So-Called "Scientific" Racism

To understand the concept of racism, one must look to reason instead of science.  Racism is a fallacious concept that sits on mere assumptions about someone based on an irrelevant fact about outward appearance (some people call discrimination based on skin color colorism, while others call it racism, and it is the concept rather than the word that matters) or family descent.  Even as racism is at last taken more seriously by some on a societal level, it is becoming more prominent for others to point to supposed biological or psychological authorities in those of one skin color or another, such as assumed differences in intelligence between white and black people.  I have even had one of the latter claim (in person) to not be racist moments after they asserted that black skin is a likely indicator of lesser intelligence.

Such fallacious thinkers, who inevitably must make assumptions about a person based on their skin color or the validity of some irrelevant social study and the often red herring ideas drawn from it, might try to say they are not actually being racist, but any discrimination against someone--including hypothetical discrimination one supports in making assumptions about someone's intelligence based on the color of their skin or family background--is inherently racist.  Rather than "benevolently" thinking more less of someone because of their skin color, they in their idiocy have embraced pseudoscientific beliefs in the name of science, further compounding their fallacies by mistaking scientific hearsay or social experiences for proof which only comes from pure reason.  Science is secondary to rationalistically understanding the concepts of racism and race from the beginning.

All it takes to logically prove that skin color and intelligence have nothing to do with each other is reflect on the nature of each without making assumptions.  Intelligence is just the awareness of reason and the use of reason to become aware of other things.  Grasping reason is partly innate, because even someone who has never thought deeply or directly about issues of metaphysics and epistemology already relies on reason to even understand on the most miniscule, halfhearted level that they exist, are having experiences of some kind, and yet all it takes it genuine effort to develop one's intelligence beyond this to systematic, intentional rationalism.  Identifying patterns, understanding experiences, and weathering all other aspects of life, which do not show a direct comprehension of the laws of logic on their own, cannot be done without at least indirectly relying on reason--which is inescapable because only things that are true are logically possible or necessary.  That is, they are true because logic makes them true in the sense that one fact or idea must follow or not follow from another.

Having any particular skin color, as is easy to demonstrate, does not logically necessitate that one is rational or irrational in one's philosophical and practical thinking.  Unlike how it is logically impossible for something to be true because someone disliked it no matter what anyone wishes was the case, it is never impossible for someone with black, brown, white, or some other shade of skin to be perfectly rational if they look to reason instead of assumptions.  Most people, not just people of one culture or skin color or family line, are stupid because they go about their lives believing things like the existence of an external world or moral obligations (or their absences) on faith, when every idea can be directly proven to be true, false, or unknowable with the light of reason.  Being rational, which is all that having intelligence amounts to, is about one's mind coming into alignment with reason beyond the bare minimum required to have awareness of anything at all.  It is thus irrational to think of someone as having this quality for any reason other than their actual intellectual alignment with the laws of logic like genetics or skin color.

All empirical experience is neither necessary nor involved in proving these facts.  A misunderstanding of the epistemological nature of genetics that in part entails mistaking potentially misleading social and sensory perceptions with logical proof--and that confuses identification of random, trivial patterns in IQ tests for something that truly reveals core rationality--is not only erroneous, but devastating in its ramifications.  Discrimination on grounds that a person cannot change or does not need to change (aka on grounds besides philosophical competency and moral character) always brings or at least softens the societal landscape for physical and sexual abuse, neglect, and further stereotypes that only make unjust or selfish acts of violence against them more likely to occur.  It is hardly unusual for someone who is not a rationalist to eventually think of someone as unintelligent for some irrelevant factor if they did not already have this belief, and skin color just happens to be something irrational people might gravitate towards here.

Even if their were past genetic issues that led to people of one skin color or descent generally having an easier time grasping reason than others, it is not as if someone's skin color literally makes them have a lesser ability to grasp reason or as if it serves as an epistemological indicator of their intelligence (which is literally nothing more than how well a person grasps and wields reason, something not determined or signified by their education level, articulation, professional accomplishments, or memory recall).  Only a fool would, ironically, be so irrational as to think such a thing about intelligence is true.  People who mistake science for reason, perceptions for reality as it is, and intelligence for something other than rationality are highly unintelligent themselves and cannot deserve to be protected from mockery in the name of rationalism.