It is a strange obsession, and I would go so far as to say this is the remnants and continuation of institutional and systematic racism. In universities they are teaching courses on “whiteness”, “white privilege”—what is this but the continuation of white supremacy in particular and racism in general, as a curriculum?

Libertarians are the only true liberals. — Harry Hindu

You can categorise that whatever way you want. There are serious issues concerning freedom in both schools of thought, with the libertarian attempt to co-opt the concept particularly problematic. The left needs to assert itself in this area because it has a much more legitimate claim to be the ideology of freedom than either of the above. But I'm not going to follow that up here. I'm considering starting a separate discussion. If I do, you may feel free to come along and lose the argument there. :wink:

the concept of race has no basis in reality similar to the concept that the world is flat — dazed

In both cases, the bases are social constructs. Similarly, money is also a social construct and an extremely successful one in its adoption. I don't think anyone believes that the actual paper and ink in paper money has value commensurate to its socially agreed-upon value or buying power. Its value is dependent on society to exist. If there were a cataclysmic event of some kind that wiped out 90% of the human population on earth, for example, the fictional value of paper money would instantly vanish.

it's not a matter of refusing to see race, as in fact there is nothing to see
I can see skin colours and differences in physical characteristics, but I can not see races, only faces

You can also see paper money as just paper and ink. Nevertheless, its socially constructed value, unless you're a Buddhist monk or something who practices renunciation, is firmly embedded in your mind.

There's too many meanings, too many interpretations, too many 'translations' and 'dog whistles' or 'subverted or masked intensions' to make any sense of this. When somebody 'interprets' you meaning something else, it's a rabbit whole. And hence the race issue is so difficult. — ssu

I disagree, I dont think its difficult, nor nonsensical. People make it that way because of ideology and/or being triggered by a sensitive issue (race). Without that, just about nobody has a problem with it. When I say “a black guy” or “a white guy” or a “chinese guy”, everyone has a pretty good idea of what I mean. That it. Everything else is just posturing, either to justify racism/bigotry or to witchhunt for it.

Would it be racist to have your race listed in your medical records? Medical records are mostly private - only accessible by your physician. — Harry Hindu

The color of your skin doesn't matter in matters of health. (Perhaps white people get sun burn more often, I don't know.) Yet the division in medical records by sex is totally understandable as the physiology and some diseases are different between men and women. Similarly we treat children and adults differently in medicine too as they obviously are different.

It is a strange obsession, and I would go so far as to say this is the remnants and continuation of institutional and systematic racism. In universities they are teaching courses on “whiteness”, “white privilege”—what is this but the continuation of white supremacy in particular and racism in general, as a curriculum? — NOS4A2

Let's think about this for a while as there are many issues here.

Remember that it is events that we mutually experience that create our collective identity. And those events that truly mold our collective identity are usually huge tragedies, severe hardships where people have suffered together: wars, famines, disasters, where that common bond was seen and social cohesion formed. It is totally logical that Britons uphold WW2 and especially the Battle of Britain when they were facing the Third Reich alone and Finns have the Winter War when a country of 3,6 million people faced alone an attack from their neighboring country of 170 million people. It is also totally understandable that for Jewish identity the tragic history discrimination and persecution, which culminated in the Holocaust, is part and parcel of their identity. And same is true for especially African Americans, that have roots in slavery and have had discriminating laws well into the 20th century, so forget just your typical xenophobic jerks that exist in every population.

Hence it's understandable that if you say to a group then "You should forget this old stuff because it hasn't happened for a long time now" is like you are trying to depreciate something crucial to the identity. It simply doesn't go like that. That is something one should understand, yet one should be also draw the line where things go a bit too far.

When I say “a black guy” or “a white guy” or a “chinese guy”, everyone has a pretty good idea of what I mean. That it. Everything else is just posturing, either to justify racism/bigotry or to witchhunt for it. — DingoJones

And you can say also "tall guy", "blond guy", "fat" or "skinny", and people have a pretty good idea too. The issue is what just importance you give it, what you emphasize. Is it a definition that you use to describe a guy in a crowd, who someone is looking for and doesn't know. Or is it a term you use of a work mate that everybody knows. It's just like one doesn't refer to your peers or workmates by gender. As if gender would be the most important thing. People that bring up often the nationality and race of others quite often are the bigots.

Would that include people who constantly talk about white privilege?
Im not sure your metric works, even just as a rule of thumb.
Its not hard to tell the difference between bigots and not bigots once you start looking properly. Just the words (including the frequency you mention) are not enough. What matters is what the person means, what the intent of those words are.

Hence it's understandable that if you say to a group then "You should forget this old stuff because it hasn't happened for a long time now" is like you are trying to depreciate something crucial to the identity. It simply doesn't go like that. That is something one should understand, yet one should be also draw the line where things go a bit too far.

I’m not sure why anyone should forget this “old stuff”, but I’m also not sure why anyone would want to employ the same race-thinking as their racist forbearers.

Would that include people who constantly talk about white privilege? — DingoJones

There's an old saying: If you are in a debate with a German and you are totally losing the argument, then to win just use the Hitler card and say: "Well, Your people slaughtered the Jews!" And if the German brushes it off (as the matter would have nothing to do with the argument), then you can accuse him of brushing off the Holocaust as something unimportant! It's a great classic strawman and I promise that it typically works at Germans: they have start admitting how bad Hitler was. It has been going on for generations.

So one just has to look if a people have something to say or if the people simply will choose the subject as some power play.

Just the words (including the frequency you mention) are not enough. What matters is what the person means, what the intent of those words are. — DingoJones

Well, if people just note words like a simple computer algorithm totally separate from sentences that have a meaning, it's not quite useful to talk to those kind of people anyway.

Sometime it can be observed even here. Just use the new hyped up lingo that Trump and friends use in a longer post and likely someone will attack you angrily without even reading the damn thing to the end. Try things like taxes, immigration controls or vice versa multiculturalism etc.

Im not sure id go that far, but yes that is what I mean by trigger words. You scarcely have to do more than mention race and people pucker up tighter than...something tight. I didnt think that through lol

nice try, but go ahead and define for me how all the vast array of physical characteristics of humans can be neatly catergorized into things called races, such that each race has a unique set of characteristics that aren't shared by other "races"

in fact race in common usage refers to the idea that there are really are different kinds of humans with physical traits that are connected to behavioural traits...comedians are a stark example of this usage
"white people do this" ha ha ah
"black people do this" ha ha ha

if you want to describe someone's physical characteristics go ahead and do so, but don't describe people using racial language which implies that they are a member of a particular subset of humans

you keep avoiding the question, do you actually believe that there are different sets of humans that are different unique characteristics such that we can call one set a race?

If I ask you "is the world flat", you could also argue "well there is a social construct that some humans embrace that suggests the world is flat"

but do you actually believe the world is flat?

similarly do you actually believe that people are in fact divided into races?

I am asking you a question about what you believe about the reality of our existence

nice try, but go ahead and define for me how all the vast array of physical characteristics of humans can be neatly catergorized into things called races, such that each race has a unique set of characteristics that aren't shared by other "races" — dazed

Its not a “vast array”, and I didnt say “all” physical characteristics. Its some. There are some physical characteristics that can be categorised by race. This is obvious.

The color of your skin doesn't matter in matters of health. (Perhaps white people get sun burn more often, I don't know.) Yet the division in medical records by sex is totally understandable as the physiology and some diseases are different between men and women. Similarly we treat children and adults differently in medicine too as they obviously are different. — ssu

Some diseases are more prevalent in some populations identified as races due to their common ancestry. Thus, people of African and Mediterranean descent are found to be more susceptible to sickle-cell disease while cystic fibrosis and hemochromatosis are more common among European populations. — Wikipedia

The two main dimensions of the race controversy can be discussed separately. First, the “ideological” concept of race informs popular discourse and shapes policy, with a parallel impact in public health. This version of race is defined by social and historical forces and is used to create and justify many of the divisions that exist among people of varying religious, ethnic, or geographic backgrounds. This concept assumes the existence of categories that have no scientific foundation—at least none based on molecular data. This concept has been challenged since Darwin (1981), yet it persists for ideological purposes (Cooper, 1984; Montagu, 1964; Root, 2001). Although everyone in public health needs to be reminded of the importance and illegitimacy of this notion, and those who have not yet heard the news need to be informed, there is little of substantive importance that is really new to add to this debate: We should begin by simply acknowledging that race in the world of politics, and all the nutritional, educational, and social influences it entrains, continues to be the determining influence on ethnic variation in health.

A second use of race has assumed new relevance. As a label for regional populations, race has a long history in population genetics, and in this arena, important opportunities exist to revisit old questions on interethnic variation in health. At stake is whether or not we can move beyond the indirect methods applied in epidemiology or the generalizations built on estimation of genetic distance that have preoccupied population geneticists and anthropologists (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza, 1996; Relethford, 1998). Specifically, it is now possible to ask a set of testable questions: Can the global variation in the human genome be aggregated into subunits, and do those units correspond to the categories we call race? Can we assess the relative magnitude of shared and nonshared genetic material among population groups? Is there variation in causal genetic polymorphisms that is associated with important differences in chronic disease risk? Is it possible to conceptualize the collective human genome as a whole, and express that concept in quantitative terms? — Richard S. Cooper

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25517/

You can categorise that whatever way you want. There are serious issues concerning freedom in both schools of thought, with the libertarian attempt to co-opt the concept particularly problematic. The left needs to assert itself in this area because it has a much more legitimate claim to be the ideology of freedom than either of the above. But I'm not going to follow that up here. I'm considering starting a separate discussion. If I do, you may feel free to come along and lose the argument there. :wink: — Baden

I'm not categorizing it "how I want". That is how Libertarianism is defined. In saying that the left needs to assert itself in this area, you are essentially saying that the left should become libertarians.
Look at this:

See how both the left and the right have libertarian and authoritarian positions? Notice how the Libertarians are the only ones with no authoritarian positions and all libertarian ones. So, to assert yourself in this area in the middle, would essentially make you a Libertarian an no longer a leftist.

No, it's way more complicated than your unsourced-helpfully-coloured-diagram-which-I-have-zero-reason-to-accept-as-definitive suggests.

And I'm saying that you are making it more complicated, and therefore less coherent, than it needs to be. I have a feeling that this is how your thread will go - you making things more complicated than necessary and then Google-blocking those that don't understand your mental gymnastics.

do you actually believe that there are different sets of humans that are different unique characteristics such that we can call one set a race? — dazed

If the one set were engaged in some sort of speed competition, then sure.

do you actually believe the world is flat? — dazed

:chin: I pretty sure it’s spherical.

do you actually believe that people are in fact divided into races? — dazed

Sure, for instance, in high school I wasn’t a very good swimmer but I loved the butterfly, which was actually my worst stroke. Nevertheless, I talked the coach into letting me swim in a 100 yard butterfly at one meet. I lost badly and it was embarrassing.

Notice how the Libertarians are the only ones with no authoritarian positions and all libertarian ones. — Harry Hindu

Even if it's a bit off topic, how about "robust national defence"?

That if anything is a collective endeavor, quite autoritarian and has nothing to do with individual liberty. Citizens having a pistol and a shotgun at home doesn't make at all a "robust national defence".

You can categorise that whatever way you want. There are serious issues concerning freedom in both schools of thought, with the libertarian attempt to co-opt the concept particularly problematic.The left needs to assert itself in this area because it has a much more legitimate claim to be the ideology of freedom than either of the above. — Baden

It seems to me that you are agreeing with, and want to adopt my position. What does it matter what we call ourselves, left, right, moderate, libertarian, authoritarian, etc. if our ideas are the same, or if we agree?

This is why I have proposed that we abolish political parties because it gets in the way of talking about ideas and can make us oppose each other for no other reason than we label ourselves differently, yet we still think the same way about things. I think that most of us want the same things and maybe its just the means by which we get there that are different.

We are being divided and pitted against each other when it is all the elitist politicians that we need to be united against and blaming them for the way things are. I propose that everyone vote for a non-democrat and non-republican this next election cycle. There are plenty to choose from, but you have to do your research because they are not allowed an equal voice in the debates thanks to this polarizing mass delusion we have that things need to be black or white, democrat or republican, etc.

Is the vice president supposed to be more corrupt than the non-vice president?

Even if it's a bit off topic, how about "robust national defence"?

That if anything is a collective endeavor and has nothing to do with individual liberty. Citizens having a pistol and a shotgun at home doesn't make at all a "robust national defence". — ssu

I'm hoping Baden is working on the OP of his new thread. I will wait until that starts and add this to my responses.

Did you know a horse's brain is about the size of a walnut?

What does it matter what we call ourselves, left, right, moderate, libertarian, authoritarian, etc. if our ideas are the same, or if we agree? — Harry Hindu

It doesn't necessarily matter at all. My closest real-life friend labels himself as being on the right, but we agree on plenty.

I'm hoping Baden is working on the OP of his new thread. I will wait until that starts and add this to my responses. — Harry Hindu

It might be a while as I've got a lot of other stuff, including admin stuff here, to do. But I'm definitely lining it up.

funny, but you still avoid the question.

but if you stick to the usage of "race" you employ there, then we are actually on the same page!

please enlighten us with the obvious.
Exactly which physical characteristics clearly correspond to which racial categories?

I think you are actually saying there are physical characteristics of humans that differ that I can see.

Yes that's obvious.

But to say that those differences in physical characteristics of humans can be neatly divided into races like "black" "white" "brown" etc is in fact not obvious and rather non-sensical.

and at a deeper level what would we gain by creating such divisions,assuming we could even arrive at a coherent set?

I think you are actually saying there are physical characteristics of humans that differ that I can see. — dazed

Well yes, that is what Im saying. Some of these physical differences we categorise as “race”.
Thats all I mean, and thats all most people mean when they use the term.
Its not nonsensical, and its so obvious that you yourself just used the category.

if you stick to the usage of "race" you employ there, then we are actually on the same page! — dazed

Where do you think that we could be off-page?

actually most usage of race is not confined to physical characteristics, an easy example are comedians "white people do this" ha ha ha, black people do this "ha ha ha"

and you are clearly not able to set out a clear description of which sets of physical characteristics belong where as that's simply not possible, hence non-sensical.

actually most usage of race is not confined to physical characteristics, an easy example are comedians "white people do this" ha ha ha, black people do this "ha ha ha" — dazed

Well that is an example if a cultural difference, not a physical one. People notice cultural differences between races as well sure, but we have been talking about physical traits. Also, comedians are making jokes...not factual claims.

and you are clearly not able to set out a clear description of which sets of physical characteristics belong where as that's simply not possible, hence non-sensical. — dazed

I don’t need to have an exhaustive list of the traits for it to be sensical. What makes no sense is denying that there are physical differences we categorise as race. Is that what you are doing?