1. If you look at the consensus in the field of psychology, human beings are probably not that good at making the kind of assessment you're talking about with any degree of accuracy. For instance, once you form a belief that there is a difference in competence between people of different races, you will become heavily biased to attend to examples which confirm your belief, and you will be biased to disregard examples which contradict your belief. Humans are just not perfect bayesian reasoning machines.
2. In the social contract of western, liberal society, we have broadly agreed that people should not be judged by their immutable characteristics. So in a sense, yes you are not allowed to "pattern match by race", according to the standing rules of society.
3. This rule helps protect us from the dangers of racial thinking. For instance, a belief about the relative merit or competence of one race can easily jump the gap from being descriptive to prescriptive when one goes around treating people by different standards based on their group identity. There is so much variance within every demographic group that even if there were some statistically significant difference between groups, you would be doing a massive injustice to so many of the individuals in that group to judge them by the "representative member".
I would say ruthlessly coerced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
Yes, obviously these statistics would not definitely tell anyone if there is any difference in actual genetic races, or if the factors are socioeconomic, but for someone looking for job candidates it would actually make no difference, since IQ is not generally easily changed or trained in a developed adult.
Of course, they could also just be using their own personal experience and claim that they are basing their beliefs on it.
I'm already slightly inclined to suspend my disbelief, because I know a little bit about developmental psychology that sort of corroborates what you're claiming about the ageism thing, however, if you want to start discriminating based on race, you have to be ready to bear a massive burden of proof when you make racist claims. Would you be so blindly accepting if I threatened your life, liberty or property for no reason other than the color of your skin? Wouldn't you want conclusive evidence, quality controlled and beyond a reasonable doubt?
>however, if you want to start discriminating based on race, you have to be ready to bear a massive burden of proof when you make racist claims. Would you be so blindly accepting if I threatened your life, liberty or property for no reason other than the color of your skin? Wouldn't you want conclusive evidence, quality controlled and beyond a reasonable doubt?
Would you not say the same about age?
Because when you ring up an insurance company and ask why (as a 20-year old) your insurance is higher than that of a 25 year old(with also zero driving experience) you will be told that it's because of your age. Unless they are lying to you of course, which is hard to prove or disprove.
>> however, if you want to start discriminating based on race
Wait, what? That took a weird turn?
Well, you turned first. Here we are all talking about racism, and then you claim age inversely affects driver risk. In context, I thought you were somehow trying to convince me that circular reasoning and appeals to authority ought to dispel any doubts I have about the validity of racism, but it sounds like you were trying to say something else, and I could be doing a better job of understanding what you are trying to say.
>unless they are lying
They may just be ignorant. Maybe someone else lied to them and they are just parroting the lie. Remember, the people who price insurance exist in a world where polygraphs are admissible evidence in a U.S. court of law; misconceptions are everywhere and I think we must be cautious, lest our generalizations be hasty.
Also see: invoking emergency military powers during peacetime (as reaction to overblown external threats) to suppress political dissent.
Yes, there are white separatist paramilitaries operating within the United States who have cropped up in reaction to affirmative action and social justice, but it won't blow up the same way the black panthers did. It's apples and oranges, because today's U.S. white separatist paramilitary groups are not targets of the U.S. government. The FBI isn't assassinating members of the Aryan Brotherhood nor are politicians passing gun control laws to curb the flow of weapons into their territories. The U.S. government is not actively persecuting white supremacists. There is no COINTELPRO for white supremacists.
There is no escalation here, no conflict. Nazis get a free lunch in the U.S.