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. — ssu
Which examples were given? I can see what you're saying could happen in a unapologetic democracy, but the U.S. isn't an unapologetic democracy. It is a republic welfare state. Just look at how much money the U.S. spends on welfare programs compared to defense and law enforcement, and tell me where the structural discrimination is.When you look at how structural discrimination is defined and the examples that are given, it's quite straight forward and easy to understand. It makes total sense. But when all these terms are used in the most excessive woke literature, all you get is a mush of confusion. And things get complicated. — ssu
180 could have defended his statements himself. — Harry Hindu
It's not a strawman. I'm attacking 180's double-standard — Harry Hindu
Race correlates with advantages and disadvantages like wealth or poverty, because of people treating some races as better than others. One can recognize those actual advantages or disadvantages, that correlate with race, without discriminating on the basis of race itself at all; and because of that correlation, the fair treatment of greater aiding people with greater disadvantages will correlate with greater aiding people of races that correlate with disadvantages, all without having to actually address race itself at all. — Pfhorrest
Perhaps you could show how this works in a real-life situation. In America, black men and boys are 2.5 times more likely than white men and boys to die during an encounter with police. How does one try to solve this problem without addressing race?
So, you're saying that prejudice exists in everyone? — Harry Hindu
Whose bias is the one causing the problem in this instance, when a minority black runs from a white cop because he thinks the cop is racist? — Harry Hindu
The fact that you're coming into our conversation near the end while disregarding everything else I have said, shows that you simply don't know what you're talking about. — Harry Hindu
I think the problem is in assuming race is a factor before the reasons for the shootings are apparent. — NOS4A2
Racial-Color privilege - e.g. "white privilege" in rich western liberal republics - denotes an individual or community member of the prevailing racial color/ethnolinguistic majority being free of the fear of and/or adverse consequences (i.e. historically accumulated legacies) of (1) racial color-profiling, policing & prosecution and (2) social de jure/de facto segregation & discrimination in housing, employment, education, healthcare, financial credit ... (i.e. public goods)
I think you mean to say that the problem is assuming racism is a factor... I didn't say anything about racism in the situation that I mentioned. I asked how the problem could be addressed without considering race.
The problem could be addressed by looking at each individual case rather than relying on race statistics, which automatically presume race is a factor. — NOS4A2
The problem could be looked at in many different ways and many different approaches could be taken to address it. That doesn't negate the fact that taking race into consideration is essential for understanding and solving the problem in the best or most efficient way.
Why would you disable (color-blind) yourself when trying to solve a problem?
It’s like saying bald men are 2.5 times more likely to be shot by police than men with hair. How can we address the problem without considering baldness? Baldness is presumed. That’s my point. You’ll never be able to address the problem because the reasons for the shootings are not addressed. — NOS4A2
Then define "prejudiced".(1) Harryhindu posts in a thread regarding a prejudice or systemic injustice.
(2) Harryhindu attacks all narratives which affirm the relevance of the prejudice and the existence of systemic injustice by trying to beat them at their own game: the people highlighting said prejudice or systemic injustice are the real prejudiced people.
Move along people, move along. — fdrake
So you're saying it's okay to view police as a perceived threat, but not to view someone being belligerent and refusing to obey orders (because they have this preconceived notion that police are a threat (and the orders are meant to keep both of them safe because the police officer is walking into a situation that he has no knowledge of who you are)) as a perceived threat? :brow:Police may be more prone to shooting black men and boys, compared to whites of the same, because of the perceived degree of threat they have of them and not because the officers are racist. It would be responsible for police officers to be aware of their biases and deal with them as best they can. — praxis
How about some real-life (no dragons or fairies) examples for once?Class privilege denotes an individual or community member of the first (i.e. highest) quintile of net worth/income being free of the fear and/or adverse consequences (i.e. historically accumulated legacies) of (1) economic exploitation and (2) social discrimination. — 180 Proof
Your solution is for the "prevailing racial color/ethnolinguistic" to experience (1) racial color-profiling, policing & prosecution and (2) social de jure/de facto segregation & discrimination in housing, employment, education, healthcare, financial credit ... (i.e. public goods) because you want employers, police, prosecution, etc. to give you special treatment as opposed to equal treatment, and when a certain group gets special treatment, then logically other groups are being treated unequally. Minorities are segregating themselves with BET, black colleges, etc.Racial-Color privilege - e.g. "white privilege" in rich western liberal republics - denotes an individual or community member of the prevailing racial color/ethnolinguistic majority being free of the fear and/or adverse consequences (i.e. historically accumulated legacies) of (1) racial color-profiling, policing & prosecution and (2) social de jure/de facto segregation & discrimination in housing, employment, education, healthcare, financial credit ... (i.e. public goods) — 180 Proof
My problem is with the taxonomy of race and looking at things through the lens of race. I believe it is as superficial as, say, height or foot size. If we categorize according to these superficial categories we will automatically find disparities between them. — NOS4A2
So you're saying it's okay to view police as a perceived threat, but not to view someone being belligerent and refusing to obey orders (because they have this preconceived notion that police are a threat (and the orders are meant to keep both of them safe because the police officer is walking into a situation that he has no knowledge of who you are)) as a perceived threat? :brow: — Harry Hindu
Perhaps you could show how this works in a real-life situation. In America, black men and boys are 2.5 times more likely than white men and boys to die during an encounter with police. How does one try to solve this problem without addressing race? — praxis
....when the difference between people doesn't matter... — Harry Hindu
Harryhindu attacks all narratives which affirm the relevance of the prejudice and the existence of systemic injustice by trying to beat them at their own game: the people highlighting said prejudice or systemic injustice are the real prejudiced people. — fdrake
You misunderstand. I wasn’t trying to say ability relates to race, gender or religion in any particular way. I was referring to ability as identity. Just as someone might have a race, gender or relation, they have abilities which society might recognise or not. My point was an equitable society will recognise a person’s abilities as valuable, rather than trying to just ignore them (as the colourblind approach does with race). — TheWillowOfDarkness
If a disability is to amount to a life not worth living, it’s got to be on features which define it (like terrible suffering, disconnection, etc. ), as for any able-bodied person. Anything else is just prejudice, a supposition the able-bodied get merit over the disabled by their able bodied existence. — TheWillowOfDarkness
With disability, we also the direction reaction between recognition and addressing problems. How can we hope to address the needs of this with a disability, if we ignore how they are different, the specific needs they have? To be blind to the difference means we cannot take directed action towards it. Addressing the problems on the individual and community level needs recognition of the individuals of the community. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Affirmative action, at least as it usually practiced, fails to address most structural problems for this reason. Giving a some individuals a position in a college or a company doesn’t address needs of the many which constitute that structural disadvantage, let alone other structural disadvantages of those of different identities. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I've put these together because they speak to the same issue: focusing on individual needs in a social context is always a question of collective guilt or virtue. Not in the sense you would seem to assume here, where a person is supposedly especially good/bad in their identity and obtains merit/lose merit for it, but in the sense our society will be guilty or virtuous towards individuals. We cannot focus on what an individual needs from society without a notion who the individual is, how they belong, and how society has a collective responsibility to deliver what they need.
Addressing an issue of structural racism is question of dealing with a guilt our society has generated for a group of people. Our society is guilty of a mistreatment. Fixing this wrong is a collective responsibility which will have consequences for particular people. Certain white people, for example, will lose their vision of an all white community. Some white rich people will have to be less rich, more money going to black people on the bottom (amongst others as well, assuming we are also fixing some things for other groups on the bottom). — TheWillowOfDarkness
A "devaluing" of those at the top, many of those who are white, is exactly what it takes to change something for those at the bottom. I don't mean some violent revolution where everyone's property is being seized, just that those on top lose certain aspects of wealth, status and power when those on the bottom are understood to have merit and get a greater slice of the economic pie.
A simple example is a billionaire will only be able to say they have $2999985000 more than a poor person, rather than $3000000000. But that $15000 of "devaluing" is enough to drive some people to racial hatred or neo-liberal insanity. — TheWillowOfDarkness
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
:rofl: If only we lived in a world where dragons actually did exist, or in a country where systematic racism did exist. — Harry Hindu
If social constructions have very little to do with anything material, then how is it that they influence our social behaviors? — Harry Hindu
We already went over how one gets various identities. Your problem is that you are confusing biological real identities (being born with certain body parts and functions) with SHARED ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THOSE IDENTITIES. Shared assumptions are not identities that one can assume for themselves, but are identities that are assumed by others about the individual, and our assumptions about people aren't always accurate. Isn't this the problem of generalizing people and putting them in boxes based on how they dress? Isn't that the definition of being biased and sexist?
I don't think he said that. His accusation was inconsistency. — frank
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.