Behavior modifacation vs racism

[Plane]

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.

It is a very simular over simplifacation.

[Plane]

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?

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 ?

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."

I don't see the incontinuity you do. This is not a contradiction.

[Universe Prince]

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.

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.

[Universe Prince]

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?

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."

Okay, if we use that as our definition, then how are animals not racist?

Unfortunately , you skipped the discussion that led up to it .

Or did you ?

No, I did not. I know many people think racism is complicated. And frankly, the comic does a poor job of making the case for racism being complicated. It shows rather nicely how simple it actually is. Just because some people don't like that they may be guilty of harboring a little racism does not mean racism is complicated. Calling it complicated makes it easier to live with, but frankly, there just is not anything complicated about it. And you have not done anything to explain why racism is supposedly so complicated. As I said before, "Recognizing some people are different is not racism any more than recognizing that some people have yellow hair. Yes, getting rid of implicit associations would be bad, but that doesn't mean all implicit associations are necessarily negative implicit prejudices."

[Universe Prince]

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.

[Plane]

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.

So in what respect is it either?

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?

Let us say that its effects and its causes are complex , its solution or elimination is also complex.

[Plane]

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.

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.

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.

[Universe Prince]

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?

First, being hard to deal with does not make something complex. Second, it is not hard to explain. Third, it is not hard to nail down. Fourth, since when is it hard to decide whether racism is right or wrong? Fifth, difficult to determine whether or not it is uniquely human, I suppose it could be argued either way depending on whether one uses your definition or mine, but I don't see the difficulty. So no, I do not consider it resolved that racism is complicated. You have not made your case at all.

[Universe Prince]

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.

[_JS]

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.

Simply because people are involved does not make something complex.

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.

It is an easy appeal to loathe your brother and sister for a simple difference. Bigotry is easy. It takes no special effort, no lengthy thought process. It is not the equivalent of practicing law, medicine, or driving a formula 1 racecar. Anyone can be a bigot in all of two seconds time. And it happens often.

Entire systems of government have been built upon bigotry: the CSA, South Africa, recent Israel. It takes no real great effort. Scare your population enough and you can even couch your bigotry into security or economic language as you see today with Islam and immigration.

[Plane]

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.

I began this thread with two Scientific American articles about University studys on the components of Racism which are congenatal , and the efforts of behavorial modifacation some people impose upon themselves hopeing to counteract their own prejudices.


I really differ with you on the subject of the simplicity of Racism , people are involved and people suffer from Racism people use racism as a tool and people try to increase and improve racism and people try to reduce and counteract racism. The involvement of human beings almost necessacerily complicates racisim , it is not the trophic behavior of the Ants nor the necessacery nature of the Wolf, we learn and have instinct , which we modify through out our lives.

For the wolf there is nothing wrong in being territorial , driveing other wolves from the borders of their hunting ground is a matter of eating or not, human beings in that situation can imagine multitudes of solutions , some of which emulate the wolf and some involve useing the increased availibility of labor to increase food production. We are able to make choices these choices lead to complication.

[_JS]

For certain it is not simple enough that it is pure instinct. On that I will agree.

On the other hand racism is not so complex that a man or woman is not responsible for his or her own actions involving his or her racist views. One chooses to be a racist. Just as one chooses to accept the inherent differences of others.

In South Africa a white man or woman chose to support the system that survived on the back of exploiting the Black African population through Apartheid or they did not. There were examples of both and also of people in between.

There were anti-semitic people in Europe who participated fully with the Holocaust, and some who did not wish to carry it to such extremes. There were Roma who participated in the most violent reprisals against the Jews only to be the next group to face the wrath of the angry European whites as it said in the article I recently posted.

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.

Buy a bunch of lapel pins from China and whoever doesn't wear them isn't part of the group. In other words, if you wear one you're better than those who don't. It is easy - that's why I don't consider it complex. The psychology is simple. The methods are simple and almost universal. For the elite it is always a good method of distraction. When the shit is really hitting the fan - start blaming the people who are different for everything. There's nothing new or complicated about it. The language hasn't even changed very much.

[Plane]

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.

[Universe Prince]

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.

[Plane]

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 ?  Do the Al Queda feel any ostracism at all?