In one of his podcasts, Sam Harris talks about a woman getting on an elevator with a black man, because she doesn’t want to appear racist, and it “ended badly for her”. She was willing to sacrifice her life and wellbeing for an ideology that doesn’t have her best interests in mind.
A similar situation is the old hypothetical of someone crossing the street to avoid a random black person, and whether that’s “racist”.
I have come to the conclusion that one of two things are true. Either: (1) “racism” has been expanded as a definition to the point that it is meaningless, or (2) sometimes racism is rational. (I’m indifferent to which it is at this point.)
What specifically do I consider myself to be at this point? I’d call myself a “rational white separatist”. What do I mean by that?
In the two examples above, I’d try to avoid the black person.
Crime statistics show disparities in violent crime. I’m also convinced that you are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime by a black person than a white person. I’m not going to get into the weeds on the statistics here. I’ve studied them enough that I’m convinced. The reader is invited to go study them, or keep living in denial, as they choose. At this point, anyone who denies this, I consider to be fundamentally dishonest.
The somewhat grudging retort today tends to be to admit the statistics, but to say something like: “Yeah, but we have to treat everyone like individuals.” In the above two scenarios, I know nothing about these two individuals. (The black man on the street or in the elevator). I gain nothing from being in the elevator with him or from walking close to him on the street. No matter how small the odds of death for me, they are real. On the other hand, I loose almost nothing by crossing the street or by not getting on the elevator. (Other than perhaps waiting for the next elevator, which is a trivial loss of time.) I have no information other than group statistics, and my actions do nothing bad to the black person, other than perhaps offend someone I don’t know. (I don’t care about his feelings.) It’s not like I’m trying to justify pulling out a gun and shooting him, unprovoked, in the elevator based on nothing but group statistics. Any restriction of his life, liberty or property would have to be based on more than statistics. Treating him as an individual in a courtroom does matter, because of what is at stake.
I don’t consider myself an absolute “white separatist”, however. I don’t think that makes sense. Sometimes dealing with black people in professional or job settings is unavoidable. It’s also possible that I could meet a black person who is so exceptional that they overcome the presumption I have against separatism. (I’m not going to turn down an invite to meet with Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas.) Maybe there’s some black doctor out there who is just exceptional, and I would need medical treatment from him, or, if I was in combat, maybe I need to hide out in the same foxhole as a black person.
I would call myself a “presumptive white separatist”. In other words, in non-professional settings, and when it is legal, I avoid black people in general. But, that presumption can be overcome. (I cannot avoid associating with black people in professional settings, as it is mostly against the law to do so. I advocate repeal of the civil rights acts as violations of my freedom of association.)
Whose responsibility is it to overcome that presumption with me? I place it on the black person that wants to associate with me. The principle is rational egoism, plus freedom of association. They would have to demonstrate to me that association with them is going to be beneficial, and worth any risk.
There is a lot of discussion to be had about the details. All of this needs to be “fleshed out” with examples. I will leave most of that for another time, but I wanted to discuss one counterargument that I find particularly “Reddit midwit”. Someone is going to say something like:
“Well, men are more likely to commit crimes, but you don’t see women not associating with men.”
Women are free not to associate with men, but this isn’t a good comparison. If a heterosexual woman wants to have a relationship with a man, she must associate with at least some men, despite the real danger. (Men do commit more violent crime.) This is no different than if I want to train bears, I have to accept that there is some associated danger that can never be fully avoided.
There is much that still needs to be said about the doctrine of what I am provisionally calling “rational white separatism” or “presumptive white separatism”, including a good name for it. All in good time.
