Fuck being honest and fuck morales.

Do you condemn a person with phantom limb syndrome for pretending he has a painfull limb?(neurologic wiring due to trauma and stress)

As far as the fighters finding peace with their actions and finding common ground with their old enemy's, who says they weren't racist for a long period before comming to therms with the new reality.
And who says everybody has the capability to do so?

Reality would suggest otherwise to me.

And i don't particularly find myself in a position to judge them for it if they don't act on it.

It's an interesting "test case" since to me they seem to have a legitimate reason for hatred so i make a mental distinction between those cases and racism without any reality based foundation.(for example ethnic superiority claims)

Both feel distastefull to me, but my empathy is a lot higher for the former while the later just receives a headshake with a "nope" from me.

Peace,

-Boem-

Why would this be any less traumatic to a victim of a personal crime that resulted in injury? (mental or physical)

If you wouldn't excuse that, then I dont understand your point.

If you were raped, or maimed in the commission of a crime, how is that less significant than a war injury? And why would your acceptance of their bias change as a result?

*Neither case to warrants condemnation of an entire race or subset. It's a ridiculous conclusion imo.

Because in the cases you mention your not being "raped by germany" or "maimed by japan".

While in a nation based war, those are exactly the mental patterns that are being developed and shaped while enduring trauma.

In our courts we use the therm "softening circumstances"(translated, not sure what the english equivalent is)

So i would apply a similar form of judgement on those people who were allive and in active combat when that was the general sentiment of the era.

People were not fighting other individuals, they were fighting another nation which forms an entirelly different mental concept.
Dehumanizing of the other as an individual is a basic concept for war and results in many ptsd cases when reality creeps up on them.

Personal bias expands the bias past the reality that occured.(your example of an assault and then expanding it beyond that and applying it to all individuals of that group)

In my examples, this doesn't occur. The reality they endured was actually "against all japanese people" or "against all germans".

I have great respect for people who climb out of that perception and it happens a lot, but i don't find it self-efident that everybody who endured that time would be able to manage it.

Peace,

-Boem-

Associating groups with certain traits is an inate ability we all have, needed for our survival. We need to be able to sort the world in boxes, so we can maneuver it. Without that we go in blind and naive at any time, and open to be taken advantage of.

Our minds seek to find patterns, so when we see a person of one color/gene/culture type acting a certain way we naturally associate their behaviour with it. If a lot of that type act a similar way, we begin to strongly associate that type with the type of behaviour. That is only healthy and natural.

However one should always temper your beastmind with wisdom. For example an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind, sometimes to break a circle you need to have faith. Where two nations once were at war, if you now only see them as the enemy and never give them a chance to be other than that in the end as actions multiply and dripple down we all end up enemies.

It takes courage not to be judgemental, and if you say "can't really blame them", i mean no you can't really blame an animal for being mindless and just acting on impulses eiher but you sure as hell can inspire others to aspire towards greater ideals than lack of faith in others.

It turns into something else entirely, of how lost the world can get if no one has the courage to open their hearts - and that is one of the deepest roots of civilization - to rise above the petty beastmentality.

TLDR. Yea you can't "blame" people for being hateful, you can't blame people for being ignorant. But that doesn't mean you should encourage anyone to be it, quite the opposite you should encourage everyone to avoid becoming that, but if they do well then that is just too bad lets hope they don't spread the cancer that devours cultures from below - hate. "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."

As far as vs singular enemies or vs nations as a whole, it all stems from the same - lack of insight into life and letting your negative emotions rule you rather than your clearmind. Fighting either starts at the same place, within yourself - as they are one and the same, only one is much more enhanced than the other.

The truest warrior would pity ally and enemy forces alike for being pitted against each other, knowing that both forces are pawns in the games of a few - that same warrior would therefore seek to preserve life on both sides insofar as it would make sense.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

Thats why, for example, i usually judge people on action not words. Words can be used to hide, but you cannot hide the action or decisions you take.

Careful with this.

You can easily donate time and money to causes, for example, or try to show intent, but words, emails, phone calls, in private or even not in private can express the truth. Rich racists and bigots do this all the time. Actions dont always tell the story.

Maya Angelou had it right.

"When people show you who they are, believe them."

It is all about understanding the intention behind actions whether words or physical acts.

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

Anonymity turns us into what we really are.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

Thats why, for example, i usually judge people on action not words. Words can be used to hide, but you cannot hide the action or decisions you take.

Careful with this.

You can easily donate time and money to causes, for example, or try to show intent, but words, emails, phone calls, in private or even not in private can express the truth. Rich racists and bigots do this all the time. Actions dont always tell the story.

Maya Angelou had it right.

"When people show you who they are, believe them."

I strongly disagree. I don't believe in thoughtcrime — that is, the idea that it is sinful to think or believe anything, to include racist thoughts. A person merely thinking those things doesn't harm anyone else (except, perhaps, themselves). It takes action to actually cause harm to another person, so until and unless supposedly naughty thoughts are acted upon, no crime.

What this means is that, technically, thinking in a bigoted manner doesn't make one a bad person. It certainly is a risk factor for acting in a bigoted manner, which indeed would make one a worse person (although I don't consider bigotry to be even close to the ultimate sin). But the thought alone? No. And one of the hallmarks of a virtuous chap is his patience, which prevents him from acting recklessly upon poorly conceived thoughts.

I have been noticing an increased tendency in culture towards this secular version of sola fide and find it quite distressing. No, you're not a good person just because you believe all the same things your friends on social media believe; there is no afterlife and when you die everything that you've ever thought or felt has been utterly meaningless unless it's been imparted into this physical world by action on your part. What you do is what makes you a bad person or a good one, and what you think, feel and believe useful only as an idealistic means to a materialistic end. Christian sola fide has always and unsurprisingly been most popular among the worst people (e.g. imprisoned murderers) finding Jesus, and I have the same basic instinct about this secular version as well — it's the go-to self-justification of a guilty conscience, whether due to a lazy lack of action or something more sinister.

^

I wasnt going that far. I never said anyone should be punished or otherwise penalized for their thoughts.

I was talking about active measures to distract or hide intentionally, by using money, actions that hurt groups of people base on their protected class.

I used Donald Sterling as an example. He had a vast history of real estate development deals in selective poor communities(among other things), which took advantage of low income minorities.

In various settings he admitted to viewing minorities as less than human, animals, and other absurd and disgusting thought patterns.

He justified this by saying he had invested millions in trying to help minorities. (Which was total mental gymnastics and ridiculous)

This provided cover for years until a audio tape finally caught up to him. This is basically what I was alluding to.

The notion that "I donated to xyz cause, therefore I cannot be racist" is laughable imo.

^If he views all minorities as less then human, he isn't being racist.

It's most likely an economic prejudice, not a racial one.

And while i don't agree with it, i can see the logic in being increasingly bitter and cynical if you poored millions into poor neighbourhoods and nothing changes.

I assume thats a real battle of philantropists around the world, the fight against themselves becomming "bad-faith".

And im on scroties side on this one, i really dont care what people think.(as far as judgement goes, i care on a personal level out of interest only)

It's not about "the first thought that pops in your head", its about the second,third and fourth thought that happens after it that decides wether your actually racist or bigoted and how you act out your mind in reality.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : also, to clear up something Ski, i said judge a person by his actions.
What makes you think the logical conclusion of that is "he donated to a minority cause therefore he is not racist".
People aren't build out of single event in reality.

I simply put more weight on actions then words. Talk is cheap as the old saying goes.

^ meh, no point getting bogged down in semantics as it is obvious both can be true. I was just saying be careful of only judging one or the other when making determinations. (If we can even do that, assuming peoples true thoughts and feelings)

Ok, actions speak louder than words, but actions can also have ulterior motives. Fine. Concession made.

Also being racist, implies contempt over a group of individuals for no other reason other than their race (massive simplification)

Of course this doesnt account for subset bias we were discussing (Japan and Germany are countries not races)

You could easily be beaten within an inch of your life by a specific group of men for example, and have an arm or leg amputated, then suffer from PTSD or bias afterwards related to the experience. This isnt limited to participants in war time incidents, nor should they hold exclusivity on PTSD and holding specific bias that is excusable.

I guess we agree to disagree here.

I think we agree to a very high degree.

Like i don't go easy on people when they say distastefull stuff because i can empathize with them.

I'm still gonna oppose it.

Also fair point about germans and japanese. I should have noticed that discrepancy sooner.

Peace,

-Boem-