CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Yes because that's being racist. White and black are skin colors and how you say it can be racist. Segregation is over so African Americans have no excuse to call a light skinned person white. IT IS RUDE!!!
I'm a white guy. That is not a slur, it is a statement of fact. It effectively, objectively describes a physical trait, specifically skin color. It is also objective statement of fact to say that I am ginger, six foot two, and oftentimes, an asshole. I also work with BLACK PEOPLE. Yes, I said it, and I hope it offends some-fucking-body here. BLACK PEOPLE. I work with them, and we all share the misery of this place.
And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. When I call a black guy a black guy, on the rare occasion that I have any reason to refer to or describe someone's skin color, I say "he's a black guy". Aaaand then nothing of significance happens, and the conversation goes on, because it is an objective statement of fact not worth dwelling on. Nobody gets twiggered and has a stroke. You only become a racist asshole when you associate physical or behavioral qualities with the adjective 'black', or 'white', or 'arab', or whatever, that go beyond the dictionary definition of those words. For instance, if someone gave me no other information about themselves, but I knew they were black, and I instantly assumed that they loved grape soda, I would be a racist asshole. Now, some stereotypes we can just label as true. For instance, all black people love fried chicken and watermelon. You know how I know? EVERYBODY LOVES FRIED CHICKEN AND WATERMELON. I love it, you know you love it, and if you don't, there's something seriously fucking wrong with you.
I don't know, maybe it's different in other subcultures. We're sailors, we don't have many taboos.
Classifying anyone as any identity is an act against their uniqueness. Whether you consider that rude depends upon whether you consider acknowledging that uniqueness in others to be polite, I suppose. But it doesn't go both ways; one or the other.
When someone is referred to as "black" is the speaker really talking about "blackness" in terms of identity or in terms of features: their skin color and ancestry?
I also recall you saying this 2 months ago (in an exchange that I really enjoyed by the way):
"I am, however, a bit dubious of the distinction you are drawing between identity and features because the latter seems like a type of the former." (Source 1)
Does this mean that identifying any feature of a person is an act against their uniqueness? I can, after all, identify someone's attractive features and in doing so I automatically classify them as attractive.
When someone is referred to as 'black' the speaker may be talking about any number of things - skin color, facial features, language habits, hair style, self-identification of that person, etc. - but all of these are an attempt to identify that person to a generic concept (i.e. to classify them by way of a reduction).
I think this does mean that identifying any feature of a person is an act against their uniqueness, because this is fundamentally an act of reference that goes outside of that person in an attempt to make sense of them. Whether I am observing that someone has long hair (which references an external standard of length and hair) or that their long hair is attractive (which references an additional standard of attractiveness), I am committing an act against their uniqueness by understanding them not in terms of themselves but in terms that stand without them.
Arguably, this is inescapable... classification is simply how we process complex and diverse heterogeneous stimuli, and I doubt we could really ever truly stop that kind of behavior. My interest lies in the acknowledgement that these classifications are epistemically misleading, and in their consequent devaluation. Additionally, in identifying which instances of the practice we (individually, not collectively) find objectionable such that we know which classifications to resist and which to permit or even enable.
The implication for identitarian politics, particularly those which also incorporate humanistic narratives against erasure and dehumanization, is that their foundational axioms are epistemically bankrupt and even in direct contradiction with themselves. And regardless of how one might attempt to reconcile those axioms, I don't see how 'black' could be more rude than 'white'; there's a logical error at play in suggesting otherwise, I think.
Also, regrets for how long it took for me to respond (and for not responding to our earlier discussion you linked to, which I also enjoyed).
"all of these are an attempt to identify that person to a generic concept (i.e. to classify them by way of a reduction)."
I don't look at it this way at all, if I mentioned that someone was black it'd be because their skin color or ancestry was relevant to what was being discussed (or perhaps to identify them in a crowd). I don't see it as reducing the person down to a singular feature. I think what you're saying applies when we're talking about taking the group "black people" but not when speaking about a black individual.
"Whether I am observing that someone has long hair (which references an external standard of length and hair) or that their long hair is attractive (which references an additional standard of attractiveness), I am committing an act against their uniqueness by understanding them not in terms of themselves but in terms that stand without them."
How would we ever understand people in terms of themselves? What does it mean to do so? Length of hair, height, size etc. are always relative unless we're giving measurements because terms like "long, tall, big" are relative to the average. As for attractiveness, while there are cross-cultural differences and individual differences, there are also universal, cross-cultural trends (Source 1).
"My interest lies in the acknowledgement that these classifications are epistemically misleading, and in their consequent devaluation."
I appreciate that one shouldn't reduce people down to a feature, but I don't believe that classifying someone's features does this. I do believe that identitarians do this when they speak of groups as if they were monolithic though.
"The implication for identitarian politics, particularly those which also incorporate humanistic narratives against erasure and dehumanization, is that their foundational axioms are epistemically bankrupt and even in direct contradiction with themselves."
I think I get what you're saying: identitarian group classification reduces people to a feature, ignoring their individuality and everything that makes them unique. I do think that one can identify features in another without doing this though, provided one isn't an identitarian!
"And regardless of how one might attempt to reconcile those axioms, I don't see how 'black' could be more rude than 'white'; there's a logical error at play in suggesting otherwise, I think."
100% agreed.
"Also, regrets for how long it took for me to respond (and for not responding to our earlier discussion you linked to, which I also enjoyed)."
No problem, we'd finished that discussion as far as I remember. I still want to read your treatise but I suppose doing so would compromise your anonymity.
Seems there are many contexts wherein acknowledging individuality is not appropriate. If I am referring to black people as a demographic, it is a different connotation than if I am trying to address the only black guy in the room.
Acknowledging individuality is always appropriate if you care about respecting people as themselves. "Black people" and "black person" are identically specious, because both exercise and validate the popular and intuitive idea of "blackness" as something that actually picks out individuals (either singularly or collectively). But "blackness" does not exist, either as a demographic or an individual. To believe that it does requires believing that people can be reduced to the generic, and that requires disrecognition of their uniqueness.
If one wants to discuss social practices and conditions that hinge on a belief in "blackness" then the appropriate way to do that is not by validating that belief by practicing it (i.e. by talking about the "black demographic" like it actually exists) but by discussing that subset of individuals who are subjected to the classification of "blackness". This is more accurate, allows for conditional refinement for the context in which classification occurs, and does not reinforce the generic identity construct in its study of the same.
But "blackness" does not exist, either as a demographic or an individual
I will grant that race is a social construct, but it nonetheless exists.
If you saw a group of 25 people, and someone asked you to identify the one black person among all the white people, do you suppose you wouldn’t, under any circumstances, be able to?
If you listen to a police scanner (depending on your location), you will hear dispatchers describe people so that police can locate them. Skin color may play a role. Does it matter to the lost juvenile black female in the dark coat that her uniqueness has been disrecognized?
It is as possible to pick out the black person from the group of 25 people as it is the unicorn. Neither exists. I would generally understand what they meant by asking me to do that, of course, just like I understand what someone means when they talk about God. But the only reason it seems reasonable to talk about picking out a black person but not a unicorn is that an overwhelming majority of people actually believe the former exists.
Generic identity classes like race aren't as useful for identifying individuals as they appear to be, because they are actually quite ambiguous and can call out numerous attributes across a broad spectrum even to the point of contradiction. It's far more useful to call out the specific attributes themselves - exact skin tone, hair color, hair style, clothing, etc. Even if that weren't the case, then it becomes a matter of how we practice the concept in our speech - do we say it's a black woman, or a socially perceived black woman? One is invalidating and descriptively inaccurate, the other is merely descriptively inaccurate because it isn't supposing the person to actually be either black or a woman.
The difference may seem trivial, but the way we speak and reference things reflects and affects our beliefs about things such that saying someone is a black woman reinforces the belief that "black" and "woman" are properly referent to the person. This invalidates individual uniqueness with the effect that we are more readily capable of otherizing, stigmatizing, and discriminating against people whom we believe belong to the non-existent groups we also believe in. Refusing to practice generic identity ascription to individuals goes beyond respect for the individual's uniqueness; it actively undermines the psychological basis for prejudice and bigotry.
Incidentally, I'm not supposing that others care about their uniqueness (I actually suppose most people to find it a burdensome responsibility they'd rather not have). I'm just suggesting that for those who find it important to respect the uniqueness of individuals, validating generic identity concepts as materially extant is inconsistent with that value.
I didn't realize anybody thought either was racist. Black people refer to themselves as black and white people refer to themselves as white. I could see yellow for Asians being considered racist though.
Neither word is rude, they are simply descriptive of the skin color of the individual (or the skin color of their ancestors). Any blacks that get offended by being called black probably have a chip on their shoulder.
Neither word is rude, they are simply descriptive of the skin color of the individual. Any blacks that get offended by being called black probably have a chip on their shoulder.
While neither Black nor White is rude, neither term is apt. "Black" people are brown, and "White" people are brown, too, with some pinkish tones.
Beyond not being an apt set of terms, the use of these words (being opposites) gives the unconscious impression that two categories of people are opposites.
That is the part that damages our society by creating the illusion of category-based difference between us.
That is foolish, just like the identity politics that some folks buy into and try to inflict on our society to its detriment.
True enough, though the most extreme examples of both races are factually black and white in hue rather than pink or brown. I think the root of calling peoples of intermediate shades "black" and "white" is that it's how people would have perceived the other people and hence named them as such. People tend to magnify out-group differences after all, so they wouldn't have viewed other peoples as merely differing by a shade.
"the use of these words (being opposites) gives the unconscious impression that two categories of people are opposites."
Perhaps calling the first iteration of a document the "first draft" may discourage people from doing one because of the implication of involuntary military service? While I imagine such associations exist to begin with, people quickly learn to contextually differentiate. This is linked to the psychological phenomenon of habituation.
"That is the part that damages our society by creating the illusion of category-based difference between us."
In terms of the category skin color, we indeed fall into different categories. Ethnicity is a better categorization than race, yet racial categorization still has its uses.
You make some very good points, though I don't completely agree with all of them.
My discussion of opposites was certainly an overstatement, as you deftly point out. Accenting the differences, especially as if they are universal, is still ridiculous.
However, both genetically and culturally, the differences are incredibly small between most folks put in these categories in the US . I grew up listening to Bill Cosby records, knowing that his childhood was almost indistinguishable from mine in terms of our approach to play, friends, and parents. As a parent, it looks like his experience of the core parenthood was damn near identical to mine.
However unpopular Bill Cosby is now, he is part of why I think racism and identity politics is so stupid.
I agree, we shouldn't focus on superficial differences, whether white, black or in between we have more that makes us the same than what makes us different. Not to mention that the intragroup differences are larger than the intergroup differences!
I think that if you have to ask such questions, your brain is mushy and you most likely are not saved from your sins and are in danger of eternal damnation.....you need to be saved before it's too late.
Being called White and being called Black, isn't rude, it's a description of person, not a description of character (and it's really not accurate since both races come in many many shades, there are rarely any true white color or true black color people out there). Now when you try to attribute a negative stereotype to an entire group based solely off skin color, that's rude.
