There’s some odd, very defensive posts here.


Methinks they protest too much?

“They”? Whom do you mean?

You dont think there are ability differences between races? None? Why do american blacks dominate most american sports? Culture? — DingoJones

Differences, yes, but they may not be as large as you think (the reason this topic is taboo is because people are afraid of reaching conclusions that would support racist sentiments).

But yes, genetics do lead to deviation in trends when comparing ethnic gene pools.

Black athleticism is one of the more popular examples (NBA and playership, notably) but many factors other than genetics can and do lead to these disproportionate outcomes. For example, the black population is especially large in California,Texas, and New York, where I am to understand that playing basketball is a mainstay cultural passtime. Growing up poor (where basketball is free), and where basically everyone else is constantly playing it from as soon as they can bounce a ball (meaning they have a highly developed talent pool), is an extremely large advantage for skill development. In much the same way that the ultimate soccer players are selected and developed from a very young age, so too are modern NBA players developed from a young age. I'm not so sure if this would apply to New York, but playing ball all day long in the hot southern sun for a lifetime would also amount to insane endurance conditioning.

Another example is Jewish representation in media and entertainment. New York and LA have disproportionately high Jewish populations, and these are the two centers of American national entertainment (IIRC this fact closes the representation gap almost entirely). It may be the case that black genetics confer some-kind of advantage in sports like Basket-Ball, or that Jewish genetics confer some kind of advantage in writing/producing entertainment, but we need not, and must not, appeal to these things as raw monolithic factors that oversimplify complex realities. Much in the same way that some people claim on-going racism explains all social disparities, trying to explain everything in terms of genetics is likewise narrow.

There’s some odd, very defensive posts here.


Methinks they protest too much? — Banno

There's some very odd posts here without any reasoning behind them - just wild accussations, generalizing people based on the color of their skin, etc. with no evidence.

Not to mention how a racist majority that makes the rules could end up making rules promoting equality without first abandoning their racism.

So you have a causation problem.

How does a society that is inherently racist make rules that aren't racist if it inherently racist?

How does one attain an equal society without first admitting that skin color has no bearing on a person's character?

“Normative” means pertaining to what ought or ought not be; prescriptive, evaluative, loosely speaking moral.

Well, Im not sure what I said to indicate I thought the differences were “large”. Terra thinks they do not exist at all and thats what I was taking issue with. I didnt realise that racism was such a wide net term. I mean, Im aware of the taboo of the topic but the charge of racism came faster than I would have expected. Especially in an environment thats supposed to be about open discussion. My mistake I guess, I remember that Sushi guy posting a topic about some kinda Sophie’s Choice thing where you had to choose between killing 1 million people or everyone when I first joined the forum. Just an attempt at answering his question resulted in charges of sociopathy and such.
Anyway, I don’t disagree with anything in your post that I can see. Culture or even just individual preference seem to count for a lot more than racial tendencies. I think that having a passion for something is the biggest factor in success at it by quite a bit, I just dont see the merit in denying the racial factors...even if racists might glom onto those differences for their racist ideologies. They are gonna do that anyway, even if they have to make it up rather than reference actual facts.

As with most things, truth is a complicated and messy middle-ground that the polar extremes can't help but mortar and shell, which just compounds complexity.

P.S: I did not mean to imply you find great import in genetic differences. My writing usually airs on the rhetorical side, so my attempt to comment and add information usually takes the form of countering a specific perspective that I disagree with (which in this case is both the complete denial of genetic effects, as well as the supposition that we should organize society, or our judgments of others, based on these ultimately vague genetic trends).

Right, so in what way would that exclude the sunburn resistance? I guess its the implication that Im mentioning that difference between white people and black people because of my racist ideology? (Therefore touching upon the “loose morality” part of normative).

but why ask me? You are accusing me of a bunch of stuff that I will not own.

Indeed, race is one of those trigger issues. I knew that when I posted about it, so being called a racist doesnt really bother me much. (Plus, its laughably untrue).

Edit: yes I understand you weren’t implying that, now. I started with that just to make sure. All good sir.

Philosophically what is of interest is the classic criticism of liberalism: that in claiming neutrality on religion, race, ethnicity, gender or ability, it belittles them. It claims that they do not matter.

Im still curious as to whether or not you were talking about me with the comment about defensiveness, could you answer that please? (If you do not, I will assume im on your unofficial ignore list and cease bothering you with directed comments)

But race, religion, gender, and ability should not matter, at least in some sense (they should not confer advantages and disadvantages, whether intrinsically or extrinsically). The problem is that anything other than neutrality toward individuals of these demographics winds up being stereotyping/hasty generalizing, and mistakes ensue.

Let's say we fund blacks-only scholarships to be given based on academic merit. It is a good enough idea, but what happens when already advantaged blacks disproportionately win the scholarship? Oops? O.K, let's make a kind of wealth requirement that excludes people from middle and upper-class families to better target the individuals who are in greater need the help. Isn't this the broader principle we should be following? Is it a demographic that needs help or is it individuals? When, where and how do we transit out of the statistical heuristic of race/demographics and into policy or practice?

I'm concerned that the geographic and economic mobility and absolute living standards of the bottom class does not reach an equitable minimum, which is a reality faced many black and white individuals and families alike (though disproportionately faces the black population). In the pursuit of equality, fairness, and improvement, I see this statistical outcome-parity stuff as nearly a complete waste of time because symmetry in proportional suffering between demographics simply does not address absolute suffering or the relative difference in burdens and benefits felt by the lower, middle, and upper classes. In caring so deeply about parity in the upper echelons, people seem to forget entirely about the majority left behind at the bottom.

You have said that color-blindness is just an excuse for white conservatives to justify the status quo by denying racism, but isn't color-wokeness just another status-quo-justifying lens of its own? One that says: It doesn't matter if our society psychopathically chews up and destroys those at the bottom of the bucket, just so long as the up-down color gradient has horizontal symmetry...?

I don’t think I had read any of your posts up until this last. So, not you in particular.

Ok, thanks just curious.

Since you seem to be the prime opponent of “colorblindness” on this thread, maybe you can answer the question I’ve asked of that side several times: is a policy of treating people the same regardless of their race “colorblind” in the sense you are against? If so, what specifically would you have people do differently in what circumstances to avoid doing the bad thing you’re against?

Being sex/color blind is generally a good thing and a good thing for the privilledged to be. — Coben

As the problems of race come into view there are those who - for whatever reason - talk about 'colour-blindness' as if that does anything at all to help solve and/or resolve the historical problems of systemic racism in America.

For starters, it's nonsense. No one is color blind in the relevant sense. Everyone notices such things about others. It's how one uses that bit of knowledge that matters here.

...it can be a strategy for a dominant group, after ensuring a dominated group has been pushed to the bottom of society, to claim moral brownie points for doing nothing to right the wrong. — Baden

Exactly. If we never focus upon race, it's much easier to avoid directly addressing the accumulated advantages of systemic racism. Colour-blindness can be used as self-congratulatory rhetorical drivel.

:clap: :up:

Great to see ya around here!

:wink:

I've missed ya.

But race, religion, gender, and ability should not matter, at least in some sense (they should not confer advantages and disadvantages, whether intrinsically or extrinsically). The problem is that anything other than neutrality toward individuals of these demographics winds up being stereotyping/hasty generalizing, and mistakes ensue. — VagabondSpectre

This misunderstands identity as a question of merit. Stereotyping, generalising, etc., happens when we take an identity category, such as race religion, gender or ability, to mark the value of one person in comparison to others. We stereotype "X (identity) is...," "X (identity) can only...," etc., ascribing that belonging to identify is an a priori means of achieving value over the valueless mass of humans. Even the supposition that identity should not matter is caught in these terms. It holds the only way identity could matter is if it were a stereotype to gain merit over others.

Identity has another side, the binding of an existing person, in a social environment, under a concept of who they are. This side (which is a social construct, as are all our identity categories) of race, religion, gender, ability, etc. is real, the people who are distinguished by concepts, who exist is certain material conditions, who are related in specific ways to culture an organisation of society.

Race, religion, gender, ability, etc., always matter because they belong to the people of these identities. Not in the sense of the being some kind of special merit, but rather because they are of people who live within society. For these people, a society which values these identities is inseparable from one which values them.

A society which values equality does not see race, religion, gender or ability as irrelevant. It understands people with those identities are valuable. It sees them as part of society and recognises society will not be equitable if it ignores them.

You have said that color-blindness is just an excuse for white conservatives to justify the status quo by denying racism, but isn't color-wokeness just another status-quo-justifying lens of its own? One that says: It doesn't matter if our society psychopathically chews up and destroys those at the bottom of the bucket, just so long as the up-down color gradient has horizontal symmetry... — VagabondSpectre

Correct, if we are talking about capitalist-wokeness (disproportionately with a white flavour). The problem is capitalist-wokeness shares certain descriptive accounts with genuine investigation of issues. As is always the capitalist way, it commodifies and develops whatever ideas it wants in a way to maintain itself.

The problem for us philosophers and sociologists is it doesn't make those accounts any less accurate. If we are to describe a social situation of a particular group or individual, to use in our efforts to understand and address a problem, we're going to have to use some ideas the capitalist has/admit the capitalist has got something right.

There is also a bit of tension with individualist culture here. If we are in a position of respecting notions of individual freedom, we have to admit the woke-capitalist more than just getting some ideas right. We would have to admit the up-down color gradient of horizontal symmetry (note: we do not really have this now, only certain touches here and there) is an improvement, since it will have altered society in which individuals of certain identities are better valued than before.

Race is NOT reducing people down to their biology (e.g. phenotypes & epidermis) you trivialize race which is likely a symptom of attempting to lobotomize yourself to non-biological facts/histories &., realities, etc. Race is the acknowledgment of personhood.

(Same thing with sex ..) it is not REDUCTIONIST (as the 65 gender fetishists like to claim), only making peace with what exists (i.e. acceptance > tolerance) - not so much not examining what THAT MEANS.... to deny race is to deny certain realities, what the Hallucinating guy is doing is reductionist (e.g. IQ's are biological - race is 'purely' biological') while there existing

Color-blindness is impossible to the extent that if you were to practice it would be willful ignorance; you are not blind so much as wearing sunshades indoors because it dims the light. Eraser of race, sex, and etc., is A PROBLEM and will never succeed.

Even so, those that are color-blinded are NOT blind to shades.

This is prominent today, the obsession with ERASING realities and "blending" everyone in with faux-positions that make no sense. No. We will RESIST. People love to silence and control what they feel THREATEN by.

The Hallucinating guy spends too much time on Stormfront with trite pseudo-scientific washed out IQ argument.

Race is ‘purely’ biological is we’re talking about genetics. In which case there are no actual ‘human races’ there is just one human race.

In the context of the thread ‘race’ is a cultural attribute that may or may not be shaped by phenotypes.

Race isn’t the acknowledge of personhood, but the denial of it. It is another mental nation within which one can dissolve his or another’s individuality, reducing the person to the member of a group, a “race”, affixed with all the baggage such thinking automatically provides.

No one who professes to be color blind is blind to color in the literal sense. In fact, I would argue that it is the race-conscious thinkers who are less likely to acknowledge the vast spectrum of human skin colors—are more color-blind in the literal sense—falling back on the typical false white/non-white dichotomy that has no doubt solidified in their mind as it did in their racist forebears.

Speaking of realities, we would never find a black or white race existing in nature. These are purely mental divisions, imposed or adopted identities, not actual ones.

Woke people are against it because the question of "individual merit" turns the value of people into a counterfactual question within racial relationships with in society. — TheWillowOfDarkness

How does it turn the value of people into a counterfactual question?

Instead of understanding an individual of a racial group belongs to a society, the question of "individual merit" is pulled up before that belonging is granted. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Unfortunately I don't understand what you say here. Could you rephrase this, if you have time?

When the merit understood by society (e.g. wealth, status,etc) is divided along some racial line, the notion of individual merit turns into a judgment of the belonging of people in that group. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But that surely isn't at all what we mean by judging people from their actions. Wealth, status etc. are exactly the opposite of what is meant here: how wealthy you are surely doesn't give any insight about your morals, how well you behave or how honest you are. Criminals can be wealthy and people can inherit wealth even if they couldn't create themselves similar wealth, you know.

What would be requirements like that that have anything to do with race, though? You'd have to believe that there really are ability differences due to race, but there aren't. — Terrapin Station

I guess the reasoning falls back on the idea of 'white priviledge'.

Basically that if it isn't requirements like being taller and running faster (than the majority of women), it is something similar that divides on racial lines, not because of inherent racial differences, but social advantages and disadvantages formed thanks to earlier (or present) discrimination etc.

I think the whole idea is quite condescending, because putting race and gender before individual abilities puts then these stupid ideas of race into the forefront and they are treated as given. The ludicrous outcome is that then we are judged by some stereotypes of us and denied the possibility of not being in that mold.

Also, there isn't much logic to it. Because why stop to race and gender/sexual orientation? The next logical step would be to treat similarly one truly important divide that makes us be treated differently in the world, and that is nationality, the way we are separated into being different citizens of countries.

This of course goes totally against the woke agenda: nationality is the one thing that is deemed fictional by the left. It is something to be opposed because it's the role that is cherished by the (extreme)right! This just shows how the whole construction is more political than something else.

Burqa.

There's your "woke" racial color-blindness, gender-sexuality blindness, class/caste-blindness, etc. Unisex and mandatory for all ages when in public (even at beaches & swimming pools). :yawn:

Have you guys considered discussing something a little more difficult? This is a no-brainer really.

How about getting into the effects of AI and algorithms? This touches on numerous hidden prejudices not merely skin tone.

Except race ISN'T purely "biological" no more than than "slavery is purely black" and the "holocaust is purely Jewish"..

Race is NOT just 'genetics' which is demonstrated not JUST in this thread (is it "cultural"), but across ALL spans of history. Your laziness to acknowledge the fact that sex/race prejudices, sex/racial conflict, racial/sex inequalities PERSIST - in spite of - "policies" being in place, in spite of 'misogyny' being criminalized as a "bad word" .. shows that turning the blind eye to UNIQUE issues that persist in spite of your quasi-humanitarian efforts demonstrates that COLOR-BLINDNESS is nonsense..

Unless you're talking about 'I treat personally have friends that are black and queer ..' for cool points, or the 'I happen to be a male feminist' disguised as a means to bed women nonsense, to which NO ONE cares and NO ONE is taking the bait anymore.

Have you guys considered discussing something a little more difficult? This is a no-brainer really. — I like sushi

Yes, reductionism is a no-brainer, except no one is talking about that.

:rofl: :hearts:

Race isn’t the acknowledge of personhood, but the denial of it.

Race is the ACCEPTANCE (i.e. tolerance of personhood - the anatomy - of those outside of higher order) - that "red/purple/blue" EXIST outside of the rainbow you are attempting to stir-up, which is really just a white light.

It DOES NOT pose that "races" are separate species (differences in capacities - in the flesh - different from one another, but acknowledges DISTINCTIONS among human groups - not at all "all biological or genetic"), which is what Hallucinating guy and his crazy Stormfront mumbo-jumbo is attempting to make seem interesting.

Colorblindness is a good thing only to maladaptive daydreamers, time to wake up now.


No one who professes to be color blind is blind to color in the literal sense. In fact, I would argue that it is the race-conscious thinkers who are less likely to acknowledge the vast spectrum of human skin colors—are more color-blind in the literal sense—falling back on the typical false white/non-white dichotomy that has no doubt solidified in their mind as it did in their racist forebears.

Something ONLY a "color-blind" person would say. You are talking about COLORISM (not racism) - and ironically, the only one that struggles with acknowledging COLORISM are 'white' woke liberals.. 'everyone is a rainbow, we're all one race and one sex' folks and the non-whites submitting to them.

Asians (east, southeast, and south), not just blacks, have NO issues acknowledging this.