This really isn't complicated, and I would give myself an ulcer if I went around worrying about possible twisted perceptions of any compliment I give, no matter the race, sex or other factor of the other person. As a woman (pale), in my younger days I've had a few males believe a smile and friendliness was a pass, but I still try to be pleasant. I can't control the perception of the other person and I've given compliments to other women of various hues with no negative reaction.
Well and concisely said: "This really isn't complicated." The core issue is not the definition of colorblindness or of whether "it" can exist. Rather it is whether the government should have authority to require us to identify, using government defined racial categories, with one (or more) of them. It is an immoral, unscientific, and divisive act for the government to make that request -- or to select a category for us if we silently object. This puts no limits on what individuals may call themselves or others. But it is unclear whether Glenn agrees or disagrees with this idea. Seems a "yes" or "no" question.
Yes. There is a huge difference between being 'colorblind' or 'color indifferent' as an individual....and having the state mandate demographic parsing by color/race/ethnicity in an entirely delusional / ill-conceived attempt to guarantee Diversity/Inclusivity/Equity.
The answer, as you say should be Yes or No. And the rational, and morally responsible answer must always be a NO: it is wrong, wrong, wrong to discriminate (treat people unfairly) on the basis of color/race/ethnicity. Always.
This really isn't complicated, and I would give myself an ulcer if I went around worrying about possible twisted perceptions of any compliment I give, no matter the race, sex or other factor of the other person. As a woman (pale), in my younger days I've had a few males believe a smile and friendliness was a pass, but I still try to be pleasant. I can't control the perception of the other person and I've given compliments to other women of various hues with no negative reaction.
Well and concisely said: "This really isn't complicated." The core issue is not the definition of colorblindness or of whether "it" can exist. Rather it is whether the government should have authority to require us to identify, using government defined racial categories, with one (or more) of them. It is an immoral, unscientific, and divisive act for the government to make that request -- or to select a category for us if we silently object. This puts no limits on what individuals may call themselves or others. But it is unclear whether Glenn agrees or disagrees with this idea. Seems a "yes" or "no" question.
Yes. There is a huge difference between being 'colorblind' or 'color indifferent' as an individual....and having the state mandate demographic parsing by color/race/ethnicity in an entirely delusional / ill-conceived attempt to guarantee Diversity/Inclusivity/Equity.
The answer, as you say should be Yes or No. And the rational, and morally responsible answer must always be a NO: it is wrong, wrong, wrong to discriminate (treat people unfairly) on the basis of color/race/ethnicity. Always.