It relevant because you’re assuming race when there is none. You say a belief in race is neither necessary nor sufficient then go on to say people are devalued because of their race.
How can one devalue someone because of their race while at the same time believing no such demarcation exists? — NOS4A2
I would call you racist because you assume a group of people called “latinos” exist and that you hate them — NOS4A2
I fell behind cuz Im working, but just wanted to add something since Creativesoul is making the same point I would be making. Creativesoul is making the correct argument but I think using the wrong example. “Asian” should be replaced by something more specific, like “Chinese”, then hopefully the impact of the argument will get the point accross. “asian” describes geography, the biology of “asian” peoples is too diverse for it to be a useful biological “race”. Chinese people have definite common, biological traits where using a term like “race” is useful.
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’d say both. It’s not really the case that the scientific history of the term ‘race’ hasn’t played a significant part in the development of racism. — I like sushi
So that wasn't quite my point. My point was that race wasn't biologcal, not that a category of race itself was a false belief. — TheWillowOfDarkness
All along race has been a certain social distinction, a category not of biology, but a social category about people who exist (who often have a skin colour, culture or ethnicity). — TheWillowOfDarkness
I suppose you’d hate an ethnicity, not a race. I’m not sure of the correct term in that case. — NOS4A2
I’m only suggesting that the defining feature of racism is the attaching of significance to race. — NOS4A2
the defining feature of racism is the attaching of significance to race — NOS4A2
Yes, that is what you are suggesting. However, you are the first person I have ever heard define it that way, so it doesn't seem to accurately reflect usage.
It’s a necessary yet unfortunate, term of accusation that has a place for singling out the kind of persons I portrayed above. You admitted you didn’t know what you’d call me, but by your own definitions singled yourself out as ‘racist’ by the accusation made - that is why your position, although seemingly reasonable, falls down very quickly in the real world because it doesn’t consider the actual nuance of day-to-day speech.
Btw, "race" is nothing but a bureaucratic (i.e. demographic) shorthand used primarily, and effectively, by color/ethnic in-groups in order to designate - brand, stereotype, essentialize - color/ethnic out-groups. Continuing to conflate the mention of "race" with the weaponizing of race at this point, when others have pointed this out already, is just trollish bullshit, NOS (et al).
Yes, that is clear from what I wrote. What is not clear from what I wrote is your misrepresentation that using the term “race” is racist, which seemed to be pulled from thin air. — NOS4A2
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
Yes, people use the term race all the time.
“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’.” - (my words)
I would call you racist because you assume a group of people called “latinos” exist and that you hate them. — NOS4A2
You have previously stated that calling someone racist means you are racist because you’re perpetuating the term ‘racist’ by doing so. You then accused my rendition of someone who hates latinos as ‘racist’ even though I stated the prejudice wasn’t set within the parameters of distinctions of race between humans. You then admitted you falsely accused said rendition of being racist which mist necessarily follow that you were racist because you missed the initial position laid out and added the ‘race’ element in order to accuse that rendition of me as ‘racist’.
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.