Prove you have any intelligence. — unenlightened
(Even though it's the only thing Banno has gotten right in this thread)That's brilliant, Harry. So erudite. — Banno
That's your's, unenlightened and 180's position - that genetics isn't just relevant, it's all that matters. You're saying ignoring genetics (skin color) is racist. I'm saying that we should be ignoring genetics - especially where genetics isn't a factor, or part of what it is that we are taking about. Genetics/race should have nothing to do with choosing someone for a job for instance, but you're saying it should - that I should choose someone for a job because they're black. Race/genetics should only be part of scientific conversations of biology and medicine.Odd, that genetics is seen as relevant here. I guess it's a bias carried over from the predominance of Americans. — Banno
What is central to one's identity? Doesn't it differ from individual to individual? There are people who don't see their skin color as part of their identity - just as their eye color isn't part of their identity. Oh, and haven't you said that identities were social constructions, not something that an individuals can decide for themselves.... :roll: In your world, there is no such thing as an individual identity - only social ones.This is the challenge to liberalism. In denying the significance of race, ethnicity, gender, disability, liberals deny aspects that are central to an individual's identity. — Banno
Racism is the historical cause of many ongoing problems, and — Pfhorrest
Not doing more racism is not sufficient to undo those problems, but — Pfhorrest
Doing more racism in the other direction is not necessary to undo those problems — Pfhorrest
No, it’s not to refuse seeing skin-color, or saying someone’s identity does not matter, or to deny racial injustice in both personal and systemic fashions, which suggests color-blindness negates its own intentions. It is only to affirm that one’s skin-tone or preferred racial identity is irrelevant to one’s moral standing as a fellow citizen, a fellow human being. — NOS4A2
I believed earlier so too, but now I'm really not so sure anymore.Of course. I think every will agree with that. — I like sushi
It is only to affirm that one’s skin-tone or preferred racial identity is irrelevant to one’s moral standing as a fellow citizen, a fellow human being.
— NOS4A2
Of course. I think every will agree with that.
— I like sushi
I believed earlier so too, but now I'm really not so sure anymore. — ssu
Isn't that a good thing?Subsequently, NOS4A2 reverted to a standard view — frank
:lol:So we did with this thread what philosophy tends to do. We made a pile of confusion out of a very simple issue. — frank
That's your's, unenlightened and 180's position - that genetics isn't just relevant, it's all that matters. You're saying ignoring genetics (skin color) is racist. — Harry Hindu
So we did with this thread what philosophy tends to do. We made a pile of confusion out of ... — frank
[...] I don’t actively TRY to ignore racial differences. I would agree that it is a bad thing. The thing is, whether you like it or not, when I was growing up and I heard the term I took it to mean ‘try to judge people by their character’, but we cannot ever ignore what we see and relate it to our experiences - which is why I find the influence of the internet a huge concern given many people spend lots of time online being fed positive feedback that will un/intentionally reinforce their biases. [...] — I like sushi
The waffling between this straw man and the next suggests to me most of the criticism of color-blindness is made of straw.
No, it’s not to refuse seeing skin-color, or saying someone’s identity does not matter, or to deny racial injustice in both personal and systemic fashions, which suggests color-blindness negates its own intentions. It is only to affirm that one’s skin-tone or preferred racial identity is irrelevant to one’s moral standing as a fellow citizen, a fellow human being. — NOS4A2
That sounds about right, but I do believe racial-colorblindness is required in order to not be racist, that it is a fundamental step to refusing racism, and that color consciousness is a learned, racist behavior. — NOS4A2
You MUST spout this because otherwise this entire thread would be for nothing (which it already is..)
It's both a cause and an effect. Block a minority's path to wealth and influence, then point to their diminished status as proof of their poor character. — frank
Banno has stated that race is central to his identity (or to the identity of people). He of course has no problems as he can enjoy all the white priviledge there is as a 'white fella'.
Let that sink in.
It's not that some people are racist or some people use 'colorblindness' as a mask and this has effects on everyone. Race and the color of your skin seems to be central. So not only is race something real and inherent, but also very important to one's identity, central to it. It's not something that you could overcome — ssu
That sounds about right, but I do believe racial-colorblindness is required in order to not be racist, that it is a fundamental step to refusing racism, and that color consciousness is a learned, racist behavior. — NOS4A2
Yes, I was thinking about that after I posted last night. Anti-colorblindness is not just unnecessary, it is impermissible; colorblindness is morally obligatory, even though it is still not morally sufficient. We have to be colorblind, but we also have to do more than just be colorblind.
I'm not denying any of that.I'm guessing that the reply you might get from an Australian or Indian indigenous person would be that the white flea came, took the land, broke the families, took the children, took the language, gutted the culture... — Banno
What more besides the things I already described (giving land etc back directly when the crimes are tractable, helping people to get new land etc when it's not) do you or they want in recompense? All that comes to mind is "kick all the white people out of the country", which is just retaliatory vengeance visited upon the innocent children of the original criminals and so is unconscionable. What was done to the indigenous people was unconscionable too, but two wrongs don't make a right. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it right either, true, but I'm not advocating that. I've advocated a means of making right without doing more wrongs, and I'm open to improvements on that plan too. Is there something more you want, besides just to do more wrongs in vengeance?...and now says that race doesn't count for anything in terms of recompense. — Banno
This ought to be evident, but some people simply are quite infatuated with the rhetoric that ignoring race simply means denial of racial problems and gives a veil to racism. It seems there's not much effort to understand your point here.I'm saying that we should be ignoring genetics - especially where genetics isn't a factor, or part of what it is that we are taking about. Genetics/race should have nothing to do with choosing someone for a job for instance, but you're saying it should - that I should choose someone for a job because they're black. Race/genetics should only be part of scientific conversations of biology and medicine. — Harry Hindu
In the intersectionality roulette nationality and culture define by country isn't hip as it's the thing that the wrong people emphasize.I’m pretty sure I have more in common with an Englishman my age of any colour than I do with an American or an Australian my age. The mainstay is the cultural understanding - granted there are divisions within countries, cities and even neighbourhoods too. — I like sushi
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.