To judge someone just on color,race,ethnicity or even just because they are identified as a certain religion is racist and in the last case just bigoted. Prejudice is the normal word for this. This new trend of distinguishing is just an excuse to be racist or prejudiced in pursuit of power politics or personal ranting.
And using extreme examples Is both disingenuous and an insult to common sense. People know racism/ prejudice no matter how it's dressed up intellectually. — Zenny

This is a moral discussion, right? We are trying to ferret out the good from the bad.

Racists are prejudiced, having prejudged a person's ability based upon the person's race. That sort of prejudice is immoral, having caused all sorts of evils in our society and to the person you've discriminated against. As a logical matter, note that two things were not stated: (1) it was not stated that the only reason racism is morally wrong is because it relies upon prejudice, and (2) it was not stated that prejudice is per se immoral.

The prejudice element in the racist discussion is relevant insofar as it points out that your racist conclusions are based upon ignorance. So, if I were a juror and I prejudged the facts and arrived at the conclusion the accused was guilty based upon his race prior to hearing any evidence, my violation is ignorantly deciding without justification (and that is where my prejudice lies), but the immorality lies in the resultant punishment I caused to an innocent man.

On the other hand, if I prejudge bananas as being sour because they are yellow like lemons, I'm ignorant, but there's no morality attached to that prejudice because there is no resultant harm.

@Hanover Nobody really says I have a prejudice against bananas. And I doubt many would be confused at the use of the word this way.
But,in cutting to the chase,prejudice against humans is wrong. And in this thread I've asked people if it's OK for a white minority to be prejudiced against a black majority?
And none has the balls to answer...Yet.

The problem with your theory is once again it makes a mockery of words,and assumes its conclusion without warrant.
What do you mean "makes a mockery of words"? they are their dictionary meaning which warrants its conclusion.(to eliminate ambiguity fallacy)
— Zenny

If everyone is socially biased then what does the word really refer to? Degrees of bias? — Zenny

Bias is just that bias-
Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.
inclination-
A person's natural tendency or urge to act or feel in a particular way; a disposition.

Which means bias does vary within its own meaning without the need to express it in a sentence unless used to describe multiple points.

There is no proof that people are influenced carte blanche to the point of all being biased by social influence. — Zenny

The proof being racism exists, various religious cultures value healing over medical advice, a political social group who influences an area, and any other form of ideology that influences you in an accepting way can lead to think in such a way.

And in this thread I've asked people if it's OK for a white minority to be prejudiced against a black majority? — Zenny

I've already said that prejudice does not equate to immorality per se, so you're going to have give an actual contextualized concrete example if you want some sort of moral analysis, and my conclusion may or may not hinge upon the extent of prejudice unless you craft your example in some way that gets to the point you're trying to make.

I'm also assuming here that you take "it's OK" to mean "morally acceptable" because, like I said, I don't think ignorance is OK if one wishes to find the truth, but I don't think ignorance and immorality are necessarily connected.

. It is simple ...

. Prejudice is born out of ignorance ...

. If you're ignorant about that ... about ... that which is ... you'll project your ignorance ...

. When this projection happens ... it's named ... prejudices ...

. Racism ... is just ... a prejudice ... born out of ... ignorance ...

@Tiberiusmoon The fact that racism exists does not mean everyone is biased but means that some people are biased.

Yep, but much like acting in a rage it can be easy to be blind to a bias (emotional bias) which gives the term: "A blind rage."

@Hanover Is it OK for a poor white person in South Africa to call a poor black person a derogative slur because he feels he has black privilege?
And is it OK for a black man in the US to call a white person a slur in the name of white privilege?
OK,meaning moral,or not needing to be censured.

I agree with this standard definition. To repeat what added in the closed thread ... my point was that the ‘item’ of discrimination by which someone feels ‘superior’ or deems a group of others as ‘inferior’ is prejudice - be this based on ‘items’ including class, nationality, perceived ethnicity, actual ethnicity, sex, political inclination and intelligence.

In differing circumstances some items come more to the fore than others. I wouldn’t place ‘racism’ on some pedestal of evil over any of the others. Often enough you’d be hard pressed to find instances of any of these ‘items’ alone anyway.

It would be nonsensical if someone was to suggest that one could be ‘prejudice’ of a certain ‘race’ of people and not be ‘racist’. That is something like the kind of hoodwinking that people either try to get away with of simply don’t put enough thought into because it doesn’t suit their current worldview and moral convictions.

Probably the most erroneous of all this is how people are so easily dragged into one of these ‘items’ by mistakenly holding to, or against, another. We’re imperfect beings stuck with an imperfect language trying desperately to hope that we can, one day, maybe move away from being so imperfect.

Beneath the semantics lies the heart. Mere ‘semantics’ can cause wars and genocides.

@Tiberiusmoon But your using an extreme example. And not everybody has anger issues. You are universalising behaviour.

Racism is a form of prejudice. And no, it’s not ok to be racist against a person or people because someone who has similar racial characteristics happens to be in power.

But your using an extreme example. And not everybody has anger issues. You are universalising behaviour. — Zenny

Yes because I have already mentioned this before and the examples are used as a general rule of my meaning not the be all and end all as that would be extensive a boaring for both of us to type it all down.

"Given that this is immoral behaviour, research into law shows there are levels of murder not just the singular level; as such the terms; implicit, explicit, and attack can be a measure of immoral behaviour."

@Tiberiusmoon But your general point still doesn't stand. Not everyone is biased by society. Do you not believe in individual agency?

@NOS4A2 Bingo! Common sense and some balls at last!

Tiberiusmoon But your general point still doesn't stand. Not everyone is biased by society. Do you not believe in individual agency? — Zenny

It does I just said how various parts humanity influence a "us vs them" ideology that is social bias which each of them can turn into a volatile or dangerous situation.
We have had religious wars, Mob fights during soccer matches, political wars.
Or an influenced decision because everyone else is doing it say a political aim, the latest/type of smart phone, dietery fad.

Ofc not everyone is biased by society but saying your not biased that is not enough to prove it, you have to understand what your culture is unbiasedly and why they are or are not biased by society.

I do believe in Individual agency, but I also believe in bias because assuming either way is social bias itself.

@Tiberiusmoon See now your admitting everyone is not biased. So take it on a case by case basis. And those people that are biased,mainly they choose to be. They want to feel.better than others,and they want that group identity,no amount of education will change that.
The main thing is to want peace within groups and tolerance. We are a lot better than we were 40 years ago.
But you can't eliminate groups or nations. Not quite yet.

Are people who don't share your fears your people?

What do you mean? I agree that not everyone can be biased while also accepting that there are people who are bias.
My post has the intent to resolve a bias itself and bias only.

My views on who is or isn't biased has always been impartial, given the nature of how to determine such bias is rationaly stacked against someone who is unbaised when you, I or anyone else consider what our culture is fundamentally from an unbiased view and how social bias is influenced.

This isn't a "black or white" fallacy.

I think it's mostly a semantic discussion to be honest. — Benkei

I disagree, if only because racism as a word has social, cultural and political significance in the West. There are significant repercussions to each definition, they're not semantically different, it fundamentally changes who is a racist and who isn't and since within the West. It changes what racism is and since being labelled as a racist can be a big deal, which definition is correct is a big deal. If 180's definition of racism was standard or if Sushi's definition of racism was standard, it does matter. The two definitions are so different that 180's definition could be considered borderline racist by someone who uses sushi's and sushi's definition could be considered a harmful red herring by someone who uses 180's.

I think:

A: all human beings are members of the same species, and

B: political correctness is identity politics in reverse, and it is totally racist, one sided, dictatorial and false, and

C: It is wrong to discriminate on the basis of arbitrary characteristics like skin colour - whatever your motives for doing so.

Yeah, semantics then. Nobody denies speech acts have real world effects but I adjust word usage according to the setting. If academic research has moved on, then when speaking academically about the subject I will adjust to it, provided everyone involved if clear on the meaning of words. So is someone here offers a persuasive definition to explicate ideas, I go with it, I'm not committed to policing words in such a context. In others I might.

And this happens regularly, a typical example is the discussion about diversity and inclusivity in HR for instance. Where less agile companies are still stuck with diversity, while the term is not unimportant, inclusivity is the new goal but until 10 years ago they thought that goal was reached through diversity. So the teleological association with diversity has changed over time through research explicating different results and effects of diversity programs by introducing additional vocabulary that previously had no such broad meaning in HR or wasn't even used. Cosmology is full with them, black holes, dark matter, pulsars, etc. All relatively new ideas.

So what happens if we have a new idea about racism? it's meaning changes and calling someone a racist also changes. No biggie. I think you overestimate the tension you perceive now to persist for long. I give it at most 15 years as the next generation more or less decides what a word means. I suspect it will move in the direction that 180 Proof has already expounded. Meanwhile, I'm perfectly capable of using racism here in a different way then when I talk about it in a bar.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, when you call it semantics you're just saying that we're discussing the meaning of the word racism? Why even point that out? Isn't that obvious?

Yeah, some people are wasting their time arguing what racism means. We don't even have to agree on it as long as you can understand my use and I can understand yours we can talk about actual instances of racism and what to do about it.

You mean from the perspective of functionality, we do not need to debate the definition of racism, maybe that's true but politically, there is reason to debate it. If in 15 years, it is one definition or the other which is standard and each one has repercussions people care about, there is no better reason to debate what racism means than that, surely? There are social, cultural and political repercussions at stake, people wouldn't care otherwise.

Even if we think language should just be handled in accordance with what functions best, we can't mute these political ambitions, it is pointless to try.

You mean from the perspective of functionality, we do not need to debate the definition of racism, maybe that's true but politically, there is reason to debate it. If in 15 years, it is one definition or the other which is standard and each one has repercussions people care about, there is no better reason to debate what racism means than that, surely? There are social, cultural and political repercussions at stake, people wouldn't care otherwise. — Judaka

Yes, I'm talking mostly functionally. For the rest I think it's a bit overestimating influence of, what in essence is, a fringe debate on an obscure website. These are social processes that we're not going to decide on a forum here because there's not really right or wrong whatever direction it will go. The content of sexism has changed a lot too. Racism will probably change and seems to have already, where "power" has become an important element. I'm not married to a specific outcome. I just run with it because I can always find other words to express old ideas to translate to the new.

Some of the comments (like Zenny's) remind me a bit of Peterson's complaints about gender pronouns. By the time they're discussing it in parliament, it isn't a fad. Such comments are just the last spasms of a dinosaur.

In almost every Western nation, these issues, racism and gender, for example, are being fiercely debated, I don't think it's clear how things are going to go. Of course, our comments on this forum will almost certainly have no impact on anything but that doesn't stop us from debating with some kind of passion. If you feel no passion towards this subject, that's fine but I don't think it's fair to say others are wasting their time debating things they feel passionately about, that's how most politically sensitive topics go on this forum and you're often in the thick of that. The fact that some people have cited the Israel thread in this thread is unsurprising, just another topic where these definitions matter.

I could be wrong but it seems you talk about many "controversial" topics, which come up even in this forum regularly as though, they're done and dusted. The "culture war" hasn't ended, all of these issues about racism, transgenderism, sexism etc it's all ongoing. 180's definition and sushi's definition are tied to the "culture war", its politics.

I think confusing fighting over definitions with politically sensitive topics is a funny way to look at it.

So on the one hand we have people demanding justice and equality and on the other people whining about those first people's use of words thereby avoiding actual engagement and discussion about the subject. But by all means, have at it if your think it's important. It's politics for sure, but one of evasion and preferably framed in such a way that they then get to blame the other side.

Or you can say, ok, I don't like your definition and I think it's wrong to use it like that, but I understand it so for the purposes of this discussion we'll use it. Then maybe there's, I don't know, an actual meaningful discussion possible?

What about prejudice as bias?

I've had conversations with more or less every poster in this thread, I already know all of them oppose "racism" in a general sense. However, from bitconnect, to nos, to sushi, 180, baden, you and me, there are large differences in characterisation and approach to racism. The battle against "racism" is over, in the sense that people "condemn" it. However, for many of us, that condemnation is meaningless because the definition of "racism" others are condemning is bullshit. We all agree something should be done about racism but then "what should be done?" becomes the next stage of the discussion. Even if people agree "racism" is bad, we can't bypass discussions about what exactly racism is and isn't and what exactly should be done about it.

This is all meaningful discussion, even if you brokered a peace of sorts, the questions still remain. "What is racism" and "what do we do about it". Don't think there's any avoiding it but it's a good thing, not evasion, people are tackling the issue of racism head-on, honestly and with the best intentions. I know that because I know the posters here care about the topic based on previous conversations.

Prejudice is the root of racism and since humans born in societies and prejudices is all people meet since their birth. All people are racists cause of their Ego. The thing is how many of them are logical enough as to take control of that racist instinct they have. It is the need to find even one man to feel superior over him