I Hate Racists!
Racists should just keep their mouths shut, stop senselessly harming and oppressing people of different races and should generally stop existing! I have enough of all racists and all racism, and this should stop now! Racists are just sad have a whole lot to learn. The world will surely thrive without them. Who agrees?
Agreed. (You're a good person)
Side Score: 49
|
 |
No. (You're a racist prick)
Side Score: 51
|
|
|
|
|
Racism is wrong. What ever and however anyone may try to justify. What a person is made or becomes is at large the result of society and it's baseless norms. To judge a person by their physical appearances is exactly the kinda thing we need to get rid of! Side: Agreed. (You're a good person)
I just don't really understand why anyone could think or say such things. So I know people can't really help what they think, but you've got to accept the fact that people are different. They look different, but how does that affect anything? The colour of your skin does not depict how skilled you will be at anything, and where you are born, less so. It's good to hate people who are racist, because shouldn't we try to accept everyone as fellow and equal human beings? Side: Agreed. (You're a good person)
How does hating racists help anything? Do you think you're going to change their view by hating them? Maybe rather try to understand them (which is difficult to do while hating)... that doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but will make it more likely that you can form an argument/interaction that might change things. Side: I do not hate racists
2
points
I agree that racism is wrong. But what you said about them 'keeping their mouths shut' and all is also wrong. I understand your rage but i want YOU to understand that not everyone thinks like us and we may rebel against it but it will not change. So you are just wasting your breath by abusing them. But if you do want to say something it is better to say it to their face and try and make them understand. But as i said i agree racism is wrong, good decision :) Side: Agreed. (You're a good person)
EnigmaticManI consider most sub-Saharan black people to be of inferior genetic inheritance to modern Westerners. I also consider the Mahometan peoples of the East to be remarkably wretched and degenerate, listen racist people can do all sort of things we have to remember those called christian americans burned black people in the 20th century purely based on their skin colour, imaging burning someone man or lynching them that is one of worst thing a man can do another man.if u don't believe me i can send you the links.you said sub saharan inferior genetic than white people i will tell u this white people never existed God made black people first in this world.that means white people should be quite and shut their mouth how they r genetically supperrior.if there wasn't poverty in this world u would see all the races the same as white people physically and mentality.muhammed ali ones said racism is bad and it doesn't matter which race does the hate. racism starts when u don't know each other and r scared and jealous of one another. Side: Agreed. (You're a good person)
2
points
listen racist people can do all sort of things I do not consider racist persons to be susceptible of any uncommon faculties. we have to remember those called christian americans burned black people in the 20th century purely based on their skin colour I am ignorant of the incident you refer to. I made a very clear statement regarding my position on the persecution of persons of other races. Please read my post again. if u don't believe me i can send you the links. That will not be necessary. you said sub saharan inferior genetic than white people i will tell u this white people never existed God made black people first Spare me your religious nonsense. Original genetic lineage is irrelevant. I speak of now, not tens of thousands of years ago. that means white people should be quite and shut their mouth how they r genetically supperrior I do not see your logic, sir. if there wasn't poverty in this world u would see all the races the same as white people physically and mentality. Nobody with any understanding of anthropology could make such a statement. muhammed ali ones said racism is bad What makes you think that what he said is in any way relevant? racism starts when u don't know each other and r scared and jealous of one another. I am not afraid of the primitives living in sub-Saharan Africa. Nor am I jealous of what little they have. Side: I am a racist
3
points
All racist, white, black, and every other race should pull their heads out of their butt. You astound me with your enlightened viewpoint, sir. Making fun of someone because of their color is stupid. Colour is incidental. Societal achievement and genetic inheritance are the fundamental basis of rational racism. Why, it is just a color, we all bleed red. The colour of oxygenated hæmoglobin is irrelevant. To suggest that the colour of blood is in some way indicative of mental and physical equality is to suggest that human beings are equal in such terms to the common dog or cat. Side: I am a racist
Why, it is just a color, we all bleed red. I think you know that he meant this metaphorically! As in the traits we share far outnumber those we do not. As you say, Color is incidental today, a "black" african-american is probably equally likely to share ancestry with a "white" German as with a Kenyan. Side: Agreed. (You're a good person)
1
point
We should live in this world in peace and understandings. We are all human beings but many of us just animals, cruel and wild " Racists". We are all the same for God and no matter what's your nationality , color of skin , religion or ur race... For what then God created us ? We are all have different appearance and we are all unique because we are creatures of the Lord , there is no reason for conflicts Side: Agreed. (You're a good person)
|
My dearest friend is a racist. You seem to think that my not "hating a hater", I myself am an "hater". I beg to differ. I've known blacks whom I simply could not tolerate, and then there have been blacks whom I have rather enjoyed; the same goes with whites. I judge people neither based on the color of their skin nor their personal beliefs, rather on their personality and likeability: racism has never shown itself a detriment to my friend's personality. Your claim that you hate racists has, probably inadvertently, pretty much placed you on their level. What is the primary characteristic of a racist? They hate somebody preemptively. What is the primary characteristic of "haters of racists" such as yourself, the creator of this debate? They hate somebody preemptively. Different motivations, same hatred. Side: I do not hate racists
What is the primary characteristic of a racist? They hate somebody preemptively. What is the primary characteristic of "haters of racists" such as yourself, the creator of this debate? They hate somebody preemptively. Different motivations, same hatred. Your race is what basically makes you what you are. A certain race practices it's cultures, speaks it's certain languages and bears some kind of similarity of physical appearance within that race. Now a racist will not tolerate this, and refuse to except the differences of culture, language and physical appearance of a race, so much to the fact, that they may act upon this prospect, and provoke physical or mental harm on individual/individuals of a certain race. Since being in a race can define most of who you are, the ostracizing torment included whilst being discriminated is quite immense, as not only are they attacking your race, they are attacking who you are as a human being, which can cause terrible distress and shame. But hating someone who despises a whole race is a different matter, because they will not be as distressed, ashamed and ostracized with the same depth as a victim of a racist would be, because discriminating the fact that they are racist won't sway them as much, not one bit. A racist doesn't have a culture, a special language or a definable physical appearance to be ridiculed, all they have is an opinion that people just don't agree with, so no, there is no similar hatred between hating a hater of a race and hating a race. And the only time the hatred of a race or of a racist will matter is when the bearer of hate takes action on that hate, which frankly won't sway racists as much as it would distress a certain race. Side: Agreed. (You're a good person)
2
points
What is the primary characteristic of a racist? They hate somebody preemptively. What is the primary characteristic of "haters of racists" such as yourself, the creator of this debate? They hate somebody preemptively. Different motivations, same hatred. This point shows remarkable dexterity of wit, sir. Congratulations to you on earning a point, rarely bestowed. Side: No. (You're a racist prick)
Untrue, you learn someone is a racist AFTER you meet them, there is nothing pre-emptive about hating them. Racist people hate other races BEFORE they meet them. If I found out my friend was racist, I would first try to convince him otherwise, if that fails, I would de-friend them! Side: Agreed. (You're a good person)
you learn someone is a racist AFTER you meet them But assuming that the person is evil because they are racist is preemptive. there is nothing pre-emptive about hating them. It sounds like you already hate racists, whether or not you actually know them. Racist people hate other races BEFORE they meet them. Haters of racists hate racists before they meet them, too. If I found out my friend was racist, I would first try to convince him otherwise Typical elitist arrogance. if that fails, I would de-friend them! Your loss, most likely. Surely the so-called "friend" would be better off without you giving them a hard time over their personal opinions. Side: No. (You're a racist prick)
I definitely get pissed off at racists, but they should have every right to express what they believe in the appropriate spaces. Most racism is implicit in the hegemonic matrix of society. That's where a country like the U.S. needs to direct its energies -- not at individuals who hold racist ideologies but at the actual social structures that leave people underprivileged on the basis of race, class, sex, orientation, spirituality, physical ability, age, etc. We're all supporting a system that oppresses certain groups within society, and we don't treat this as enough of an issue when it comes to elections or endorsement of legislation. Side: I do not hate racists
2
points
I consider most sub-Saharan black people to be of inferior genetic inheritance to modern Westerners. I also consider the Mahometan peoples of the East to be remarkably wretched and degenerate, with respect to their former dignity and splendour. This I consider to be a rational position, and certainly not in any way tied to something as incidental as colour. I recognise more kinship with a Sri Lankan Aryan than I do to a Spanish peon, or French paysan, my supposed comrades in complexion. I make no apology for this, and recognise neither the need for defence, nor any grounds of disagreement. The anti-racist movement began as an effort to procure equal civil rights to minorities, and with this I take no issue. It it, however, to my mind sheer folly to suggest that a legal equality implies a genetic equality, or that genetic dissonance demands civil recognition. I do not see that an uneducated reprobate from the streets of Manchester, say, can possibly be my equal in intelligence or physical prowess (which are two things that the media has done its utmost to portray as mutually incompatible). This opinion does not incite me to violence, but pity. To do violence to those whom one considers to be inferior is a malicious and primitive compulsion; one that I might expect of a feline, but not of a genuinely ascendant human being. Thus, I see racism, which is an entirely realistic philosophy, as quite distinct from that which induces us to persecute those who differ from us aesthetically. Side: I am a racist
1
point
Why would you post your view here if you don't recognize the need to defend it? I recognise no implicit need to defend its rationale, as I consider that to be sound. I would, however like to see it "assayed like gold in the furnace". By not recognising the need for a defence, I meant simply that I believe unreservedly in it, and feel no shame in admitting it. In consideration of the context of the debate, I thought it an important detail to add. I presume you took my expression as one advocating the invulnerability of subjective opinions to rational argument, thereby conflicting with my purported rational foundation? Side: Agreed. (You're a good person)
According to science all humans come from Sub Saharan Africans, so your contention that they are inferior does not hold water scientifically. White skin is the result of genetic mutation as Africans migrated to warmer climates (http://www.theroot.com/views/ According to Dr. Obenga: “the ancient Greeks traced all human inventions to the Egyptians, from Calculus, Geometry, Astronomy and Dice Games to Writing...Since the time of Homer, Egyptian antiquity functioned strictly as a highly memorialized component of Greek history. Herodotus said it, Plato confirmed it, and Aristotle never denied it.” (p. 47). Indeed, in their book, A History of the Modern World (1984), R. R. Palmer and Joel Colton, corroborate this historical truism by contending that: "Europeans were by no means the pioneer of human civilization. Half of man’s recorded history had passed before anyone in Europe could read or write. The priests of Egypt began to keep written records between 4000 and 3000 B.C., but more than two thousand years later, the poems of Homer were still being circulated in the Greek city-states by word of mouth. Shortly after 3000 B.C., while the pharaohs were building the first pyramids, Europeans were creating nothing more distinguished than huge garbage heaps." Furthermore, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) himself, writing in Metaphysics, not only refutes Dr. Lefkowitz’s ahistorical and false assertions but also confesses in Greek Hellenic language that: “Thus the mathematical sciences first (proton) originated in Egypt.” Egypt is “the cradle of mathematics-that is, the country of origin for Greek mathematics”. So, according to Aristotle, “the mathematical arts had never before been formed, constituted or elaborated anywhere else originating in Egypt only” (Obenga, p. 47-48). Aristotle acknowledges the originality of the ancient Egyptians in his own words. In addition, in Prologue to Prodlus’s Commentaries on Euclid’s Elements, a disciple of Aristotle named Eudemus, who lived in the forth century B.C., confirms: “we shall say, following the general tradition, that the Egyptians were the first to have invented Geometry, (that) Thales, the first Greek to have been in Egypt, brought this theory thereof to Greece” (Obenga, p. 48). The fact of the matter is that the famous, well known Greeks (Europeans) whom we study and revere in school curricula today all studied at the feet of the ancient Egyptians–Afrikans in the Nile Valley, Kemet. For example, Plato studied at the Temple of Waset for 11 years; Aristotle was there for 11-13 years; Socrates 15 years Euclid stayed for 10-11 years; Pythegoras for 22 yeasrs; Hypocrates studies for 20 years; and the other Greeks who matriculated at Waset included Diodorus, Solon, Thales, Archimides, and Euripides. Indeed, the Greek, St. Clement of Alexanddria, once said that if you were to write a book of 1,000 pages, you would not be able to put down the names of all the Greeks who went to Kemet to be educated and even those who did not surreptitiously claim they went because it was prestigious. So on a historical level there was a time when blacks were at the height of technological advancement (Egypt and Ethiopia, whom the Greeks called the sacred races) while Caucasians could not live past the age of 22, because they did not cook their food. If I lived in this period would it be logical to conclude that Caucasians are inferior? The historical facts, if you study history, shows that every group of people have ascended to a leadership of the human race for a period, from the Africans, Chineses, to the Europeans, who emerged after the renaissance. There is no need to apologize, because the facts are clear; before black people there were none, and after us there will be no more. Side: Agreed. (You're a good person)
2
points
According to science all humans come from Sub Saharan Africans, so your contention that they are inferior does not hold water scientifically. That is a deliciously facile assessment of scientific data. It is true that all human beings are descended from sub-Saharan Africans, but that does not in any way suggest that we are genetically identical to them; in fact, it is indisputable that there are many genetically diverse groups of people across t'Earth. Caucasian people split from the sub-Saharan Negro tens of thousands of years ago: long enough for significant genetic variation to occur. Your appraisal of the data would suggest that any common ancestry prevents significant genetic variation within a species, which is simply false. White skin is the result of genetic mutation as Africans migrated to warmer climates Actually it is thought to have occurred due to inadequate UV radiation in European climates. [1] According to genetics light skin is recessive and dark skin is dominant, and you can get the recessive from the dominant but not the other way around. I do not require an education in elementary genetics. I am familiar with the concept of a heterozygous genotype. According to Dr. Obenga: “the ancient Greeks traced all human inventions to the Egyptians, from Calculus, Geometry, Astronomy and Dice Games to Writing........ Everything that follows, until the phrase "So on a historical" was simply copied and pasted from the website appended. Please. [2] So on a historical level there was a time when blacks were at the height of technological advancement The Egyptians were not black, and were not sub-Saharan. The text that you have blatantly and ineptly plagiarised from a Yahoo posting is therefore utterly and completely irrelevant. while Caucasians could not live past the age of 22, because they did not cook their food. If I lived in this period would it be logical to conclude that Caucasians are inferior? If that was the case, which it was not, then yes. You do not live in that period. The historical facts, if you study history You mean to say "if you steal the words of somebody who has a vested interest in misrepresenting history". from the Africans, Chineses, to the Europeans, who emerged after the renaissance. This representation of the course of human evolution and societal interaction is facile and childish in outlook. There is no need to apologize, because the facts are clear; before black people there were none, and after us there will be no more. Nonsense. Utter and complete. Side: I am a racist
While I certainly do not consider myself a racist, I do consider myself a scientist. And I therefore feel the need to dispute certain incorrect facts in Mecca's argument. While humans did originate in what is today sub-Saharan Africa (well actually right on the boarder between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa), do remember that at various times in man-kind's history the Sahara was located differently, or was not a desert at all. Also, it is very widely accepted that sub-Saharan Africans moved south (and west) early on, more than 120 000 years ago. The rest of the world was populated less than about 50 000 years ago. This general idea is supported by archeology and genetics (easy to look up yourself). Remember that modern civilization originated on the Mediterranean. It started in Egypt and moved slowly anti-clockwise around the med. From this and most other perspectives, Egypt is part of the middle-east & Europe rather than Africa. And certainly not part of sub-Saharan Africa. Genetics also supports this fact in that a German, British or French person is far more likely to be genetically related to the mummified ancient Egyptian pharaohs than is an African (even a modern day Egyptian). Of course an African-American person is more likely to be related to the ancient Egyptians via their mixed (partially European) ancestry. Side: No. (You're a racist prick)
According to science all humans come from Sub Saharan Africans, so your contention that they are inferior does not hold water scientifically. Actually last time I read an article about human races was in an article from "Illustrerad Vetenskap", a Swedish science magazine, and it was mainly about how modern day humans had interbred with thereby creating a different breed but not different enough to be counted as an other race all together. This study also claimed that Sub Saharan Africans were untouched by the Neanderthal genome and that the highest percent of Neanderthal genes were usually found in Europe and the Middle east. There were also speculations of Asians being related to yet another species but it hadn't really been researched enough for them to post anything of interest about that in their article. This would mean that Sub Saharan Africans don't really have the same genetic composition as westerners or any human who has at least one parent that isn't a Sub Saharan African. Side: No. (You're a racist prick)
This. That shameful statement could only be spewed forth from the mouth of a bigot with a superiority complex. Despite the fact it is ignorant and abhorrent, any evidence we do have would actually suggest that, physically and athletically, Sub-Saharan Africans have superior genetics to white Westerners. Only 1 White European ever has run 100m in under 10 secs (Lemaitre). 72 men of West-African descent have run sub 10 seconds. 2 Southern-Africans (Fredericks and Makusha) and Patricky Johnson (a mixed race Australian of Irish and Indigenous Australian descent) make up the list. The black and mixed race population of the UK is around 3-3.5%, yet in the last England football squad 43% of the players (10) were black or mixed-race. We see similar stories in the NFL and particularly the NBA. Physical and athletic traits are passed on genetically and the fact that individuals of African heritage are so disproportionately represented in the upper echelons of sporting achievement suggests a superior genetic lineage. Side: Agreed. (You're a good person)
1
point
I'd love to see the facts behind this bold claim... There are no scientific data available, and if there were we would be unable to process it, never having established the link between genetic inheritance and higher faculties. It is a hypothesis and nothing more. Your own position of equality has no genetic evidence supporting it either, I might add. Side: No. (You're a racist prick)
I consider most sub-Saharan black people to be of inferior genetic inheritance to modern Westerners. You can defend this a number of ways: higher IQ amongst white people, smaller brain size amongst sub-Saharan Negroes, anatomical differences (for instance, Sir Richard Francis Burton found that the Negro has a larger penis than the Caucasian man), epidemiological differences (such as a greater likelihood of sickle cell disease amongst blacks). one that I might expect of a feline, but not of a genuinely ascendant human being. Perhaps you are more ascendant than most human beings, for violence is precisely the behavior I would expect from most. Side: No. (You're a racist prick)
1
point
Just because someone is a racist that does not mean they are not a good person. It is ridiculous to assume that just because someone is a racist that they are a shit person with no values or morals.There sheer ignorance that flows from the statement of "I hate all racists simply because they are racists" is too large to actually be considered intelligent. Having said that, I am not here to criticise your intelligence I am merely here to express my views on the matter. Personally I hate the idea of racism and think that it is ridiculous but that does not men that anyone who is a racist is a bad person. Side: I hate racism not necessarilly racists
1
point
what causes a person to be racist, it cannot be simply because their skins the wrong shade. over powering religion can sometimes take its toll. reality is showing people that all the cultures in the world are not working in hormony together are they, we are all clashing. thats why the planet has countries. so you can visit all the different people and religions in their own homelands. but maybe it all went wrong for people, when they first let the first immigrates into your country. just maybe for agreement sake, we were all safer and happier living, staying in the country we were first born. it would be beautiful if all cultures got along but, its not happening at the moment is it. too much violence going on between us. it needs to stop. we all need to trust each other and feel safe that we can walk amongst ourselfs and not get killed because of the skin shade we were born into. if you believe in recornation, you could come back as someone you dont like now..ha. Side: No. (You're a racist prick)
1
point
im not a racist, you cant like everybody on this planet its too big for that. all races have racists. this word racists is being used to easy. we all have our own tastes in things, and that is our right. people need to stop hiding behind the word racists to try and get one over on each other.stop abusing this word, stop using it to get people arrested with. what year did this word first get started, and who thought of it. what happened to predudice, is this still being used. Side: Agreed. (You're a good person)
Your argument is so simplistic and ridiculous that I'm going to vote against it just to piss you off (and hopefully help you understand a slightly different perspective)! Firstly you have to realise that ALL humans (including you!) are naturally racist (or lets rather say xenophobic). There are good evolutionary reasons for this too - it used to be good to be scared of the "other tribe" or simply the unknown. Once you understand this and once you have lived for an extended period of time (2 years or more?) in a truly racially and culturally mixed society (I mean somewhere where you interact with other races who as a group have ideologies, cultures, religions, educations and upbringings vastly different from yours) and you still hold no prejudices, then you can call yourself non-racist and announce that you "hate racists". Side: No. (You're a racist prick)
Your argument is so simplistic and ridiculous It's actually not. RACISM IS NEVER JUSTIFIED. By calling it simplistic, you acknowledge a place for racism in society. Expressions of xenophobia are always morally wrong and, therefore, unacceptable. 'm going to vote against it just to piss you off Oh that's mature... Firstly you have to realise that ALL humans (including you!) are naturally racist That is not justification. We have a natural tendency to cheat as well. Does that make it justified? No. There are good evolutionary reasons for this too - it used to be good to be scared of the "other tribe" or simply the unknown. Bullshit. The time period it would take for this to become a universal trait is MUCH longer than the time in which warring human tribes have existed. Once you understand this and once you have lived for an extended period of time (2 years or more?) in a truly racially and culturally mixed society (I mean somewhere where you interact with other races who as a group have ideologies, cultures, religions, educations and upbringings vastly different from yours) and you still hold no prejudices, then you can call yourself non-racist and announce that you "hate racists". That implies that contact with other cultures yield a hatred or distrust of them. You cannot prove this, and it, therefore, cannot be asserted. Side: Agreed. (You're a good person)
"The time period it would take for this to become a universal trait is MUCH longer than the time in which warring human tribes have existed" Are you being serious? Obviously this trait has not evolved only since homo sapiens. There are obvious reasons that groups should be scared of one another, whether they are cats, monkeys, wolves, apes or elephants! All creatures have "warred" since first existence! Side: I do not hate racists
"That implies that contact with other cultures yield a hatred or distrust of them. You cannot prove this, and it, therefore, cannot be asserted." No, I said that specific types of contact with other cultures yields xenophobia in some people. And that you cannot truly know how you will react until you have had such "contact". I have personally experienced this several times with "unbiased", do-gooder european or american 20-somethings that visit my home country to help "change the world" and leave a year later as what I would consider racists. Not that I don't understand how it happens, nor do I intend to judge them. Side: I do not hate racists
Your argument is so simplistic and ridiculous. "It's actually not. RACISM IS NEVER JUSTIFIED." You are wrong, there are and have always been times and situations where racism and xenophobia were / are justified. Should a Jew not have run from a German during WW2 because he pretended not to be able to tell the difference in looks between a German and a Jew, or because not all Germans were Nazis? Throughout human evolution and history it has paid us to be xenophobic for obvious reasons. Racism is a direct offshoot of this xenophobia. Therefore it is natural and normal to have such thoughts when you live in a culturally (or otherwise, eg. education) divided society (and particularly when those cultural divides are easily physically identifiable through generalization). Of course it is easy for those living in largely equal societies and/or similar cultures to overcome this xenophobia. It is more difficult for those who live in more diverse, unequal and dissimilar societies / cultures. Of course it should be everyone's aim to judge individuals as individuals, not by color or culture. But we also need to accept that it is not always easy to do. Side: I do not hate racists
"That is not justification. We have a natural tendency to cheat as well. Does that make it justified? No." I did not say that it was justified, only that it should be accepted and understood. Though I think that there may be certain situations (previously outlined) in which it is justified. By the way, cheating is a very poor metaphor for racism and xenophobia! Side: I do not hate racists
Well, I would agree that I know little about you and I am making some serious assumptions. As I say, it is my experience that people who make simplistic statements on topics such as race have these attributes! If you were truly beaten up based purely on race, then that is terrible and I hope you have gone to the authorities. A family friend of mine was murdered a few years ago while others nearby heard the shooter call him by his race. But, that does not fundamentally change my argument. I do think you need to consider if these events were truly based primarily on race. And even if they were, then once you have recovered, you might take the time to consider the topic a little more deeply. Of course bullies and criminals in all societies themselves tend to have very simplistic views on such things as race and may often be racist. But it is probable that if these type of people hadn't beaten you up based on your race then they would've found another reason... Side: Agreed. (You're a good person)
...the fascinating thing is that, in my experience, people who show minimal depth of understanding of topics such as race, and maximum loudness on their being a "good person" and anti-racist, are often the same people who easily, quickly and without consideration judge others for their veiws and perspectives. The same people, when placed in the type of environment I describe above, commonly turn into racists after a few dozen months! Side: No. (You're a racist prick)
Can you just be a normal person, understand normal morals and hate racism yet instead of saying that everyone can have biased judgement? I am referring to the type of racism that people would hate a race/color to the extent that they would tease you, and put you down and make you feel like you are dirt and that you don't belong and don't deserve to live. And the racism that is responsible for many deaths. Side: Agreed. (You're a good person)
|
