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

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.

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.

: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'?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

To your point, this is largely semantics. “Colourblind” is being defined differently by you and I. — DingoJones

Then the next question is of course, if we take the others definition and go with it, do we then have an issue here?

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. — DingoJones

Yes, it indeed isn't the same! That's my whole point.

The question could be put perhaps this way: if something has divided us and has caused discrimination, persecution and outright violence, what do we do with it?

Then the next question is of course, if we take the others definition and go with it, do we then have an issue here? — ssu

It only matters to me that a persons stance follows from the definition, that the position makes sense given the definition being used.
The point of the comment wasnt to deal with either views definitions, but rather to identify the point of disagreement in the discussion on “colorblindness”. Its been strange, watching the thread have such disagreement when as far as I can tell everyone basically agrees.

The question could be put perhaps this way: if something has divided us and has caused discrimination, persecution and outright violence, what do we do with it? — ssu

Its not the words and categories that divide us, its the racism. Racism is the bad thing, racists are the problem.

Its been strange, watching the thread have such disagreement when as far as I can tell everyone basically agrees. — DingoJones

I think it's telling: something indeed is amiss.

As if there is this urge to compartmentalize us and just to assume that people don't think of the issues. Some stereotypical viewpoint just defines us.

Us?

What I mean, generally speaking, is that if someone (who we don't know) starts a conversation about some issue, we tend to notice "catchphrases" etc. and assume the person is of one or another camp.

funny I feel the same way about you.

You keep repeating that it's the racist usage of certain words that is the problem, not the words

but the real solution is to get rid of the words themselves

those categories of people don't really exist, we create them with our words

if you really do away with the words, then you really destroy the foundations upon which the issue of racism depends

if a white supremacist no longer has the concept of "white" to form the structures upon which his racist ideologies depend, then it all collapses

ultimately minds will bend and realize that in fact we are all human beings and that the differences in our physical characteristics don't matter

I've transformed my own thinking in this way by simply doing away with the usage of racial language

I never thought of myself as racist in that I judged people only on merit, but I still had categories of people in my mind, and categories allow for preference

take away the categories and you take away the danger of preference.

Ok, I understand. Buzzwords and labels.

Makes perfect sense...

Take away the term "apple pies" and apple pies no longer exist...

Jeez!

Take away the term "apple pies" and apple pies no longer exist... — creativesoul

:up:

:shade: @OP ...

Keep believing that black cats are bad luck in order to remember how badly we treated black cats.

↪180 Proof

Keep believing that black cats are bad luck in order to remember how badly we treated black cats. — NOS4A2

:roll: :sweat: Whiskey. tRumper. Foxtrot.

Exactly. Your superstitions in a nutshell.

Not even wrong non sequiturs left ... Pathetic. Last grunt's yours.

Ok, I understand. Buzzwords and labels. — DingoJones

Basically yes. And reactions to buzzwords and labels, dog whistles and so on. It's not about trying to understand the other. How to interpret things in the worst possible way and to...win.

Sounds accurate to me.

Are you reading these studies? This latest put heritability of intelligence by 12 yrs at 0.46, less than half. Ie intelligence at 12 is caused more by external factors than it is by genetics. — Isaac

Yeah, did you read the several places that heritability of intelligence for adults lies between 60% and 80%? Why are you cherrypicking what it says about 12 year olds?

...and proceeded to cite a study which demonstrated exactly what Artemis said - that IQ (in the context we're discussing) is determined in huge part by environment. — Isaac

No, it says that IQ is determined 60 - 80% by genetics.

And just to underline, the original article Artemis posted doesn't show that IQ is determined largely by environment either - it doesn't even address the question of nature vs nurture - all it shows is that adoption is associated with a 4.4 point IQ gain, which is small, but close to the biggest environmental effect that the literature shows.

I cannot understand it. Judging someone by the content of her character and not the color of her skin never once involves remaining ignorant of racism, or denying anyone’s experience or history. It never once involves literal color-blindness. It’s only about affirming another as an individual, without the need of dubious racial classifications. — NOS4A2

I 100% agree with you, but the super social justice warriors think that just being white makes you racist, just being male makes you sexist,sometimes even just being straight makes you homophobic and just being cis makes you transphobic. They are wrong, they also beleive that not treating minorities of any kind like special little snowflakes you are (insert minority here)phobic, and a s three minorities, no just treat me like a normal person, thanks.

Poor 'straight white males' always (at least since the 15th century CE) the long suffering victims of reverse discrimination, political repression & economic exploitation. :cry: :roll: :shade:

I 100% agree with you, but the super social justice warriors think that just being white makes you racist, just being male makes you sexist,sometimes even just being straight makes you homophobic and just being cis makes you transphobic. They are wrong, they also beleive that not treating minorities of any kind like special little snowflakes you are (insert minority here)phobic, and a s three minorities, no just treat me like a normal person, thanks.

Racists span the color spectrum. There is a pernicious group-think in it. People want to cling to their race, perhaps so they can claim someone else’s achievements or victim hood as their own. It saves them from the necessarily time consuming work of thinking and passing judgement on the level of an individual. One dissolves his individuality in an amorphous, disparate group, identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.

Poor 'straight white males' always (at least since the 15th century CE) the long suffering victims of reverse discrimination, political repression & economic exploitation. :cry: :roll: :shade: — 180 Proof

it is not "reverse discrimination" it is discrimination weather it is on a gay trans black woman or a cis straight white man, and i can cite several cases of literal discriminations against white people and against men that have arose in recent years (late 1990's and forward) because of extreme feminism and social justice warriors, who can do some good but because of how extreme they go they cause more harm than good.
let's start with the easy stuff because I'm lazy, a woman just claiming that a man raped her, even with no evidence can and will ruin his career and in many cases stop him from getting a new one. And on the flip side of that coin a woman can rape a minor, get pregnant and then sue the minor for child support, it is also stated that "forcing a man to penetrate" does not count as rape and a woman can often get away with having sex with a minor. Moving on past just societal outlooks to actual discrimination, if a man commits a burglary in a western country he is liable to face DOUBLE the time a woman convicted of the same crime is. men can also be denied paternity leave, even if they are a single father, women are 7* more likely to gain custody of a child in a civil court case, even if the mother is proven to be a threat to the children, men have to sign up for a draft just to get their driver's license, men are 90% less likely to get welfare than women and men make up 70% of the homeless population. all of these are not "reverse discrimination".
while minorities and women face discrimination, that does not cancel out the discrimination of everyone else. We should work towards equality, not towards superiority.

I feel you, I really hate how straight white males have been so intolerant of other sexual orientations, races and genders. They spend so many centuries judging others by the groups they belong to rather than looking past those things and just realising we're all human beings, it's disgusting.