-
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?
I'm simply attempting to show that believing that there is a group of people called Asians does not count as having a racist worldview.
It's not my problem that he will not admit to believing that he's picking out a group of people just like the example he charges with "racism". Then perhaps, we could move towards realizing that that is not enough to count as being racist. -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?What you call "clarification" is a textbook example of moving the goalposts in the wild...
-
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?Person A didn't use the term"race". Thus, they did not believe that either. However, you charged them with racism by pointing out that they believed there was such a group of people.
Yes, people from Asia exist — NOS4A2
What are they called again... on your view?
"Asians"...
You've been hung by your own rope. -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?My contention is one cannot hate Asians unless he believes such a distinct group exists. — NOS4A2
-
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?Are you saying that people from asia do not exist?
-
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?So you're picking out a group of people that you do not believe there is?
-
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?
So then, when you use the term "Asian" what on earth are you picking out if not the people from Asia? -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?My definition is “ In it’s purest form, racism is the belief that the species may be divided into separate biological taxonomies called “race”. — NOS4A2
Imagine person A who does not use the term "race" but hates asian people, and does not think that they should be allowed to live anywhere near person A and their family.
According to your definition this person is not racist.
Imagine person B who uses the term "race" and believes that there are such things as human races, all the time in a concerted effort to fight against the devaluation of another based upon race.
According to your definition this person is racist. -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?
You need to make sense of the earlier equivalence drawn between all people who believe that there are human races. According to your definition all of them are racist, even those who fight against the devaluation of another based upon race.
Again...
Imagine person A who does not use the term "race" but hates asian people, and does not think that they should be allowed to live anywhere near person A and their family.
According to your definition this person is not racist.
Imagine person B who uses the term "race" and believes that there are such things as human races, all the time in a concerted effort to fight against the devaluation of another based upon race.
According to your definition this person is racist.
— creativesoul
Do you not see the problem here?
Person A is racist, and person B is not. Thus... your definition is wrong. — creativesoul
What is your answer to this? -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?See that? The above quote shows that you are clearly equating all belief in races with racism... believing that there are races and believing that some races are inferior to others both believe in race. They are the same in that regard. The difference between them is the devaluation aspect. One can believe in races without believing that one race is inferior to another. The former(belief in races) is not racism, whereas the latter is. Without that additional component, there is no racism.
Yet you've not drawn that distinction, despite the fact that the encyclopedia article you offered did.
Yes, that is clear from what I wrote. What is not clear from what I wrote is your misrepresentation that using the term “race” is racist, which seemed to be pulled from thin air. — NOS4A2
I'll accept that, for now, you are not claiming that using the term "race" is equal to being racist.
You need to make sense of the earlier equivalence drawn between all people who believe that there are human races. According to your definition all of them are racist, even those who fight against the devaluation of another based upon race.
Again...
Imagine person A who does not use the term "race" but hates asian people, and does not think that they should be allowed to live anywhere near person A and their family.
According to your definition this person is not racist.
Imagine person B who uses the term "race" and believes that there are such things as human races, all the time in a concerted effort to fight against the devaluation of another based upon race.
According to your definition this person is racist. — creativesoul
Do you not see the problem here?
Person A is racist, and person B is not. Thus... your definition is wrong. -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?By your misrepresentation of my definition, I would be racist because I use the term race. — NOS4A2
Not a misrepresentation of what you wrote. Perhaps, what you wrote misrepresented what you think or believe, but that's not my problem.
Sure if you want to group people into races, be my guest. But you are applying the same ideology of the worst of humankind. — NOS4A2
See that? The above quote shows that you are clearly equating all belief in races with racism... They are not the same.
Believing that there are races, and believing that some races are inferior to others have the commonality that both believe in race. They are the same in that regard. The difference between them is the devaluation aspect. One can believe in races without believing that one race is inferior to another. The former(belief in races) is not racism, whereas the latter is. Without that additional component(the devaluation of another based upon race, skin color, ethnicity), there is no 'racism'.
Yet you've not drawn that distinction, despite the fact that the encyclopedia article you offered did. -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?Imagine person A who does not use the term "race" but hates asian people, and does not think that they should be allowed to live anywhere near person A and their family.
According to your definition this person is not racist.
Imagine person B who uses the term "race" and believes that there are such things as human races, all the time in a concerted effort to fight against the devaluation of another based upon race.
According to your definition this person is racist.
Using the term “race” is a lot different than believing the species can be subdivided into discreet biological units called races. My definition applies to the latter, not the former. — NOS4A2
There are countless posts here which show that you are not drawing that distinction. -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?
Not all who use the term "race" are using it to justify the devaluation of others. In order to reduce racism, it must be identified. That's part of the problem with your proposed definition. It does not do that. It picks out some individuals that do not devalue others based upon race, and fails to be able to pick out some individuals that devalue others based upon skin color(so long as they do not use the term "race"). -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?Believing the species can be subdivided into distinct biological entities called races is much different than noticing the difference in skin colors. — NOS4A2
Devaluing another human based upon their skin color is the problem we call "racism". It need not be identified as such in order to be a problem. Call it by any other name and it's still the same problem. It's not corrected by abandoning the notion of "race". It was a problem long before the notion of "race" was even invented/coined. It was a problem long before scientific classification. It will remain a problem as long as people devalue another based upon skin color and/or ethnicity(mainly visual appearances).
Thus, this notion you have of removing the ground of racism is nonsense. There is no such ground to begin with. The classification merely allowed those who were determined to be racist to talk about it in new terms that made it seem as though science supported their devaluation of others. -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?I’m merely arguing that abandoning the false and superstitious ideology of race gives one no grounds to be racist. — NOS4A2
One need not employ the notion of race in order to devalue another human based upon the color of their skin or their ethnicity. -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?Devaluing another human based upon their skin color and/or ethnicity will not be corrected by abandoning the term "race".
Fucking idiot.
The former is the problem, not the latter... which merely names the problem. -
What It Is Like To Experience X...he's basically said that he posts on here to work on his own model. — Terrapin Station
How else?
:smile: -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?...what utility you are getting out of defining racism that way. — DingoJones
His definition is utterly incapable of referring to the kinds of people the term "racist" is supposed to pick out, while simultaneously referring to and picking out all sorts of people that it's not supposed to pick out. — creativesoul
That's the utility. -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?Kindness isn't always appropriate. When one is attempting to call those fighting against racism racists, all the while claiming that racists are not racist, well... Contempt is more suited.
-
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?You fail to note the semi-colons between them. — NOS4A2
You're such an idiot sometimes...
The semicolon joins all the different things that all need to be present - on that account - to qualify as racism. That article contradicts the definition you've proposed... -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?
Impervious to self-contradiction... May be Trump himself, or a minion. What's that blonde's name again? Fairly up to date on fairly private geopolitical matters. -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?Notice that little remarkable further qualification?
...that some races are innately superior to others.
Your definition does not agree with what you mistakenly believe supports you...
Toodles! -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?
My participation here is meant for the reader who may have been misled to think and/or believe that there was a valid meaningful point being made by NOS4A2. There's not. He's clearly talking nonsense. His use of the term "racist" not only goes directly against the history of it's use, but his proposed definition renders an otherwise perfectly useful notion useless.
His definition is utterly incapable of referring to the kinds of people the term "racist" is supposed to pick out, while simultaneously referring to and picking out all sorts of people that it's not supposed to pick out. -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?
Earlier I asked you what you called someone who devalues black people based solely upon their being black. You answered "racist".
How do you reconcile that answer with the other things you've claimed?
What about someone who does not believe that race is an acceptable grouping but devalues black people solely because they are black? Are these people exonerated from being racist simply because they do not believe that race is an acceptable grouping, regardless of the fact that they devalue blacks simply because they are black?
:brow: -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?Your definition excludes the underpinning ideology, the foundation upon which all racial discrimination is built. — NOS4A2
There's quite a bit of irony here. What you've proposed here is not even necessary for one to be racist, let alone sufficient.
1. Some people deny that race is an actual biological category and yet still devalue another based upon the color of their skin. None of those people are racist according to your definition.
2. Some people devalued others based upon the color of their skin long before we took account of skin color with the term "race". None of those people are racist according to your definition.
3. Some people do believe that there are human races and do not devalue another based upon race. All of these people are racist according to your definition.
4. Some people fight against the ideology of devaluing another human based upon the color of their skin(race). All of these people are racist according to your definition. -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?I still don’t see any problem here. — NOS4A2
All anti-racists who believe that there are human races are racist according to your definition. -
What It Is Like To Experience X
Thanks for that link. Impressive considerations and precautions taken by the scientists involved to minimize mistaken accounting practices.
Based upon those experiments, I am quite certain that there is some sort of sensitivity to equitable resource distribution(in some non human primates). I am quite certain that there is empathy at work(in some non human primates more-so than others). I am quite certain that there is some sort of expectation at work(in all non human primates). I'm not as certain that there is enough evidence to conclude a sense of fairness at work in the thought and belief of any particular candidate. However, it's quite interesting that some dominant individuals will voluntarily share.
Again, you've simply asserted that language use is required for these things, I'd like to hear your full argument for how you link the two. At the moment, as I see it, you seem to be saying that gestures, facial expressions, arrangements of neurons in any way...none of these are capable of carrying the content you're looking for, but making a particular shape with my mouth and voice box magically carries this other world of content. I just don't see how at all. — Isaac
It's not so much as making a particular shape with one's mouth and voice box carries content. In fact, on my view, talking about carrying content doesn't make much sense at all. The content of thought and belief is not some monolithic structure capable of being carried.
More later... -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?The problem here is that all of those people who believe that there are human races satisfy your proposed definition of racism, as can be seen by looking at that definition. It's below...
How is that a problem? — NOS4A2
Not all who believe that there are human races also believe that some races are superior to others. Your definition does not take that into account. So... following from your definition, the anti-racists are racist if they believe that there are human races regardless of whether or not they also believe that one race is superior to another. That subsequent judgment is what's different between racists and anti-racists.(not racist). Your definition cannot draw that distinction between racists and anti-racists.
That's how. -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?That makes sense to me. However, what doesn't make sense is that both groups satisfy your definition of racism. Thus, you've reached a point where you must either adjust the definition you're using or admit incoherence(self-contradiction).
I don’t think one has to believe in the theory of race to oppose racism. — NOS4A2
Sure. Some folk who oppose racism may not believe in the theory of race.
The problem is that others do, and fight against racist ideology(that some races are superior to others simply because of the race).
The problem here is that all of those people who believe that there are human races satisfy your proposed definition of racism, as can be seen by looking at that definition. It's below...
My definition is “ In it’s purest form, racism is the belief that the species may be divided into separate biological taxonomies called “race”. — NOS4A2 -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?What do you call people who believe that black people are somehow inferior to white people simply because they are black?
Racists.
— NOS4A2
Ok.
What do you call people who are fighting against the racist ideology? — creativesoul
I suppose anti-racist? — NOS4A2
That makes sense to me. However, what doesn't make sense is that both groups satisfy your definition of racism. Thus, you've reached a point where you must either adjust the definition you're using or admit incoherence(self-contradiction). -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?What do you call people who believe that black people are somehow inferior to white people simply because they are black?
Racists. — NOS4A2
Ok.
What do you call people who are fighting against the racist ideology? -
Why are We Back-Peddling on Racial Color-Blindness?t think it just makes sense. Attach the suffix “ism” to the root word “race”. The belief, practice, ideology or doctrine of race. Put into practice discrimination automatically results in discrimination. Hence viewing one race as underprivileged, privileged, inferior, superior, and so on. These sorts of conclusions are the necessary, logical consequences of race-thinking. — NOS4A2
The problem with this line of thinking seems clear to me...
People have been devalued by others based upon the color of their skin long before it was talked about as such(racism).
creativesoul
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2026 The Philosophy Forum