I keep asking that question, but you all keep avoiding it. — Harry Hindu

Mmm. But isn't this your first post in reply to me?

Like I said above, it depends on intent. There's a political element to it (certainly in the US) that's transparently self-serving for right-wingers who don't care about racism.

Looks like I walked in on a pub fight.

Well, as long as it's not a bar fight.

No one is allowed beg in our street, regardless of how wealthy they are, and what bribes they can pay.

Turkey declaring a ceasefire after it has annexed Kurdistan. That's fair. Any Kurds or Syrians who fight after the declaration of a ceasefire are acting in bad faith.

Whitefella give you your land back, unless it has something in it we can mine, or we need to put a road or pipeline over it, 'cause then it belongs to all of us, again.

All fair, all good.

Woke people are against it because the question of "individual merit" turns the value of people into a counterfactual question within racial relationships with in society.

Instead of understanding an individual of a racial group belongs to a society, the question of "individual merit" is pulled up before that belonging is granted. People are thought to have to something before we consider them to belong. When the merit understood by society (e.g. wealth, status,etc) is divided along some racial line, the notion of individual merit turns into a judgment of the belonging of people in that group.

In the racial context, individual merit is a problem. We need to understand even those of what might be deemed of lesser individual merit to have full value and belonging to society. Otherwise, our notion of individual merit is just acting as a proxy a racism.

Well said. It's liberalism claiming that your black skin, your gender, your ability, does not count for anything; I see you as an individual - that is, only on my liberal terms.

Never really understood why you guys call a pub, a bar. One of those ineffable cultural things, no doubt.

I call 'em pubs, boss.

See? And they thought we could not reach any mutual agreement.

Perhaps the idea is easier to understand with gender/sex. Assume a sought after managerial job position would be open for everybody, males or females, but the requirements would be besides managerial qualities also that the person has to qualify at least two of the three demands: has to be 180cm or over tall, able to lift 100 kg and run 3000m in 12 minutes. Now of course there can be women that fill those requirements, but those are few, hence it's obvious that the selection prefers males. Naturally this doesn't mean that the requirements are indeed there to discriminate women, there can perhaps be a practical and logical reason for the height requirement etc. But if there aren't good reasons for it, then it is this kind selection is hidden discrimination. — ssu

What would be requirements like that that have anything to do with race, though? You'd have to believe that there really are ability differences due to race, but there aren't.

And what would be some practical examples of requirements like that which affect gender that don't have something to do with the practical aspects of a particular job?

If people are colorblind, there can't BE any differences that stem from racism.

The upshot of this is that obviously there are a lot of people who aren't colorblind, and that's the problem.

An oddly self-negating construct: "all we need is the rules we already have, but they don't work". — Banno

But what have you provided as solution? More unenforcable rules?

And how is the rule, "treat people equally or there will be negative consequences" not working?

It would only not work if you wanted special treatment instead of equal treatment.

Woke people are against it because the question of "individual merit" turns the value of people into a counterfactual question within racial relationships with in society.

Instead of understanding an individual of a racial group belongs to a society, the question of "individual merit" is pulled up before that belonging is granted. People are thought to have to something before we consider them to belong. When the merit understood by society (e.g. wealth, status,etc) is divided along some racial line, the notion of individual merit turns into a judgment of the belonging of people in that group.

In the racial context, individual merit is a problem. We need to understand even those of what might be deemed of lesser individual merit to have full value and belonging to society. Otherwise, our notion of individual merit is just acting as a proxy a racism.

The racial context is the problem to begin with. Seeing everything through “the lens of race”, as critical race theorists propose, is to adopt the same race-thinking of their supremacist forebears. It’s not a denial of racism but the continued application of it.

Abstractly imprisoning people within these outmoded, superstitious categories is an exercise in mental apartheid, and when applied to real flesh and blood human beings, becomes actual apartheid.

You dont think there are ability differences between races? None? Why do american blacks dominate most american sports? Culture?
Obviously im speaking in general terms, but it seems like there are physical differences, and Therefore difference in some physical abilities. No?
What about the physical strength of say the Japanese compared to African Americans, or Scandinavians? Would you say absolutely zero difference in physical ability? (Again, generically speaking. Obviously there are outliers).
Would you explain differences as cultural instead of say, the geological area the race is adapted to? (Kenyans come to mind, My understanding is that the higher elevation has equipped the average Kenyan for endurance running more so than most other races).

You dont think there are ability differences between races? None? Why do american blacks dominate most american sports? Culture? — DingoJones

Yes, I think that sports/"race" correlations are cultural, which explains why there are various shifts in the demographics of different sports over the years. For example, there aren't a ton of Hispanics playing baseball now because they only recently were allowed to play or because they're inherently better at baseball. It's because baseball is really popular in a lot of Hispanic countries/cultures. And eastern Europeans and Canadians aren't inherently better at hockey. Etc.

Would you say absolutely zero difference in physical ability? — DingoJones

Correlated to "race," yes.

And right, re geographical factors having an impact on some things, too.

Another thing that's important here is what/where scouts put their focus, with it being the case that scouts will concentrate on geographical areas, schools, etc. that have produced a number of great players. People working in sports tend to focus on statistics in a way that's pretty blatantly superstitious (including that the vast majority of athletes are very superstitious, very ritual-oriented in that, etc.), where they strongly believe in streaks even when there's no rational reason to believe in them. So if a number of great hockey players have come out of Slovakia, say, scouts are going to put more attention on potential Slovakian players, because they believe in streaks.

Mmm. But isn't this your first post in reply to me? — Banno

Nope.

Define privilege. Its a privilege to accuse someone of racism and not have to supply any evidence other than the color of one's skin.

Ok, so bone density has no effect in difference of physical ability? (Its uncontroversially understood that black people have higher bone density that white people for exsmple)
Also, the geographical factors can result in differences in races, if one race spent most of its time in a specific place with specific geo factors and another race somewhere else...they would have different factors...wouldnt they?
Obviously there are physical differences in races, what is it that draws a line between those physical differences and physical differences that effect physical ability?

Ok, so bone density has no effect in difference of physical ability? (Its uncontroversially understood that black people have higher bone density that white people for exsmple) — DingoJones

That sounds doubtful to me, but at any rate, even if it were the case, no, bone density isn't going to have any difference in athletic ability. We're not talking about breaking bones.

You've said a number of things that suggest you might be a bit racist, by the way.

Racist against which race? Just all races in general, or did you have a specific race in mind?
Anyway, so bone density has no effect on a persons ability to physically perform any physical tasks?

Racist against which race? Just all races in general, or did you have a specific race in mind? — DingoJones

Racism involves believing (a) that there are real "races," real (at least significant) differences between them (due to genetics), and (b) that those differences make different races superior/inferior to each other with respect to those differences.

Don't you believe (a) and (b)?

<duplicate post>

Well there IS differences in bone density. Its a fact. Black people generally have higher bone density than white people. Are you saying that that science is either racist, or the work of racists?

Well there IS differences in bone density. Its a fact. — DingoJones

Again, I'm skeptical that this is a fact, and a brief perusal of the claims online underscore that it's not clear that it is a fact (especially one that has something to do with genetics).

Ok, I would suggest more than a brief perusal because you are wrong. Look up the statistics for osteoporosis among black women and white women, that should be easier to focus your data search.
Also, I would like to address your definition of racism. Anyone who thinks there Are “races”, is a racist? Or being “a bit racist”?
Oh and who am I being racist towards? You never answered, all races or did you have a specific one in mind?

A common academic definition of racism (eg George Fredrickson) is race essentialism which is to say that there are such things as races with inherent biological differences between them that have normative import, ie that some groups of people are inherently better than others in a way that they cannot change.

That’s far from an uncontroversial definition but it was the baseline definition we started from in the polisci class on the topic I had a decade ago.

Its a strange definition to me. I generally think of racism as involving hate, or general feeling of superiority of one race over another (as opposed to some, specific trait of each race).
Like, the differences in melanin results in black people being better at resisting the effects of sunburn than say, white people.
Thats a fact. So its racist against white people to say that I guess, by your view?

I can see how people might say "just because you claim not to treat non-whites differently doesn't eliminate racism or its effects", which is a fair enough point, but where does the outright opposition to color-blindness come from? The idea is that subscribing to it can help us reduce unjust discrimination in our own actions. What's the problem with that?

Is it fair to say that the counter thrust is something like: "We cannot undo the damage done to minorities by ignoring their circumstances"? Statistically, economic outcomes are worse for non-whites (save for asian outcomes), so the idea is to increase opportunity for minorities until the outcomes for whites and non-whites are the same. Am I on track so far?

There are two major issues I can see with this logic and practice:

1) It entails an assumption that active/passive/ongoing racism is a main or the main determinant of inequality perpetuation, which means swapping discrimination for reverse discrimination may be woefully inadequate, or it may not even have a significant impact on outcomes. What do I mean by this? Pretend that economically the black demographic was just as well off as the white demographic; we've successfully eliminated statistical inequality between demographics, but have we necessarily touched inequality in and of itself? The mean wealth of an ethnic group is not the same as wealth variance and wealth gaps within an ethnicity, or within the population as a whole. Another example would be achieving fair demographic representation in politics and other elite professions: the majority of people are not in an elite profession, and the middle class continues to shrink while the bottom class grows, so this would only benefit a minority within a minority. Equality on paper, with still roughly the same amount of suffering in the world.

The main rebut to this that I have heard is that if we had more minority representation, equality for the rest of the demographic would flow from that as a natural result (which again assumes that *systemic* racism is the main inequality perpetuator), but I've never seen this claim even vaguely substantiated other than to beg the operant racism question. Do white politicians and elite professionals look out for their fellow whites as a matter of course? And to the extent that they do, is this what perpetuates inequality? Granted, there is racism in some of our institutions (notably in the justice system), and it surely has an impact, but is this really how we want to explain away inter-generational poverty and inequality perpetuation? If so, why are there intergenerationally impoverished white families and communities in vast quantities? Is it a result of their individual genetics? After-all, they have white privilege, so there is nothing holding them back, right?

2) It reinforces a simplistic worldview based on a harmful schema/stereotype: the idea that our race defines our boons and burdens and station in society; that races act, feel, think, suffer, transgress, and are transgresses upon, as one. Psychologically, defining statistical outcomes as a group vs group effect very quickly leads to inter-group conflict along the classic "us vs them" lines (because individuals often define themselves by their group,and they leap to defend it from other groups when threats are perceived). So not only does it dissolve the individual, it also provides a neat and tidy framework for direct race-based conflict. I realize that racial tension, resentment, tribalism, and conflict is not the intended result of defining society as a system of racist causes and outcomes, but because of frail human psychology, it is the natural ramification.

I want to live in a society that treats individuals fairly, and we can't do that if ethnicity is a factor in the way we treat others. Poverty, education, health; these are all factors we can consider when we set out to create equality. Presumably, equality in representation and other outcomes would flow naturally from equality and fair opportunity at the lower levels, right?

What am I missing?

The normatively relevant part is important. So unless you think vulnerability to sunburn makes white people worse as people, then no.

:up:

Treat everyone the same regardless of race. Including helping people in need regardless of race. If one race is more in need, you end up automatically helping them more exactly in proportion to their greater need.

I think I misunderstood what you meant by normative, I didnt take that to exclude something like resisting sunburn.
Could you tell me what exactly you mean by normative?