“I don’t see race” is a fairly unsophisticated position. Rationalists usually hold positions that are much more sophisticated then that. If you want to make a good critique of the rationalist community it would make a lot more sense to argue against positions that people actually hold. If you are engaging in good faith then it makes sense to make that argument with the minimum amount of words and phrases that are politically charged because that allows the debate to happen more freely.
It’s the premature transhumanist idea that “whether you are an x doesn’t matter”.
While that idea does exist out in the world, it seems like one that’s 2-3 decades old and far from the rationalist discourse. The whole field of behavioral economics on which the early rationalist community drew heavily rests on humans being not just idealized rational agents. Books like Pinker’s The Blank Slate are about human nature mattering and that it’s denail is bad.
“I don’t see race” is a fairly unsophisticated position. Rationalists usually hold positions that are much more sophisticated then that. If you want to make a good critique of the rationalist community it would make a lot more sense to argue against positions that people actually hold. If you are engaging in good faith then it makes sense to make that argument with the minimum amount of words and phrases that are politically charged because that allows the debate to happen more freely.
While that idea does exist out in the world, it seems like one that’s 2-3 decades old and far from the rationalist discourse. The whole field of behavioral economics on which the early rationalist community drew heavily rests on humans being not just idealized rational agents. Books like Pinker’s The Blank Slate are about human nature mattering and that it’s denail is bad.