I get grilled on my alleged racism:

profanity: hi gabriel,

racism is unspeakably ugly.

despite your professions of being the "voice of reason" while carrying that ostensibly objective and righteous tone, I'm starting to think that you're nothing but a wiseacre and a degenerate. and I am amazed that you need an Australian to tell you that LKY is racist, in your typical fashion of rehashing old ideas. so what if LKY is an overt racist? (and we've all known this long ago by the way) are you saying: "HEY. at least this guy is not as bad as the nazis or the Ku Klux Klan."

you say: "stereotypes exist because they are often true. They serve as a good guide for expectations, but when the specific product is not what you expect it to be, then you should change your views. If not then you're racist."

in the first place, believing that a person's character can be evaluated by their race IS racist. are you trying to legitimate stereotypes and subjective presuppositions here?

"People will always have preferences; is it fair to blame them for possessing them?"

so this is your disclaimer for being amoral and having fallacious ideas and beliefs like CZ huh?

Me: You seem to be confusing my views with those of others, and confusing racism with a refusal to accept political correctness due to the constraints of reality.

Just because people are not race-blind does not mean that they are racist.

profanity: actually, gabriel, i'm an opponent of political correctness (which is why I called you a degenerate) and anyway, i have never thought of political correctness as a factor in the race issue.

the only differences I perceive between races are superficial, like appearance (the rest of the differences can be attributed to cultural factors)

i am amazed by how shallow and superficial CZ is (though I never took part in the witch hunt - too late to participate anyway - not that i would have :) ), and more amazed by the fact that you legitimize other people's racist beliefs.

Me: Political correctness is an issue because people like to pretend that, ceteris paribus, a person of one race is exactly the same as one of another. That is patently untrue.

Genetically the differences between races are usually exaggerated, yet to deny completely that they exist is to be unrealistic; different races have different susceptibility to diseases, for one. And you might also note that I didn't say anything about genetics and race; culture is probably far more important than genes in this case - perhaps you too eagerly projected some views onto me that I don't have.

For example, since Malays are disproportionately susceptible to drug abuse in Singapore, it makes sense to direct anti-drug abuse efforts more towards the Malay community than the Chinese community. Some would call that racist; I call that prudent policy making and facing reality.

I am also defending freedom of thought - just because someone has views which we think are wrong does not mean that we should verbally lynch him, spew venom in return (thus bringing us down to the level which we allege he is at), go on a witch hunt or forcibly re-educate him, as is done to counter-revolutionaries in Communist regimes.

I reiterate once more: just because people are not race-blind does not mean that they are racist. Honi soit qui mal y pense.

profanity: i did not say you said anything about genetics and race. where did i say that? you just dished out that piece of biological fact without me asking for it. i knew about that anyway, but it is immaterial to the topic, i felt. and different races have more in common than they have differences; i would rather emphasize the similarities.

sure, I also agree about the malays and drugs - discriminating races for law enforcement reasons is just being pragmatic.

but pragmatism is also the excuse for racial discrimination in official government policies such as malaysia and "the malay dilemma" and many other countries today and throughout history.

another thing, "spewing" so-called "venom" is freedom of speech too (once again, i did NOT do such a thing to CZ due to lack of opportunity; but nevertheless, i defend the right of the others who did so)

and finally, i am not sure whether you wrote that thing about primary school children who are prejudiced in making friends (you quote too damn much), but i find that behaviour repulsive, and i think certain things can be changed if we try to change it. certainly not if we keep sweeping things under the carpet (keeping silent) as that would only perpetuate the problem.

Me: You said: "the only differences I perceive between races are superficial, like appearance (the rest of the differences can be attributed to cultural factors)"

The implication is that I think that there are non-superficial, non-cultural factors accounting for the differences between races. The only thing I can think of is genetics.

Emphasising similarities is one thing, but ignoring differences is another.

You referring to affirmative action? Solid evidence has shown that affirmative action actually harms the groups it's meant to help, so no, pragmatism does not now support it, even if at one time it might have.

I don't disagree that the spewing of venom is freedom of speech. Did I say anything about censoring them, or carting them away to air-conditioned detention centres? In fact, let's turn it around - by your logic we shouldn't condemn racist talk either. Condemnation and forcible prohibition are not the same thing.

I quote to stand on the shoulders of giants.

People always associate with those who are similar to them. People of the same gender cluster, people of the same religion cluster, people of the same political ideology cluster, people of the same socio-economic class cluster and people with the same interests (eg motor racing, Dungeons and Dragons) cluster - is it not natural for people of the same race to cluster also? Such is not necessarily racism.

Good that you don't endorse the "keep quiet and pretend that all is well" policy regarding race.

ici, entering the discussion: singapore's policy isn't to "keep quiet and pretend all is well". since when? race and religion are mentioned in almost every official speech. you have said that the "powers that be" exaggerate the racial riot situation, yet you say they try to sweep it under the rug. Pick one and stick to it, won't you?

I've always thought that the message is that our current level of harmony is precious and didn't come easy, so it deserves preservation. If you don't think it's enough, so try to improve it, instead of taking it for granted.

It is NOT natural for children to group by race. Given that children do not know how to be politically correct, how do you explain the common sight of children of different races walking/playin together? It is because society convinces us that we are different (which is true) and that we must segregate ourselves because of these differences (which is NOT true), that people start grouping into cliques.

Me: I wasn't going to reply to your last comment, since it was obvious the potential for discussion was exhausted, but since you've tread onto new ground:

Singapore's policy is to pretend that we have racial harmony, yet warn that such harmony is fragile and is liable to break down at any moment, whereupon everyone will slaughter each other - the savages.

In reality, we do not have racial harmony, and low-level racial tensions persist, yet despite this, the odds of the nation erupting in a conflagration of racial riots tomorrow is extremely low. Nonetheless, the siege mentality and idea that the government must be allowed to manage race and religion are inculcated in the populace.

As for children grouping by race - I'll leave that to the child psychologists. Suffice to say that most probably, as with most "Nature vs Nurture" debates, the phenomenon in question is caused by a complex blend of both. Since I don't subscribe to the Naturalistic Fallacy, though, even if it is "natural" for such to happen, I do not necessarily agree that it is good.

Incidentally there is good evidence that children feel a need to belong to a group, but of course this could be labelled a social construct, and I am unqualified to comment further, having little knowledge on this matter.