Judge not by the color of skin, but by the content of character?

[Boleslaw]

Well Martin Luther King Jr. stated that we should judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Ok here's something I don't quite understand: most complaints I've ever heard about non-Whites(both online and especially offline) are usually about the ways in which they act, not the actual fact they're non-white.

So does this mean that somebody could theoretically hate non-whites based on the content of their character?

Also, what about the fact that many "anti-Racists" usually like to protray non-whites as automatically the victims of racism; while whites are usually protrayed as perpetrators of such racism. Isn't that judging by one's skin color, rather than by one's character?

So in a strange irony; are so-called "racists" living up more to Dr. King's dream than those who claim to follow in his footsteps?

Discuss........

[Lily]

You have missed the point entirely.

For that to work, you'd have to assume that the non-whites you hated shared a character with all non-whites in general. Untill you know the content of every member of a single races character, which you never will, you can't hate them according to what MLK said. Just the individuals whose character you do know.

[Farkas]

I'm a racist myself but the cause of it is not the person's skin colour but his character. I have lived in South Africa for some years and it is there where I became a racist. Theoretically someone can hate a non-white for his character and in practice 99% of the racists hate non-whites for their character. Of course there are many levels and many ideologies within the racism concept.

Anti-racists feel like they are trying to better the world and they basically repeat what the media says. Now, I have seen many documentaries concerning right-wing factions and they always talk of the KKK or the "neo-Nazis" but never, in my young life I have witnessed something about black racists or black racist movements. So the first thing you'll see in your mind when hearing the word "racist" is a White man. The media also has the tendency to portray us as people that hate non-whites just for the skin of their colour and that is supposed to be "proof" that we are nothing more than intolerant idiots because hating someone only for his skin colour is pretty stupid.

The media won't say that racists hate non-whites for their character because the media has been claiming that all races are equal (the biggest load of kak I ever heard) and saying that racists hate people for their character would create a conflict with the bullshit they have been preaching. Saying that would confirm the fact that non-whites tend to be more of a nuisance than Whites. The media would give racists a valid and understandable reason to hate non-whites and that is really something they don't want to do.

But yes, the irony is true. Racists are actually following Martin Lootah King's dream in some sense :)

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

Anti-racists are not really anti-racist, they are anti-white.

Its not so much that they are race blind, but they believe in a white power structure that is "holding back" minorities (despite evidence of the opposite) and therefore believe to fight oppression, they must break down that structure.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Anti-racists are not really anti-racist, they are anti-white.
I believe that.

If Blacks (and Whites) took seriously MLK's words about character, Blacks would be in more trouble. When are blacks going to get working on the character thing?

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

Yes.

Once you prove that:
a) This power structure doesn't exist.
and
b) The races differ by genetics (of course, its self-evident).

The result is leftism is discredited as political philosophy.

[Boleslaw]

You have missed the point entirely.

For that to work, you'd have to assume that the non-whites you hated shared a character with all non-whites in general. Untill you know the content of every member of a single races character, which you never will, you can't hate them according to what MLK said. Just the individuals whose character you do know.


I was expecting this kind of reply. The problem is it's built on a faulty assumption of denying of social group characteristics. It's absolutely necessary for people in a certain group to share certain similarities in order for that group to operate. Otherwise society as we know could not exist.

And you certainly do need to know every single member of a race or ethnicity in order to gain a picture of the culture, customs, and byways of that group. That's a rather absurd assumption.

As I've often said; in order to accept much of the anti-Racist viewpoint, you have to accept a host of other assumptions - namely the notion of social atomism.

I'll have to continue with this later. This will be a work in progress.

[Boleslaw]

Yes.

Once you prove that:
a) This power structure doesn't exist.
and
b) The races differ by genetics (of course, its self-evident).

The result is leftism is discredited as political philosophy.
That wouldn't discredit leftism. It would discredit multi-culturalism.

[Boleslaw]

Anti-racists are not really anti-racist, they are anti-white.


I'm an anti-racist racist :rofl:

[Starr]

Certain behavioral stereotypes believed in regards to different races are often remarkably similar even among very different peoples. This alone very strongly hints at the stereotypes being correct. Most people upon meeting individual people of different races will judge them according to how they present themselves and behave, and this is the way it should be, but all too often they see a pattern of certain behaviors being more common to certain racial groups than others so people will began to, in noticing these common group patterns, judge according to the more common content of character of that group. They began to see that race can be a pretty good indicator of the content of character. A good amount of the time, the prejudgement will be correct, on less occasions it will not. It is a little of both.

Anti racists judge everything only according to one standard that they believe is equally as likely to fit all people. They are going to be much more likely to prejudge incorrectly,ie. not according to content of character, but their preconceived notions of "human equality"

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

That wouldn't discredit leftism. It would discredit multi-culturalism.
It would discredit the idea that equal results should be expected in unequal people. In other words if Blacks consistently under-perform, the cause can no longer be pinned on whites.

Leftists push stuff like affirmative action (which increases the size of the government, so its leftism) to "remedy" this. They should just accept the fact that the only bigots are themselves. Shrink the government and external pressure, and the people will not choose diversity 9 times out of 10.

[Empress Cheesatine]

Here's some character:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/orace.png

[Lily]

I was expecting this kind of reply. The problem is it's built on a faulty assumption of denying of social group characteristics. It's absolutely necessary for people in a certain group to share certain similarities in order for that group to operate. Otherwise society as we know could not exist.

And you certainly do need to know every single member of a race or ethnicity in order to gain a picture of the culture, customs, and byways of that group. That's a rather absurd assumption.

As I've often said; in order to accept much of the anti-Racist viewpoint, you have to accept a host of other assumptions - namely the notion of social atomism.

I'll have to continue with this later. This will be a work in progress.

Then you'd have to assume every member of every race shares the exact same culture, which is extremely far from the truth. Whites in Britain are different from Whites in Italy. They have different cultures, customs and byways. Why would this not apply to Blacks here and Blacks in Africa? I mean Whites in Britain, to an extent don't even share the same collective culture. One could argue that they hate Brits for their yobbish behaviour, but it's not true to say that all Brits share this character.

Secondly your race doesn't necessarily correlate with your social group.

[Vindex]

I don't know Iam still pouring though massive volumes of studies and graphs to find my ass from a hole in the ground and if race is even real or not.

[Björn]

I would like to see some sort of census done on the lifestyles and behaviors of African Africans versus their northern hemisphere counterparts.

[Boleslaw]

Then you'd have to assume every member of every race shares the exact same culture, which is extremely far from the truth.

No, in fact this is grossly exaggerating what I said. Starr also explained this very well. With certain groups, there tend to be certain patterns of behavior. This is basic Sociology here.


Whites in Britain are different from Whites in Italy.

Yes and?

They have different cultures, customs and byways.

Where did I say otherwise?


Why would this not apply to Blacks here and Blacks in Africa?

I never said it wouldn't. But then again; you're still judging on a basis of group identity of some form.

For the record, I tend to find Blacks from Africa to be more well-behaved then American Blacks; probably because the former tends to come from a more traditional cultural background where kinship ties still play an important role.

[Boleslaw]

It would discredit the idea that equal results should be expected in unequal people. In other words if Blacks consistently under-perform, the cause can no longer be pinned on whites.

Ok, again that would only discredit a certain idea within certain Leftist circles.


Leftists push stuff like affirmative action (which increases the size of the government, so its leftism) to "remedy" this.

So because it increases the size of the government, that makes it Leftist? What about anti-Statist Leftists, stereotypically Anarchists?

[Burrhus]

I believe that.

If Blacks (and Whites) took seriously MLK's words about character, Blacks would be in more trouble. When are blacks going to get working on the character thing?

Work? Blacks work? Dat be rasiss hatin'. :)

[Lieutenant William Bligh]

Yes.

Once you prove that:
a) This power structure doesn't exist.
and
b) The races differ by genetics (of course, its self-evident).

The result is leftism is discredited as political philosophy.

Liberal ideas are not the same thing as Leftist ideas. Not all Left wing concepts center around these liberal Bourgeoisie progressivist nonsense tracks. It is their character which is the problem of course, and their psychological distance from their fellow man.

[Lily]

For the record, I tend to find Blacks from Africa to be more well-behaved then American Blacks; probably because the former tends to come from a more traditional cultural background where kinship ties still play an important role.
Well if you are accepting that within races there are multiple customs which you can both approve and disapprove of MLK becomes irrelevent because he was talking about discrimination of the collective of Blacks in America and thus, judging ALL Blacks 'by their character not the colour of their skin.'

You have agreed that all Blacks don't share a single character so it can not be legitimately claimed that someone is abiding by MLK's teachings when they hate Blacks for their collective character, because, there isn't one.

[Boleslaw]

Well if you are accepting that within races there are multiple customs which you can both approve and disapprove of MLK becomes irrelevent because he was talking about discrimination of the collective of Blacks in America and thus, judging ALL Blacks 'by their character not the colour of their skin.'

In other words, MLK twisted a legitimate concept into an abstract concept that in the end has very little meaning to it.

You have agreed that all Blacks don't share a single character so it can not be legitimately claimed that someone is abiding by MLK's teachings when they hate Blacks for their collective character, because, there isn't one.

One minute you deny that collective character exists, then you assert it does, and then right above you again deny its existence. So which is it? Either collective-group character exist or it doesn't.

If it doesn't; then you have a whole host of other questions to answer.

[Jimbo Gomez]

It's a sad day for antiracism on the Phora when poor little Bip is the only one of them posting in the colourblind forum, overwhelmed by the opposition in the only active thread.

[Lily]

One minute you deny that collective character exists, then you assert it does, and then right above you again deny its existence. So which is it? Either collective-group character exist or it doesn't.
If it doesn't; then you have a whole host of other questions to answer.
I didn't say anything about my opinion on collective character. I said Blacks were judged as a collective when MLK's teachings said that they shouldn't be. So, I didn't assert anything of my own opinion, nor do I have anything to explain to you.

By your own admission Blacks do not share a collective culture (evidenced by your comparison of American Blacks to African ones.) Therefore, by saying you hate Blacks you aren't judging them by their individual characters and customs (as MLK professes that you should) but as a collective instead.

If for example you said you hated Black 'gangsters' it would be completely different. Although they are a collective, they share a culture (Of sorts :p) and thus a character, something an entire race doesn't have. (Of course you'd probably hate the White and Asian ones too bringing race out of the whole equation.)

[tempus fugit]

I think the issue is the high correlation between the black race and crime/anti-social behaviors.

Quite bluntly I don't think there's a damn thing whites can do to help the black race. Until they take full (and possibly severe) responsibility and action for the most violent of their kind, people (of all races) will pre-judge them harshly.

It is both natural and healthy to do so.

[Boleslaw]

I didn't say anything about my opinion on collective character. I said Blacks were judged as a collective when MLK's teachings said that they shouldn't be. So, I didn't assert anything of my own opinion, nor do I have anything to explain to you.

By your own admission Blacks do not share a collective culture (evidenced by your comparison of American Blacks to African ones.) Therefore, by saying you hate Blacks you aren't judging them by their individual characters and customs (as MLK professes that you should) but as a collective instead.

If for example you said you hated Black 'gangsters' it would be completely different. Although they are a collective, they share a culture (Of sorts :p) and thus a character, something an entire race doesn't have. (Of course you'd probably hate the White and Asian ones too bringing race out of the whole equation.)

I'm a Personalist, so I don't believe people are defined purely by their collective associations. However, Personalism is not the same as Individualism, which dictates a theory of social atomism where people are largely unrelated and isolated from each other.

Personalism declares that while certainly each person is unique in some way or another; we're also very much defined by our relationships with other people via family and community. So not only individuals, but also families and communities have their own distinct personalities.

So while every Black may not act exactly the same, to deny anykind of common traits between members of a certain ethnicity-culture-race is also quite foolish as well. So in this sense: it's theoretically possible to be fond of individual Blacks while still hating the Black race overall. Heinrich Himmler put another twist to this concept by remarking that everybody has their favorite Jew.

Now Im sure you're asking the question: interesting Boleslaw but what the fuck does this have to do with what MLK said? Well....actually everything, if nothing else because MLK was actually himself a Personalist.

My issue really is with how "Anti-racists" have chosen to apply MLK's teaching(whichj I can admit is very much common sense).

The standard approach they use is to assume a perspective of abstract radical individualism. That is we're only allowed to judge people purely on the individual level; never on the communal level so to speak. The very notion that people of a certain group can share certain similarities is frowned upon or outright denied.

That approach is built on a fundamental denial of the unique personalities of human social groups; which inevitably play SOME role in the development of those we're supposed to judge on the individual level.

This only works when you assume that people are only individuals. But the simple fact that no they're not; they maybe individual persons but they have ties with other people who share certain similarities with themselves. Otherwise there'd be no reason for those persons to associate themselves with each other.

If people did not share certain similarities with each other on SOME level; then society as we know it simply could neither operate properly nor even exist in the first place.

[Lily]

I don't disagree with you Boleslaw. The problem is that wheras alot of anti-racist's are guilty of radical-individualism, alot racists are guilty of radical-collectivism.

In this regard, the racists who claim to hate all Blacks aren't abiding by MLK's teachings, though your personal views might.

[Starr]

This only works when you assume that people are only individuals. But the simple fact that no they're not; they maybe individual persons but they have ties with other people who share certain similarities with themselves. Otherwise there'd be no reason for those persons to associate themselves with each other.

This is exactly correct. A civilization or society itself is made into what it is by people who share common characteristics, patterns, and beliefs about social mores, morality,etc. Even as our societies become more racially and culturally mixed you still see people choosing to associate much more often with people of their own race and culture, this is precisely because these people are more like them in numerous ways outside of what people would refer to as "the color of someone's skin"

Everyone is an individual and is different from every other person in certain ways, but they also share many common characteristics with everyone, but even much moreso with other members of their specific group. Left completely to their own devices, they will choose to form friendships and associate much more often with people who they, as an individual, can identify with in a larger way. It is no coicidence that even in a society like we have today, where people are taught that all peoples are exactly the same, whites generally still associate more with other whites and blacks with other blacks,etc, even when they(especially whites) have a very strong push the other way, from a society that says it is morally correct, to embrace more "diversity" in their lives.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

Ok, again that would only discredit a certain idea within certain Leftist circles.



So because it increases the size of the government, that makes it Leftist? What about anti-Statist Leftists, stereotypically Anarchists?
Those are libertarians, not "Democrat" (American political party) style liberals.

[Boleslaw]

Those are libertarians, not "Democrat" (American political party) style liberals.

So by your own admission, your remarks only apply to American Democrats. Ergo, it does not refute Leftism in toto.

[Boleslaw]

It's a sad day for antiracism on the Phora when poor little Bip is the only one of them posting in the colourblind forum, overwhelmed by the opposition in the only active thread.
Notice how my threads have actually helped increase activity within the Colorblind forum? The MSF crowd should be grateful to me for this!

[Ixtab]

Judge not by the colour of one's skin, but by the content of one's genome.

[Boleslaw]

Judge not by the colour of one's skin, but by the content of one's genome.

Isn't race determined by one's genome?

[chloeblossoms]

Good. Now tell me the content of my character.

[B-Pep]

Good. Now tell me the content of my character.

A white-washed, hair-frying, skin-lightening simian?

[Empress Cheesatine]

Here's some content of character:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/orace.png (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm)

[Barjag]

Here's some content of character:That does not factor in homicides via warfare, for example.

[B-Pep]

Here's some content of character:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/orace.png (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm)

Exactly. For every aunt-jemima race-traitor like Congoleeza/Chloe there are a million violent savage negroes.

[Barjag]

Exactly. For every aunt-jemima race-traitor like Congoleeza/Chloe there are a million violent savage negroes.OTOH, most members of Blackwater, for example, are certainly not black.

[chloeblossoms]

A white-washed, hair-frying, skin-lightening simian?

That's not the content of my character.:)

And what's a race traitor?

[chloeblossoms]

Geez, the way people are getting excited you'd think I had done/said something more than just register here.

[MrAngry]

Geez, the way people are getting excited you'd think I had done/said something more than just register here.


There's a large contingent of geeks who get all hett up when a female joins, just roll with it until they get bored.

[chloeblossoms]

There's a large contingent of geeks who get all hett up when a female joins, just roll with it until they get bored.

For some farfetched reason, I thought you were going to say something angry.

[chloeblossoms]

*Wait, here comes someone else with something angry.*

[B-Pep]

That's not the content of my character.:)

And what's a race traitor?

Stop playing dumb. If you know any blacks in real life you know exactly what a race traitor is, they've probably accused you numerous times by now, most likely behind your back though. You are the type of self-hating scum who only dates white/non-black males, loves "gray's anatomy", and is out there for herself and nobody else. You want to be something you can never be, hence you are just another mamma jamma right wing neocohen scum.




Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah Zip-A-Dee-Ay wonderful feelin', wonderful day, yessuh

Hey, it's my favorite nigrah Uncle Reemus...I mean MrAngry!! Did you get me that coconut I asked you to fetch from that tree yet?

[chloeblossoms]

Stop playing dumb. If you know any blacks in real life you know exactly what a race traitor is, they've probably accused you numerous times by now, most likely behind your back though. You are the type of self-hating scum who only dates white/non-black males, loves "gray's anatomy", and is out there for herself. You want to be something you can never be, hence you are just another mamma jamma right wing neocohen scum.


I wanted to hear your definition. I don't know about you, but I love myself, life is pretty sweet. I don't really watch many TV dramas, am celibate, and I'm out to take over the world like Pinky and the Brain.

But let's talk about you. You are obviously very angry. Are you unhappy with yourself, life, etc.?

[Barjag]

But let's talk about you. You are obviously very angry. Are you unhappy with yourself, life, etc.?B-Pep argues, among other things, that Jews secretly have a cure for cancer that they keep to themselves. He also claims that Hitler is a divine entity that will return to the earth, though not necessarily in the same body. He accuses anyone who questions his wild-eyed assertions of being "jews," "neo-cohens," "shabbos goys," et al. Do not expect rational argumentation from him.

[chloeblossoms]

I see.

Hhhhmmm...I'm guessing you don't post on VNN with that siggy?:)

[Barjag]

I see.

Hhhhmmm...I'm guessing you don't post on VNN with that siggy?:):rofl:

No, but I'd do it, except I haven't posted there at all lately. Months ago, I did get one VNNer to proclaim Robert Mugabe as an ally of Aryans against the Jew.

[chloeblossoms]

. Months ago, I did get one VNNer to proclaim Robert Mugabe as an ally of Aryans against the Jew.

lol. Yes, that doesn't surprise me, I surf VNN regularly, though it'd be pretty foolish and unnecessary for me to join.

[Arminius]

... and I'm out to take over the world like Pinky and the Brain.

+100 cool points (great show).

[chloeblossoms]

A piece of my heart went when the WB stopped playing it on Sunday evenings.

[Empress Cheesatine]

That's not the content of my character.:)

And what's a race traitor?

I was told that you were once a black racialist. I guess not.

[chloeblossoms]

I was told that you were once a black racialist. I guess not.

By who? People were confusing me with someone else who used to post here. And no, I'm not a black "racialist".

[MrAngry]

For some farfetched reason, I thought you were going to say something angry.


It's an ironic name, I'm not really Angry..... I think....

[MrRS]

It's an ironic name, I'm not really Angry..... I think....
You could have fooled me!

[MrAngry]

You could have fooled me!


It's true, because of the name, people assume that when I post it is in an angry manner. I can tell you that I rarely get angry, I do like to stoke the flames of contention sometimes.

There are people who know me in person on here and MSF, they'll tell you I'm totally different IRL, as most of the people on here are I suppose.

[MrRS]

It's true, because of the name, people assume that when I post it is in an angry manner. I can tell you that I rarely get angry, I do like to stoke the flames of contention sometimes.

There are people who know me in person on here and MSF, they'll tell you I'm totally different IRL, as most of the people on here are I suppose.
Most of us have our own little online personas and generally they are very different to what we are really like.

I have met a number of stormfronters in person, some of them are even on ignore because their postings annoy me so much, however when i met them they were very different, they were all good people.

[Hachiko]

It's an ironic name, I'm not really Angry..... I think....
O RLY?
How do you feel when you hear this.... MANSA MUSA!

[MrRS]

O RLY?
How do you feel when you hear this.... MANSA MUSA!
We could do with an "Angry-O-Meter" right now!

[MrAngry]

O RLY?
How do you feel when you hear this.... MANSA MUSA!


Oh thanks, spoil my day why don't ya! Mansa Mugabe can rot in his own feces for all I care.