What's your definition of "a threat"? Does an unknown chance to contract long term debilitating fatigue and other neurological symptoms count as "a threat"? Is overworking doctors, nurses and other medical stuff "a threat"? Is asking those same overworked medical personal to perform triage "a threat"? — Echarmion

I used the adjective "real" before the word threat, the odds of covid causing the kinds of additional complications are so extremely rare (how many under 80 have such complications?) so the force of the overall argument remains.

It does not seem obvious to me. For one, it would seem to me we'd have to be able to predict the long term consequences of "just letting the virus do it's thing". But we really can't. And from a utilitarian perspective, if the risk is unknown, you should always assume it's worse than you think. — Echarmion

what long term consequences are you referring to? the same extremely rare complications you refer to above?

According to your theory racism against people from the Middle East wouldn’t be possible since a racial term is lacking, but as far as I can see, it is clearly happening. Please explain! — Congau

if as you suggest this group belongs to the race "white" then the discrimination that you refer to must be based on characteristics other than "race", so it would still occurr in the absence of the process of racialization

Jane Elliot points out how long she has been doing the same exercise. Interestingly she herself ends with the point that there is only one category of our existence, i.e. human. This highlights that the real solution lies in changing our conceptual frameworks to reflect our true reality.

We can talk about Martin Luther King's dream for decades, as we have done, but the key is to restructure our brains so that there is no room for racial discrimination. The only way to do this is to actually change our language to reflect the reality of our existence.

Carlos Hoyt better articulates this approach than me and also has a more developed thought out approach to implementing it. Here is a link to one of his presentations

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Fo-IBh_yMqo9PJYXHsLizUgF0FgTnRze/edit#slide=id.p62


this approach won't work right away, it will take generations, but it is the only true solution. We can talk about seeing our differences as not mattering, but the truth is that there are no differences to see.

Getting to a point where human brains no longer place people in different categories of human existence based on skin colour is the true path to the end of racism. When differences in skin colour are perceived the same as differences in eye colour (i.e. varied physical adaptions within the same species, and not as signifiers of different kinds of people), then we will achieved our aim.

but as Hoyt points out so long as you continue to use racial language you are sustaining the conceptual framework upon which racism depends. As he suggests, use "racialized black" and "racialize white" if you need to really go there. But don't talk about race as if it exists, because it doesn't and talking about it as if it does allows racism to continue.

Wrong. Kids need to know they are different. Kids need to know their ethnic background. I agree that terms like "black" and "white" are social constructs and aren't scientifically accurate to describe human groups however there is essentially nothing wrong with being black and white, and because we don't live in a society where humanity is primary and all others are secondary it is good for kids to know their distinctive qualities. — Anaxagoras

but they are not different, and the language you use highlights that that's where it all begins
if we truly teach them the reality that there are no racial categories of humans then racism would end eventually as children would grow into adults who did not see races but only saw faces

but I suspect you actually believe in racial categories (but use more palatable language like ethnicity instead of race) so again my suggestion wouldn't make sense to you

Can you please explain to me why people of Middle Eastern origin often face discrimination (racism) in the West even though there is no racial term to signify that group? — Congau

the fact of non-race based discrimination does not mean we should not make efforts to eliminate race based discrimination.

A friend and I claimed to be Ferengi from the Star Trek show on a census because we object to the race questions. However it is not as easy as just not using those racially identifying terms because people in different classifications get special benefits and perhaps they should. Native Americans and people of color deserve those benefits. — Athena

you can retain benefits for certain historically disadvantaged groups through cultural identification. Clearly people belong to distinct cultures, but people do not belong to distinct races as there is no such thing as race in our reality.

It's really just a matter of getting more sophisticated in our language. Describe people's physical attributes, dark skin, dark hair, brown eyes. Then describe their cultural ties, he was born and raised in Jamaica. This more accurately describes someone as the complex individual they are, instead of the harmful, unscientific and imprecise label "black"

People tend to dislike those who look different from themselves. Kids bully other kids for their looks and grown-ups are skeptical towards people whose appearance indicate that they belong to another group. No particular word is needed in each case for this lamentable but quite universal phenomenon to exist. — Congau

Oh I recognize that people will find all kinds of other reasons to discriminate and treat each other differently, but we can at least remove one category of discrimination, i.e. racial, if we move into a conceptual framework and use language that excludes the concept of race

your

Even though they belong to the white race — Congau

it's clear that you believe in and endorse the concept of race and so of course my suggested course of action to end racism makes no sense to you

You and other well-meaning anti-racists (or whatever it should be called) may perhaps stop using words that refer to race, but the racists will sure find a term to designate what they consider significant. By taking away the word you just reduce your own ability to talk to them and explain their error. — Congau

The point is the error can't even be made if you don't see the difference
case in point look at all the physical differences between people who are currently placed in the category of "white"
there are a variety of skin tones, hair textures and colours and yet those people are all seen as the same "white"
my suggestion is to use that language that reframes the brain such that all people are all seen as the same and the physical differences we see are recognized as just that, insignificant physical differences that don't signify different subclasses of humanity

look at Carlos Hoyt's writings, he more completely lays out the approach we would have to take

it's not a perfect approach by any means, and some groups might oppose it because of the disadvantages that might come with no longer being recognized as a group worthy of special protection, but what people would gain outweighs what we would lose
if we taught our children words like "black" "white" were bad words that promoted discrimination, they would grow up with conceptual frameworks that would not leave room for them to not prefer based on racial categories
if we don't do this racism will never end

you are also pretty much arguing that there is something that actually exists "race" that we still need to refer to, the approach I am advocating for here is for those of use who see that there is no such thing in our reality just as we know the world is not flat

no one would dispute that people have differing physical characteristics
but it is archaic and unscientific to describe these physical characteristics using terms like
"black" "white"
yes it is more complicated and requires more effort to describe people in more complex ways, but it better reflects our reality instead of using imprecise language that sustains racism

it is a radical change and your response is the same as most who enjoy the comfort of conventionality

but real change often requires radical shifts that feel uneasy and difficult at first

word play
I clearly meant I don't use words in a way that sustains the concept of race and the resulting racism

Whether such a thing as race exists, is not an interesting question in this context. Something exists, and we need a word for it.[/quote]

right so again you are starting from the position that in fact racial categories exist that people should be put in
what is this something that you posit exists?

I would suggest the only thing in our reality that we need to describe are the physical differences we see. the categories of black, white etc are not merely categories of physical difference, they are used to denote subspecies of humans

it is that tendency to divide humans into subspecies that is at the root of racism, take away the root and the weed of racism can not grow

Carlos hoyt expresses the strategy well here:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Fo-IBh_yMqo9PJYXHsLizUgF0FgTnRze/edit#slide=id.p62

his may sound like a joke, but that's because your proposal is a joke. Even if such a language change could accomplish anything (of course not), how the hell is this supposed to work? If you have no idea and are just daydreaming, then why set your sights so low? Why not daydream about everyone living happily ever after? If that could be achieved, then we wouldn't have to worry about such petty concerns as racism.

(Of course, daydreaming about reforming language in order to cure racism is only marginally more asinine than daydreaming about a world social revolution as a cure for all ills.) — SophistiCat

I am not daydreaming I have modified my language in such a way to not include race referring language and when I did so I could see that my own tendencies towards categorization and resulting preference slowly melted away.

How could it work? It would work like any other change in our language that better reflects our understanding of reality, adjustments would have to be made, just like we had to so when we stopped seeing the world as flat.

And yes I recognize it won't land us in Utopia, but it will move us away from racism and its harms. It's at least a move in the right direction.

acism is not fueld by the names we choose to use as a means to describe people we devalue based upon the color of their skin.

One will devalue black people, if they are so inclined, regardless of the language used to do so.

It's the devaluation that's the problem, not the means for doing so. Language use is the means. — creativesoul

if there is no such thing as "black people" in our language then "black people" can not be devalued

if you truly see everyone as human, then at least one potential category of devaluation "race" is eliminated

Not only in language, but by extension thinking. If we view individuals as individuals rather than a component of this or that race we negate any foundation for race-thinking. — NOS4A2

absolutely, I am starting from this foundational point that in fact we are all humans and that the evolutionary differences we see in our skin colour and other physical characteristics are just that, physical differences

so by not using words like "black" "white" etc I am simply aligning by language with the structure of my thought

And nothing in this story is part of the human condition, nothing is inevitable. We do not need to behave like this, we do not need to treat each other like this. and learning a different way of speaking will not sort it. — unenlightened

oh but it is about the language, if children were taught from the beginning of their lives that humans are humans and not that there are sub-categories of humans like "black" "white" etc then they would not have a conceptual framework in their brain structures that would allow them to prefer one sub-category over the other
racism would be gone in a matter of a generation or maybe 2 depending on the extent of rate of adoption of this amongst parents

you don't need to stop describing people's physical characteristics
people clearly have different physical characteristics

but if we want to end racism, we all must stop describing people as if they were parts of different categories like "black" "white" etc.

My suggestion only makes sense for those of us who do not endorse the concept of race as socially useful and scientifically valid

You clearly do endorse the concept of race

Denial of reality is not going to solve any problem. Ever. — Benkei

like I said, this approach only works for those of us who hold the position that in fact race is not a part of our reality

you won't need equal opportunity for "races" if there are no "races"

Ok, but language use seems too easy a way out.

How about we provide totally free education (room and board, books, tuition, everything) to all Black and Indian Americans to use on any kind of education from truck driving school to Phd. This system continues until such time as the wealth gap between whites, blacks and indians is erased. It's paid for primarily by the super rich, those who have benefited most from the rigged system, and those who have the vast majority of the money.

So, erase the wealth gap, at no charge to almost anybody. But we can't do it. We can't even really talk about it. And that's because the reality is...

We don't really give a shit.

Political correctness is a pose. We'll know it's real when the money starts to roll. — Nuke

The vastness of the issues that stand in the way of utopia at the macro level are utterly depressing
I am offering one simple suggestion that will at least eventually eliminate one of the categories that allow for unequal treatment

I agree racism is a complex problem but changing your own language use is a step in the right direction

try it and see how your own propensity for preference (at least in this one category) vanishes

do you believe all living things are conscious?
— dazed

What, then, is the result, if the answer is yes? — 3017amen

if you believe all living things are conscious then of course there can be consciousness after brain death since lots of living things have no brains

for those who believe in concept of consciousness beyond death you must first answer the question of how prevalent consciousness is in the world?

do you believe all living things are conscious?
if you don't, then you must also believe that consciousness is a function of brain complexity
at a certain point the brain gets complex enough to create consciousness
but this of course means that there can be no consciousness without brain activity
so there can not be consciousness after brain death

funny I feel the same way about you.

You keep repeating that it's the racist usage of certain words that is the problem, not the words

but the real solution is to get rid of the words themselves

those categories of people don't really exist, we create them with our words

if you really do away with the words, then you really destroy the foundations upon which the issue of racism depends

if a white supremacist no longer has the concept of "white" to form the structures upon which his racist ideologies depend, then it all collapses

ultimately minds will bend and realize that in fact we are all human beings and that the differences in our physical characteristics don't matter

I've transformed my own thinking in this way by simply doing away with the usage of racial language

I never thought of myself as racist in that I judged people only on merit, but I still had categories of people in my mind, and categories allow for preference

take away the categories and you take away the danger of preference.

racists need the categories to prefer and discriminate
take away the words and you take away their tools of discrimination
I choose to be part of a slow revolution in language that will mean racist preferences will no longer be possible
those who continue to use the categories that racists depend on are part of the problem

the point I am trying to make is that racial language is not used exclusively to describe physical characteristics, rather racial language as shown in my comedian example, is used to describe humans as different subsets of creatures with different physical characteristics AND behavioural traits.

Racial language therefore is harmful and divisive and non-sensical. you can not neatly divide the diversity of human physical characteristics and cultures into simple categories like "white" "black" "brown" etc.

it's a useless and harmful way of speaking

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"

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.

please enlighten us with the obvious.
Exactly which physical characteristics clearly correspond to which racial categories?

I think you are actually saying there are physical characteristics of humans that differ that I can see.

Yes that's obvious.

But to say that those differences in physical characteristics of humans can be neatly divided into races like "black" "white" "brown" etc is in fact not obvious and rather non-sensical.

and at a deeper level what would we gain by creating such divisions,assuming we could even arrive at a coherent set?

funny, but you still avoid the question.

but if you stick to the usage of "race" you employ there, then we are actually on the same page!

you keep avoiding the question, 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?

If I ask you "is the world flat", you could also argue "well there is a social construct that some humans embrace that suggests the world is flat"

but do you actually believe the world is flat?

similarly do you actually believe that people are in fact divided into races?

I am asking you a question about what you believe about the reality of our existence

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"

in fact race in common usage refers to the idea that there are really are different kinds of humans with physical traits that are connected to behavioural traits...comedians are a stark example of this usage
"white people do this" ha ha ah
"black people do this" ha ha ha

if you want to describe someone's physical characteristics go ahead and do so, but don't describe people using racial language which implies that they are a member of a particular subset of humans

know that the concept exists, as do you. Similar potentially divisive concepts like age, weight, height, attractiveness, sexual orientation, etc etc, exist. Are you color blind but perhaps an ageists? If so, would refusing to see age help resolve your ageism? — praxis

the concept of race has no basis in reality similar to the concept that the world is flat
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

sounds like you believe that there are such things as races

I concur with those that take the view that anyone who uses racial language and refers to people using archaic and ultimately non-sensical categories of black white brown etc, is part of the problem and so in that sense racist.

If we all truly did embrace the view that there is no division of races within humans, and modified our own language use accordingly, then racism could not possibly exist since there would be no means to prefer any one human based on race. If you want to be part of the solution just simply stop using racial language.

I've done it and it works.

I suspect that those who aren't open to such a shift believe that there are actually such things as races, and possibly also that the world is flat.

Much better than knowledge of our acts, we have full knowledge of our intentions; since by definition it comes from us. — Samuel Lacrampe

actually my conscious experience is that we often have no clue about our intentions, 'why did I do that?" "what was I thinking there?", it seems that in fact we are passengers along for the ride as our brains decide what actions to take.

Are you proposing that a "good" brain damaged person who is now prone to violence knows that they have good intentions even where they commit violent acts ? Should we not imprison and jail such a person because they are in fact acting properly? how can we judge their acts since we don't have access to their intentions?

And what about the analogies with other complex primates? Primates have been intentionally brain damaged and the changes in their behaviour have been noted related to the change in brain function. Do such primates have souls? Are we to surmise that they too have intentions that have been skewed by impaired brain function?

Is it not logically possible that the soul is the primary source of free act, but then the brain is also necessary for its final product? Consider the analogy of the brain, the tongue, and speaking a language. The primary source of the act of speaking is the brain, but the tongue is also necessary to produce the words. — Samuel Lacrampe

so along these lines when brain function diminishes such as in the case of injury or dementia, the "signal" from the actual cause of action (the soul) is the same, but the resulting act is different because the brain is not operating properly

So God has the ability to judge us on the basis of the originating soul signal?

in such a scenario, it's not actually our final acts that can be judged but rather our soul signals, but then how do we know when we are sinning or not since all we can experience is our acts and we can't experience our soul signals?

I don't think the soul can be held responsible. — 3017amen

then why are some souls sent to heaven and some to hell?

ep. Keep digging into it - look at the root word in the scriptures, Hebrew נפש "nephesh". You are describing a concept that is prevalent in churches, that is essentially extra-biblical lore, and you are naming it "the Judeo-Christian" idea of soul. It isn't beneficial to do that, because it will prejudice your discussions with other Christians, as myself for example, and your reading of the messages that the writers were expressing through the bible. — Serving Zion

ok so whatever it is that you ascribe moral responsibility to, the same issue issue persists, the concept of some sort of self that is independent of the brain and has causal force in human behaviour just doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of observations of human behaviour and the links with brain changes in structure and function.

just teach your kids that there are no races, to not use words like white, black, brown etc and eventually racism will end, after generations adopt this as our reality

it will take a while (just as some people still believe the world is still flat), but the day will come

I myself no longer label people using these archaic and inaccurate categories and it's definitely a shift in thinking that means at least I am no longer prone to bias based on race, I can't prefer something that isn't there in my conceptual world

join the race transcenders (a concept coined by Carlos Hoyt) and be part of the solution instead of the problem

I think all this misery I feel is a result of knowing enough to believe that all we see can be completely explained materially and that there is no real meaning, to anything, in a world where I see everyone running about enjoying themselves blissfully unaware, making me feel stupid for taking the time to learn what's going on. Like I'm no longer part of the group.

If you have enough time to sit about and think you end up depressed and want to kill yourself. If you haven't got enough time you're busy trying to make more time so you can afford time to just relax and think.

The only meaning to modern life I can see is to have fun and the people who have the most fun do less thinking. We are all meaningless sacks of meat and bits. Might as well party. — Razorback kitten

Yes I have pretty much retreated into this mode of life, I simply don't think about things too much anymore. but it's not so much about partying for me but rather enjoying the joys of life (however those are defined for you).

I think that persons who never had a theistic structure formed in their brains can more easily do this than those of who had such a structure which then collapsed under philosphical scrutiny. For the latter, the world now just seems like such a hollow, meaningless and chaotic random place. And I've yet to find an escape from that sense. It does kinda make everything surreal, which isn't really great for a sense of engagement in life.

:victory:
Your thoughts have definitely impacted my consciousness. But how do you make sense of the world with ourselves as ultimately incoherent random states of mind? How do you navigate social discourse with a loss of the concepts of agency and selfhood that permeate all our human political and social structures? If there really is no one integrated "self" that we can hold responsible, then what becomes of all of our structures that rely on the concept of "self"?

I simply retreat every time I start that thought, it seems to me that if you follow it too far, it will all erode. So I turn on a soccer game instead. Essentially I rely on distraction to navigate the world. I am just hoping that maybe there's a way out of that approach to life...one that offers a level of deeper engagement.