"Racist" is the constant epithet of the woketard left. Don't fall for it. The simple fact of the matter is that all people are racist. Everyone who has ever lived or will ever live is racist. It's a natural part of the human condition.  

 
From the wiki article, linked below:

 
"Kin selection is a process whereby natural selection favours a trait due to its positive effects on the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even when at a cost to the organism's own survival and reproduction.[1] Kin selection can lead to the evolution of altruistic behaviour. It is related to inclusive fitness, which combines the number of offspring produced with the number an individual can ensure the production of by supporting others"

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

 
Let's put that in a way anyone can understand. You care about your own family more then you care about other people's families. This is why racism exists. People sacrifice for their own family while they would not sacrifice for others.

 
Kin Selection evolved because:
1) resources aren't limitless  
2) society depends upon altruism and  
3) outsiders can take advantage of that.  

 
And since human beings could not have survived without Kin Selection, and racism is the natural byproduct of Kin Selection, then on what basis is racism immoral? If we would have gone extinct without it, then it cannot be immoral. If someone tells you it's bad to be racist, then they're telling you it's wrong for you to love your own family.

And not just Trump, but everyone in the Republican party. Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, JD Vance, even Candance Owens. He told me that he deeply loves them all and would do anything for them. I did not see that coming.

END OF MESSAGE

That is only asked by hard core racists. Know any by chance? smh

That’s an interesting point, but it doesn’t address Willy’s premise.

While it may be true that kin selection is a part of evolution, it doesn’t make its byproduct, racism, moral or acceptable. If one believes in God or a higher power that’s imbued the human race with free will, then we can call to our altruism, another byproduct of kin selection, to work against racism. From Willy’s link:

You don't think philosophers have ever struggled with this question? So let's take this one step further.  

 
Sue decides to go on a date. Does she pick a date at random? Just any ole guy would do? Or does she become highly selective in who she picks? Suppose the date goes well, she falls in love and gets married. Is she not making a vow to discriminate against all other men on earth for the rest of her life?  

 
If we're going to make the claim that racism is morally wrong, then logically, Sue here would be doing something far worse. She's declaring her intention to discriminate against all men of all races for the rest of her life, except for one person. Is that immoral?

 
Alternatively, we can make this even simpler. If racism is indeed immoral, then logically, it would be just as immoral for Robert not to hand over all his money and property to randos on the internet. Since racism is indeed the natural byproduct of kin selection, and since resource scarcity exists, and society depends upon altruism which creates a free rider vulnerability, then logically we must conclude that the opposite of the grave evil of racism would be to maximize altruism. Therefore, Robert should give away all his money and property to complete strangers, completely ignoring the harm it would cause himself and his family.  

 
Now let's suppose everyone followed that same exercise that Robert is engaged in. What would we call that? We'd call it communism. And under a communist system people die, they starve to death and are reduced to extreme poverty. You cannot eliminate racism and still have personal property. You can either have one or the either.  

 
Altruism can only arise if it is beneficial to one's own reproductive fitness. John can either spread his genes by having lots of babies, but Bob could also spread his genes by sacrificing his life to save his sister's life allowing her to live on and have her own babies, genes that Bob share in common with his sister.  

 
If you detach Kin Selection from altruism, then what happens is that by instinct human being switch from one survival mode to another. In a homogenous society, where everyone shares a common ancestry and lineage, then you can get everyone sacrificing for one another. But if a society switches to a multicultural one, then eventually this sacrifice stops happening and the rates of altruism plummets. Eventually, everyone switches from a high trust society to a low trust society. They go into survival mode.  

 
In a low trust society, you might see things like businessmen destroying the companies they work for so it doesn't survive so they can strip as much wealth from it as possible for themselves. You might see politicians engaged in rampant corruption, where institutions harm the population so they can enrich themselves so their own families can be wealthy, not caring that it impoverishes society as a whole. You might see cops refusing to uphold the law and instead take bribes from criminals to help them commit crime instead.  

 
You cannot just wish altruism into existence. Either you foster the conditions by which it can flourish, or you can destroy it. Racism is an evolutionary cheat code to maintain a society. Get rid of racism, and the bonds that hold that society together also crumbles. It becomes everyone fending for themselves. And when everyone fends for themselves, the overall survival rate plummets. Evolutionary fitness declines.  

 
Any moral code that naturally produces death is not a moral code at all. You cannot claim something is immoral if it directly caused people to die. Racism therefore can not be immoral.

...that someone would say that hating someone for what their beliefs are is perfectly justified. Wouldn't that be far worse than hating someone for their ethnicity? Why would it be justified to hate someone who you share a common ethnicity, language, nation, and customs, but not justified to hate someone who doesn't have any of those things in common with you? Isn't that weird?  

 
Should we accept that it's normal for one person from Topeka to hate another person from Topeka just because they disagree on some minor political issues, but it's completely immoral and wrong for that some person to hate some rando person in Bangladesh? Does that make any sense?

"Racism therefore can not be immoral." This is EXACTLY what racists say to defend their racism. I wonder if CKS will come rushing in to defend Willy's racism yet again? We'll see...

END OF MESSAGE

What is the moral basis for racism being wrong? That we should be nice to people by default who are of a different race? Would that be no different than saying we should be nice to people of any race by default? Would that be no different than saying we should be nice to all people? If that is the ethos you're embracing, cool. Tell me about how much your love Trump. Tell me about how much you love Republicans. Better yet, tell me about how much you love white supremacists. If  the moral code you want to live by is that we should all love one another, then this means you should love white supremacists as well.  

 
The balls in your court, Robert.

...but since you are about to break through into Beijing...well...

The woketard left loves to scream "racist" at every turn, but they surely don't seem to be very interested in defending what seems to be the core of their belief system. So I'll do ya one better. Back in 2018, an outspoken conservative black woman, Candance Owens was sitting in a restaurant when a bunch of white Antifa types harassed her and basically chased her away from the restaurant.  

 
Suppose we had a time machine and we transported these same individuals to the 1950's. What would you then call it? Would you not call it white supremacy?

 
The reality is this: when the woketard left calls someone racist, what they're really saying is "WE'RE ALLOWED TO HATE PEOPLE, BUT YOU ARE NOT." That "WHEN YOU HATE PEOPLE IT'S A SIN, BUT WHEN WE HATE PEOPLE IT'S A VIRTUE."

 
This is not logically consistent. Nothing about woketard beliefs are. Just as you can't say someone is trans, but then say sex isn't a binary. Just as you can't say "black people can't be racist" and then say Kanye West is racist when he puts out a song called, "Heil Hitler".  

 
So long as the left weaponizes their own hate, then they will weaponize the hate of others. The woketard left can either abandon their identitarian politics, or they can watch right wing identitarian politics grow.

That’s a question asked by professors to philosophy students, theology students and others.  

Willy poses an interesting question with a curious theory in a religion forum. Do you see why your refusal to answer looks like a punt?

that never, EVER taking ANY of Willy's racism on can make people here think YOU are a racist? If not you may want to give it some more thought.

END OF MESSAGE

He has had ample opportunity to call out Willy on his blatant racism in MANY posts on MANY threads, but has he ever? Even once? NOPE! He excuses it, as if Willy is trying to forge some sort of academic debate about the subject.  
.
I would take that seriously, coming from someone else, but a racist so obvious like Willy doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. CKS is pathetic and weak and doing the work of bigots like Willy. So what would that make CKS then? Hmmmmm...

END OF MESSAGE

...they punt and run away, but then try to bludgeon others with the hammer of calling people "racist". It doesn't matter what you say or do, you can never appease them, so there's no reason to try. They're applying the same trick they always do: "WHEN YOU HATE PEOPLE IT'S A SIN, WHEN WE HATE PEOPLE IT'S A VIRTUE."  

 
At least the good news is that we finally found someone who is definitely NOT racist.  

when he chooses the role of BSC troll all he will get from me is ridicule.
You Wanker.

Yes, Robert, you’ve punted twice now.

Willy asked if it’s immoral or wrong to be racist. He posited a theory that racism is a result of evolution, ergo racism isn’t wrong or immoral, it’s just a human condition.
You didn’t answer, Willy. I did answer the question, addressing his premise, and concluded that racism was wrong and immoral. And the end result of that interaction is that I’m the racist in this equation? That’s intellectual laziness. Which I can only assume explains your inability to answer the question and resort to baseless accusations.

The conclusion you came to doesn't serve his purpose. When you weaponize shame, it's useless if someone ends up saying "I have nothing to be ashamed about". This is why no matter how you reacted, no matter what answer you gave, his reaction would always be the same. "you're a racist".

exactly the answer they think we owe them? I, for one, won't play that game. When they ask a stupid, biased question I prefer to respond with ridicule. And they can't handle it.
PS: They are also really shitty at finding funny gifs.

He looks at Willy as some type of college professor, despite Willy's numerous racist statements in the past. He is essentially excusing Willy's past racism, which is not only sad, but warped and demented.  
.
I thought CKS was different, in that I believed he would clearly stand up against bigotry, but I guess he is incapable, since I have never seen him do it with Willy.

That’s exactly the well he went to.

To me, ChicKenShit is, and always has been, a blatant partisan hack who attempts, but fails, to present himself as a reasonable and thoughtful commenter. But he ALWAYS ends up displaying his partisan bent.
A hack is a hack is a hack.

It’s an interesting, yet controversial question. One thing it’s not is partisan.