So... what is a biological race such that one could conflate it with ethnicity and in doing so qualify for being racist?

You've never answered this question. You claimed that one is racist if they conflate biological race with ethnicity. You've also claimed that there is no such thing as biological race.

How do you reconcile this apparent self-contradiction?

Look at the exchange made over the hypothetical latino hater. He called that person racist when they didn’t distinguish between any biological race, then ‘back-peddled’ saying he didn’t know what he’d call that hypothetical person.

Clearly his instinctual language doesn’t align with what he believes:

— NOS4A2

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 like sushi

That’s fair. I suppose you’d hate an ethnicity, not a race. I’m not sure of the correct term in that case.



He doesn’t have the vocabulary to replace the term ‘racism’ for people who hate certain ethnicities. This means he cannot call it out. It is worse if you cannot call this out because that means it cannot be discussed.

People would still kill each other if they didn’t have a language. The chances of negotiating peace increasing through language though. I don’t see how not using the term ‘murder’ or ‘war’ would eradicate war. I don’t believe the deaths of civilians in war zones has decreased due to calling it ‘collateral damage’.

What you seem to be doing quite consistently is plastering your impressions of people over their faces to the point that you can no longer see behind the mask you’ve made for them. Effectively you’ve ended up talking to nothing more than a mask of your own making.

Hence, people will just stop responding as I did.

It may be easier to stick to exchanging with one person only. Frank seem game enough so offer some charity. I’m not game btw. I don’t see what I have to gain that I don’t gain by observing you try and find a resolution to your current problem in communicating whatever it is you’re trying to communicate.

Good luck. Hope it works out. — I like sushi

This is a joke, right? Show where I have "quite consistently is plastering your impressions of people over their faces to the point that you can no longer see behind the mask you’ve made for them. Effectively you’ve ended up talking to nothing more than a mask of your own making."

I think maybe you have me mistaken for Frank, 180 and the others. It is they that have "quite consistently is plastering your impressions of people over their faces to the point that you can no longer see behind the mask you’ve made for them. Effectively you’ve ended up talking to nothing more than a mask of your own making."

Here is a consistent summary of the responses I get to my arguments...

Prove you have any intelligence. — unenlightened

Ok. I get it now, you're just trolling. Basta! — 180 Proof

Riiiiiiiiight ... Ok, Shrek. :up: — 180 Proof

Stop being so incurious and intellectually lazy and google what you've asked me. Or make do with what I've already written on this thread. Or do neither. I'm done feeding trolls here. — 180 Proof

In other words: Don't feed trolls! Right on — 180 Proof

The fact that you are too lazy to scroll up and read is indicative of the pointlessness of dealing with you. You've earned Chrome ignore. Good luck. — Baden

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

Poor little Harry — frank

...and these are basically the entire contents of their posts - just ad hominems without any kind of argument or consideration for what I actually have said consistently.

All frank needs to do is define his use of the term "fondness" because we can't move forward unless I know that we're not talking past each other.

You obviously haven't been reading my posts because you are just wrong in what I actually have been consistent about, so you're just pulling the same stunt they are and accusing me of doing it, so follow 180's advice and don't be so incurious and intellectually lazy and actually and go and read my posts just as I would encourage every other reader to do and see for themselves. Don't take my or I love sushi's word for it.

Once again without mentioning your name, Hindu, you don't keep anyone guessing and self-identify. That's mighty "colorblind" of you. :ok: "I bet you think this song is about you ..." — 180 Proof

The only reason I've mentioned my skin color is because this is a topic about skin color, and this doesn't contradict anything that I've said. I have consistently said that being color-bind does not entail being color-blind all the time. It only means that we should be color-blind in contexts where race isn't a factor, or doesn't follow from the context. When hiring someone, one's race doesn't play a role in that person's ability to do the job, so shouldn't be taken into consideration. Only in biological/medical contexts, which includes topics whose titles include the word, "race" on philosophy forums, should we not be color-blind. Doing otherwise is making a category error. I'm repeating myself, because this is one of the things I have said consistently.

I have asked for solutions to the problems the others have proposed. Under what other circumstances should be not be color-blind, and what should we do with the information we have about that person's race in that context?

I have acknowledged that racism existed in the past and still does in pockets and individuals today, but is not systematic. I have acknowledged that the effects of systematic racism linger today, but I have asked for solutions and then everyone starts with the ad hominems or no replies at all. I have offered alternate views and solutions to some of the statistics put forth, but then get consistently trolled and ignored. But, I'm just repeating myself again because I've said this consistently before.

Read the transcript.

I think it would be impolite of me not to respond even though I said I wouldn’t do so given the extend of your post.

I was making the judgement from responses you’ve given to me and some others where you seem to be arguing against something that hasn’t been said or suggested.

Some of the names you mentioned do the same thing too, as do I and almost everyone at some point. I was pointing out that I observe this to be a consistent factor in your responses whilst even in other guilty parties there are lulls.

If you truly believe people are being disingenuous or obtuse (purposefully or not) then just be polite and/or resist the urge to respond - that is basically my position with you now (not that I am unwilling to listen or discuss, it just so happens that sometimes I don’t see any reasonable progress so I would rather step aside and hope for a better, and more amicable, means of continuing in the future).

When I have previously said I am acting as a ‘moderator’ I meant it in the capacity that it suits my purpose to try and speak in a manner that serves me not necessarily others. Moderate speech is helpful and we all know cool and calm speech (with the occasional careful little joke maybe) helps the discussion go somewhere - and I make no apologies for stating the obvious as it doesn’t hurt to remind ourselves that we’re all prone to such things and should look with charity on what is said and not take it too much to heart (assume the ‘other’ is sincere because if they’re not it is fairly easy for everyone to see that they lack sincerity if all you give them is a calm and mild-mannered expression).

I have said pretty much the same thing already to someone who gave you a father vicious response. It serves me to see this because the subject matter interests me yet I’m growing more and more impatient - several times in this thread - due to the emotional reactions I’ve seen, the derogatory language used (short of flat insults) and the needless accusations about all manner of things. That said a degree of ‘emotion’ and ‘political posturing’ is to be expected to some degree on this particular subject. Underneath it I’m fascinated by the way language can be used, the etymology of words and how these things shape our opinions of ourselves and others (that is my ‘dog in the race’).

I think there’s life in the thread yet, as always I try to hope for everything and expect nothing.

Good luck and hope frank, yourself and others can turn this discussion around a little more and get to the heart of the matter.

Note: I do now realise my analogy above can easily be taken as a slight. It wasn’t my intent. I love writing and sometimes bet carried away with metaphors without thinking too much about how it may be received in terms of being ‘insulting’. I do stand by my analysis though. You can consider it as genuine and being made in order to help the discussion or not. That is out of my hands.

I think it would be impolite of me not to respond even though I said I wouldn’t do so given the extend of your post.

I was making the judgement from responses you’ve given to me and some others where you seem to be arguing against something that hasn’t been said or suggested.

Some of the names you mentioned do the same thing too, as do I and almost everyone at some point. I was pointing out that I observe this to be a consistent factor in your responses whilst even in other guilty parties there are lulls. — I like sushi

I asked you to show where I have done that consistently, but you won't, because you can't, because I haven't. Show me what argument in my previous post isn't against what was said, and is

plastering your impressions of people over their faces to the point that you can no longer see behind the mask you’ve made for them. Effectively you’ve ended up talking to nothing more than a mask of your own making — I like sushi

Show me and everyone else that you actually are trying not to be impolite by accusing me of things which aren't the case, but is the case for you and 180. Where's the evidence that I have consistently done what you say that I have?

I have asked for solutions to the problems the others have proposed. Under what other circumstances should we not be color-blind, and what should we do with the information we have about that person's race in that context? Should we hire black people over veterans? These are all valid questions that you simply want to avoid answering. Why?

So... what is a biological race such that one could conflate it with ethnicity and in doing so qualify for being racist?

You've never answered this question. You claimed that one is racist if they conflate biological race with ethnicity. You've also claimed that there is no such thing as biological race.

How do you reconcile this apparent self-contradiction?

There are no biological races. But people believe there are. They often believe skin color or other racial markers are evidence of cultural differences, for instance that Asians are good at math or that Arabs are Muslim.

Clearly his instinctual language doesn’t align with what he believes:

Clearly you’re a liar because I’ve already stated why I said that. Add on top of that the fake moderate approach, clearly you’re a concern troll.

My name's been taken in vain so much lately I wear that whiny wimper like a badge of honor. :smirk:

NB: UN Reports on Human Rights, UNDP, WHO, ICJ the Hague and other international human & civil rights NGOs thoroughly document and annually publish accounts and analyses which track both manifestations and the effects of racism (as well as other modalities of systemic discrimination). Anyone who doesn't know about these pervasive and persistent injustices simply doesn't want to know because s/he has the in-group privilege of not having to survive discrimination, even open persecution, as members of out-groups everywhere must. And what you don't know about you don't care - give a fuck! - about, which shows. — 180 Proof

Resorting to accusations when the evidence is there is frankly petty. I cannot be lying by stating that your initial reaction to the hypothetical guy who doesn’t believe in human races yet hates latinos was to call him ‘racist’. You then amended this once I pointed the disjoint between your belief in what ‘racist’ means and what the hypothetical guy said.

There was no lie and I’m not a liar. Either you were being purposefully deceptive by saying ‘racist’ or your natural/instinctual language made you say ‘racist’. I assumed you wasn’t playing deceptive games.

I don’t see how can take whatever I thought you meant in the opening post as correct anymore. If you struggle so much with yourself about how to define racism and fail to use your claimed meaning in general speech then I don’t have confidence that you can cope with the nuance of what you mean, or don’t mean, by ‘colour-blind’ in the opening post anymore.

That said I do think it is bad form for anyone here to call you ‘racist’ or insinuate such - as has happened. You should at least walk away from this with some questions for yourself about how you convey your thoughts (if not you just wasted your time probably).

Resorting to accusations when the evidence is there is frankly petty. I cannot be lying by stating that your initial reaction to the hypothetical guy who doesn’t believe in human races yet hates latinos was to call him ‘racist’. You then amended this once I pointed the disjoint between your belief in what ‘racist’ means and what the hypothetical guy said.

There was no lie and I’m not a liar. Either you were being purposefully deceptive by saying ‘racist’ or your natural/instinctual language made you say ‘racist’. I assumed you wasn’t playing deceptive games.

I don’t see how can take whatever I thought you meant in the opening post as correct anymore. If you struggle so much with yourself about how to define racism and fail to use your claimed meaning in general speech then I don’t have confidence that you can cope with the nuance of what you mean, or don’t mean, by ‘colour-blind’ in the opening post anymore.

That said I do think it is bad form for anyone here to call you ‘racist’ or insinuate such - as has happened. You should at least walk away from this with some questions for yourself about how you convey your thoughts (if not you just wasted your time probably).

I explicitly stated why I said I thought it was “racist”, but this explanation doesn’t fit into your specious mind-reading. So why the bad faith? Why won’t you give me, the only person who knows what I’m thinking, the benefit of the doubt?

So one, you have no clue what you’re talking about but pretend you do, and two, you reserve your sophistry and the fake moderate approach for only one side of the argument. So hopefully your fakery offers a learning experience for not just you, but for other readers.

Differing cultures and customs and language is more ethnicity than race, so I wouldn’t call someone a racist for distinguishing between ethnicities, though I would if they conflated the ethnicity with the biological races of those involved. — NOS4A2

...

How can one devalue someone because of their race while at the same time believing no such demarcation exists? — NOS4A2

...

— NOS4A2

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’. — I like sushi

I would call you racist because you assume a group of people called “latinos” exist and that you hate them.

...

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 — I like sushi

That’s fair. I suppose you’d hate an ethnicity, not a race. I’m not sure of the correct term in that case. — NOS4A2

You have previously stated that calling someone racist means you are racist because you’re perpetuating the term ‘racist’ by doing so.

This is untrue. The rest of your errors arise from this one error, and simply repeating it isn’t going to make it any more true.

That was a mistake of interpretation that hinged on ‘subscribing to worldview’ remark - which we went over.

It doesn’t take a genius to see why I arrived where I did given your inconsistent proclamations:

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

Followed by:

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

The confusion arises because you weren’t precise with your terminology. Distinct ethnicities do exist, yet they are not the same as biological races. I read the sentences as two separate sentences because they didn’t appear to be leading from one to the other.

This doesn’t distract from the obvious disjoint that you clearly admitted. You still spoke outside of your own claims about what defines ‘racism’. It is there in black and white.

This is too tiresome so you can have the last word if you wish.

The confusion arises because you weren’t precise with your terminology. Distinct ethnicities do exist, yet they are not the same as biological races. I read the sentences as two separate sentences because they didn’t appear to be leading from one to the other.

This doesn’t distract from the obvious disjoint that you clearly admitted. You still spoke outside of your own claims about what defines ‘racism’. It is there in black and white.

This is too tiresome so you can have the last word if you wish.

Thanks.

The only disjoint is your false interpretation and subsequent misrepresentation of my argument. It’s all there in black and white.

I am in total agreement. The anti color blindness routine comes from nowhere.

Look at the exchange made over the hypothetical latino hater. He called that person racist when they didn’t distinguish between any biological race, then ‘back-peddled’ saying he didn’t know what he’d call that hypothetical person. — I like sushi

There is self contradiction resulting from equivocation. The equivocation is regarding the term "racist". In particular, the criterion for what counts as being so is a moving target.

Either the author knows this or he doesn't.

Believing that there are biological races does not constitute racism. This is how he has trouble exonerating himself from using the notion of race, and it's how he charges others with being racist for using the notion.

The author is proving beyond all doubt to be blind... not to color... but rather...

To what racism is.

By sheer will alone...

Sad.

NB: UN Reports on Human Rights, UNDP, WHO, ICJ the Hague and other international human & civil rights NGOs thoroughly document and annually publish accounts and analyses which track both manifestations and the effects of racism (as well as other modalities of systemic discrimination). Anyone who doesn't know about these pervasive and persistent injustices simply doesn't want to know because s/he has the in-group privilege of not having to survive discrimination, even open persecution, as members of out-groups everywhere must. And what you don't know about you don't care - give a fuck! - about, which shows. — 180 Proof

Sounds like something the Roman Catholic Church would pronounce some centuries ago. Anyone who doesn't believe in the vague descriptions we've given of our Big Brother in the sky is a heretic!

Give a better description of your Racist Big Brother so that we can believe in him and pool our resources to fight it. But we need a plan. What's the plan?

What's the plan? — Harry Hindu

180, you're painting a bleak picture. People in the in-group can't see it, so I suppose they can't help. There can be no plan until all the members of the out-group die, blessing their lighter-skinned descendants on their way out. *Snark*

But then, there'll be no need for a plan.

There is self contradiction resulting from equivocation. The equivocation is regarding the term "racist". In particular, the criterion for what counts as being so is a moving target.

Either the author knows this or he doesn't.

Believing that there are biological races does not constitute racism. This is how he has trouble exonerating himself from using the notion of race, and it's how he charges others with being racist for using the notion.

The author is proving beyond all doubt to be blind... not to color... but rather...

To what racism is.

By sheer will alone...

Sad.

That’s an uncharitable accounting of my views. I explicitly stated that all other racisms arise from this one belief.

And I’m not the only one who recognizes this element in racism.

Therefore in the case of racism(s), my suggestion is that whatever else your definition of racism includes, it must contain the following three elements:
1. A historical power relationship in which, over time, groups are racialised (that is, treated as if specific characteristics were natural and innate to each member of the group).

2. A set of ideas (ideology) in which the human race is divisible into distinct ‘races’, each with specific natural characteristics.

3. Forms of discrimination flowing from this (practices) ranging from denial of access to resources through to mass murder.

One element of racism is a set of ideas; the other is a set of practices, and we shall explore these in the following chapters. The gap between the social and the biological is to be emphasised. Racist ideas can be at least partly comprehended by returning to this basic adage: racism tries to explain differences in the social world by reference to biological, that is, natural distinctions

Racism(s). An Introduction

Sounds like something the Roman Catholic Church would pronounce some centuries ago. Anyone who doesn't believe in the vague descriptions we've given of our Big Brother in the sky is a heretic! — Harry Hindu

Well, speech wasn't free in the old days. People had to form secret societies in order to speak freely.

Therefore in the case of racism(s), my suggestion is that whatever else your definition of racism includes, it must contain the following three elements:
1. A historical power relationship in which, over time, groups are racialised (that is, treated as if specific characteristics were natural and innate to each member of the group).

2. A set of ideas (ideology) in which the human race is divisible into distinct ‘races’, each with specific natural characteristics.

3. Forms of discrimination flowing from this (practices) ranging from denial of access to resources through to mass murder.

Here's my problem... well, not mine so much a the one I'm pointing out yet again. It pertains directly to the OP...

Let us for a moment consider whether or not that suggested universal criterion for what counts as racism is adequate for actually rendering true judgment if and when it is used. I'm saying that it does not cannot account for those people who do not believe that there is biological scientific ground for separating different people into different human races, but nonetheless hate all asians anyway...

According to your definition as well as the one you've just put forth, the person above is not racist.

That's a big problem. Dontcha think?

That’s an uncharitable accounting of my views. — NOS4A2

Actually it's spot on. There's a couple of different perfectly acceptable ways to characterize the claims you've been making. I think there's something at root though. It's been previously mentioned by others and skirted around by myself, but it most certainly applies.

The criterion you've put forth for what counts as being racism/racist is inadequate for a few good reasons. One, it does not - cannot - take all examples of racism and being racist into proper account. Therefore it is utterly inadequate in it's explanatory power. Two, it puts forth standards that can be met by someone who is not racist. Therefore, it's false on it's face according to real life racism(racists) because it is precisely those people who offer prima facie evidence that falsifies your claims about what counts as racism. Three, it's been altered several times over in the middle of the same debate without mention by your good self. Therefore it's guilty of self contradiction(at worst) and equivocation(at best).

Neither is acceptable.

I like that you've been adjusting the criterion. You've still got a ways to go homey!

I concur with those that take the view that anyone who uses racial language and refers to people using archaic and ultimately non-sensical categories of black white brown etc, is part of the problem and so in that sense racist.

If we all truly did embrace the view that there is no division of races within humans, and modified our own language use accordingly, then racism could not possibly exist since there would be no means to prefer any one human based on race. If you want to be part of the solution just simply stop using racial language.

I've done it and it works.

I suspect that those who aren't open to such a shift believe that there are actually such things as races, and possibly also that the world is flat.

180, you're painting a bleak picture. People in the in-group can't see it, so I suppose they can't help. There can be no plan until all the members of the out-group die, blessing their lighter-skinned descendants on their way out. *Snark*

But then, there'll be no need for a plan. — frank

Or you could keep the plan you have and be hypocrites. You are hypocrites because:

1) you are encouraging the mistreatment of people who had no choice in the circumstances that they were born into.

2) AND THIS IS A BIG ONE, you keep voting for bigger government - you know - the Democrat party - which is mostly whites running for president. You keep voting to give more power to the system that you claim is racist! WTF?!

If racism was about power, then why are you voting to give more power to the system? Libertarianism would be the way to go - to limit centralized power. You people are so confused and you have your politics(religion) to thank for it.

The only libertarians Ive met were mentally... unstable, so I've never been inspired to look closer.

How does it work? How is it different from a desire for anarchy?

The only libertarians Ive met were mentally... unstable, so I've never been inspired to look closer. — frank

So you think Noam Chomsky is mentally unstable?

He says he is a left-libertarian. So do notice that libertarianism isn't only what Murray Rothbard and Ron & Rand Paul promote.

I meant people I've actually met.

How is it different from anarchism?

How is it different from anarchism? — frank

The libertarian is more rich and the anarchist more violent. :joke:

The libertarian is more rich and the anarchist more violent. :joke: — ssu

Lazy anarchist. Thought so.

If racism was about power, then why are you voting to give more power to the system? — Harry Hindu

You mean if the system is racist, why give more power to the system?

The idea of civil rights is that the government is in conflict with itself. The systemic racism that's been spoken of in this thread is extra-governmental, though.

It happens for the same reason gerrymandering puts a boundary right through the middle of a black college so none of the students know where theyre supposed to vote.

There are various sorts of biases, Dazed, do you boycott all terms that may indicate division and bias, such as old/young, attractive/ugly, tall/short, etc?