Stop being so incurious and intellectually lazy and google what you've asked me. Or make do with what I've already written on this thread. Or do neither. I'm done feeding trolls here. — 180 Proof

Ad hominems.
When did it become incumbent upon those who disagree with you to research and defend your own arguments? You're the one that is lazy. I'm asking questions about what you've already written on this thread and you just keep repeating yourself or avoiding the questions. You simply can't be intellectually honest, and it's truly pathetic for someone of your caliber.

We can influence our negative biases by providing positive experiences that counteract them, simply. This can be done deliberately or unintentionally to ourselves and others. Of course, it can also occur by chance. For an example in popular culture, I saw a movie last night that appeared to be trying to counteract the negative image that the Trump administration is painting of South American immigrants. In the new Terminator movie [spoiler altert], it's an illegal border crossing Mexican woman who turns out to be the savior of humanity. If Trump made the movie, the hero would be a blond-haired white dude and all the killer robots would be Mexican. See how that works? — praxis

Yes, and if you go to another country their movies are even more xenocentric. In other words, the U.S. is more open-minded and less xenocentric than most other countries, yet you and your side are lambasting the U.S. You just provided evidence that supports my argument. See how that works?

Stop being so incurious and intellectually lazy and google what you've asked me. Or make do with what I've already written on this thread. Or do neither. I'm done feeding trolls here. — 180 Proof

As a matter of fact, I Googled the book you posted about, provided a link to a review of the book with excerpts, quoted an excerpt in a response to your post, and questioned you on it, and you simply can't respond to it. So, I have actually done what you requested and you still avoided it. I thought you were a better debater than this. It goes to show how politics, like religion, can be a detriment to a logical mind.

Yes, and if you go to another country their movies are even more xenocentric. In other words, the U.S. is more open-minded and less xenocentric than most other countries, yet you and your side are lambasting the U.S. You just provided evidence that supports my argument. See how that works? — Harry Hindu

Evidence that we try to influence each others biases supports your argument? Okay.

Without reading it, I don’t think you selected the most relevant portion of the book to respond to, in relation to the topic and the context that it was presented. Also, your response to the excerpt was rather simplistic. It’s easy to see why someone may not give it any attention.

The book review gives a detailed outline but I don’t know that it offers the gist of it.

:yawn: Just saying ...

Is it a "human thing" or a "white thing" to have prejudices and biases and should we have equal expectations of all humans, regardless of race, when it comes to restraining your biases and prejudices? — Harry Hindu

We probably ‘should’, but it’s far easier to work from assumptions based on hearsay and perpetuated ideologies. We’re only human, don’t be so harsh on everyone.

Some people will be obstinate about their positions, some flexible, and some seemingly groundless, but you can pretty much always guarantee that nearly all of us idiots think we’re more ‘centred’ than the idiot standing next to us.

One day we die. In the meantime we can choose to try an accept that other people have different ideas and used of terms and carefully tread around what they say, what they may mean, and what we may be thinking they mean that they don’t.

It doesn’t make a lot of sense to argue against someone else’s definition of ‘racism’ too harshly. Simply state your view and make clear it is okay to have some slight differences of opinion and then work toward a workable definition that covers the problems embedded within the disagreement of ‘meaning’.

OR get stuck amending a singular statement for several pages on a forum.

My own view is that the term ‘racism’ is more about cultural differences than skintone. Tribes go to war over numerous differences and the visual prompts just so happen to be easier to distinguish.

What concerns me more than anything is how to tell what has happened to a society where ‘racism’ isn’t a topic of any concern. If such a day comes would this mean we’ve risen above such silly prejudices (institutionalised or otherwise), buried the ‘racism’ from view, and/or shifted our prejudices (institutionalised or otherwise) to other areas: such as religion, height, age, language, etc.,.

Mentioning the cognitive bias doesn’t make you immune to it though. It’s a lazy slight used far too often on forums to shut people down.

Then again, a little kick up the arse can prove productive ... I’ve not been following every word of the discussion so maybe HH will respond better to a prod or choke than to a parley?

Good question by the OP. My answer is: we're back-pedalling on being "colour-blind" because "colour-blindness" has been co-opted by racists. White anti-racists like me (and, I presume, the OP) are subject to the historical currents of the ongoing civil rights movement. Being "woke" to them isn't a backwards step. The current state of affairs may be flawed, but it's essentially progressive. The criticism of "colour-blindness" isn't a criticism of an individual white anti-racist's way of approaching people of colour - it's a criticism of (white) racists who boast about their "colour-blindness" while continuing to blithely practise personal and institutional racism - and continuing to deny the pervasive historical structures of racism.

The major disconnect is between:

(1) People who think of racism as only an attitude; agent-agent racial prejudice based on sentiment.
(2) People who think of racism as an umbrella term which covers (1) and also includes system-agent racial discrimination which in the aggregate exposes demographics to adverse (growth impeding, opportunity constraining) conditions.

The only system allowed to be treated as a system in an internet reactionary conservative's worldview is the market. If they were more consistent with their thinking, they would propagate the insights they have about the causal structure of the market into all the other systems staring them in the face.

Ideologically, this thinking is promoted through too heavy an emphasis on individualism in social ontology; a focus on the individual as the causal locus of all analysis. Except the market, which is just "the free actions of individuals together"; rather than an emergent phenomenon that selectively constrains and enables individuals and demographics effected by it.

If you think "an emphasis on individualism in social ontology" is a contradiction in terms; you're probably not an internet reactionary. If you don't, and further if your worldview is informed by such a reduction, then you're probably baffled by how everyone else can be such an incoherent idiot.

The "incoherence" of systemic critique is only there because reactionaries haven't learned to ask the right questions yet (on the most charitable, "they're not trolls or crypto" interpretation anyway). And usually, they won't, especially not in public, because the system of justification built up around it is ultimately a performance of their identity; an opportunity to display strength, certainty, and to defend the borders of their mind as rightly there.

If any of you think fisking a book review for low hanging seeming contradictions to be used solely for calling someone an idiot on the internet is a good substitute for actually doing research on a topic, stop thinking of yourself as reasonable and logical and begin to wonder why you're perpetually failing to understand what the "other side" of the political spectrum is saying. Spoilers: it's not because they don't know wtf they're talking about, it's because you don't know wtf they're talking about.

Am I saying that all the results of systemic critique are right? And that you can't take conservative talking points from a reasoned perspective? No, we have a great example of a well informed person who disagrees with the results of common systemic critiques and knows how to research on this site - @VagabondSpectre.

So long as you continue to use terms like "white" "black" to describe humans, you continue to support the existence of racism as you sustain the categories of differentiation needed for racism to occur. — dazed

Does this also extend to other genetic expressions, such as eye and hair colour?

Describe their physical characteristics. — dazed

Pretty sure skin colour falls under physical characteristics.

If we taught our children that it was bad to use terms like "white" "black" "brown" etc, racism would eventually end. I have transformed my own conceptual world this way and it works! — dazed

As far as evidence goes, "it works for me" is pretty flimsy.

If you really want to end racism, abandon such archaic descriptors and embrace a more sophisticated and more accurate way of describing people. Describe their physical characteristics. Describe their religious alliances. Describe their cultural ties. Stop trying to combine all those distinct attributes into one all encompassing label such "white" or "black". — dazed

- @dazed

While I agree somewhat with the sentiment, when you said describe physical characteristics I immediately thought that skin colour is a physical characteristic and that people with Ginger hair still face discrimination.

I feel that physical description isn’t about describing the person it’s about describing the different ways being human physically presents itself.

Also, I’d say if we we are describing character traits we are still somewhat talking about physical descriptions. For example; I could say a person is courageous or I could say that they have a brain which allows them to be courageous.

Personally the only race I identify us all to be is human.

Good post, I think you captured an important distinction in a nutshell.

It's not the physical description that poses a problem but all besides that.

Hey! I'll take that.

I understand what you’re trying to say here but it’s unworkable. To ignore differences only works from a level playing field. ‘Race’ also goes beyond mere skin tone - genocides happen between/within groups of the same skin colour.

Anyway, there is surely more damage involved if those groups treated differently are without protection from the law. If the idea that people can be racist is inhibited then there can be no accusations of racism where racism exists. It’s better to see the scars and wounds of society in the open rather than let them fester and slough off sections of human culture simply by averting our gazes.

It is certainly a conundrum. It makes sense not to make too big a deal out of every apparent ‘racist’ comment, yet it also makes sense to not belittle every ‘racist’ comment. Simply ‘de-naming’ a social problem doesn’t make it disappear. We wouldn’t tell doctors to stop writing ‘cause of death starvation’ and then think starvation had ended.

Note: This is not to say some people won’t go too far. The unfounded accusations are a necessary trade off against a greater a more virulent catastrophe.

I came to the same conclusion myself - but it's difficult to practise. The scenario is that you're describing a person of colour to a third party, and you don't want to use "race"/skin colour descriptors. You've suggested describing physical characteristics. (Unlike other contributors, I'm happy to imply that you obviously meant characteristics other than skin colour.) The question arises: how important is it that the third party can recognise the described person. The UK police, out of necessity rather than racism, use numbered "race" categories. I'll continue to struggle with this one. I don't like to say, "black", but sometimes I have to. "African" isn't always appropriate. Same with "brown" and "South Asian". "Mixed race" sounds wrong to me. Is "mixed ethnicity" any better? I'm with the OP - lets do it!

One doesn’t need to stop using these particular adjectives to refute the concept of race because, though they are not completely accurate, they are so entrenched that they work. One just needs to refuse to supply any significance to them.

It's easy for you - you're colour-blind! ;-)

Any example of these “(white) racists who boast about their "colour-blindness" while continuing to blithely practise personal and institutional racism”? I’m trying to find one to determine if his abuse of color-blindness offers enough reason to abandon color-blindness altogether.

We can influence our negative biases by providing positive experiences that counteract them, simply. This can be done deliberately or unintentionally to ourselves and others. Of course, it can also occur by chance. For an example in popular culture, I saw a movie last night that appeared to be trying to counteract the negative image that the Trump administration is painting of South American immigrants. In the new Terminator movie [spoiler altert], it's an illegal border crossing Mexican woman who turns out to be the savior of humanity. If Trump made the movie, the hero would be a blond-haired white dude and all the killer robots would be Mexican. See how that works?
— praxis
Yes, and if you go to another country their movies are even more xenocentric. In other words, the U.S. is more open-minded and less xenocentric than most other countries, yet you and your side are lambasting the U.S. You just provided evidence that supports my argument. See how that works? — Harry Hindu

Evidence that we try to influence each others biases supports your argument? Okay. — praxis

No, evidence that the U.S. is already an equal-treatment country. Didn't I say that? Yes. I did.

Without reading it, I don’t think you selected the most relevant portion of the book to respond to, in relation to the topic and the context that it was presented. Also, your response to the excerpt was rather simplistic. It’s easy to see why someone may not give it any attention.

The book review gives a detailed outline but I don’t know that it offers the gist of it. — praxis

Just saying ... — 180 Proof

Because the rest of it was the same dribble we've been hearing, I've been responding to, and then you just ignore what I said, call me a troll, and repeat yourself. Those aren't valid arguments. If I was sooooo wrong, it should be simple to tell me why, and establish that you are not afflicted with the Dunning–Kruger effect yourselves. It would seem to me that engaging in ad hominems and ignoring my points, and then repeating yourselves is evidence that you, 180 and the others are the ones afflicted, not me.

Whats important about the distinction is that when people hear you use “colour blind” in the non-racist way you mean, they take you to mean “color blindness” in the sense a racist might use that word as a cover for racist sentiment. Thats what happens when people see racism in everything and everyone (everyone white anyway, which seems kinda racist, but welcome to the wacky world of diluted terms we find ourselves in.)

Good question by the OP. My answer is: we're back-pedalling on being "colour-blind" because "colour-blindness" has been co-opted by racists. White anti-racists like me (and, I presume, the OP) are subject to the historical currents of the ongoing civil rights movement. Being "woke" to them isn't a backwards step. The current state of affairs may be flawed, but it's essentially progressive. The criticism of "colour-blindness" isn't a criticism of an individual white anti-racist's way of approaching people of colour - it's a criticism of (white) racists who boast about their "colour-blindness" while continuing to blithely practise personal and institutional racism - and continuing to deny the pervasive historical structures of racism. — Chris Hughes

So why don't we get a rundown of everyone's race here and the mods? If it's so important that our race be in people's faces, then why aren't we doing it? Why aren't the mods demanding your race when registering and displaying it with our posts? If being color-blind is now what it means to be racist, then the owners of this forum are breaking their own rules to not be racist! It's the complete opposite of what MLK advocated.

I consider myself an anti-racist. I have pale skin, but I don't see what that has anything to do with it, as you said yourself, not all whites are racist, so who are the racists then, and what does your color of skin have to do with being racist or not?

One key strategy that internet reactionaries use to argue their points is presumption smuggling; controlling the conversation. In terms of colour blindness, it will be portrayed as an individual attitude; and of course individuals should not mistreat others based on perceptions of race. Questioning whether colour blindness itself is sufficient to tackle systemic racism is always off topic in this kind of discussion, for them, since it is not addressing the individualised notion of racism that the internet reactionary has in their head.

If you engage with them on their terms, the framing of the debate has already shifted to a terrain in which your worldview is necessarily incoherent; and they will continue to do this. They will not try to assimilate your worldview and meet you 'halfway' through charitable analysis of concepts and nuanced, contextualised debate (like they say they want). If you want to refute their arguments, you're already playing their game.

They will always assert their worldview as a necessary frame of interpretation; fundamental presumptions in it will not be challenged. They cannot be, by their own construction. It's like trying to refute an axiom within a system. The system is presented to argue against doubt of the axiom. Before this is portrayed as something everyone does all the time necessarily; consider that people participating in good faith will highlight their assumptions when called for, they will not repeatedly put them in the background as a framing device.

The left knows that it relies upon systemic critique methodologically, and thematises such as a concept. There are so many circular firing lines among our ranks precisely because we're all too attendant to conceptual structure and internal contradiction. We spend most of our time shouting at each other (like Marxists getting pissed off with Foucauldians and vice versa), the reactionary internet right spends most of its time shouting at us. Notice that, for all their alleged plurality of worldviews, they rarely shout at each other.

Once you have established that someone heavily relies upon bad faith as an argument strategy, you don't play that game with them any more.

What's the matter - don't have the balls to reply directly to anything I've said? You're just posting walls of text that doesn't address anything I've said. You're responding to ghosts.

It seems that in most cases, racism is always presumed before it can ever be proven. Lacking the evidence of someone’s overt racism, the anti-colorblind must then resort to making uncharitable assumptions about another’s mental states and thought processes to maintain his position,

Oops

I think its because people are not thinking clearly, they have been trained and indoctrinated to see racism where the is none. That certain words make a person racist, rather than what a person actually believes about race. (To varying degrees, some people think anything about race coming out of someones mouth is racist).
You’ve heard of Trump derangement syndrome? I think racism derangement syndrome is a thing too.
People lose their fucking minds about Trump and race.

Anyway, there's a very important reason to be clear on whether it's the system that's against you, or just a mass of personal sentiments. If the system is against you, your efforts would be best channelled outside the system, for instance organized crime.

Believing that the system is rigged will also make a capitalist blind to the power of the thing that really is 100% quintessentially colorblind: money.

Any example of these “(white) racists who boast about their "colour-blindness" while continuing to blithely practise personal and institutional racism”? — NOS4A2

No.