7
OK - but it doesn't mean importance either. The meaning of Shakespeare’s writing is in his mind. Mind/consciousness produces meaning. There's no agreement on how this happens. — Chris Hughes

The meaning is in the words. If they were not, we wouldnt be able to understand without Shakespeare (or his mind at least) present. Meaning ultimately comes from minds, but through words as well. A mind is the detection apparatus used, but the medium contains the meaning the mimd is detecting.

Well, maybe. I dont see how though. If you can tell by someones race whether or not they are suffering from a genetic disorder or not, how isnt that useful? Should we take it iff the table just because racist might skew it to support their ideology? I do not like ceding anything to racists.

Well its not...not always. Sometimes race can be a much stronger/reliable basis, such is the case with Osteoporosis or certain genetic diseases.

Well it can also just be useful categorisation, like Harry mentioned with medical purposes. The problem isnt the categories, its using those categories to justify different rights for “inferior” races. Right?

Its still what racism is founded upon. Thats why these sorts of discussions are so contentious, because racists can co-opt terms and positions, even facts, and work it into their racist ideaology.

For your fire and water example, it would depend on what other knowledge the person can draw upon to inform their reason. It doesnt have to be empirical evidence about water or fire in order for someone to use reason to figure out what the water or fire is.

One cannot be born with privilege anymore than one can be born with a trophy in his hand. Privilege is always granted, and it needs to be granted from living beings to other living beings. As a corollary, in order to acquire privilege one must first accept it from those handing it out. So yes, the term is silly at best, dehumanizing and racist at worst. — NOS4A2

Some people are born with advantages, isnt that some kind of “privilege”?

Right, individuality. The trump card over pretty much any other metric.

When did I say anything about IQ and race?

Ok, could you expand on that more? Im a fan of brevity but thats too brief, Im not clear on your stance here.
Like I asked, is it the experiences of racism that your worried about forgetting/ignoring?
And if its too literal to take you as saying you can make judgements about character based on skin colour/race, what exactly do you mean? You look at a person, identify their race by their skin colour and that indicates...what exactly? Youre saying nothing about their character directly but what their character is based on...history of racism or slavery?
Is it specific to the race?

Maybe the wrong word, the colour of someones skin dictates the character of that person...in part, you said in part. Which part? For example lets use black Americans. What can we tell from their skin colour about their character? Is it their experience on the receiving end of racism that you mean? That all or most blacks carry that burden and you din’t want that to be forgotten or ignored?
What about white people? What can you tell me about a white persons character, based on the fact they are White?
And as a follow up if you are so inclined, would you say that race or nationality is the bigger factor?
For example, if I present to you a frenchman and a black guy, whose character do you have a more clear picture of?

..and yet the colour of this skin is part of the content of their character. — Banno

So...the colour of someones skin comes along with certain immutable character traits? So MLK had it wrong?
Thats amazing to me, that anyone claiming to not be racist would be so focused on the colour of someones skin.
I guess it all depends on how one defines racism. How do you define it sir?

Ok.

Ok

Well skin colour is a genetic difference so Im not sure what you are getting at.

Depends on what you mean by superficial. Its not just cosmetic or trivial differences, there are actual important differences that concern medical health and physicality.
If by superficial you mean superficial to a particular persons value as a human being or something like that then yes, sure, I agree. This is so obvious that I wouldnt think it needs mentioning at all so Im not going to disclaimer myself anytime I talk about race with caveats like “but no one should be treated as a lesser human being or enslaved because of race”. Its tedious and unnecessary. (Except to appease certain peoples racial sensitivities, which Im also generally not interested in.)

Yes it is, but obviously the way you think about the word “race” precludes any such distinction. I don’t think of race that way. There are obvious physical differences between humans from different areas of the world, when these physical differences are passed on to offspring they are being passed along by genes. Thats genetics, though maybe not in the same sense you mean.
Anyway, I don’t have much more to add that I didnt say already, so address any of that or do not at your discretion.

Ok, thanks just curious.

Im still curious as to whether or not you were talking about me with the comment about defensiveness, could you answer that please? (If you do not, I will assume im on your unofficial ignore list and cease bothering you with directed comments)

Indeed, race is one of those trigger issues. I knew that when I posted about it, so being called a racist doesnt really bother me much. (Plus, its laughably untrue).

Edit: yes I understand you weren’t implying that, now. I started with that just to make sure. All good sir.

Right, so in what way would that exclude the sunburn resistance? I guess its the implication that Im mentioning that difference between white people and black people because of my racist ideology? (Therefore touching upon the “loose morality” part of normative).

Well, Im not sure what I said to indicate I thought the differences were “large”. Terra thinks they do not exist at all and thats what I was taking issue with. I didnt realise that racism was such a wide net term. I mean, Im aware of the taboo of the topic but the charge of racism came faster than I would have expected. Especially in an environment thats supposed to be about open discussion. My mistake I guess, I remember that Sushi guy posting a topic about some kinda Sophie’s Choice thing where you had to choose between killing 1 million people or everyone when I first joined the forum. Just an attempt at answering his question resulted in charges of sociopathy and such.
Anyway, I don’t disagree with anything in your post that I can see. Culture or even just individual preference seem to count for a lot more than racial tendencies. I think that having a passion for something is the biggest factor in success at it by quite a bit, I just dont see the merit in denying the racial factors...even if racists might glom onto those differences for their racist ideologies. They are gonna do that anyway, even if they have to make it up rather than reference actual facts.

“They”? Whom do you mean?

I think I misunderstood what you meant by normative, I didnt take that to exclude something like resisting sunburn.
Could you tell me what exactly you mean by normative?

Its a strange definition to me. I generally think of racism as involving hate, or general feeling of superiority of one race over another (as opposed to some, specific trait of each race).
Like, the differences in melanin results in black people being better at resisting the effects of sunburn than say, white people.
Thats a fact. So its racist against white people to say that I guess, by your view?

Ok, I would suggest more than a brief perusal because you are wrong. Look up the statistics for osteoporosis among black women and white women, that should be easier to focus your data search.
Also, I would like to address your definition of racism. Anyone who thinks there Are “races”, is a racist? Or being “a bit racist”?
Oh and who am I being racist towards? You never answered, all races or did you have a specific one in mind?

Well there IS differences in bone density. Its a fact. Black people generally have higher bone density than white people. Are you saying that that science is either racist, or the work of racists?

Racist against which race? Just all races in general, or did you have a specific race in mind?
Anyway, so bone density has no effect on a persons ability to physically perform any physical tasks?

Ok, so bone density has no effect in difference of physical ability? (Its uncontroversially understood that black people have higher bone density that white people for exsmple)
Also, the geographical factors can result in differences in races, if one race spent most of its time in a specific place with specific geo factors and another race somewhere else...they would have different factors...wouldnt they?
Obviously there are physical differences in races, what is it that draws a line between those physical differences and physical differences that effect physical ability?

You dont think there are ability differences between races? None? Why do american blacks dominate most american sports? Culture?
Obviously im speaking in general terms, but it seems like there are physical differences, and Therefore difference in some physical abilities. No?
What about the physical strength of say the Japanese compared to African Americans, or Scandinavians? Would you say absolutely zero difference in physical ability? (Again, generically speaking. Obviously there are outliers).
Would you explain differences as cultural instead of say, the geological area the race is adapted to? (Kenyans come to mind, My understanding is that the higher elevation has equipped the average Kenyan for endurance running more so than most other races).

Yes, I think you got it exactly. Nice observation.

You are giving him way too much credit. He isnt being stubborn, that would require him having an actual position to cling too, which he doesnt. He THINKS he does, and thats why he cannot engage. He has been programmed with placeholder words that have no substance and thus anyone actually trying to engage with him is just firing off into thin air. He has nothing to offer, so there is nothing to hit with any point you might want to make.
That, and there is this underlying immaturity to his comments which make it easy to think of him as stupid, or a troll but thats not what it is. He is a victim, made vulnerable by his own childish fears and fragility. Its not really his fault, which I think is why he gets people trying to help him. It is folly however, as part of his delusion is a defence mechanism where he ridicules the things he doesnt understand. He HAS to do that, he HAS to put in those dismissive responses and “LOL”’s, because his entire view is based on a childish narcissism of self importance. He’s this special guy, with a special little view that his philosophical opponents are powerless to respond. Again, that is the exact opposite of the reality. Unsurprising, since thats basically what religion is all about, denying reality for comfort.

Yes, he is being completely disingenuous and dishonest, but I do not think he realises it. This is the evil of religion, how it corrupts the basic integrities of the human mind. The cognitive dissonance humans experience becomes a way of thinking, a gross inoculation against rational thought and self reflection.
Take “faith” for example, An utterly vacuous term that gets trotted out as a reason for believing when of course its the exact opposite of a reason.
Worse still, guys like this amen dude actually view themselves as paragons of rationality, and of virtue when again...exact opposite. Emotional analysis, not rational and so lacking in virtue they cannot even be honest with themselves let alone when posing “questions” to philosophical adversaries.

Risk? As in, if racists make it racist?

Well they wouldn't be varied as you describe on certain traits (racial ones), and the trends/tendencies (stereotypes) wouldnt be something thats always applied to all members of the race since thats not what a trend or tendency is (they arent things we expect to always be the case fir all members of the race).
So it seems like a conflation of race traits and race stereotypes you are making, and then rejecting the concept of “race”.
I understand that might be my own idiosyncratic distinction, just for the record.

Well some peoples ideas about race rely on the stereotypes, but it doesnt seem like stereotypes are intrinsic to “race” to me. Id call that conflating race and race stereotypes.
Anyway, thanks for being patient, I understand.

To me you are describing stereotypes, not race. Stereotypes are trends/tendencies about groups/population.

There are tendencies and trends that a population to have, is accounting for that why you say “mostly” hogwash/nonsense?

Aside from the fact that if you go back far enough, we all apparently come from the same place, from the same general population (circa eastern (although by some accounts southern) Africa about 3 million years ago), as humankind spread out geographically and had a chance to diverge genetically, folks kept exploring and interacting and being horndogs, so that any divergent genetics wound up back in a melting pot. The idea that genetics diverged and stayed "pure" in their divergence over time as we continued to spread out geographically is a bunch of hogwash. — Terrapin Station

Well thats a description of race in my mind. Race is the distinctions that developed over time as the same species (human) adapted to different evolutionary stimuli.

Ok, so you are saying that there is more genetic diversity outside the “race” paradigm than inside it? And therefore...those differences in race are by comparison...some sort of arbitrary or unnecessary distinction?
I understand that “race” is much less genetically important than other genetic factors in a persons biological make up but its still a physical set of traits that are distinct.
Also, I dont think that “racial”differences are just superficial, appearance based. Some are, like hair texture and skin colour, but others are not, like specific genetic diseases or physical prowess.