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
But this is 2019. What are the racist institutions in 2019? Are you saying the FHA is still racist today? — Harry Hindu
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).
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
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
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.
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...
Lol...im...sorry? — DingoJones
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.
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
Oh no, I'm sorry for disturbing your delicate concentration. — praxis
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 still don’t see any problem here. — NOS4A2
All anti-racists who believe that there are human races are racist according to your definition.
Your definition excludes the underpinning ideology, the foundation upon which all racial discrimination is built. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.