Talk:Colorblind

Looking good; I think it's a mainspace-ready stub. :P FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You talking as if calling races bullshit and denying racism were the same thing.--Arisboch (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Refusing to acknowledge race has racist effects, however anti-racist in intent. That includes looking at someone and professing to not even understand the question "what is this person's race?" &lt;3 CSapphire bullets of pure love 22:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Buying into that pseudoscientific bullshit is necessary to combat racism??? What the shit fuck is that???--Arisboch (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What pseudoscientific bullshit specifically? 22:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The notion of race in general. It doesn't mean denying racism, it's seeing racism as a even more idiotic.--Arisboch (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh huh, and when you say "the notion of race in general", what you actually mean is the (pseudo)scientific theory of races as distinct and meaningful taxonomic groups within humans, as if this is all that's ever been said on the subject of race.  22:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Photographs
I found the Jez piece while looking for incidents in which fancy digital cameras' facial recognition software failed to recognize non-white faces (most egregiously, a camera made by a Korean company, albeit for the U.S. market, that didn't identify a South Asian person as human). I couldn't find anything, but it might be interesting to add. &lt;3 CSapphire bullets of pure love 22:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the relevance here. You're talking about how photography & related technology tends to treat caucasian as the default skin colour.  This article is about people (mostly white liberals) who use the principle of racial equality to dismiss people's racial identity & related experiences as unimportant.  Both are examples of white privilege but the connection between them is tenuous at best.   22:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Here a non-mainstream perspective from myself
I am not sure if it is really bad to be colorblind. I mean, Hitler wanted people to stop being colorblind too. Hitler also thought he was "woke" and not "colorblind". So it would only be appropriate to show parallels between the BLM and the NSDAP, since parallels between the NSDAP and Trump are being shown too. Just my two cents. 217.128.167.152 (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you a troll? 15:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. What classifies me as a "troll"? Not sharing your opinion? 217.128.167.152 (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying BLM is similar to the Nazi Party. That's completely divorced from reality. So, either your severely misinformed, incredibility stupid, or saying provocative shit to get a reaction. Now, I personally am trying not to assume that you're a moron, so... 17:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If we all agreed on everything the world & life would be a very boring & dull place. I am just saying that the Nazis also were first seen as a revolution, and it took long until Germans woke up and saw that Hitler was no better than Weimar. 217.128.167.152 (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a non-answer. I'm not asking or demanding that you agree with an opinion. I'm telling you you are factually wrong. And you're "just saying" is unsubstantiated fear mongering without (apparently) anything to back it up, else you'd have brought it out by now. 18:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Color blindness as an attitude should be encouraged
Your perspective is that it's not good to be colorblind, because other people aren't and they're still going to be racist and perpetuate oppression, and that somehow by being colorblind yourself you refuse to acknowledge all that. I think it's got nothing to do with it. Not seeing race doesn't mean you literally don't see that a person's skin color may get them treated differently by some people, it just means YOU personally don't consider it an important enough factor to judge them as a person (like with the eye color analogy you quoted on the page). The very reason for the entire history of racial oppresion is that people weren't colorblind. Racist ideas, attitudes and actions are the direct consequence of not being colorblind. If all people were colorblind, discrimination of any sort couldn't exist, because everyone would be treating all others as individuals first and foremost (or nay, exclusively). There would be no unconscious biases, no hiring discrimination, no racially targeted police brutality, you name it. Colorblindness doesn't mean you don't acknowledge that these things exist and should be done away with - I would argue it's quite the opposite in fact, and we could make them end precisely by turning other people colorblind. So it's not like "colorblindness is ideal for a true post-racial society", but in fact it's like "the only way we can bring about a true post-racial society is to encourage everyone to be colorblind".

I don't buy this whole "by saying you're color-blind you're not acknowledging the plights of people of color" rhetoric, because it simply isn't logically sound - saying you're colorblind in no way implies that proposition. And if, for the sake of argument, we assume that it does - what would this acknowledgement (that's supposedly lacking) change, in practical terms, if it were present? A colorblind person will already treat a person of a different race perfectly equally in every fathomable way as is. So is there an implication that there should actually be some sort of retributive justice? Being treated equally is not enough, we need to go the extra mile? We POC have suffered for so long, so let whities suffer for a while too before we're square? I really don't get it.

But obviously - being color blind would be best if everyone were, as it would be a definitive end to racism. But just because some people say they are in a world where many are still racism, that in no way, shape or form means those people are unaware of or dismissive of said racism. 77.112.95.28 (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * There's an old adage that says that once you think you have conquered your biases you are most susceptible to your biases. What's wrong with just trying not to be racist? Why do you have to insist that you're not capable of being racist? Why do you have to insist that you're capable of being 'colorblind' when that is visually impossible? In order for anyone to be 'colorblind' color would have to be removed entirely. But it gets even worse. This 'colorblind' nonsense isn't just for white people, even the victims of racism are supposed to buy into it so that we can all sing 'kumbaya' together instead of having to put up with the 'inconvenience' of having to listen to victims express their concerns. It is not reasonable to expect victims to treat their abusers the same way they treat their fellow victims. We all weren't just plopped down on this Earth yesterday, there is has been a very long sordid history that this 'colorblind' thing aims to completely ignore. It is reasonable for black people to be pissed off at white people, and each one of them gets to decide whether they want to try to be 'colorblind' or not, but white people have no right to that choice, not yet, anyway. If you want to be able to have that choice then some major historical wrongs have to be righted first. Lobby your government to pay $5 million in reparations to every black person in USA. The World Health Org says that $25 trillion worth of black labor was stolen via slavery, and that amounts to $5 million for every black American alive today. You go get that sorted out and then we'll talk about your quest to be 'colorblind'. until then, colorblind = victimblind.FairDinkum (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)