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

Equal treatment simply means treating people the same in a particular instance when the difference between people doesn't matter in that particular instance. It doesn't entail treating everyone the same all the time, in every instance. That would be illogical.

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

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.

Another thing is that the other side only wants you to recognize race in particular instances that benefits them, not when it doesn't. Don't acknowledge race when a person is getting arrested, but we need to acknowledge race when hiring someone?

Another thing, these same people want minorities to be over-represented - as if they count for more than just 15% of the population, yet get their panties tied in a knot when the Electoral College over-represents states with low populations. :chin: This is an instance where they actually support a majority rule with the popular vote choosing a president! This is what seeing everything through the prism of politics and race does to you - it makes you inconsistent.

:roll:

180 could have defended his statements himself. — Harry Hindu

There you go again, Harry, taking my name in vain ...

It's not a strawman. I'm attacking 180's double-standard — Harry Hindu

... and, of course, proving my point (re: you not reading what I - or anyone else it seems - actually writes here). Again.

:yawn:

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?

(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.

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?

If we group the victims of police shootings according to race it is almost a necessity that we will have varying results. But the race of the victim does not account for the reasons of the shootings, which may or may not have nothing to do with race at all. So I think the problem is in assuming race is a factor before the reasons for the shootings are apparent. This isn’t to say there are no racist cops, of course.

Addressing factors other than ‘race’ may show that the numbers aren’t entirely down to racism. One example of this would be poverty.

The issue is fixating on racism being the singular issue and possibly painting a false picture thus damaging any real chance of addressing the racism I believe is part of the figures you gave. It’s tricky.

So, you're saying that prejudice exists in everyone? — Harry Hindu

You mean racial prejudice? I didn't say that, no.

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

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.

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 reviewed your comment pretty carefully before reaching my conclusion. I notice now that you don't try to disprove it was a fallacy.

@Harry Hindu @VagabondSpectre @Hallucinogen @NOS4A2 @I Like Sushi ...

Not that this will prevent anyone from taking out of context or strawmanning the actual argument I've made, which I summarize here:

Class privilege denotes an individual or community that's a 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.

Racial-Color privilege - e.g. "white privilege" in rich western liberal republics - denotes an individual or community that's a 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/deportation and (2) social de jure/de facto segregation & discrimination in housing, employment, education, healthcare, financial credit ... (i.e. public goods)

Thus, "racial color-blindness" is a luxury wary nonwhite survivors of racial color-discrimination cannot afford so long as many, if not most, upper/over class (privileged) whites talk the "racial color-blindness" talk but still walk the racial color-discrimination walk as systemic agents (or functionaries) and/or prejudiced individuals. The answer to the OP is simply this: because (predominately, though not exclusively, elite) Whites have dropped the pretense of "racial color-blindness" vis-à-vis Nonwhites, etc.

I think the problem is in assuming race is a factor before the reasons for the shootings are apparent. — NOS4A2

I think you mean to say that the problem is in 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.

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)

Thanks for the explanation. But this sounds to me to be an argument in favor of racial-colorblindness, that had the racists been color blind, all of it might have been avoided. This is not only the legacy of racism, but as a corollary, of race-thinking in general.

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.

No I mean race is assumed. The problem could be addressed by looking at each individual case rather than relying on race statistics, which automatically presume race is a factor.

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?

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.

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

There's no 'reason-blind' movement that I'm aware of. Are you trying to start one?

Ha. No. And I do not doubt that racial-injustices occur. 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.

(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

Then define "prejudiced".

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

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:

You're the one not seeing things in an objective manner.

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

How about some real-life (no dragons or fairies) examples for once?

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

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.

My solution involves using logic. My solution involves recognizing our own biases and prejudices because we all have them, regardless of race, or economic background. It is only logical to recognize any biases you may have that aren't applicable to the decision you are making. In other words, it involves not making a category error - which is essentially what racism and sexism are. My solution involves ignoring race in situations where race isn't a logical factor. It is beholden upon all of us, not just the majority because there are members of the majority that aren't racist, to avoid making those category mistakes. Now, what percentage of the majority makes those category mistakes purposefully to say that it's systematic? Isn't that up to you to show?

It’s also a matter of justice. If justice should be color blind, and we are to be just, we too must be color blind.

That falls under the category error argument I made. The only time that I see race being a factor in making a decision would be in a medical or biological context.

:up: :hearts:

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

Your problem, as you put it in the previous post anyway, is looking at things only through the lens of race. I think that would be a problem also because you're essentially blinding yourself to other factors.

Race is not superficial or insignificant. Do you actually claim that it is?

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

Sorry, let me rephrase:
Police may be more prone to shooting black men and boys, compared to whites of the same, because of the perceived degree of threat that police officers have of black men and boys, 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.

Riiiiiiiiight ... Ok, Shrek. :up:

Race is not superficial or insignificant. Do you actually claim that it is?

I do believe it is superficial, but obviously it is significant to many.

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

That is a case of ongoing racial prejudice (on the part of the police), which can be solved by the police not discriminating between people on the basis of race, which is what those advocating for colorblindness want. I don't know specifically how to get police to stop racially discriminating, but somehow making the police do that (i.e. act colorblind) is the solution to that problem.

Alternatively or additionally, that is a case of class prejudice, the police treating poor people badly, plus blackness correlating with poverty, which is solved by having the police stop treating poor people badly (again, I don't know how to make them do that), regardless of race, which will have beneficial effects disproportionately for black people precisely because black people are disproportionately poor.

Additional fixes to the second case are to help more people get out of poverty, regardless of race, so that they aren't poor in the first place even if police are still discriminating against the poor. That again will have beneficial effects disproportionately for black people precisely because black people are disproportionately poor.

:point: :100:

....when the difference between people doesn't matter... — Harry Hindu

To whom?

And if you say my (s)kin doesn't matter, but I say it does, who decides?

Just saw this. :clap: :clap:

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

I don't think he said that. His accusation was inconsistency.

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

So i think it might be useful to separate two different kinds of "valuation" that we apply to others. The first kind is like respect and kindness; to be a valued human being means people think what happpens to you is important. Another kind is when someone values another person for economic reasons. Ability and disability can have a strong impact on the latter kind of judgment, but it should not have any impact on the former. Race, however, should neither have an impact on the former or the latter type of judgment.

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

Life worth living isn't necessarily related to ability, disability, merit, or value. Primarily it relates to happiness: I'm not suggesting that able bodied people have more valuable lives, I'm saying they by definition do not suffer from disability, where suffering has an impact on happiness.

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

I have no problem recognizing special needs that stem from disability or disease. But I do have a problem recognizing special needs that intrinsically stem from race. This is why I think the comparison between identity and disability is too fast and loose. Comparing race to ability is the exact opposite of what I'm trying to do with color-blindness.

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

We're on the same page here. I think affirmative action could work if it was earnestly attempted, and while we're at it i would have us focus directly on those individuals who are left behind, regardless of race.

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

The enduring problem i can get past is that trying to understand individuals as a function of their race or other identity leads to a lower-resolution understanding of any given individual (that is to say: to understand the individual, we must look most closely at the individual). When it comes to those who bear guilt, the same statistics based heuristic becomes rhetorically problematic.

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

I agree that absolute wealth inequality and poverty is obscene in seemingly every nation on the planet, and I would probably support a stronger stance than Bernie Sanders in trying to eliminate those gaps. But my point is that, essentially, who or what is at the top (wherever and whatever that top may be) matters much less than improving conditions for those at the bottom. A symbolic or physical devaluing of those at the top could make a difference for many reasons, but the poor cant eat symbols; they're means and not ends: the end goal is to improve lives, ideally starting with those who suffer the most.

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

(previous thread)

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

You're right. It's not just that. It's:

Your position is internally inconsistent.
But If it weren't, you (or the worldview you promote) exhibits the prejudice.

The Card Says "Moops".