, but I think it's fair to ask, is there a limit to punishment? Or is it a life sentence? If it's just, you whites proved you can't be trusted, you shouldn't have power, fair enough. But if we eventually want an end to that punishment and equality, how do we get there when we know everybody does this?
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 2:28 pmAlong the same lines, if racism is about subconscious bias, then 100% of humanity fall short and fail. We don't need a society of people who succeed in removing themselves from subconscious bias for a fair and equal society. A society of those who try and fail is enough for that.
"I'm sorry, Your Honour, I tried not to murder Bust Nak, I tried so hard, but he was just so darn annoying that in the end I couldn't help myself."

Close only counts in horseshoes, and it definitely doesn't count when we're talking about not creating injustices.

Athetotheist
Guru
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: Whites Go Away?

Post #32

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #26
What do white supremacist rhetoric and articles like this have in common? They keep predatory capitalism in business.

The 99% have been putting more and more pressure on the free market system for justice. So what does the system need? It needs the disenfranchised----of all races----constantly pitted against each other. Having the class struggle framed as a racial struggle, a gender struggle, an orientation struggle, anything other than what it is----a class struggle----prevents ordinary people from uniting and keeps the corporate power structure intact.

It's reaching into an abysmal depth of ignorance to assume that every white person has "a lifetime platinum membership to the all White country club". Has this author ever been to, say, Appalachia? Have any clue of just how many white people struggle and suffer and sacrifice and still end up not having enough? Any clue as to how frustrating it is for decent white people to put the best efforts within their poor power into "tearing down the racist systems" only to have their efforts contemptuously dismissed as "White person savior activity"? As long as disempowered white people and disempowered people of color are kept blaming each other for their troubles, the market system which does the disempowering continues humming along.

The call for all white people to "admit" to being racist serves no purpose other than to feed into the author's inflated sense of moral superiority. It's as childish and counterproductive as is white supremacist propaganda and both, with their divisiveness, enable corporate power to continue growing out of control.

Online
Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Whites Go Away?

Post #33

Post by Bust Nak »

Purple Knight wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:23 pm The idea is that your left hand just goes harder and makes up for whatever your conscious mind does. I don't think this is out of line with reality since the subconscious has access to the conscious knowledge, while the reverse is not true.
You are jumping to conclusions. Why would subconscious having access to conscious knowledge but not the reverse mean subconscious cannot be overruled by the conscious?
No, because his race is not the dominant race with power. While he skews the result, he's skewing the result in the direction of fairness rather than away from it.
Well, I say again, that is not how racism is typically defined. Why not define what "racism" means clearly in the article from the get go? Better yet, why not coin a new term? The author proposes that society can't move on until white people accept that they are "racist," she would have a much easier path if she avoided the word that is seen as a huge character flaw.
But frankly I don't know why we're going for a system where he does have power because then it's all just racist again. Maybe this is okay, because whites are guilty of the large bulk of atrocities of history, but I think it's fair to ask, is there a limit to punishment? Or is it a life sentence? If it's just, you whites proved you can't be trusted, you shouldn't have power, fair enough. But if we eventually want an end to that punishment and equality, how do we get there when we know everybody does this?
I don't know what exactly you are talking about here. Who is the "he" referring to here, me doing the handing out, the white guy or the black guy? What punishment? Punishing whom? Ending punishment, okay? But why on Earth would you want to end equality?!
"I'm sorry, Your Honour, I tried not to murder Bust Nak, I tried so hard, but he was just so darn annoying that in the end I couldn't help myself."

Close only counts in horseshoes, and it definitely doesn't count when we're talking about not creating injustices.
That's a false analogy. Bias exists on a spectrum, where as murder is binary. You can't get a little bit murdered or very murdered. Here you are talking about creating injustices. Bias, as long as it is under a certain threshold, does not create injustices.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 668 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: Whites Go Away?

Post #34

Post by Purple Knight »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 5:14 amWhy would subconscious having access to conscious knowledge but not the reverse mean subconscious cannot be overruled by the conscious?
Because we don't know and can't account for exactly what goes on in our subconsciouses.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 5:14 amWell, I say again, that is not how racism is typically defined. Why not define what "racism" means clearly in the article from the get go? Better yet, why not coin a new term? The author proposes that society can't move on until white people accept that they are "racist," she would have a much easier path if she avoided the word that is seen as a huge character flaw.
I think in modern day, the modern definition of racism is what's seen as a huge character flaw, and that since the definition has simply evolved to include power + privilege, there's every reason for the new idea to be the rightful heir of the old term.

But I'm not trying to pull definitionalism here, though my side has made it hard for me not to. I'm not trying to slip in the power + privilege definition; I am admitting I consider it to be the better definition, and almost nothing I've said applies to the antiquated (I feel, incomplete) definition.

The reason I feel the new definition is better is because I think it better separates what is justified from what is not. If you're sitting there beating your slave because them blacks just don't deserve any better, that's one of the most horrid things I can imagine, but if you're the slave noticing that white people turn you into property and beat you, I don't think that qualifies as even an unfair observation.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 5:14 amI don't know what exactly you are talking about here. Who is the "he" referring to here, me doing the handing out, the white guy or the black guy? What punishment? Punishing whom? Ending punishment, okay? But why on Earth would you want to end equality?!
Okay I threw out a word salad there. So let me back up. We're both agreeing that both the Black guy and the white guy are likely to have unconscious biases. I'm actually questioning why we want to eliminate all white bias and power, because then, we would have Black people as the group with power, doing the same thing with their sneaky left hands and, I question, if they have power, wouldn't that just be racism again?

I mused that it might be permissible and desirable for Blacks to have power and not whites. Frankly, I don't know what is morally permissible. Is it okay to restrict the rights of white people because they've never failed to historically be monsters? An individual white person will say, no, I am not a monster. But this weird system develops when white people get together and they start abusing everyone else.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 5:14 amBias, as long as it is under a certain threshold, does not create injustices.
I disagree.

Online
Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Whites Go Away?

Post #35

Post by Bust Nak »

Purple Knight wrote: Wed Feb 02, 2022 1:22 pm Because we don't know and can't account for exactly what goes on in our subconsciouses.
Okay, keep going, so why would the fact that don't know and can't account for exactly what goes on in our subconsciousness means it can't be overruled?
I think in modern day, the modern definition of racism is what's seen as a huge character flaw, and that since the definition has simply evolved to include power + privilege, there's every reason for the new idea to be the rightful heir of the old term.
You are getting ahead of yourself, evolved? Those who tag on power + privilege are still the minority. That's why there is an ongoing PR effort to push the new definition, and general negative reaction to articles such as the one linked here.
But I'm not trying to pull definitionalism here, though my side has made it hard for me not to. I'm not trying to slip in the power + privilege definition; I am admitting I consider it to be the better definition, and almost nothing I've said applies to the antiquated (I feel, incomplete) definition.

The reason I feel the new definition is better is because I think it better separates what is justified from what is not. If you're sitting there beating your slave because them blacks just don't deserve any better, that's one of the most horrid things I can imagine, but if you're the slave noticing that white people turn you into property and beat you, I don't think that qualifies as even an unfair observation.
There is noticing racism, and being racist yourself. How does the new definition help here, if you want to separate the slaver and the slave? Let me present a contrived scenario to test your reasoning: Go back to early America colonial days where planation slavery was a thing, lets say a corner somewhere, in just one planation the situation was reverse, where Black owners (having somehow acquired very localised power + privilege) were doing the most horrid things to whites. They are abusing localised power + privilege, beating white slaves just because they are white and don't deserve better, but aren't making a dent in the balance of power in the country overall. Is that justified or not?
Okay I threw out a word salad there. So let me back up. We're both agreeing that both the Black guy and the white guy are likely to have unconscious biases. I'm actually questioning why we want to eliminate all white bias and power, because then, we would have Black people as the group with power, doing the same thing with their sneaky left hands and, I question, if they have power, wouldn't that just be racism again?

I mused that it might be permissible and desirable for Blacks to have power and not whites. Frankly, I don't know what is morally permissible. Is it okay to restrict the rights of white people because they've never failed to historically be monsters? An individual white person will say, no, I am not a monster. But this weird system develops when white people get together and they start abusing everyone else.
They did/are still doing it because they believe that they are genuinely objectively better as a race, AKA old-school-racists. You are right to question yourself: If we use the new definition, are you ready to call Black people racist if/when they ever become the group with power, even if they refrain from active abuse (but can't help but hold unconscious bias?)
I disagree.
Then Black people with their unconscious biases are also creating injustices, despite your contention that they are pushing things in the right direction.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 668 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: Whites Go Away?

Post #36

Post by Purple Knight »

Bust Nak wrote: Thu Feb 03, 2022 6:04 pm Okay, keep going, so why would the fact that don't know and can't account for exactly what goes on in our subconsciousness means it can't be overruled?
Because your subconscious can, if it wants, always simply account for whatever your conscious mind does. Your subconscious isn't unaware that you're taking makeup measures and the idea is, if it wants to favour one person, it just accounts for that. The subconscious is what's making everyone act on their biases, and it does so knowing we pursue equality.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Feb 03, 2022 6:04 pmYou are getting ahead of yourself, evolved? Those who tag on power + privilege are still the minority. That's why there is an ongoing PR effort to push the new definition, and general negative reaction to articles such as the one linked here.
Even if it is the minority, I think I have a good reason why I think the new definition is better.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Feb 03, 2022 6:04 pmThen Black people with their unconscious biases are also creating injustices, despite your contention that they are pushing things in the right direction.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Feb 03, 2022 6:04 pm
The reason I feel the new definition is better is because I think it better separates what is justified from what is not. If you're sitting there beating your slave because them blacks just don't deserve any better, that's one of the most horrid things I can imagine, but if you're the slave noticing that white people turn you into property and beat you, I don't think that qualifies as even an unfair observation.
There is noticing racism, and being racist yourself. How does the new definition help here, if you want to separate the slaver and the slave? Let me present a contrived scenario to test your reasoning: Go back to early America colonial days where planation slavery was a thing, lets say a corner somewhere, in just one planation the situation was reverse, where Black owners (having somehow acquired very localised power + privilege) were doing the most horrid things to whites. They are abusing localised power + privilege, beating white slaves just because they are white and don't deserve better, but aren't making a dent in the balance of power in the country overall. Is that justified or not?
Justified, because they're moving the post toward equality. They're moving things in the right direction. Others are pouring inequality into the boat and they are bailing it. I know this is an unpopular opinion but I stand by it. I care about injustice, and rectifying it, not whether individual people get hurt or how badly. Sometimes individual people get hurt. I'm one of them. I still walk with a slight limp because Black kids beat me up every day and at one point broke my leg. I don't care about things like that. Boo hoo. Not on my radar.

I realise this is extreme but this guy is one of my heroes. There is literally nothing a Black person could do to a white person in this system I would say is not justified.

Now that doesn't change the fact that for the people in your scenario, and whatever very very few victims there are who have been in situations like that, their reality is not that they have power, but that they have a deficit of power. That's a good thing. The cause needs them. They need to be taunted, dismissed, and called stupid until they physically lash out, because that will expose the truth about them.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Feb 03, 2022 6:04 pmThey did/are still doing it because they believe that they are genuinely objectively better as a race, AKA old-school-racists. You are right to question yourself: If we use the new definition, are you ready to call Black people racist if/when they ever become the group with power, even if they refrain from active abuse (but can't help but hold unconscious bias?)
What I might say in that world is that yes, they are still racist, but better that world, then the world where whites are in control and they do it worse. I would have to see how it turned out to make that assessment. I might be inclined to accept small injustices so that big ones were precluded, though to be honest I don't like to. I think we should go for a world with no injustices.

I'm reminded of Murray Rothbard, the Libertarian, who maintains that it is an injustice against human rights and freedom to put anyone in jail for any reason. Instead, if they kill or maim somebody, make them financially make up for that. This strikes me as impractical but consistent. He's taking the side of no, don't commit a small injustice to stop a bigger one, don't commit any injustice ever, and it's a viewpoint many people respect.

Online
Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Whites Go Away?

Post #37

Post by Bust Nak »

Purple Knight wrote: Thu Feb 03, 2022 7:22 pm Because your subconscious can, if it wants, always simply account for whatever your conscious mind does. Your subconscious isn't unaware that you're taking makeup measures and the idea is, if it wants to favour one person, it just accounts for that. The subconscious is what's making everyone act on their biases, and it does so knowing we pursue equality.
You are making subconscious sound like a calculating devil sitting on your shoulder fiddling with your thinking brain. How is the subconscious suppose to be able to figure out how to counteract what you consciously are doing?
Even if it is the minority, I think I have a good reason why I think the new definition is better.
The point here was that you have a long way to go before it is adopted, so it's far to early to use terms like evolved as that sounds like it's already been done.
Justified, because they're moving the post toward equality. They're moving things in the right direction. Others are pouring inequality into the boat and they are bailing it. I know this is an unpopular opinion but I stand by it.
Well then your definition does not help separating slavers and the slaves, when some times the slaves are the racist, and sometimes the slavers are racist.
I care about injustice, and rectifying it, not whether individual people get hurt or how badly. Sometimes individual people get hurt. I'm one of them. I still walk with a slight limp because Black kids beat me up every day and at one point broke my leg. I don't care about things like that. Boo hoo. Not on my radar.

I realise this is extreme but this guy is one of my heroes. There is literally nothing a Black person could do to a white person in this system I would say is not justified.
Yikes. Does an eye for an eye makes the world go blind mean anything to you? Should that guy be freed according to you?
Now that doesn't change the fact that for the people in your scenario, and whatever very very few victims there are who have been in situations like that, their reality is not that they have power, but that they have a deficit of power. That's a good thing. The cause needs them. They need to be taunted, dismissed, and called stupid until they physically lash out, because that will expose the truth about them.
How do you reconcile these two ideas: a) Black slaver owning white slave is justified, given they are moving towards equality; and b) Black slavers are causing injustice because they have unconscious bias towards white people? Injustice and justified can overlap?
What I might say in that world is that yes, they are still racist, but better that world, then the world where whites are in control and they do it worse. I would have to see how it turned out to make that assessment. I might be inclined to accept small injustices so that big ones were precluded, though to be honest I don't like to. I think we should go for a world with no injustices.

I'm reminded of Murray Rothbard, the Libertarian, who maintains that it is an injustice against human rights and freedom to put anyone in jail for any reason. Instead, if they kill or maim somebody, make them financially make up for that. This strikes me as impractical but consistent. He's taking the side of no, don't commit a small injustice to stop a bigger one, don't commit any injustice ever, and it's a viewpoint many people respect.
If unconscious bias causes injustice, no matter how slight, then this plan is literally impossible.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18571
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 211 times
Contact:

Re: Whites Go Away?

Post #38

Post by otseng »

Purple Knight wrote: Thu Feb 03, 2022 7:22 pm I realise this is extreme but this guy is one of my heroes. There is literally nothing a Black person could do to a white person in this system I would say is not justified.
Yes, this view is extreme. And even borders on violation of rules of respect of others.

We can discuss acts of violence, but don't want to go down the path of justification and encouragement of violence.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 668 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: Whites Go Away?

Post #39

Post by Purple Knight »

Bust Nak wrote: Fri Feb 04, 2022 4:34 amYou are making subconscious sound like a calculating devil sitting on your shoulder fiddling with your thinking brain. How is the subconscious suppose to be able to figure out how to counteract what you consciously are doing?
The subconscious has to be aware of my actions and what I am doing to adjust my actions toward bias. If the subconscious is aware of me being in a position where I am giving out six marbles, or six jobs, and able to adjust on the fly or justify or do whatever else it does so I can do evil, I must conclude it is aware of what I am thinking despite that I am not aware of what it is thinking.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Feb 04, 2022 4:34 amThe point here was that you have a long way to go before it is adopted, so it's far to early to use terms like evolved as that sounds like it's already been done.
By the old definition a lot of things look different, but I don't think using different definitions changes anything in a meaningful way as long as they're consistent. Definitions are categorisations. And all that really matters here is what's put into the impermissible and immoral category and what's permissible. By the old definition, I think black racism is permissible and in fact moral, while white racism represents extreme injustice, because whites have power.

It's the same as violence versus self-defence. People will get nasty, saying, that wasn't violence, that was self-defence, insisting on their definition. People who insist on their definitions are just trying to obfuscate. I only bother about definitions when someone is pushing an unuseful definition. I will reject an unuseful definition. In this thread I can easily use your definition because even though it isn't as correlative with what is an injustice and what is not, it's clear and easy to use. If somebody needs to use specific definitions to prove something, when clear and easy-to-use alternatives are available, it means they're obfuscating.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Feb 04, 2022 4:34 amWell then your definition does not help separating slavers and the slaves, when some times the slaves are the racist, and sometimes the slavers are racist.
You just have to look at the bigger picture before you separate, just like how you have to zoom out (temporally) and look at what just happened in order to get a correct moral picture of the man who is still alive, standing over his attacker, whom he just killed in self-defence. I should mention though that I do not know if self-defence is morally permissible or not; I'm just giving it as an example because so many people think it is. And this system also makes it vastly more difficult to sort wrongdoers, but people prefer it to simply, "Violence is always wrong, no matter why."
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Feb 04, 2022 4:34 amYikes. Does an eye for an eye makes the world go blind mean anything to you?
Yes it does. But I think it's sometimes necessary to take the eye when everyone around you is playing hardball. Always being the side giving up eyes and never taking any because, "Well, I don't want you to be blind too," doesn't serve anything. You have to play the game that's set up in front of you.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Feb 04, 2022 4:34 amShould that guy be freed according to you?
Ideally yes I would like him to be free. But I admit I don't know how this works. Should courts be allowed to fairly assess claims to being a morally correct revolutionary? How in the world would they do that since all they do now is simply assess whether a law was broken and they do a bad enough job of that? Should the police assess it before they arrest someone? What if the police are the problem or part of it? Ultimately I don't think there's a workable way to say people who break the law shouldn't be arrested, even if they were right to break the law.

But that's why I think checks and balances don't work. I don't think there's a way to design a system so that once it goes bad, it somehow corrects for that and doesn't actually go bad. I don't think you can be Hank Hill and use the boyscout way and work within a bad system to defeat a bad system.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Feb 04, 2022 4:34 amHow do you reconcile these two ideas: a) Black slaver owning white slave is justified, given they are moving towards equality; and b) Black slavers are causing injustice because they have unconscious bias towards white people? Injustice and justified can overlap?
I don't think what the black slavers in your scenario did was injustice. I just admitted that from the perspective of the white slave, that it would seem like injustice and he'd have no way whatsoever to know it wasn't. If it turns out that the Gilgamechs really do rule the universe, that absolutely matters in my view when it comes to whether this singular, fat green alien getting beaten and murdered on Earth was actually wrong or not. From my perspective, I'm going to see his broken body on Alien Autopsy and say it was a horrible injustice. But if it turns out his kind rule the entire universe with their brutal theocracy then I'm mistaken.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Feb 04, 2022 4:34 amIf unconscious bias causes injustice, no matter how slight, then this plan is literally impossible.
I worry that too, but I think that in fighting for the victims, we can put ourselves on the right side of history, because I don't think the result of bias counts as injustice if it's pushing against the unjust system instead of helping it.

We may be caught in a neverending cycle where we strip power from one group after another and never achieve justice, but this is because people suck.

I have some slight hope, though, that if we just get whites out of power, the next advancement in morality will present itself and at least provide a blueprint for solving the problem permanently.
otseng wrote: Fri Feb 04, 2022 9:48 amYes, this view is extreme. And even borders on violation of rules of respect of others.

We can discuss acts of violence, but don't want to go down the path of justification and encouragement of violence.
Image

So, simply posting this picture of a morally correct revolutionary (most people think, anyway) and nothing else is what I almost did, but I don't want to be snide and nasty and win an argument. I usually fight here with a blunted sword, using it only to parry, saying, I am open, what sword can stab me, because I genuinely want to know if I am wrong. But I'm still posting the picture because I want you to see where I'm coming from too.

Identifying morally correct revolutionaries is a difficult point for me, I admit, because nobody believes violence is never justified, everyone says violence is never justified, and what everyone really believes is that violence in their cause alone is justified but they'll never bloody say so, robbing me of the opportunity to pick their brains about what they really think and find out why moral people think as they do. Maybe you don't believe that; if anyone is genuinely a pacifist I would expect it most of a Christian, despite the fact that Jesus is one of the individuals who has me endorsing violence.

It's because I don't want to be the next Judas. So whenever someone says they did it because morality, and they're part of the rising moral structure rather than the declining one, I am going to just go ahead and believe them, because they might be the next morally correct revolutionary, and if I just go by my instinct I see them flipping tables, chasing people with a bullwhip, or hurting people, and I turn them in. But if I want to be on the right side of history I can't do that. In times of morally correct revolutionaries, I must conclude, the law is to be ignored, and violations of it are to be celebrated.

I'm not going to go and do violence myself precisely because I can't be sure if it would be right. In fact I tend to think it would be wrong. But when I see someone who does do violence and they have a moral reason, I can't help but adulate them, because they must be absolutely certain.

Athetotheist
Guru
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: Whites Go Away?

Post #40

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #39
I'm not going to go and do violence myself precisely because I can't be sure if it would be right. In fact I tend to think it would be wrong. But when I see someone who does do violence and they have a moral reason, I can't help but adulate them, because they must be absolutely certain.
What "moral reason" could there be for what that rapist did to that woman? There's a difference between the certainty of a moral reason and the certitude of a sorry excuse.

"The human psyche has two great sicknesses: the urge to carry vendetta across generations, and the tendency to fasten group labels on people rather than see them as individuals."
---Richard Dawkins (one of your fellow atheists)

Post Reply