— NOS4A2
There is also a group of people called ‘rapists’ and I hate them too.
Even so, you just admitted you’d call me racist even though I didn’t in any way make a distinction of ‘race’ so calling me ‘racist’ for hating latinos, when I stated I don’t believe there are human races, must - by your own definition - make you ‘racist’ for calling me ‘racist’ because you’re falsely accusing me of hating a group of people based on ‘race’ when I very clearly said I don’t believe in ‘race’.
Note: I’m just following your reasoning here. — I like sushi
What you seem to be doing quite consistently is plastering your impressions of people over their faces to the point that you can no longer see behind the mask you’ve made for them. Effectively you’ve ended up talking to nothing more than a mask of your own making.
Hence, people will just stop responding as I did.
It may be easier to stick to exchanging with one person only. Frank seem game enough so offer some charity. I’m not game btw. I don’t see what I have to gain that I don’t gain by observing you try and find a resolution to your current problem in communicating whatever it is you’re trying to communicate.
Good luck. Hope it works out. — I like sushi
Prove you have any intelligence. — unenlightened
Ok. I get it now, you're just trolling. Basta! — 180 Proof
Riiiiiiiiight ... Ok, Shrek. :up: — 180 Proof
Stop being so incurious and intellectually lazy and google what you've asked me. Or make do with what I've already written on this thread. Or do neither. I'm done feeding trolls here. — 180 Proof
In other words: Don't feed trolls! Right on — 180 Proof
The fact that you are too lazy to scroll up and read is indicative of the pointlessness of dealing with you. You've earned Chrome ignore. Good luck. — Baden
Okay, Harry. Prove you're not a cunt. — 180 Proof
...and these are basically the entire contents of their posts - just ad hominems without any kind of argument or consideration for what I actually have said consistently.Poor little Harry — frank
The only reason I've mentioned my skin color is because this is a topic about skin color, and this doesn't contradict anything that I've said. I have consistently said that being color-bind does not entail being color-blind all the time. It only means that we should be color-blind in contexts where race isn't a factor, or doesn't follow from the context. When hiring someone, one's race doesn't play a role in that person's ability to do the job, so shouldn't be taken into consideration. Only in biological/medical contexts, which includes topics whose titles include the word, "race" on philosophy forums, should we not be color-blind. Doing otherwise is making a category error. I'm repeating myself, because this is one of the things I have said consistently.Once again without mentioning your name, Hindu, you don't keep anyone guessing and self-identify. That's mighty "colorblind" of you. :ok: "I bet you think this song is about you ..." — 180 Proof
I think it would be impolite of me not to respond even though I said I wouldn’t do so given the extend of your post.
I was making the judgement from responses you’ve given to me and some others where you seem to be arguing against something that hasn’t been said or suggested.
Some of the names you mentioned do the same thing too, as do I and almost everyone at some point. I was pointing out that I observe this to be a consistent factor in your responses whilst even in other guilty parties there are lulls. — I like sushi
plastering your impressions of people over their faces to the point that you can no longer see behind the mask you’ve made for them. Effectively you’ve ended up talking to nothing more than a mask of your own making — I like sushi
So... what is a biological race such that one could conflate it with ethnicity and in doing so qualify for being racist?
You've never answered this question. You claimed that one is racist if they conflate biological race with ethnicity. You've also claimed that there is no such thing as biological race.
How do you reconcile this apparent self-contradiction?
Clearly his instinctual language doesn’t align with what he believes:
NB: UN Reports on Human Rights, UNDP, WHO, ICJ the Hague and other international human & civil rights NGOs thoroughly document and annually publish accounts and analyses which track both manifestations and the effects of racism (as well as other modalities of systemic discrimination). Anyone who doesn't know about these pervasive and persistent injustices simply doesn't want to know because s/he has the in-group privilege of not having to survive discrimination, even open persecution, as members of out-groups everywhere must. And what you don't know about you don't care - give a fuck! - about, which shows. — 180 Proof
Resorting to accusations when the evidence is there is frankly petty. I cannot be lying by stating that your initial reaction to the hypothetical guy who doesn’t believe in human races yet hates latinos was to call him ‘racist’. You then amended this once I pointed the disjoint between your belief in what ‘racist’ means and what the hypothetical guy said.
There was no lie and I’m not a liar. Either you were being purposefully deceptive by saying ‘racist’ or your natural/instinctual language made you say ‘racist’. I assumed you wasn’t playing deceptive games.
I don’t see how can take whatever I thought you meant in the opening post as correct anymore. If you struggle so much with yourself about how to define racism and fail to use your claimed meaning in general speech then I don’t have confidence that you can cope with the nuance of what you mean, or don’t mean, by ‘colour-blind’ in the opening post anymore.
That said I do think it is bad form for anyone here to call you ‘racist’ or insinuate such - as has happened. You should at least walk away from this with some questions for yourself about how you convey your thoughts (if not you just wasted your time probably).
Differing cultures and customs and language is more ethnicity than race, so I wouldn’t call someone a racist for distinguishing between ethnicities, though I would if they conflated the ethnicity with the biological races of those involved. — NOS4A2
How can one devalue someone because of their race while at the same time believing no such demarcation exists? — NOS4A2
— NOS4A2
How about if I state that there is only one human race and then say I hate latinos? Can I be called ‘racist’ then? By your definition I’m not being ‘racist’ am I? If not then what would you call me? An ‘ethnicist’ maybe? The term doesn’t exist, instead we use ‘racist’, ‘bigoted’ and/or ‘prejudiced’. — I like sushi
Even so, you just admitted you’d call me racist even though I didn’t in any way make a distinction of ‘race’ so calling me ‘racist’ for hating latinos, when I stated I don’t believe there are human races — I like sushi
That’s fair. I suppose you’d hate an ethnicity, not a race. I’m not sure of the correct term in that case. — NOS4A2
You have previously stated that calling someone racist means you are racist because you’re perpetuating the term ‘racist’ by doing so.
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
They are both racist because they both subscribe to the racist worldview. My contention is one cannot hate Asians unless he believes such a distinct group exists. — NOS4A2
The confusion arises because you weren’t precise with your terminology. Distinct ethnicities do exist, yet they are not the same as biological races. I read the sentences as two separate sentences because they didn’t appear to be leading from one to the other.
This doesn’t distract from the obvious disjoint that you clearly admitted. You still spoke outside of your own claims about what defines ‘racism’. It is there in black and white.
This is too tiresome so you can have the last word if you wish.
Look at the exchange made over the hypothetical latino hater. He called that person racist when they didn’t distinguish between any biological race, then ‘back-peddled’ saying he didn’t know what he’d call that hypothetical person. — I like sushi
NB: UN Reports on Human Rights, UNDP, WHO, ICJ the Hague and other international human & civil rights NGOs thoroughly document and annually publish accounts and analyses which track both manifestations and the effects of racism (as well as other modalities of systemic discrimination). Anyone who doesn't know about these pervasive and persistent injustices simply doesn't want to know because s/he has the in-group privilege of not having to survive discrimination, even open persecution, as members of out-groups everywhere must. And what you don't know about you don't care - give a fuck! - about, which shows. — 180 Proof
What's the plan? — Harry Hindu
There is self contradiction resulting from equivocation. The equivocation is regarding the term "racist". In particular, the criterion for what counts as being so is a moving target.
Either the author knows this or he doesn't.
Believing that there are biological races does not constitute racism. This is how he has trouble exonerating himself from using the notion of race, and it's how he charges others with being racist for using the notion.
The author is proving beyond all doubt to be blind... not to color... but rather...
To what racism is.
By sheer will alone...
Sad.
Therefore in the case of racism(s), my suggestion is that whatever else your definition of racism includes, it must contain the following three elements:
1. A historical power relationship in which, over time, groups are racialised (that is, treated as if specific characteristics were natural and innate to each member of the group).
2. A set of ideas (ideology) in which the human race is divisible into distinct ‘races’, each with specific natural characteristics.
3. Forms of discrimination flowing from this (practices) ranging from denial of access to resources through to mass murder.
One element of racism is a set of ideas; the other is a set of practices, and we shall explore these in the following chapters. The gap between the social and the biological is to be emphasised. Racist ideas can be at least partly comprehended by returning to this basic adage: racism tries to explain differences in the social world by reference to biological, that is, natural distinctions
Well, speech wasn't free in the old days. People had to form secret societies in order to speak freely.Sounds like something the Roman Catholic Church would pronounce some centuries ago. Anyone who doesn't believe in the vague descriptions we've given of our Big Brother in the sky is a heretic! — Harry Hindu
Therefore in the case of racism(s), my suggestion is that whatever else your definition of racism includes, it must contain the following three elements:
1. A historical power relationship in which, over time, groups are racialised (that is, treated as if specific characteristics were natural and innate to each member of the group).
2. A set of ideas (ideology) in which the human race is divisible into distinct ‘races’, each with specific natural characteristics.
3. Forms of discrimination flowing from this (practices) ranging from denial of access to resources through to mass murder.
That’s an uncharitable accounting of my views. — NOS4A2
180, you're painting a bleak picture. People in the in-group can't see it, so I suppose they can't help. There can be no plan until all the members of the out-group die, blessing their lighter-skinned descendants on their way out. *Snark*
But then, there'll be no need for a plan. — frank
The libertarian is more rich and the anarchist more violent. :joke: — ssu
If racism was about power, then why are you voting to give more power to the system? — Harry Hindu
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.