Is Guess Who Racialist?

[cronus]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hasbro-Games-HA ... ho%3F+Game

Having spent a tedious hour playing this dumb game with the seldom seen kid I'm convinced it is racialist and sexist.

[rachelbean]

How? All you do is describe people. There are no characteristics otherwise associated.

[cronus]

Like being black....it's merely away of discriminating. Forget we are all born individuals and the next Einstein could be black for a moment.

[rachelbean]

You're not making any sense. Who is to say a black character in guess who couldn't be the next (fictional) Einstein? There are no judgements made on the abilities or character of the little cards. You just describe them.

[cronus]

Differentials of that nature are made young and so is the game. I'm not here to make sense, here to make points...for those ready to accept we've still a long road to travel.

[Rum]

God you talk some crap.

[DaveDodo007]

Quick somebody tell Anita Sarkeesian so she can con another lot of rubes out of their hard earned money.

[FBM]

Eh? Describing someone's skin tone is not equivalent to saying that they're inferior for having that tone.

[pErvinalia]

I kind of get what he is saying. He isn't saying "racist". He's saying "racialist". It would be encouraging kids to see differences in people, when that sort of focus is at the base of a lot of bigoted behaviour. We should be encouraging kids to see the vast similarities between people's features, and not potentially lead them to judging people based on exterior looks. On the grand scale of things, it's not really that bad, but he does have some point.

[FBM]

It's a good and natural thing to be able to distinguish differences among people, I think. What the message should be is more along the lines of, "There's nothing wrong with people who are different from you" rather than, "Let's pretend that people aren't different." At least, that's what I'd be teaching my kids if I had any.

[pErvinalia]

But based on external looks, people AREN'T meaningfully different. We should be teaching kids that it's what's inside that matters, not what's outside.

[FBM]

But based on external looks, people AREN'T meaningfully different. We should be teaching kids that it's what's inside that matters, not what's outside.

We agree, then. But what's the point of pretending that a black person isn't black or a pale-skinned person isn't pale? It's a useful feature for identification. There are legitimate, non-racist times when you need to distinguish a person from others around him/her.

"Officer, that man tried to rape me."
"Which one?"
"The one over there."
"There are 15 men over there. Which one?"
"He's wearing a blue shirt."
"Ten of them are wearing a blue shirt. Which one?"
"Well, he's about 6 feet tall."
"That fits about half a dozen of them. Which one are you talking about?"
"Well. The black guy."
"Racist bitch!!!!! Fuck you!! You're under arrest for racial racist profiling racism!!!"

[JimC]

Is there a difference between "racist" and "racialist"?

Apart from a few letters...

[pErvinalia]

I assume there is. I'm interpreting "racialist" as something which points out racial differences. That's not racism. Racism is linking those differences to other measures of subjective worth/value.

[cronus]

Also eliminating people from the game on the grounds of looks and gender when there is already massive gender/race discrimination in society is the wrong kind of profiling example to set kids....ethnic cleansing. It's not wholesome, maybe for law enforcement training in multi-cultural neighbourhoods, but as a standard social game it's bad, bad and bad.