Addendum to

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/17/black-native-americans-fentanyl-deaths-rise-opioid-crisis

To judge someone just on color,race,ethnicity or even just because they are identified as a certain religion is racist and in the last case just bigoted. — Zenny

So, a positive judgement based on color, race, ethnicity, or religion would be bigoted to?

I won’t really be participating myself: — I like sushi

Why the hell not?

I would say anyone stating that oppressed minorities cannot be racist are deluded. — I like sushi

I agree.

It seems like "delusional" is our default state. There are convenient delusions, necessary delusions, harmful delusions, and so on. We can achieve rational thinking, but we have to work very hard to do it successfully. Of course, we may be deluded about how rational our thinking is.

So, a positive judgement based on color, race, ethnicity, or religion would be bigoted to?

Most of the judgements are not positives. That is the problem I guess. Whenever we see general stereotypes of some ethnic groups, it tends to show off the most striking characteristics such as race, colour, accent, economic status, etc...
I think old cartoons are a good example in this issue. I remember they were full of negative prejudices but we did not notice because were blind by our childhood and lack of malice

Right. People generally don't shower marginalized groups with positive traits. Generally the opposite. But marginalized groups can shower positive traits on themselves, justified or not. (Or, marginalized groups can buy into their own negative reputations.). Marginalization, however a group of people arrived, is itself a cause of negative attributions. Highly privileged groups may have many negative traits, but privilege alone results in these negatives being overlooked.

We live in a world where there are many layers of RELATIVE marginalization and privilege. This further complicates things. Where one stands in the hierarchy can be difficult to figure out, and people generally don't like this kind of ambiguity. One way to lessen the ambiguity is by arbitrarily imposing prejudicial evaluations on others.

It's a can of worms.

Why the hell not? — Bitter Crank

Because I simply wanted to show people what others thought.

I did respond a little. This, and many other forums, lack mature discussions on sensitive topics. It usually just ends up as a shit flinging contest with no one listening.

I think it just boils down to people not being able to respond with nuance in real time whilst sharing the same space with each other and looking each other in the eye. I don't think there is much hope for reasonable discussions on sensitive topics (the most important topics) when both parties are physically distanced from each other.

I'm starting to question whether we should even bother? Has my posting of this thread made things better or worse in terms of understanding each the different views people hold ... I would say for most it is could well be more harmful.

If people cannot use a sympathetic ear to either correct or question views/statements made by others then I don't see the point.

I think it just boils down to people not being able to respond with nuance in real time whilst sharing the same space with each other and looking each other in the eye. I don't think there is much hope for reasonable discussions on sensitive topics (the most important topics) when both parties are physically distanced from each other. — I like sushi

Stephen Marche (The Next Civil War: Dispatches from the American Future) said that "'the reduction of empathic distress' the basic inhumanity that the facelessness of the internet permits" is a major piece of the problem.

On any Internet forum, unless very tightly governed, some people will be disinhibited and will go for the slasher style of interaction.

I'm starting to question whether we should even bother? — I like sushi

Yes, you should continue to bother. The effect you are looking/hoping for isn't going to come as a thunderclap. Positive effects will be subtle and gradual. And besides, in actual face-to-face encounters, people usually feel more "empathic distress" than they do on the internet.

"'the reduction of empathic distress' the basic inhumanity that the facelessness of the internet permits" is a major piece of the problem. — Bitter Crank

Good quote. I am completely agree. Internet created a "free" status of awareness where it looks like it doesn't seem to have negative impact when you hurt someone. Clever politicians and press media use this to spread disinformation.
I don't want sound that negative with internet, because I am literally using it right now (well at least here we have some admins who take care the rules are respected) but it is a dangerous place. The kids should stay away.

There is no room for 'offensive' speech on the internet. That means there is no room for free speech on the internet.

There are 'rules' in place everywhere (even university forums) that require something they call 'online etiquette'. This is then used to smear people. It has always been like this in day to day life but now there is no face-to-face interaction where it is needed most.

My current position is that it is probably not only not worth the effort to try in this area most of the time, but also detrimental in the long term. The real discussions need to be held in the space breathing the same air. Anything short of that is going to embolden the antagonists until society as a whole adapts to internet interactions (by which time it will likely have already become obsolete and replaced by something better or worse).

Internet created a "free" status of awareness where it looks like it doesn't seem to have negative impact when you hurt someone. — javi2541997

This and then some. There is a culture of 'knight in shining armour' too. Those who come running to rescue of anyone who cries loud enough. It is a pitiful display. Kids being exposed to the stupidity may actually learn from it (something Alan Moore commented on in a lecture he gave years ago).

Kids can adapt and change. They are smarter than adults in terms of plasticity. Adults are now fairly spread across the generational strata of those who grew up without the internet and those who cannot remember a world without it. I sit pretty much at the crossroads being around 16 yrs old when the internet really picked up pace and everyone suddenly had a mobile phone in their hand.

I imagine in the future people won't say 'goodbye' they will say 'like and subscribe' :D

From a technological perspective I see the internet becoming filtered on nodes by various versions of cultural semantic enforcement artificial intelligence.

These would have nothing in common with the A.I. in science fiction.

Given a generalized baseline neural network algorithm and a set of guidelines the bots will "lint" posts not allowing submission until they meet minimum standards imposed by a site/forum/service. Linting is very common in software development making sure that code being written meets standards imposed. The common forms of linting include semantics, spelling, formatting and logical complexity. More advanced linters are also capable of spotting inefficient logic and security vulnerabilities.

When combined with NLP (called NLU for Natural Language Understanding) linters are capable of spotting logical fallacy and there are several groups working on semantics to prevent misinformation right now. There is a branch of NLU known as sentiment analysis which can predict (with high certainty) the sentiment being expressed by a complex paragraph and is capable of "rendering" a complex multi-paragraph contextual narrative.

Given these advancements, humans can be aided (nobody would call it prevention) in expressing their ideas and opinions by preventing ... mistakes ... in the expression of factual references and automatically be linked to bibliographies, qrticles, public databases, etc...

Of course... god help us all if governments mandate this stuff before society can adopt an open standard.

Good question OP!

Speaking for myself, I'd say there is (should be) no difference between the two because if there is then it gives people the (wrong) idea, the erroneous belief that racism is not a prejudice i.e. it's justified. :worry: