Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts

Tuesday, 19 January 2021

Thoughts on how racial-supremacists may think.

Thoughts on how racial supremacists may think.

Often those with notions of racial supremacy exhibit warning signs in their softness on key historical characters. Describing a specific fascist leaders as geniuses and misunderstood. They like to insist that they are part of a higher group of people. They romance the idea of some historical characters, they downplay their crimes against humanity, often admire power and militarism. Maybe describing Hitler as a madman, but a genius. Only suggesting the insanity because they are not Germanic themselves or because Hitler failed, which they may regret. Other characters or leaders can be suggested by a variety of ethnic groups as their symbol or their misunderstood mad-genius.

They show extreme loyalty to a national and racial identity, personal and group superiority.  Claims of historical, genetic, racial, national values, great virtues and morals, vast amounts of pride in things they've had no part in. Ancient acts, myths and modern heroes are considered evidence for their delusions of superiority. They are often those who have done little and have few signs of deep human value, yet they boost their self-esteem by waving flags, talking to other delusionals.

Often they insist that they're promoting the greater good, even non-religious supremacists seem to have the idea that they are doing what must be done for a greater good. Morally, they believe they can justify their goals, even their potentially genocidal views. They're often those who have painted history as their story, that of their people, and from the dream of the past they seek to create that vision in the present. Making the super-man a reality through a new order which would purge the defects and perfect society around a strict ideological view of race.

Their ideology and reality are often on different pages, their efforts to force reality to obey their dream fails, but through strict effort they throw resources at their goal. Historically, they fails even when it seems to have won.  As such things are unlikely to be a stable force, it may be that it is unlikely that any power that seeks to demote every other nation and people could not easily maintain power and nothing lasts without end.

The cult of racial supremacism lingers on, mostly in the minds of those fooled by the idea that ethnic characteristics of one kind or another mark one people are a master-race. And, to those who don't know better and are swayed when told that they are a superman, the idea of being a giant amongst ants a powerful idea. Much of this fundamentally linked to excesses of ego. I cannot speak of those who think themselves to be superior in totality, some carry some of these traits, some are sympathetic but not serious supremacists. There are those who are deeply ingrained in this kind of ideology and those who would be likely to fall into line if such ideas became mainstream.

Given lessons from history, when given a direction and a sense of importance, otherwise moral characters can be converted to carry out evil deeds.


Monday, 30 March 2020

An undercurrent of racism? [ramble]

[Just a few thoughts I noted on Facebook, I wanted to preserve them here.]

An undercurrent of racism?

Race or ethnicity is the least interesting thing to me. some people get annoyed or offended if I say it of my background, but to me it wouldn't matter where I or you are from. And if you base your life and sense of belonging on race, then I think you're missing something important.
I get this from nationalists who say they "aren't racist, but..." But they worry about the death of the white race, they don't see Islam as a race but they assume Indian(south Asian, in general) and middle eastern people are Muslims. And yes, they're the same people who worry about extremist Islam but mock Muslims who don't stick to a hardline view of the faith, thus condemning moderation within the faith to a degree. Islam isn't a race, but a lot of critics of Islam, mostly older men, see a brown person from north Africa, middle east or Indian or maybe Indonesia, and they assume they're Muslim and they might be the enemy to some degree. Basically, suggest; "If they aren't here to attack us they're here to outbreed us." So I'm not a fan of the not-racist-racists, or closeted racists, or those who otherwise don't see that they're the kind of commenting fools who gives, anyone who wants it, an example of ignorance and casual racism.

Saturday, 11 November 2017

"Reverse Racism"???

"Reverse Racism"?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can be racist about your own ethnic group, a national group or another racial identity type. Well, if you wish, it seems silly to me, as does the term "reverse racism". However, the concept of racism by a person towards their own general group or type isn't reverse racism as much as racism... Unless we talk of this argument being used as a cheap fallacy to undermine an argument that is a matter of a recognised social inequality. That's if it is an inequality.
However, even inequalities can be selected or suggested, and even if institutional in one place/region the local concern may be far from so elsewhere. In such cases, it can easily far from proven.

In the end, doesn't everything that matters come back to what is evident??

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we consider the evidence as opposed to reactionary opinions and selected factoids then what might be the best way to judge a case of this type of racism??

We shouldn't jump to conclusions, we cannot assume various facts nor selected quote for pro or con values to prop up a premise. And, we shouldn't confuse ignorance or indoctrination for malicious intentions. We could find our opinion are correct, yet until we're sure of this the barking of buzzwords is counter-productive and part of a mechanism to confront an argument while not truly engaging it. Just as any number of other methods used can respond to an argument while not truly arguing against it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are we left with after the dust has settled?

Our sound reasoning and our demand that we ever try to improve upon it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Reverse Racism" is a term that expresses very little other than the wholesale labelling of people and arguments that fall just over an imagined fence. And this line in the sand shift accord to the thinker's political views, making it far from a practical term. It is a meme in internet culture and lacks a clear definition, not that this stops the usage of the term. Indeed, the very real problem with internet culture is how definitions of serious terms are made cartoonish or are warped by feelings, or, for that matter, the effect in an argument. And that is the root of internet terms, or those made popular via internet culture, they're a rhetoric device and not a sound scientific or philosophical tool.

Tuesday, 26 September 2017

argument over race, was I wrong?? [please explain why, I am interested.]


Maybe as I wrote my previous blog I was on a mental high from listening to a few science podcasts, but I'm very much open to learning more.  I dare say I've made a few errors, but I tend to learn from my mistakes. 

Feel free to comment, I will probably rely

Friday, 1 September 2017

Race in a nutshell.

In essence there are no races between humans.  
 
Race used to be the tribe down the river, then the next region or nation, later the next people with common looks, then the next continent or wherever difference is great for the recent bigot.
Now it's a world away, as genetic commonality means that scientifically an alien from another world with no shared history is the true alien or race apart from why evolving Earthlings.

Turns out the idea of race at a real level due to our shared heritage is best argued as not between people but between separate abiogenesis and evolution.  Alternatively, the Darwinian version is one regarding species and not ethnic type, survival of race of people being far from scientific reasoning. Ethnicity being very grey, with every one of you being a mongrel, and so at best race is a belief based on data before modern knowledge, such as genetics. 
 
 So, as I said, there are no races between humans.  Or so it would be, if not for common ignorance and ideology based reasoning, the unequality in various cases, and so race beyond reason is a continuing irrationality.  

Thursday, 7 July 2016

Ignorance and Argumentative

Ignorance and Argumentative



The most entertaining aspects of a discussion can be the bad arguments, on a little know video I found extreme stupidity from some supporters of an Indian guru who was a convicted child sex offender, who as it seems may have abused dozens of young girls, I made my response to the story in a very serious and well-sourced manner, due to the horrid nature of the news. The supporters of the guru, Asaram Bapu, who clearly had not checked what my opinions were, and only a few checks would give them a clear picture, not least my view of religion and what coverage Christianity has in the west. Kumar starts by stating “Go for doctor sick poor man, Pope had abused and raped many ones”, so he assumes that the west is Christian, the pope speaks for Christians, thus all in the westerners bend a knee to the chair. So he chose to argue from a point of great ignorance, and, as an atheist, I have little time for any religious authorities, in fact, more than half of the world's Christians do not follow the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, and, in a way, Kumar was ethnically profiling me. 


I agree that covering up child abuse is a crime, and the Roman Catholic church should be held to account, some reports suggest that up to five percent of catholic priests have engaged in child abuse, and yet, I have not heard of any evidence reporting that the pope or previous popes were raping children themselves. Obvious though it is, the reason why Kumar made this move was because I pointed out the legal facts of Guru Bapu's sex crimes, so Kumar thought that the best way to rebuke me was to attack what he thought must be my cult of choice, this is in many ways to sidestep responsibility. He continues “This is the truth, I mean the truth of your religion. India was, is and will remain the best country and land of lords. Blind one cannot see Sun. Poor Guy”, so by not fact checking the power of the RC church, my view of religion, and by seemingly being an Indian/Hindu nationalist, Kumar fails utterly in his argument and fails to defend his own beliefs.

It's easy to dismiss a belief when you find such poor critics, and in every religion, there are those who think they defend their faith by insulting you, but you defend nothing by the means of deflecting attention and ad hominem attacks. Such comments are the lowest form of criticism, they rarely offer anything that makes you think, at least if they bothered to discuss this topic then we could share ideas and see what is actually correct, even if we disagree on what we accept as true. 


Nationalism, in my opinion, is one of the vilest forms of mental surrender,
you slave yourself to those who are a bit like you in ethnicity, nation, religion, 
and culture, due to blind servitude rather than a rational argument.



 Asaram Bapu and his son are facing Indian justice for their acts, even if I was in the RC church it would mean Bapu is good, he just means people with power shouldn't be sexually abusing people. 



My video on the cult leader/guru Asaram Bapu