The capacity to answer unasked questions
I look at the following:
1. Dead religions/cultures
2. Religions/cultures which never came to be
Making their assertions, establishing their dichotomies, promoting particular interpretations that were or could be.
Comparing these to the questions which we do need to answer, contending with the religions which are still prevalent, the interpretations which are prominent and so on. We've all had to answer whether or not we believe in the Christian God at some point in our lives. However, most of us never had to ask whether Zeus and the Greek gods or Odin and the Nordic gods were real, never had to contend with their message. Whether or not to believe, is an unasked question.
What do you believe the capacity is to answer unasked questions?
My main question is do you feel that rather than making people feel bad about being racist or sexist or whatever else we don't like. We should be trying to make these ideas into unasked questions? Can something like racism really disappear while people talk about "black communities" and "white people" just because people say you shouldn't be racist?
As someone who despises racism, would it better to advocate for shaming anyone who talks along racial lines, irrespective of their intent. Trying to make it so whether someone is different based solely on their race into an unasked question, irrelevant to everybody.
Share your thoughts.
1. Dead religions/cultures
2. Religions/cultures which never came to be
Making their assertions, establishing their dichotomies, promoting particular interpretations that were or could be.
Comparing these to the questions which we do need to answer, contending with the religions which are still prevalent, the interpretations which are prominent and so on. We've all had to answer whether or not we believe in the Christian God at some point in our lives. However, most of us never had to ask whether Zeus and the Greek gods or Odin and the Nordic gods were real, never had to contend with their message. Whether or not to believe, is an unasked question.
What do you believe the capacity is to answer unasked questions?
My main question is do you feel that rather than making people feel bad about being racist or sexist or whatever else we don't like. We should be trying to make these ideas into unasked questions? Can something like racism really disappear while people talk about "black communities" and "white people" just because people say you shouldn't be racist?
As someone who despises racism, would it better to advocate for shaming anyone who talks along racial lines, irrespective of their intent. Trying to make it so whether someone is different based solely on their race into an unasked question, irrelevant to everybody.
Share your thoughts.
Comments (60)
This post was about extent for novelty in interpretative structures and challenging alternative ideas about how they explain the existence of undesirable interpretations. Putting aside any biological impetus, there have been cultures/religions in the past that really emphasised particular ways of looking at the world and prioritising/thinking about the concepts they found relevant.
Spartan culture really promoted your ability as a warrior, in the past Christianity focused on piety, purity, responsibility to God and church and so on. So a person living in a culture in that time is likely to perceive the world through the lens of those interpretative structures.
If we look back to the 1960s, 70s, 80s - we saw culture changing (mostly due to technology and changing attitudes) by completely shifting what was important interpretatively. It seems that this is how change occurs.
All sorts of things wouldn't be relevant if society at large didn't care about it so much. I view race as such a thing, I was brought up to not factor someone's race into my decision making or understanding of a person. This would have continued but because of how society is, it's not entirely possible to not have an opinion on the issue of race.
It's not just racism, there are "ethnic communities", ethnic histories (as opposed to national), ethnicity matters for politics and so many things. The government and universities in the US offer special treatment to different ethnic groups. All of these things encourage people to think in racial terms, factor it into their understanding about whatever it touches.
Instead of talking about why your race doesn't matter, the opposite is mostly occurring. I feel this new focus for us to "solve" racism will lead to more racism, it seems inevitable to me. This could apply to anything though, making something more interpretatively relevant will make all interpretative uses more common and not just the desired one. This idea has changed how I think about a lot of things such as fairness and parenting.
If my culture didn't care about the things I care about - could I still care about them? To what extent am I focused on things for reasons that have nothing to do with causation or truth, but simply prevalence? Are the interpretations I have of things always based on what I want them to be or did I just have to have an opinion about something because everyone else does?
It seems like maybe you want to do away with terms like 'black community' as they maybe set up a dichotomy that wouldn't be there otherwise?
This is similar to the ideas presented in George Orwell's book 1984, in that the authorities in that fictional world wanted to reduce the number of words that were in use and in the dictionary, in order to prevent the discussion and thinking about certain subjects.
I think that Orwell considered this approach a problem.
I would agree that it is a problem, in that reducing the ability for people to discuss things, in a dialectic way, reduces the ability to resolve problems.
Rather than do away with terms like 'black/white community' I think it would be better to discuss what those terms mean, and stuff that relates to those terms.
I realise it can be a problem if some terms go on being used without discussion, as it kind of risks normalising certain ways of looking at the world, but I think it is the lack of discussion which is the problem.
I think there are reasons at the root of things like racism. With racism I think that one of the reasons is due to our evolutionarily developed mind/brains..in the form of the Cross Race Effect.
Another reason is the tensions that are place upon communities by financial problems, and the narratives that are spun in the mainstream media.
Any discussions that go into any causes would be pretty much disabled if people weren't allowed to recognise things like race..and in disabling discussion, there would be less or no resolution to the problems...I don't think shaming as a general rule gets rid of problems but pushes them underground, where they may have an even more malign effect on society.
There's a difference between being allowed to talk about differences and highlighting them. I am not saying the word racism should be removed from the dictionary or that the term "black communities" should be banned. It is about navigating the appropriate actions as someone who wants to lessen the extent of racism.
If you can point to a cause that impacts people on a racial basis then shine a light on it and let's all condemn it and try to change it. It's just a matter of how the human mind works.
If you're told "black people are more likely to cause crime than white people" what does that even mean? It means nothing until someone starts talking about why that is. If you can tell me why that is then shine a light on a non-racial problem like "black people are generally less educated than white people and less educated people generally commit more crimes". Don't make it a racial issue, we can actually aim to do something about a lack of education but not just for black people but all Americans (or w/e nationality).
Or if the problem is that the police unfairly target black people then again, actively contest this idea so it no longer happens. The question is how to actively contest genuine racism and my view is that the best way is to show a new way of looking at the same thing. So if a percentage of the reason black people commit more crime is that they're unfairly convicted of more crimes due to a prejudicial justice system then how is that going to be changed?
I would assume that the involved people are looking at likelihood to commit crime racially because there's a focus on the racial factor. There are so many other factors we could be concentrating on rather than the likelihood of the ethnicity of perpetrators. There are so many ways to classify people but we choose to focus on race and for me, that's the main cause of racism. By talking about things in a racial framework all the time, it's inevitable that people think about things racially and form opinions about people and things in racial terms. It's shocking to me when people act like racism is surprising, given how prevalent race is - it makes no sense to expect something else.
that is partly where the mainstream media come in. It is up to the media organisation what stories they focus on and how they set the framework to present any stories. In this way they spin narratives for whatever reason, that get taken up by people in society.
Well, that is certainly true but I do not feel that people who openly think and speak in racial terms receive the condemnation they should and treating problems racially and implementing racially sensitive solutions is publicly thought of as necessary. If black people have been set back by racial oppression then it's only fair to give black people advantages to catch back up, that's how people think.
Instead of just embracing black people as the same as any American which is what people like Martin Luther King jr wanted and seeing poor people as poor people rather than thinking "poor black people". I do hold the media accountable like you do but it is larger than them.
There's all kinds of different "white" cultures which aren't racial, people who like country music for example. It would just mean that, for example, hip hop is no longer "black music" but just music that anyone can make and listen to and it's as relevant that mostly black people do as it is that mostly people with black hair do. The way "black" people speak just becomes a way of speaking for people from particular areas.
I'm not trying to destroy "black" culture but in my view, there's already no such thing as "white" culture and nothing was destroyed to achieve that.
But not everyone might want to like same thing as everyone else. To achieve this, everyone would have to like the same thing, and if people didn't, there would just be separation again. Even if the separation wasn't by race, there would still be separation by groups of people over what they like. This might destroy racism, but it wouldn't stop prejudice, we just would be prejudice to people over what they like as opposed to their ethnicity. This happens on a smaller level already, such as in music communities, specifically metal. A lot of metal fans hate "metalcore", and don't even consider it metal, and have distaste for people who do. In the scenario you propose, it would basically be this on an exponential and broader scale.
If I was black I would be fine with that description of 'black' though, as I like the colour black, and shades of grey, brown etc...but I think some black people object to the description.
I don't know if this is a problem in the debate generally...but I sort of cringe at the description of 'white' if I have to fill in a form of some kind.
Ethnicity is different because it's not a choice and it doesn't even mean anything. I am not trying to remove all prejudice, I am just asking whether if you wanted to remove a prejudice, whether it would be best to try to make it irrelevant interpretively or not.
There will be separation by groups in many ways, different characteristics will be judged and so much more. I offer no solutions on how to entirely eliminate prejudice, nor do I think it is possible even for a single person to eliminate their own prejudice.
Yeah, well it got created as an opposite to black rather than trying to be an accurate description. I don't like it either but I guess I don't care that much.
the term 'white' sort of does what you were talking about in the OP..it kind of sets up a way of looking at race in a binary way; ie black and white...if you do or have to identify, and tick the 'white' box, then that disregards all the variations of how someone's genetics are formed..my ancestors must have come from all over the place, like Scandinavia to Italy etc...but forget all the nuance in all that 'you're wither black or white etc'...this might lead to a polarisation in how people see things, unnecessarily. I'd certainly rather tick another box, like 'mainly of European descent'..or something....how would I know exactly what section of the world all my ancestors came from historically?
I took the National Geographic DNA test, and it showed how my ancestors migrated out of Africa and settled and intermingled around the globe over the millennia. Based on my haplogroups, I learned that I have Ashkenazi blood, something my family never knew before. I also share some genetic traits with northeastern Asian and southwestern Asian populations, 2% and 17% respectively. Historically, based on my mother’s genealogy work, my ancestors from the past few hundred years came from the Netherlands and Germany (Prussia), but that is not the whole story. According to the NG DNA test I also have a little Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA as do all non-Africans.
A discussion on different races under the 'black' description umbrella might well be stifled by being all lumped into the same category....
yes, people do make that argument, but the same can be said of the whole animal kingdom, yet there are separate species.
Race has ended up being a controversial concept, but this is an outcome of the way the concept has been used, rather than intrinsic in the concept itself.
Race just means like different groups within a species...I always say if race definitions are meaningless then would that apply to physical conditions like sickle cell anaemia for instance which has a wide representation in black people, and I read that this biological feature evolved partly as a way to deal with malaria, which is more common in Africa.
Genetic groupings within a species is all race really means, in biology anyway.
well I don't think it would be a good idea to deny that race variations exist just because the idea is used in identity politics...it might seem like a good idea, but it just isn't true, in the same way that a blackberry is very different fruit than a raspberry, and yet they were interbred to make the loganberry variation..i think.
yes, biology is kind of a fuzzy thing with fuzzy definitions. I don't know if tigons and ligers are sterile, but that an offspring can be produced shows they are closely related.
I do know that mules are usually sterile, and they are the offspring of horses and donkeys I think....the separation through evolution of one species into two often starts like that, in that as they begin to separate their offspring are sterile...this process does accelerates the separation process.
I read that in India doctors often ask which cast a patient has come from, because the different casts have historically been so separate that they have ended up with different genetic sets. And the difference is important I think due to the different reactions to certain drugs.
The problem arises when we try to construct a hierarchy structure. Who's going to be on top and who's going to be at the bottom? I guess you'll have to demonstrate that a power structure is nonsense. That leads us to the idea of equality. Please share your views on equality.
Genome sequencing would do away with these diagnostic tactics and would result in much more accurate diagnoses and treatments. Not everyone in even isolated populations will be homogeneous.
eg representing racial groups in a stereotypical manner is also part of a dumbing down of how some people see society..
We need to get people in society into the habit of thinking about things, and doing their own research into things rather than accepting the spoon feeding of narratives by the mainstream medias etc..
It occurred to me today that when I make my posts, in response to other posts, I have no idea if the poster is female or male. It was an odd sensation, because I wouldn’t even be able to identify them by subject, writing or argument.
Even in this conversation someone mentioned a particular music in relation to blacks.
So focusing on race, even in an effort to reduce or eradicate racism, creates or emphasises the differences. But how do we ignore what we see and all the cultural baggage that goes with it. Why do we say black? Why take pride in being black? Why think we are white? The effort to eradicate it creates the difference.
what do you mean by 'welders'?
I read the idea that a lot of people simply do not have the time to invest in much reading, and research etc...so they end up getting their world view from the media they do have the time for, like news programs, newspapers, the entertainment industry...this is the danger, that people end up taking on narratives that are presented to them by other people...and narratives that end up not being challenged enough....a narrative might be seen to be challenged at some point, but not enough to overturn the world view it is related to, and indeed the 'challenge' itself can be turned into something that can reinforce the original narrative....as in 'look, they don't want you to believe this that or the other..they have an agenda(we don't of course; we are fair an impartial)'...
I sometimes watched the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News back in the 00s and at the end of the program, as I recall, he said 'the spin stops here'...and at some point I realised that is he subconsciously saying that his show was all spin, and it stopped at the end of his programs...? :D
yea 'fair and impartial' or whatever FoxNew's motto is...everything is subjective, so you can interpret evidence anyhow you want and claim to be impartial.
it can be a useful mechanism for any oppressed group of people. They take pride in surviving oppression, and maybe overcoming it. The pride they feel reinforces group cohesion, and forms part of the strength a group needs in order to survive and overcome oppression.
People often ask why there are gay pride events, and it is for the same reason, I would guess.
Yes, I understand that. But my point was it goes towards emphasising difference, which is the problem. Unless blacks and gays think differently and are that different.
My point was there are no easy solutions, and in a free society, requirements of an informed public are and should be left to the individual. Perhaps shows like Bill O’Reilly’s should be given a required “this is purely my opinion” disclaimer.
that makes the assumption that emphasising differences is a counter productive thing to do.
That plays into the hands of the people who use differences as a reason to be against a group of people....gay people don't maybe want to say 'look we are just like you, please accept us', they maybe want to say 'look we are different in this way from you; we accept that, and there is nothing wrong with the difference, please consider accepting us and our difference'.
Any other approach implies that the 'difference' is some how ...wrong, a problem in some way.
That’s what I’m suggesting.
so in the case of black people, you might emphasis the difference in colour/shade, in racial features....there may be dangers in that, but at the same time it isn't something that can be hidden.
Everywhere people go, one of the first thing people will notice about them is what they look like..unless they wear a veil. I think it is often a good idea to get things out in the open, rather than pretend those things aren't real.
that is the problem with groups. A group will often need forces of cohesion, but when you get a group of people who have a few things in common, they often have similar world views, and at that point what might seem like subtle differences from the outside observers point of view, can be incredibly decisive within that group.
People in groups often say 'we should present a united front'...but that isn't always possible....you should/or might have seen arguments within veggie and vegan groups over things like 'is honey vegan?'...for example...to most people outside the group who are quite happy to much on a cheeseburger, will get the impression that the group is dysfunctional...but that sort of thing is true within a lot of groups.
I wonder, for example, what internal conflicts there may be in groups like gun hobbiests...? Which lubricant is best for lubricating the gun barrel?
Which militia is the most gay-friendly? lol
I think that’s where a little bit of tolerance goes a long way.
' the People's Front of Judea' vs. 'The Judean People's Front' :)
'
But isn’t it the case that they are?
Yes, I see what you meant. Though laws are enacted for the anonymous individual.
through most of my life as a vegetarian I didn't bother with supplements, and didn't have any problems that I could see....as a near vegan, I did start to take a few like b12 pills and think about protein....
No nutritional problems were ever a concern to any doctors I dealt with...no anaemia for instance my whole life, and I haven't even eaten that healthy a diet for the last 30 years. I am kind of a pasta and beans person, chips, crisps, chocolate etc...no actual dietary deficiencies although I did end up with type 2 diabetes from just eating too many carbs, I guess.
These groups may not necessarily represent the whole community in their efforts. Though they may believe they speak for everyone they operate as a small collective. Though I feel this conversation is beginning to slide sideways, as it often does.
This is interesting. Because you don’t actually know where I’m from, what sex, what religion, or colour. You debating only my thoughts, where we are all the same, were it not for the pretensions of our culture.
I think this is a very interesting point. The gay marriage argument, among others, was that it was ‘the right thing to do’. That’s a very persuasive argument. It became impossible to have a conversation. The argument for blacks is because of history, Colonialism, etc. We all ‘know’ what is right and wrong.
The thing is that what you're saying mostly makes sense only from a racially concerned perspective. Having the same skin colour as me doesn't make you similar to me, what are we celebrating? I know I'll have a hard time convincing people that celebration of different races is a bad thing but when you do that, you're saying race is important. You are highlighting this difference when we want to be doing the opposite. You can't make your race a big deal in a positive way and then be shocked when people start to think racially in unflattering ways.
I'm not really a believer in equality, interpretatively speaking, discrimination is necessary but it doesn't have to be based on race.
There's a difference between something being relevant interpretatively and something being visible. Ask what does it "mean" for someone to be a certain ethnicity and try to reduce the answers you come up with. There are already many other things which are interpretatively relevant but prejudicial like attractiveness, intelligence, temperament, preferences, status, wealth, fashion and so on. To me, racism can only be reduced by replacing "this person is x ethnicity therefore they're probably w y z" with "this person is articulate therefore they're probably "a b c".
I'm not saying people should try to be "colour blind" literally just figuratively and by that I mean interpretatively. It's not necessarily the case that the alternatives are fairer but I think they're less divisive and distracting.
I do find that people who spend a lot of time online are more likely to just deal with ideas and merit because that's what they're used to - seeing as they're used to not even knowing the race, gender, appearance, status and so on.
What is it based on then? Could it be that the discrimination that you condone is ultimately based on race or any other difference that you don't like?
If you're not racially motivated then racial differences shouldn't matter.
I don't like it when people discriminate to draw conclusions which are entirely impossible based on the level of information they have.
I am using discrimination as in "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another". People value things differently and understand things interpretatively, so they're going to dislike others based on their reasons. I am a moral relativist, I can only argue for the utility of my views. I don't believe racists are objectively wrong, this thread is just about plotting a logical course of action for those who dislike racism. If you disliked sexism though, I'd advocate the same course of action and anything else (though some things aren't as fixable as others due to biological considerations).
I think that unlike race, there are actual differences between cultures, genders and other factors. It all comes back to drawing unreasonable conclusions based on insufficient information or just being objectively wrong in your assertions.
I’m not suggesting that we can ignore what we see in front of us. What I’m trying to add is that the idea of focusing on difference does not help to overcome the problem of differences. And I also think that when people begin this focusing on the differences they actually create a very basic understanding, or a stereotype, of the two sides. Which is not too far removed from the mentality of racists.
What happens is that you end up doing a sort of dance trying to accomodate these different ‘cultures’ and trying to find some thread you can apply. So there is great support for one group because of their minority ethnic position, but a problem trying to address some aspect of their cultural you regard as wrong.
Yes, I feel that putting racism aside, indiscriminately treating all cultures as equally valuable is one of the most disgusting ideas around. It makes no sense from any rational perspective, people have just thrown up their hands and said "difference must have merit" which just isn't true. When people conflate race and culture, it really bugs me, we should be able to brutalise bad ideas and let no armor save them.
The egos and identities which rely on groups in general, I think cause problems, people talk about celebrating the group but I don't like it. Individual traits should be celebrated, maybe even ideas but not groups. I don't think that as a particular skin colour that you own a history, that you can take credit for the actions or inventions of others with the same skin colour, that you share the suffering of people with the same skin colour as you more than someone else. T
There are some examples where the positives outweigh the negatives but generally, it introduces a necessarily unproductive factor into the equation. National identity is possibly the best example, I actually think this is pretty good, to feel a responsibility towards other citizens probably makes the country a nicer place to live. Negotiating what is beneficial and what isn't should be part of the wider conversation and attacking negative interpretations is necessary. I believe eliminating race as a major interpretative tool would be best but there are more options, just anything other well-meaning option than what we're doing would be a step in the right direction.