Regarding your YouTube video on the subject of racism
Hello.
I listened carefully to your YouTube video on the topic of racism and wanted to ask something, I hope it’s okay.
You claimed there that there is no problem with claims against groups, such as the claim that blacks are less intelligent than whites, and you claimed that there is a problem with discrimination against blacks.
Now my question is this, don’t you think that claims like this that blacks are less intelligent can reinforce stereotypes that will lead to discrimination against members of the group?
In a society that fights against such statements, wouldn’t it be correct to assume that there is also some discrimination against blacks?
My argument is of course relevant to any group because in the video you claimed that racism is relevant to all groups, so I only brought up black people as an example.
I don’t know what video you’re talking about. There are columns on the site where I elaborate. To your question, if it’s the truth, then it’s the truth. And if there’s a concern that telling the truth will lead to problematic results, telling the truth shouldn’t be prohibited, but rather trying to prevent the results.
Religious belief led to the assassination of a prime minister. Therefore, should religious belief be banned?
In any case, even if you are right, this is not a problematic statement in itself, but could only lead to problems.
A follow-up response that was posted in a separate thread and moved here:
I apologize for starting a new thread, I simply didn't have the opportunity to respond to your response in my previous post for some reason.
I was talking about this video of yours:
https://youtu.be/QQheipG_7jk?si=lz09sNy5dGXwlaTV
So my follow-up question is what is the purpose of telling the truth, does telling the truth have value in itself even though it can cause increased racism?
And what if the purpose here is to slander the black group and not beyond?
Do you think there is a line between talking about blacks being stupid as part of an intellectual discussion, and saying it to slander blacks?
Isn't it right to try to balance telling the truth with increasing racism?
Truth has value in itself. Of course. Beyond that, the difference between lies and truth is not based on motivations. Motivations are a fairly secondary matter. Questions of balance are tactical, not substantive.
In my opinion, the issue of motivation is not secondary because it is what will determine how what is said is perceived in society.
If I post on Facebook like: “Blacks are stupid and it's time everyone knew it”
Then there is defamation against a group, compared to a post that claims that there are IQ differences between groups and brings relevant arguments for this and sees that the goal here is to conduct an intellectual discussion and not just defamation.
Defamation is a bad thing both because it reinforces stereotypes against the black group (or any other group), and also because defamation hurts the members of the group emotionally.
I don't think it's possible to oppose discrimination on a practical level without opposing defamation, because for a business owner, for example, it would be difficult to separate the stereotype that blacks are stupid from unjustified discrimination in hiring them. Therefore, racist discourse leads to racist discrimination and it is difficult to separate discrimination from discourse that perpetuates it, and in a society where there is room for defamatory discourse against blacks, there will naturally also be more discrimination against them.
He started with a jug and ended with a barrel. We started with a discussion about racism and ended with etiquette and manners. I'm done.
Okay, I would be happy to answer just one last question.
You wrote that truth has value in itself, I would love to understand what its value is.
There is no way to justify and establish values. If I base the value of truth on x, you will ask why x is a value. Value is a goal and not a means to something else. The seal of God is truth and falsehood is evil.
Can you explain to me what is the value in a person's life?
The value of life is a fundamental value without which no other value exists.
I agree with you that it is difficult to justify why one value is good and another is not, and values often depend on our preferences, but we can ask why we should prioritize value X and not value Y, or we can check whether it is possible to balance the two values, or prioritize one value absolutely.
Let's say you're right, so what? Then life is not a value and neither is everything else.
It's not difficult to reason, but impossible. Reasoning will always explain that x is a value because it leads to y. But then x is not a value because it is a means and not an end, and y is a value. Now you'll have to explain y, and so on.
Also regarding comparisons, a scale of values, you run into the problem of incommensurability, which shows that this is also not possible and for the same reason (if a value is not intended to serve something else, how will you compare two values? What will be the common scale?).
These things were explained in the fourth conversation in the first premise and in my series of lessons on morality.
Ultimately, this discussion is pointless.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
