Why is racism so villified in the West?

[Spazzola]

This is maybe a controversial topic, but it is a philosophy forum, so I hope we can discuss this reasonably.

There isn't a clear unambiguous definition of racism, but for the same of the argument, let me define it as a preference, that is, you prefer some people based on their race.

Now, if you have a sexual or age preference or whatever, usually nobody cares. You can say "I would only date men" or "I prefer to hang out with young people" and you'll be fine. But if you say "I would prefer to live in a white neighborhood" you're suddenly a racist and, by consequence, an evil person and your (political) career is over, you can lose your job and get physically attacked by violent groups...

So how did this come to be? When did racism/racist become this "gotcha" term that is used for regular witch hunts ("Is person X really a racist?" "Oh, I'm sure he is, let's get him!").
My theory is that it's mostly a consequence of the horrible historical events that used some kind of racism as justification for mistreatment or violence against various groups. So as soon as someone mentions race based discrimination, there are explicit or implicit associations with the KKK or the holocaust or whatever. And at the same, it seems there's a push for the idea that racial diversity is a good thing, so anything that goes against that is bad.

If we agree that mistreatment and violence are bad and discard them completely, can there still be room for peaceful voluntary racial segregation as an acceptable form of discrimination?

[gaffo]

This is maybe a controversial topic, but it is a philosophy forum, so I hope we can discuss this reasonably.

There isn't a clear unambiguous definition of racism, but for the same of the argument, let me define it as a preference, that is, you prefer some people based on their race.

Now, if you have a sexual or age preference or whatever, usually nobody cares. You can say "I would only date men" or "I prefer to hang out with young people" and you'll be fine. But if you say "I would prefer to live in a white neighborhood" you're suddenly a racist and, by consequence, an evil person and your (political) career is over, you can lose your job and get physically attacked by violent groups...

So how did this come to be? When did racism/racist become this "gotcha" term that is used for regular witch hunts ("Is person X really a racist?" "Oh, I'm sure he is, let's get him!").
My theory is that it's mostly a consequence of the horrible historical events that used some kind of racism as justification for mistreatment or violence against various groups. So as soon as someone mentions race based discrimination, there are explicit or implicit associations with the KKK or the holocaust or whatever. And at the same, it seems there's a push for the idea that racial diversity is a good thing, so anything that goes against that is bad.

If we agree that mistreatment and violence are bad and discard them completely, can there still be room for peaceful voluntary racial segregation as an acceptable form of discrimination?

your are free to be racist (i support the 1st amend of Bill of Rights), as long as your views do not counter Civil Rights Law of 1965.

per the above, if you wish to be more racist than what is allowed per law, repeal the above Law, and i'm ok with it.

short of ovens/etc of course.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The word has no meaning any more. It's been so pathetically over-used by pathetic morons, that no one takes any notice when they fling it around like confetti, not caring who it randomly falls on. Can't yanks ever be normal about anything? Is is some kind of misguided white guilt that they feel the need to inflict on everyone else? Excuse me, but I don't come from a country that enslaved and habitually lynched and segregated black people.
The FACT is that we all choose friends that we have something in common with, who have similar values etc. I couldn't be friends with a religious nut, for example. They are too different. There would be nothing to talk about. Nor could I be friends with anyone who votes for right-wing political parties. This is because they are cunts, and I don't want cunts for friends.
Apparently this makes me a 'racist'.
The thought-policing, socially-engineering arseholes aren't even remotely logical or consistent. Indians here tend to keep to their own, buy up businesses, and generally only employ their own people. Apparently that's not 'racism' because apparently racism can only apply to someone from a 'majority group'. On the other hand, if you go shopping in a large supermarket in a town where Indians make up about 5 percent of the population, but find that 100 percent of the supermarket's workers are Indian and wonder about this to someone, then that is being 'racist' because even noticing such a 'cosmetic' thing as a person's 'ethnicity' is hideously racist (but only if you are from a majority, unprotected group) and not to be tolerated, even for a second. I learnt this gem from a brilliant practitioner of PCism who kindly enlightened me on this stunning truth.

[Skip]

First, racism doesn't need any vilification; it''s vile to begin with.
Why avoiding it is important in the west - by which I suppose you mean America and Britain - is that these nations have racially mixed populations with a great potential for conflict. Internal strife is bad for the operation of a country: it destabilizes the administration, threatens infrastructure and is expensive to contain. That's one reason the US spends so much on its extensive law-enforcement, courts and prisons.

There isn't a clear unambiguous definition of racism, but for the same of the argument, let me define it as a preference, that is, you prefer some people based on their race.

Nobody cares about your preference, so long as it doesn'y affect the smooth running of the social machinery.

Now, if you have a sexual or age preference or whatever, usually nobody cares. You can say "I would only date men" or "I prefer to hang out with young people" and you'll be fine.

How young? You can get into serious trouble for age preference, whether it's boys or girls. If they're over the age of consent and you don't use any form of coercion, nobody cares what sex or colour your dates are.

But if you say "I would prefer to live in a white neighborhood" you're suddenly a racist

There is nothing sudden about it; you were already racist. You can prefer to live in a white neighbourhood, but how can there be a white neighbourhood for you to live in? The only way would be to deny access to people of other races. Prevent them form buying homes or renting apartments in that whole neighbourhood. You don't have the power to do that. But, if you don't like your neighbours, you're always free - and welcome - to move out.

. and, by consequence, an evil person and your (political) career is over,

It had better be! Once elected to office, you have to uphold the constitution, not bad-mouth it. (Unless you're president, these days.)

you can lose your job and get physically attacked by violent groups...

I would like a reliably citation of either of those things happening to someone who merely said "I prefer to live in a white neighbourhood." In fact, if you check the record of violent groups beating people up, they're predominantly made up of people who would prefer to live in a white world.

So how did this come to be? When did racism/racist become this "gotcha" term

1865

If we agree that mistreatment and violence are bad and discard them completely, can there still be room for peaceful voluntary racial segregation as an acceptable form of discrimination?

No.

[Spazzola]

There is nothing sudden about it; you were already racist.

If we're talking at the level of thought crimes, we all are. I don't think you can notice two different things (in this case different groups of people) and be completely indifferent towards them, to the point of having absolutely zero preference towards one or the other. In the case of "races" there's also a tribal element of "us vs them", which plays on complex emotions of social conservatism (these are usually way too quickly dismissed).
Note that this preference is usually circumstantial. For example, you might not mind having someone as a coworker, but still be opposed to them becoming your new family member. Which is why this is not the same kind of racism that posits that one group is objectively superior to another. Then there are also various degrees to which one cares about racial matters, but, as I said, I don't think you can be completely indifferent. I think people are generally lying to themselves and others when they say that they are, even if it's just out of politeness. And politeness is OK, but when we forget that certain thoughts and feelings are normal, it can get messy.

As to your other notes about, say, racism harming the US society... I tend to agree with you to an extent. Short and mid term, it would almost certainly result in some conflicts, even if something as mild as peaceful segregation was allowed. But for the long term (say, 100+ years), I'm not so sure. We would need to come up with an objective definition of "what is good for the US" to answer that properly. But I don't believe racial tensions can be swept under the rug by playing on taboos. And if you go too far with it in the opposite direction ("racial diversity is good") you're going to reap the consequences in the form of people like Trump getting elected and potentially more conflicts down the road.

[Impenitent]

vilified racism? it was manifest destiny.

-Imp

(p.s. your "peaceful segregation" was the trail of tears)

[uwot]

This is maybe a controversial topic, but it is a philosophy forum, so I hope we can discuss this reasonably.

Let's see. The thing is, racism is only vilified by some individuals in the west. It is the essence of racism that particular characteristics are attributed to all members of a given group. Your preferences are your own business, but just as you cannot infer that because someone is from "the West" that they therefore vilify racism, you cannot infer anything about an individual from anything you choose to call race. To do so is ad hominem. That can be vilified on purely philosophical grounds, because it is fallacious reasoning

[Skip]

If we're talking at the level of thought crimes, we all are.

What makes you think that?

I don't think you can notice two different things (in this case different groups of people) and be completely indifferent towards them, to the point of having absolutely zero preference towards one or the other.

What makes you not think that?

In the case of "races" there's also a tribal element of "us vs them", which plays on complex emotions of social conservatism

I know what makes you think that: common knowledge, untainted by factual investigation.

(these are usually way too quickly dismissed).

You think that 4000 years is "too quick"?

Note that this preference is usually circumstantial. For example, you might not mind having someone as a coworker, but still be opposed to them becoming your new family member.

Do you think that distinction applies primarily to race?

Which is why this is not the same kind of racism that posits that one group is objectively superior to another.

What do you think it does posit?

Then there are also various degrees to which one cares about racial matters,

So, you think there are degrees of racism that should be fostered in a society?
At what stage, between 1 (preference) and 10 (genocide) do you think should it stop being acceptable?

but, as I said, I don't think you can be completely indifferent.

Do you think tolerance=acceptance=indifference=incognizance=sympathy=empathy ?

I think people are generally lying to themselves and others

You think you know what everyone else is thinking and feeling.

As to your other notes about, say, racism harming the US society... I tend to agree with you to an extent. Short and mid term, it would almost certainly result in some conflicts, even if something as mild as peaceful segregation was allowed.

I think you must have slept through History class. All them ships done sailed awhile back.

But in 100+ years), I'm not so sure.

Finally, something you don't think you know better than everyone else.

We would need to come up with an objective definition of "what is good for the US" to answer that properly.

Only if we cared what's good for the US, and the citizens of the US don't seem to.

But I don't believe racial tensions can be swept under the rug by playing on taboos.

I wonder what playing on taboos means in your dictionary.

And if you go too far with it in the opposite direction ("racial diversity is good") you're going to reap the consequences in the form of people like Trump getting elected and potentially more conflicts down the road.

Slept through Social Studies, as well, have you? More long-departed frigates.
Just wave goodbye and move on.

[A_Seagull]

This is maybe a controversial topic, but it is a philosophy forum, so I hope we can discuss this reasonably.

There isn't a clear unambiguous definition of racism, but for the same of the argument, let me define it as a preference, that is, you prefer some people based on their race.

Some people have been hugely disadvantaged through racism.

Maybe this will help you understand:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1gedv0tDpk

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

It's more about an irrational bias than any just sort of bias. When race is relevant to the point being made, I don't see it as racist. Attraction would be a good example of something like that, making a judgement of someone based on their race is fine in that instance because it literally affects the way they look, which is relevant to what you find attractive. If this were racist, you're going to come up with a lot of cooky scenerios because many people are only attracted to people outside their own race. I'm generally more attracted to black women and they're mostly who I have dated, so if someone came up to me and told me that I'm racist against other white people, I think I'd just about punch the rest of the stupid out of their stupid fucking mouth.

In my opinion, that seems to be the crux of the debate. But we can't agree on what is rational. We can look at the 'racial profiling' discussion, and if police should be allowed to do it - the people who argue against that will almost always try to make the point that racial profiling is irrational. They do not just argue that it's something which shouldn't be allowed in principle, even if it works. If it could be proven to them that racial profiling would reduce more crime than any alternative, I don't think they would have as much a problem with it. It's the perceived bigotry that comes along with such a view that leads them to believe it's a position taken on clouded judgement, which I would agree that it usually is.

As long as you have a clear line of good reasoning for your arguments about race, I don't think there should be a problem. Any other form of perceived bigotry can be deciphered in a similar manner; If you have a reasonable justification that leads you to target or seclude someone based on a classification, it is not actually bigotry. Thing about race, specifically, though, is that there is such minor biological differences among all races, that it doesn't give way to justify a whole lot. When it comes to a classification like religion or sex, well those two things give way to a lot of justifications for why you would treat a person differently.

[HexHammer]

Why is racism so villified in the West?

It really should be a self explanatory question, especially if you know the history. Apparently you are glaringly ignorant.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Why is racism so villified in the West?

It really should be a self explanatory question, especially if you know the history. Apparently you are glaringly ignorant.

If you were just looking at the title of the thread, I agree it seemed pretty bad. But in his OP, I think he does bring up some points good for discussion. There is an interesting difference in the way people typically see a judgement of someone based on their race in certain situations.

He was pretty clear to differentiate that from actual discrimination, like barring someone from an establishment.

[Skip]

He just wants to bar "those people" from his neighbourhood. He wants them 'voluntarily' segregate themselves out of his environment - after the rest of us worked so long and hard to de-segregate schools, labour unions, restaurants and neighbourhoods. He hasn't actually mentioned 'voluntary' shipments of people 'back' to where they came from. Just as well: there is no room in Europe, Africa and Asia for all the immigrants cluttering up the Americas.

[Walker]

He just wants to bar "those people" from his neighbourhood. He wants them 'voluntarily' segregate themselves out of his environment - after the rest of us worked so long and hard to de-segregate schools, labour unions, restaurants and neighbourhoods. He hasn't actually mentioned 'voluntary' shipments of people 'back' to where they came from. Just as well: there is no room in Europe, Africa and Asia for all the immigrants cluttering up the Americas.

Every country has their rules. Legal immigration isn’t an issue. Sending an invasion of humanity to live or die on foreign beaches and in desert wasteland, is an issue. Disingenuous and misleading to conflate the two, which of course everyone knows. Also unwarranted to attribute racism to nationalism, which is also obvious.

That's the trouble with casually tossing around an insidious slur like racism, which bullies tend to do. It affects rationality which leads to absurd assertions and views based on fantasies.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

He just wants to bar "those people" from his neighbourhood. He wants them 'voluntarily' segregate themselves out of his environment - after the rest of us worked so long and hard to de-segregate schools, labour unions, restaurants and neighbourhoods. He hasn't actually mentioned 'voluntary' shipments of people 'back' to where they came from. Just as well: there is no room in Europe, Africa and Asia for all the immigrants cluttering up the Americas.

Where does he say that? People do their own segregating, despite the wailing and hand-wringing from PC twits.
Funny how houses in so-called 'multicultural' neighbourhoods are so cheap, while those in relatively 'monocultural' ones are expensive (the ones that are full to bursting with ''Progressives''). People will pay through the nose to live amongst people they feel safe and comfortable around, and to send their children to schools that they judge to be safe for their wee darlings.
Japan has almost no immigration. It doesn't want to be inundated with people of a different culture, with different values.
Being born in China doesn't automatically mean Chinese citizenship. You have to be ethnically Chinese. I assume you find both of these offensively 'racist'.