Mexicans are Dumb and Will Destroy America?

[zippy2006]

This is a really general question.

That's sort of the point.

But you are saying that this reaction is somewhat justified since it is not based in race per se, but rather based in probabilistic cultural behavior that is correlated to but not caused by race. I can sympathize with this sort of argument.

Also, I'd like to point out that it's a lot less theoretical/speculative than a lot of people might try to make out. I don't have a coherent racist "system." That's just not it. I just tend to express, in various situations, a set of attitudes and behaviors that most people would consider racist.

Yes, and I think it is interesting that we probably all do this to one extent or another.

It's more a matter of:

"I like Chinese food."
"I dislike certain kinds of cheese."
"I prefer the appearance of my face after I've shaved."
"I have a general preference against black people."

This is why I think I feel justified in saying that I don't hold any obviously heretical beliefs in terms of race.

That doesn't show that your preference is rightly ordered. Consider:

"I have a general preference for homosexuality."

I certainly hope not. "Strict racism" is heretical. In all cases, I affirm the following: whatever I may be predisposed to believe, whatever may seem true to me in this or that case, if the Heirarchical Church has pronounced otherwise, then my assent goes to teaching of the Holy Catholic Church.

Example: I have a general dislike of hispanics (not to say that I won't hang out with hispanics on a case by case basis). Am I voting for a politician because he promises to close the borders? No. To my knowledge, the bishops of the Catholic Church tell us that people should be free to migrate, and they tend to be against super conservative views on immigration/border control.

Like I said, it isn't necessarily a matter of conscious voluntary assent. In this case it almost certainly isn't. The culpability would be lessened, true, but your willingness to allow a disordered view of human beings flourish within yourself could be a real problem. :idunno:

I can totally see myself making most of the class grade based on a final oral exam...and the minority students getting a REALLY difficult oral exam.

Simple solution: don't give an oral exam. Any teacher can struggle with things like this, that's why blind grading and the like is encouraged. It won't be perfect, but these aren't insurmountable things you are talking about. I also wouldn't recommend conducting a research study looking into whether Mexican immigrants have a lower IQ. It's just something to be avoided. :idunno:

Also, you are a Christian. That brings with it some serious demands. You don't have to like everyone, but you have to love them in the same way that Christ loves them. :think:

 

[doloresistere]

I didn't write a dissertation on that stuff. It's not my field of study. If I'm not qualified one way or the other to know the answer, ceteris paribus, I assume that the guy who's educated in the field knows what he's talking about. This is why I also think that conservative Christians (who aren't scientists) are really dumb for disputing global warming. :idunno:

They don't dispute global warming. They dispute whether mankind is the driving factor behind global warming. They also dispute the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide claimed by the media and the loudest, most vocal scientists. Only man made global warming papers are allowed to be printed in the science journals. That is because a powerful few control the peer review process. If you were to ask all climate scientists in a blind survey where they know they have no chance of reprisals, whether mankind is the driving force behind global warming, I doubt you would get a significant consensus. If you asked those same scientists whether the climates' sensitivity to carbon dioxide is as high as the most vocal of their peers claim it is, I also doubt you would get a significant consensus. The fact is that it is extremely hard to get any funding for research on natural causes of global warming. Ask Henrik Svensmark about how much trouble he had getting funding for his research and all the howls of disgust he would get at symposiums when he would talk about his research.

 

[zoo22]

I'd like to point out that the general premise isn't that ludicruous. My roommate told me a couple times that, back in the Vietnam war, there actually were quotas. Professors had to fail x number of students out of each class. The reason? The college drop-outs would then have to go to Vietnam.

And you're turning that premise into a ludicrous scenario where everyone is so "entirely equal" in every way that there's no way to determine any difference regarding performance or qualifications, that you need to look to race? ... It's insane. Really. Look at yourself.

Suppose that this happened, and I were in a similar situation. Can I honestly say that I am sure that race wouldn't play a factor?

I'm afraid that I can't entirely rule it out.

Right, you're racist. We're aware of that. We got it.

I can totally see myself making most of the class grade based on a final oral exam...and the minority students getting a REALLY difficult oral exam.

Question for white student: Who wrote the Republic?
Question for black student: What does Kant say about the relationship between life and desire on that one footnote that we didn't talk about?

Note: I'm not saying that I should do this in that case. I'm not saying that it would be fair. I'm just saying: I would have a strong temptation to fail the minority student(s).

Do you want to tell us some other scenarios that you'd fail minority students? I'm sure you can come up with a few.

 

[Traditio]

And you're turning that premise into a ludicrous scenario where everyone is so "entirely equal" in every way that there's no way to determine any difference regarding performance or qualifications, that you need to look to race? ... It's insane. Really. Look at yourself.

Suppose that they weren't equal. Suppose that the black student were marginally better than the white student? Again, I can't gaurantee that the black student wouldn't go to Vietnam.

Do you want to tell us some other scenarios that you'd fail minority students? I'm sure you can come up with a few.

As I said: who knows what the future could hold? In any case, I am a Catholic. I believe that God is watching everything that I do, and that I'll have to render an account for every single misdeed that I commit. Furthermore, as a Kantian, I hold that every rational being is a subject of the moral law; "he's black" isn't an excuse for violating the moral law. :idunno:

 

[doloresistere]

And you're turning that premise into a ludicrous scenario where everyone is so "entirely equal" in every way that there's no way to determine any difference regarding performance or qualifications, that you need to look to race? ... It's insane. Really. Look at yourself.



Right, you're racist. We're aware of that. We got it.



Do you want to tell us some other scenarios that you'd fail minority students? I'm sure you can come up with a few.

It is embarrassing to be found to hold racist attitudes. Instead of making that face stand out in bright colors and scolding him for it, why not take sympathy on him? Ridiculing him for his racism isn't going to make him want to change his attitudes. I feel sorry for him and so should you.

 

[Town Heretic]

It is embarrassing to be found to hold racist attitudes. Instead of making that face stand out in bright colors and scolding him for it, why not take sympathy on him?

The same reason you don't hug your child for making straight Fs when he/she can do much better.

Ridiculing him for his racism isn't going to make him want to change his attitudes. I feel sorry for him and so should you.

I don't feel sorry for him at all. He knows better. He understands it's a moral failing, a willful entertainment of sin and counts his amusement more to the point.

That's tragic, but it doesn't call for sympathy. I'm sorry for the fellow who tries and fails, not the person who tries to fail.

 

[zippy2006]

The same reason you don't hug your child for making straight Fs when he/she can do much better.


I don't feel sorry for him at all. He knows better. He understands it's a moral failing, a willful entertainment of sin and counts his amusement more to the point.

Not sure why you keep saying this. It's pretty obvious by now that what Trad is describing isn't a willful act. In fact I have a hard time figuring out how that hasn't been obvious all along, especially considering Trad's character.

What you're peeved about is his use of a certain word in private, no? And in response you've given assertions to the contrary. The fact is, it is not that easy to argue in a principled way why such an act would be evil. I no doubt think it is problematic and should not be done, but--surprisingly enough--tossing angry assertions at a young philosopher hasn't gotten you anywhere. :idunno:

 

[zoo22]

What you're peeved about is his use of a certain word in private, no?

In private? No, Trad also calls black people n***** in public.

 

[zippy2006]

In private? No, Trad also calls black people n***** in public.

Where did he say that? :idunno: Certainly in no posts containing the word "public," for I did that search, nor in anything I've read here. These run contrary:

I probably shouldn't do this, but I tend to use racial slurs in private...mainly because I find it personally amusing, and it tends to get an amusing reaction from friends of mine.

What is it that angers you so much? Chances are, I'll never meet your minority relatives. And even if I did, they would have no clue that I've more than likely formed a judgment about them before they've spoken to me. I would be just as polite to than as to anyone.

For example, once this black guy in a philosophy course I was auditing insisted on talking to me. Did I call him the n-word? Nope. Did I tell him to go bugger off? Nope. Was he clearly a middle class black guy who more than likely came from the suburbs? Probably. Was there any chance of the two of us hanging out or becoming friends? Unlikely.

Was I exceedingly impolite? No. I just lectured him on how terrible the job market is, and why he's going to be screwed when he graduates, since he'll have majored in philosophy at a small school that nobody knows or cares about. :chuckle:

If I don't go out of my way to make peoples' lives difficult, and if I don't go out of my way to be rude to people based on the color of their skin, and I don't hold any obviously heretical beliefs (for example, the intrinsic inferiority of certain races of people), then so what?

 

[annabenedetti]

Not sure why you keep saying this. It's pretty obvious by now that what Trad is describing isn't a willful act. In fact I have a hard time figuring out how that hasn't been obvious all along, especially considering Trad's character.

What in particular isn't a willful act?

What you're peeved about is his use of a certain word in private, no? And in response you've given assertions to the contrary. The fact is, it is not that easy to argue in a principled way why such an act would be evil. I no doubt think it is problematic and should not be done, but--surprisingly enough--tossing angry assertions at a young philosopher hasn't gotten you anywhere. :idunno:

zippy, TH didn't toss an angry assertion in that post. If anything, you could say that to me. And that would be okay with me.

 

[bybee]

Not sure why you keep saying this. It's pretty obvious by now that what Trad is describing isn't a willful act. In fact I have a hard time figuring out how that hasn't been obvious all along, especially considering Trad's character.

What you're peeved about is his use of a certain word in private, no? And in response you've given assertions to the contrary. The fact is, it is not that easy to argue in a principled way why such an act would be evil. I no doubt think it is problematic and should not be done, but--surprisingly enough--tossing angry assertions at a young philosopher hasn't gotten you anywhere. :idunno:

He is not a philosopher!

 

[zippy2006]

What in particular isn't a willful act?

Trad's "racism." The way he has low expectations and assumptions about certain races:

I mean, it's not a matter of:

"2+2=4."
"Plotinus held x views on the nature of the soul."
"Black people are inferior."

It's more a matter of:

"I like Chinese food."
"I dislike certain kinds of cheese."
"I prefer the appearance of my face after I've shaved."
"I have a general preference against black people."

zippy, TH didn't toss an angry assertion in that post. If anything, you could say that to me. And that would be okay with me.

Sure, you too. I just mean in general, not in that particular post. TH wasn't even arguing against the word specifically in that post. I'm not saying the anger is unwarranted, and I'm fine with a few posts of anger, but it inevitably fails with Trad and seems unhelpful to me, especially after the first few posts.

 

[annabenedetti]

Trad's "racism." The way he has low expectations and assumptions about certain races:

He's admitted he has racist tendencies, zip. I don't see how that's not willful.

I have very strong racist tendencies. Just saying.

The more new information I'm confronted with, the more racist I become. :noid:

We have a problem when the privately held is all over a public message board.

Sure, you too. I just mean in general, not in that particular post. TH wasn't even arguing against the word specifically in that post. I'm not saying the anger is unwarranted, and I'm fine with a few posts of anger, but it inevitably fails with Trad and seems unhelpful to me, especially after the first few posts.

It doesn't seem to go anywhere, that's true. I don't know that it's unhelpful, because the alternative would be to let the things he says sit there without refutation.

 

[zoo22]

Where did he say that? :idunno: Certainly in no posts containing the word "public," for I did that search, nor in anything I've read here. These run contrary:

Are you kidding zippy? Where you think we are? In private? We're on a public web forum. Didn't you read his story about the n*****s that were in his courtyard and the laughs he had about calling them n*****s?

 

[fzappa13]

What he seems to be saying is that the vast majority of the Mexicans who are immigrating to America are stupid. This seems plausible:

As someone who lives on the Texas border with Mexico I can tell you from experience ... the ones that are leaving are the smart ones. Check out www.borderlandbeat.com ... and byo barf bag.

 

[zippy2006]

He's admitted he has racist tendencies, zip.

I know. I'm just not sure if an unwanted racist tendency is racism. Either way its a problem.

We have a problem when the privately held is all over a public message board.

What do you mean? Are you trying to claim that Trad uses racial slurs in public since he explained his dispositions in this thread?

It doesn't seem to go anywhere, that's true. I don't know if it's unhelpful, because the alternative would be to let the things he says sit there without refutation.

Or refute them calmly and rationally, with his well-being clearly in front of you.

I have a friend just like Trad in so many ways. He may even have aspergers, it's something we've always wondered about. He did this same thing. It stopped by a slow and continual reminder of what he already knew: using such a word probably isn't the best idea for your general psychological health. Translated into vernacular: "Dude, you know you have to stop that?", "You do realize this is becoming a problem?" And inevitably some kind of argument would follow, but if it was efficacious it wasn't an angry ordeal. In Catholic language he is failing to avoid a near occasion of sin, he's not Hitler.

 

[Traditio]

Are you kidding zippy? Where you think we are? In private? We're on a public web forum. Didn't you read his story about the n*****s that were in his courtyard and the laughs he had about calling them n*****s?

I didn't call them [n-word's] to their face. You've misunderstood me.

 

[zippy2006]

Like I said earlier, this emotional environment is causing drastic misunderstandings.

Are you kidding zippy? Where you think we are? In private? We're on a public web forum.

And is he calling black people on TOL n*****s? Of course not. In fact this context is essentially private. Trad is surrounded by people he has known for years, and is explaining the nature of a problematic disposition he has. That is very far from calling a black person a n***** in public. I don't even understand how you could think they are the same thing?

Didn't you read his story about the n*****s that were in his courtyard and the laughs he had about calling them n*****s?

Again, this took place exclusively in private, and it was not a hateful gesture. What exactly are you accusing him of in the courtyard scenario?

 

[annabenedetti]

I know. I'm just not sure if an unwanted racist tendency is racism. Either way its a problem.

I didn't see where he said it was unwanted, but at least we agree that it's a problem.

What do you mean? Are you trying to claim that Trad uses racial slurs in public since he explained his dispositions in this thread?

I'm not trying to claim it, I'm stating it's a reality. His comments are public here and now. Honestly, it surprises me that you make that distinction.

Or refute them calmly and rationally, with his well-being clearly in front of you.

You've commented several times about overreaction and emotional response. Maybe I'm not cold and unemotional, I'll be the first to grant you that, and that's okay with me and okay if you call me on it if I'm out of line. But I don't believe my posts are irrational.

I have a friend just like Trad in so many ways. He may even have aspergers, it's something we've always wondered about. He did this same thing. It stopped by a slow and continual reminder of what he already know: using such a word probably isn't the best idea for your general psychological health. Translated into vernacular: "Dude, you know you have to stop that?", "You do realize this is becoming a problem?" And inevitably some kind of argument would follow, but if it was efficacious it wasn't an angry ordeal. In Catholic language he is failing to avoid a near occasion of sin, he's not Hitler.

I have a relative with Asperger's.* It's hard to know where culpability lies, I'll grant you that. But we all know when issues come up, that somewhere there's a line, where excuses stop and culpability begins. I'm not saying I have a right to know where Trad's line is, but I think disagreeing with the things he's said here in this thread is not at all out of place.

*(I know it seems I have a relative for every season, but I'm part of a very big family.)

 

[Town Heretic]

Not sure why you keep saying this.

I haven't actually written that much here. Only three or four things directly to him and his response, when he got around to it, warranted a degree of repetition because it yielded ground on the point.

It's pretty obvious by now that what Trad is describing isn't a willful act.

I don't agree. It isn't obvious to me, or to him.

What you're peeved about is his use of a certain word in private, no?

Did you seriously try to reduce what I've written to him to that?

... that word was a hateful, shameful thing and using it is a tribute to the minds that forged and institutionalized that hateful, shameful thing.

Because of what it represents. Because you know what it represents and that speaks to a moral deficiency that should cause you real and serious alarm. Because it's an emblem of anger and ignorance and you say you aren't angry and I don't believe you'd celebrate ignorance.

You've ducked me pretty consistently...I suspect in part because I'm an older school Southern male calling you on trying to lay this at our door and because you don't have a rational, reasonable answer for my noting what it is your humor and ease celebrates, is rooted in. So you rest on how you feel about it, which doesn't address how you should be thinking.

And I noted that it's a demonstrable moral failing, leaning and predicated on hatred, however you express it.

Time to grow up, Trad. Put away viciously childish things.

Not might, is demonstrably a failing. When you give it that kind of off handed shrug you step around the thing you should be most considering. You are or should be a Christian first and foremost. It is not Christ like to invite and celebrate a moral failing. It's no more acceptable than allowing yourself any sin, worse than failing to struggle against it and toward that which pleases God.

The fact is, it is not that easy to argue in a principled way why such an act would be evil.

I think that's an incredible thing to suggest.

I no doubt think it is problematic and should not be done, but--surprisingly enough--tossing angry assertions at a young philosopher hasn't gotten you anywhere.

Except in your mind, I think, that's not in evidence. In fact, as I only just noted, I appealed to his understanding, his faith and against the anger and ignorance that term serves.

There's nothing Christ like, no service to the good found in it. It is because I believe he desires both that I put it to him.