It’s an encyclopedia. I never cherry-picked any definition and in fact included all of it. The rest necessarily precede from the first. The definitions you guys propose completely exclude the first two “qualifiers”, cherry picking the last. — NOS4A2
Racism elicits hatred and distrust and precludes any attempt to understand its victims. — Brittanica
Yes, its genetics. Genetics that we differentiate using the word “race”. What else would you call it? You are not going to call both people “genetics”. Right?
Whats wring about racism is the discrimination part, the treating of people as lesser part, the one type of person is superior to another type of person part. Take those away, what is the problem with racism as you define it?
No doubt, many still see them as important, to the point that people get angry when they’re questioned. Many anthropologists and geneticists refuse to use them. How would you deal with them? — NOS4A2
Ok, well there are physical traits common to people of those groups. More than just skin colour. People categorise these traits as “race”, and when they do so they aren’t implying a difference of species, or anything about anyone being inferior. They are just noticing actual differences, then applying a category for ease of reference. Whats the problem with that, other than a hateful person twisting it to suit their twisted views? They are going to do that anyway, why should we deny reality and pretend? That just doesnt seem like a useful way of doing it.
You have yet to tell why you find it more useful.
By revising what’s behind (the meaning and implicit associations) the demarcations to better match reality. Simply not using them doesn’t do that.
The difference in skin colour is an actual difference, isnt it? There are more differences than just that, but start there.
Is that an actual difference?
I’m merely arguing that abandoning the false and superstitious ideology of race gives one no grounds to be racist. — NOS4A2
Its genetics, remember? There is an actual, genetic difference behind that skin colour.
Anyway, you are being pretty evasive here and I understand your position to my satisfaction (and disagree obviously) so...thanks I guess.
By revising what’s behind (the meaning and implicit associations) the demarcations to better match reality. Simply not using them doesn’t do that.
— praxis
Sure it does. We abandon old concepts for new ones all the time, as anthropologists and geneticists abandoned race in favor of better ones, — NOS4A2
Anyway, you are being pretty evasive here and I understand your position to my satisfaction (and disagree obviously) so...thanks I guess. — DingoJones
I’m merely arguing that abandoning the false and superstitious ideology of race gives one no grounds to be racist. — NOS4A2
Okay, Harry. Prove you're not a cunt
— 180 Proof
:meh:
I can point you to a history book - THE COLOR OF LAW (2017) - that will show that we do not have, and have not had equality of opportunity. We need not go back as far as the 18th and 19th centuries and slavery. Let's go back to the 1930s.
— Bitter Crank
But this is 2019. — Harry Hindu
Trolls don't oppose opinion, they distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory messages with the intent of normalizing tangential discussion. — Chris Hughes
↪praxis
So... why did you lie?
I didn’t, though if I knew someone was going to cherry-pick one statement from the thousands of previous statements in order to call me a liar, I might have chosen my words more carefully. — NOS4A2
I thought I was using the phrase the same way everyone else was - recognizing the race of an individual for a particular reason. Per , The FHA "noticed color" for the purpose of segregating "blacks" and "whites". That is what I was referring to. Does the FHA still "notice color" for the purpose of segregating whites and blacks today? I didn't get an answer - just more ad hominems.If noticing color in the past led to racist systems and institutions...
— Harry Hindu
To make sense of what follows this I think you should probably explain exactly what “noticing color” means in this sentence. — praxis
Systematic racism existed in the past. It doesn't now — Harry Hindu
My position hasn't changed and Bitter Crank's post doesn't change it. It supports what I've been saying. — Harry Hindu
I can point you to a history book - THE COLOR OF LAW (2017) - that will show that we do not have, and have not had equality of opportunity. We need not go back as far as the 18th and 19th centuries and slavery. Let's go back to the 1930s. — Bitter Crank
After 40 years of official segregation, and 70 years of de facto segregation, suburban whites were much better off financially than they were immediately after WWII, and urban blacks were as bad off, or worse off, than they were in 1946. — Bitter Crank
When I use ‘race’ in cultural terms I make sure it is clear enough in the context. In scientific terms there are no human races, yet there are some extremely subtle differences within the gene pool. It should be noted that there are larger differences within any give group of people than there are between groups.
The problem that does persist, as I pointed out several pages back, is the ill-informed opinion that conflates ‘race’ (scientific definition) with ‘race’ (cultural definition). We are not going to eradicate the term ‘race’ from the English vocabulary and given the growth of our understanding over time - when we were mistaken into thinking that relatively small differences in appearances are key to determining scientific demarcations - we’ve naturally dragged along outdated, and misused, terminology into today’s world. — I like sushi
All you have to do is state clearly how you are using the term as honestly as possible and bring understanding to the discussion that some people are going to get twitchy about the subject matter given the historical implications, different national attitudes, and/or there scientific inclinations.
I don’t think it helps matters when people insist their definition is the true definition. In those situations the best thing to do is to express your understanding of their term and then state as clearly as possible what your take is and ask how they would articulate your definition as best they can. — I like sushi
Agreement is useless without a willingness to simply accept someone else’s perspective. — I like sushi
Then the FHA is still racist? Did Obama know this when he was president? Did he know that Chicago is one of the worse places for African-Americans? Does Maxine Waters know this, because if she did, you know she'd be looking for a microphone and camera and calling them out.Let's look at the post in question, and see if it supports the idea that there's no systemic injustice now.
The presence of these disparities and the mechanisms that keep them in place? That's systemic injustice; a systemic racism. — fdrake
All you have to do is use your eyes and you can see that blacks are not worse off now than they were in 1964.Present tense, worse off now. — fdrake
That's the problem - being color-aware for political purposes rather than for biological/medical purposes. When race becomes a part of a political discussion rather staying in the domain of biology/medicine, then racism raises its ugly head. We should be color-blind for the purpose of pushing a political agenda and only color-aware for the purpose determining which diseases you might be more susceptible to.I admire your call for moderation, but some perspectives are better than others. Particularly when discussing issues that have political implications. — Baden
It's not really that simple. When it comes to politically loaded terms, definitions can have important consequences. If you dilute the definition of racism too much, it helps those with ulterior political motives to forge false equivalencies between very disparate groups—for example, those proposing affirmative action and white supremacists. That's really what's at issue here. Attempts to gerrymander a definition in support of a political point. And I suspect the point that's being pushed for under the guise of a very liberal-sounding anti-racism is that a lack of colour-blindness as advocated for in the OP can be considered a form of racism.
But regardless of whether that's the intention or not, no sensible debate can be conducted until an agreement is reached on the meaning of the terms under debate. And the arbiter of such meanings has to be some kind of mutually recognized authority interpreted correctly. — Baden
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.