I don't have time to respond at length, but I wanted to clarify what I meant it the last quote because it is so crucial. When I speak of the "devaluing", I am talking about improving conditions at the bottom.

The billionare is being "devalued' in the improving of conditions at the bottom. In virtue of the system which improves the life of.people on the bottom, the billionaire loses some of his status over those on the bottom. "Devaluing" is a material condition of improving lives on the bottom. If the people on the bottom are richer, the billionaire loses some of the status he has over them.

It is our end which "devalues" here, no matter which metric (wealth, race, sex, etc.) might be invoved. When the bottom is no longer the slave, the top is no longer the master (i.e. the top is "devalued" ).

"Devaluing" is descriptive fact of the material social condition of any relationship of emainpation.

"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

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

The former quote appears to be a warning against profiling white cops. There's nothing alt-right about that. In the latter quote he's questioning whether there is systemic racism in the US, by which I assume he means racism that is an aspect of the system. With a narrow definition of "system" as the government, Harry is right. If there is some other system that is exhibiting racism, someone should just point it out to Harry. My own opinion is that racism is primarily the same as sexism: it's a way that people make themselves feel better about themselves, so it's personal. There is a portion of the US population that would like racism to become systemic. They're white supremacists and neo-Nazis. At present, they aren't in charge. I don't think Harry wants them to gain that control. I agree with about 5% of Harry's philosophical ramblings, but he's never struck me as a neo-Nazi. Did I miss something?

f social constructions have very little to do with anything material, then how is it that they influence our social behaviors? — Harry Hindu

What? I didn't understand the other quote either.

I agree that people should move along and pack up their ridiculous virtue signalling as they go (sorry, I had to get that out.)

I’m not entirely sure what your argument is. Plainer language language may help. If you’re against the general idea of the OP then fair enough.

You don’t appear to have said anything extraordinarily strange, but you’re making it appear quite obtuse. The constant bolds don’t really help.

I’m sure you can understand the OP is making the claim that talking about racism benefits racists. This is true. What I think the OP is not taking into account is that talking about racism also combats racism and helps equip the victims of racism with a means to combat it and to expose to others who aren’t victims a problem they are ‘blind’ too.

Again, none of this is a particularly unique or probing. Somehow I get the feeling these pointless exchanges will continue for several more pages (or more) without any sense of direction or cause.

What? I didn't understand the other quote either. — frank

That was from another other thread.

Ideological subversion, is my guess. — Tzeentch

Turns out I wasn't wrong.

↪180 Proof I’m not entirely sure what your argument is ... The constant bolds don’t really help. — I like sushi

:point:

Thus, "racial color-blindness" is a luxury wary nonwhite survivors of racial color-discrimination cannot afford so long as many, if not most, upper/over class (privileged) whites talk "racial color-blindness" but still walk the racial color-discrimination walk as systemic agents (or functionaries) and/or prejudiced individuals. — 180 Proof

:eyes:

The answer to the OP is simply this: because (predominately, though not exclusively, elite) Whites have dropped the pretense of "racial color-blindness" vis-à-vis Nonwhites, etc. — 180 Proof

:meh:

Do I understand correctly that your take is that the problem is not so much doing color-blindness, but talking color-blindness while not doing it?

So people who do actually do it should be free to talk it too then, right?

The OP doesn’t seem to disagree. Maybe he edited the first post? Looks like it.

The issue, as has been pointed out a dozen times, is a misconception/different/misunderstanding of the term ‘colour-blindness’.

I haven’t seen anyone disagree with the basic principle of judging people based on character rather than their appearance. I doubt anyone would disagree that we do always judge by appearances to some degree. I am pretty sure that everyone here has also said that ‘racism’ is a problem too. No one is saying we should ignore ‘race’ only that we shouldn’t put emphasis on someone’s ‘race’ when judging them as human beings.

I do prefer your use of the term ‘racial colour-blindness’. Perhaps people will pick it up so matters aren’t confused.

I still don’t really think what you’ve said is crystal clear ... “dropped the pretense of ...” meaning “stopped pretending” ? It’s not clear what you mean - at least not to me. Please reword/clarify.

Thanks

Those who know, don't say; and those who say, don't know.

↪180 Proof Do I understand correctly that your take is that the problem is not so much doing color-blindness, but talking color-blindness while not doing it? — Pfhorrest

Cynical (or naïve) hypocrisy.

So people who do actually do it should be free to talk it too then, right?

That's like talking about fucking: if you're talking about doing it, then ... :shade:

You've got the gist, so my position is clear enough (especially to anyone who's charitably followed my train of thought posted on this thread).

I’m not clear on what white (elitist or otherwise) are no longer pretending? They’ve stopped pretending it exists, that it is important, that they know what it means, (?) in relation to said ‘racial/coloured’ peoples?

See my confusion?

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

I don't see how this makes any difference. My response would be the same. Why would it not be responsible for black men and boys to be aware of their biases against cops?

Riiiiiiiiight ... Ok, Shrek. :up: — 180 Proof

Great! I'm so glad that you finally see the error in your logic, Donkey.

To whom?

And if you say my (s)kin doesn't matter, but I say it does, who decides? — Banno

Logic. Your skin color only matters in biological/medical contexts, not in political/judiciary contexts.

(1) Harryhindu posts in a thread regarding a prejudice or systemic injustice.
(2) Harryhindu attacks all narratives which affirm the relevance of the prejudice and the existence of systemic injustice by trying to beat them at their own game: the people highlighting said prejudice or systemic injustice are the real prejudiced people.

Move along people, move along.
— fdrake

Then define "prejudiced". — Harry Hindu

But If it weren't, you (or the worldview you promote) exhibits the prejudice. — fdrake

Then define "prejudice". Is this really that difficult? You're the ones throwing around this word inconsistently. How exactly are you using it? It seems to me that you believe the "prejudice" is only a characteristic of people with a certain genetic condition of having pale skin. Is that not an example of prejudice?

In the latter quote he's questioning whether there is systemic racism in the US, by which I assume he means racism that is an aspect of the system. With a narrow definition of "system" as the government, Harry is right. If there is some other system that is exhibiting racism, someone should just point it out to Harry. My own opinion is that racism is primarily the same as sexism: it's a way that people make themselves feel better about themselves, so it's personal. There is a portion of the US population that would like racism to become systemic. They're white supremacists and neo-Nazis. At present, they aren't in charge. I don't think Harry wants them to gain that control. I agree with about 5% of Harry's philosophical ramblings, but he's never struck me as a neo-Nazi. Did I miss something? — frank

No, you haven't missed anything.

I have asked numerous times for the ones making these spooky claims to point to the racist culprits, but I can't get any names. I asked them to define the terms they are using, but those requests are ignored. So no one has any clear idea of who, or what, this boogeyman is that is holding down minorities even though I see minorities in positions of power that can change my life for the worst if they wanted. This is the typical "squeaky wheel gets the grease" political tactics where the loudest groups get the special treatment, while the silent majority gets their rights trampled on.

Logic. Your skin color only matters in biological/medical contexts (except between group vs within group variability when classifying by sociological race doesn't vindicate them as biologically relevant categories), and should not not matter in political/judiciary contexts (fiat equality vs equality of opportunity & systemic discrimination aside). — Harry Hindu

This is the typical "squeaky wheel gets the grease" political tactics where the loudest groups get the special treatment, while the silent majority gets their rights trampled on. — Harry Hindu

Why did those bloody abos get an apology when I didn't..

This is the typical "squeaky wheel gets the grease" political tactics where the loudest groups get the special treatment, while the silent majority gets their rights trampled on. — Harry Hindu

Have your rights been trampled on?

The OP doesn’t seem to disagree. Maybe he edited the first post? Looks like it.

I did not.

I’m sure you can understand the OP is making the claim that talking about racism benefits racists. This is true. What I think the OP is not taking into account is that talking about racism also combats racism and helps equip the victims of racism with a means to combat it and to expose to others who aren’t victims a problem they are ‘blind’ too.

In my defense, 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. We should talk about racism wherever it manifests, and it manifests also in race-consciousness.

It is simply to refuse being racist, in my mind. — NOS4A2

So the OP was basically condemning racism?

"By the way, racism is bad. Sincerely, NOS4A2."

So the OP was basically condemning racism?

"By the way, racism is bad. Sincerely, NOS4A2."

I look at it like this. “Race-thinking” (Arendt’s term) leads to, by necessity, a hierarchy of races. The belief that the species can be subdivided into races is the foundation, the ideology, upon which racism is founded.

The belief that the species can be subdivided into races is the foundation, the ideology, upon which racism is founded. — NOS4A2

Obviously the species can be divided into races. We did it.

Obviously the species can be divided into races. We did it.

Only in thought or by brute force and coercion.

Its still what racism is founded upon. Thats why these sorts of discussions are so contentious, because racists can co-opt terms and positions, even facts, and work it into their racist ideaology.

Only in thought or by brute force and coercion. — NOS4A2

Yes. And in the process wounds were inflicted. Some wounds take a long time to heal. You cant make them go away by asserting that they shouldn't have happened.

Well it can also just be useful categorisation, like Harry mentioned with medical purposes. The problem isnt the categories, its using those categories to justify different rights for “inferior” races. Right?

Yes. And in the process wounds were inflicted. Some wounds take a long time to heal. You cant make them go away by asserting that they shouldn't have happened.

Neither can you banish racism by continually evoking it and applying it in our day to day thinking.

I think the problem are the categories. I think personalized medicine, tailored to the individual, is better than race-based medicine.

Neither can you banish racism by continually evoking it and applying it in our day to day thinking. — NOS4A2

True. Give it time.

In the latter quote he's questioning whether there is systemic racism in the US, by which I assume he means racism that is an aspect of the system. With a narrow definition of "system" as the government, Harry is right. If there is some other system that is exhibiting racism, someone should just point it out to Harry. My own opinion is that racism is primarily the same as sexism: — frank

Just so we are clear, can we admit that at some point in history there WAS DEFINITELY systemic racism in the USA? When did it end 100%? What date/ court ruling/ law passage suddenly eliminated ALL remaining vestiges of systemic racism? Same with systemic sexism...surely ALL systemic sexism did not end with the right to vote? Or the passage of some amendment?

Also, assuming all systemic racism has been eliminated (I do not agree with this, but for the sake of argument), surely there are lasting effects? I assume you are more ok admitting that there is systemic classism? Surely our system has clear benefits for wealthier people...or not? Aren't the people who WERE subject to systemic racism in the past, FAR more likely to be poor on average? Aren't the people who formerly embraced systemic racism likely to retain or pass on SOME of those feelings? I can agree that each generation will lose SOME of those outdated notions, but it will take time.

And, you strongly implied with "narrow definition" that you are aware that there is more to "the system" than the government. Segregation was "systemic" whether it was de facto or de jure. Economics are a system as much as any government. Mainstream social norms are a system as much as government.