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.

It's a lie because, as I've previously mentioned, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no difficulty at all in grouping people and blanketly attributing them with particular characteristics.
–praxis

For example? — NOS4A2

Anti-Trumpism is the opposition to trump as an ideology. Most people want their leaders to succeed and their country to prosper. Anti-Trumpists want their leader to fail and are willing to ruin the country to do it.

Not only have you grouped people together who oppose Trump, which by the way consists of over half the nation at this point, you've attributed fictitious qualities to them. You might say that all those who oppose Trump are not necessarily Anti-Trumpists, just the ones that want him to fail and are willing to ruin the country to do it. This would, however, be an even greater demonstration of the ease in which you can group people and apply characteristics to that group, because it's purely imaginary.

So again, why did you lie?

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.

I’m not aware of any race skeptics who devalue another based on the color of their skin. Perhaps an example?

Yes, if the definition fits it fits.

Not only have you grouped people together who oppose Trump, which by the way consists of over half the nation at this point, you've attributed fictitious qualities to them. You might say that all those who oppose Trump are not necessarily Anti-Trumpists, just the ones that want him to fail and are willing to ruin the country to do it. This would, however, be an even greater demonstration of the ease in which you can group people and apply characteristics to that group, because it's purely imaginary.

Seems pretty accurate to me.

Your definition does not fit the historically accepted use of the term...

Shakes head and walks away...

Your definition does not fit the historically accepted use of the term...

Racism, also called racialism, any action, practice, or belief that reflects the racial worldview—the ideology that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others. Since the late 20th century the notion of biological race has been recognized as a cultural invention, entirely without scientific basis.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/racism

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!

The chatbot is heavily armoured. He just keeps going.

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.

You fail to note the semi-colons between them.

Good riddance.

Seems pretty accurate to me. — NOS4A2

So... why did you lie?

So... why did you lie?

I didn’t, though if I knew someone was going to cherry-pick one statement from the thousands of previous statements in order to call me a liar, I might have chosen my words more carefully.

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...

And you’re kind, brilliant person...

The definitions are related, but one doesn’t qualify the others as you so claim.

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.

So... why did you lie?

I didn’t, though if I knew someone was going to cherry-pick one statement from the thousands of previous statements in order to call me a liar, I might have chosen my words more carefully. — NOS4A2

So you're saying that it wasn't a lie, you just misspoke? Are you being honest?

You're completely wrong on this point and @creativesoul is right. Separate definitions are separated by numbers in dictionaries and such, or if not, it's made clear what's what. The "and" after the semi-colon is the rest of that definition and not a separate alternative in the version you posted. Hence "and" not "or". You do yourself no credit by clinging on to the falsity that racism is defined fully by the one sentence you cherry-picked from the definition. It just makes you look either intellectually dishonest or lacking in basic comprehension skills.

I think you might have scored a point there, Baden. Good shot!

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.”

...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.

It’s an encyclopedia. I never cherry-picked any definition and in fact included all of it. The rest necessarily precede from the first. The definitions you guys propose completely exclude the first two “qualifiers”, cherry picking the last.

It’s not only a matter of utility but of basic fact. No accurate demarcation can be made between races. I see no utility in adopting unsubstantiated, and in my mind superstitious and pseudo-scientific taxonomies upon groups of disparate people. As I’ve already stated, all subsequent expressions of racism flower from this one ideology. We know where this ideology leads.

Sure if you want to group people into races, be my guest. But you are applying the same ideology of the worst of humankind.

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

No, that's not what happened. Done here. And another goes on ignore.

That’s another problem: the causes are so innumerable that disparities cannot be chalked up to just discrimination, privilege or systemic whatever. These causes are not limited or confined to this or that group. — NOS4A2

Welcome to intersectionality. :rofl:

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?

I'm with Baden: out of here. Nosferatu has a chilly logic, sure, but also a cog loose, apparently. A vist to chatbot HQ for repairs might be in order.

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?

It’s just genetics.

The problem for me is you choose to draw the demarcations in a way I want nothing to do with.

Refusing ostensibly superficial demarcations only underscores their importance. Not the best way to deal with them, however.