Me pointing out your gossiping and backbiting and misrepresentations reveal a far insidious form of deception I want nothing to do with. — NOS4A2

Don't be such a drama queen. It doesn't invalidate anything I've posted, and it's rather pathetic of you to think it would.

My pointing out an attempted deception from you was part of a different line of discussion... and we both know that you know that.

Completely irrelevant to the line of discussion we were having, and we both know that you know that.

The universe doesn’t take me seriously, why should I take it seriously.

— Alan Watts

Anthropologists and geneticists use terms like ‘white people’ and ‘black people’. Why wouldn’t they? And what new and old concepts are you talking about?

But many have abandoned the use of “race” in their field. No one said they stop using those phrases. What a strange misrepresentation. — NOS4A2

Well, if that was meant as an analogy it’s a bad one, for reasons that should be clear.

If noticing color in the past led to racist systems and institutions...
— Harry Hindu

To make sense of what follows this I think you should probably explain exactly what “noticing color” means in this sentence.
— praxis

I thought I was using the phrase the same way everyone else was - recognizing the race of an individual for a particular reason. — Harry Hindu

Generally speaking, the reason is to take advantage of people in a minority or weaker position. Skin color is merely an identifier and an unnecessary condition. The Nazis didn’t have any trouble identifying Jews during the holocaust, for example. Godwins rule. :grimace:

Do the institutions of today systematically take advantage of people in a weaker position? Of course they do. You identifying as a libertarian, I understand your ideological objections to interference or regulation. Still, I’m sure you can appreciate that liberty must be fought for. Ignoring the problem won’t make it go away.

If racism is related to power

If?!

That [passing laws that benefit one race over another] is what YOU and 180 and Baden and fdrake, etc. want. — Harry Hindu

I’d like laws and policies that protect people in a minority or weaker socioeconomic position. It would make a stronger democracy and a more stable economy, morality aside.

I understand your belief about the Hispanic middle class, such as it is. The neighborhood I live in is middle class and predominantly Hispanic. I was just curious about the white liberal crap they’re supposedly not buying.

That brings us around to the flip side of the equation. All Faith is based on Knowledge. — Keenan

We need to have knowledge of things in order to have faith in them, sure. I know what unicorns are, for instance, but I have no faith that they exist other than in mythology. I could offer a valid explanation for why they exist mythologically, and I may have faith in that explanation.

So do I lack faith that unicorns are real or do I have faith in a rational explanation of their mythological existence?

I believe in God because He confirmed what other men said about Him. — Keenan

You’re the one who claims that all knowledge is based on faith, if you recall. This means that you cannot know that your experience was real. You can only have faith that it was real. You have to trust yourself that the experience wasn’t a delusion based on the suggestions of others.

Theres something inside us that God planted in us to lead us to him. — Keenan

If someone told you this then you would be having faith in that person. If you read it somewhere then you’d be having faith in whoever wrote it. If you discovered this yourself...

If all knowledge is based on faith then faith essentially becomes meaningless, and so does God.

That’s not what I said. You can’t put your faith in God. You can only put your faith in those who educate you about God. Of course if you were to meet God then your faith would be in yourself, just like it is in reading these words. Perhaps you are experiencing a delusion right now. If you met God, how would you know it wasn’t a delusion? You would need to have faith in your experience or faith in yourself.

Then the point of difference is what, or rather whom, you have faith in. Religion requires faith in religious authorities. For secular faith, I suppose you could say that you need to have faith in your own abilities to correctly read and understand these words.

Anyway, you are being pretty evasive here and I understand your position to my satisfaction (and disagree obviously) so...thanks I guess. — DingoJones

I would like to once again apologize for disturbing your meaningful discussion.

By revising what’s behind (the meaning and implicit associations) the demarcations to better match reality. Simply not using them doesn’t do that.
— praxis

Sure it does. We abandon old concepts for new ones all the time, as anthropologists and geneticists abandoned race in favor of better ones, — NOS4A2

Anthropologists and geneticists use terms like ‘white people’ and ‘black people’. Why wouldn’t they? And what new and old concepts are you talking about?

No doubt, many still see them as important, to the point that people get angry when they’re questioned. Many anthropologists and geneticists refuse to use them. How would you deal with them? — NOS4A2

By revising what’s behind (the meaning and implicit associations) the demarcations to better match reality. Simply not using them doesn’t do that.

Refusing ostensibly superficial demarcations only underscores their importance. Not the best way to deal with them, however.

So... why did you lie?

I didn’t, though if I knew someone was going to cherry-pick one statement from the thousands of previous statements in order to call me a liar, I might have chosen my words more carefully. — NOS4A2

So you're saying that it wasn't a lie, you just misspoke? Are you being honest?

Seems pretty accurate to me. — NOS4A2

So... why did you lie?

It's a lie because, as I've previously mentioned, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no difficulty at all in grouping people and blanketly attributing them with particular characteristics.
–praxis

For example? — NOS4A2

Anti-Trumpism is the opposition to trump as an ideology. Most people want their leaders to succeed and their country to prosper. Anti-Trumpists want their leader to fail and are willing to ruin the country to do it.

Not only have you grouped people together who oppose Trump, which by the way consists of over half the nation at this point, you've attributed fictitious qualities to them. You might say that all those who oppose Trump are not necessarily Anti-Trumpists, just the ones that want him to fail and are willing to ruin the country to do it. This would, however, be an even greater demonstration of the ease in which you can group people and apply characteristics to that group, because it's purely imaginary.

So again, why did you lie?

It's a lie because, as I've previously mentioned, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no difficulty at all in grouping people and blanketly attributing them with particular characteristics.

Now you have to convince me that I’m trolling you and you aren’t trolling me. — NOS4A2

Alright, but you'll need to be honest. Why did you lie about having difficulty grouping people?

Lol...im...sorry? — DingoJones

Oh no, I'm sorry for disturbing your delicate concentration.

Cheeky enough answer? — NOS4A2

It's possible to troll and value truth, but that would require having principles.

You're no fun.

That's funny, in discussions about Trump you have no difficulty grouping people and blanketly attributing them with particular characteristics.

I group people according to their ideologies and superstitions, sure. I’ll concede that much. — NOS4A2

Will you also concede that you were lying when you claimed that you have difficulty grouping people?

I don’t know, I think I may just have trouble with grouping people in general. — NOS4A2

That's funny, in discussions about Trump you have no difficulty grouping people and blanketly attributing them with particular characteristics.

I can’t quite put my finger on it.

In a word: trolling.

If noticing color in the past lead to racist systems and institutions... — Harry Hindu

To make sense of what follows this I think you should probably explain exactly what “noticing color” means in this sentence.

He’s harmless. I think if was Frank who said he’s like a pet. The forum pet troll.

That's it. Say hello to Jackson Pollack. — frank

You meant abstract expressionism. I wouldn't kill you to do a little learning on your own. :razz:

It’s not a game to you but you won’t even exert the marginal effort it would take to look this shit up yourself. :chin:

There are examples in housing, loan practices, the judicial system, health and environment. None of them will be very overt, in this day and age. Do you need convincing or what? It seems like many of those who don't want to see it can't see it. Well, I don't want to see it but the evidence is there.

Or are there upstream facts that we use to make our assessments? — frank

Yes.

I just think the very first step to correcting them should be to refuse using those taxonomies. They automatically lead to the hastiest of generalizations — NOS4A2

One of the first steps, in my opinion, would be to look at these 'hasty generalizations' that you mention. Look at what's behind the taxonomies.

It's a research based fact that people with first names that sound "black" (like Lashika, for instance) are much less likely to be called in for interviews than people with old English sounding names (like Frank).

Would you say that's a sign of systemic racism? — frank

No.

If you search for disparities between tall and short, fat and thin, you’ll find them. The point is you’re not tackling a problem at all, but projecting groups and taxonomies onto vast swaths of disparate individuals. — NOS4A2

The essential problem centers around acquiring and maintaining power or advantage. People don't discriminate against those with superficial differences for no reason. In order to correct the unfair practices, you need to address whatever established taxonomy has been used. Naturally, it will be an uphill battle because people generally hate giving up an advantage.

It's evidence that the U.S. isn't as xenophobic as you think. — Harry Hindu

I don't think the U.S. is particularly xenophobic. I think the current administration has heavily politized immigration issues to garner support from a minority demographic that may tend to be more xenophobic.

For evidence of equal-treatment, just look at the laws we have... You can't provide any evidence for your claims. — Harry Hindu

I've shown statistics that may indicate systemic discrimination, which you dismissed out of hand. It looks as though only explicitly racist laws or policies would satisfy you, so I think it would be a waste of time to try providing any other sort of evidence.

The New Jim Crow is an important book that I think every American should read. As someone interested in philosophy, I'd think you'd be interested in a strong argument that is counter to your apparent beliefs.

I’m not big on consensus and uniformity. — NOS4A2

With the ‘huge’ exception of being fully onboard with the Trump cult.

Would-be spammers?

Anyway, what are we peasants to such gods? — Wallows

We are like prisoners chained to a cave wall, mistaking a play of shadows for reality. :cry:

I guess the pair aren't graduating to higher abstractions any time soon.

I guess it is how you look at it Praxis. — weareacouple

It seems to me the point is to look at them.