There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life,? Jesse Jackson once told an audience, ?than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery?then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.?
Jackson?s remark illustrates a basic fact of our social existence, one that even a committed black civil-rights leader cannot escape: ideas that we may not endorse?for example, that a black stranger might harm us but a white one probably would not?can nonetheless lodge themselves in our minds and, without our permission or awareness, color our perceptions, expectations and judgments.
...............................................
Using a variety of sophisticated methods, psychologists have established that people unwittingly hold an astounding assortment of stereotypical beliefs and attitudes about social groups: black and white, female and male, elderly and young, gay and straight, fat and thin. Although these implicit biases inhabit us all, we vary in the particulars, depending on our own group membership, our conscious desire to avoid bias and the contours of our everyday environments. For instance, about two thirds of whites have an implicit preference for whites over blacks, whereas blacks show no average preference for one race over the other.
Such bias is far more prevalent than the more overt, or explicit, prejudice that we associate with, say, the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazis. That is emphatically not to say that explicit prejudice and discrimination have evaporated nor that they are of lesser importance than implicit bias. According to a 2005 federal report, almost 200,000 hate crimes?84 percent of them violent?occur in the U.S. every year.
......................................................
Now researchers are probing deeper. They want to know: Where exactly do such biases come from? How much do they influence our outward behavior? And if stereotypes and prejudiced attitudes are burned into our psyches, can learning more about them help to tell each of us how to override them?
..............................................
Because closely associated concepts are essentially linked together in a person?s mind, a person will be faster to respond to a related pair of concepts?say, ?hammer and nail??than to an uncoupled pair, such as ?hammer and cotton ball.? The timing of a person?s responses, therefore, can reveal hidden associations such as ?black and danger? or ?female and frail? that form the basis of implicit prejudice. ?One of the questions that people often ask is, ?Can we get rid of implicit associations?? ? says psychologist Brian A. Nosek of the University of Virginia. ?The answer is no, and we wouldn?t want to. If we got rid of them, we would lose a very useful tool that we need for our everyday lives.?
...................................
In addition, people who report a strong personal motivation to be nonprejudiced tend to harbor less implicit bias. And some studies indicate that people who are good at using logic and willpower to control their more primitive urges, such as trained meditators, exhibit less implicit bias. Brain research suggests that the people who are best at inhibiting implicit stereotypes are those who are especially skilled at detecting mismatches between their intentions and their actions.Quote
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=buried-prejudice-the-bigot-in-your-brain
How does the brain differentiate those who are similar to us from those who are different? Does it analyze differences in skin color, language, religion, height, eye color, foot size? Does it discriminate cat versus dog lovers, Pepsi versus Coke drinkers, Shiite versus Sunni, Crips versus Bloods?
In a way, the brain does all this and more by simply distinguishing those who don't meet various definitions of who we are. Specifically, a forebrain area called the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) appears to predict the behavior of members of outgroups by employing prejudices about their presumed background -- assumptions we make, in other words, based on what groups their various traits and contexts seem to put them in or out of. In this sense, outsiders, or those in outgroups, include humans of dissimilar cultural or ethnic identities or any other perceived stereotyped dissimilarity from your own self-identified groups, as well as non-human agents such as cartoons and animals and even inanimate moving objects. We distinguish otherness by all sorts of indicators, from the seemingly obviously, like sex or race, to the more obviously cultural, such as whether a person is wearing, say, a Yankees cap, a Dodgers cap, or a tee-shirt that says Baseball Sucks.
The focus of the paper under review here focuses less on the cues than on the brain areas that respond to them. The authors detailed the function of a particularly important brain area while studying the neural correlates of "mentalizing." Mentalizing is the ability to predict how other people will behave in a given situation. It combines the powers of theory of mind (our ideas about what other people know and do not know) with the presumptions that we hold about people with dissimilar backgrounds. Some researchers believe that mentalizing is a function of the brain's mirror neuron system, allowing us to predict the behavior of others by simulating how other people may feel in a given situation.
You might be a redneck if? you activate a Harvard student's dorsal mPFC
The experimenters used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to scan the brains of Harvard and other Boston-area students while showing them pictures of other college-age people whom the researchers randomly described as either liberal northeastern students or conservative Midwest fundamentalist Christian students. The categories were a ruse. The pictures were actually downloaded from an online dating website and randomly assigned to the two groups (which were an invention of the researchers), with each group holding similar racial and gender mixes. The experimental participants, however, thought each person pictured really was from one group or the other because the experimenters contrived demographic information about each photo; this information was randomly reassigned to different pictures with each new experimental subject. The participants, then, were confronted with pictures of people who had randomly generated but coherent cultural and political identities already attached to them.
but the category you place this creature in holds more importance to you than the individual creature.
Quote
but the category you place this creature in holds more importance to you than the individual creature.
I'd use that in arguments against the "Muslim Peril" but I'm sure someone would tell me I'm ignoring the "real" nature of the Muslim threat.
Yes you are , if you ignore that orthodox Islam places you and I in such a catagory as a matter of dogma.
Yes you are , if you ignore that orthodox Islam places you and I in such a catagory as a matter of dogma.
I'm not.
Then you know it is true that Racism is a complicated thing.
Then you know it is true that Racism is a complicated thing.
No, it really is not. People are complicated. Racism is simple. Again, "the category you place this creature in holds more importance to you than the individual creature." Don't confuse the individual with the category.
That may be true , it may define Racism succinctly,but it suggests nothing about causes or solutions.
Racism seems to be a human trait , reduced or controlled best volentarily.
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution ? African slavery as it exists amongst us ? the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.
(Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner?stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery ? subordination to the superior race ? is his natural and normal condition.
If racism is simple then it is also simple that Islam is directing religious intolerance twards the Non -Islamic.
It isn't that simple, and it is quite often a mutual problem that is hard to adress on both sides at the same time , but impossible to cure unilaterally.
If racism is simple then it is also simple that Islam is directing religious intolerance twards the Non -Islamic.
Ahem, "the category you place this creature in holds more importance to you than the individual creature." You're focusing on the category and losing sight of the individuals.
It isn't that simple, and it is quite often a mutual problem that is hard to adress on both sides at the same time , but impossible to cure unilaterally.
The problem with your statement is not that it is not that simple, but that "Islam is directing religious intolerance twards the Non -Islamic" is not true. People are directing tolerance or intolerance. While many may argue that Islam is inherent intolerant, there are other who will argue that such is a matter of interpretation, both of language and meaning. For example, "jihad" does not necessarily always mean "holy war". As I understand it, it can be used to mean simply a spiritual struggle on a personal level. We do ourselves a disservice to assume that Islam is the problem and not the people.
This whole week what individual were we discussing?
France?
So the individuals that have interpreted "jihad" to mean kill some infidels have banded together , is it impossible to discuss the band?
This whole week what individual were we discussing?
France?
I believe I was discussing individuals while other people were trying to convince me that the category was all that was important.
So the individuals that have interpreted "jihad" to mean kill some infidels have banded together , is it impossible to discuss the band?
Of course not. But when you say "Islam is directing religious intolerance twards the Non -Islamic", you're not discussing a band of individuals, are you? You're making blanket statements about a rather broad category.
You don't do qualifiers?
If racism is simple then it is also simple that Islam is directing religious intolerance twards the Non -Islamic.
| The problem with your statement is not that it is not that simple, but that "Islam is directing religious intolerance twards the Non -Islamic" is not true. People are directing tolerance or intolerance. While many may argue that Islam is inherent intolerant, there are other who will argue that such is a matter of interpretation, both of language and meaning. For example, "jihad" does not necessarily always mean "holy war". As I understand it, it can be used to mean simply a spiritual struggle on a personal level. We do ourselves a disservice to assume that Islam is the problem and not the people. |
Or in other words if it were simple we would have solved it laong ago , it isn't only recently that this stuff has started to bother people.
but did you notice that the same caricter had said a few panels before that "Racism is complicated"?
It isn't simple because people are not simple .
As far as I know there is little racism outside the Human Race , I never met a dog suffering from it.
Bees and wolves both learn to detect sameness in hive and pack , rejecting outsiders and defending territory , is this racism?
Reduced to this level of simplicity it looses its wrongness .
Bees and wolves both learn to detect sameness in hive and pack , rejecting outsiders and defending territory , is this racism?
What, exactly, do you think racism is?
Reduced to this level of simplicity it looses its wrongness .
Does it? Why?
You think an animal or insect can do wrong?
You think an animal or insect can do wrong?
Yes, animals can do wrong. We do all the time, do we not? But even lesser animals will ostracize a fellow animal for doing something wrong. I don't know about insects, but then, people are not insects.
Because an animal cannot know worng
The problem with your statement is not that it is not that simple, but that "Islam is directing religious intolerance twards the Non -Islamic" is not true.
By human standards, ants are racists. red ants and black ants engage in genocidal, no make that insecticidal warfare all the time.Yes, applying human standards to Ants is rediculous ,no less than applying ant standards to humans.
=====================
Indians have a hard time growing facial hair. With difficulty an Indian grows a wispy moustache like Cantinflas, the famous actor.I didn't know that , so are the moustaches a serious issue or a sidebar?
Most Mexicans are mestizos, that is part Indian and part Spanish (or perhaps French). The idea of growing a moustache stems from the Mexican idea that it is better to be a European than an common Huehenche, Naco or Tlaxcalteco. The more Spanish one is, the better. Hence a moustache is a sort of racial statement.
City Mexicans consider factors beyond just the moustache. One thing is, indios tend to wear hats with a dancly thing at the back of the brim. City Mexicans always wear hats without the dangly thing, but most never wear any hat at all. Baseball hats are woren for sports by some people.
QuoteThe problem with your statement is not that it is not that simple, but that "Islam is directing religious intolerance twards the Non -Islamic" is not true.
This is a part of my statement , why did you leave off the part that included the "IF"?
It took you a paragraph to show why this simple statement is only in some fraction true , you could understand the same way if you cared to that it is not any more true than is to say that "Racism is simple" Racism is no more simple than the people who suffer from it .
Saying that racism is simple is not at all like saying that Islam is directing religious intolerance toward anybody. People direct religious intolerance. Islam is a set of ideas and words, tools that do little on their own. Islam does not act on its own. People direct religious tolerance or intolerance. Racism does nothing by itself. People have to believe in it and act on it before it does anything. Some people believe Islam mandates religious intolerance. Some people do not. Either way, people are the ones responsible for the actions.
Bees and wolves both learn to detect sameness in hive and pack , rejecting outsiders and defending territory , is this racism?
What, exactly, do you think racism is?
from: Plane on May 10, 2008, 01:38:08 AM
but did you notice that the same character had said a few panels before that "Racism is complicated"?
And then he undercut that argument by saying "the category you place this creature in holds more importance to you than the individual creature."
QuoteSaying that racism is simple is not at all like saying that Islam is directing religious intolerance toward anybody. People direct religious intolerance. Islam is a set of ideas and words, tools that do little on their own. Islam does not act on its own. People direct religious tolerance or intolerance. Racism does nothing by itself. People have to believe in it and act on it before it does anything. Some people believe Islam mandates religious intolerance. Some people do not. Either way, people are the ones responsible for the actions.
It is a very simular over simplifacation.
QuoteBees and wolves both learn to detect sameness in hive and pack , rejecting outsiders and defending territory , is this racism?QuoteWhat, exactly, do you think racism is?
Well I thought I found a good succinct definition in a Comic ,
"the category you place this creature in holds more importance to you than the individual creature."
Unfortunately , you skipped the discussion that led up to it .
Or did you ?
Gravity is simple , compared to racism .
Haveing found a simple statement that succinctly defines it does not make it simple.
Gravity is simple , compared to racism .
Haveing found a simple statement that succinctly defines it does not make it simple.
On the other hand, saying it is complicated does not make it so.
All right , with no person present there is no Religion , no religious bigotry and no raceism present , even speaking of any of these subjects implys that persons are involved.QuoteSaying that racism is simple is not at all like saying that Islam is directing religious intolerance toward anybody. People direct religious intolerance. Islam is a set of ideas and words, tools that do little on their own. Islam does not act on its own. People direct religious tolerance or intolerance. Racism does nothing by itself. People have to believe in it and act on it before it does anything. Some people believe Islam mandates religious intolerance. Some people do not. Either way, people are the ones responsible for the actions.
It is a very simular over simplifacation.
Similar? Similar to...?
Oversimplification? Tempted as I am to be sarcastic, I'll try to be nice. I'm not simplifying. I'm explaining. If you have an alternate explanation for how racism and Islam work on their own without people being responsible, then by all means, present it. I'd love to see it.
I consider it resolved now that haveing a succinct definition does not imply simplicity , but you don't seem to consider it resolved that being hard to deal with or explain or being hard to nail down in specific or decide whether it is right or wrong , or difficult to determne whether it is uniquely Human or not might make it complicated?
All right , with no person present there is no Religion , no religious bigotry and no raceism present , even speaking of any of these subjects implys that persons are involved.
All right , with no person present there is no Religion , no religious bigotry and no raceism present , even speaking of any of these subjects implys that persons are involved.
Racism is extremely simple. If it were not, if it took a great deal of thought and time to pursue racism, then it would not be so easily sold to the masses.
All right , with no person present there is no Religion , no religious bigotry and no raceism present , even speaking of any of these subjects implys that persons are involved.
Sigh. Yes, speaking of tools does imply people are involved. However, saying, for example, "guns kill people" is not true because guns do not act of their own accord. Saying "Islam is directing religious intolerance toward non-Muslims" is not true because Islam does not act of its own accord. Guns are used to to kill people. Islam is used to direct religious intolerance. Used by people.
If I were to say that "The Deer Was Shot By A Rifle" I would not in any way be implying that the rifle acted on its own , acting on its own without human involvement is contrary to the usual behavior of Rifles , which being inanimate have no behavior independant of human beings.
When I speak of Islam , and you point out that islam is nothing without people , how is the point you make signifigant? I don't know who would not have already known this.
If I were to say that "The Deer Was Shot By A Rifle" I would not in any way be implying that the rifle acted on its own , acting on its own without human involvement is contrary to the usual behavior of Rifles , which being inanimate have no behavior independant of human beings.
"One day I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know." The deer would have been shot by a person; that everyone might assume this does not make your sentence "the deer was shot by a rifle" a factual comment on what actually happened. But it depends on listeners or readers assuming something, and I'll get back to that in a moment.
When I speak of Islam , and you point out that islam is nothing without people , how is the point you make signifigant? I don't know who would not have already known this.
Saying that "guns kill people" carries the same implication that people are involved. But there demonization is of guns. Guns are bad. Guns must be banned. Your blanket comment "Islam is directing religious intolerance toward non-Muslims" makes the same mistake. Islam is demonized. And (this is the part about depending on readers or listeners to assume) these sort of comments depend on that sort of assumption to make any claim of truthfulness. Ignoring the element of personal responsibility allows assumption to bypass reason and go directly to the support for being against guns, Islam, whatever. The assumption does not make allowance for self-defense or moderate Islam or any other mitigating factor, and so creates a position that is at once righteous, certain and wrong.
It would be rediculous to imply that people sans Islam would be inofensive
Islam is not the only way to excuse bad behaviors .
As a tool of violence and an excuse of violence Islam has recently been used , but it is really the people involved and not the excuses they use that you want to talk about?
All right fine, make the separation for me between Islam and the blasts on trains in Madrid and busses in London.
The KKK had the same pretentions twards Christianity that Al Queda has on Islam , but the Southern Christian Leadership council found Christianity usefull in appealing to the People of Christ , Christians generally wanted to make a sepration between "their " Christianity and the pretentions of those willing to bomb Birmingham churches.
Does Islam have the potential to police itself in any respect ?
Are you suggesting there is no difference between the religious beliefs of the members of the KKK and Christians who did not agree with the KKK?
Does Islam have the potential to police itself in any respect ?
Well golly, I don't know. Are there people involved?
All right fine, make the separation for me between Islam and the blasts on trains in Madrid and busses in London.
Okay. Islam did not blow anything up. People using bombs blew things up.
So hensforward I shall never use the term Islam without adding that I mean the people who carry the belief system called Islam?
Shall I make a macro?
This is like haveing to specify each time we talk of Chickens we mean the bird kind.
As it turned out there was a difference , for many years the difference was not enough to make the separation.The KKK's claims of Christianity worked for them for decades , finally falling when they seemed rediculous.
Have you not realized yet that Religion cannot be discussed in absence the discussion of people?
When people have something in common that common thing and the differences that result can be discussed .
I think this connects to the concept of racism , which also does not occur without persons to harbor it, yet "racism" is supposed to be simple as if it existed in isolation from its complex Hosts?
Al Queda and its apologists do claim to be very devout , is there anything in Islam that can make this seem rediculous?To People
JS: "Racism is a very simple because it fills a base human desire. It places a group above another. Nationalism does the very same thing. Both fill a very simple need amongst many people. "You may be one of the dregs, you may be a nobody, but at least you're white. You can always look down on the other races."
Or:
"You may be a dreg, you may be a nobody, you may be a simple guy, but at least you're an American and you can always look down on people from other countries."
You can put any nation in there and it still works as long as you give them enough mythology and symbolism to fill their fantasies and make them feel that they are a part of something better than themselves. Racism and Nationalism are very basic and very similar. "
How are patriotism and nationalism similar and/or different? Can it be construed that being patriotic is being racist?
As it turned out there was a difference , for many years the difference was not enough to make the separation.The KKK's claims of Christianity worked for them for decades , finally falling when they seemed ridiculous.
So, are you now saying members of the KKK are not and cannot be Christians?Other people. Duh.
So, are you now saying members of the KKK are not and cannot be Christians?
Duh in deed , your point is trivial.
and you had to keep correcting me to remind me over and over ad nausium that Islam includes people
I can't think of a point more trivial to make on this subject , yet we can't progress past it?
QuoteSo, are you now saying members of the KKK are not and cannot be Christians?
I am encouraged that you have understood what I have said , finally , of course you understood it entirely in reverse, but considering how poorly we have been communicateing this week that is progress.
The KKK considered themselves Christian so strongly that they would likely do you violence if you were to question their Christianity . Their propaganda for many years portrayed them as the bulwark of defense of Christian civilisation against the enemys of Christianity . This seems rediculous now .
One reason it seems rediculous is that they stood against people who were {to people} evidently better Christians , and their behavior seemed quite often to be contrary to the teaching of Christ, but this was a development that took years and several cathartic episodes.
During the time that the KKK seemed truely to be an Empire its membership didn't amount to a majority of Christians , nor did even its outermost casual supporters included make up a majority of Christians . Yet it is a sad fact that their pretentions to being Christians served them as propaganda and cover in a nation of Christians.
QuoteSo, are you now saying members of the KKK are not and cannot be Christians?
I am encouraged that you have understood what I have said , finally , of course you understood it entirely in reverse, but considering how poorly we have been communicateing this week that is progress.
The KKK considered themselves Christian so strongly that they would likely do you violence if you were to question their Christianity . Their propaganda for many years portrayed them as the bulwark of defense of Christian civilisation against the enemys of Christianity . This seems rediculous now .
One reason it seems rediculous is that they stood against people who were {to people} evidently better Christians , and their behavior seemed quite often to be contrary to the teaching of Christ, but this was a development that took years and several cathartic episodes.
During the time that the KKK seemed truely to be an Empire its membership didn't amount to a majority of Christians , nor did even its outermost casual supporters included make up a majority of Christians . Yet it is a sad fact that their pretentions to being Christians served them as propaganda and cover in a nation of Christians.
You did not answer the question. If we are to improve our communication, perhaps you could start with that.
QuoteSo, are you now saying members of the KKK are not and cannot be Christians?
I am encouraged that you have understood what I have said , finally , of course you understood it entirely in reverse, but considering how poorly we have been communicateing this week that is progress.
The KKK considered themselves Christian so strongly that they would likely do you violence if you were to question their Christianity . Their propaganda for many years portrayed them as the bulwark of defense of Christian civilisation against the enemys of Christianity . This seems rediculous now .
I in no respect ever considered Islam to be acting in absensense of human beings , I never made a blanket accusation that can be construed in any respect to include all of the people that are Muslim ,
I not o0nly never denyed that the KKK were Christian , but my whole point referenceing them was to compare their idea of useing Christianity to Al Quedas idea of useing Islam.
I begin to suspect you of playing obtuse just to play around .
noQuoteSo, are you now saying members of the KKK are not and cannot be Christians?
I am encouraged that you have understood what I have said , finally , of course you understood it entirely in reverse, but considering how poorly we have been communicateing this week that is progress.
The KKK considered themselves Christian so strongly that they would likely do you violence if you were to question their Christianity . Their propaganda for many years portrayed them as the bulwark of defense of Christian civilisation against the enemys of Christianity . This seems rediculous now .
The question was not whether the KKK considered themselves Christian. The question was "are you now saying members of the KKK are not and cannot be Christians?" Is this not a straightforward question?
I in no respect ever considered Islam to be acting in absensense of human beings , I never made a blanket accusation that can be construed in any respect to include all of the people that are Muslim ,
"Islam is directing religious intolerance twards the Non -Islamic."
[][][][][][][][] This is an abridgement of my reply , not what I said.[][][][][][][][][][]
I not o0nly never denyed that the KKK were Christian , but my whole point referenceing them was to compare their idea of useing Christianity to Al Quedas idea of useing Islam.
I begin to suspect you of playing obtuse just to play around .
No. I'm asking questions. I don't say I never assume, but I try to not assume. When I communicate with people who expect a lot of assumptions, this can cause problems, but I still prefer to not make assumptions.
>>The question was not whether the KKK considered themselves Christian. The question was "are you now saying members of the KKK are not and cannot be Christians?" Is this not a straightforward question?<<
I would have to say that no, if you are a member of the Klu Klux Klan you are not a Christian. Even if you claim to be one.
QuoteThe question was not whether the KKK considered themselves Christian. The question was "are you now saying members of the KKK are not and cannot be Christians?" Is this not a straightforward question?
no
What ever brought to your mind that I might deny the Christian Status of the KKK ?
Haveing Assumed myself that you knew that all Muslims were people , I have wasteed a lot of time on this very trivial point.
Sigh. You have missed the point completely. But the surprising part is that you're still talking about something you insist is trivial.
Then you know it is true that Racism is a complicated thing.
No, it really is not. People are complicated. Racism is simple. Again, "the category you place this creature in holds more importance to you than the individual creature." Don't confuse the individual with the category.
Using a variety of sophisticated methods, psychologists have established that people unwittingly hold an astounding assortment of stereotypical beliefs and attitudes about social groups: black and white, female and male, elderly and young, gay and straight, fat and thin. Although these implicit biases inhabit us all, we vary in the particulars, depending on our own group membership, our conscious desire to avoid bias and the contours of our everyday environments. For instance, about two thirds of whites have an implicit preference for whites over blacks, whereas blacks show no average preference for one race over the other.....
>>Racism is inborn and learned both...<<
I disagree. What evidence do you have that racism is inborn?
researchers are probing deeper. They want to know: Where exactly do such biases come from? How much do they influence our outward behavior?
The Islam of the Al Queda is very usefull to the Al Queda , is there any potential for the objection to them identifying themselves as very good Muslims and pious to become rediculous to the mainstream Muslim?
I began the thread with an article that included thisQuoteUsing a variety of sophisticated methods, psychologists have established that people unwittingly hold an astounding assortment of stereotypical beliefs and attitudes about social groups: black and white, female and male, elderly and young, gay and straight, fat and thin. Although these implicit biases inhabit us all, we vary in the particulars, depending on our own group membership, our conscious desire to avoid bias and the contours of our everyday environments. For instance, about two thirds of whites have an implicit preference for whites over blacks, whereas blacks show no average preference for one race over the other.....
It isn't easy to avoid the assumptions that other people apply to you , and isn't easy to avoid assuming that they will apply such assumptions .
Even the beneficent can harbor assumptions and expectations that amount to racism , perhaps often with no realisationthat they are doing anything wrong at all.
It becomes a multi dimentional matrix of degrees , a gordian knot impossible to disentangle .
I don't see why. I get your first point there, but the Gordian Knot bit, no, I don't buy it. Yes, some people may not realize some belief or attitude they hold is racist, but that is hardly a complex matter.
The question was not whether the KKK considered themselves Christian. The question was "are you now saying members of the KKK are not and cannot be Christians?" Is this not a straightforward question?
no
My apologies then. I thought it was.
This thread begins with two very interesting Sciam articles about the behavior of the human brain , racism is caused by many components , some learned and some innate.
The Islam of the Al Queda is very usefull to the Al Queda , is there any potential for the objection to them identifying themselves as very good Muslims and pious to become rediculous to the mainstream Muslim?
Of course there is. But we're not going to get there by ignoring the moderate Muslims or via military action.
I don't think Jesus would admire a KKK member much either, but I am pretty sure that whatever few members the KKK has left mostly regard themselves as Christians.
Jesus had very little to say about racism. In his day, there were Jews, Samaritans, Romans and no doubt a number of others, but if skin color differed, there is no mention of it in the NT at all. Mostly, Jesus hung out with other Jews. There were no Roman or Samaritan apostles so far as we know.
I am happy to let Christians and everyone else decide who belongs and does not belong in whatever group.
This thread begins with two very interesting Sciam articles about the behavior of the human brain , racism is caused by many components , some learned and some innate.
Racism is not caused by innate workings of the human brain. People are taught ideas that make use of things like implicit associations, that doesn't mean implicit associations are innately racist.
These implicit associations are half of the picture , they are the part that allows one to place the catagory above the individual. Placeing the individual above the catagory is a learned behavior , placeing things and people in large catagorys is more primitive , it is innate.
Why do you say "Of course there is."?
What is there to make it likely or possible?
Why do you say "Of course there is."?
What is there to make it likely or possible?
Sigh. "Of course there is. But we're not going to get there by ignoring the moderate Muslims or via military action." Martin Luther wasn't in a majority position either.
These implicit associations are half of the picture , they are the part that allows one to place the catagory above the individual. Placeing the individual above the catagory is a learned behavior , placeing things and people in large catagorys is more primitive , it is innate.
What your analysis is missing is that the categories and which people belong to which categories are also learned.
Why do you say "Of course there is."?
What is there to make it likely or possible?
Sigh. "Of course there is. But we're not going to get there by ignoring the moderate Muslims or via military action." Martin Luther wasn't in a majority position either.
the point is pretty well made that the inate component is necessacery to the phenominon.
Here is a good way to make a relevant minority into a moot minority , introduce them as "our " favorites.
What is there to make it likely or possible?
(for Islam to develop more widespread moderation , or disgust with violent means to be widely expressed)
the point is pretty well made that the inate component is necessacery to the phenominon.
Yes, but the innate component is not the phenomenon.
What is there to make it likely or possible?
(for Islam to develop more widespread moderation , or disgust with violent means to be widely expressed)
What is "the moderate Muslims", Alex?
Let us resolve then that Racism is a phenominon made up of several components both learned and inate ,
to wit....
Complex.
Let us resolve then that Racism is a phenominon made up of several components both learned and inate ,
to wit....
Complex.
But it isn't.
Those helpless and moot tiny and nearly silent people that we cannot assist without destroying them?
As for the effacacy of Bombing campaigns , they work really well where the enemy gathers up its resorces , we can therefore keep the immoderate and violent scattered , which over a long term will make them look like loosers , perception being very important in this situation , it is likely to work.
Would you argue with Universe Prince for a while?
He seems to think that there are both learned and innate components , ...
What part isn't ? Pick one.
Those helpless and moot tiny and nearly silent people that we cannot assist without destroying them?
I don't know why that would be true.
As for the efficacy of Bombing campaigns , they work really well where the enemy gathers up its resources , we can therefore keep the immoderate and violent scattered , which over a long term will make them look like looses , perception being very important in this situation , it is likely to work.
So, if we remove all support from moderates and bomb the countries, this plan is going to make them like us? less inclined to hate us? more reasonable? because the terrorists are going to look like losers? At no point is this plan making any sense at all.
Would you argue with Universe Prince for a while?
He seems to think that there are both learned and innate components , ...
Actually, I've spoken with him directly, and he thinks there is only the learned component of considering people of another race or skin color to be inferior. According to him, the "innate component" is not really a component of racism. It simply is what it is. It is not responsible for racism. So he says. But he's an idiotic, smart ass jerk. What the frak does he know?