The license to say racist things

[Reena]

Why do some people want the license to say racist things? Where does this mindset come from? 

Is it immaturity or narcissism or a little bit of both? 

[Reena]

@DMT Elf I don't even know if what I experienced was racism. So it was on the other forum long ago where 2 white dudes from Europe that were discussing the worth of the lives of people from third world countries like me. I'm from India. Especially they were discussing what to do with non white people and their conclusion was genocide. I wasn't able to comprehend what I was reading. Their solution to poverty and hunger was to genocide the entire non white population and they think that way the problems of humanity are solved. I don't know if it is to be categorized as racist or something else that is even beyond. 

[Reena]

1 hour ago, DMT Elf said:

@Reena I’m not radical enough to propose genocide as a solution to the worlds problems, but I believe a strong case could be made for eugenics.

So you mean forced sterilization of non white people? Is that what you are saying? You didn't explain your point clearly. 

 

[Reena]

I can't believe the stuff people say online. Especially white people online. But keep them coming. I get to expose their inner faces. 

I had complained multiple times about racism on the other forum. Not afraid to call out. The future generations will look at such conversations and be appalled. 

I'm no longer surprised at what's happening in Gaza or by Hamas if our so called educated pundits online talk utter garbage. But go on. 

 

[Reena]

I think we'll see way worse things than Hitler and Gaza in the future. Because domestic terrorism is growing in the US. White supremacy doesn't die out. 

In Europe anti - immigrant sentiment is growing to unbelievable proportions and Europe is the new hub of extreme right wing hateful anti non white propaganda, once again creating massive panic and fears that are tantamount to the levels experienced during the Nazi occupation. 

What Hitler did might be miniscule in comparison to what we will be witnessing in the future?

I don't know why white people assume that they have authority over the lives of non white people. Anyways I always believe in the power of karma. 

 

[Reena]

15 minutes ago, DMT Elf said:

I don't necessarily think it needs to be related to race. It could be about genetic inferiority or low intelligence. One needs to understand that the world is changing much more quickly than our current systems of reasoning can account for. It's impossible to predict the long and short term ramifications of our current rate of technological development. This curve is exponential and sociopolitical theory is pitifully limited. In the not so distant future, technological augmentation of our minds and bodies could easily be common practice. Genetic selection of fetuses may become commonplace. We may see elite classes of genetically enhanced humans rise to power. In all likelihood, fascistic terrors far beyond Nazi Germany, and indeed unlike anything we've ever dared to imagine will simply be preferable societal structures for future humans. 

It may not jive well with fragile human sensibilities to acknowledge this, but not every member of a species has a place in the forward evolution of said species. For optimal evolution to occur, certain members must be weeded out of the gene pool. In nature, this would simply be a process of natural selection. However, in the case of a highly developed species such as ourselves, this process is one we may choose to take upon ourselves by our own free will. The ethics of this are of course debatable, but I do believe this burden will inevitably fall upon us whether by our own conscious initiative or not.

That clears it up a bit yet the ethics of such a Darwinian mission are debatable. But as they say, anything for survival! 

[Reena]

52 minutes ago, DMT Elf said:

individualistic survival vs. meta survival/holistic survival

But we don't know the outcome. It looks like an experiment.  It is equivalent to ethnic cleansing but it varies in objective. 

Yet we cannot play God and be fully sure that the outcome will be holistic. But if we raised highly intelligent people who also turned out to be destructive people. 

The atom bomb was designed by highly intelligent people yet used for highly destructive reasons. They say don't judge the book by its cover. 

Character is not built in a crucible. Character is built in circumstances through much hardship and experience. It's novel. Like a gem. Intelligence is not the predictor of character. And the moral lesson throughout history has been that it's character that stands the test of time not intelligence.

I understand where you are coming from. 

You're thinking this from a very reductionist angle though. Life is governed by both the material as well as the spiritual. As within so without. You can have a very intelligent person sitting at a table but not ready to contribute to the solution of a problem, merely being a spectator. This is because he lacks the character to do it. In fact throughout history people have only used intelligence in the most selfish manner to serve their own goals and agendas. The brain is capable of becoming more diabolical the more it grows in intellectual capacity. It's a difficult balance between character and brain when one lacks the integrity for it. Intelligence is needed to survive but it's not the only metric for survival. Character is another metric too and a far superior metric. Why you may ask? Because when we say character, we imagine someone who is not deceptive, someone with pure intent, someone who is charitable, such people are more inclined to think and act for the greater good of the society than those that lack character. Religion is another example. The true motive of religion was to build character. As is seen by some of the noble words in the Bible about compassion, helping the neighbor and forgiveness. Yet man by his diabolical nature has managed to use religion as a weapon of division and to separate rather than help. You see? Pure intention is not a function of intelligence, but it's a function of character. A person who has pure intent and thus strength of character will use religion to unite and help people and to create a people of character. Yet a person who has a corrupt intent and lack of character will use religion to make money, to mislead people, a false prophet and to protect his own interests by destroying others, using it for political reasons to safeguard his survival and even greed. Eventually the materialistic aspect of intelligence has been used for individualistic survival rather than holistic survival. Why is this? It's because survival in its cutthroat nature looks purely Darwinian and thus too reductionistic. It gives this illusion that survival in its sole format is purely material. But this survival is individualistic survival. It looks material but without counting the spiritual aspect, this material aspect can be easily destroyed through greed, fighting, jealousy and temptation. Survival is resource based. But again this is individualistic survival. Holistic survival needs holistic intent. This is contradictory to individualistic survival as charity is not a survival value. Charity is not selfish. Holistic intent needs a charitable attitude to sustain holism. Helping others to survive can come at the cost of our own survival. So for meta survival everyone has to harbor great intent to think of the greater good even to the point of giving up their own good. This will need high consciousness people. This will need great character rather than Intelligence. 

Some of the most intelligent people are selfish and miserable. Some of the least intelligent people are happy and selfless. 

 

[Joseph Maynor]

The truth vs./and tact duality:  Even in US Law there's always a balance here.  We want to make sure people have the truth so when they vote they can vote reasonably.   So, truth is protected on that basis.  We want every citizen to access the conclusions that are born out of the facts as they judge the available sources they considered.  The problem is, in every good situation bad people are going to exploit that noble ideal.  They're going to infiltrate all kinds of toxic crap in there under the guise that it helps people make more reasonable decisions.  So, we have to allow some of those shenanigans as any reasonable person would anticipate probably; however, we must realize too when someone is taking advantage and kind of being a sneaky villain.  It takes mature discernment and judgment here to make a good decision.

Edited November 12, 2023 by Joseph Maynor

[Jonas Long]

7 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

The truth vs./and tact duality:  Even in US Law there's always a balance here.  We want to make sure people have the truth so when they vote they can vote reasonably.   So, truth is protected on that basis.  We want every citizen to access the conclusions that are born out of the facts as they judge the available sources they considered.  The problem is, in every good situation bad people are going to exploit that noble ideal.  They're going to infiltrate all kinds of toxic crap in there under the guise that it helps people make more reasonable decisions.  So, we have to allow some of those shenanigans as any reasonable person would anticipate probably; however, we must realize too when someone is taking advantage and kind of being a sneaky villain.  It takes mature discernment and judgment here to make a good decision.

Huh?  So racist comments are true, they're just tactless?