Why is it that the more well read and respected people in society tend to not be racists?

Why is it that the more well read and respected people in society tend to not be racists?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Racism is illogical, so it's often bundled with other illogical beliefs by politicians. If you know that those other beliefs are illogical, you're less likely to buy the racist stuff as well.

This

tell me more about your 100% logical political theory, ms. rand

Actually this isn't true generally speaking the more well read you are the more likely you are to understand how public perception and consequences operate and so you're not going to go on a stupid rant against jews in public.

Respected people in society is a non statement, it means absolutely nothing to anyone.

>t. Citizen of the World

Does reading develop logic?

It is true honey, look at education level and literacy rate vs racism, it is an inverse relationship

You mean why it is so in the contemporary west. Well, because egalitarian doctrines took hold of all institutions, social and political, after WW2, which meant they could realign society along their kind of egalitarian universal progressivism.
Peopel are indoctrinated into those views since birth and the opposite positions are never presented in any way that isn't a bad strawman or a collection of fnords. You're also taught directly or indirectly that If you espouse views that go against said doctrines, you are going to lose social and economic capital. Indoctrination is especially common in the educational system, which means the more you're in it, the less likely you are to espouse those views both because you're less likely to believe them and because you know what the price is for stating them.

Except well read people have by definition been exposed to a broad variety of ideas, so your deflection doesn't make any sense.

>Except well read people have by definition been exposed to a broad variety of ideas
They have definitely been exposed to a broad-er variety of ideas when compared to proles, sure, but that doesn't mean they've been exposed to ideas that are radically different from the doctrines I outlined before. In fact, they tend to be as ignorant of them as the proles are.

Because having studied biology they know how negligible the differences between races actually are. I can't wait until this pernicious anti-globalist trend dies.

Because the higher classes are more prone to liberal propaganda, they don't live where rabid black people live, and thry are blind of the problems black people give way to due to a narrow life.

This question is as redundant as asking why trees strangle each other growing towards light

>the most well read people on the planet are not racist
>THEY ARE JUST NOT WELL READ ENOUGH THEY SHOULD HAVE READ MEIN KAMPF AND GOTTEN REDPILLED
Go away, child.

Same

All of those studies are done through surveys and not actual surveillance into the lives of well-read people. Therefore, they're pretty fucking useless.

This isn't to say I believe well-read people are more or less racist than the average population, just that all that we can concretely state is that they show no overt public signs of such, and well-read people are more likely to view themselves as not-racist.

Biology is a meme.

Yeah, race is only skin deep. It's totally illogical because race literally doesn't exist, it's basically just a social construct.

>I can't wait for the world government to finally ensure the perfect operation of capitalism

The more well read you become, the less you care about meaningless shit.

>illogic is bad
>logic is good
Meme'd

I'm sorry user, but the only one who is being childish here is you and you're doing it by indulging in the fantasy that at any given time in history people have certain political beliefs rather than others more because those things are right than because of social factors.

You do realize that unless we turn out to indeed be the only intelligent life in the universe, that Nationalism will die overnight the instant we achieve first contact, right?

>achieving first contact
Does the utopianism of progressives ever end?
Also, so what?

I don't want that at all. I agree with many (if not most) of the criticisms of globalization. It's the form the major anti-globalist movement is taking that I abjure. They've identified the problems, which is the easy part. It's their solutions that need drastic work.

What are they reading though? Endless articles and monographs written by the same small, insular, group of academics.

I have a BA and most the reading material was extremely specialized. It wasn't a "universal" education by any means. We weren't reading Plato and Aristotle, we were reading about "Oft Woven Threads: Different Ways of Being in Colonial Martinique"

We should be pragmatic and think long term.
Thousands of years ahead.

I am talking about well read people now. Are you saying phrenology is only abandoned because of the culture of our times? It used to be cutting edge "science", so was racism in general.

So you think we will all amalgamate into one contented homogeneity upon learning of the amoebas in Rigel XII? You can't even recognise the division that exists now within states, nevermind this glorious future you have in mind

>I am talking about well read people now.
And you can make the same argument at any point in history.
>Are you saying phrenology
Phrenology isn't really a political belief, is it? But let's say you're just talking about the part of racism that isn't a matter of politics but science, Fine. You seem to believe the reason why racism is no longer a thing is because we've proved scientifically that its claims are wrong, that is, different human populations are fundamentally the same in every mental trait. Now, a quick question, when do you think that happened?

There have always been people that have been against racism.

I agree with him, but wtf does he mean his calculations haha this dude is an engineering major what calculations?

you should probably do the same for each race

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

Yes, and? In many time periods they were the minority. And I could have asked you "why is it that racial egalitarians are so scarce among well-read people? Why isn't Kant a racial egalitarian, uh?"

Yes, it's phrenology, not just mainstream physical anthropology that tells us how to recognize the race of someone from their skull.

And there have always been people who disagree and oppose other people. Conflict is the engine of humanity, world peace should not even be considered desirable for a healthy society

>tfw you are seeing the Synopsis playing out before your eyes
I have been truly red pilled

I'm not saying that you can predict certain personality characteristics from the shapes of these skulls, but it's patently absurd to claim that every human population is the same, like so many liberals do.

user, I was serious here I'm actually curious, when do you think we proved or showed that human populations are genetically the same when it comes to mental traits?

Because the more well-read and respected members of society are raised in a bourgeois environment where money talks and the specter of Christian universalism and egalitarianism still lives.

It's very easy to have compassion towards Muslims or blacks when you rarely if ever associate with these people in any meaningful sense.

but no one's claiming that lol.

user, trust me, plenty of people have done and are doing precisely that.

We truly are the inferior race.

If only we could all be aboriginal, and see the world like children again.

>trust me
No.

Time spent reading inside a sheltered white middle class community where you have time to waste away days by reading only

is time spent away from witnessing the retardation of the neggers and muslims in the streets.

higher book consumption is positively correlated to a higher intelligence. and intelligence is positively correlated to trait openness (big five). trait openness makes you interested in mixing ideas and experimenting (by removing barriers between categories). quite literally the opposite of being so conservative that you want everyone in their little category.

/thread/ hard af

So you seriously think there's nobody around who think every human population is the same?
Like, I can go to a sociology department and say "there are genetic differences of all kinds between west africans and europeans" and everyone is just going to nod silently?

>plenty of people
>haha no I meant SOME person has said it at some point haha ok

I'll reformulate: do you think a majority of people there is going to nod silently at me saying that sentence? Like, they're perfectly fine with the possibility of there being differences in genes that pertain to aggression when it comes to west africans vs europeans.

>I'm just saying: not every population is the same
>No I meant niggers are more aggressive n shit 'cause they're God's supersoldiers

All you would have to do is prove that to be fair. I just think you're not educated to do that though.

I wasn't the guy posting the skulls and I'm not saying what you just said but go ahead and keep making strawmen, that shows how strong your arguments are.
>All you would have to do is prove that to be fair
I said the possibility, not the fact that there is such a difference. Do you think they're perfectly open to that possibility?
But sure, I can also show you that given currently available evidence, it looks like certain populations are more aggressive than others in part because of genetic reasons. This isn't difficult.
We know that having fewer CAG repeats in the gene that codes for your androgen receptor makes you more likely to behave aggresively than people who have more (if you want, I can post sources, no biggy). We also know that west africans and west-african descended populations tend to have fewer CAG repeats in that gene with respect to europeans and european descended populations.
We also know that people who have a certain version of the MAO-A gene, respond more aggressively under stress. We also know that people from the aforementioned african populations tends to have that version of the MAO-A gene more often than people from european population.
So, as of now, there is good evidence that some, not all (I don't even think it's the cause of most of the difference), of the difference between aggressiveness in those two populations is due to genes.
This might change in the future, sure. But as of now, it looks like what I said.

Personally I've always thought the strange universalism some promote onto other people's to be inherintly imperial in nature. To be so concerned as to impose your own values and ethics onto others rather than accept their difference

>genes that pertain to aggression when it comes to west africans vs europeans.
get fucked

Really good objection there, pal. I'm not even sure what you think that proves but, hey, if you're happy go ahead. But please, do continue to not refute anything at all, that would mean actually having to provide arguments and stuff, which would be bad.

What, you mean like showing you don't say what you claim you say?

That's strange user, because I'm pretty sure what I said was something like "currently available evidence seems to suggest that a minority of the difference in aggressiveness between these two populations can be explained by genetic differences" while you accused of me saying "No I meant niggers are more aggressive n shit 'cause they're God's supersoldiers".
Now, I don't know about you, but those two seem quite different statements.

Not that user but they look pretty much the same to me. Obviously one's hyperbolically mocking the other but they're clearly the same concept.

1. Most geneticists agree that their is infact a use for having races.

2. Well read people are usually more well-off and can move in to a cozy neighbourhood and have cozy opinions about the world

3. It's just not true, you can read through a bunch of authors and philosophers and see that quite a lot of them believed in segregation and that the blacks were inferior.

Your statement is false and based on a prejudice.