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. — NOS4A2

None of the first two qualifiers make up racism; it requires all three. Have your read the entire entry? What do you make of this in that entry:

Racism elicits hatred and distrust and precludes any attempt to understand its victims. — Brittanica

How do victims come about if only the first two already make up racism?

But never mind that. Why don't you look up how Brittanica uses semicolons? I just did. :smile:

Finally, why are you persisting in trying to redefine racism in a way that nobody uses the word? Do you simply enjoy disagreeing with everyone?

No doubt, many still see them as important, to the point that people get angry when they’re questioned. Many anthropologists and geneticists refuse to use them. How would you deal with them?

Yes, its genetics. Genetics that we differentiate using the word “race”. What else would you call it? You are not going to call both people “genetics”. Right?
Whats wring about racism is the discrimination part, the treating of people as lesser part, the one type of person is superior to another type of person part. Take those away, what is the problem with racism as you define it?

But the third explicitly assumes race. How can you believe one race is superior to another if you do not first believe “that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races””?

As I’ve stated, the rest necessarily follows from the first.

Yes, its genetics. Genetics that we differentiate using the word “race”. What else would you call it? You are not going to call both people “genetics”. Right?
Whats wring about racism is the discrimination part, the treating of people as lesser part, the one type of person is superior to another type of person part. Take those away, what is the problem with racism as you define it?

Descriptive terms suffice to describe human beings. A white man is a man with fair skin, not necessarily the member of some race.

Ok, well there are physical traits common to people of those groups. More than just skin colour. People categorise these traits as “race”, and when they do so they aren’t implying a difference of species, or anything about anyone being inferior. They are just noticing actual differences, then applying a category for ease of reference. Whats the problem with that, other than a hateful person twisting it to suit their twisted views? They are going to do that anyway, why should we deny reality and pretend? That just doesnt seem like a useful way of doing it.
You have yet to tell why you find it more useful.

No doubt, many still see them as important, to the point that people get angry when they’re questioned. Many anthropologists and geneticists refuse to use them. How would you deal with them? — NOS4A2

By revising what’s behind (the meaning and implicit associations) the demarcations to better match reality. Simply not using them doesn’t do that.

Ok, well there are physical traits common to people of those groups. More than just skin colour. People categorise these traits as “race”, and when they do so they aren’t implying a difference of species, or anything about anyone being inferior. They are just noticing actual differences, then applying a category for ease of reference. Whats the problem with that, other than a hateful person twisting it to suit their twisted views? They are going to do that anyway, why should we deny reality and pretend? That just doesnt seem like a useful way of doing it.
You have yet to tell why you find it more useful.

I don’t think they are noticing actual differences, but are rather putting actual differences aside in search of qualities and essences in individuals so as to group them. You cite “black” as a race for example and used skin color as a marker.

The demarcation is not useful to me and is in my eyes unethical.

The difference in skin colour is an actual difference, isnt it? There are more differences than just that, but start there.
Is that an actual difference?

By revising what’s behind (the meaning and implicit associations) the demarcations to better match reality. Simply not using them doesn’t do that.

Sure it does. We abandon old concepts for new ones all the time, as anthropologists and geneticists abandoned race in favor of better ones,

The difference in skin colour is an actual difference, isnt it? There are more differences than just that, but start there.
Is that an actual difference?

There is a vast spectrum of skin colors. At what point for you does black end and white begin? At what color is your line drawn?

Devaluing another human based upon their skin color and/or ethnicity will not be corrected by abandoning the term "race".

Fucking idiot.

The former is the problem, not the latter... which merely names the problem.

Then why do you say “skin color” and “ethnicity” and not “race”?

No one said it would correct anything. I’m merely arguing that abandoning the false and superstitious ideology of race gives one no grounds to be racist.

I’m merely arguing that abandoning the false and superstitious ideology of race gives one no grounds to be racist. — NOS4A2

One need not employ the notion of race in order to devalue another human based upon the color of their skin or their ethnicity.

Its genetics, remember? There is an actual, genetic difference behind that skin colour.
Anyway, you are being pretty evasive here and I understand your position to my satisfaction (and disagree obviously) so...thanks I guess.

Its genetics, remember? There is an actual, genetic difference behind that skin colour.
Anyway, you are being pretty evasive here and I understand your position to my satisfaction (and disagree obviously) so...thanks I guess.

I’m not quite satisfied. For instance, how light-skinned can a black man be before you classify him as white? Where are these sorts of lines drawn for you?

Its informed by genetics. Thats where those sorts of differences come from. Its not about the colour of skin per say, its about a genetic expression.
Its no different than noticing red heads generally have freckles.

By revising what’s behind (the meaning and implicit associations) the demarcations to better match reality. Simply not using them doesn’t do that.
— praxis

Sure it does. We abandon old concepts for new ones all the time, as anthropologists and geneticists abandoned race in favor of better ones, — NOS4A2

Anthropologists and geneticists use terms like ‘white people’ and ‘black people’. Why wouldn’t they? And what new and old concepts are you talking about?

Anyway, you are being pretty evasive here and I understand your position to my satisfaction (and disagree obviously) so...thanks I guess. — DingoJones

I would like to once again apologize for disturbing your meaningful discussion.

Apology accepted.

I’m merely arguing that abandoning the false and superstitious ideology of race gives one no grounds to be racist. — NOS4A2

So what? They are still behaving in a manner we find atrocious. Calling that atrocious behavior "racism" is likely at the bottom of most people's priorities. We want the behavior to stop. Sometimes these bad behaviors are committed by individuals, sometimes there are systemic aspects left over from a long history of atrocious behavior. For decades the world has referred to these behaviors as "racism". Does it matter if "race" is a scientific thing vs just a semantic symbolic thing (like most words)?

{edit} I should probably correct myself: I implied that all systemic atrocious behavior was just leftovers from distant history, some is still be due to current intentional bad behavior (notice how wordy this discussion must become when we can't use the word race or racism).

Okay, Harry. Prove you're not a cunt
— 180 Proof

:meh:

I can point you to a history book - THE COLOR OF LAW (2017) - that will show that we do not have, and have not had equality of opportunity. We need not go back as far as the 18th and 19th centuries and slavery. Let's go back to the 1930s.
— Bitter Crank

But this is 2019. — Harry Hindu

I guess not. Stamped: NOT PROVEN. :cool:

Trolls don't oppose opinion, they distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory messages with the intent of normalizing tangential discussion. — Chris Hughes

:up:

↪praxis

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

:rofl: :shade: alt-right Troll is as alt-right Troll does ...

The rest of my questions please, before we get bogged down into something we shouldn't even be talking about.

Also, while you're at it; are you familiar with the difference between a necessary and sufficient condition?

This isn’t as big a problem as some here seem to be making it out to be. The terms are used publicly and in different technical fields of research.

When I use ‘race’ in cultural terms I make sure it is clear enough in the context. In scientific terms there are no human races, yet there are some extremely subtle differences within the gene pool. It should be noted that there are larger differences within any give group of people than there are between groups.

The problem that does persist, as I pointed out several pages back, is the ill-informed opinion that conflates ‘race’ (scientific definition) with ‘race’ (cultural definition). We are not going to eradicate the term ‘race’ from the English vocabulary and given the growth of our understanding over time - when we were mistaken into thinking that relatively small differences in appearances are key to determining scientific demarcations - we’ve naturally dragged along outdated, and misused, terminology into today’s world.

All you have to do is state clearly how you are using the term as honestly as possible and bring understanding to the discussion that some people are going to get twitchy about the subject matter given the historical implications, different national attitudes, and/or there scientific inclinations.

I don’t think it helps matters when people insist their definition is the true definition. In those situations the best thing to do is to express your understanding of their term and then state as clearly as possible what your take is and ask how they would articulate your definition as best they can.

If these forums are good for anything surely they offer the opportunity to educate ourselves about the perspectives of another. The more opposed the perspectives involved the more room there is to gain understanding.

I think it was Hegel who said something like that? To paraphrase, ‘Education for society is about understanding people’s different perspectives’.

What fascinates me is that points have been made and few seem willing to accept another’s perspective being more inclined to shout out there own under the delusion of actually having a rational impact in the discussion.

No doubt I’ll be called patronizing again. It’s fine. I don’t really mind. It appears that Vagabond has managed to make a very rational post, but I do wonder if some people bothered to read it?

Agreement is useless without a willingness to simply accept someone else’s perspective.

If noticing color in the past led to racist systems and institutions...
— Harry Hindu

To make sense of what follows this I think you should probably explain exactly what “noticing color” means in this sentence. — praxis

I thought I was using the phrase the same way everyone else was - recognizing the race of an individual for a particular reason. Per , The FHA "noticed color" for the purpose of segregating "blacks" and "whites". That is what I was referring to. Does the FHA still "notice color" for the purpose of segregating whites and blacks today? I didn't get an answer - just more ad hominems.

It is my position that we don't "notice color" as that is what the FHA did in the past. My position hasn't changed and Bitter Crank's post doesn't change it. It supports what I've been saying.

Systematic racism existed in the past. It doesn't now. There are pockets of racism that still exist on both sides. It will take a few more generations to weed out the stragglers. The way things were for thousands of generations will take at least several generations to change. The necessary change to the system has happened and we need to wait for the effects to propagate, not make the system become racist again. We have equal rights laws and that is meant to minimize what the stragglers can do, but it can't be applied unequally where only "whites" get accused of "racism" if "blacks" want to be treated equally.

If racism is related to power, and minorities now hold positions of power, then that means that they can be accused of racism and passing laws that benefit one race over another would be racist as BitterCrank pointed out. That is what YOU and 180 and Baden and fdrake, etc. want. That isn't what I want. I want people's race to only be noticed in biological/medical contexts and not in the context of politics because that is when it becomes racist, as BitterCrank's post shows!

Systematic racism existed in the past. It doesn't now — Harry Hindu

My position hasn't changed and Bitter Crank's post doesn't change it. It supports what I've been saying. — Harry Hindu

Let's look at the post in question, and see if it supports the idea that there's no systemic injustice now.

I can point you to a history book - THE COLOR OF LAW (2017) - that will show that we do not have, and have not had equality of opportunity. We need not go back as far as the 18th and 19th centuries and slavery. Let's go back to the 1930s. — Bitter Crank

"Do not have" - we don't have equality of opportunity now.
"Have not had" - we didn't have equality of opportunity then.

After 40 years of official segregation, and 70 years of de facto segregation, suburban whites were much better off financially than they were immediately after WWII, and urban blacks were as bad off, or worse off, than they were in 1946. — Bitter Crank

Present tense, worse off now.

The presence of these disparities and the mechanisms that keep them in place? That's systemic injustice; a systemic racism.

All you did was reinstate: systemic = legal = institutional, despite that being undermined by the post in question; it showed how policy and legal inequalities manifest now in economic and cultural disadvantages. There were laws and policies that caused disadvantages, and those disadvantages both remain and have amplified.

When I use ‘race’ in cultural terms I make sure it is clear enough in the context. In scientific terms there are no human races, yet there are some extremely subtle differences within the gene pool. It should be noted that there are larger differences within any give group of people than there are between groups.

The problem that does persist, as I pointed out several pages back, is the ill-informed opinion that conflates ‘race’ (scientific definition) with ‘race’ (cultural definition). We are not going to eradicate the term ‘race’ from the English vocabulary and given the growth of our understanding over time - when we were mistaken into thinking that relatively small differences in appearances are key to determining scientific demarcations - we’ve naturally dragged along outdated, and misused, terminology into today’s world. — I like sushi

:up:

All you have to do is state clearly how you are using the term as honestly as possible and bring understanding to the discussion that some people are going to get twitchy about the subject matter given the historical implications, different national attitudes, and/or there scientific inclinations.

I don’t think it helps matters when people insist their definition is the true definition. In those situations the best thing to do is to express your understanding of their term and then state as clearly as possible what your take is and ask how they would articulate your definition as best they can. — I like sushi

It's not really that simple. When it comes to politically loaded terms, definitions can have important consequences. If you dilute the definition of racism too much, it helps those with ulterior political motives to forge false equivalencies between very disparate groups—for example, those proposing affirmative action and white supremacists. That's really what's at issue here. Attempts to gerrymander a definition in support of a political point. And I suspect the point that's being pushed for under the guise of a very liberal-sounding anti-racism is that a lack of colour-blindness as advocated for in the OP can be considered a form of racism.

But regardless of whether that's the intention or not (@NOS4A2 is a paradigmatic pin-the-jelly-to-the-wall poster so who knows), no sensible debate can be conducted until an agreement is reached on the meaning of the terms under debate. And the arbiter of such meanings has to be some kind of mutually recognized authority interpreted correctly.

Agreement is useless without a willingness to simply accept someone else’s perspective. — I like sushi

I admire your call for moderation, but some perspectives are better than others. Particularly when discussing issues that have political implications.

(I might add that I'm very sympathetic to the rule of thumb of considering race realists racists, they almost always are, but collapsing the precise distinctions between those terms is unnecessary, unjustified, and undesirable for reasons including those outlined above.)

Let's look at the post in question, and see if it supports the idea that there's no systemic injustice now.

The presence of these disparities and the mechanisms that keep them in place? That's systemic injustice; a systemic racism. — fdrake

Then the FHA is still racist? Did Obama know this when he was president? Did he know that Chicago is one of the worse places for African-Americans? Does Maxine Waters know this, because if she did, you know she'd be looking for a microphone and camera and calling them out.

Ok, so we've established that the FHA is still racist. What other government entity is racist? I need more names to send to Maxine Waters.

Present tense, worse off now. — fdrake

All you have to do is use your eyes and you can see that blacks are not worse off now than they were in 1964.

I admire your call for moderation, but some perspectives are better than others. Particularly when discussing issues that have political implications. — Baden

That's the problem - being color-aware for political purposes rather than for biological/medical purposes. When race becomes a part of a political discussion rather staying in the domain of biology/medicine, then racism raises its ugly head. We should be color-blind for the purpose of pushing a political agenda and only color-aware for the purpose determining which diseases you might be more susceptible to.

It's not really that simple. When it comes to politically loaded terms, definitions can have important consequences. If you dilute the definition of racism too much, it helps those with ulterior political motives to forge false equivalencies between very disparate groups—for example, those proposing affirmative action and white supremacists. That's really what's at issue here. Attempts to gerrymander a definition in support of a political point. And I suspect the point that's being pushed for under the guise of a very liberal-sounding anti-racism is that a lack of colour-blindness as advocated for in the OP can be considered a form of racism.

But regardless of whether that's the intention or not, no sensible debate can be conducted until an agreement is reached on the meaning of the terms under debate. And the arbiter of such meanings has to be some kind of mutually recognized authority interpreted correctly. — Baden

I do think it is as simple as I made it out to be in order to have a rational exchange. Just because it is ‘simple’ I didn’t for one second mean to imply that it would be easy.

It may take some strength on an individual’s part not to be baited into outrage - they will suffer the consequences eventually if they lack the strength.

There is no ‘dilution’ of the term here as far as I can see. I can then ask you where you see this, could you be overreacting, what can we do about it, how can we use the term, and what other means we have of using the term for civil progress? There are many more questions of course.

No one is suggesting that white supremacists aren’t racist because many of them believe in genetic superiority. They are deluded, confused and/or pushing unfounded prejudices for personal gain. Politics can be, and is often, used as a means of exploiting human frailties.

I am NOT insisting on a universal use of the terminology. All I am, and have been, saying is that to insist someone use your nuanced definition of a term without the other person knowing how you’re using it is a fruitless endeavor and likely to increase friction, misunderstandings, misinterpretations, thus playing directly into the hands of those I believe we’re both essentially opposed against: those using these terms to gain unfounded and irrational political leverage.