By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 on 23 February 2018
Edit Thread
o_O.Q said:
sundin13 said:

1) The common use of a classification system does not defend its necessity. Remember, we are talking about this in the context of broad relevance.

2) If you don't wish to answer my question, I will rephrase. What loss in utility is present by allowing self-identification within a school system which does not allow any form of discrimination based on race?

1) i never argued that the classifications people use are necessary, but i was arguing that they are inevitable

is necessary to call social awkward people nerds? is it necessary to call attractive women babes? is it necessary to call people who play video games gamers?

 

2) "If you don't wish to answer my question"

""To conclude, I will first ask, why would it be harmful to move away from skin color based classification systems?""

as i stated above and in my other posts its not about whether its harmful or necessary, its about human behavior and our endless attempts to make sense of our environment which leads always to categorisation

to look at this as whether its about necessity or harm is stupid because the assumption is made that you can just snap your fingers and turn off human behavior where you don't want it manifesting itself

3) "What loss in utility is present by allowing self-identification within a school system which does not allow any form of discrimination based on race?"

asking students to identify as one option out of a set of options is inherently discriminatory... since they are choosing one over the other

you understand that is the definition of discrimination right?

1) So you think that we should maintain race as a broad classification system in schools because people will use it to describe people anyways? That doesn't really make sense. Should we also put an area to define whether you are a slut, nerd or bitch on the SAT?

2) Then why the big fuss about the use of race in schools? I am not arguing against the use of words, I am arguing against the reification of them. If you don't believe that any harm will come from this regulation, why complain about it? What is the problem here? 

3) That is ridiculous. It is discriminating against words, not people. That is like saying "how can a school say it is anti-discriminatory when it utilizes HP brand printers? WHADDABOUTDELL?!" 

 

This seems absurd to me. It seems like you are trying to tell me there is absolutely nothing wrong with the school's decision and no conceivable harm that will come of it, but you will argue against it because you like calling people black. Not only is that a non-sequitur, but it is also a ridiculous defense of race as a concept.