It's pretty obvious where they learned colonialism from.
Arguing whether racism is natural or not is pointless since nobody is arguing for the most natural form of existence, which btw used to be nasty brutish and short, or at least I hope not.
I'm not sure what you're getting at wrt slaves, since virtually all cultures have practiced slavery at one point or another. My point is that Japan is a modern Westernized nation, and that they have many things going for them in spite of or even due to their racism.
That's a nice mantra but it isn't true. Toddlers show clear racial preferences towards those resembling their surroundings, in various studies ranging from the dolls they prefer, to how they share with others, and etc. Animals as lowly as insects show racism, such as grasshoppers shunning others when they're of a different color. Things as mild as nose widths drive ethnic identities that fuel genocides such as those seen in Rwanda. If racism was purely a learned falsehood, secluded homogeneous societies would never have issues with coming into contact with new groups. Instead, you find throughout all of history wars fought along bloodlines, ethnic identity, religion, etc. Racism is a basic part of nature and evolutionarily favorable, and what keeps one group or tribe together to propagate their own kind. Now that mankind builds civilizations that transcend entire continents and attempt to secure human rights, it is necessary for us to fight racism to move above our tribal beginnings and imperialistic/genocidal pasts, but it will likely always exist in our biology until we figure out how to change that.
My main initial post was in response to your "Clearly not racist, only asking the question of whether racism makes sense (spoiler: it does).", which I interpreted to be a sarcastic restatement of Blue_Max's views in light of him quoting an apparently-racist Wiki.
It was just one of the first hits from Google. The site doesn't seem to have any official political leanings, but there were some "top stories of the day" type things off to one side that they misquoted in order to discredit the whole thing, rather than address the idea itself. (Pretty standard fare.) Then to also imply that I'm a racist as well. (Also standard fare.)
Here's a left-leaning link instead: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism
And one that appears unbiased: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Racial_realism
...and I still don't have a good definition of what the hell it even is. Progressives seem to be implying that "evil racists believe all X are dumber/inferior" as opposed to the scientific biological differences between the races that are neither evil nor good but certainly do exist.
I suspected right from the bait question it would be another progressive nebulous statement that is hard to define in order to make an effective weapon.
Racialism is the pseudo-scientific notion that it is possible to divide humanity into clear, well-defined groups based on a haphazard variety of traits, most commonly in terms of physical characteristics having to do with skin, or that human populations are substantially different from each other in some measure to support biological classification below the species level. Most racialists maintain there is also a racial hierarchy.
While people have and continue to ascribe assumptions about mental aptitude and moral characteristics onto individuals based on their racialized identity, the main biological difference between darker-skinned humans and lighter-skinned humans is that the latter will be more prone to sunburn but will be able to more quickly produce usable vitamin D from sunlight.
Japan has a low crime rate? Eh? The same country that created women-only train cars due to rampant molestation, as well as chalking of unsolved murders as suicides in order to save face? And isn't sexual slavery sort of a cover-our-eyes-see-no-evil ordeal? Them Akibahara teenage sex slaves, 'n' all that.
Not exactly a subject I've looked deeply into, but Japan's not some pristine nation. They got some funky shit going on.
Except much more whiny and pathetic.So basically old school fascism.
Bingo!Two Words:
Hipster Nazis.
Did you even read your first link?
Milo Yiannopoulos, is being accused of scamming his followers out of charity donations.
.
say what he wants, but the company he keeps is pretty telling. The brietbart article titles she named will resonant with most normal people and illuminate the hate in trumps base and how trump likes to cozy up to those who spew it.
^^ Nice wall of diversion from the fine individual who first brought "race realists" into this conversation and then was to afraid to honestly define what the term was.
So Japan realized the power of colonialism via the Western powers of the 19th century, therefore...? Not sure what you're responding to at all now. My main initial post was in response to your "Clearly not racist, only asking the question of whether racism makes sense (spoiler: it does).", which I interpreted to be a sarcastic restatement of Blue_Max's views in light of him quoting an apparently-racist Wiki. If I interpreted your intent with that post correctly, then I am disputing the notion that there is anything wrong with saying that racism makes sense, as there are both cases of its current utility as well as a long evolutionary history showing why it exists in the first place.
That goes for your second post too. Certainly something is not good because it is natural. There is a real difference between Japan's current racism, Trump's current racism, and a neo-Nazi's current racism.
organized crime of today is more sleazy than barbaric. I'd much rather have a population-adjusted amount of Yakuza here
This view is silly too, though I understand it when so many "race realists" are really dumb white supremacists (or sometimes weaboos). The main problem is that neo-Nazis and the politically correct alike have a habit of simplifying everything according to a very outdated concept of race of three or maybe four-five groups total, which represent a hundred of thousand years of human evolution, all the while the ability of man to evolve sufficient intelligence to create and maintain civilization has existed for far less time. A basic fact of evolution is that the opening of a major evolutionary niche (e.g. a bird's wings) results in rapid diversification due to many new niches to explore (e.g. birds flying further to reach new lands, birds evolving different beaks to best access new prey, etc). For humans, our niche is obviously intelligence. Whatever event that happened allowing us to make tools is what made us successful and diversify according to various other traits, skin color being just one of them. For example, it's a basic scientific fact that some groups of humans can better digest lactose than others. This event could have been a major driving force in farming and growth of civilization (much less work/land needed to support a population than farming for meat), thereby driving evolutionary incentive for novel invention of other techniques, and so on. I haven't seen a rational argument explaining how humans spread over the planet for tens of thousands of years, some of them engaging in trade and boat-crafting and city-building and other things, others sticking to rudimentary hunter-gatherer lifestyles over the entire period, without intelligence diverging between the populations.
Just so that you know, by far the worst of japan's war crimes & general crimes against humanity were part/result of their colonial machinations. The current klan mindset stem from that same past.
The word that comes to mind for the Yakuza isn't "sleazy".
This is like a trivial version of a niche ideology popular with some well off silicon valley manchildren who call themselves neoreactionaries. Here's something worth reading in regards to it/them: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/
Gawd. Toddlers aren't racists. It's learned attitude & behavior, not an innate quality.
Just so that you know, by far the worst of japan's war crimes & general crimes against humanity were part/result of their colonial machinations. The current klan mindset stem from that same past.
The word that comes to mind for the Yakuza isn't "sleazy".
This is like a trivial version of a niche ideology popular with some well off silicon valley manchildren who call themselves neoreactionaries. Here's something worth reading in regards to it/them: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/
The reality is the logistics of running the charity were non trivial, while in the last year he's had a huge campus tour and has had to cover endless events, from Brexit, to Orlando, to BLM, to the parade of horrors in europe, to the current US election, and of course dealing with his twitter suspension,
While he was dumb to not announce a delay, it was obvious that the side project he dreamed up on a whim would be on a the back burner until after the election.
So do I think race is real or a "social construct"? F*ck you. Race is real and there's nothing wrong or offensive about that. It can be scientifically measured in several ways and observed easily by the human eye.
There are also only two genders. F*ck your made-up "gender is a social construct" bullshit.
Which for women is expecting to be treated equally. For racial minorities it's them expecting to be treated like people. And for gays it's for them to stop existing.Blue max just wants everyone to stop doing things that make him uncomfortable.
You made the statement that japanese immigration policy is particularly racist. This is just wrong as noted, and even more wrong given the perspective that what they were actually really racist in was a system learned from the west. I don't think this is a particular difficult argument to follow.As I said, so? You're making statements without arguments. Is your argument that because colonialism as we think of it today was Western, and because said colonialism has had many inhumane results, that it shows Western culture has its negative points as well? If so, I don't disagree. The good thing is that Western governments have also scaled back on international exploitation and war crimes significantly. I'd also argue that foreign policy is mostly out of the hands of the citizens regardless of the culture they belong to, and that the success of the crimes committed by governments is more a side-effect of a prosperous and educated population capable of inventing better ships and guns in addition to the many things unrelated to warfare it brings.
Take a moment to ponder how such groups get their way. For example, consider what happens if you refuse their generous offer of protection for a recurring payment.Per Wiki, regarding the largest Yakuza group:
"The Yamaguchi-gumi are among the world's wealthiest gangsters, bringing in billions of dollars a year from extortion, gambling, the sex industry, arms and drug trafficking, and real estate and construction kickback schemes. They are also involved in stock market manipulation and Internet pornography."
Political corruption and vice are textbook sleazy to me.
Seems pretty clear you were insinuate these problems are getting worse, in more threads than just this.This appears to be a guide for debating the person you perceive me to be, so I'm not sure why you're telling me to read it. In any case, I'll respond to the points that you apparently should have brought up or fit wrt my arguments...
"1: Is everything getting worse?"
Have I argued this? I actually don't personally consider illegal immigration to be a huge problem. A moderate one at worst, and one that doesn't effect me personally. My argument was simply that using "xenophobia" and "racism" in arguments over stopping illegal immigration is a meaningless boogieman, and that successful xenophobic and racist nations already exist. In general I think society has gradually gotten better; I attribute a lot of that to technological improvements rather than government policy, but as someone with libertarian-leaning views, I can't deny that social liberties continue to improve, and the nation's move away from conventional warfare is a great thing too.
Seems their diagnosis of your concern about fertility rates is dead on, even if you're careful to use "culture" instead of race per se. To their credit, the NRx people are pretty honest about their racism, which is a sorely lacking virtue today."2: Are traditional monarchies better places to live?"
Uh I have said stuff in favor of Thailand before relative to many of their neighbors, although I don't know that a monarchy with a bazillion military coups can be called traditional. This one doesn't apply to me.
"3: What is progress?"
OK this one looks more up my ally, since my main beef is the dogma of racism or xenophobia being an automatic evil. Unfortunately it talks mostly about criticism of social welfare and other things unrelated to my argument. Other parts seem to address a philosophy that prides itself on not changing as an opposition to any ideology that represents "progress", and I don't believe that status quo or progress are inherently good or bad.
Skipping 4, unrelated, found the beef
"5: Are modern ideas about race and gender wrongheaded and dangerous?"
Specifically
"5.3.1: But what if I am racist? Isn’t it possible that fertile minorities and immigrants are hiding a fertility deficit among precious, precious, white people?"
I don't care about skin color. I often hope for the day that China wrecks our shit tbh. Anecdotally, all of my worst life experiences have involved other white people, and there are certain aspects of white American culture that I see as very poisonous (namely consumer culture) and would love to see fixed by new generations.
Many immigrants tend to do well because what might motivate someone to emigrate would similarly provide for success afterward. However you clearly don't believe this to be the case with the anchor baby situation, dragging us down and making things worse."5.3.2: Are we headed for an idiocracy?"
Unfortunately they just talk about IQ studies which isn't something I'm particularly interested in either. They even set up the educated vs uneducated situation, but fail to address it anywhere in their discussion. I would have hoped that they at least tried to say something about how immigrants usually achieve more than long-term citizens (something I think I've already acknowledged in this thread), or about how minority groups once underrepresented in higher education are suddenly booming, but it doesn't even touch on it, let alone the things I'm discussing that they would disagree with.
So yeah not sure how much of that clears my positions on things. The author of that article doesn't seem to have any kind of strong dislike or opinion at all on the kind of things that get the r-word thrown around here.