I did. The only coherent idea I get from your inconsistent posts is that you are inconsistent.Yes, Harry.
↪Harry Hindu That's right.
Now if you can put these ideas together in a coherent way,. you will have understood what we have been saying. — Banno
In other words, there are people that want special treatment, not equal treatment.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. — ssu
It's descriptively wrong. — TheWillowOfDarkness
?The colourblind is a response to the idea of people gaining merit over others by identity. We ought to, according to the colourblind approach, not recognise or describe differences of identity, for identity is only ever a means by which someone gains merit. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Again no. It simply is that we avoid using racial or gender categorization and look at the merits based on the individual's actions and ability. Merit is based on something totally else than some physical character of the individual. And the colorblindness just is one issue here.It tries to eliminate this by giving everyone the same singular identity (person, human, man, citizen, etc. ), so everyone is granted the same merit. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Actually yes, because when the ideology starts from racism being central and an integral part how humans form social spheres, it is an inherent struggle. Equal treatment would be bad: it would just let those in power have all their 'white priviledge'. Equal treatment here is defined very narrowly. In my view this kind of reasoning don't make sense: on one hand you uphold something that you would want to destroy on the other hand. And then you get into the silly redefining of racism. It simply turns into a power game.In other words, there are people that want special treatment, not equal treatment. — Harry Hindu
Yep. And structural discrimination, especially in a job interview, would happen when you wouldn't give someone similar focus based on their skin.. or simply their name and would use it as a positive or negative detail.For what purpose should I notice one's skin color in a job interview? What does that tell me about how qualified for the job they are? As an employer, I am concerned about people's ability to do the job. What does skin color inform me about that? Nothing. — Harry Hindu
You're condoning the racial profiling of "white cops" as all possessing group-think - as if all white cops see race & color the same way - the way you do - because you are the one racially profiling people based on their "whiteness" - which is a genetic condition. — Harry Hindu
Power - Racial Prejudice = Racial Equality? — Harry Hindu
The colourblind is a response to the idea of people gaining merit over others by identity. — TheWillowOfDarkness
In other words, it is an approach afraid of recognising who people are, for it thinks identity is nothing more than a trick to obtain merit. The position is running on an underlying idea people obtain merit through who they are (i.e. their identity). — TheWillowOfDarkness
It tries to eliminate this by giving everyone the same singular identity (person, human, man, citizen, etc. ), so everyone is granted the same merit. We are all just free citizens (unlike those slaves, immigrants, non-citizens, aliens, etc., who do not belong), so we must be of equal merit. Not only does he colourblind approach fear identity gives merit, but it ironically believes it too. — TheWillowOfDarkness
If identity wasn’t consider to grant merit, the colourblind approach makes no sense. If we are people of equal merit, what do we have to fear in our differences being recognised? We have nothing. Since we are people of equal merit, we are valuable no matter how we might differ from others. Our differences can be bold, on show, recognised constantly — TheWillowOfDarkness
My point here is the colourblind approach begins in a fucked understanding of people.
It understands people have to take some specific form (the differentlessness, universal subject) before they have merit. It rejects, like the racists, the sexists, etc al., people have merit in themselves (whatever differences that might entail). Rather than grasping people have merit, a colourblind approach just continues the squabble over being “the right sort” to have merit. — TheWillowOfDarkness
A boogeyman lurking in the shadows and ready to pounce, against whom ordinary people have to prepare to defend themselves is part and parcel of American culture as baseball.
Starting from the burglar breaking into your house that one has to shoot or otherwise your family will be killed, it's one of those things that creates xenophobia and the fear against minorities, which then turns into present day racism. A tiny minority harbour ideas of racial supremacy, the fear of criminals or lunatic gunmen is far more typical. The 'alt-right' shooter is a just one version of this, which shows how universal the phenomenon is in America. Few crackpots capture the imagination of a huge country. — ssu
The term 'white trash' shows perfectly the structural racism in American culture. There's a lot of positive things in American culture, but this isn't one of them. As if then when you are referring to your "own race" such condescending and hateful terms of your fellow countrymen is acceptable. It's a way how the attitude for racism and xenophobia survives.I agree with all of this. I'd just add the theme of class. Americans are afraid of poor people. And we hate poor people, who are often just a little poorer than we are. Or no poorer but just with the wrong manners. One can still say 'white trash' without losing one's job. — jellyfish
Sometimes I've got to call ...
Bullshit. — 180 Proof
:rofl: If only we lived in a world where dragons actually did exist, or in a country where systematic racism did exist.Paraphrasing the late great Albert Murray:
To fight dragons is heroic; to protest the existence of dragons is naïve. — 180 Proof
But you aren't practicing anti-racism. You are being racist to "fight" racism. So you're actually a bad guy that has deluded himself into believing he is the hero.Likewise, to wit: Anti-racism, with critical force multiplier Anti-classism, is heroic; 'racial color-blindness' in the face of persistent (Class-privileging) Race/Color/Native-isms is naïve ("woke") at best, and at worst ... :fire: — 180 Proof
Asking difficult questions isn't trolling.Power - Racial Prejudice = Racial Equality?
— Harry Hindu
Ok. I get it now, you're just trolling. Basta! — 180 Proof
Where is the prejudice? I'm not saying that it doesn't exist. What I'm saying is that it doesn't exist on the scope that you claim it does - to the point where you get to be racist yourself and judge all whites - even those without power (and if you claim that then your formula becomes invalid) - as being racist. — Harry Hindu
You are being racist to "fight" racism. — Harry Hindu
So is vernacular like “white privilege” and anti-color blindness really the best vehicle for getting there or for stimulating positive action? I oppose the language as divisive and ultimately prejudiced, and I still can’t really comprehend why color-blindness as an initiative applied to discriminatory institutions is somehow bad.
thought you'd like it. I've been reading The Black Circle lately (Jeff Love). It's about Kojeve, which means it's about Dostoevsky too. The underground man is still fresh as a daisy. He's like ur-material out of which all the other beautiful and terrible maniacs emerge. — jellyfish
In then agrarian Finland such racist terms describing the poor people you did find in the 19th Century, a similar time when the term white trash was started to be used in the US. Then we had terms like loinen, parasite in English, which referred to poor people that didn't own a home and basically lived in the sheds of their employer. Yet in the 20th Century these terms weren't used or tolerated anymore. And 'human garbage' would sound really bad. It doesn't simply fit to a society with social cohesion. It does fit to a society with deep class divides.
Just as 180Proof points out, of course povetry is attached to this. Class is something that many Americans don't get as they confuse class with caste, and think about a caste system when talking about a class system. And of course, since the term is so loved by the socialists, Americans just turn away from using it. — ssu
She responded to criticism that she was trying to "brainwash" her children.
"All parents are trying to bend their kids' minds. Whether it's getting them to wash their hands when they normally wouldn't or getting them to think about social issues in a way that's going to help society get better," she said.
She's found a positive way to engage her sons.
"The kids and I are conspirators together," she said. — Mom
One cannot be born with privilege anymore than one can be born with a trophy in his hand. Privilege is always granted, and it needs to be granted from living beings to other living beings. As a corollary, in order to acquire privilege one must first accept it from those handing it out. So yes, the term is silly at best, dehumanizing and racist at worst. — NOS4A2
Subcultures never run along racial or ethnic lines. Arguing so is a category error. Cultural actives one partakes in are distinct from having one particular identity or not. Former outsiders become part of groups all the time. Supposing a subculture only involves people of a certain racial or ethic group is just a form of racial essentialism.
Some subcultures might have a certain connection to people of particular racial or ethnic identity, but that doesn’t make belonging to the subculture only for that group of people. Family, relationships location and circumstance can always toss people of expected race or ethnicity into that culture. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Race, like any other identity aspect, cannot be used to defined groups. Identity is of the individual. If we are to speak about an identity, we are speaking about individuals. There is nothing homogenous about it. In any given ethnic group, there will be all sorts of people. Different cultural aspects, different concepts of self, variance in material and economic conditions. Identity specifically crosses in-group diversity, to include all sections of the bell curve. Rather the race defining groups, individuals of race define the group. A racial group is an identification of a similarity (racial identity) between these individuals of race. — TheWillowOfDarkness
The statistics you speak of here is a misstep. Or rather, the way you are using them is backwards. We can measure in group diversity, draw out particular relations, general trends, etc., of the group in society. What does this tell us? Certain numbers of people of the group are in particular cultural, material and economic conditions. It’s not a description of any one individual. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Actually quite hilarious. Even if the progressive mom likely isn't religious at all, she has a religious fervour to fight evil and save her boys from being lured into the Satanic cult of the alt-right.Consider this article:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/us/california-mother-warning-white-supremacists-soh/index.html — jellyfish
A question for the people who consider themselves “against colorblindness”: is treating everyone the same regardless of their race “colorblindness” in your book? — Pfhorrest
Fairness can't be achieved by disregarding advantages and disadvantages. — praxis
Even if the progressive mom likely isn't religious at all, she has a religious fervour to fight evil and save her boys from being lured into the Satanic cult of the alt-right. — ssu
The attitude is telling. It is one reason why politics comes to be so divisive and why we talk about politics becoming tribal. You see, it's not that political ideology that you oppose simply doesn't just work, is counterproductive and make things worse, it is are truly evil. — ssu
There are circumstances where focusing every social issue with a certain vested interest/concern in one particular facet glasses can become a detriment to the main cause. Meaning, if we become too focused on one serious issue we can occasionally blur them with other serious issues. — I like sushi
Being humans we tend to apply heuristics that work in one area to other areas assuming they apply equally as well. — I like sushi
Talking about ‘racial inequality’ in good, but talking about nothing else but ‘racial inequality’ tips every item of social concern toward being about ‘race’. — I like sushi
This is why I said it was a ‘no-brainer’. It’s a fairly commonsense position. — I like sushi
No one is focusing on "one specific" issue with discussing racial affairs. That is my point. No one 'racially' conscious person (here) anyway, is or was discussing 'just race' .. that is your own poor misinterpretation (passive colorblind screen..) - which I attribute to laziness (e.g. conflict apathy/conflict avoidance) -the symptom, at least the ACTIVE totalitarian color-blinds are being forward with it. Rainbow middle man 'fixes' nothing when he refuses to pick up the tools, just prevents necessary clashes.
You are not 'broaden' the topic talking about AI, you are derailing it (what you think - as a symptom of passive colorblindness) is simple enough to be "less focused" on. — Swan
I don't think all "prejudices" and "heuristics" need to be addressed or met with the same degree of scrutiny as racial (racism) - & some harmful prejudices, & affairs. This is something else all together; which is why I find your position suspicious and struggle to see how it is first all that relevant. The very fact you want to 'equalize' prejudices (personal) mostly, as being 'equally' problematic in itself doesn't make sense to me and comes off as an aesthetic/superficial position - nor do I find it holding that much personal integrity or self-reflection.
But sure, if 'personally treating everyone equally' is the colorblinds' choice, so be it. It is not realistic and dare I say hardly possible (if not a trivialization) of this entire topic. I WOULDN'T urge people to reduce their personal prejudices (even when it comes to race - in a low grade ghetto of South Central), in any sense - no more than I'd urge women to be less cautious (aware & by that I mean, prepared) in particular situations - NOR suggest this is some morally superior approach - unless they are interfering with systematic problems (e.g. job hiring, etc..). 'Heuristics' are hardly half of it. — Swan
Except 'talking about racial inequality' isn't just talking about 'racial inequality' .. (unless you mean DingusJones, Harry and others) .. which is where you (and the active color-blinds) seem to misinterpret everything. Hence: my previous posts. — Swan
Yeah, my point. No one cares about personalized 'common sense' positions in the light of systematic racism. Well I don't anyway. So I ask again in a "nicer" tone, what is your point? — Swan
It's not a strawman. I'm attacking 180's double-standard.You’re beating up a strawman (180 judges that all white people are racist) to give the appearance of winning the debate?
I’ve recently taken an implicit association test on race and it showed some bias, but does this constitute racism? No, it’s just subconscious conditioning that I need to be aware of and deal with the best I can. I can also put effort into changing this conditioning in myself and in society. — praxis
This is a straw-man (since you don't seem to know what a real one looks like). Like I've said numerous times (that you somehow missed or are you cherry-picking), we should treat everyone the same when our differences don't matter. The only difference that matters when I'm being considered for a job is how qualified I am compared to the other applicants, not anything to do with my skin's color. Our differences in skin color comes in handy during medical or biological conversations. It's not about not acknowledging our differences at all. It is about acknowledging our differences when the differences really do matter, and not when they don't. People like you and 180 don't seem to understand that. Acknowledging differences in a case where the differences don't matter is a category error.No one treats everyone the same. We treat each other differently depending on many different conditions and circumstances. This includes mere appearance, histories, whatever subconscious cultural bias we may have, etc, etc.
To answer your question, yes. Treating everyone the same would indicate a lack of capacity to sense important differences among people and treat them accordingly. But I have to ask: why would anyone want to be disabled in this way, or rather, why would anyone be inclined to feign this lack of capacity? It's certainly not fair to treat everyone the same. Fairness can't be achieved by disregarding advantages and disadvantages. — praxis
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.