You can't have thinking racialism, that's an oxymoron. If you only sometimes support people of a certain race because in that particular instance you thought about it and decided they deserve your support for other reasons that's not racialism anymore, that's just a damned coincidence. If those coincidences lead you to decide to support one race disproportionately more than another, that's still not racialism, it's just proof that race isn't just a social construct.

It's only racialism if your decision was based on their race. That's both the great flaw of it, it gives less accurate answers, and the power of it, it gives much faster and more consistent answers across the entire group. It frees up time and effort so that if a situation calls for group intervention you can immediately reach consensus and self-organize into action in large numbers quickly. Non racialist decision making instead leaves you handwringing about the details and investigating the wider context so long that by the time you reach any kind of consensus you realize racialists of a different stripe have already organized, raided a police station and stomped a guy's head in for being the wrong side of a racial divide. There's no putting humpty Dumpty back together at that point. Where you have the time and the luxury of waiting to get the best answer we can discard racialism for it's flaws. But when you need expedience to race against a group who will rapidly decide against you 100% of the time, some inaccuracy is a secondary concern to not letting that group make every choice for you.

I let the "unthinking racialism" slide because I supposed a little harmless tautology for emphasis is nothing to quibble over. But now you're trying to invent a "thinking racialism" so you can have your cake and eat it as you deny words you plainly said and pretend you can silo off the good parts of racialism from the bad without completely neutralizing it, I guess I need to go back and correct that too.

You can't have thinking racialism, that's an oxymoron. If you only sometimes support people of a certain race because in that particular instance you thought about it and decided they deserve your support for other reasons that's not racialism anymore, that's just a damned coincidence. If those coincidences lead you to decide to support one race disproportionately more than another, that's still no racialism, it's just proof that race isn't just a social construct.

It's only racialism if your decision was based on their race. That's both the great flaw of it, it gives less accurate answers, and the power of it, it gives much faster and more consistent answers across the entire group. It frees up time and effort so that if a situation calls for group intervention you can immediately reach consensus and self-organize into action in large numbers quickly. Non racialist decision making instead leaves you handwringing about the details and investigating the wider context so long that by the time you reach any kind of consensus you realize racialists of a different stripe have already organized, raided a police station and stomped a guy's head in for being the wrong side of a racial divide. There's no putting humpty Dumpty back together at that point. Where you have the time and the luxury of waiting to get the best answer we can discard racialism for it's flaws. But when you need expedience to race against a group who will rapidly decide against you 100% of the time, some inaccuracy is a secondary concern to not letting that group make every choice for you.

I let the "unthinking racialism" slide because I supposed a little harmless tautology for emphasis is nothing to quibble over. But now you're trying to invent a "thinking racialism" so you can have your cake and eat it as you deny words you plainly said and pretend you can silo off the good parts of racialism from the bad without completely neutralizing it, I guess I need to go back and correct that too.

You can't have thinking racialism, that's an oxymoron. If you only sometimes support people of a certain race because in that particular instance you thought about it and decided they deserve your support for other reasons that's not racialism anymore, that's just a damned coincidence. If those coincidences lead you to decide to support one race disproportionately more than another, then that's just proof that race isn't just a social construct.

It's only racialism if your decision was based on their race. That's both the great flaw of it, it gives less accurate answers, and the power of it, it gives much faster and more consistent answers across the entire group. It frees up time and effort so that if a situation calls for group intervention you can immediately reach consensus and self-organize into action in large numbers quickly. Non racialist decision making instead leaves you handwringing about the details and investigating the wider context so long that by the time you reach any kind of consensus you realize racialists of a different stripe have already organized, raided a police station and stomped a guy's head in for being the wrong side of a racial divide. There's no putting humpty Dumpty back together at that point. Where you have the time and the luxury of waiting to get the best answer we can discard racialism for it's flaws. But when you need expedience to race against a group who will rapidly decide against you 100% of the time, some inaccuracy is a secondary concern to not letting that group make every choice for you.

I let the "unthinking racialism" slide because I supposed a little harmless tautology for emphasis is nothing to quibble over. But now you're trying to invent a "thinking racialism" so you can have your cake and eat it as you deny words you plainly said and pretend you can silo off the good parts of racialism from the bad without completely neutralizing it, I guess I need to go back and correct that too.

You can't have thinking racialism, that's an oxymoron. If you only sometimes support people of a certain race because in that particular instance you thought about it and decided they deserve your support for other reasons that's not racialism anymore, that's just a damned coincidence.

It's only racialism if your decision was based on their race. That's both the great flaw of it, it gives less accurate answers, and the power of it, it gives much faster and more consistent answers across the entire group. It frees up time and effort so that if a situation calls for group intervention you can immediately reach consensus and self-organize into action in large numbers quickly. Non racialist decision making instead leaves you handwringing about the details and investigating the wider context so long that by the time you reach any kind of consensus you realize racialists of a different stripe have already organized, raided a police station and stomped a guy's head in for being the wrong side of a racial divide. There's no putting humpty Dumpty back together at that point. Where you have the time and the luxury of waiting to get the best answer we can discard racialism for it's flaws. But when you need expedience to race against a group who will rapidly decide against you 100% of the time, some inaccuracy is a secondary concern to not letting that group make every choice for you.

I let the "unthinking racialism" slide because I supposed a little harmless tautology for emphasis is nothing to quibble over. But now you're trying to invent a "thinking racialism" so you can have your cake and eat it as you deny words you plainly said and pretend you can silo off the good parts of racialism from the bad without completely neutralizing it, I guess I need to go back and correct that too.