You need to make sense of the earlier equivalence drawn between all people who believe that there are human races. According to your definition all of them are racist, even those who fight against the devaluation of another based upon race.
Again...
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
Do you not see the problem here?
Person A is racist, and person B is not. Thus... your definition is wrong. — creativesoul
Ok, so we've established that the FHA is still racist. — Harry Hindu
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
According to your definition, person A is not racist, but person B is.
Im not talking about scientific, biological entities of differing kinds of species, And thats not what people generally mean when they use the term “race”. Im not saying we have Morlocks and Eeloys.
Its simply the term that references the differences amongst groups humans.
There are two different senses of the word, you keep conflating them. There is a clear difference between skin colours and other physical features amongst certain groups of people, “race” is the word that describes them. (That is, its one of the uses of the word, the way Im using it).
Public discussions about race and racism have simply become a bad faith game. Whatever combination of words you say doesn’t so much matter beyond their malleability to uncharitable interpretation.
I always thought ‘color blindness’ is more an ideal to aspire to than a trait people have. The idea that you should treat people equally regardless of skin color. It seems a pretty straightforward and laudible principle to me.
That there are actual racists who disagree with this is and that many of them of them don’t recognize their own vile pettiness for what it is strikes me as inevitable and mundane. They’ve been using a redefining-language strategy with some irritating success for some years now. I assume there is a special place in hell for the word-changing-language-degrading types.
So then, when you use the term "Asian" what on earth are you picking out if not the people from Asia?
Asian is an adjective describing people from Asia. But no I do not believe there is a group of people called “Asians”. — NOS4A2
I answered already, its not the colour/shade of the skin its about the genetics that inform that physical trait. I use skin colour because its a very easy way to illustrate that there are clear physical differences when someone denies there are differences.
The differences are clear, the distinctions might be less clear depending on the trait. You are right, there might be skin colours that dont indicate clearly a specific “race”, but thats exactly the point. You will be able to tell by the genetics, and other common traits to the group. Its not just skin colour.
So you're picking out a group of people that you do not believe there is?
Are you saying that people from asia do not exist?
My contention is one cannot hate Asians unless he believes such a distinct group exists. — 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.