Descartes later-meditations, after the Evil Genius hypothesis, in those he does reach the idea that God is good and would not deceive him or us. However, I believe the central thesis to this is the Evil Genius. He provides no real argument for a good God, in my opinion. The Evil Genius is the real point here, that we cannot trust our senses.

I cannot own the presumptions on my list, because the sense data we receive from the external world can be highly doubted. The Cartesian stuff is not a sideshow, but a necessary doubt in philosophy. I cannot call these deficits, if they're true ideas of philosophy.

I understand that position. But how does that relate to observations about race? How could anybody say anything about race if you don't believe your own eyes' and ears'
reports of what is going on around you?

However, even though this data may be meaningless, it can, nonetheless, be used to illustrate a point.

What is the data again?

Using our 'sense organs,' we gather 'sense data' from the "perceived" external world.

You are a bot.

I am a human. "I think, therefore, I am!"

You abandoned your original argument.

It doesn't seem like that to me. Nonetheless, I appreciate your comments.

You can't argue that race issues are a collection of opinions as you have done while also wondering if we can perceive what is real or not.

This same line applies here: However, even though this data may be meaningless, it can, nonetheless, be used to illustrate a point.

What is "here"? What is a "point"?

"Here" is your post.
"Point" is the discussion.

But we were talking about what you said first. You were wondering about how the language about race became a thing.
Do you renounce that part or want to argue for something from that point of view?

The language about race can be considered "sense data" from the external world. The premise or premises do not imply any belief about the external world, until we reach the final conclusion. It's all one point of view, no matter how real the external world may seem!

We should certainly stop being racist for the wrong reasons. — Bitter Crank

Many are racist for the wrong reasons, because they’re ignorant. The right reason is that it offers an advantage or privileged position, simply. Holding that position requires subduing our moral sense of fairness, caring, liberty, and others.

Ignorant people can’t believe that they’re morally deficient so their cognitive dissonance is resolved in believing that the object of their subjugation is inherently bad or evil, and their prejudice deepens and becomes malignantly maladaptive to themselves as well as others.

So I suppose that only a sociopath can be racist for the right reason.

... illustrate a point. — telex

What the point? (if not to troll)

The point here is about the solipsism-ist argument from the OP.

And the point is?

It's all in the OP. It delves from Cartesian doubt about the external world, to Hume-ean skepticism, and finally arriving at a solipsism-ist position. Quoting just one line does no justice to the entire OP.

If you subscribe to the notion that the self is all that can be known to exist, that does not mean that in fact nothing else exists. Beyond the certainty of the existence of the self, we possess reasonable beliefs of various degrees of certainty regarding the existence of other things. We need these beliefs to reasonable make the most of our existence.

Obviously we judge people by the way they look. It is probably a throwback in our genes to the days when our ancestors lived in small groups and had to be wary of other groups. For whatever my past experiences are, I have become wary of people who hold certain expressions on their face. I still will reserve judgment until they actually engage in behavior, but my guard goes up and down by the way a person carries themselves. It is obvious that I would engage in seriously fundamental and possibly dangerous error if I judge someone by the color of their skin, eyes or hair.

If you look up "race" in Wikipedia the article indicates that the genetic differences between races are less than variations within a so-called race. I have also noticed this in my everyday life, and to a certain extent, I tend to believe that we are all, on average, equally different and similar members of the one race (human race). The power of the human is not in how they look, it is how they think. I like this forum because it illustrates people's thoughts. I have no idea what race any one here would be ascribed. I can only tell whether you wrote something smart or not.

We should despise racism because it is intellectually wrong and faulty.

That is true. Something external must exist. Somewhere there is a real world. However, this world could only be an illusion. The other problem is, if we do wake up in another world, we may never know if it's the real world or not. No matter what world we travel too, we may never know if it's the real world or simply another illusion.

While we may "believe" that we hold reasonable beliefs about the external world, our senses can always deceive us. Of course, we may draw examples from "that" "perceived" external world, to fuel our thoughts for thinking.

The truest form of thoughts would or may reside in idealism. What is ultimately true. Our moral beliefs may also be grounded in idealism, if we can think of "abstract" examples to which we can express our moral thoughts on.

(thank you for your comment, whether or not you think I wrote something smart or not)

You claimed that there’s a point but are apparently unable to find one.