Questions for real socialists tm

Genetic engineering is the way of the future comrade. No inheritable disease etc.

Attached: pn-heirisson-thurs.jpg (375x366, 71.35K)

honestly, "ace", I find it truly fascinating that your autism gets Zig Forums posting on a higher rate than any other board. Never leave.

Who gives a shit. Flaws are human.

Attached: hmm.png (399x374, 361.59K)

What does this even mean
That's like saying "Being a slave is human" or "Being a serf is human" or "Living in a cave is human"
Humanity changes through history, one day our perfect children will have their own "Being x is human" too.

Attached: mao.jpg (200x420, 57.35K)

You can make a good argument that it is, but IMO it's a mostly useless game of semantics that can be, and at times certainly is, used as an excuse to justify behavior that would otherwise be called racism.

Take a step back and consider exactly what makes racism bad? I reckon it's primarily the fact that by reducing people to their racial group, we essentially dehumanize them. Of course, when combined with power that can be particularly nasty, but if one has the intention to dehumanize someone but merely lacks the power to do any real damage, one is really just a powerless racist, i.e. still a piece of shit.

There's also the risk of oversimplification, and taking broad truths as universally applicable. E.g. it's hard to deny that having white skin in the Western world is beneficial in various ways, but you can't reduce the complexities of power structures in society to a few variables (and intersectionality theory IMO is only a flawed attempt at adding nuance there). It's really not that hard to imagine a scenario where people of color can exert power over white people within the context of a particular situation, even if those same POCs can be said to have less power in general.

This is very loaded language, imo. Race is a categorization about as "arbitrary" and "socially constructed" as just about any other form of categorization (e.g. species, etc.). It doesn't inherently "dehumanize" someone to racially categorize them, but it does de-individualize someone. Ime, 99% of what people call "racism" is someone making an assumption (good, bad, or neutral) about someone else because of their race. Again, that doesn't make the target of the racism less human or reduce them down to some lesser group, it just means someone is imposing group-level statistical probabilities in a (often over-exaggerated and/or misapplied) way. So it's not racist to say black people commit disproportionately more violent crime in the US but it would be racist to assume a given black person is going to commit a violent crime just because they're black.

No it's not.

They bourgs will just make up new excuses to divide the working class.

"I've never benefitted from genetic-alterationism!"
t. 22nd century liberal cartoon character

Well, it is and isn't. Is your original post against curing diseases and improving the human condition using genetic engineering under the guise that we have flaws? I'm sorry, but if that's the case that's pretty shit logic my man

In principle, yes, but is race not used in a much more arbitrary (who is included/excluded depending on the situation) way for a political purpose (especially compared to species which is pretty well defined)? For example, as far as I know, fascists in Sweden in the 30's and 40's wouldn't have included finnish and polish people in the group "white people", but today they do (sometimes at least) and use them as an example of the "good kind of immigrant" because they're more interested in attacking arabs and black people, more recent immigrants.

...

Different people use racism to mean different things. Sometimes people refer to racism as a racist view held by some individual or group. Sometimes people refer to racism as an explicit structure like slavery. Sometimes people refer to racism as an implicit structure (often "systemic racism") where non-racist structural power (e.g. employers hiring people) is used by racists for racist ends (e.g. preferentially hiring whites).

"Racism = prejudice + power" is not wrong per se, but the way that the people who say that are applying this analysis is disingenuous. They treat "society" (i.e. western society from the largest macro context) as racist in a specific way and use that to justify racism in a smaller context. Specifically they grant preferential treatment or special privileges for "marginalized groups" who are marginalized in the greater context they refer to. They ignore that within their local context of that organization they are also engaging in prejudice + power, or they assert that this context is totally inseparable from the larger context and that therefor it is impossible for "reverse racism" to hurt the groups they are actively and explicitly marginalizing.

Liberals (both "liberals" and "conservatives" as well as "classical liberals" and "libertarians") see through this but usually fail to articulate it properly. They understand explicit discrimination but usually have trouble pointing out the problem of context. They also rarely understand implicit discrimination (described above) and so have trouble empathizing with people who are convinced by "racism = prejudice + power" rhetoric. Because of this ideological context, "racism = prejudice + power" is effective at attracting "progressives," empathetic but non-critical minds, and petty tyrants. This is a group who is not very effective at promoting change, but extremely effective at making the left look ineffective and irrational.

That's why this specific idea has been pushed so hard. It's self-sustaining (if you can't de-spook the people who buy into it) and it diverts potential lefties into ideology that will keep them in a pointless rut of demoralizing high-school tier drama.

I'll also note that a lot of the people who buy into this paradigm have a racist mindset that they can't get past (but can try to "rehabilitate"). Instead of saying "blacks are inferior, therefor fuck them," the line is "blacks are inferior in society therefor I, a white, have the burden of lifting them up." The rejection of egalitarian treatment within an organization by these people is a result of either fear of losing local power (the petty tyrants) or who believe that nonwhites shouldn't be on equal footing because they patronizingly believe they can't cut it (often a rationalization of a more basic/tribalistic desire for separation of an other).

Why do you say that? Classification by species is at least biologically meaningful. Many other categories are also less arbitrary than race, which is essentially purely social.

No.
Racism is holding prejudice according to racial classifications. You do not need power to be racist. (and lets not speak of the fact that there are no "powerless" people, all people have a degree of power, even if some have more overall).
Racism without power is inert though, racism without power is meaningless and harmless, racism with power is a danger.

"Racism is prejudice plus power" is a stupid americanism. Prejudice is not by definition racism, but all racism is prejudice. Its just something retarded american minority liberals invented to justify their racism within the construct of american liberalism.

I'm ok with curing disease but anything else is bullshit. Especially "eliminating race" and creating an army of genetically modified humans

Genetic engineering is the worst you can do.
It is the same problem like with incest. A species can only survive, if a great genetic variation is available. You can create a uniform human "master race", but only a single defect is needed, to wipe out the whole species.

Genetic engineering seeks to prevent exactly that. Eugenics creates incest and homogenising of dna, genetic engineering simply adds stuff to it, while preserving the diversity.

I don't like PoC
Fuck all PoC
Bye bye PoC

You know the term PoC is retarded right? That it's a stupid liberal word that americans came up with to fit everything into neat little boxes. It's saying that the Chinese man down the street is the same as the black guy from a block over and the indian lady at the car wash because they're not "White" while completely ignoring the fact that they are indeed different and usually have different social and economic situations.

In fact the term "White" is doing the same thing. You retards can't even figure out of Slavs are white. Celtic peoples, Mediterraneans and even the different strands of Germanic or Scandinavians are vastly different in terms of culture and mindset as well as having different genetic markers. Large over arching racial classifications are a fucking meme made up by racialist retards to justify whatever bullshit they're selling that day.

this one, but I want to add, that it does matter if you think that black people are stupid, and so on

Defining racism as "Prejudice plus power" is a meme that appeals to brainlets.

The basic idea behind it makes sense, but ONLY when you compare two INDIVIDUALS of obviously massive power differences. Example: say a king and a peasant. The king can say whatever shit he wants about the peasant but as soon as the peasant speaks up against the king it's off with his head.

However, applying this to everyone of all rank and assuming it applies to all members of a certain group in all circumstances regardless of their own individual standing is complete nonsense. A collective must consist of at least two individuals, and therefore the basic unit of measure can be broken down to the individual. Claiming that the collective changes facts about the individual is an ecological fallacy and is thus objectively false reasoning.

This also isn't the feudal era. In these days the "peasant" actually is protected under free speech rights. So even if an individual could be accurately judged by his or her collective group the whole "prejudice plus power" concept would still be a meme only believed by drooling idiots.

In all seriousness, Social justice does not exist. Only traditional justice exists. Social justice is a psyop designed by Porky to undermine the left by infecting it with toxic identity politics. This way we are distracted by actual class inequality and tricked by porky into arguing about groups and collectives that often have little to no real world impact.

Attached: 9dc.jpg (552x714, 45.76K)

hell, even the interests and standing of a Nigerian immigrant , versus a cape verdean immigrant versus a black american are all different, both in the the general economic situations for that movement, and their current issues facing them in american society