Libertarians are the only true liberals. — Harry Hindu
the concept of race has no basis in reality similar to the concept that the world is flat — dazed
it's not a matter of refusing to see race, as in fact there is nothing to see
I can see skin colours and differences in physical characteristics, but I can not see races, only faces
There's too many meanings, too many interpretations, too many 'translations' and 'dog whistles' or 'subverted or masked intensions' to make any sense of this. When somebody 'interprets' you meaning something else, it's a rabbit whole. And hence the race issue is so difficult. — ssu
The color of your skin doesn't matter in matters of health. (Perhaps white people get sun burn more often, I don't know.) Yet the division in medical records by sex is totally understandable as the physiology and some diseases are different between men and women. Similarly we treat children and adults differently in medicine too as they obviously are different.Would it be racist to have your race listed in your medical records? Medical records are mostly private - only accessible by your physician. — Harry Hindu
Let's think about this for a while as there are many issues here.It is a strange obsession, and I would go so far as to say this is the remnants and continuation of institutional and systematic racism. In universities they are teaching courses on “whiteness”, “white privilege”—what is this but the continuation of white supremacy in particular and racism in general, as a curriculum? — NOS4A2
And you can say also "tall guy", "blond guy", "fat" or "skinny", and people have a pretty good idea too. The issue is what just importance you give it, what you emphasize. Is it a definition that you use to describe a guy in a crowd, who someone is looking for and doesn't know. Or is it a term you use of a work mate that everybody knows. It's just like one doesn't refer to your peers or workmates by gender. As if gender would be the most important thing. People that bring up often the nationality and race of others quite often are the bigots.When I say “a black guy” or “a white guy” or a “chinese guy”, everyone has a pretty good idea of what I mean. That it. Everything else is just posturing, either to justify racism/bigotry or to witchhunt for it. — DingoJones
Hence it's understandable that if you say to a group then "You should forget this old stuff because it hasn't happened for a long time now" is like you are trying to depreciate something crucial to the identity. It simply doesn't go like that. That is something one should understand, yet one should be also draw the line where things go a bit too far.
There's an old saying: If you are in a debate with a German and you are totally losing the argument, then to win just use the Hitler card and say: "Well, Your people slaughtered the Jews!" And if the German brushes it off (as the matter would have nothing to do with the argument), then you can accuse him of brushing off the Holocaust as something unimportant! It's a great classic strawman and I promise that it typically works at Germans: they have start admitting how bad Hitler was. It has been going on for generations.Would that include people who constantly talk about white privilege? — DingoJones
Well, if people just note words like a simple computer algorithm totally separate from sentences that have a meaning, it's not quite useful to talk to those kind of people anyway.Just the words (including the frequency you mention) are not enough. What matters is what the person means, what the intent of those words are. — DingoJones
nice try, but go ahead and define for me how all the vast array of physical characteristics of humans can be neatly catergorized into things called races, such that each race has a unique set of characteristics that aren't shared by other "races" — dazed
The color of your skin doesn't matter in matters of health. (Perhaps white people get sun burn more often, I don't know.) Yet the division in medical records by sex is totally understandable as the physiology and some diseases are different between men and women. Similarly we treat children and adults differently in medicine too as they obviously are different. — ssu
Some diseases are more prevalent in some populations identified as races due to their common ancestry. Thus, people of African and Mediterranean descent are found to be more susceptible to sickle-cell disease while cystic fibrosis and hemochromatosis are more common among European populations. — Wikipedia
The two main dimensions of the race controversy can be discussed separately. First, the “ideological” concept of race informs popular discourse and shapes policy, with a parallel impact in public health. This version of race is defined by social and historical forces and is used to create and justify many of the divisions that exist among people of varying religious, ethnic, or geographic backgrounds. This concept assumes the existence of categories that have no scientific foundation—at least none based on molecular data. This concept has been challenged since Darwin (1981), yet it persists for ideological purposes (Cooper, 1984; Montagu, 1964; Root, 2001). Although everyone in public health needs to be reminded of the importance and illegitimacy of this notion, and those who have not yet heard the news need to be informed, there is little of substantive importance that is really new to add to this debate: We should begin by simply acknowledging that race in the world of politics, and all the nutritional, educational, and social influences it entrains, continues to be the determining influence on ethnic variation in health.
A second use of race has assumed new relevance. As a label for regional populations, race has a long history in population genetics, and in this arena, important opportunities exist to revisit old questions on interethnic variation in health. At stake is whether or not we can move beyond the indirect methods applied in epidemiology or the generalizations built on estimation of genetic distance that have preoccupied population geneticists and anthropologists (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza, 1996; Relethford, 1998). Specifically, it is now possible to ask a set of testable questions: Can the global variation in the human genome be aggregated into subunits, and do those units correspond to the categories we call race? Can we assess the relative magnitude of shared and nonshared genetic material among population groups? Is there variation in causal genetic polymorphisms that is associated with important differences in chronic disease risk? Is it possible to conceptualize the collective human genome as a whole, and express that concept in quantitative terms? — Richard S. Cooper
I'm not categorizing it "how I want". That is how Libertarianism is defined. In saying that the left needs to assert itself in this area, you are essentially saying that the left should become libertarians.You can categorise that whatever way you want. There are serious issues concerning freedom in both schools of thought, with the libertarian attempt to co-opt the concept particularly problematic. The left needs to assert itself in this area because it has a much more legitimate claim to be the ideology of freedom than either of the above. But I'm not going to follow that up here. I'm considering starting a separate discussion. If I do, you may feel free to come along and lose the argument there. :wink: — Baden
do you actually believe that there are different sets of humans that are different unique characteristics such that we can call one set a race? — dazed
do you actually believe the world is flat? — dazed
do you actually believe that people are in fact divided into races? — dazed
Even if it's a bit off topic, how about "robust national defence"?Notice how the Libertarians are the only ones with no authoritarian positions and all libertarian ones. — Harry Hindu
It seems to me that you are agreeing with, and want to adopt my position. What does it matter what we call ourselves, left, right, moderate, libertarian, authoritarian, etc. if our ideas are the same, or if we agree?You can categorise that whatever way you want. There are serious issues concerning freedom in both schools of thought, with the libertarian attempt to co-opt the concept particularly problematic.The left needs to assert itself in this area because it has a much more legitimate claim to be the ideology of freedom than either of the above. — Baden
I'm hoping Baden is working on the OP of his new thread. I will wait until that starts and add this to my responses.Even if it's a bit off topic, how about "robust national defence"?
That if anything is a collective endeavor and has nothing to do with individual liberty. Citizens having a pistol and a shotgun at home doesn't make at all a "robust national defence". — ssu
What does it matter what we call ourselves, left, right, moderate, libertarian, authoritarian, etc. if our ideas are the same, or if we agree? — Harry Hindu
I'm hoping Baden is working on the OP of his new thread. I will wait until that starts and add this to my responses. — Harry Hindu
I think you are actually saying there are physical characteristics of humans that differ that I can see. — dazed
actually most usage of race is not confined to physical characteristics, an easy example are comedians "white people do this" ha ha ha, black people do this "ha ha ha" — dazed
and you are clearly not able to set out a clear description of which sets of physical characteristics belong where as that's simply not possible, hence non-sensical. — dazed
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.