Why is racism bad? So capitalism can run smoothly?

[VVerkia]

It could be argued that racism has positives.

That's not a positives. These are advantages...

[Slavakino]

As long as the commissars aren't Jewish this time that'd be awesome. Fuck capitalism.

Nazbol Gang baby.

TITO GANG

TITO GANG

[-Astoria]

It could be argued that racism has positives.

That's not a positives. These are advantages...

Positives are the same as advantages; and no, racism does not.

[Glurponia]

snip

a strong contender for the worst thing i've ever read

[Hugstopia]

Honestly how you can even think this way is just sad. We should all be accepting of those who are different to us, even if we prefer to be around those like us. Racism achieves no positive ends and only divides us all.

[VVerkia]

Honestly how you can even think this way is just sad. We should all be accepting of those who are different to us, even if we prefer to be around those like us. Racism achieves no positive ends and only divides us all.

+1

For me adventages can be positive or negative. Positive are positive. Racism make adventages "bullying" others. Thats not positives. I don't want live in country with racist politics ore "mindset"...

[Velosia]

While there are a few points you have raised that have some merit, I don't subscribe to the air of conspiracy your post gives off in general. I personally think that it's more an accidental state of affairs brought about by the majority ethnic group in western democracies enabling ethnic minorities to become overrepresented in certain sectors of the economy through arbitrary multicultural policies that unfairly discriminate against the majority. The issue is that people either don't notice that it's essentially self-racism or they choose not to out of fear of being branded a racist themselves. It's especially a problem in European nations where ethnic minorities still make up less than 10% of the population but they're almost treated like they make upwards of 40-50% by the government and mainstream media.

I certainly don't think it's some conscious effort on the part of ethnic minorities to 'take over' and put themselves and their kin on top. We, the majority, only have ourselves to blame by giving ethnic minorities unfair advantages through 'anti-discriminatory' policies that are arguably just as racist as any 'whites only' policy from the 1950s.

What we need is to be less racist and more meritocratic.

[Kowani]

Why is racism bad?

Besides being scientifically illiterate and getting innocent people killed?

It could be argued that racism has positives. Racism ultimately stems from in-group preference, so while it might lead to discrimination against the outgroup there's also an element of "us" in the us vs them mentality of racism which is very important. For most of human history, being exiled from your ingroup has been a death sentence or at the very least a life-ruiningly big deal. Try surviving without an ingroup with a broken leg for instance

Well, looking at both history, where the racial in groups were neither so strong or so extended as you claim (try asking a plantation owner in the antebellum south what he thought about the poor whites who lived nearby), and the enlightenment principle of universality, where you don’t need the in-group advantage, I’m going to call this a heaping pile of bullshit.

Racism gives you a huge ingroup - your race is a huge, extended family. Its achievements aren't your achievements so much as what a beloved family members has handed down to you.

I mean, no. A guy from Finland has nothing to do with, say, the Arc d’Triomphe in Paris other than the fact that the architect more or less shared his phenotype. At best, he’ll feel National pride over the War against the Soviet Union, nobody feels pride over the achievements of their race unless they’re deliberately looking for them.

If your in-group are racists, it gives them a huge advantage because it allows them to consciously act with the interests of their in-group in mind. Ever notice that the countries with the most racial mindsets (usually colonial Europeans like white Americans) were founded by people who basically swept over entire depopulated continents as one in-group and built some of the strongest, most prosperous countries the world has ever known?

What was the 7-Years War?

Georgia was founded specifically as a buffer to keep the Spanish out of the rich tobacco producing states. The claim that “they basically swept over continents as one in-group” doesn’t really become anywhere near true until at best, Manifest Destiny. But the Americans also spent a significant amount of their time fighting other members of their own race and a Civil War, so again: Your point is ignorant of history.

The United States is literally a product of racism and would not be nearly as successful as it is today if it wasn't. Latin America, which was pumped and dumped by the Spanish for resources instead of racially colonised, ended up being a dysfunctional mess once the Spanish left with their mountains of silver.

You…do realize that the factors that make Latin America what it is today is horrifically different from those in the US, right? Like…they’re not even comparable, except on a surface level “they’re in the New World.”

It was Ben Franklin of all people who said the following: "the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Compexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.[/url]

You do realize that this quote is saying that Germans and the English are the members of the in-group, and the rest of Europe can get fucked

The reason here seems to be “these people look like me.”
Well, that’s rather less enlightening once you cut away the flowery nonsense.

Think about the Indo-Europeans, who formed ethnic aristocracies over the neolithic people they conquered in Europe and West/South Asia and whose culture, language, way of life and even Y chromosome DNA spread itself through space and time more than any of them could have imagined. The most red-headed people in the world are not the Irish, but the Udmurts of the Volga area, and the Bashkirs have a high frequency of the same R1b subclade that the Welsh, Scottish and Irish have. If generation ships ever make it out past the Oort cloud, they'll be carrying the Y-DNA of the Yamnaya along with the English, French, Spanish, Russian, German, Farsi, Urdu and Hindi languages and alleles from the ancient Pontic-Caspian Steppe. The Indo-Europeans would have been appallingly racist by enlightened 21st century standards, but the in-group preference that came with that turned out to be their strength.

…In-Group preference across Indo-Europeans. The ones who spent most of their history fighting each other and being divided amongst themselves.

Also, most other groups in human history have had the same idea of in-group mentality, the technological advantage was the difference.

Look at the Jews. As part of their diaspora mentality, the Jews have very strong in-group preference, and discriminate against gentiles (Jews have long been prohibited from charging interest to their own, but are free to charge interest to gentiles). One need look no further than the practice of male genital mutilation among Jews - the Jews originally only removed the end of the foreskin in circumsision (this was called milah), but after Jews in pagan Greece started pulling the skin back up over the glans to assimilate into the population, the Rabbis were furious and demanded that Brit Peri'ah, basically the removal of the entire foreskin, be practiced. The Jews went to such great lengths to differentiate themselves from the outgroup and set themselves apart from them that they were willing to mutilate themselves for it.

That’s…not why.

The Jews are incredibly successful. Jews are only 2% of the US population and extremely overrepresented in US finance, media and academia. The Jews' history of participating in the skilled trades has also resulted in them pioneering many successful brands. You'd have a hard time walking into a cinema without seeing a Jewish director's name on the film timetable, or walking through a central business district without seeing a Goldman Sach's, or getting onto a train without being in the same cabin as someone wearing Levi's underwear. When you turn on CNN, it probably doesn't occur to you that about half of the executives are Jews. It's not a coincidence - the Jews have in-group preference, they look out for their own to the point of practicing ethnic nepotism.

Perhaps because they’ve been persecuted almost everywhere they go? (And if we want, we can have a nice discussion about medieval Christianity and it’s role on both the persecution of and the selection of Jews for certain societal “roles.” I don’t doubt that racism plays a part for some of the selection, I just don’t think it’s nearly as relevant as you think it is.

Do you think a gentile Spielberg would have gotten into Hollywood?

Well, considering that a gentile Spielberg would have an entirely different upbringing, and be a very different person, it seems as if that would be a bit hard to tell.

Israel exists after 2000 years of diaspora with a revived, previously liturgical language now spoken by millions of people because the Jews were conscious of their in-group and acted in its interests to advance it like no other group has.

…You mean after they were almost genocided into oblivion. That fact might be slightly relevant.

Hatred of the Jews by non-Jews revolves around the fruits of Jewish in-group preference. The Jews were brutally expelled from 109 countries, mostly for being at odds with the gentile population because they refused to stick to their own, and not only survived it but actually managed to come out more powerful.

Measuring relative power across time periods is a bit dodgy, no?

Jews are the greatest practitioners of racism the world has ever known.

You’re thinking of Hitler.

It seems like the only problem with racism is that it's outdated in 2020, and that's probably because it makes more economic sense to have everyone, regardless of the colour of their skin, on the same plantation, earning the same wages to spend on plastic crap, spending 12+ years in the same Prussian schooling system, etc, so the capitalists discourage the wageslaves from fighting each other along racial lines.

…You do realize that racial animosity helps prevent people from achieving class-consciousness, right? It’s a major boon to the capitalist economy to have some degree of racism. I think we’ve all heard the joke about the immigrant and the cookie.

Anti-racist rhetoric seems to revolve mostly around not rocking the boat. "Why be racist, sexist or homophobic when you can just be quiet?". "Diversity is our strength, we should celebrate our differences to show that we are all the same". It's okay to have your own culture or even to silently have a grudge against another culture, just don't do anything meaningful about it that goes beyond those sentiments.

Well, no, but that’s slightly unquantifiable.

It's okay to have your own lovely ethnic food and exotic language, but make sure to sell your ethnic food to us with VAT attached and only speak your exotic language at home so business can flow more freely and social cohesion in a multiethnic society isn't threatened.

Irony. See, the only people who get angry when people speak another language in public are racists (in the modern day). The overwhelming majority of the anti-racism crowd does not care.

Has liberating African-Americans from the back of the bus really done anything but integrate them into the position of wageslaves slightly more impoverished than their white counterparts?

Very much so. Allow me to quote Dr. King: “We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair.”

The mentality of "moving past" race and getting along as one giant workplace, which is clearly peddled by wealthy people (who control the flow of information), seems to be a lot like the practice of kicking your kids out at 18 ("moving past" your actual family, rather than your extended racial family) to go be rent slaves that was peddled to boomers by wealthy people (who control the flow of information).

The media, which consistently stokes up racial animosity?

Theodore Kaczynski put it best:

" Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black “underclass” they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black- style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects most leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers “responsible,” they want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The system couldn’t care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a “responsible” parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values."

And now he’s arguing that people shouldn’t be violent or poor. The usual nonsense from an overrated thinker.

Even then, is racism really outdated? Groups operating within the Western neoliberal system like the Zionist Azhkenazi Jews, the Chinese diaspora (who have been infiltrating Western academia quite nicely, and who own a surprising amount of infrastructure in Australasia and North America such as the Port of Darwin)

Ask the Tibetans and Manchurians how all that in-group preference is benefiting them.

or even the visa Indians who run your local Dominos and only hire other Indians are all more successful as a group and more secure as individuals because they discriminate against the out-group.

This needs at least two citations.

Is anti-racism just a trick a lot of people have fallen for to keep them atomised, unorganised and unlikely to band together to create a more powerful unit for advancing their interests so the pyramid scheme post-industrial information age capitalist economy can be run without opposition? What if people are not victims of systemic racism, but rather systemic anti-racism?

You don’t understand how race works in capitalism, then. (Also, systemic anti-racism isn’t the same thing as systematic racism but in reverse).

How is racism even bad?

Scientific illiteracy, getting people killed, delaying the realization of class consciousness...

How is in-group preference even bad?

Better to eliminate the concept of the group entirely.

How is belonging to a huge extended family, and prioritising its safety, security and prosperity over that of members of outgroups who may wish to do it harm even a bad thing?

You create an interest nobody has.

You can argue racism leads to genocide, but does it really? Not all mass butcherings of people have been committed in the name of in-group allegience, and not all groups with in-group allegience have engaged in mass butchering - look no further than the Mongols torching multiethnic cities for refusing to bow to their authority, or the ATF/NSA/CIA/US law enforcement's beige-coloured ongoing multiracial campaign of terror against the American people.

Are multiple kinds of violence unknown to you?

Is racism not just the ethnic equivalent of trade unionism or a town's inhabitants petitioning against fracking in its area?

They’re not even remotely similar

If we are all truly just individual worker units, it should be pretty silly and arbitrary to band together over anything we have little to no choice over, even if it defines the course of our lives.

Circular reasoning is circular.

How have minorities really benefited from less racism when removing in-groups just allows for easier conversion of most of their waking lives into capital?

Categorically yes.

[HMS Monarch]

This has been a remarkable thread, both with the boldness of the original post and its writer, and by the simplicity, well-justified though it is, in simply calling racism bad. But why is racism bad? It would seem more honest to pursue this properly, that is thoroughly, that we may be made surer of it. This being our task let us begin.

While noble, it is difficult to say racism is bad, without knowing what is bad and what bad is, as well as what racism is. The OP defines racism as a result “in-group preference,” which I take to mean as a type of preference for those of one’s race, which I assume to mean those of phenotypic similarity to oneself and those like oneself phenotypically. If we stop here the question: “how could this possibly be bad?” is tempting, but also oddly rhetorical and decidedly premature.

Now what is bad? The general consensus I have gathered from the thread thus far is that killing other people is bad, and the OP made a rather interesting argument when he suggested that genocide was not a particularly bad form of killing, because all killing is equally bad and the motivation is incidental. I am not sure how well his equivalency stands, that is, that the extension of the argument to say that non-in-group killings are as frequent as in-group killings, and then specifically those around race perhaps, and while no doubt an interesting topic to pursue (compare the killing of brother by brother to that during war, though it seems that in all those instances those being killed might be described as ‘other’ in some important way, in war of an ‘other’ country. So that killing it seems might in almost always draw on a sense of ‘otherness’ of others, with racism being one very easy avenue to identify otherness, and then kill those people, if killing is what one is going to do.) If we accept this, and that badness is killing people, racism seems to be bad insofar as it aids the killers by providing an obvious other.

At the same time, it is probably safe to say that the bad includes more than killing, and this being the case racism is still somewhat far off from “being” bad, right now it acts only as a lamp, guiding murderers to their victims. Now unfortunately, this being other than spoken conversation, I must resort to giving a definition which is crude and incomplete, but there are many here to potentially please, and so my definition must necessarily be limited. Therefore, I will call bad “that which harm’s others who do not harm oneself.”

Does racism harm others who are not harming oneself? Does in-group preference harm others who are not harming oneself? Now this is probably where our OP, with his ideas of system and Mr. Kaczynski’s will likely claim that everyone exercises in-group preference to some degree, we can not help befriending of course those who live near us and speak our language, though these are incomplete descriptions of the actual events as they occur. But this seems to be rather passive and natural, rather than adopted, for I do trust as the one person said earlier, that we might judge others not on the colour of their skin, but on the content of their character, so that our “in-group” might consist of persons of character and not “whites.” While the upper limit of goodness does not exist, which can be good and terrible, good is noteworthy as a thing achievable by all people, whilst race is hereditary and permanent.
It might now be appropriate to provisionally define good as “that which benefits others who do not benefit oneself,” since that seems more noble than merely benefiting those who benefit oneself. Therefore, if one must inevitably choose in-group discriminants, it seems good to choose the good as the governor of one’s choice, and bad to chose race, which admits both bad and good without distinguishing them, thus allowing harm to come oneself and one’s in-group.

Now this is incomplete and unrepresentative of my views, but I think that taking me at my terms and definitions it is unreasonable to maintain racism as good, and indeed it should even be considered bad.

[Sapporo Hyperspace Riftgate Laboratory]

This has been entertaining.

It's uncomfortable but I was expecting some well-grounded counter to all of this which has so far been difficult to find.

All I have to give is an applause to Accelerationist Poland-Lithuania, really clever how some left-wing beliefs got put into a juxtaposition as to make them in favour of racial bias.

"left-wing"
By that logic, Drongonia is a leftist. No he's not, he's a conservative. This is why NSG is a cesspool

[West Leas Oros 2]

Racism is ridiculous. A bunch of people fighting and killing each other because they have a different skin color? Ultimately, it’s counterproductive and wasteful. It’s also completely arbitrary. Racists hardly ever follow any sort of consistency and their ideas of which races are superior to others is often completely random at best.

[South Acren]

Racism is ridiculous. A bunch of people fighting and killing each other because they have a different skin color? Ultimately, it’s counterproductive and wasteful. It’s also completely arbitrary. Racists hardly ever follow any sort of consistency and their ideas of which races are superior to others is often completely random at best.

Reminds me of when those KKK members started stabbing each-other over who's more racist.

[New yugoslavaia]

Racism is ridiculous. A bunch of people fighting and killing each other because they have a different skin color? Ultimately, it’s counterproductive and wasteful. It’s also completely arbitrary. Racists hardly ever follow any sort of consistency and their ideas of which races are superior to others is often completely random at best.

"Bu, but MUH OUTDATED SHITTY PSEUDOSCIENCE AND LACK OF WORTH IN LIFE THAT MAKES ME RALLY BEHIND MY PIGMENTATION!"

[Accelerationist Poland-Lithuania]

This has been a remarkable thread, both with the boldness of the original post and its writer, and by the simplicity, well-justified though it is, in simply calling racism bad. But why is racism bad? It would seem more honest to pursue this properly, that is thoroughly, that we may be made surer of it. This being our task let us begin.

While noble, it is difficult to say racism is bad, without knowing what is bad and what bad is, as well as what racism is. The OP defines racism as a result “in-group preference,” which I take to mean as a type of preference for those of one’s race, which I assume to mean those of phenotypic similarity to oneself and those like oneself phenotypically. If we stop here the question: “how could this possibly be bad?” is tempting, but also oddly rhetorical and decidedly premature.

Now what is bad? The general consensus I have gathered from the thread thus far is that killing other people is bad, and the OP made a rather interesting argument when he suggested that genocide was not a particularly bad form of killing, because all killing is equally bad and the motivation is incidental. I am not sure how well his equivalency stands, that is, that the extension of the argument to say that non-in-group killings are as frequent as in-group killings, and then specifically those around race perhaps, and while no doubt an interesting topic to pursue (compare the killing of brother by brother to that during war, though it seems that in all those instances those being killed might be described as ‘other’ in some important way, in war of an ‘other’ country. So that killing it seems might in almost always draw on a sense of ‘otherness’ of others, with racism being one very easy avenue to identify otherness, and then kill those people, if killing is what one is going to do.) If we accept this, and that badness is killing people, racism seems to be bad insofar as it aids the killers by providing an obvious other.

At the same time, it is probably safe to say that the bad includes more than killing, and this being the case racism is still somewhat far off from “being” bad, right now it acts only as a lamp, guiding murderers to their victims. Now unfortunately, this being other than spoken conversation, I must resort to giving a definition which is crude and incomplete, but there are many here to potentially please, and so my definition must necessarily be limited. Therefore, I will call bad “that which harm’s others who do not harm oneself.”

Does racism harm others who are not harming oneself? Does in-group preference harm others who are not harming oneself? Now this is probably where our OP, with his ideas of system and Mr. Kaczynski’s will likely claim that everyone exercises in-group preference to some degree, we can not help befriending of course those who live near us and speak our language, though these are incomplete descriptions of the actual events as they occur. But this seems to be rather passive and natural, rather than adopted, for I do trust as the one person said earlier, that we might judge others not on the colour of their skin, but on the content of their character, so that our “in-group” might consist of persons of character and not “whites.” While the upper limit of goodness does not exist, which can be good and terrible, good is noteworthy as a thing achievable by all people, whilst race is hereditary and permanent.
It might now be appropriate to provisionally define good as “that which benefits others who do not benefit oneself,” since that seems more noble than merely benefiting those who benefit oneself. Therefore, if one must inevitably choose in-group discriminants, it seems good to choose the good as the governor of one’s choice, and bad to chose race, which admits both bad and good without distinguishing them, thus allowing harm to come oneself and one’s in-group.

Now this is incomplete and unrepresentative of my views, but I think that taking me at my terms and definitions it is unreasonable to maintain racism as good, and indeed it should even be considered bad.

Whether other races won't hurt you is debatable, especially when they have ingroup preference and you don't because you self-righteously insist on treating everyone as an individual.
Regression to the mean is also a thing. You can get a bunch of people of good character and make a society out of them, and while their kids might be marginally better than what the average would be otherwise it won't be as impressive as you might have hoped. The fact race is hereditary and permanent is exactly why it's so important. Being of good character isn't exactly good glue for binding people together - history is full of people of good character, great men on each side, fighting each other to the death. Blood is thicker than water and a tribal allegiance is a safer bet than just hanging around random decent people precisely because race is hereditary and permanent.
Groups of people kind of exist in a world with finite resources and are kind of in competition to survive and thrive.

[Adeulchland]

Holy jesus....
I...I am not gonna type a paragraph but....racism is bad because it can get HUMAN BEINGS killed. And dont say it doesn't. You and i know otherwise.

Racism in itself didn't get human beings killed.

[New yugoslavaia]

This has been a remarkable thread, both with the boldness of the original post and its writer, and by the simplicity, well-justified though it is, in simply calling racism bad. But why is racism bad? It would seem more honest to pursue this properly, that is thoroughly, that we may be made surer of it. This being our task let us begin.

While noble, it is difficult to say racism is bad, without knowing what is bad and what bad is, as well as what racism is. The OP defines racism as a result “in-group preference,” which I take to mean as a type of preference for those of one’s race, which I assume to mean those of phenotypic similarity to oneself and those like oneself phenotypically. If we stop here the question: “how could this possibly be bad?” is tempting, but also oddly rhetorical and decidedly premature.

Now what is bad? The general consensus I have gathered from the thread thus far is that killing other people is bad, and the OP made a rather interesting argument when he suggested that genocide was not a particularly bad form of killing, because all killing is equally bad and the motivation is incidental. I am not sure how well his equivalency stands, that is, that the extension of the argument to say that non-in-group killings are as frequent as in-group killings, and then specifically those around race perhaps, and while no doubt an interesting topic to pursue (compare the killing of brother by brother to that during war, though it seems that in all those instances those being killed might be described as ‘other’ in some important way, in war of an ‘other’ country. So that killing it seems might in almost always draw on a sense of ‘otherness’ of others, with racism being one very easy avenue to identify otherness, and then kill those people, if killing is what one is going to do.) If we accept this, and that badness is killing people, racism seems to be bad insofar as it aids the killers by providing an obvious other.

At the same time, it is probably safe to say that the bad includes more than killing, and this being the case racism is still somewhat far off from “being” bad, right now it acts only as a lamp, guiding murderers to their victims. Now unfortunately, this being other than spoken conversation, I must resort to giving a definition which is crude and incomplete, but there are many here to potentially please, and so my definition must necessarily be limited. Therefore, I will call bad “that which harm’s others who do not harm oneself.”

Does racism harm others who are not harming oneself? Does in-group preference harm others who are not harming oneself? Now this is probably where our OP, with his ideas of system and Mr. Kaczynski’s will likely claim that everyone exercises in-group preference to some degree, we can not help befriending of course those who live near us and speak our language, though these are incomplete descriptions of the actual events as they occur. But this seems to be rather passive and natural, rather than adopted, for I do trust as the one person said earlier, that we might judge others not on the colour of their skin, but on the content of their character, so that our “in-group” might consist of persons of character and not “whites.” While the upper limit of goodness does not exist, which can be good and terrible, good is noteworthy as a thing achievable by all people, whilst race is hereditary and permanent.
It might now be appropriate to provisionally define good as “that which benefits others who do not benefit oneself,” since that seems more noble than merely benefiting those who benefit oneself. Therefore, if one must inevitably choose in-group discriminants, it seems good to choose the good as the governor of one’s choice, and bad to chose race, which admits both bad and good without distinguishing them, thus allowing harm to come oneself and one’s in-group.

Now this is incomplete and unrepresentative of my views, but I think that taking me at my terms and definitions it is unreasonable to maintain racism as good, and indeed it should even be considered bad.

Whether other races won't hurt you is debatable, especially when they have ingroup preference and you don't because you self-righteously insist on treating everyone as an individual.
Regression to the mean is also a thing. You can get a bunch of people of good character and make a society out of them, and while their kids might be marginally better than what the average would be otherwise it won't be as impressive as you might have hoped. The fact race is hereditary and permanent is exactly why it's so important. Being of good character isn't exactly good glue for binding people together - history is full of people of good character, great men on each side, fighting each other to the death. Blood is thicker than water and a tribal allegiance is a safer bet than just hanging around random decent people precisely because race is hereditary and permanent.
Groups of people kind of exist in a world with finite resources and are kind of in competition to survive and thrive.

Here's a better idea.

Step 1: We advance cybernetic augmentation technology.
Step 2: We advance space fairing technology.
Step 3: We popularise the concept of becoming a cyborg.
Step 4: The human race evolves into a new, cyborg race. Those who don't will die out in the coming generations (evolve or die)*. Sex, race, class Etc. becomes irrelevant, ending social barriers.
Step 5: ???
Step 6: We take to the stars and colonise the solar system.
Step 7: (Quite a lot of) Profit.
Step 8 (optional): We get involved in a war with an alien race, uniting humanity against a common enemy.


*Any primitives or technophobes will have their heads stomped in by out cyber-boots/feet.

[Accelerationist Poland-Lithuania]

Whether other races won't hurt you is debatable, especially when they have ingroup preference and you don't because you self-righteously insist on treating everyone as an individual.
Regression to the mean is also a thing. You can get a bunch of people of good character and make a society out of them, and while their kids might be marginally better than what the average would be otherwise it won't be as impressive as you might have hoped. The fact race is hereditary and permanent is exactly why it's so important. Being of good character isn't exactly good glue for binding people together - history is full of people of good character, great men on each side, fighting each other to the death. Blood is thicker than water and a tribal allegiance is a safer bet than just hanging around random decent people precisely because race is hereditary and permanent.
Groups of people kind of exist in a world with finite resources and are kind of in competition to survive and thrive.

Here's a better idea.

Step 1: We advance cybernetic augmentation technology.
Step 2: We advance space fairing technology.
Step 3: We popularise the concept of becoming a cyborg.
Step 4: The human race evolves into a new, cyborg race. Those who don't will die out in the coming generations (evolve or die)*. Sex, race, class Etc. becomes irrelevant, ending social barriers.
Step 5: ???
Step 6: We take to the stars and colonise the solar system.
Step 7: (Quite a lot of) Profit.
Step 8 (optional): We get involved in a war with an alien race, uniting humanity against a common enemy.


*Any primitives or technophobes will have their heads stomped in by out cyber-boots/feet.

What will actually happen

[Vistulange]

Holy jesus....
I...I am not gonna type a paragraph but....racism is bad because it can get HUMAN BEINGS killed. And dont say it doesn't. You and i know otherwise.

Racism in itself didn't get human beings killed.

Is this some crappy attempt at semantics-based demagoguery on the level of "people who adhered to racist beliefs killed people, not racism itself", or are you flat-out denying that, say, a large portion of Jews in Central and Eastern Europe were wiped out because a not-so-small group of people thought they were inherently impure/corrupt/tainted/whatever?

Just so we know how we ought to treat you, going forwards.

[Accelerationist Poland-Lithuania]

Racism in itself didn't get human beings killed.

Is this some crappy attempt at semantics-based demagoguery on the level of "people who adhered to racist beliefs killed people, not racism itself", or are you flat-out denying that, say, a large portion of Jews in Central and Eastern Europe were wiped out because a not-so-small group of people thought they were inherently impure/corrupt/tainted/whatever?

Just so we know how we ought to treat you, going forwards.

Do guns kill people?

[West Leas Oros 2]

Racism is ridiculous. A bunch of people fighting and killing each other because they have a different skin color? Ultimately, it’s counterproductive and wasteful. It’s also completely arbitrary. Racists hardly ever follow any sort of consistency and their ideas of which races are superior to others is often completely random at best.

Reminds me of when those KKK members started stabbing each-other over who's more racist.

I know right? It’s like racists don’t have any logical basis for any of their racist beliefs! It’s absolutely silly to be racist, and it benefits no one. It’s blind hatred for its own sake.

[South Acren]

Whether other races won't hurt you is debatable, especially when they have ingroup preference and you don't because you self-righteously insist on treating everyone as an individual.
I dont see people running down my street threatening my neighbors for being from Puerto Rico. Being a different race doesnt mean other races will immediately attack you. This backwards logic belongs in a video game, not real life. And generally, NOONE PRACTICES THIS. I don't see White People driving around in an armored truck gunning down random African Americans, and you don't see Latin Americans shooting up office buildings with White Americans inside every day. Theres always going to be violence, but not on the scale you say it could be.
Regression to the mean is also a thing. You can get a bunch of people of good character and make a society out of them, and while their kids might be marginally better than what the average would be otherwise it won't be as impressive as you might have hoped. The fact race is hereditary and permanent is exactly why it's so important. Being of good character isn't exactly good glue for binding people together - history is full of people of good character, great men on each side, fighting each other to the death. Blood is thicker than water and a tribal allegiance is a safer bet than just hanging around random decent people precisely because race is hereditary and permanent. "we don't live in the F*cking amazon rain forest OP. Tribes don't exist in NORMAL society. Society for today is to get up, work, provide for their loved ones, and help their country, granted not everyone does so, but still its not like we go out with spears and stab a mammoth to death. Tribes still exist, and even then a majority of them want to stay secluded from the world, in PEACE. You want war and death? Go to the Middle East, you can find your racism and death there. Don't ask the whole world to follow you, OP. A majority of people are going to refuse to support racism, no matter what. Your "Blood is thicker than water and a tribal allegiance is a safer bet than just hanging around random decent people precisely because race is hereditary and permanent." idea is unneeded now adays. We are advanced beyond this, and avoid people for color alone is so backasswards a top would look clearer. OP, understand, Groups of people exist, but not ass you want them to. They do what you say not to and "Hang around random decent people" and manage to survive well enough. You want to bring yourself back to an age of violence? Fine mate, go ahead. But keep your backassery to yourself.
Groups of people kind of exist in a world with finite resources and are kind of in competition to survive and thrive.

No OP, Groups of people exist to help one another survive as a SPECIES. Don't know if you know this, but we are one f*ckin species. We have to cooperate to survive, not be idiots and tear eachother apart like you seem to want.

[Vistulange]

Is this some crappy attempt at semantics-based demagoguery on the level of "people who adhered to racist beliefs killed people, not racism itself", or are you flat-out denying that, say, a large portion of Jews in Central and Eastern Europe were wiped out because a not-so-small group of people thought they were inherently impure/corrupt/tainted/whatever?

Just so we know how we ought to treat you, going forwards.

Do guns kill people?

Yes, they do, by virtue of people utilising them to kill other people.

Now, don't derail your own thread, get back to the topic at hand, which is the relationship between racism and capitalism, apparently.

[Last Breath]

Is this some crappy attempt at semantics-based demagoguery on the level of "people who adhered to racist beliefs killed people, not racism itself", or are you flat-out denying that, say, a large portion of Jews in Central and Eastern Europe were wiped out because a not-so-small group of people thought they were inherently impure/corrupt/tainted/whatever?

Just so we know how we ought to treat you, going forwards.

Do guns kill people?

It doesn't matter whether it was racism or racists that did the killing, racism was still the cause. No amount of pedantry and semantic gymnastics will allow you to deny that racism results in atrocities.

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

This has been entertaining.

It's uncomfortable but I was expecting some well-grounded counter to all of this which has so far been difficult to find.

All I have to give is an applause to Accelerationist Poland-Lithuania, really clever how some left-wing beliefs got put into a juxtaposition as to make them in favour of racial bias.

"left-wing"
By that logic, Drongonia is a leftist. No he's not, he's a conservative. This is why NSG is a cesspool

I don't know who Drongonia is or really care rn bro, don't know why him being conservative makes NSG a cesspool.

Aren't the main viewpoints he countered primary left-wing, like affirmative action.

I disagree with this entire viewpoint for the most part, the way this argument was put forward though did make me think for a moment which I find healthy.

[West Leas Oros 2]

"left-wing"
By that logic, Drongonia is a leftist. No he's not, he's a conservative. This is why NSG is a cesspool

I don't know who Drongonia is or really care rn bro, don't know why him being conservative makes NSG a cesspool.

Aren't the main viewpoints he countered primary left-wing, like affirmative action.

I disagree with this entire viewpoint for the most part, the way this argument was put forward though did make me think for a moment which I find healthy.

Affirmative action is more liberal than leftist, considering it simply wants to make the higher levels of the capitalist hierarchy more diverse, rather than change the structure of that hierarchy.