Racist

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

The word is starting to lose all contexts and meaning by the way people use it now for everything. They just happen to call anything/ anyone a racist at a drop at a hat because of their opposing political views, religion, science etc. Loosely dropping the word at a whim in conversations when neither race, creed was anywhere in the discussion. Weakens the meaning of the word and thus the power it has to help to change recourse. Instead of change and action it becomes nothing more the noise lost of meaning and impact. It is the one sole reason I have never used it in discussions, as it has little impact of creating a constructive dialogue .

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/07/time-to-retire-the-word-racist

RobertEHouse:
The word is starting to lose all contexts and meaning by the way people use it now for everything. They just happen to call anything/ anyone a racist at a drop at a hat because of their opposing political views, religion, science etc. Loosely dropping the word at a whim in conversations when neither race, creed was anywhere in the discussion. Weakens the meaning of the word and thus the power it has to help to change recourse. Instead of change and action it becomes nothing more the noise lost of meaning and impact. It is the one sole reason I have never used it in discussions, as it has little impact of creating a constructive dialogue .

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/07/time-to-retire-the-word-racist

The word is fine. Just because people don't like being called racist, doesn't mean they aren't racist.

Abomination:

trunkage:
Me specificallly, I'm asking for people being called racist to stop being so offended. Firstly, becuase its usually those types of people who throw around snowflake, making them massive hypocrits. Secondly, they use this instance as an excuse for their own victimhood. It's not about the conversation, its about how mean those other guys are. It's not about whether racism accusations are truthful, its about lashing out at a threat. It's not about defending the qualities of your statement. Which is the whole point of being in the conversation.

So no, its not shut up and accept it. My message might be grow up, people are going insult you all the time. I'm asking for listening to people. And I'm trying to be very clear that this also covers people using racist as well.

I am afraid you are not being very clear about that. Your message is literally, that if someone calls you a racist, to not discus the fact they are calling you a racist. To tell them they are wrong without telling them what they are wrong about.

Finally, I prove you right by being "offended"?

This is the situation, someone calls me a racist in a public setting, what do I do?

Awesome question. It's something Id hope this thread would promote. And no, I don't have a specific answer. Being called racist is not something that comes up. My suggestion would be trying to find out more info from the person and helping them see that you understand their view point. But also being firm with yours

I said evidence, not prove. Racist is such a word that people cannot handle it being spoken. I think that this is PC culture, but from the Right, trying to curtail Freedom of Speech. Like 'Religious Freedom' which seems to be more about forcing people to act like Christians. And particularly peeps like Fox and Friends talking about how the Left need to stop whinging when all they do is whinge

Wasn't there just recently some drama about a fast food worker being fired after being accused of being racist because she demanded a guy pay before being given his food because he had dined and dashed before and had even bragged about it on social media?

I don't take issue with calling things out as racist, or even individuals as racist like a few people in this thread seem to, but I'm not going to pretend misuse of the term can't be a problem and that people don't have any reason to be defensive about being accused of being a racist. A problem I see a lot is when the the term isn't used to open up a discussion about the racist thing, but to try to shut down a conversation. It's when the accusation is leveled not to convince the person to examine their behavior, or to convince third parties to examine their behavior, or even to just put the accused on the defensive, but to try to convince others to never listen to a single thing the accused says because they are an evil racist and therefore every thought or opinion they have that doesn't agree with me is racist and evil and should be disregarded and if you don't disregard any of their reasoning out of hand then you are just defending literal Nazis.

There is a difference between someone saying "I think this is racist. Here are some reasons why I think it is racist and why it is harmful." and then being willing to discuss with others who don't agree and addressing counter arguments and someone who says "This is racist and if you don't agree it's because you are a racist that just loves being racist and hates that I am standing up to racism because you love being such a racist." You can find examples of both in this very thread, and you could probably find examples of the same person doing both in different posts if you spread your search a bit farther

Lil devils x:
Although I cannot fathom a circumstance in which I would find it rational to cry wolf, if I had then yes people should ignore it rather than give it more attention than it deserves. You pay it no more mind than some guy claiming he caught a giant fish or Trump claiming he was charitable for the sake of being charitable. If it isn't true, why encourage the behavior by giving it more attention?

I'd assume as a rational personal you'd like to know if you were operating under a delusion and would like people to discourage it. It's the same logic you'd use against Potential racists

RobertEHouse:
The word is starting to lose all contexts and meaning by the way people use it now for everything. They just happen to call anything/ anyone a racist at a drop at a hat because of their opposing political views, religion, science etc. Loosely dropping the word at a whim in conversations when neither race, creed was anywhere in the discussion. Weakens the meaning of the word and thus the power it has to help to change recourse. Instead of change and action it becomes nothing more the noise lost of meaning and impact. It is the one sole reason I have never used it in discussions, as it has little impact of creating a constructive dialogue .

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/07/time-to-retire-the-word-racist

I'd actually be fine with this as long as all other misappropriated words and symbols were treated the same. Eg. Confederate flag, PC, sexist, ageist, SJW, Alt-Right, Nazi, Antifa, Peogressive, Conservative, Libertarian, etc.

Actually, I'd want the term Post-Modern Cultural Marxist to be the first, since its an actual oxymoron and just shows how little you want to understand the different sides of the 'Left'. They are just as much at the opposite ends of the spectrum as Left and Right are

Silent Protagonist:
Wasn't there just recently some drama about a fast food worker being fired after being accused of being racist because she demanded a guy pay before being given his food because he had dined and dashed before and had even bragged about it on social media?

I don't take issue with calling things out as racist, or even individuals as racist like a few people in this thread seem to, but I'm not going to pretend misuse of the term can't be a problem and that people don't have any reason to be defensive about being accused of being a racist. A problem I see a lot is when the the term isn't used to open up a discussion about the racist thing, but to try to shut down a conversation. It's when the accusation is leveled not to convince the person to examine their behavior, or to convince third parties to examine their behavior, or even to just put the accused on the defensive, but to try to convince others to never listen to a single thing the accused says because they are an evil racist and therefore every thought or opinion they have that doesn't agree with me is racist and evil and should be disregarded and if you don't disregard any of their reasoning out of hand then you are just defending literal Nazis.

There is a difference between someone saying "I think this is racist. Here are some reasons why I think it is racist and why it is harmful." and then being willing to discuss with others who don't agree and addressing counter arguments and someone who says "This is racist and if you don't agree it's because you are a racist that just loves being racist and hates that I am standing up to racism because you love being such a racist." You can find examples of both in this very thread, and you could probably find examples of the same person doing both in different posts if you spread your search a bit farther

I find that way too many people (me included) have discussed a point and reach some sort of conclusion with one party on this forum, and then I expect that to hold with everyone else on this forum. Its like, "I've won the argument in my head and once on this forum. Clearly, that makes me the winner." Which is a false assumption.

Unfortunately, you have to explain yourself to each individual person. Taking short cuts leads to the problems you described.

trunkage:

RobertEHouse:
The word is starting to lose all contexts and meaning by the way people use it now for everything. They just happen to call anything/ anyone a racist at a drop at a hat because of their opposing political views, religion, science etc. Loosely dropping the word at a whim in conversations when neither race, creed was anywhere in the discussion. Weakens the meaning of the word and thus the power it has to help to change recourse. Instead of change and action it becomes nothing more the noise lost of meaning and impact. It is the one sole reason I have never used it in discussions, as it has little impact of creating a constructive dialogue .

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/07/time-to-retire-the-word-racist

I'd actually be fine with this as long as all other misappropriated words and symbols were treated the same. Eg. Confederate flag, PC, sexist, ageist, SJW, Alt-Right, Nazi, Antifa, Peogressive, Conservative, Libertarian, etc.

Actually, I'd want the term Post-Modern Cultural Marxist to be the first, since its an actual oxymoron and just shows how little you want to understand the different sides of the 'Left'. They are just as much at the opposite ends of the spectrum as Left and Right are

Racist is a pretty clearly defined word. Unlike political labels, racist means racist. The problem comes from people confuddling what is and is not racist, usually because they want to condone Nazis running people over with cars or otherwise justify their own brand of racism as valid.

I do agree alot of political labels are heavily scewed and lost their meaning though, but racist, sexist, bigot are not such words.

Though I think Republican and Democrat have been more accurate this current presidency than they have in decades, in so far as whether they support Democracy or not.

But yeah, Communist has been misconstrued for a large chunk of American history, Conservatism and Liberalism also are all jumbled up, but then I try to use Right/Left more these days. I blame alot of this on 'Neo-Liberals' and 'Fiscal Conservatives'.

Another big problem is people seem to pick by title they want rather than actual political ideology they posses. I call myself a Socialist because I found it seems to be in-line with what I believe in, but it wasnt until someone told me I was that that I started using it. But hey, maybe there is a better title for it, I dunno.

And ofcourse the tons of 'centrists/moderates' who eschew so blatantly right-wing while ignoring the context of the current political situation.

I swear this is one of those situations where I see people complaining about the thing happening more than I see the thing actually happen.

erttheking:
I swear this is one of those situations where I see people complaining about the thing happening more than I see the thing actually happen.

Welcome to the world of Social Justice!

Shadowstar38:

erttheking:
I swear this is one of those situations where I see people complaining about the thing happening more than I see the thing actually happen.

Welcome to the world of Social Justice!

He was taking a dig at Conservatives making mountain out of molehills.

I mean, I call these conservatives SJWs. Becuase that's what they are.. defending Christinty from Jefferson's Wall. Pretending they're for Free Speech when they actually mean a certain type of Free Speech and very willing to force ideology and policies into those people they dont like. You know, exactly like rhe SJWs they decry.

Shadowstar38:

erttheking:
I swear this is one of those situations where I see people complaining about the thing happening more than I see the thing actually happen.

Welcome to the world of Social Justice!

You misunderstand me. I see people complaining about the race card being played more than I actually see the race card being played.

trunkage:

Shadowstar38:

erttheking:
I swear this is one of those situations where I see people complaining about the thing happening more than I see the thing actually happen.

Welcome to the world of Social Justice!

He was taking a dig at Conservatives making mountain out of molehills.

I mean, I call these conservatives SJWs. Becuase that's what they are.. defending Christinty from Jefferson's Wall. Pretending they're for Free Speech when they actually mean a certain type of Free Speech and very willing to force ideology and policies into those people they dont like. You know, exactly like rhe SJWs they decry.

Basically.

erttheking:

You misunderstand me. I see people complaining about the race card being played more than I actually see the race card being played.

Selective attention

Shadowstar38:

erttheking:

You misunderstand me. I see people complaining about the race card being played more than I actually see the race card being played.

Selective attention

You were all too eager to support what I said when you thought I agreed with you, don't go and get snippy with me the second the opposite turned out to be true.

erttheking:

You were all too eager to support what I said when you thought I agreed with you, don't go and get snippy with me the second the opposite turned out to be true.

Not snippy per se. You were supposed to read that in like a Ben Stein on heroine voice.

Shadowstar38:

erttheking:

You were all too eager to support what I said when you thought I agreed with you, don't go and get snippy with me the second the opposite turned out to be true.

Not snippy per se. You were supposed to read that in like a Ben Stein on heroine voice.

My point still stands.

erttheking:

Shadowstar38:

erttheking:

You were all too eager to support what I said when you thought I agreed with you, don't go and get snippy with me the second the opposite turned out to be true.

Not snippy per se. You were supposed to read that in like a Ben Stein on heroine voice.

My point still stands.

Same here. Good talk.

trunkage:
I said evidence, not prove. Racist is such a word that people cannot handle it being spoken. I think that this is PC culture, but from the Right, trying to curtail Freedom of Speech. Like 'Religious Freedom' which seems to be more about forcing people to act like Christians. And particularly peeps like Fox and Friends talking about how the Left need to stop whinging when all they do is whinge

Here is the issue, not everyone who is called a racist is a racist. Sweeping statements are being made. Being a racist, or even called a racist, comes with a social stigma potentially attached to it.

People lose their jobs over accusations like this. Being seen as a racist is a bad thing. People will go to others employers in an attempt to insinuate they are racist to get them fired.

There is no attempt at law to deny people the ability to call others a racist, but it must be recognised that there is a strong stigma associated with being a racist in that accusing someone of it can do real damage to their credibility - whether true or not. Expecting only those who are genuinely racist to accept the judgement or accusations of others in a public setting is absurd.

If the argument should not be turned into one about racism then it is the accuser who should not bring up the subject, not those who are accused.

This entire subject is just outright absurd.

Abomination:

trunkage:
I said evidence, not prove. Racist is such a word that people cannot handle it being spoken. I think that this is PC culture, but from the Right, trying to curtail Freedom of Speech. Like 'Religious Freedom' which seems to be more about forcing people to act like Christians. And particularly peeps like Fox and Friends talking about how the Left need to stop whinging when all they do is whinge

Here is the issue, not everyone who is called a racist is a racist. Sweeping statements are being made. Being a racist, or even called a racist, comes with a social stigma potentially attached to it.

People lose their jobs over accusations like this. Being seen as a racist is a bad thing. People will go to others employers in an attempt to insinuate they are racist to get them fired.

There is no attempt at law to deny people the ability to call others a racist, but it must be recognised that there is a strong stigma associated with being a racist in that accusing someone of it can do real damage to their credibility - whether true or not. Expecting only those who are genuinely racist to accept the judgement or accusations of others in a public setting is absurd.

If the argument should not be turned into one about racism then it is the accuser who should not bring up the subject, not those who are accused.

This entire subject is just outright absurd.

So its like rape accusations. They should be banned because they might hurt someone's career.

Abomination:

trunkage:
I said evidence, not prove. Racist is such a word that people cannot handle it being spoken. I think that this is PC culture, but from the Right, trying to curtail Freedom of Speech. Like 'Religious Freedom' which seems to be more about forcing people to act like Christians. And particularly peeps like Fox and Friends talking about how the Left need to stop whinging when all they do is whinge

Here is the issue, not everyone who is called a racist is a racist. Sweeping statements are being made. Being a racist, or even called a racist, comes with a social stigma potentially attached to it.

People lose their jobs over accusations like this. Being seen as a racist is a bad thing. People will go to others employers in an attempt to insinuate they are racist to get them fired.

There is no attempt at law to deny people the ability to call others a racist, but it must be recognised that there is a strong stigma associated with being a racist in that accusing someone of it can do real damage to their credibility - whether true or not. Expecting only those who are genuinely racist to accept the judgement or accusations of others in a public setting is absurd.

If the argument should not be turned into one about racism then it is the accuser who should not bring up the subject, not those who are accused.

This entire subject is just outright absurd.

No, see, HERE is the issue, not everyone who is called racist ISNT racist.

Also when someone IS racist, that is more bad than someone who is not racist being called racist. A proven Nazi murdering a woman is more bad than people getting upset that they called that person a racist.

'People are more upset at being called racist than actually being racist'. The real problem is we spend too much time complaining about bad people being called out than about bad people being brought to justice.

And this is because shitty people are manipulating you. Because you have someone do racist shit, then get offended when they are called out for it, and make up a ton of BS to defend themselves.

And like, ok, sure, sometimes non racists are called racists, but why does that suddenly invalidate everytime racists are called racists!? Why all this 'all or nothing' mentality? You know, sometimes innocent people are put into jail for murder? Do you think we should never bother prosecuting people for murder now?

People hyperbolically complaining about hyperbole is what is absurd.

Here's another problem Abomination. You specifically want to stop a certain type of Speech. Becuase you dont like it

Or the problem of assuming they're guilty. Becuase that's your auto response here.

In fact, you've clearly state the problems in these cases and then made sure that it only applies to one side. Clearly you think that most times racist comes up is an absolute lie. Which I have no evidence one way or the other.

Saelune:
And like, ok, sure, sometimes non racists are called racists, but why does that suddenly invalidate everytime racists are called racists!?

Because most of the time people are called racist that actually are not racist if we use one of the more narrow definitions like the one proposed in this thread, That is why people have learned to be sceptical about racism accusations.

Why all this 'all or nothing' mentality? You know, sometimes innocent people are put into jail for murder? Do you think we should never bother prosecuting people for murder now?

Funny that you mention that. But that is exactly the idea behind our modern justice systems and behind "beyond reasonable doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty".

See, a couple centuries ago philosophers argued how much of an error should be allowed in the justice systems. How many innocents convicted should b tolerabe to get how many criminals. Not only was that a huge continent shattering debate, it also provided us with much of the basic math for probabilities and laid the groudwork for the development of modern stochastics.

But what people eventually agreed on was that it was not tolerable to convict any innocent and that you should always risk seting a criminal free if there is any doubt, even if you think he probably is guilty.

That is a basic value of nearly all our modern societies, even if our justice systems are very different in many other aspects.

Satinavian:

Saelune:
And like, ok, sure, sometimes non racists are called racists, but why does that suddenly invalidate everytime racists are called racists!?

Because most of the time people are called racist that actually are not racist if we use one of the more narrow definitions like the one proposed in this thread, That is why people have learned to be sceptical about racism.

Have you got any stats to back up that claim?

Abomination:
Here is the issue, not everyone who is called a racist is a racist. Sweeping statements are being made. Being a racist, or even called a racist, comes with a social stigma potentially attached to it.

Excellent question!

Who knows what evil lies the hearts of men? I do, I'm the Shadow. But, you're not. So, how can you tell if someone is racist?

Maybe don't be so concerned if a person is racist, but if their actions are racist.

Your coworker might not be racist, but that off-color joke they told most certainly was.
Your coworker might not be racist, but the tiki torch rally they attended most certainly was.
Your coworker might not be racist, but all the Confederate flags they display most certainly are.
Your coworker might not be a duck, but they most certainly quack a whole fucking lot.

trunkage:
Yes, I know Lunatic. You're all high and mighty, telling us lowlifes how to live.

Funny how you couldnt leave this alone. Had to go around, telling us how above it all you are.... Perhaps it affects you more than you think.

You know I was actually asking for people opinions on what racism is, in their opinion. How about you add that since the current definition is so absurd? Then, perhaps, we could actually have a chat instead of insults

I do my best, thank you for noticing.

Anyway, given you're looking for the definition of racism, I'd define it as such:

A willfully harmful prejudice against a group of people, purely for their race.

trunkage:
Have you got any stats to back up that claim?

The whole race theory psedoscience was thoroughly debunked decades ago. And that humans don't have races is a well known fact.
Everyone from a country with an education system worth being called one who is younger than 80 knows that.

So how likely is it to run into someone who actually believes in races, and not only that but also that there are superior/inferior races and that these old clichees are true ?

Sure, there are always some people who reject scientific facts they don't like and sooner believe that all schools are part of some conspiration than give up their precious prejudices, but that would make racists as much a fringe group as flat earthers are.

Now, xenophobes, those are a lot more common. The same with people who have prejudices against certain ethnicies or cultures.

Satinavian:

The whole race theory psedoscience was thoroughly debunked decades ago. And that humans don't have races is a well known fact.

You know, I've often seen people claiming this, but, never any actual studies to back it up.

Most studies seem to conclude that different peoples from different countries and cultures do have a different genetic make-up.

The Lunatic:
Most studies seem to conclude that different peoples from different countries and cultures do have a different genetic make-up.

Ok first you cited two different claims.

- Race theory debunked -> that is something where you can find many many sources agreeing, most quite old already. I don't think there really is need to go into detail.

- Human races don't even exist -> That is newer and was controversial imto the nienties. So if you are old, you might have missed it. It is also a tad more arbitrary as it is part of taxonomy. But since the genetic mapping of humans really took off, this is the consensus the scientific community reached.

Most studies do of course agree that genes are not equally distributed and some only exist in certain places. But that is not enough to make a race or subspecies. You also have to evaluate variances and covariances of gene combinations. And those point to humans always having had so much interbreeding that races never formed. If you would try to distinguish races via genetics nearly every human would be "mixed" which kinda makes the whole endavour very pointless.

The other reason to avoid subspecies in regard to humans is that humans are not particularly genetically diverse anyway due to existing only such a short time. So even the most different humans hardly reach the kind of genetic difference that subspecies/races in animals have between each other.

But i still stand by my claim. If you don't know all that, the education system of your country is shitty and hardly deserves to be called so.

Satinavian:

The Lunatic:
Most studies seem to conclude that different peoples from different countries and cultures do have a different genetic make-up.

Ok first you cited two different claims.

- Race theory debunked -> that is something where you can find many many sources agreeing, most quite old already. I don't think there really is need to go into detail.

- Human races don't even exist -> That is newer and was controversial imto the nienties. So if you are old, you might have missed it. It is also a tad more arbitrary as it is part of taxonomy. But since the genetic mapping of humans really took off, this is the consensus the scientific community reached.

Depends what you're defining as race theory. I mean, it's a proven fact that people of African origin have smaller brains and so on. Physiologically, there's differences between people, and you can average those out to get a generality.

Using these facts to treat people differently is something most people agree we're past, and I would also like to hope we are too.

However, as far as I'm aware, there's no conclusive standard to say "This is what makes a person superior", so, it's impossible to claim any superiority for any particular race. Merely, that there are differences.

As for Race itself, that mostly seems motivated purely by political pressure as opposed to any actual scientific basis.

We know for a fact that DNA haplogroup differ vastly along the lines which most people would define as "race", it's just pointless wordplay to invent new terms for this.

The Lunatic:

Satinavian:

The whole race theory psedoscience was thoroughly debunked decades ago. And that humans don't have races is a well known fact.

You know, I've often seen people claiming this, but, never any actual studies to back it up.

Most studies seem to conclude that different peoples from different countries and cultures do have a different genetic make-up.

Tell me. When was the last time you talked about studies and then actually linked them?

The Lunatic:

You know, I've often seen people claiming this, but, never any actual studies to back it up.

Most studies seem to conclude that different peoples from different countries and cultures do have a different genetic make-up.

Sure. This must be qualified, however, with the fact that "different genetic make-up" here means something like a 99%+ genetic similarity. Considering the old (if a bit misleading) idiom that Humans and pigs share 98% of their genetic material and you can kind of see how any genetic differences among humans are pretty minuscule.

More pertinently, genetic differences is not the same as 19th century Race Theory. Race theory explicitly claimed that the five races (White, Red, Black, Yellow and Mongoloid) had different immutable and eternal characteristics that defined them. The white race was brave, intelligent and ethical, the black race was dumb, aggressive and possessed of great libido, the yellow race was shifty, untrustworthy and cowardly etc.. When someone speaks of race, this is the original theory that they are drawing upon and it has absolutely nothing to do with modern genetic research.

Considering that race theory was debunked somewhere in the late-40's, I find it fairly baffling that you seem unaware that it isn't a credible scientific idea. Even more baffling is that you somehow confound it with the field of genetics, which came almost 40 years later.

Satinavian:

Saelune:
And like, ok, sure, sometimes non racists are called racists, but why does that suddenly invalidate everytime racists are called racists!?

Because most of the time people are called racist that actually are not racist if we use one of the more narrow definitions like the one proposed in this thread, That is why people have learned to be sceptical about racism accusations.

Why all this 'all or nothing' mentality? You know, sometimes innocent people are put into jail for murder? Do you think we should never bother prosecuting people for murder now?

Funny that you mention that. But that is exactly the idea behind our modern justice systems and behind "beyond reasonable doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty".

See, a couple centuries ago philosophers argued how much of an error should be allowed in the justice systems. How many innocents convicted should b tolerabe to get how many criminals. Not only was that a huge continent shattering debate, it also provided us with much of the basic math for probabilities and laid the groudwork for the development of modern stochastics.

But what people eventually agreed on was that it was not tolerable to convict any innocent and that you should always risk seting a criminal free if there is any doubt, even if you think he probably is guilty.

That is a basic value of nearly all our modern societies, even if our justice systems are very different in many other aspects.

I mean sure, if we let racist people define what racism is, then the accusations will be more likely to be wrong. But just because someone claims say, 'White Supremacy' isn't about racism, doesn't mean White Supremacy isnt 100% racism.

We punish innocent people by not punishing the guilty. If we assume every rape accusation is false, then we are punishing the innocent victims of rape.

The Lunatic:

Satinavian:

The whole race theory psedoscience was thoroughly debunked decades ago. And that humans don't have races is a well known fact.

You know, I've often seen people claiming this, but, never any actual studies to back it up.

Most studies seem to conclude that different peoples from different countries and cultures do have a different genetic make-up.

Citation needed.

The Lunatic:

Satinavian:

The Lunatic:
Most studies seem to conclude that different peoples from different countries and cultures do have a different genetic make-up.

Ok first you cited two different claims.

- Race theory debunked -> that is something where you can find many many sources agreeing, most quite old already. I don't think there really is need to go into detail.

- Human races don't even exist -> That is newer and was controversial imto the nienties. So if you are old, you might have missed it. It is also a tad more arbitrary as it is part of taxonomy. But since the genetic mapping of humans really took off, this is the consensus the scientific community reached.

Depends what you're defining as race theory. I mean, it's a proven fact that people of African origin have smaller brains and so on. Physiologically, there's differences between people, and you can average those out to get a generality.

Using these facts to treat people differently is something most people agree we're past, and I would also like to hope we are too.

However, as far as I'm aware, there's no conclusive standard to say "This is what makes a person superior", so, it's impossible to claim any superiority for any particular race. Merely, that there are differences.

As for Race itself, that mostly seems motivated purely by political pressure as opposed to any actual scientific basis.

We know for a fact that DNA haplogroup differ vastly along the lines which most people would define as "race", it's just pointless wordplay to invent new terms for this.

More citations needed.

Shadowstar38:

erttheking:

Shadowstar38:

Not snippy per se. You were supposed to read that in like a Ben Stein on heroine voice.

My point still stands.

Same here. Good talk.

Only by the standards of a conversation where the side pretending to be polite (you) basically pulled a "my personal experiences are are more valid than yours" card.

Saelune:
I mean sure, if we let racist people define what racism is, then the accusations will be more likely to be wrong. But just because someone claims say, 'White Supremacy' isn't about racism, doesn't mean White Supremacy isnt 100% racism.

Except that i didn't take the definition of a racist. I used the one
from Lil devils x which until now seemed to be agreeable to you.

We punish innocent people by not punishing the guilty. If we assume every rape accusation is false, then we are punishing the innocent victims of rape.

Welcome to modern civilisation and ethics.

Yes, people don't like criminals potentially getting away. But they sure like being imprisoned wrongly even less so they have to suck it up.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here