# Are you a RACIST?  There's a pill for that...



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 9, 2012)

No idea what to think about this.  But it's interesting!

http://gizmodo.com/5891917/racism+curing-pills-are-apparently-a-thing-now


> Researchers at Oxford University claim to have discovered a "cure" for racism, in pill form. It only (supposedly!) stamps out biologically-inherent discrimination, apparently, so if someone's been Clockwork Oranged into a life of hate, maybe it won't be so helpful. But, to repeat: RACISM-CURING PILL.
> 
> Propranolol is a beta-blocker that's used to reduce blood pressure, but the Oxford study found that it has the peripheral side effect of reducing subconscious racism, which is triggered by the autonomic nervous system. The study took 36 white males and gave half 40mg of Propranolol, and half a placebo. Then after two hours they were made to categorize words like "happy" and "evil," and also black and white people's faces. There was a statistically relevant enough difference in the groups to lead the scientists to believe that the drug can actually have an effect on racial bias.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 9, 2012)

Brave New World.


----------



## granfire (Mar 9, 2012)

so only white men where tested....


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 9, 2012)

granfire said:


> so only white men where tested....



Well, with a sample size of only 36, it doesn't really matter anyway. It's not like this counts as real science...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 9, 2012)

Imagine the philosophical questions.  Let's say it works and works on everyone.  Now, racism is a bad thing, and I think most decent people agree with that.  And it can certainly be argued that it's a public health and safety issue; after all people are hurt and even killed for racial reasons (which is why we have 'hate crime' laws on the books).  Just like putting fluoride in the water supply cuts down on tooth decay, this pill would cut down or eliminate racially-motivated crimes.  Our society could be safer, more harmonious, and happier in general.

However, let's be clear; this is a mind-control drug.  It affects the way people think and feel and react, right?  The question, then, would be whether or not a free society could require citizens to take it (or put it in the water supply, etc).  Don't people have the right to think whatever they want, even to be racist?   As long as they do not commit crimes, aren't people allowed to hate others for any reason at all, even their skin color, ethnicity, national origin, etc?

I could see the arguments both ways.

Group One: I am against this drug.  Racists are bad, but government mind control is worse.
Group Two: I am for this drug.  It only affects racists, so if you are not a racist, your mind is not controlled.

Group One: I am not for racism, but I am for freedom.
Group Two: This drug only affects racists, so if you do not support it, you support racism.

That would be one HELL of a national argument, and I suspect it would break down along party lines pretty quickly.


----------



## Instructor (Mar 9, 2012)

Something powerful for me was watching that documentary about the Human Genome Project.  Essentially if you go far enough back in time we are all descendents of the same two people from Africa.

As far as I am concerned their is just the Human Race, all the rest is cultural.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 9, 2012)

granfire said:


> so only white men where tested....



It was probably Cambridge students who are in a class all of their own. They come in all colours and creeds but are all very very rich, a lot are aristocratic and/or come from families and dynasties of power.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 9, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> Well, with a sample size of only 36, it doesn't really matter anyway. It's not like this counts as real science...



Imagine for a moment it did, and where that could take us as a society...just a thought experiment.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 9, 2012)

Instructor said:


> Something powerful for me was watching that documentary about the human Genome Project.  Essentially if you go far enough back in time we are all descendents of the same two people from Africa.
> 
> As far as I am concerned their is just the Human Race, all the rest is cultural.



True enough, but hatred based on skin color exists, we call it racism.  We can't deny it exists just because genetically we are all descended from the same people.


----------



## Instructor (Mar 9, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> True enough, but hatred based on skin color exists, we call it racism.  We can't deny it exists just because genetically we are all descended from the same people.



No argument here.


----------



## Instructor (Mar 9, 2012)

I can't point to a study but I have read that racism exists in the animal world too.  For example timber wolves will often refuse a black wolf or a white wolf membership into the pack.  I guess to a timber wolf the height of perfection is that gray color.  I wonder if humans have some similar mechanism.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 9, 2012)

Instructor said:


> I can't point to a study but I have read that racism exists in the animal world too.  For example timber wolves will often refuse a black wolf or a white wolf membership into the pack.  I guess to a timber wolf the height of perfection is that gray color.  I wonder if humans have some similar mechanism.



Well, imagine that it does have a biological component (as the linked article represents) and it can be 'cured' by a pill.  What are the ramifications?


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 9, 2012)

Although my answer about the Cambridge students was a bit tongue in cheek, there's truth in that where all are equally rich or at least all equally wealthy there is very little racism, there is little unrest or hatred in the better off areas where everyone is perceived as equal because they all have the same amount of wealth. Perhaps rather than taking a pill, making sure that social conditions are the same for everyone might be a better answer. When some perceive social conditions are better for some then the envy, jealosy etc kick in that when you get the hatred.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 9, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Imagine for a moment it did, and where that could take us as a society...just a thought experiment.



Probably nowhere, since I think it likely that genetics has little or nothing to do with racism. This "study" (scientific integrity obliges me to put the quote marks around the word) is cute, and will grab a few headlines (and some cash) for Oxford, but that is all.

Because of the way they work, beta blockers are known to reduce the perception of stress and anxiety. That means the MASSIVE sample of 18 people in the "study" group may have been just a little more relaxed and well disposed towards the world in general. You'd get the same effect (likely to an even greater extent) by giving them anxiolytics, hypnotics, narcotics, mild sedatives, and any other drug that induces various degrees of euphoria.


----------



## Instructor (Mar 9, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Although my answer about the Cambridge students was a bit tongue in cheek, there's truth in that where all are equally rich or at least all equally wealthy there is very little racism, there is little unrest or hatred in the better off areas where everyone is perceived as equal because they all have the same amount of wealth. Perhaps rather than taking a pill, making sure that social conditions are the same for everyone might be a better answer. When some perceive social conditions are better for some then the envy, jealosy etc kick in that when you get the hatred.



I suspect even at Cambridge hierarchies exist and so do jealousies.  Even amongst the elite these things are true, it's just human nature.  

Even in Socialist and Communist countries hierarchies exist, you still have an elite class of people and all the rest.

I would like to live in world without racism but I think the human race is going to have to grow to a much higher level of existence before it happens.

Bill for me at least the ramifications are unknowable.  For some reason I keep thinking back to the film Serenity.  They put something in the air to prevent violent behavior.  Most people just went to sleep and never woke up and a small percentage became flesh eating monsters.  I realize that it's a work of fiction but this is a "thought" experiment so it seems admissible.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 9, 2012)

Instructor said:


> I can't point to a study but I have read that racism exists in the animal world too.  For example timber wolves will often refuse a black wolf or a white wolf membership into the pack.  I guess to a timber wolf the height of perfection is that gray color.  I wonder if humans have some similar mechanism.



A conclusion that relies on the unsupported assumption that their refusal to accept the other wolf is based on fur color rather than any number of other possibilities.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 9, 2012)

Instructor said:


> I suspect even at Cambridge hierarchies exist and so do jealousies. Even amongst the elite these things are true, it's just human nature.
> 
> Even in Socialist and Communist countries hierarchies exist, you still have an elite class of people and all the rest.
> 
> ...




I didn't say there wasn't hierarchies and jealousies, I was saying there were less which is true. The reason I said they were Cambridge students is because of the rivalry between them and Oxford, both elite universities with rich colleges and students but each seeing the other as less than they are.


----------



## cdunn (Mar 9, 2012)

Full study. 

All thought has a biological component, and therefore, can theoretically be altered to greater or lesser degrees by pharmacology. Right now, we have an interesting thought on our hand, but we have to be pretty careful about it. It is tinkering with fear, outgroup, and ingroup selection. We do not know what other dials it may twist... which can be worse. Like most pharmacological solutions, it is not a matter of 'input chemical, output result A', there is also result b, c, d, e, and f to deal with, and we know from rate experimentation that the mental effects of propranolol are different at the chronic and acute levels. 

That said, I cannot find that there is an ethical way to say that we should all be taking this pill involuntarily, even if it works.


----------



## granfire (Mar 9, 2012)

Instructor said:


> Something powerful for me was watching that documentary about the Human Genome Project.  Essentially if you go far enough back in time we are all descendents of the same two people from Africa.
> 
> As far as I am concerned their is just the Human Race, all the rest is cultural.



Oh well, scientists predict in about 400 years we will all be cafe o'le....


----------



## Instructor (Mar 9, 2012)

granfire said:


> Oh well, scientists predict in about 400 years we will all be cafe o'le....



They also said that the recessive gene for blue eyes would vanish eventually, but they didn't account for sexual attraction.


----------



## granfire (Mar 9, 2012)

Instructor said:


> They also said that the recessive gene for blue eyes would vanish eventually, but they didn't account for sexual attraction.



In 400 years we can compare notes.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 9, 2012)

cdunn said:


> Full study.
> 
> All thought has a biological component, and therefore, can theoretically be altered to greater or lesser degrees by pharmacology. Right now, we have an interesting thought on our hand, but we have to be pretty careful about it. It is tinkering with fear, outgroup, and ingroup selection. We do not know what other dials it may twist... which can be worse. Like most pharmacological solutions, it is not a matter of 'input chemical, output result A', there is also result b, c, d, e, and f to deal with, and we know from rate experimentation that the mental effects of propranolol are different at the chronic and acute levels.
> 
> That said, I cannot find that there is an ethical way to say that we should all be taking this pill involuntarily, even if it works.



Thank you!  Whether we agree or disagree is less important to me at the moment than that we have the discussion.

Interestingly enough (and I did not suspect this, I really didn't), it appears no one wants to or is even willing to actually address it (except you and me, apparently).

Perhaps this is why we can't have a discussion about race in our society.  Everyone understands it is an issue, everyone has an opinion, no one is going to talk about it.

I mean, they put fluoride in the water supply.  There's a public health benefit to it, and that's the reasoning; no other.  So what if they could put this stuff in the water too?

For those who don't believe such a drug is possible, I am not asking that; I am asking you to PRETEND for a moment that it is, and engage in the thought experiment - what would it mean to us?


----------



## crushing (Mar 9, 2012)

They will call it a vaccine and we will be cool with it. Only wackos are opposed to vaccines.


----------



## Jenna (Mar 9, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> For those who don't believe such a drug is possible, I am not asking that; I am asking you to PRETEND for a moment that it is, and engage in the thought experiment - what would it mean to us?


It is a stretch for the imagination indeed since our racism has such deep roots in group dynamics and group chauvinisms. And so because it is informed by these deep roots and further informed by degrees of categorising, of homogenising and stereotyping I can only guess then that were such a multi-system chemical really available, and our plain-dwelling capacity for racism reduced or arrested then perhaps -like every other pharmaceutical product today- several otherwise _useful _aspects of our cognition may be taken down with it as unwanted adverse effects?  I would hazard a stab that with reduced categorising abilities and, if the drug hits higher up our evolutionary hardwiring, with a reduced desire to compete for scarce resource, we would become placid and pacified.  I think this is not wholly necessarily the good thing it appears.  That is quite Huxleyan I think.


----------



## cdunn (Mar 9, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Thank you! Whether we agree or disagree is less important to me at the moment than that we have the discussion.
> 
> Interestingly enough (and I did not suspect this, I really didn't), it appears no one wants to or is even willing to actually address it (except you and me, apparently).
> 
> ...



Unlike flourides, this is not a cut and dried public health benefit. Even if we pretend that that this is a magic bullet that targets only our subconscious.. or even conscious.. racial or other ingroup out-group biases, this may not be a good idea. Our ability to form ingroup/outgroup biases are likely a large portion of what we call things like friendship. So, I really can't see this having the kind of cost/benefit we, as a society, should consider electing for ourselves. But, yeah, I can see the polemic too. And I don't like very much any of it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 9, 2012)

The precedent to medicate a person without consent has already been set with fluoride in the water.  It is not out of the question that the government might extend this to other chemicals.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 9, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> The precedent to medicate a person without consent has already been set with fluoride in the water.  It is not out of the question that the government might extend this to other chemicals.



You bring up another good point.  The government (and society in general) has long established the right to forcibly medicate those who have been judged mentally unwell to the point of being a danger to themselves or others.  That is, if you get locked for being crazy enough, you have to take your meds or they'll legally strap you down and force you to take them.

Now, imagine a drug that has massive public health implications and the AMA defines racism as a mental illness and not a simple 'opinion'?

Now if you are a racist, you're mentally ill.  Now the government can medicate you against your will.

What if they make the argument that the drug PREVENTS mental illness, just like fluoride prevents tooth decay?

Fascinating.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 9, 2012)

cdunn said:


> Unlike flourides, this is not a cut and dried public health benefit. Even if we pretend that that this is a magic bullet that targets only our subconscious.. or even conscious.. racial or other ingroup out-group biases, this may not be a good idea. Our ability to form ingroup/outgroup biases are likely a large portion of what we call things like friendship. So, I really can't see this having the kind of cost/benefit we, as a society, should consider electing for ourselves. But, yeah, I can see the polemic too. And I don't like very much any of it.



That's all I'm saying, pretend for the sake of discussion that this drug *is* a cut and dried health benefit.  As you said, it presents some chilling choices.  And it would appear that no one really wants to go there.  Sigh.  OK, I get it.  Moving on now...


----------



## cdunn (Mar 9, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's all I'm saying, pretend for the sake of discussion that this drug *is* a cut and dried health benefit. As you said, it presents some chilling choices. And it would appear that no one really wants to go there. Sigh. OK, I get it. Moving on now...



Well, like I said. I do not believe it can be ethically done. I can understand why you would want to - "Imagine" comes to mind really fast.To tinker with the mind is at the very root of what we consider freedom and individuality. We cannot do this to the average, competant individual. What can be done, ethically, if it were a magic bullet, is to allow it to be freely available for those who CHOOSE it, much as we make caffiene freely available for those who choose it. Curiously, I wonder if those who are no longer able to negatively discriminate against others would be even able to mount social pressure against those who would still be able to - the mechanisms have a high probablity of linkage.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 9, 2012)

cdunn said:


> Well, like I said. I do not believe it can be ethically done. I can understand why you would want to - "Imagine" comes to mind really fast.To tinker with the mind is at the very root of what we consider freedom and individuality. We cannot do this to the *average, competant *individual. What can be done, ethically, if it were a magic bullet, is to allow it to be freely available for those who CHOOSE it, much as we make caffiene freely available for those who choose it. Curiously, I wonder if those who are no longer able to negatively discriminate against others would be even able to mount social pressure against those who would still be able to - the mechanisms have a high probablity of linkage.



Surely, a person who knew he or she was a racist and liked it would not voluntarily take such a drug, and a person who was a racist and didn't think they were would not feel they needed it, so I doubt anyone would take it at all.  Imagine a pile designed to cure stupidity; no one would take it, because stupid people would be unable to recognize they were stupid and would benefit from it.  Ever met a real numskull who knew it?

And if the AMA defines racism as a disease, then a person who is a racist is neither average, nor perhaps competent.  See where I'm going with that?

Bear in mind of course that I'm not advocating anything of the sort.  I'm playing philosophical mind games, and experimenting mentally with both sides.

I think most people know I come down on the side of individual liberty; and that even includes the right to hate, the right to be prejudiced or even racist.  Doesn't mean I like those people or support them; just that I support the right of any person to hold whatever opinions they like, so long as they do not commit crimes.  Hate my guts for my skin color if you like; just don't take my life or attack me or fire me because of it.

But when we consider the overall good, and the problems we face, then the needs of society begin to intrude into personal liberty space.  In order to have a society at all, everyone gives up a little freedom.  And when it comes to things like childhood inoculations against disease, or fluoride in the water supply, most of us rather passively accept that our rights to not be inoculated or not drink fluoridated water are overridden by the rights of society to not have preventable disease epidemics or massive tooth decay.  Is that it?  Is that the limit?  Or is the limit a little bit farther out?  Can those examples be extended? Should they?


----------



## Carol (Mar 9, 2012)

[yt]7MSCwOuYajI[/yt]


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Mar 9, 2012)

The first misstep is to simplify racism.  Obviously all thought is based on physical architecture but it's not a matter of the "suspicion" part of the brain, or the "pride" part of the brain, nor is it a matter of wanton ignorance.  It's a matter of overlapping experiences having to do with multiple precise regions of the brain that can't be "controlled" by drugs, unless you want to use a broadsword instead of a scalpel which will most certainly have negative repercussions on other physiology, such as the entire endocrine system.  You can't "sum it up" physically and you have to know what the problem is if you want to treat it.  Philosophically or socially, we understand the problem superficially as discrimination based on assumptions about, or experiences with, different cultures.  The problem isn't physiology, those functions are there for a reason.  The problem is a matter of reason and conscious thought.  I feel I'm racist but I try to overcome my ignorance.  I know its not right so I fight it but I don't deny it.  I try to catch myself.  I make the attempt to recognize when I'm discriminating and why.  I try to see how it stems from my bias but I have strong, blanket assumptions, more based on frustration with complexity than anything else.  Nevertheless, I'm guilty of discrimination but it's up to me to use reason and logic to make the effort not to be.  A pill that reduces acute anxiety regarding suspicion does nothing to address the actual misconceptions the problems stem from.  

The study is poorly founded and depends on their own convenient, arbitrary definition of racism.  They pretend its a (relatively) simple problem with a simple solution.  When you apply a simple solution to a complex problem you cause a lot of damage, never mind that it's wagging the dog in the first place.  

This drug either interrupts receptors, or redirects synaptic patterns that I can guarantee are intertwined with systems you need in every day life, like judgement and decisiveness, for example.  Flouride trades healthier teeth for poison in the body, the argument being that the gains for protecting the teeth, considering the amounts involved, outweigh the potential of poisoning over the short term and supposedly over the accumulation in the long term.  While I don't think flouride in the water is a good idea it does have a more concrete benefit, it's not a psychotropic drug designed to alter behavior (in potentially unpredictable ways).

There's too many reasons why this would be wrong, not the least of which is the entire paradigm of solving a problem with a pill.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 10, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Imagine for a moment it did, and where that could take us as a society...just a thought experiment.



I reckon that is just what its use would be, a thought experiment.  Dangerous territory!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 10, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> I reckon that is just what its use would be, a thought experiment.  Dangerous territory!



Yes, I've noticed.  Despite my repeated requests that people NOT simply take the science to task to avoid talking about the actual issue, that's all they will do.

The conclusion I have reached in this thread is that very, very, few people are willing to talk about racism, or the limits of government authority when it comes to individual freedoms.

I'm a bit surprised; I really didn't expect that.  But it seems this is too advanced a topic for many; or they are just afraid to say anything.  Sad, in a way.  We can never defeat racism if we can't even talk about it.  So let's all pretend that the subject is something else entirely and comment on that instead.  Sigh.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 10, 2012)

Did anyone read the original article? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...od-pressure-drug-reduces-in-built-racism.html


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 10, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, I've noticed.  Despite my repeated requests that people NOT simply take the science to task to avoid talking about the actual issue, that's all they will do.
> 
> The conclusion I have reached in this thread is that very, very, few people are willing to talk about racism, or the limits of government authority when it comes to individual freedoms.
> 
> I'm a bit surprised; I really didn't expect that.  But it seems this is too advanced a topic for many; or they are just afraid to say anything.  Sad, in a way.  We can never defeat racism if we can't even talk about it.  So let's all pretend that the subject is something else entirely and comment on that instead.  Sigh.



If you want a thought experiment, then I'd suggest that posting the link was a mistake. By basing the thought experiment off the link, you inherently connect the two. And that means that those with a scientific bent are going to point out the enormous flaws in that "study". 

If you simply want to postulate an imaginary drug that prevents racism and speculate on the ethics of its use, then fine.
In your purely hypothetical situation, I'd need to know:
What is the incidence of 'genetic racism'.
How effective is the drug, both in the short term and long.
What are the side effects of the drug, both in the short term and long.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 10, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> If you want a thought experiment, then I'd suggest that posting the link was a mistake. By basing the thought experiment off the link, you inherently connect the two. And that means that those with a scientific bent are going to point out the enormous flaws in that "study".
> 
> If you simply want to postulate an imaginary drug that prevents racism and speculate on the ethics of its use, then fine.
> In your purely hypothetical situation, I'd need to know:
> ...



When people read a work of fiction that they know is fiction, do they deconstruct it and criticize it, or suspend their disbelief long enough to enjoy the story?

It's all dancing around a topic that people don't want to discuss; that's the conclusion I am reaching here.

If I say _"Imagine 100% efficacy, imagine no known side-effects, imagine that 100% of racism turns out to be genetic,"_ someone will say _'Nuh uh, that's not possible, because X and Y and Z."_  I give up.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 11, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> When people read a work of fiction that they know is fiction, do they deconstruct it and criticize it, or suspend their disbelief long enough to enjoy the story?
> 
> It's all dancing around a topic that people don't want to discuss; that's the conclusion I am reaching here.
> 
> If I say _"Imagine 100% efficacy, imagine no known side-effects, imagine that 100% of racism turns out to be genetic,"_ someone will say _'Nuh uh, that's not possible, because X and Y and Z."_ I give up.



Your scenario WOULD be impossible, because everything has side effects. Even water. Or air. Oxygen is toxic if you breath it at two atmospheres.
Thought experiments work best, I think, when they're grounded in reality.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 11, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> .
> Thought experiments work best, I think, when they're grounded in reality.



They need not be at all.\

From the delightful, _Merriam Webster English Language Technical Manual_



> [h=2]ge·dank·en·ex·per·i·ment[/h] _noun_
> \g&#601;-&#712;dä&#331;-k&#601;n-ik-&#716;sper-&#601;-m&#601;nt _also_ -&#716;spir-\
> 
> 
> ...



And, from Wikipedia:



> *thought experiment* or *Gedankenexperiment* (from German) considers some hypothesis, theory,[SUP][1][/SUP] or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences. *Given the structure of the experiment, it may or may not be possible to actually perform it, and, in the case that it is possible for it to be performed, there need be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question*. (emphasis added by el Brujo de la Cueva)The common goal of a thought experiment is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question.
> Famous examples of thought experiments include Schrödinger's cat, illustrating quantum indeterminacy through the manipulation of a perfectly sealed environment and a tiny bit of radioactive substance, and Maxwell's demon, which attempts to demonstrate the ability of a hypothetical finite being to violate the second law of thermodynamics.



So we see that thought experiments need not be grounded in reality at all.

I'll play, Bill, but I'm a little busy right now....


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 11, 2012)

elder999 said:


> They need not be at all.\
> 
> From the delightful, _Merriam Webster English Language Technical Manual_
> 
> ...



Um, you'll notice I said "I think", as in, in my opinion, althought it's entirely possible to have thought experiments that are entirely based on fantasy, it's not very useful to do so.


----------



## WC_lun (Mar 11, 2012)

I think an equally valid supposition, given the "ifs" are true, such as racism being something that is hardwired in our brains, and a pill could cure it, is that society itself would dictate the use of the drug.  As you say, many non-racist would take the drug because they would not have anything to lose.  Since racism, for most of us, is not a desirable behaviour for either individuals or society, societal pressure would eventually increase to tremendous levels.  The government would not have to mandate it, just maybe give a nudge here and there in advertising.

Having said all that, I think it is a moot arguement, so the racist and big government fearing people can relax a bit


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 11, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If I say _"Imagine 100% efficacy, imagine no known side-effects, imagine that 100% of racism turns out to be genetic,"_ someone will say _'Nuh uh, that's not possible, because X and Y and Z."_ I give up.



In that case, imagine that 100% of the people will WANT to take it, the manufacturer will give it away free, the govt will be efficient and not waste any tax money, resulting in a flat tax of 1% for everybody, and of course everybody will pay it happily, and Santa Claus will give everybody on his "naughty" list a do-over.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 11, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> In that case, imagine that 100% of the people will WANT to take it, the manufacturer will give it away free, the govt will be efficient and not waste any tax money, resulting in a flat tax of 1% for everybody, and of course everybody will pay it happily, and Santa Claus will give everybody on his "naughty" list a do-over.



I might not take such a drug under such circumstances, and not because I'm a racist.  Rather, because I am not a racist, understanding that such a drug will have no effect on me, I would still object to two things.  The first would be being required to ingest a drug against my will, and the second would be the right of citizens to think what they wish, even ugly hateful things.

I would imagine that a lot of people would want to take the drug, and a lot of social pressure would be brought to bear.  I also believe that racists typically do not believe they are racists; they would not think they need such a drug.  Of course, racists who do know they are racists would obviously not want to take the drug; they don't want to be 'cured' of their disease.


----------



## khuang85 (May 29, 2012)

As the Avenue Q song says, "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist sometimes. Doesn't mean we go committing hate crimes.Look around and you will findNo one's really color blind. Maybe it's a fact We all should face Everyone makes judgments basd on race. "


----------



## elder999 (May 29, 2012)

khuang85 said:


> As the Avenue Q song says, "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist sometimes. Doesn't mean we go committing hate crimes.Look around and you will findNo one's really color blind. Maybe it's a fact We all should face *Everyone makes judgments basd on race.* "



Except I know at least two people who absolutely do not. 

Can't stand that stupid song-it's just not true....


----------



## Wo Fat (Jun 1, 2012)

Gotta first define racism.  

Is racism what drove the Native peoples from their lands and onto reservations?  Was there racism between Native nations or was it tribalism?  Was manifest destiny a form of racism if it benefited all races of the Americas?  Or was it exclusive to one race?  Is racism simply the belief that one race is superior to others or is it an umbrella term that is overused to describe inter-ethnic and interracial conflict?  If you will not  not date or marry outside of your race, does that make you a racist?  Is it racist to point out racism?  Is a bigot also a racist?  Who gets to define racism and who gets to remedy it when it happens?

Personally, I've tried to live a life that transcends races and ethnicities (marrying interracially, worshiping interracially, educated interracially -- the things in life that rally matter) and, as such, have little tolerance for bigotry, tribalism, racism, etc.  So I wouldn't need such a pill.  But even if I was a stealth racial partisan who wanted to change, I wouldn't take a pill.

There is, however, a floral remedy for it.


----------

