• dazed
    37


    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
  • Benkei
    2.2k
    The color of your skin doesn't matter in matters of health.ssu

    It does. White people are more susceptible to skin cancer. Black people suffer more severe cases of skin cancer when they do get it.

    There's an association between skin colour and blood pressure, probably via a common biochemical intermediate (melanocyte-stimulating hormones). The gene AGTI is related to skin pigmentation as well as predispositions for obesity, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

    The genetic mechanism for melanin biosynthesis is not clearly understood so there's probably a slew of predispositions for diseases that can be related to light or dark skin in relation to location.

    And, of course, surprise-surprise, racists are a reality so sometimes people die or get sick because they don't get adequate treatment based on their skin colour.
  • DingoJones
    1.3k


    You’ve Just repeated points ive addressed already.
    Its not a harmful way of speaking, you just think that because you are being racially sensitive.
    “Black” people in America gave birth to hip hop, rap and many expressions of urban slang used in popular culture. Wheres the harm that? It mixes culture and skin colour/race up as you describe but no harm is being done.
    I understand you are worried that racists will use such categorisations to support or promote their ideology, but they are going to do that anyway. They do it with science, religion...anything they can use. Racists are the problem, not words and categories.
  • 180 Proof
    398
    :up:

    "We invented the blues; Europeans invented psychoanalysis. You invent what you need."
    ~Albert Murray

    True.

    But is that statement "racist"? "prejudiced"? "stereotypically biased"?

    Or just an implicit observation about the in-group's 'hazards of privilege' in contrast to an out-group's 'survival praxis'?
  • dazed
    37


    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
  • ssu
    1.7k
    It does. White people are more susceptible to skin cancer. Black people suffer more severe cases of skin cancer when they do get it.Benkei
    True. However you doctor treats skin cancer of individuals and doesn't actually categorize you by race. Yet the doctor does categorize you by sex. The doctor won't be looking if you might have cervical cancer when you are categorized to be a male. Your sexual preferences or what you feel your gender is doesn't matter to the doctor.

    I understand you are worried that racists will use such categorizations to support or promote their ideology, but they are going to do that anyway. They do it with science, religion...anything they can use. Racists are the problem, not words and categories.DingoJones
    But the whole question here is that if now, thanks to the new wokeness and all, that others than racists have to use these categorizations too. And not using them would somehow be improper: as if not using these categorizations would somehow mean that you are dismissing racism. Hence colorblindness is thought to be as a negative thing. As if people don't understand that treating people as individuals and not based on their skin color is one thing and to dismiss or to deny the existence of racism by referring to colorblindness is another thing.

    You see, nobody is denying here that skin color can be a defining identity for many and something they simply cannot avoid sometimes. After all, if you are the only person with one skin color and everybody else is of another skin color, naturally it will separate you. Or take a class or course where the are 100 people and you would be the only one of your sex. Nobody has to sexist or racist, actually. And as I've said earlier, especially collective tragedies are very important to create a collective identity. If your kind of people, be that defining characteristic the color of your skin or the religion you or your family has, have been discriminated and persecuted, then that character surely is something that makes an important part of your identity. You cannot avoid it, just a few racists or religious fanatics surely can surely make you feel it. And I think nobody here is denying that.

    The discussion is that when these identities are put on a pedestal and used as to define you and everybody else and just what people ought to talk about etc. then the problems emerge.
  • Harry Hindu
    2.5k
    People are claiming that there is systematic racism in the United States.

    More federal workers identify as being Democrat than any other party affiliation.
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/146786/democrats-lead-ranks-union-state-workers.aspx

    95% of campaign donations from federal workers went to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/302817-government-workers-shun-trump-give-big-money-to-clinton-campaign

    I'm beginning to see how there just might be some truth to the claim that systematic racism exists in the United States government since the party that has a fetish with identities is the one holding most of the power. I wonder if the Democrats feel ashamed of their political privilege.
  • DingoJones
    1.3k


    You aren’t engaging with what Im saying, just repeating yourself. I Heard you the first time.
  • DingoJones
    1.3k


    Your interjection is misapplied, the part you quoted was not specifically about what you went on to rebut. Some sort of mutated strawman.
    To your point, this is largely semantics. “Colourblind” is being defined differently by you and I. (and NOS I believe).
    Being colourblind when judging the character of a person is not the same as the way you mean it as being blind to experiences or history relating to race/racism.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.