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.
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.
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.
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.
...that some races are innately superior to others.
You fail to note the semi-colons between them. — NOS4A2
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
...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
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?
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.