Welcome. Your name looks like wear-a-couple to me, by the way, which you do extraordinarily well. :razz:

???

No, evidence that the U.S. is already an equal-treatment country. — Harry Hindu

Prior to this, you wrote: "the U.S. is more open-minded and less xenocentric than most other countries." Assuming this claim is true, it's still not evidence that the USA is an "equal-treatment country."

It's not kind to deny that racism and race privilege continue to exist.

Without reading it, I don’t think you selected the most relevant portion of the book to respond to, in relation to the topic and the context that it was presented. Also, your response to the excerpt was rather simplistic. It’s easy to see why someone may not give it any attention.

The book review gives a detailed outline but I don’t know that it offers the gist of it.

Yes, and if you go to another country their movies are even more xenocentric. In other words, the U.S. is more open-minded and less xenocentric than most other countries, yet you and your side are lambasting the U.S. You just provided evidence that supports my argument. See how that works? — Harry Hindu

Evidence that we try to influence each others biases supports your argument? Okay.

The point that you apparently missed is that people deliberately attempt to bias (negatively and positively) others. As someone who’s fallen under Trump’s spell, you should know this well, if only experientially.

How do you expect to change the ideas of someone who has involuntary blindness? How do you expect to change their minds? I thought the first two definitions were whack, but this one takes the cake. This definition seems to say that no one could ever be aware of and therefore mitigate their biases. — Harry Hindu

Involuntary doesn't mean imperceptible, and the definition explicitly stated that biases are "not intractably incorrigible."

We can influence our negative biases by providing positive experiences that counteract them, simply. This can be done deliberately or unintentionally to ourselves and others. Of course, it can also occur by chance. For an example in popular culture, I saw a movie last night that appeared to be trying to counteract the negative image that the Trump administration is painting of South American immigrants. In the new Terminator movie [spoiler altert], it's an illegal border crossing Mexican woman who turns out to be the savior of humanity. If Trump made the movie, the hero would be a blond-haired white dude and all the killer robots would be Mexican. See how that works?

Yeah, I just copied and pasted a line from your post to mine.

Police may be more prone to shooting black men and boys, compared to whites of the same, because of the perceived degree of threat that police officers have of black men and boys, and not because the officers are racist. It would be responsible for police officers to be aware of their biases and deal with them as best they can.
— praxis

Statements like this and the previous one would offend me if I was a black man (I'm actually offended as a human being that other human beings talk like this). — Harry Hindu

I'm talking about putting effort into being aware of our subconscious biases and dealing with them responsibly.

Any subconscious biases that black and brown people have against the police and judicial system may be wellfounded. In The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander argues that the mass incarceration of black and brown people in the United States that started with the 'war on drug' has stripped away their civil rights to a point comparable to the era of Jim Crow ("the more things change, the more they stay the same").

Mass incarceration due to the "war on drugs."


Incarceration rate by race:


Note that many studies show that there's no substantial difference in the rate that white people consume and sell drugs compared to that of black and brown people.

Is the American judicial system colorblind?

The Hispanic middle class doesn't buy the immigration crap from white liberals. — fishfry

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific. What immigration crap from white liberals? Do you mean things like Daca, for instance?

Nothing surprising. I’m sure that I could easily skew the test results any way that I wanted by priming myself for a particular outcome. The subconscious is not as ridged as we tend to think, I believe.

The fact the we can influence our subconscious suggests to me that we have a responsibility to reduce disparities between implicit and explicit views.

According to the test on race, I have a slight bias against black people. I’m inclined to attribute that to negative depictions in the media that I’ve grown up with, as well as too little personal experience. Up thorough junior college there were no African Americans in any of the schools I attended, for example. I can’t recall having any negative experiences with black people personally, and I have a couple of friends that I’ve known for over a decade that are black.

I suppose that if the test showed no bias it would indicate ‘color-blindness’ in the sense that it’s being portrayed.

Judging people according to their character and not their race does not involve not talking about racism. It is simply to refuse being racist, in my mind. — NOS4A2

The problem is that we are not rational beings and can't simply choose to be color-blind. It's something that we need to work towards, and that work necessarily involves seeing color.

Try one of these implicit association tests to get a feel for your biases:

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html

So you're saying it's okay to view police as a perceived threat, but not to view someone being belligerent and refusing to obey orders (because they have this preconceived notion that police are a threat (and the orders are meant to keep both of them safe because the police officer is walking into a situation that he has no knowledge of who you are)) as a perceived threat? :brow: — Harry Hindu

Sorry, let me rephrase:
Police may be more prone to shooting black men and boys, compared to whites of the same, because of the perceived degree of threat that police officers have of black men and boys, and not because the officers are racist. It would be responsible for police officers to be aware of their biases and deal with them as best they can.

My problem is with the taxonomy of race and looking at things through the lens of race. I believe it is as superficial as, say, height or foot size. If we categorize according to these superficial categories we will automatically find disparities between them. — NOS4A2

Your problem, as you put it in the previous post anyway, is looking at things only through the lens of race. I think that would be a problem also because you're essentially blinding yourself to other factors.

Race is not superficial or insignificant. Do you actually claim that it is?

It’s like saying bald men are 2.5 times more likely to be shot by police than men with hair. How can we address the problem without considering baldness? Baldness is presumed. That’s my point. You’ll never be able to address the problem because the reasons for the shootings are not addressed. — NOS4A2

There's no 'reason-blind' movement that I'm aware of. Are you trying to start one?

The problem could be addressed by looking at each individual case rather than relying on race statistics, which automatically presume race is a factor. — NOS4A2

The problem could be looked at in many different ways and many different approaches could be taken to address it. That doesn't negate the fact that taking race into consideration is essential for understanding and solving the problem in the best or most efficient way.

Why would you disable (color-blind) yourself when trying to solve a problem?

I think the problem is in assuming race is a factor before the reasons for the shootings are apparent. — NOS4A2

I think you mean to say that the problem is in assuming racism is a factor... I didn't say anything about racism in the situation that I mentioned. I asked how the problem could be addressed without considering race.

So, you're saying that prejudice exists in everyone? — Harry Hindu

You mean racial prejudice? I didn't say that, no.

Whose bias is the one causing the problem in this instance, when a minority black runs from a white cop because he thinks the cop is racist? — Harry Hindu

Police may be more prone to shooting black men and boys, compared to whites of the same, because of the perceived degree of threat they have of them and not because the officers are racist. It would be responsible for police officers to be aware of their biases and deal with them as best they can.

The fact that you're coming into our conversation near the end while disregarding everything else I have said, shows that you simply don't know what you're talking about. — Harry Hindu

I reviewed your comment pretty carefully before reaching my conclusion. I notice now that you don't try to disprove it was a fallacy.

Race correlates with advantages and disadvantages like wealth or poverty, because of people treating some races as better than others. One can recognize those actual advantages or disadvantages, that correlate with race, without discriminating on the basis of race itself at all; and because of that correlation, the fair treatment of greater aiding people with greater disadvantages will correlate with greater aiding people of races that correlate with disadvantages, all without having to actually address race itself at all. — Pfhorrest

Perhaps you could show how this works in a real-life situation. In America, black men and boys are 2.5 times more likely than white men and boys to die during an encounter with police. How does one try to solve this problem without addressing race?

A question for the people who consider themselves “against colorblindness”: is treating everyone the same regardless of their race “colorblindness” in your book? — Pfhorrest

No one treats everyone the same. We treat each other differently depending on many different conditions and circumstances. This includes mere appearance, histories, whatever subconscious cultural bias we may have, etc, etc.

To answer your question, yes. Treating everyone the same would indicate a lack of capacity to sense important differences among people and treat them accordingly. But I have to ask: why would anyone want to be disabled in this way, or rather, why would anyone be inclined to feign this lack of capacity? It's certainly not fair to treat everyone the same. Fairness can't be achieved by disregarding advantages and disadvantages.

Where is the prejudice? I'm not saying that it doesn't exist. What I'm saying is that it doesn't exist on the scope that you claim it does - to the point where you get to be racist yourself and judge all whites - even those without power (and if you claim that then your formula becomes invalid) - as being racist. — Harry Hindu

You’re beating up a strawman (180 judges that all white people are racist) to give the appearance of winning the debate?

I’ve recently taken an implicit association test on race and it showed some bias, but does this constitute racism? No, it’s just subconscious conditioning that I need to be aware of and deal with the best I can. I can also put effort into changing this conditioning in myself and in society.

You are being racist to "fight" racism. — Harry Hindu

:lol:

He doesn't have to win all the ethnic minorities. He just has to peel enough of them away from the Dems. He did that in 2916 and he'll do that again in 2020. The Dems are no longer connected to reality. — fishfry

Not sure that minorities helped him that much in 2016. I recall that only 1% of black women voted for him.

Speaking of a reality disconnect, Trump hasn’t been able to bring American manufacturing out of its recession, but this doesn’t seem to be a dealbreaker for his loyal supporters in the rust-belt. It should be.

Like a rambling incoherent child.

Yes. Thanks again for mentioning Geguss.

I was a white kid who grew-up a racial minority and I can’t recall the luxury of being color-blind at the time.

what are these intense denunciatory posts about? My theory is that they're just an expulsion of anger and contempt. & sometimes, they're just a rush of bolstering our identity, through unloading on an Other. I think that expressions of solidarity are a good means but too quickly become an end. All that angry energy thrown into a void is pure creative capability, thwarted, and wasted. — csalisbury

I was going to post that the act of condemning ‘otherness’ is meaningful because it helps to define us, in a form larger than our individual selves, and enhances group solidarity, but your edit covers it. Maybe the polarizing downside can be minimized by trying to be mindful while in the activity.

I just finished Philosophy and Real Politics by Raymond Geuss. It didn’t end with a kiss, but it was satisfyingly realistic.

How do we confirm the existence of things then? — 3017amen

A defining characteristic of religion is its dependence on authority. Only a religious authority can attribute qualities to the ineffable. :halo:

The existence of anything is disputable, or can not be taken for granted.

It doesn’t matter that causes & events are not distinct physical things like an apple pie, you can still dispute their existence. You can dispute the existence of pie, if you like.

Is it a given? — 3017amen

I said that you speak as though God is a given. If I said that an apple pie is sweet I’m speaking as though an apple pie exists, or has existed. If I were to say, “If YHWH exists, she is ineffable,” that wouldn’t be speaking as though YHWH necessary exists. In any case the statement is incoherent.

So you were talking about the economy? Weird.

You mention God as though it’s a given, and even attribute consciousness, yet claim not to be a ‘theist’.

I'm not a 'theist'. — 3017amen

I personally think God is an ineffable, genderless electromagnetic force (i.e. EM fields of consciousness or light). — 3017amen

???

I don’t get what you’re saying. What has Trump delivered that Democrats (I assume) haven’t been able to for decades? A good economy? For one thing, we’re talking about the politicizing of the wall issue, which started before Trump was elected. For another thing, Obama took the nation out of a deep recession less than a decade ago. Just looking at the unemployment rate...

?? Around 500 miles of fence was built before Trump entered the picture.

Your assumptions into Trump’s wants and cares are are just that: assumptions, and poor ones at that. — NOS4A2

The alternative is that he fumbled it, due to incompetence, bad council, or whatever.

His actions, ie. federal emergency, government shutdown...

He fumbled that as well. Had to bypass congress by declaring an national emergency.

It wasn't really about using a strong personality, which Trump lacks, or a strong oration, which Trump definetly lacks, to pull people in. It was sending a very simple policy message. The personality cult thing, especially on the religious right, is a later phenomenon, I think. — Echarmion

All his rallies? They love it. It’s unfathomable to me also but a particular American democratic loves his orations.