Left & Right "Racism"

[Midnight Rain]

No doubt you see those things as inconvertable "facts". As I understand it, the other side sees the "facts" differently.

• The minimum wage excludes the poorest who often have little to no marketable skills. Why should an employer keep a person in his employ if the skills the employee brings to his position is not worth the new, higher minimum wage? Wouldn't you agree that hiring someone who is personally willing for 5/hour for whatever task is better than compared to not hiring him, which leaves him poorer, since the law demands 10/hour?
• "Universal healthcare" is based on the allopathic system which excludes other systems of medicine; many might have personal objections to the allopathic system, and believe other systems are superior, for whatever reason.
• Publically funded education serves to promote the interests of the government which funds it, and is seen by many as government indoctrination. It is also structured in specific ways which are not optimal for every individual. For example, policies in public education often heavily promote the extroverted ideal, structures classes to promote group-think, and are more often than not lecture modeled. This often works against students who are introverted, those who think and innovate best on their own, and those who learn best via personal experimentation, or via reading, etc.

This is not all about skin color, but about individual needs. It is both xenophilic and xenophobic, and thus racist, to class everyone in the same mold, as needing and wanting the same things, according to a single ideal. Forced behavior according to a class ideal is racist.

Minimum wage increases have ALWAYS led to increase in wages of the poor. Without exception.

Universal healthcare has proven itself as the most effective system for healthcare. Its based off of what has been proven to work in lab settings. Allopathic medicines that have not been proven to work in lab settings are excluded from pay from almost all health insurances already so there would be no changes from the current system.

Publicly funded education is better than no education what so ever. Without public education we would still have 80% illiteracy rates again. There has never been effective private education for the masses. The closest thing to that would be Japan but it is not structured like American educational systems and still have public options. I agree our CURRENT education system is terrible. Sending a kid to a 15k private school is obviously better. However that isn't an option for everyone that sends their children to public schools. I don't advocate keeping it the same. I advocate ending wars and using that money to fund education systems that do work. The problem is missing funding and ineffective incentives.

Nothing I have talked a bout for "fixes" have anything to do with race. It only ever have I talked about fixing socio-economic inequality in general. It should be noted that with the exception of Asians all racial minorities in the US are plagued by an un-proportional amount of poverty and lower socio-economic disadvantage.

 

[Nietzsche]

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I have no personal knowledge of any event before I was born.

Clearly(hopefully, at least) you can read, can't you?

 

[buddhist]

It only ever have I talked about fixing socio-economic inequality in general.

Thank you for your sharing your opinion. My opinion is that not everyone values the same things.

Your desire for "universal healthcare", just to take one example, may be seen as a huge positive in your eyes, but is a huge penalty and a negative in my eyes, pushing greater inequalities upon me.

If I pushed for government-funded monks to chant and practice meditation all day long for the benefit of all, should that be so? Of, if I was a Catholic, perhaps I might say that the government should fund priests to say endless masses to free those trapped in purgatory. Or, would my positives not necessarily be positives in your eyes?

To force everyone to uphold one standard of values is racist. This is a good example of classifying a whole group in the same way (as wanting the same things), and against individual (case-by-case) situations.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Thank you for your sharing your opinion. My opinion is that not everyone values the same things.

Your desire for "universal healthcare", just to take one example, may be seen as a huge positive in your eyes, but is a huge penalty and a negative in my eyes, pushing greater inequalities upon me.

If I pushed for government-funded monks to chant and practice meditation all day long for the benefit of all, should that be so? Of, if I was a Catholic, perhaps I might say that the government should fund priests to say endless masses to free those trapped in purgatory. Or, would my positives not necessarily be positives in your eyes?

To force everyone to uphold one standard of values is racist. This is a good example of classifying a whole group in the same way (as wanting the same things), and against individual (case-by-case) situations.

To force known science and standards of that science is not racist. As a Pagan I don't condone the usage of magic to heal individuals. I don't want public funded money going to that. I know that in a double blind study I doubt that magic would have that much of an effect on the physical side of an illness. However as a Nurse I do know that several drugs and scientifically proven treatments can be effective. It is not racism. It is truth and knowledge. I would be vastly against Catholic style chanting. Mainly because it is religious in nature and does not work. If it did work and it was well documented to work I might feel differently. Medicine is not a matter of opinion or belief. It either works or it doesn't'.

 

[buddhist]

To force known science and standards of that science is not racist. As a Pagan I don't condone the usage of magic to heal individuals. I don't want public funded money going to that. I know that in a double blind study I doubt that magic would have that much of an effect on the physical side of an illness. However as a Nurse I do know that several drugs and scientifically proven treatments can be effective. It is not racism. It is truth and knowledge. I would be vastly against Catholic style chanting. Mainly because it is religious in nature and does not work. If it did work and it was well documented to work I might feel differently. Medicine is not a matter of opinion or belief. It either works or it doesn't'.

You mean this kind of "science"? Editor In Chief Of World’s Best Known Medical Journal: Half Of All The ["Scientific" and "Medical"] Literature Is False

If half of the literature is true, and the other half questionable, it is in reality nothing more than another religion. Like "science", religion is also partially based on observations of the world around us, and partially assumptions about the unseen world. Thus, the current state of "science" may be no better than any other religion. It is in fact worse than most other religions, as it and its adherents attempt to bind its racist indoctrinations upon the Public through the force of law.

 

[Midnight Rain]

You mean this kind of "science"? Editor In Chief Of World’s Best Known Medical Journal: Half Of All The ["Scientific" and "Medical"] Literature Is False

If half of the literature is true, and the other half questionable, it is in reality nothing more than another religion. Like "science", religion is also partially based on observations of the world around us, and partially assumptions about the unseen world. Thus, the current state of "science" may be no better than any other religion. It is in fact worse than most other religions, as it and its adherents attempt to bind its racist indoctrinations upon the Public through the force of law.

LIfe expectancy is at an all time high. We have a better functional understanding of medicine and the human body than we ever have in the past. Absolutely none of the previous religious or mystical forms of healing have ever been shown to work with the exception of certain strands of Chinese medicine which is still questionable. We have wiped out diseases off the face of the earth. We can take the heart of a man in Texas, put it on ice, fly it to New York and put that heart in another man after "killing" him for a few minutes and then he walks home good as new. We have drugs to combat schizophrenia, viruses and just about every kind of bacterial infection out there. We have drastically improved our ability to fight cancer in the last decade. AIDS is no longer a death sentence. We can fix eyes with lasers. We can preform surgery with robots from across the planet. We can take stem cells and completely re-grow cloned organs for transplants. We can 3-d print plastic hips for patients.

You take this article and take the whole of it at face value based on its provocative title which was done intentionally to get you to seek it out. Did you even read it? Half of the literature produced on medicine is questionable. What this means is that there is no end to the bunk science mojo that is pushed out by things like Dr. Oz and Red Wine helps your heart. Its a bunch of bull-**** that is derived from ill-conceived and knee jerk reactions to anomalies in studies meant to sell fad diets and magazines. What it does not mean is that half of known medicine is "questionable". What it means is that the literature being written on it isn't properly sorted for the public. As an RN everything I learned in Nursing School and all that the Doctors and PA's learn in Medical school is factual information that isn't "questionable in nature". However the crap that uneducated people read in this so called "medical literature" is nothing but a very effective but underhanded attempt to sell products at the expense of the ignorance and gullibility of the general public.

 

[buddhist]

... as a Nurse I do know that several drugs and scientifically proven treatments can be effective. It is not racism. It is truth and knowledge. ... LIfe expectancy is at an all time high. We have a better functional understanding of medicine and the human body than we ever have in the past. Absolutely none of the previous religious or mystical forms of healing have ever been shown to work with the exception of certain strands of Chinese medicine which is still questionable. We have wiped out diseases off the face of the earth. We can take the heart of a man in Texas, put it on ice, fly it to New York and put that heart in another man after "killing" him for a few minutes and then he walks home good as new. We have drugs to combat schizophrenia, viruses and just about every kind of bacterial infection out there. We have drastically improved our ability to fight cancer in the last decade. AIDS is no longer a death sentence. We can fix eyes with lasers. We can preform surgery with robots from across the planet. We can take stem cells and completely re-grow cloned organs for transplants. We can 3-d print plastic hips for patients.

Your standard of "effectiveness" is not the standard for everyone. Not everyone believes that various "illnesses" should always be treated in the same way, for example. Some may embrace and view certain "illnesses" (which you might label it) as a divine opportunity (which I may label it) for personal growth.

My personal standard is "spiritual enlightenment"; and while pursuing certain allopathic treatments to forestall death may meet your standard (and may indeed be "physically effective"), it may go against or retard the development of my standard (it might be "spiritually detrimental"). I may refuse a treatment in order to better pursue my standard, whereas in your eyes, that treatment may be needed to meet your standard. Yet, I would not wish to impose my standard via law upon everyone else as a grouped whole, which would be racist.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Your standard of "effectiveness" is not the standard for everyone. Not everyone believes that various "illnesses" should always be treated in the same way, for example. Some may embrace and view certain "illnesses" (which you might label it) as a divine opportunity (which I may label it) for personal growth.

My personal standard is "spiritual enlightenment"; and while pursuing certain allopathic treatments to forestall death may meet your standard, it may go against my standard. I may refuse a treatment in order to better pursue my standard, whereas in your eyes, that treatment may be needed to meet your standard. Yet, I would not wish to impose my standard via law upon everyone else as a grouped whole, which would be racist.

I respect that to the degree of religious acceptance. I do not respect that to the degree of what is and isn't health related.

I respect my Aunt and Uncle's choice for being religious. I do not respect their choice of attempting to "pray away" the Schizophrenia that my cousin suffers from when there are real treatments available. It is foolishness. If you don't want treatment for whatever illness you have and wish to tackle it on a spiritual level I wish you good luck but it has nothing to do with the implementation of universal healthcare. No one is forcing you to go to a doctor for free.

 

[buddhist]

I respect that to the degree of religious acceptance. I do not respect that to the degree of what is and isn't health related.

I respect my Aunt and Uncle's choice for being religious. I do not respect their choice of attempting to "pray away" the Schizophrenia that my cousin suffers from when there are real treatments available. It is foolishness. If you don't want treatment for whatever illness you have and wish to tackle it on a spiritual level I wish you good luck but it has nothing to do with the implementation of universal healthcare.

I treat someone who was diagnosed with "OCD" in the allopathic system which allopathic doctors wished to suppress with SSRIs and benzos. They were indeed "effective" - in calming him down - but they also turned him into a zombie. He has since learned to embrace and transmute that so-called "negative" energy into something positive, using it to help him incredibly thrive in many ways, including spiritually and emotionally. He now sees the "OCD" as a blessing, and not a "curse" to be "effectively" treated.

No one is forcing you to go to a doctor for free.

No, they're not forcing me to go to an MD, but they are forcing me to pay for them ... something I don't want or need. It's essentially the same.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I treat someone who was diagnosed with "OCD" in the allopathic system which allopathic doctors wished to suppress with SSRIs and benzos. They were indeed "effective" - in calming him down - but they also turned him into a zombie. He has since learned to embrace and transmute that so-called "negative" energy into something positive, using it to help him incredibly thrive in many ways, including spiritually and emotionally. He now sees the "OCD" as a blessing, and not a "curse" to be "effectively" treated.

Anecdotal and therefore inadmissible as evidence. Psychological approaches to OCD are often far more effective than drugs. Drugs, by a good doctor, are a last resort when other methods have failed.

No, they're not forcing me to go to an MD, but they are forcing me to pay for them ... something I don't want or need. It's essentially the same.

You already pay for their roads, their water, and their healthcare. In fact if you live in the united states you spend more in subsidies than you would have to pay for their healthcare. You live in a society. You are not alone. That is one of the primal teachings of Buddhism. Its also not you but everyone. Everyone as a collective pays for everyone. You are not giving someone a hand. You are simply being part of a society that functions better.

 

[buddhist]

Anecdotal and therefore inadmissible as evidence. Psychological approaches to OCD are often far more effective than drugs. Drugs, by a good doctor, are a last resort when other methods have failed.

My point is, "OCD" is seen as a negative illness to be suppressed in allopathic medicine. It is energy to be positively utilized in transcendent ways in other modalities. Not everyone shares the same perspective as you do, nor should one perspective be forced upon all.

You already pay for their roads, their water, and their healthcare. In fact if you live in the united states you spend more in subsidies than you would have to pay for their healthcare. You live in a society. You are not alone. That is one of the primal teachings of Buddhism. Its also not you but everyone. Everyone as a collective pays for everyone. You are not giving someone a hand. You are simply being part of a society that functions better.

Another teaching of Buddhism is to not force others. We are called to help others, but only on a voluntary basis and not on compulsion. Law is compulsion.

 

[Midnight Rain]

My point is, "OCD" is seen as a negative illness to be suppressed in allopathic medicine. It is energy to be positively utilized in transcendent ways in other modalities. Not everyone shares the same perspective as you do, nor should one perspective be forced upon all.

While there is some grey area in mental illness most illnesses are pretty cut and dry without much room for opinion.

Another teaching of Buddhism is to not force others. We are called to help others, but only on a voluntary basis and not on compulsion. Law is compulsion.

All law is compulsion? All Buddhists are anarchists? This seems rather doubtful to me. And do you have a problem with the compulsion of your taxes to pay for water and roadways as well? If living in a society is against your religion then that seems like it is you who would need to change or move. Anarchist states are not usually places I would recommend to people.

 

[buddhist]

All law is compulsion? All Buddhists are anarchists? This seems rather doubtful to me. And do you have a problem with the compulsion of your taxes to pay for water and roadways as well? If living in a society is against your religion then that seems like it is you who would need to change or move. Anarchist states are not usually places I would recommend to people.

I'm not an anarchist. I'm libertarian, which I find is compatible with Buddhism. I pay certain authoritarian taxes which I disagree with and are against my will, but I believe that it will all equalize according to kamma. From a Buddhist perspective, those who apply such authoritarian force, and those who immorally reap the benefits of such force, will also reap negative kamma to their own future detriment.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I'm not an anarchist. I'm libertarian, which I find is compatible with Buddhism. I pay certain authoritarian taxes which I disagree with and are against my will, but I believe that it will all equalize according to kamma. From a Buddhist perspective, those who apply such authoritarian force, and those who immorally reap the benefits of such force, will also reap negative kamma to their own future detriment.

From someone who believes in something similar to Karma (though not karma) I believe the good created from a universal healthcare system will be reaped in positive energy. So many children and adults will be able to get the surgeries they need. Cancers will be caught on time. The overall health and cost of that healthcare will be better. In the end I believe it will also benefit you who would choose not to engage the system. Though I think at this point there is no further connection from our impasse.

 

[buddhist]

Though I think at this point there is no further connection from our impasse.

To summarize, as I stated in my OP, to impose one characterization (e.g. "they are all bad", "they are all good", "they are all violent", "they are all peaceful", "they must all practice this one belief system") upon a whole group is a form of racism.

 

[tjgillies]

One definition of "racism" is: a "preconceived judgment or opinion" of "a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics" (expanded from MW, definition #2)

Most might probably understand "racism" to mean preconceptions or pre-judgments resulting in unwarranted hatred towards specific classes of people (e.g. xenophobia), as opposed to a careful, rational evaluation of the individuals belonging to the class.

However, wouldn't you also agree that "racism" can also be understood as preconceptions or pre-judgments resulting in unwarranted love or acceptance towards classes of people (e.g. xenophilia), also in opposition to a careful, rational evaluation of the individuals in the class?

I was thinking about this in light of how many leaders are condemning hatred towards migrants (a class of people); however, I also see that many of those same leaders are guilty of racism themselves, having welcomed those same migrants with open arms, labeling that whole class in a specific way (e.g. as peaceful).

Would you agree that xenophilia is just as racist as xenophobia?

I disagree because I believe no races are worthy of hate but all races are worthy of love.

 

[buddhist]

I disagree because I believe no races are worthy of hate but all races are worthy of love.

I believe that every individual is worthy of loving-kindness.

What I'm saying in my OP is that generalizations should not be applied to classes, which is a completely different argument. I'm also not focusing on any specific ethnic race, which is a type of class.

 

[psychoslice]

I personally am sick of hearing about Racism, why can't we all see the stupid and silly side of ourselves, laugh at ourselves, life is too short to be miserable about someone not liking us.

 

[buddhist]

I personally am sick of hearing about Racism, why can't we all see the stupid and silly side of ourselves, laugh at ourselves, life is too short to be miserable about someone not liking us.

... or you must like certain group(s).

 

[psychoslice]

... or you must like certain group(s).

Yes that's it, we all should have freedom to like or dislike whatever we want, just as I like white women over chinese or black women, that is my right.