That is the strangest response I’ve seen in a while. You just accused me of not saying what I said?

I suggest you reread what I wrote. I never said race is just genetics? I merely pointed out an apparent conflation underlying the discussion and then highlighted ‘race’ in terms of culture. Everyone else seems to have understood.

Just to emphasis. I was referring to how AI and algorithms bring certain prejudices to the surface - like assuming a picture of a human cooking in a kitchen is a woman because there are more pictures of women cooking in the kitchen than men. Such things may push attitudes more this way or that due to possible psychological influences of advertising.

is a policy of treating people the same regardless of their race “colorblind” in the sense you are against? — Pfhorrest

Yep.

Can you please answer the second part then? What specifically does who need to do when to avoid doing the bad thing you’re against?

You just accused me of not saying what I said? — I like sushi

The problem with what you wrote, is race is NEVER - EVER, "strictly biological if we are talking in a sense of genetics..."

Because we are NEVER talking in a "sense of genetics" so strict enough to biologically reduce an entire racial discussion to it - unless you are talking about unique illnesses, etc.. unique to the races, to which one can only ask WHAT'S YOUR POINT, in that discussion anyhow? The only one on this thread trying to "make of a point" of no-point is Strormfront DingusJones and the Hallucinating guy arguing the trite IQ argument and bone densities.

I was referring to how AI and algorithms bring certain prejudices to the surface - like assuming a picture of a human cooking in a kitchen is a woman because there are more pictures of women cooking in the kitchen than men. — I like sushi

How, at all, is that relevant to the discussion of 'race'? You call the 'race problem' a no-brainer - YET have not solved nor posed any solutions and/or interesting thought - (let alone expressed any integrity to acknowledge the fact .. of race conflict) that PERSISTS, in spite of all the "no-brainers". The ultimate problem with color-blindness.

I'd go as far to say "AI" is currently a no-brainer (IN THIS CONTEXT), since it has no (human) brain.

”I never liked this humanitarian approach that if you really talk with them you discover we are all the same people,” he explains. “No, we are not—we have fundamental differences, and true solidarity is in spite of all these differences.” — Žižek

what specifically would you have people do differently in what circumstances to avoid doing the bad thing you’re against? — Pfhorrest

Acknowledge and accept differences rather than denying that they exist.

Yeah, yeah, hold you horses.

Scientifically speaking the definition is quite distinct. There is one human race not multiple sub-subspecies of humans. The genetic differences between humans is minute - nothing that comes even close to talk about different species of humans.

The point here is people conflate the two terms often enough. It’s a relatively easy slip to make given the scientific weight of the term ‘race’ and the political weight of the term ‘race’. I think this kind of conflation has lessened to a agree due to education, but it is tied to a history where the scientific community used to think there were distinct human ‘races’. The term ‘race’ stuck to cultural groups but the scientific definition was refined as scientific studies revealed the error in the assumption that all differences phenotypes strongly indicated a different classification of race (as a rule of thumb it is obviously more right than wrong, but given that we’re more acutely aware of slight variations within our species it’s no wonder we made such a leap). All chimps look alike to us unless we spend time lots around them whilst humans look far more varied.

I did clarify straight after that the context of the term ‘race’ in the thread is quite different.

How, at all, is that relevant to the discussion of 'race'? You call the 'race problem' a no-brainer - YET have not solved nor posed any solutions and/or interesting thought - (let alone expressed any integrity to acknowledge the fact .. of race conflict) that PERSISTS, in spite of all the "no-brainers". The ultimate problem with color-blindness. — Swan

I never said the problem of ‘race’ was a ‘no-brainer’ in the context you appear to have expressed. I simply meant that it is a ‘no-brainer’ that the term has carried certain misinterpretations and an misrepresentations over the years. Hence talk about the conflation of the scientific definition and the cultural definition. As pointed out by someone else above nationality is a more geography is a greater cultural difference - phenotypes are merely incidental and attached to geographical and cultural perceptions. I’ll admit there is a lot to unpack in delineating what precisely is and isn’t meant by culture, but I’m not trying to ignore history, language or art because I assume a reasonable degree of charity from the reader - which doesn’t mean I’m not open to people like yourself questioning what I mean or challenging what I say (far from it).

I generally look at prejudice as prejudice rather than honing in on any particular example of it. So ‘race’, ‘religion’, ‘language’, ‘sex’, ‘sexual preferences, or ‘political attitudes’ are just flavours of human prejudices. If it helps the issue of AI and algorithms does relate to ‘race’ as much as all the above mentioned flavours of prejudice. For example advertising has formed more around ‘white’ people due to the nature of the consumerism. Self-driving cars were more likely to hit a black pedestrian than a white pedestrian (initially anyway, as people overlooked the visual differences between humans). AI and algorithms can help reveal certain latent prejudices and by doing so we can then be careful about how we program future data gathering algorithms with these unseen, and I expect, mostly unintentional prejudices in order to avoid positive feedback (meaning allowing algorithms to fee the problems - I am not saying it is ‘positive’, but you can be sure that if I didn’t point this out someone out there would interpret it as such). There are problems with langauge.

As has been pointed out the very term ‘colourblind’ has been turned around to mean something that is almost in opposition to its originally intended meaning. The algorithms are literally ‘colourblind’, they just go through the motions and express our cultural attitudes as they are. This can be a serious problem as mentioned above.

That is why I think it’s a more serious topic as we’re quite aware by now (I hope?) that originally ‘colourblind’ was used to express something like ‘judging people by the content of their character’ and in recent times - partly due to certain data collections and advertising algorithms - has taken on a quite different meaning.

If no wishes to discuss how we’re to deal with the problems of algorithms and AI for humanity, both now and in the future, in terms of the cultural impact it is already having in many areas including commerce, politics and the empowerment/disempowerment of the general public (due to ready access to almost endless information) that’s fine. I thought the discussion looked like it had concluded there were two distinct uses of ‘colourblind’ and that this may be a good point to springboard into what I’ve mentioned.

I don’t think any sane person will disagree that accepting people’s differences is generally a bad thing. We don’t have to like each others views and opinions, but it’s mostly futile to think we can bludgeon people into thinking as we do rather than keeping an open ear and trying to figure out what we may be missing in our own approach and eve in our attitudes.

I honestly think a good number of people accept that the term ‘colourblind’ has a double meaning. Some have grown up with it meaning something akin to Martin Luther King’s speech and others have come to know it through more contemporary use - refer to above and the issues with algorithms and AI facilitating the growth of our worse sides as well as pointing out certain unseen assumptions we all carry around with us (be it in terms of political affiliations, attitudes to sex, race, religion and/or science).

As with most technologies there is a mixture of good and bad and it’s up to us to steer through the minefield as best we can - some will inevitably misstep. Let’s just hope we’re careful enough not to blow up everyone :)

Sure.

THere's little of philosophical interest in this thread. Might need another.

You didn't give a reason (in other words - you aren't reasoning). You just gave another example of bandwagoning. — Harry Hindu

Feel free to get reasonably run down by the band wagon of your choice. I like money because the nice people at Walmart collect it, and they give me stuff in exchange for it. People get killed because of their race rather often. That is a reasonable reason for taking it to be a real thing. That it has no basis in genetics is irrelevant.

maybe you can answer the question I’ve asked of that side several times: is a policy of treating people the same regardless of their race “colorblind” in the sense you are against? If so, what specifically would you have people do differently in what circumstances to avoid doing the bad thing you’re against? — Pfhorrest

Take an extreme but sadly not uncommon situation where a neighbouring country is involved in a bout of 'ethnic cleansing'. Africa, Asia, Europe, at least have famous examples in my lifetime. Probably a good idea to segregate the refugees into Tutsi and Hutu camps, or whatever the division is. Unless the argument that everyone is the same is very very convincing, which it is not because clearly people are unconvinced.

I don’t think any sane person will disagree that accepting people’s differences is generally a bad thing. — I like sushi

Hu?

Or, take the example of being colourblind to disability: treating a wheelchair user as if they did not require ramps...?

Just a slight extrapolation from what you said about ‘accepting differences’. The world would be dull banal if everything was the same and we all thought the same thing and said the same things in exactly the same way - to me that sounds like hell! :D

Feel free to get reasonably run down by the band wagon of your choice. I like money because the nice people at Walmart collect it, and they give me stuff in exchange for it. People get killed because of their race rather often. That is a reasonable reason for taking it to be a real thing. That it has no basis in genetics is irrelevant. — unenlightened

BS. Prove that people get killed because of race often.

You're equating the frequency of people getting killed by race (and how do you know it's because of race, and what do you mean by "often"?) with the frequency that Walmart takes your money in exchange for stuff, which is just nonsensical. These are the arguments that you all are coming up with and it's pathetic. They're not even arguments. They're thinly veiled racist comments.

You go to jail if you if you take the stuff without giving Walmart money. You go to jail if you kill someone - anyone - regardless of race. What planet and/or what time did you come from?

but why ask me? You are accusing me of a bunch of stuff that I will not own. — Banno

I'm responding to things that you said in your posts. You don't own your posts?

You simply can't backup your claims with any real evidence or logic. It's just a bunch of nonsensical statements without any connection to reality.

As you like.

It's not as I like. If it were we'd be having a reasonable conversation, but not having one is what you like.

Sure.

:roll:

Love you, Harry.

Accuse me of being a racist and then tells me he loves me. That is essentially the logic you have displayed in this thread.

Prove that people get killed because of race often. — Harry Hindu

Prove you have any intelligence.

Why don't we divide people up by their gloop? If we believe strongly enough, we can quite easily impose gloopal divisions on humanity - then, if we really want to, we can decide what gloop might mean.

Look up the statistics for osteoporosis among black women and white women, — DingoJones

That's one of the things I was looking at. Again, it's inconclusive that it has anything at all to do with genetics.

Yes it is, but obviously the way you think about the word “race” precludes any such distinction. I don’t think of race that way. There are obvious physical differences between humans from different areas of the world, when these physical differences are passed on to offspring they are being passed along by genes. Thats genetics, though maybe not in the same sense you mean.
Anyway, I don’t have much more to add that I didnt say already, so address any of that or do not at your discretion.

Yes it is, but obviously the way you think about the word “race” precludes any such distinction. I don’t think of race that way. There are obvious physical differences between humans from different areas of the world, when these physical differences are passed on to offspring they are being passed along by genes. Thats genetics, though maybe not in the same sense you mean.
Anyway, I don’t have much more to add that I didnt say already, so address any of that or do not at your discretion. — DingoJones

The 'racial' distinctions, of course, are very superficial indeed.

Depends on what you mean by superficial. Its not just cosmetic or trivial differences, there are actual important differences that concern medical health and physicality.
If by superficial you mean superficial to a particular persons value as a human being or something like that then yes, sure, I agree. This is so obvious that I wouldnt think it needs mentioning at all so Im not going to disclaimer myself anytime I talk about race with caveats like “but no one should be treated as a lesser human being or enslaved because of race”. Its tedious and unnecessary. (Except to appease certain peoples racial sensitivities, which Im also generally not interested in.)

Race is the ACCEPTANCE (i.e. tolerance of personhood - the anatomy - of those outside of higher order) - that "red/purple/blue" EXIST outside of the rainbow you are attempting to stir-up, which is really just a white light.

It DOES NOT pose that "races" are separate species (differences in capacities - in the flesh - different from one another, but acknowledges DISTINCTIONS among human groups - not at all "all biological or genetic"), which is what Hallucinating guy and his crazy Stormfront mumbo-jumbo is attempting to make seem interesting.

Colorblindness is a good thing only to maladaptive daydreamers, time to wake up now.

Races are the mental chains that early racists strung around vast, disparate and diverse groups of people to justify their oppression and conquering. Color-blindness and the dream of a color blind society was always an ethos that propelled abolitionism, civil rights and anti-apartheid, while race-consciousness, “the Veil” of DuBois, was always the problem to begin with.

No distinction between groups, especially racist groupings born of superstition and stupidity, need be made. All groups are composed of individuals. And tossing individuals into taxonomies of shade and color is an exercise in racism, par excellence; it proves one is unable or unwilling to distinguish from one individual to the next.

I mean stuff like skin colour. 'Race' has very little indeed to do with actual genetic differences between people, surely?