:up:

Following on from the above, this does not happen. There is no move to a lower understanding of an individual because the measurement of trend was never measurement of an individual in the first place. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You're right that statistical analysis is not a measurement of any one individual, so even when there are very clear trends that apply to a given "identity group", we would be mistaken to make any hard assumptions in applying them to individuals. This is one of the reasons I reject the intersectional framework; it's concerned with trends of suffering at the intersection of identity groups rather than the much more complex intersection that discrete identities and individuals actually inhabit.

Racial demographic statistical analysis can be a useful heuristic that points us toward systemic causal problems (such as racism and various forms of unjust discrimination), but we need to actually figure out how the system produces those results, else we're just begging the same question in an endless self-undermining cycle (self-undermining because it assumes causal origins without ever testing for them, which negates the need for research into other possible causes (causes that don't turn on race alone)).

Trends describe a social trend, not an individual. We cannot draw implications about an individual from a trend. The trend is it's own particular fact of society, concurrent to individuals who we might describe. (which is why, for example, the presence of a rich black individual doesn't take a away the trend poverty among black people as a group. Or conversely, why the destitute white person doesn't take away a trend of wealth in their group).

There are no generalisations to make. All are false because they amount to a catergory error, a confusion of one kind of description (trends in a population) for another (description of an individual), even in cases where an individual might have a trait identified in a trend.

I'm out of time again, the rest will have to wait for another day. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I've been busy myself (sorry for the late response).

So we seem to agree that statistical trends in outcomes are not an appropriate basis for discrimination of individuals. I think we would disagree, however, as to whether or not disparity in statistical trends between demographics warrants the appeal to systemic discrimination (to the degree that "color blindness" becomes problematic). A part of our disagreement may be in the way you equate statistical disparities with "systemic discrimination". I believe this is a hasty assumption because of the many other known and unknown factors that can contribute to individual and group outcomes.

"Sensitivity to starting conditions" is one of my larger sources of doubt. The eventual outcomes of complex systems can be very sensitive to initial or starting conditions, where small changes to the starting (or current) state of affairs can have extreme ramifications on the end (or future) results. For example, the economic legacy of slavery and jim crow determined that even in the supposedly post-racial seventies, the black demographic was still massively impoverished compared to the white middle class. And starting around the mid 1980's, the middle class began to shrink; any gains the black community, on average, had at that time, would have began to evaporate. So when we look at the raw statistics of today, how can we easily differentiate between outcomes determined by on-going individual or systemic racism/discrimination, and outcomes determined by the myriad of other forces?

Almost as if by irony, were we to focus on race and racism at the expense of focusing on such other systemic forces, our efforts to course correct will be futile. If we managed to legislate the burka (achieved full-blown color blindness), what is going to prevent the middle class from continuing to shrink, and the wealthy few from continuing to break away from the rest of us at greater and greater expense? I'm not trying to deny that racism exists (color blindness is good in my opinion as we attempt to ourselves be less racist), but I am loathe to define it as an inherent component of the system (as you yourself use the term,it would merely be synonymous with "statistical outcome disparities", as if merely to say, society isn't fair.)

Then there's the problematic human psychology of normatively focusing on race as anything other than cultural or genetic happenstance (being interested in one's heritage is not a faux pas in and of itself, and in that sense our racial identities are benign, but it's possible to go too far). When racial heritage becomes too important, we naturally start thinking xenophobically: "Since my well-being is attached to the well-being of my group (irrational), I had better favor members of my group, and disfavor members of other groups". Even if people don't believe they would act in a prejudiced way, they still have that capacity (how we think we will act, and why we think we acted the way we did, often differs drastically from the actual causes of our behavior). This phenomenon can happen with everything from sports clubs to zodiac signs.

I have no way to predict the future, but I'm pretty sure that by focusing on race - by telling people it is an important part of identity (a group defining identity) - we're just going to wind up stimulating an increase in racial bias in general (because race then becomes a more central part of our world-view schema), and in some cases people will just outright embrace racial conflict as some kind of inherent feature of human society (for example, the alt-right's rejection of "diversity" is 100% founded on a group vs group mentality).

Implicit bias is a rather controversial subject in social psychology (how we measure it and whether those measurements means anything), but there are a few practical approaches to reducing them. One is to simply be aware of how our psychology can be affected when we are in groups (how we seek to conform, to justify, etc...), where eventually individuals become better at recognizing the emotional and environmental cues that trigger biased behavior. My own interpretation of color blindness is that it is a self-motivated attempt to realize when the race of others causes us to discriminate in our interactions with them,and to correct that behavior. I stand by the merits of color-blindness initiatives...

I just happen to believe that using racism to correct racism defeats that purpose at the start. I also believe that using racism at the institutional level is dangerous. — NOS4A2

Definitions of racism typically include the idea of viewing one's race as superior. Slavery, assumes superiority. Apartheid, assumes superiority. Affirmative action and similar policies do no such thing. They are RACIAL (as in related to race) government policies, they are not RACIST. I get that you still may not like them, but it would save you a lot of debate to phrase things more appropriately.

I am interested what you think about how racism could be addressed without racial policies?

I’m not big on consensus and uniformity. — NOS4A2

With the ‘huge’ exception of being fully onboard with the Trump cult.

I think the original post is an alt-right troll bomb. Good discussion, though.

Re "NOS4A2", nosferatu is a word used in Bram Stoker's Dracula for the blood-sucking undead humans better known as vampires. It's also the title of a 1922 German film (which didn't have the right to use the names "vampire" or "Dracula"). The film"s scary Dracula character, Count Orlok, played by Max Shrecke, is the OP"s image. The origin of the word "nosferatu" is uncertain. Suggested original meanings include "the undead", "plague carrier", "the insufferable one" , and "we are all wild animals". Nice.

Once again without mentioning your name, Hindu, you don't keep anyone guessing and self-identify. That's mighty "colorblind" of you. :ok: "I bet you think this song is about you ..." — 180 Proof

In other words: Don't feed trolls! Right on. — 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. — Harry Hindu

But you keep feeding me the same bullshit leftovers, 180. You sound like a broken record.

Prior to this, you wrote: "the U.S. is more open-minded and less xenocentric than most other countries." Assuming this claim is true, it's still not evidence that the USA is an "equal-treatment country." — praxis

That's fine. It's evidence that the U.S. isn't as xenophobic as you think. Letting in millions of legal immigrants each year is evidence of that as well. For evidence of equal-treatment, just look at the laws we have. I keep asking you and 180 to provide the names of the entities or laws in the U.S. that are racist yet you can't even do that. You and 180 can't provide any evidence for your claims. You're talking about boogey-men that don't exist, so your whole argument is based off of an imaginary entity - kind of like religion, and you even make the same type of logical errors that the religious do when making their case for their boogey-man that tortures people with fire that don't believe in it.

So if there is no explicitly racist law in place then no systemic racism can possibly exist? That's your claim, right?

So if there is no explicitly racist law in place then no systemic racism can possibly exist? That's your claim, right? — Baden

Isn't that what it means to be systematic? Which system are we talking about?

Can you just answer the question? Feel free to use a dictionary if you need to.

:rofl:

Can I play too? Or is this game just for Harry?

If there's a claim of systemic bigotry, I need more than a picture of suffering minorities. It would help if I knew what's meant by "systemic."

I'll post my own definition afterwards, but I don't want to be accused of prejudicing any replies. I want Harry to look it up himself from a neutral source and figure out if that's what he's saying.

Ok. Are you advising him to look up "systemic racism"?

He's gone quiet...

Yes.

I neant H Hndu...

Definitions of racism typically include the idea of viewing one's race as superior. Slavery, assumes superiority. Apartheid, assumes superiority. Affirmative action and similar policies do no such thing. They are RACIAL (as in related to race) government policies, they are not RACIST. I get that you still may not like them, but it would save you a lot of debate to phrase things more appropriately.

I am interested what you think about how racism could be addressed without racial policies?

Definitions of racism are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term. It’s easy to appeal to the dictionary, but I would suggest those definitions are incomplete. Those definitions flower from on belief: Race-ism (the belief in race), racialism, and the pseudoscience it was founded upon.

The first thing we should do is stop being racist, to stop using these outdated and tyrannical categories in our policies, for our statistics, for our stereotypes and judgements.

The first thing we should do is stop being racist, to stop using these outdated and tyrannical categories in our policies, for our statistics, for our stereotypes and judgements. — NOS4A2

"The median wealth of black families in America is a lot less than the median wealth of white families in America"

Is this racist because it highlights a racial disparity?

Did he whost smelt it dealt it?

Say there's a school in a poor area. The local council spends some of its funding to put in a school lunch scheme. So the poorest can eat at least one hot meal a day guaranteed. This is thereby prejudiced towards kids. This 'prejudice' moves the area a little bit closer towards equality of opportunity - not worrying about constant hunger for kids.

Say there's a large housing estate in a city with lax standards on house safety, and the landlords don't take care of the property; using cheap lead paint, asbestos and shit. Say these areas are impoverished, so the poorer people move in, poverty is strongly correlated with (socially constructed) race in the US. Now you got a whole load of minorities with lead poisoning and other health issues, which fucks up your brain development. Say you're a concerned government and offer legal aid to the effected to sue for damages, and this works - this is a 'racial prejudice' generated to partially address huge social costs rooted in equality of opportunity differences.

Say you're MLK and you want your people to get the vote, this means that the government has to change your constitution just for "you and your people", and no group of people deserves special treatment just because of who they are. This is racist because it's a minority group 'amplifying their voice' through political action.

Say you're the suffragettes, you're protesting for social recognition and equal opportunities for women...

It is not racist to get the government to treat all people equally under the law, to live up to its founding principles and apply them to all citizens. This is what MLK did and did best.

We do not need to evoke race to solve those problems. That’s one the problems to begin with: race is assumed before actual causes are even addressed.

If you wanna resist that stuff and free your mind from it, go left.

Neo-Nazis are color conscious, identity politicians. Like the hard left, they seek to address their grievances on racial grounds. I treat all of that piffle with contempt, and for the same reasons.

The median wealth of black families in America is a lot less than the median wealth of white families in America"

Is this racist because it highlights a racial disparity?

Did he whost smelt it dealt it?

I would argue it is racist because it categorizes disparate and unconnected human beings into categories of race. This is evidence of a type of thinking that precedes all racial injustice.

I would it is racist because it categorizes disparate and unconnected human beings into categories of race. — NOS4A2

But the reality (historical effects of policies, different treatment, entangling of poverty and race) that creates that racial disparity is racist too?

Yes, the racial policies of the past has led to racial disparity. All the more reason to stop racist policies.

For those of you who struggle with this: there are laws and policies.

Law: the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

Policy: a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual.

Even if people have equal treatment under the law, it is still possible (and it happens) that policies disproportionately effect people along demographic lines. Moreover, a policy like "allocate funding for poor child education in Glasgow to try and stop knife crime" targets a specific demographic (poor children and families in Glasgow). If a policy targeting one demographic is necessarily prejudicial against other demographics simply because it targets one demographic... then I don't know what to tell you? Targeted policies are impossible? Policies are impossible? There's no such thing as politics? Political action to highlight concerns shared by a demographic or community is necessarily prejudicial (and hint: should not happen)?

This is just nuts.

Yes, the racial policies of the past has led to racial disparity. — NOS4A2

Good. Now what do you think is keeping the disparities in play?

Good. Now what do you think is keeping the disparities in play?

Mostly the way you frame them. If you view it through the lens of race, racial disparities necessarily arise. Of course it isn’t true that all members of all races are encapsulated into these disparities.

Mostly the way you frame them. If you view it through the lens of race, racial disparities necessarily arise. Of course it isn’t true that all members of all races are encapsulated into these disparities. — NOS4A2

...

Black people are poorer in America because some guy who lives in Norway highlights racial disparities in America?

What even is this.

You can't tackle a problem with targeted policies without recognising it for what it is, and how it works. Maybe you know this. Maybe this is the entire point of you writing like this. "Things are good for everyone, I am good".

Black people are poorer in America because some guy who lives in Norway highlights racial disparities in America?

What even is this.

You can't tackle a problem with targeted policies without recognising it for what it is, and how it works. Maybe you know this. Maybe this is the entire point of you writing like this. "Things are good for everyone, I am good".

If you search for disparities between tall and short, fat and thin, you’ll find them. The point is you’re not tackling a problem at all, but projecting groups and taxonomies onto vast swaths of disparate individuals.

It's evidence that the U.S. isn't as xenophobic as you think. — Harry Hindu

I don't think the U.S. is particularly xenophobic. I think the current administration has heavily politized immigration issues to garner support from a minority demographic that may tend to be more xenophobic.

For evidence of equal-treatment, just look at the laws we have... You can't provide any evidence for your claims. — Harry Hindu

I've shown statistics that may indicate systemic discrimination, which you dismissed out of hand. It looks as though only explicitly racist laws or policies would satisfy you, so I think it would be a waste of time to try providing any other sort of evidence.

The New Jim Crow is an important book that I think every American should read. As someone interested in philosophy, I'd think you'd be interested in a strong argument that is counter to your apparent beliefs.

If you search for disparities between tall and short, fat and thin, you’ll find them. The point is you’re not tackling a problem at all, but projecting groups and taxonomies onto vast swaths of disparate individuals. — NOS4A2

The essential problem centers around acquiring and maintaining power or advantage. People don't discriminate against those with superficial differences for no reason. In order to correct the unfair practices, you need to address whatever established taxonomy has been used. Naturally, it will be an uphill battle because people generally hate giving up an advantage.