Its genetics, remember? There is an actual, genetic difference behind that skin colour.
Anyway, you are being pretty evasive here and I understand your position to my satisfaction (and disagree obviously) so...thanks I guess.

The difference in skin colour is an actual difference, isnt it? There are more differences than just that, but start there.
Is that an actual difference?

Ok, well there are physical traits common to people of those groups. More than just skin colour. People categorise these traits as “race”, and when they do so they aren’t implying a difference of species, or anything about anyone being inferior. They are just noticing actual differences, then applying a category for ease of reference. Whats the problem with that, other than a hateful person twisting it to suit their twisted views? They are going to do that anyway, why should we deny reality and pretend? That just doesnt seem like a useful way of doing it.
You have yet to tell why you find it more useful.

Yes, its genetics. Genetics that we differentiate using the word “race”. What else would you call it? You are not going to call both people “genetics”. Right?
Whats wring about racism is the discrimination part, the treating of people as lesser part, the one type of person is superior to another type of person part. Take those away, what is the problem with racism as you define it?

Well that response ignores most of what we have discussed so far...its just a repetition of your premiss which Ive said I disagree with. Now im asking you to defend that premiss.
Ill try one more time, from the start: there are clear physical differences between certain groups of people, such as those with “white” skin colour, and those with “black” skin colour. What word would you use to describe that difference, if not race?

Well there isnt much utility in that, obviously, so im giving him the benefit of the doubt that there is more to it.

I am going to repeat a post I made in case you missed it again. The conversation suddenly devolved and everyone else seems to have given up on discourse with you in this, but Im still interested in sorting this out with you. In particular, Id like to understand what utility you are getting out of defining racism that way. To me, the utility would have to be quite high to compensate for its flat denial of obvious facts about physical differences between some groups of humans. Also, I hope you arent taking my comments to be hostile. We disagree, and if Im wrong on my end Id like to hear why/how that's the case.
So here is my last comment:

“I do not think so. There are physical differences between certain groups of humans from different places/heritage. Of these physical differences, some generally correlate to skin colour (which is itself a physical difference). Examples might be hair colour (chinese generally are not born with blonde hair for example) or resistance to skin damage caused by sun exposure in the case of black people.
Thats accurate, and to include that as “racism” is too call anyone capable of noticing plain reality a racist. Thats not a good thing, as now it becomes more difficult to sort out the bad actors from the good ones, which is the reason why my way of defining racism had more utility. It helps identify bad actors...yours doesnt.
Obviously you are free to define it as you see fit, I just dont think it makes much sense.
Can you answer my question about the utility your definition provides? Im happy to change my mind for a better way of looking at this issue.”

I do not think so. There are physical differences between certain groups of humans from different places/heritage. Of these physical differences, some generally correlate to skin colour (which is itself a physical difference). Examples might be hair colour (chinese generally are not born with blonde hair for example) or resistance to skin damage caused by sun exposure in the case of black people.
Thats accurate, and to include that as “racism” is too call anyone capable of noticing plain reality a racist. Thats not a good thing, as now it becomes more difficult to sort out the bad actors from the good ones, which is the reason why my way of defining racism had more utility. It helps identify bad actors...yours doesnt.
Obviously you are free to define it as you see fit, I just dont think it makes much sense.
Can you answer my question about the utility your definition provides? Im happy to change my mind for a better way of looking at this issue.

No it doesnt. The opposite actually, it specifies those idealogical underpinnings as necessary for racism. What im excluding is people who simply recognise there are differences between certain people from different places, which we categorise as “race”. Those people are not racist.
Your definition doesnt have very good accuracy or utility, but maybe Im missing something. What good does defining racism in that way accomplish?

Oh no, I'm sorry for disturbing your delicate concentration. — praxis

Ill forgive you this time I guess. :wink:

It’s true that not all racists believe in race supremacy, or race nationalism or race segregation. I still don’t see any problem here. — NOS4A2

Thats only because you use the “wide net” definition of racism. I think believing in race superiority/inferiority IS what racism is. If you dont believe in racial inferiority/superiority, then there isnt a problem. Right?

Mr. Soul is right, thats precisely the problem I see with defining racism that way. I understand your concern about such differences overshadowing other more important things but who else but a racist (in the sense of discrimination based on race) is going to do that? Right? We dont want to set up the definition of racism to include people who do not hold views about the superiority of one race over another just so we can include the people who DO have those beliefs. We do not need to, we can easily identify those types of people (”racists”) by their views about racial inferiority Etc. No need to cast such a wide net.

I do not agree. I think you can notice differences without discriminating, the same way you can between individuals of all kinds. If I recognise a tall guy and a short guy are different, thats not a problem. If I then say “get the tall guy, inferior genes! Undeserving of human rights!” Or somesuch, then its a problem. “Tallism”.
I think you can even recognise advantages and disadvantages and its fine. The tall guy is better at getting stuff from high shelves. Doesnt mean the short guy is lesser, just different. The problem is racists who use that type of distinction to draw Their racist conclusions but we shouldnt concede the language to them.

Lol...im...sorry?

Ya, I noticed 2 was the odd man out, the other definitions are clearly racist imo.
Im honestly new to the term so I focused on the parts specifically about...well being racist. Still kinda floored its called “race realism”.
Thanks for the education on that.

We get it. NOS is an evil trumpest troll blah blah blah.
Why dont you just shut up about it and try actually contributing? Youre the one playing the role of troll by disrupting other peoples conversations.

Well sure, but simply recognising those differences doesnt seem like a problem to me. So if you define racism as recognising those differences then racism isnt really a problem...which makes it a problematic way of defining racism.
The “race realism” definition seems like a much better definition of racism, because it includes mistreatment based on race.
Its bizarre that such a thing would be called “race realism”, as if its realistic/fact based to discriminate based race. Never knew what “race realism” was...just sounds like plain racism to me.

No its not, NOS included no “discrimination” in his definition. Recognising a difference is not the same as discriminating based on that difference.

Well they are the same in most ways, the important ways, but its silly to act as though there aren’t any differences at all isnt it? There are obvious physical differences, thats the reality.

Well taxonomy is a scientific term, a scientific biological categorisation. I dont think thats whats commonly meant when people refer to race, I think they mean a category based in obvious physical differences.
Maybe thats why there has been such contention on this topic, some people are using the academic meaning of “race” (as it might be used to describe an alien “race” for example) and others a laymens usage that is simply noticing differing physical traits like skin colour or bone density or hair color.
So what word do you use to describe the latter cases? If thats not “race”, what is it?

What is the difference between your definition and his characterisation of it?
Aren’t you saying that racism is when someone thinks there are categories of humans defined by physical traits?

Ah, I suppose that is another conversation altogether. We most likely disagree quite a bit. My only real problem with the death penalty is the risk of a false conviction.

So Zhou is essentially correct in how you define racism. Ok.

Yes, that seems a very poor definition of racism to me as well, I dont think thats what NOS has in mind though.
How about it NOS? How do you define racism?

And next you’ll appeal to the dictionary. — NOS4A2

You dont buy that definition of racism? How do you define it?

Well the value of life wouldn't be strictly speaking intrinsic. But the distinction is fairly minute in most practical circumstances, unless we go beyond biological life. — Echarmion

Ok, I understand. Thanks.

That's not really how the human psyche works. People can be extremely miserable and still also afraid to die. I don't think there is a good justification for inflicting that extra pain. — Echarmion

Im asking about choosing between death and death row. You implied that death row was the worse punishment, did I misunderstand what you meant?

Do you think that people on death row would choose death over death row? If not, then doesnt that pretty clearly show which is the worse punishment? Why would people routinely choose the more torturous option? (Death row, according to you)
Anyway, so you don’t think life has intrinsic value but because you think personhood has intrinsic value then human life has intrinsic value because personhood is intrinsic to human life? (Excepting cases like being braindead where personhood has gone away)
Is that right?

Oh I misunderstood, I thought you didnt think life was sacred or intrinsically valuable.
I just wondered how you would answer other examples of lifes sanctity given your views on the braindead one. Didnt mean to imply they were the same thing, that was a tangent on my part.

What about in the case of life in prison, do you think we should spend the resources to lock the worst of us up in a cage untill they die of natural causes?

Ok, so how does that inform your views? If life has no intrinsic value, what are your thoughts about suicide, or imprisoning the Mansons or Hitlers of the world rather than just killing them?

I wouldnt say so, no. That is only one type of life you are talking about, there is other life that doesn't have that appreciation as you yourself stated and therefore life itself cannot have this intrinsic value.

I think its because people are not thinking clearly, they have been trained and indoctrinated to see racism where the is none. That certain words make a person racist, rather than what a person actually believes about race. (To varying degrees, some people think anything about race coming out of someones mouth is racist).
You’ve heard of Trump derangement syndrome? I think racism derangement syndrome is a thing too.
People lose their fucking minds about Trump and race.

Ok, moving onto someone else then, as per your request.

Whats important about the distinction is that when people hear you use “colour blind” in the non-racist way you mean, they take you to mean “color blindness” in the sense a racist might use that word as a cover for racist sentiment. Thats what happens when people see racism in everything and everyone (everyone white anyway, which seems kinda racist, but welcome to the wacky world of diluted terms we find ourselves in.)

I dont mean to make reference to an objective standard, whatever people/society decides has value is fine.
I think we agree, and I agree with your reference to religion as well. It seems pretty obvious that religious thinking places an inherent value to life because of the immortal soul, salvation and all that.

Interesting, didnt think of AI. Maybe people who think life has intrinsic value have something purely biological in mind as part of that intrinsic worth but to me if we are talking about personhood I dont see how we could exclude AI provided the AI has personhood (however you want to define personhood).
In order to answer your question about personhood being of intrinsic value, I would need to know exactly what you mean by personhood. If personhood has intrinsic value then personhood would have to be intrinsic to life in order for it to make life itself intrinsically valuable. I dont think thats the case, as I wouldnt say a plant or bacteria have personhood...but you might have something else in mind concerning what counts as personhood.

Well the murderous individual could have value if they offset the murders with saving lives or something I suppose, but I was meaning to make a point about a case where there is no offset. I used a relentlessly murdering and hurting person as an obvious example of that but you are right, its not always going to be the case that a murderous person has no value. What about the cases where it actually is the case they have no value (to people/society in general)? Do you think that life has something above and beyond the contents of that life?

Sorry you lost me here. What statement is contrary?
Im not saying life has no value, Im saying life has no value on its own. I dont think we should worry about preserving life in the case of a person who just goes around hurting and killing, we would only need to do that if we believed life had some sort of special, intrinsic value that we should preserve despite the hurting and killing. Some folks think we should lock that person up and expend time, energy and resources because life should always be preserved when possible.

Yes, I would agree life is important but I would still base it on the merits of that life. The import of a life correlates directly with the important things dine with that life.

Good post, I think you captured an important distinction in a nutshell.