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
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 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
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
But you keep feeding me the same bullshit leftovers, 180. You sound like a broken record.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
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.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
Isn't that what it means to be systematic? Which system are we talking about?So if there is no explicitly racist law in place then no systemic racism can possibly exist? That's your claim, right? — Baden
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?
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
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...
If you wanna resist that stuff and free your mind from it, go left.
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?
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?
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".
It's evidence that the U.S. isn't as xenophobic as you think. — Harry Hindu
For evidence of equal-treatment, just look at the laws we have... You can't provide any evidence for your claims. — Harry Hindu
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
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.