5 ms·

> In France, we don't consider that people have a different race. Ah I thought the parent was saying that the Third Reich was into the "human race" in the "the

> In France, we don't consider that people have a different race. Ah I thought the parent was saying that the Third Reich was into the "human race" in the "there is no race but the human race" colourblindness way, which threw me off. Yeah I agree, race is a social construct and ethnicity/culture are historical products. I'm British, I don't think we're quite as post-racial but the idea of black and white people being culturally divided is pretty weird. > It feels very weird to me that you consider that races exists, but then reject any differences between them. Maybe I wasn't clear enough; I don't believe races exist. Skin colours do, but they don't correspond to some categorical human difference whatsoever. That was my point. > I honestly fail to understand why everyone should perform the same in every field. True, but you have to admit that if all programmers were white that would be pretty suspect, and would hint that there may be something discriminatory as play. It's not prima facie evidence of discrimination, but depending on the levels of skew it might indicate something going on. > I find it surprising and a bit disturbing that you would jump so easily from "white people are superior in one field" to "white people are the superior race and should dominate others". Well, if you essentialise superiority ie say that a racial group is objectively better at intellectual pursuits regardless of culture or resources, then yeah that's a racial supremacist argument. You can reasonably say that, idk, white American culture incentivises nerd stuff more than black American culture, but that's an example of the former classification ("systemic/cultural reason") that I gave - it's not an essentialist argument because culture is mutable. In which case, you can decide whether that's something that can/should be rectified through outreach or whatnot. It's not like all imbalances are a problem.

Zababa 5y ago
> True, but you have to admit that if all programmers were white that would be pretty suspect, and would hint that there may be something discriminatory as play. I don't agree with that. Black people are heavily overrepresented in sports in the USA. I personally believe that this is partially due to some physical differences that makes them better at sports, and that even if the cultures were exactly the same, they would still be overrepresented (relative to their proportion in the total population). I don't think that makes them superior to other people. I also don't think that means there is something discriminatory at play other than biology. As soon as something involves skill, people will have different levels of success at it. > Well, if you essentialise superiority ie say that a racial group is objectively better at intellectual pursuits regardless of culture or resources, then yeah that's a racial supremacist argument. No, this is not. You are making a jump between "a racial group is better at one field" to "a racial group is better than all the other groups", and again to "a racial group is better than all the other groups and should dominate them". Those are three very different things. Even if the second one was true, which I don't think it is, that wouldn't mean that the third one would be true. A group of people being superior doesn't automatically gives them a right to decide for others. Again I reject that ideology. > You can reasonably say that, idk, white American culture incentivises nerd stuff more than black American culture, but that's an example of the former classification ("systemic/cultural reason") that I gave - it's not an essentialist argument because culture is mutable. So for you any mention of actual biological differences that leads to better performance in one domain would be supremacism? That's a really weird way of looking at things. I'm not sure how you would envision a working society considering that even if people were all equal at birth, there are quickly differences between everyone. I'm good at programming, better than most people that I've met, but I don't derive any sentiment of superiority from that, and even less of supremacism. I feel good when I can help them, and I'm glad to be able to rely on people better at other stuff than me. Even if deep racial differences existed, I think we could still build a society where people are judged as individuals on what they accomplish, perhaps taking into account what they have in some cases, where everyone respects each other.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  > I don't agree with that. Black people are heavily overrepresented in sports in the USA. I personally believe that this is partially due to some physical differences that makes them better at sports, and that even if the cultures were exactly the same, they would still be overrepresented (relative to their proportion in the total population). I intentionally chose programming as an example because it's an intellectual pursuit. Yes, people of different ethnicities can have different physical characteristics; that much is observable. But the idea that intellectual capacity is an essential difference between racial groups is /the/ white supremacist argument. Ie, the idea that white people are inherently smarter than black people. It's their justification for racial dominance. > As soon as something involves skill, people will have different levels of success at it. That is true, but it leads to statical variance across the board. If, for a large enough sample and controlled for mutable factors, white people are more successful at programming than black people, that is an essential trait. Given that we agree that race isn't an objective reality, race can't have essential traits, and thus statistically significant, categorical differences between outcomes must be caused by mutable characteristics like experience, education etc. > No, this is not. You are making a jump between "a racial group is better at one field" to "a racial group is better than all the other groups", and again to "a racial group is better than all the other groups and should dominate them". How does a racial group be better at one field, categorically, unless either a) there are social differences like culture or access to education or b) there are essential, immutable differences between them? The important factor in racist reasoning is the idea that black people are less intelligent than white people. It's not true, but it's used to justify relegating them to a lower class. > Even if deep racial differences existed, I think we could still build a society where people are judged as individuals on what they accomplish We want this society now, except that differences in intelligence are not caused by race. So it's reasonable to investigate circumstances where outcomes are significantly different in order to understand what mutable systems and institutions could be changed to even the playing field so that capable black and white people can both succeed on merit.
  - adwn 5y ago
    > But the idea that intellectual capacity is an essential difference between racial groups is /the/ white supremacist argument. Why do you believe that genetic differences suddenly stop at the brain stem? Most people who accept that genetic differences between subpopulations exist, also acknowledge that south-east Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are on average more skilled in STEM fields than "white" people. So much for white supremacy.

Zababa 5y ago

> True, but you have to admit that if all programmers were white that would be pretty suspect, and would hint that there may be something discriminatory as play. I don't agree with that. Black people are heavily overrepresented in sports in the USA. I personally believe that this is partially due to some physical differences that makes them better at sports, and that even if the cultures were exactly the same, they would still be overrepresented (relative to their proportion in the total population). I don't think that makes them superior to other people. I also don't think that means there is something discriminatory at play other than biology. As soon as something involves skill, people will have different levels of success at it. > Well, if you essentialise superiority ie say that a racial group is objectively better at intellectual pursuits regardless of culture or resources, then yeah that's a racial supremacist argument. No, this is not. You are making a jump between "a racial group is better at one field" to "a racial group is better than all the other groups", and again to "a racial group is better than all the other groups and should dominate them". Those are three very different things. Even if the second one was true, which I don't think it is, that wouldn't mean that the third one would be true. A group of people being superior doesn't automatically gives them a right to decide for others. Again I reject that ideology. > You can reasonably say that, idk, white American culture incentivises nerd stuff more than black American culture, but that's an example of the former classification ("systemic/cultural reason") that I gave - it's not an essentialist argument because culture is mutable. So for you any mention of actual biological differences that leads to better performance in one domain would be supremacism? That's a really weird way of looking at things. I'm not sure how you would envision a working society considering that even if people were all equal at birth, there are quickly differences between everyone. I'm good at programming, better than most people that I've met, but I don't derive any sentiment of superiority from that, and even less of supremacism. I feel good when I can help them, and I'm glad to be able to rely on people better at other stuff than me. Even if deep racial differences existed, I think we could still build a society where people are judged as individuals on what they accomplish, perhaps taking into account what they have in some cases, where everyone respects each other.

beaconstudios 5y ago
> I don't agree with that. Black people are heavily overrepresented in sports in the USA. I personally believe that this is partially due to some physical differences that makes them better at sports, and that even if the cultures were exactly the same, they would still be overrepresented (relative to their proportion in the total population). I intentionally chose programming as an example because it's an intellectual pursuit. Yes, people of different ethnicities can have different physical characteristics; that much is observable. But the idea that intellectual capacity is an essential difference between racial groups is /the/ white supremacist argument. Ie, the idea that white people are inherently smarter than black people. It's their justification for racial dominance. > As soon as something involves skill, people will have different levels of success at it. That is true, but it leads to statical variance across the board. If, for a large enough sample and controlled for mutable factors, white people are more successful at programming than black people, that is an essential trait. Given that we agree that race isn't an objective reality, race can't have essential traits, and thus statistically significant, categorical differences between outcomes must be caused by mutable characteristics like experience, education etc. > No, this is not. You are making a jump between "a racial group is better at one field" to "a racial group is better than all the other groups", and again to "a racial group is better than all the other groups and should dominate them". How does a racial group be better at one field, categorically, unless either a) there are social differences like culture or access to education or b) there are essential, immutable differences between them? The important factor in racist reasoning is the idea that black people are less intelligent than white people. It's not true, but it's used to justify relegating them to a lower class. > Even if deep racial differences existed, I think we could still build a society where people are judged as individuals on what they accomplish We want this society now, except that differences in intelligence are not caused by race. So it's reasonable to investigate circumstances where outcomes are significantly different in order to understand what mutable systems and institutions could be changed to even the playing field so that capable black and white people can both succeed on merit.
- adwn 5y ago
  > But the idea that intellectual capacity is an essential difference between racial groups is /the/ white supremacist argument. Why do you believe that genetic differences suddenly stop at the brain stem? Most people who accept that genetic differences between subpopulations exist, also acknowledge that south-east Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are on average more skilled in STEM fields than "white" people. So much for white supremacy.