Yes, Harry.
↪Harry Hindu That's right.

Now if you can put these ideas together in a coherent way,. you will have understood what we have been saying. — Banno

I did. The only coherent idea I get from your inconsistent posts is that you are inconsistent.

This ought to be evident, but some people simply are quite infatuated with the rhetoric that ignoring race simply means denial of racial problems and gives a veil to racism. It seems there's not much effort to understand your point here. — ssu

In other words, there are people that want special treatment, not equal treatment.

For what purpose should I notice one's skin color in a job interview? What does that tell me about how qualified for the job they are? As an employer, I am concerned about people's ability to do the job. What does skin color inform me about that? Nothing.

Now, if I wanted to know what kinds of diseases you might be more susceptible to, then your racial genetics will be useful to know.

Thank you for your lengthy contribution. Hopefully you do not think all that writing was in vain.

It's descriptively wrong. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This sounds again like we're all talking at cross-purposes, then. The pro-colorblind side seems to be saying "race should not be factored into our prescriptive decisions"; that it ought not matter what race someone is, and we should act as best we can to ensure that it doesn't matter to our decisions. I don't think anybody is denying that race does matter to people, as a descriptive fact of reality; just that that is prescriptively, morally wrong.

The colourblind is a response to the idea of people gaining merit over others by identity. We ought to, according to the colourblind approach, not recognise or describe differences of identity, for identity is only ever a means by which someone gains merit. — TheWillowOfDarkness

?

I thought it is race, gender etc. and not identity. Hence in my view the above should be: "The colourblind is a response to the idea of people gaining merit over others by race. We ought to, according to the colourblind approach, not recognise or describe differences of race.

It tries to eliminate this by giving everyone the same singular identity (person, human, man, citizen, etc. ), so everyone is granted the same merit. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Again no. It simply is that we avoid using racial or gender categorization and look at the merits based on the individual's actions and ability. Merit is based on something totally else than some physical character of the individual. And the colorblindness just is one issue here.

I think you are confusing personal identity with social or collective identity. (But of course, I might be wrong)

In other words, there are people that want special treatment, not equal treatment. — Harry Hindu

Actually yes, because when the ideology starts from racism being central and an integral part how humans form social spheres, it is an inherent struggle. Equal treatment would be bad: it would just let those in power have all their 'white priviledge'. Equal treatment here is defined very narrowly. In my view this kind of reasoning don't make sense: on one hand you uphold something that you would want to destroy on the other hand. And then you get into the silly redefining of racism. It simply turns into a power game.

It's like the people who believe everything, utterly everything is propaganda. Once these people get into a place to operate themselves, they push the most incredible classic 20th Century propaganda ever. You would think they would opt out of the propaganda and try to look for the objective truth or the closest to it, but no.

For what purpose should I notice one's skin color in a job interview? What does that tell me about how qualified for the job they are? As an employer, I am concerned about people's ability to do the job. What does skin color inform me about that? Nothing. — Harry Hindu

Yep. And structural discrimination, especially in a job interview, would happen when you wouldn't give someone similar focus based on their skin.. or simply their name and would use it as a positive or negative detail.

When you look at how structural discrimination is defined and the examples that are given, it's quite straight forward and easy to understand. It makes total sense. But when all these terms are used in the most excessive woke literature, all you get is a mush of confusion. And things get complicated.

Sometimes I've got to call ...

You're condoning the racial profiling of "white cops" as all possessing group-think - as if all white cops see race & color the same way - the way you do - because you are the one racially profiling people based on their "whiteness" - which is a genetic condition. — Harry Hindu

Bullshit.

Power - Racial Prejudice = Racial Equality? — Harry Hindu

Ok. I get it now, you're just trolling. Basta!

The colourblind is a response to the idea of people gaining merit over others by identity. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not by identity, by identity based discrimination. It's about addressing the mechanism by which identity confers merit. it amounts to proclaiming that identity should not confer merit.

In other words, it is an approach afraid of recognising who people are, for it thinks identity is nothing more than a trick to obtain merit. The position is running on an underlying idea people obtain merit through who they are (i.e. their identity). — TheWillowOfDarkness

I beg to differ. I believe it runs directly contrary to that position.

It tries to eliminate this by giving everyone the same singular identity (person, human, man, citizen, etc. ), so everyone is granted the same merit. We are all just free citizens (unlike those slaves, immigrants, non-citizens, aliens, etc., who do not belong), so we must be of equal merit. Not only does he colourblind approach fear identity gives merit, but it ironically believes it too. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Are you sure it logically follows that intending not to judge others by their skin colour implies that one actually does believe skin colour indicates merit?

If identity wasn’t consider to grant merit, the colourblind approach makes no sense. If we are people of equal merit, what do we have to fear in our differences being recognised? We have nothing. Since we are people of equal merit, we are valuable no matter how we might differ from others. Our differences can be bold, on show, recognised constantly — TheWillowOfDarkness

The problem is there's also history and contemporary identity based discrimination to contend with. I don't think I'm afraid of recognizing differences (I'm comfortable recognizing more of them than most) but I'm afraid of delivering injustice or unfair judgments to others because of hasty or irrational schemas or stereotypes that the human psyche is heir to. In short, the colourblind initiative still makes sense if there is still racism, even if those promoting it believe race does not indicate merit.

My point here is the colourblind approach begins in a fucked understanding of people.

It understands people have to take some specific form (the differentlessness, universal subject) before they have merit. It rejects, like the racists, the sexists, etc al., people have merit in themselves (whatever differences that might entail). Rather than grasping people have merit, a colourblind approach just continues the squabble over being “the right sort” to have merit. — TheWillowOfDarkness

As usual, there is a vast chasm between our interpretations, but we do share common ground. I think that merit only makes sense (in this discussion) when we apply it to individuals rather than identities. It's fine to be proud of heritage and culture,but I don't think it's fair to wield it as an advantage over others, which is what colorblindness seeks to address.

The only modern (and non overtly racist) domain in which I've seen ethnicity directly equated with merit is in select management theory. They value diversity in employee ethnicity and culture because it enhances problem solving capacity and expands company perspective. Not to mention it lets them advertise that they're out to promote equality...

p.s:

I may need a few days to respond to the rest of your impressively long post :) . Thanks for your patience, and thanks for sharing!

From what I'm reading:

Active (practicing) colorblindess = necessary preventative (and therefore, an effective method) - for reducing 'personalized racism', succumbing to stereotypes, discrimination, immoral deeds, causing harm, etc ... (religious-thinking - totalitarian?)

Okay.


Inactive colorblindness: All 'religions' matter; all religions welcomed (effective in theory) .. quasi-humanitarian aka laziness - 'the race agnostics'/I've seen the true light.


Racial conscious and/or non-colorblindness: 'Religious thinking' allowed (but uninteresting/ineffective - no one cares) - 'non'-religious thinking also allowed.

:cool: :up:

(PSA) :meh:

Paraphrasing the late great Albert Murray:

To fight dragons is heroic; to protest the existence of dragons is naïve.

Likewise, to wit: Anti-racism, with critical force multiplier Anti-classism, is heroic; 'racial color-blindness' in the face of persistent (Class-privileging) Race/Color/Native-isms is naïve ("woke") at best, and at worst ... :fire:

A boogeyman lurking in the shadows and ready to pounce, against whom ordinary people have to prepare to defend themselves is part and parcel of American culture as baseball.

Starting from the burglar breaking into your house that one has to shoot or otherwise your family will be killed, it's one of those things that creates xenophobia and the fear against minorities, which then turns into present day racism. A tiny minority harbour ideas of racial supremacy, the fear of criminals or lunatic gunmen is far more typical. The 'alt-right' shooter is a just one version of this, which shows how universal the phenomenon is in America. Few crackpots capture the imagination of a huge country. — ssu

I agree with all of this. I'd just add the theme of class. Americans are afraid of poor people. And we hate poor people, who are often just a little poorer than we are. Or no poorer but just with the wrong manners. One can still say 'white trash' without losing one's job.

Someone will always end up playing the anti-exemplar. I don't think elitism can be escaped. That would be like a community without norms or ideals. We'll always have harsh words for whatever unsettles or disgust us. Someone will be the creep, the trash.

The gun issue is complex. It's not only about defending one's home from an actual threat. It's also about the masculine ideal. There's something so naked and lamb-like about a disarmed worker who lives among armed cops and armed criminals. 'Don't tread on me.'
That's a deep part of our psyche.

I thought you'd like it. I've been reading The Black Circle lately (Jeff Love). It's about Kojeve, which means it's about Dostoevsky too. The underground man is still fresh as a daisy. He's like ur-material out of which all the other beautiful and terrible maniacs emerge.

I agree with all of this. I'd just add the theme of class. Americans are afraid of poor people. And we hate poor people, who are often just a little poorer than we are. Or no poorer but just with the wrong manners. One can still say 'white trash' without losing one's job. — jellyfish

The term 'white trash' shows perfectly the structural racism in American culture. There's a lot of positive things in American culture, but this isn't one of them. As if then when you are referring to your "own race" such condescending and hateful terms of your fellow countrymen is acceptable. It's a way how the attitude for racism and xenophobia survives.

In then agrarian Finland such racist terms describing the poor people you did find in the 19th Century, a similar time when the term white trash was started to be used in the US. Then we had terms like loinen, parasite in English, which referred to poor people that didn't own a home and basically lived in the sheds of their employer. Yet in the 20th Century these terms weren't used or tolerated anymore. And 'human garbage' would sound really bad. It doesn't simply fit to a society with social cohesion. It does fit to a society with deep class divides.

Just as 180Proof points out, of course povetry is attached to this. Class is something that many Americans don't get as they confuse class with caste, and think about a caste system when talking about a class system. And of course, since the term is so loved by the socialists, Americans just turn away from using it.

Sometimes I've got to call ...

Bullshit. — 180 Proof

You forgot to call this one.

Paraphrasing the late great Albert Murray:

To fight dragons is heroic; to protest the existence of dragons is naïve. — 180 Proof

:rofl: If only we lived in a world where dragons actually did exist, or in a country where systematic racism did exist.

Likewise, to wit: Anti-racism, with critical force multiplier Anti-classism, is heroic; 'racial color-blindness' in the face of persistent (Class-privileging) Race/Color/Native-isms is naïve ("woke") at best, and at worst ... :fire: — 180 Proof

But you aren't practicing anti-racism. You are being racist to "fight" racism. So you're actually a bad guy that has deluded himself into believing he is the hero.

Power - Racial Prejudice = Racial Equality?
— Harry Hindu

Ok. I get it now, you're just trolling. Basta! — 180 Proof

Asking difficult questions isn't trolling.

I think everyone can get along with that basic idea with slightly different ideas about the nuances of context.

Talking about problems is generally better than ignoring them. There are circumstances where focusing every social issue with a certain vested interest/concern in one particular facet glasses can become a detriment to the main cause. Meaning, if we become too focused on one serious issue we can occasionally blur them with other serious issues. Being humans we tend to apply heuristics that work in one area to other areas assuming they apply equally as well.

Talking about ‘racial inequality’ in good, but talking about nothing else but ‘racial inequality’ tips every item of social concern toward being about ‘race’.

This is why I said it was a ‘no-brainer’. It’s a fairly commonsense position.

My concern is more with the underlying mechanisms of how prejudices perpetuate society: hence my attempts to bring the topic of information distribution and AI/algorithms to the fore.

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:

:up:

So is vernacular like “white privilege” and anti-color blindness really the best vehicle for getting there or for stimulating positive action? I oppose the language as divisive and ultimately prejudiced, and I still can’t really comprehend why color-blindness as an initiative applied to discriminatory institutions is somehow bad.

One cannot be born with privilege anymore than one can be born with a trophy in his hand. Privilege is always granted, and it needs to be granted from living beings to other living beings. As a corollary, in order to acquire privilege one must first accept it from those handing it out. So yes, the term is silly at best, dehumanizing and racist at worst.

thought you'd like it. I've been reading The Black Circle lately (Jeff Love). It's about Kojeve, which means it's about Dostoevsky too. The underground man is still fresh as a daisy. He's like ur-material out of which all the other beautiful and terrible maniacs emerge. — jellyfish

Cool! Thanks!

In then agrarian Finland such racist terms describing the poor people you did find in the 19th Century, a similar time when the term white trash was started to be used in the US. Then we had terms like loinen, parasite in English, which referred to poor people that didn't own a home and basically lived in the sheds of their employer. Yet in the 20th Century these terms weren't used or tolerated anymore. And 'human garbage' would sound really bad. It doesn't simply fit to a society with social cohesion. It does fit to a society with deep class divides.

Just as 180Proof points out, of course povetry is attached to this. Class is something that many Americans don't get as they confuse class with caste, and think about a caste system when talking about a class system. And of course, since the term is so loved by the socialists, Americans just turn away from using it. — ssu

Indeed. I agree. The class issue hits us where we live. Even the talk of race and gender (which obviously has its value) gets tangled up in class-indicating manners. Racism, sexism, and homophobia are associated with poverty, especially with 'white trash' but also with blue-collar work. In our two party country, it all gets tangled up into something like mommy versus daddy.

Consider this article:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/us/california-mother-warning-white-supremacists-soh/index.html

To me the mother/son dynamic is fascinating here. The story assumes that its readers need a little glossary, at those who live in a bubble. It condescends. One of the words to watch for is 'SJW.' How clueless/insulated are these mothers supposed to be? Even liberal movie reviews are using 'snowflake.' The mean lingo is changing hands as each side tries to mock the other in its own terms.

She responded to criticism that she was trying to "brainwash" her children.
"All parents are trying to bend their kids' minds. Whether it's getting them to wash their hands when they normally wouldn't or getting them to think about social issues in a way that's going to help society get better," she said.
She's found a positive way to engage her sons.
"The kids and I are conspirators together," she said. — Mom

She's right of course that parents are expected to shape their children. But there's something strange about mommy conspiring with her sons. She implies that modern religion is mostly political conspiracy theories, or at least that her boys are attracted to conspiracy theory (scapegoating). But that's what this article does, a sort of Satanic Panic. Class doesn't come up, just gender and race. Masculinity is associated with the threat of racism throughout.

This doesn't make me cry. It's even funny. Did AI write it? It's so weird. Did I dream it? I'm trying to point out how masculinity is tangled up with the race issue and make sense of some of Trump's support.

One cannot be born with privilege anymore than one can be born with a trophy in his hand. Privilege is always granted, and it needs to be granted from living beings to other living beings. As a corollary, in order to acquire privilege one must first accept it from those handing it out. So yes, the term is silly at best, dehumanizing and racist at worst. — NOS4A2

Some people are born with advantages, isnt that some kind of “privilege”?

Subcultures never run along racial or ethnic lines. Arguing so is a category error. Cultural actives one partakes in are distinct from having one particular identity or not. Former outsiders become part of groups all the time. Supposing a subculture only involves people of a certain racial or ethic group is just a form of racial essentialism.

Some subcultures might have a certain connection to people of particular racial or ethnic identity, but that doesn’t make belonging to the subculture only for that group of people. Family, relationships location and circumstance can always toss people of expected race or ethnicity into that culture. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I agree, which is why I remarked that culture doesn't necessarily gang with ethnicity.

Race, like any other identity aspect, cannot be used to defined groups. Identity is of the individual. If we are to speak about an identity, we are speaking about individuals. There is nothing homogenous about it. In any given ethnic group, there will be all sorts of people. Different cultural aspects, different concepts of self, variance in material and economic conditions. Identity specifically crosses in-group diversity, to include all sections of the bell curve. Rather the race defining groups, individuals of race define the group. A racial group is an identification of a similarity (racial identity) between these individuals of race. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I agree once more, I would only add the caveat that some people do partially define *themselves* according to their ethnic identity.

The statistics you speak of here is a misstep. Or rather, the way you are using them is backwards. We can measure in group diversity, draw out particular relations, general trends, etc., of the group in society. What does this tell us? Certain numbers of people of the group are in particular cultural, material and economic conditions. It’s not a description of any one individual. — TheWillowOfDarkness

it's a claim about a group of individuals, but you cannot apply it to all members of the group without generalizing, which is where i think there's room for error.

Consider this article:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/us/california-mother-warning-white-supremacists-soh/index.html — jellyfish

Actually quite hilarious. Even if the progressive mom likely isn't religious at all, she has a religious fervour to fight evil and save her boys from being lured into the Satanic cult of the alt-right.

The attitude is telling. It is one reason why politics comes to be so divisive and why we talk about politics becoming tribal. You see, it's not that political ideology that you oppose simply doesn't just work, is counterproductive and make things worse, it is are truly evil. And evil isn't something that cannot accept or understand, it's just morally unacceptable.

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.

Fairness can't be achieved by disregarding advantages and disadvantages. — praxis

That's true, but race in itself is neither an advantage or a disadvantage; to claim otherwise is to say that some races are better than others. 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.

Even if the progressive mom likely isn't religious at all, she has a religious fervour to fight evil and save her boys from being lured into the Satanic cult of the alt-right. — ssu

Indeed. Religion (or something like it) hasn't gone anywhere. We're a haunted species.

The attitude is telling. It is one reason why politics comes to be so divisive and why we talk about politics becoming tribal. You see, it's not that political ideology that you oppose simply doesn't just work, is counterproductive and make things worse, it is are truly evil. — ssu

I agree. There's also the issue of tone. Often political arguments get so nasty that persuasion is no longer the point. Instead each side is just performing for those overhearing, for those already in their tribe.

I don't want to pretend to be entirely above this. I understand its appeal. We like fights. We like violent movies. And it's easy to feel that the whole thing is a spectacle. Do people want change? Or do I/they need the enemy to structure their sense of self?

There are circumstances where focusing every social issue with a certain vested interest/concern in one particular facet glasses can become a detriment to the main cause. Meaning, if we become too focused on one serious issue we can occasionally blur them with other serious issues. — I like sushi

No one is focusing on "one specific" issue with discussing racial affairs. That is my point. No one 'racially' conscious person (here) anyway, is or was discussing 'just race' .. that is your own poor misinterpretation (passive colorblind screen..) - which I attribute to laziness (e.g. conflict apathy/conflict avoidance) -the symptom, at least the ACTIVE totalitarian color-blinds are being forward with it. Rainbow middle man 'fixes' nothing when he refuses to pick up the tools, just prevents necessary clashes.

You are not 'broaden' the topic talking about AI, you are derailing it (what you think - as a symptom of passive colorblindness) is simple enough to be "less focused" on.

Being humans we tend to apply heuristics that work in one area to other areas assuming they apply equally as well. — I like sushi

OK.

I don't think all "prejudices" and "heuristics" need to be addressed or met with the same degree of scrutiny as racial (racism) - & some harmful prejudices, & affairs. This is something else all together; which is why I find your position suspicious and struggle to see how it is first all that relevant. The very fact you want to 'equalize' prejudices (personal) mostly, as being 'equally' problematic in itself doesn't make sense to me and comes off as an aesthetic/superficial position - nor do I find it holding that much personal integrity or self-reflection.

But sure, if 'personally treating everyone equally' is the colorblinds' choice, so be it. It is not realistic and dare I say hardly possible (if not a trivialization) of this entire topic. I WOULDN'T urge people to reduce their personal prejudices (even when it comes to race - in a low grade ghetto of South Central), in any sense - no more than I'd urge women to be less cautious (aware & by that I mean, prepared) in particular situations - NOR suggest this is some morally superior approach - unless they are interfering with systematic problems (e.g. job hiring, etc..). 'Heuristics' are hardly half of it.

Talking about ‘racial inequality’ in good, but talking about nothing else but ‘racial inequality’ tips every item of social concern toward being about ‘race’. — I like sushi

Except 'talking about racial inequality' isn't just talking about 'racial inequality' .. (unless you mean DingusJones, Harry and others) .. which is where you (and the active color-blinds) seem to misinterpret everything. Hence: my previous posts.

This is why I said it was a ‘no-brainer’. It’s a fairly commonsense position. — I like sushi

Yeah, my point. No one cares about personalized 'common sense' positions in the light of systematic racism. Well I don't anyway. So I ask again in a "nicer" tone, what is your point?

No one is focusing on "one specific" issue with discussing racial affairs. That is my point. No one 'racially' conscious person (here) anyway, is or was discussing 'just race' .. that is your own poor misinterpretation (passive colorblind screen..) - which I attribute to laziness (e.g. conflict apathy/conflict avoidance) -the symptom, at least the ACTIVE totalitarian color-blinds are being forward with it. Rainbow middle man 'fixes' nothing when he refuses to pick up the tools, just prevents necessary clashes.

You are not 'broaden' the topic talking about AI, you are derailing it (what you think - as a symptom of passive colorblindness) is simple enough to be "less focused" on. — Swan

The issue of the OP has been dealt with. Are we backpedaling on the term ‘colour-blindness’? Have things gotten a little topsy turvy? There is a need for discussion - no-brainer - and it goes mostly without saying that extreme ends for or against the use of terms like colourblind present good reasons. That was the topic and it has been dealt with - clearly some view the term as being manipulated over time from a good intentioned meaning to a political weapon, and others view it as being a term to reveal ‘racial’ prejudices. Both have weight, but the modern use seems rather a poor choice to me because ‘colour’ (skintone) doesn’t determine ‘race’. If it was coined ‘racial blindness’ then that would make more sense.

I mention the fallacy of the middle. Why are you accusing me of such in every post since? Seems quite strange given that I’ve merely been pointing out that there is weight to both interpretations of the term. I don’t think it’s a great term (see above) but if that is how people wish to use it they can. I’m not fond of it for the same reason I’m not too fond of ‘race’. It’s a dated term and has taken on historical meanings that have since been proven wrong. It seems to be the case that many people assume skintone dictates ‘race’ (which actually says very little about a persons genetic heritage) so even if there were different human races (which there are not) skin tone most probably wouldn’t be a determining factor in distinguishing different hypothetical ‘races’.

None of this is a denial of social divisions based on skintone. It is a problem. Given that the thrust of the discussion is about the use and misuse of words I don’t think I am going off piste here. There is no derailing of the discussion. It’s been had and that’s that.

Maybe it does appear to you that I am avoiding the discussion about racism? That would be intentional on my part, not blindness. I know what I am doing. I don’t think the issue can be dealt with by finger pointing. I am merely trying to break things down and look at the underlying mechanisms of general prejudices before looking at the specific differences.

I don't think all "prejudices" and "heuristics" need to be addressed or met with the same degree of scrutiny as racial (racism) - & some harmful prejudices, & affairs. This is something else all together; which is why I find your position suspicious and struggle to see how it is first all that relevant. The very fact you want to 'equalize' prejudices (personal) mostly, as being 'equally' problematic in itself doesn't make sense to me and comes off as an aesthetic/superficial position - nor do I find it holding that much personal integrity or self-reflection.

But sure, if 'personally treating everyone equally' is the colorblinds' choice, so be it. It is not realistic and dare I say hardly possible (if not a trivialization) of this entire topic. I WOULDN'T urge people to reduce their personal prejudices (even when it comes to race - in a low grade ghetto of South Central), in any sense - no more than I'd urge women to be less cautious (aware & by that I mean, prepared) in particular situations - NOR suggest this is some morally superior approach - unless they are interfering with systematic problems (e.g. job hiring, etc..). 'Heuristics' are hardly half of it. — Swan

I do think prejudices need to be look at as prejudices before being delineated. If we have a broader picture of how prejudices operate in human social structures then we can distinguish between the marked differences between them rather than conflate them. If the underlying common principles are bigger factors than the individual differences then we’re not doing anything much other than looking proactive in the pursuit of a means to deal with the problem of racism.

This is not me saying ‘all prejudices in society are of equal detriment’. Far from it. I’m merely putting across that if we don’t look at the way all prejudices perpetuate in societies then we can’t seriously expect to see the important differences and end ip either conflating items or ignoring others altogether - an example would be racism within feminism (a point where people fighting for one societal prejudice to be righted blindsighted themselves from their own racism).

I think it is important to learn that self-driving cars were more likely to run over a black pedestrian than a white pedestrian. These can or unseen mistake can easily slip through due to what some would call ‘colour blindness’ and some would term ‘systemic racism’. It was just a case of algorithms working with the data they were given. If the AI system was designed and tested in Africa then they’d have been more likely to hit white people. The point is algorithms can point out certain problems humans have in terms of not seeing how people are different. Understanding distinctions helps with medicine too (some medicine is better for black people due to blood make-up etc.,.).

Except 'talking about racial inequality' isn't just talking about 'racial inequality' .. (unless you mean DingusJones, Harry and others) .. which is where you (and the active color-blinds) seem to misinterpret everything. Hence: my previous posts. — Swan

I am not trying to misinterpret anything anywhere. I certainly have social blind spots, but I don’t know what they are. The same goes for everyone including yourself. That is how humans are.

This discussion started with one of us questioning the other. The best we can do is give up, or account for the misinterpretations by pointing them out without accusations or feelings of suspicion - it doesn’t help anyone understand anyone if we can only resort to a blame game. You’ve voiced that I have been patronising in some posts, I accept that you feel that and can only express that it wasn’t my intent. The tone of my writing can easily been seen as patronising probably because I’m trying to be careful with my words and clinical with my approach to the topic.

I’m certainly not here to ‘win’. I find those discussions to be pointless unless each participant is arguing against their own position (steel-maning).

Yeah, my point. No one cares about personalized 'common sense' positions in the light of systematic racism. Well I don't anyway. So I ask again in a "nicer" tone, what is your point? — Swan

I’ve answered above quite thoroughly I think. To emphasis, for the sake of clarity, it is clear we can learn a great deal about human prejudices by turning to what data sets tell us. Algorithms and AI can unveil, and have, unseen biases within data sets. Given that the world is connected it seems a small leap to suggest that these prejudices can be lessened by manipulating algorithms where they would previously reinforce known and unknown biases. Basically, they can show us human interactions and biases we cannot see and show us where we’re feeding into known biases.

If you can suggest a better means of dealing with the issue of racism across societies - which doesn’t always fall under issues of skin colour - I’d be interested to hear your ideas.

Thanks for your patience.

Yeah, this is getting nowhere. I have nothing else to say, maybe someone else will answer. I'm withdrawing from the discussion. Adios.

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. — praxis

It's not a strawman. I'm attacking 180's double-standard.
So, you're saying that prejudice exists in everyone? What about minorities? Do they have biases? If so, how do we determine who's bias is the problem in some situation like when a white cop interacts with a black person? Should cops be thinking about how the minority sees race and color as well - and about the minority's biases? 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? How does he know the cop is racist? If I ran from a black cop, can I say that the black cop has the power and he's prejudiced, therefore he's racist? Does that make me prejudiced, or racist?

180 could have defended his statements himself. 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.

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. — praxis

This is a straw-man (since you don't seem to know what a real one looks like). Like I've said numerous times (that you somehow missed or are you cherry-picking), we should treat everyone the same when our differences don't matter. The only difference that matters when I'm being considered for a job is how qualified I am compared to the other applicants, not anything to do with my skin's color. Our differences in skin color comes in handy during medical or biological conversations. It's not about not acknowledging our differences at all. It is about acknowledging our differences when the differences really do matter, and not when they don't. People like you and 180 don't seem to understand that. Acknowledging differences in a case where the differences don't matter is a category error.