> As for "absolute colorblindedness" - hmmm, I'm not really sure what that
> means, and I'm doubly unsure what the consequences of a
> "colorblind" policy
> may be.
I didn't interpret Eliezer's post as meaning that one would literally not be
aware of color. One would be aware of it, as one might be aware that a
person has a dimple in her chin. But color would not generally be a field
used for sorting people into groups.
Also, I didn't get the impression Eliezer was talking about the world as it
is now. Sure, there's racism. You know it exists and factor that into your
decision making process. But that doesn't mean *you* have to sort by color,
and it surely doesn't mean you don't want to work toward a world where no
one would sort by color, any more than they'd sort by dimpled chins or the
ability to roll one's tongue.
> Colorblind? I don't know. I keep seeing this cartoon in my head of two
> people at a party, talking and laughing and maybe even flirting, and then
> one of them says to the other, "Oh, you mean you're "white"? (or
> vice versa,
> "black"?) Ha, ha, ha, whyyyyyyyyyy ... I didn't even *NOTICE*
Why is that such an outrageous idea? I'd be willing to bet it happens from
time to time with Internet friendships. It's interesting to note that one
can usually tell after a while whether an Internet acquaintance is male or
female. But I've never been able to determine the color of someone's skin
without meeting them in person or seeing a photo. Maybe this means that sex
is a valid field to sort on but skin color isn't?
Barbara
PanTerra Small Business Strategies
http://www.panterraweb.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:31 MDT