I am against what they say. I would call them “social impositions” because they were born of pseudoscience and imposed upon entire peoples. Besides, the pseudo-scientific justifications for applying these labels have long been discredited.

Racial categorization predisposes one to racial bias. It’s a collectivist impulse; we end up responding to people more as members of a social group than as individual people. In so doing you’ve immediately placed them into an out-group instead of integrating them into your in-group, predisposing yourself to bias against the former and preference towards the latter. Simply changing the categories can reduce the bias.

Travelling and exposure to others would surely help, no doubt, but once you alter your social categories the effects are almost immediate.

Again I could care less about any of your propaganda. Fact is, all these investigations and conspiracy theories over the years and he has yet to be found guilty of anything, despite your assumptions of guilt. But, like a true fanatic, you double your efforts long after you have forgotten your aim.

I honestly don’t care because everything to the anti-Trump brigade is a serious matter until one looks closely. Every conspiracy theory regarding Trump, whether it was Russia collusion or his tax returns, have been massively and comically overstated, and as a result has turned justice into nonsense, journalism into a joke, politics into circuses, and the US into clown world.

It’s gotten so bad that one can adopt a contrary belief without any evidence to do so and he’ll be right most of the time.

I also said “the boundaries between both X and Y are so unclear and amorphous that it could rather be the case that X is directly perceiving X.”

How can we perceive a concept that exists only in mind if our eyes point outward, not inward? If the tree is a concept that exists only in the mind, somewhere behind the eyes, that would place the tree at the tail-end of the causal chain.

Who cares? After years of Russia collusion, Covid propaganda, Ukraine warmongering, January 6th handwringings, and all the deep-state dinner theater news outlets have spoon-fed us these past few years, I’m now supposed to give a hoot over Murdoch disagreeing with Fox News anchors about the results of an election?

Even if it was true that trees are concepts that exist only in the mind, they are at the same place in the causal chain as the rest of the perceiver, as already intimated, and so are not intermediaries between perceiver and perceived. The perceiver cannot put himself before himself on the causal chain.

I’m only trying to argue that we ought not to use racial categories and to quit thinking with our epidermis. For me the fact that people use racial categories to divide human beings doesn’t entail that races themselves are true in any way, social or otherwise.

Remember when Rupert Murdoch was supposed to be some puppet master? He cannot even control his own employees. Another conspiracy theory turned nothingburger.

Racial biases are pretty much ubiquitous. They're built into the structure of our societies and therefore into the structure of our minds. The best we can do is recognize their reality, not feed them in our behavior but analyse and resist them.

You're conflating those who recognize their biases and potential prejudices (as we all should) with racists who embrace them and act them out.

They utilize and further the same superstitions, nomenclature, and taxonomies born of pseudoscience to guide their thoughts and behaviors. It invariably leads to hasty generalizations, racial affinity, and guilt by association where none ought to exist. It creates hierarchies or pits one false category against another. In the case of praxis here it creates implicit racial biases.

So intellectually honest are you that you like to lie about what I said. But at least you were honest enough to admit your racism. So kudos for that.

Everything I say suggests something for you except what I actually suggest. I love being told what I think.

Assuming that anything “within the mind” is also within the perceiver, then one is indistinguishable from the other (so long as it is not a foreign element). The perceiver cannot stand in the way of himself and the outer world, or be his own intermediary, or placed before himself in the causal chain of perception.

I bet you do not welcome racist biases at all and that it must pain you to have them. You have my pity.

I don’t really care how you think things look because you haven’t been able to portray with any accuracy what I’ve been saying and I’ve had to correct and clarify too many times to mention. A futile exercise apparently. Have fun.

However, it has not yet been shown that the world the perceiving agent is perceiving exists within the mind or outside the mind.

You’ve inserted another element or space within the perceiver called “the world inside the mind”.

To avoid question begging and to test whether or not this is an area where a world could be perceived, that it contains a world, and that a perceiver can perceive it, I suggested in the original post that we ought to remove this element from the rest of the man like we can any other part of the man (like any organ), put it on a table beside a perceiver (like we’ve been doing with a perceiver and a tree) for the purpose of analysis.

What is on the table? Who perceives what? What part of the man is perceiver, what part of the man is perceived? Finally, is perception still occurring?

If perception is not occurring, one does not perceive the other, and neither element is perceiver or perceived.

I don’t know what you’re stating, to be honest, besides that you harbour racial biases. That’s probably the clearest thing you’ve come up with. We can leave it there.

No, a racist, because you think the taxonomy of races is as valid as the taxonomy of apples and dog breeds, and you admit you hold racial biases.

And you were trying to explain why apple varieties and dog breeds were false taxonomies, and how they relate to anything we’re talking about. In so doing you’ve dug yourself into a racist hole, like Scott Adams.

You just pointed out that varieties of apples are cultivated by humans. :lol:

Would you compare human races to dog breeds?

One way subconscious biases are revealed is in snap judgments where there's no time for consideration.

So because of this you believe you hold a racist attitude towards certain out-groups.

I would avoid the equating of human races to breeds, or in your case, different cultivars of apples, because those arise through artificial selection, whereas human variation does not. We’ve cultivated the varieties of apples and the taxonomy reflects those varieties. The taxonomy of plants lack the influence of social, cultural, and political factors. Comparing human phenotypical difference to differences between breeds have historically been used to justify discrimination and cruelty.

No one said anything about intrinsic properties of evil. I explicitly said they were false, unjust, and pernicious.

I'm pretty sure that I have implicit racial biases, yes. Actually, I'm rather explicitly racist against Portagee's due to some young adult experiences.

How do you know you have implicit racial biases if implicit bias is unconscious, and you are unaware of them?

Banning "Latinx" and the rainbow flag on public property.

Public property is state property. The state decides the flags, like you get to decide what flags go on your property.

Both parties seek to ban “latinx” from use in official state nomenclature like they would any other offensive term.

1) When we perceive the world, how can we directly know the cause of what we have perceived when our only knowledge of any external world has come from the perceptions themselves.

If perceiving is an act of a perceiving agent, the act and the agent are one and the same. If they are one and the same, we can remove perception as some kind of intermediary between knower and the external world. If there is no intermediary, direct access to the external world is not only possible, but a brute fact. If we are able to directly access the external world, it means we are in the world, a part of the world. If we are a part of the world the knowledge is not circular, but open and relational.

2) How is it possible to know from knowing an effect the cause of that effect, when every effect is overdetermined by more than one sufficient causes.

I’m trying to grasp the question but am unsure what is cause and what is effect. Could you illustrate using our good ol’ tree?

Is this about banning CRT and LGBTQXN in elementary schools?

That's neither here nor there. Wounds heal on their own schedule. You can't force it by outlawing certain word combinations.

Outlawing certain word combinations… is that how you personally stop believing in something?

It’s not a sin to distinguish people by race. Is this a religious thing for you?

Did someone say it was a sin? I said it was false, unjust, and pernicious.

Realizing our implicit biases is self-awareness.

Are you implicitly racist?

Merely acknowledging race or "false taxonomies" is not the problem so if it were possible to be "color-blind" it would not solve the problem. Intentionally employing and furthering biases is done in order to manipulate the ignorant (racists who may lose more than they gain) and take or maintain the advantage over the disadvantaged.

The way to banish it is to realize what's going on and stop being manipulated, or stop being an asshole if you're one of the manipulators or one of the manipulator's bootlickers.

I said believing in it is the problem. Adopting it for good intentions or for whatever other reason doesn’t absolve one of it. It’s still false, unjust, pernicious. Saying it is implicit is simply an admission of guilt.

I don't think it works both ways. There are huge numbers of blacks still alive who remember when there was legal racism used against them. I can understand how that older group would have a negative opinion of their oppressors (Southern whites). I would be shocked if they didn't.

It works myriad of ways to those who are just. The use of these categories are unjust, and for the same reason it was unjust to use them in the past. Justice doesn’t demand that a man ought to forgive those who wronged him, but he ought not condemn with the same crime those who did not.

I think the motivation for claiming that a problem doesn't exist is to resist change, basically.

Employing and furthering the problem doesn’t only resist change, though, it compounds it. The only way to banish it is to quit using it.

We're all guilty of that to some degree, whether it be by race, sex, age, or whatever, though we can try to change our implicit biases.

Speak for yourself. I don’t see how that is possible when one doesn’t believe he can derive any valid information from such a vacuous concept. Better to learn from actual flesh-and-blood human beings before any judgement upon them can be made.

Rather, claiming to not believe in racial taxonomies attempts (badly) to rationalize the status quo.

How?

Well said.

Not to mention, the country has yet to shed its systemic racism, as observed by its racial demography in the census, or the so-called "diversity, equity, and inclusion" measures now in place. The Federal government is now using race as a consideration in hiring workers under the auspices of "racial justice".

Not true. A full-blown nazi white supremacist, or Scott Adams for that matter, has the ability to distinguish individuals.

I said discriminating against someone on account of their membership on in a false taxonomy is an inability to discriminate between individuals, not that individuals are unable to distinguish between individuals. Rather than let the individual inform their behaviors, they let the false taxonomy do so.

It's a bad question but I'm curious how false taxonomies motivate discrimination against others. I have no idea how you would try to explain that. Please try.

I'm assuming people are motivated by their beliefs. If you believe in racial taxonomies it gives reason to discriminate against its members on racial grounds. If you do not believe in racial taxonomies it does not give reason to discriminate on racial grounds.

There is nothing wrong with discrimination qua discrimination. We can discriminate between individuals, good and evil, competent and incompetent, skilled or unskilled, and so on. But discriminating against someone on account of their membership on in a false taxonomy is, ironically, an inability to discriminate between individuals.

If it isn't the belief in racial groups that motivates the discrimination against their members, perhaps you can name something else that is.

Do you think we confuse the act of perceiving with the object of perception? Maybe our language doesn't permit us to do otherwise. I honestly do not know.

Most probably, you mean an entitity, a living organism. Which is a special case. You can't generalize it and apply it to inanimate things, can you? This is what I meant.

True, that's what I meant. Anything that is incapable of perceiving would not be able to perceive us.

I'm not sure it is the case that we perceive perceptions any more than we see seeings or hear hearings or digest digestions.

It seems obvious to me that I perceive a tree. It doesn't seem obvious to me that I perceive perceptions, representations, sense-data, or any other such entities.

Yes, a perceived object can perceive me so long as it is capable of perceiving.

What’s wrong with it? that most people, including yourself, believe otherwise?

Discriminating between individuals is one thing; discriminating between false taxonomies of human beings is quite another. I don’t think your point approaches the issue at all.

Call yourself what you want, but both apples and oranges are fruit. So applying your “reasoning”, discriminating between both light and dark-skinned people is humanism.

Race does not exist in any biological sense, though. So it’s a superstition. So what exactly are you acknowledging? That it has been used to propel false theories? That’s exactly my point.

Apples and oranges are different species.