Ya, I noticed 2 was the odd man out, the other definitions are clearly racist imo.
Im honestly new to the term so I focused on the parts specifically about...well being racist. Still kinda floored its called “race realism”.
Thanks for the education on that.

Lol...im...sorry?

What do you call people who believe that black people are somehow inferior to white people simply because they are black?

Racists.
— NOS4A2

Ok.

What do you call people who are fighting against the racist ideology? — creativesoul

I suppose anti-racist? — NOS4A2

That makes sense to me. However, what doesn't make sense is that both groups satisfy your definition of racism. Thus, you've reached a point where you must either adjust the definition you're using or admit incoherence(self-contradiction).

But this is 2019. What are the racist institutions in 2019? Are you saying the FHA is still racist today? — Harry Hindu

The economic effects of what the FHA began doing in 1935 and (supposedly) ended in the 1980s are enduring. In addition, disinvestment in housing continues to occur, which is why some parts of cities descend into slum grade housing, or stay that way.

There are, of course, other important factors at work. Loss of manufacturing jobs, poor education performance, deteriorating family structures, alcohol and drugs, and on and on. There are also cultural factors at work that aren't institutional. Individuals make decisions that affect their lifetime outcomes, for better and for worse.

Does this response address your question? I'm on my way to a funeral just right now, so not much time.

That makes sense to me. However, what doesn't make sense is that both groups satisfy your definition of racism. Thus, you've reached a point where you must either adjust the definition you're using or admit incoherence(self-contradiction).

I don’t think one has to believe in the theory of race to oppose racism.

I do not agree. I think you can notice differences without discriminating, the same way you can between individuals of all kinds. If I recognise a tall guy and a short guy are different, thats not a problem. If I then say “get the tall guy, inferior genes! Undeserving of human rights!” Or somesuch, then its a problem. “Tallism”.
I think you can even recognise advantages and disadvantages and its fine. The tall guy is better at getting stuff from high shelves. Doesnt mean the short guy is lesser, just different. The problem is racists who use that type of distinction to draw Their racist conclusions but we shouldnt concede the language to them.

That makes sense to me. However, what doesn't make sense is that both groups satisfy your definition of racism. Thus, you've reached a point where you must either adjust the definition you're using or admit incoherence(self-contradiction).

I don’t think one has to believe in the theory of race to oppose racism. — NOS4A2

Sure. Some folk who oppose racism may not believe in the theory of race.

The problem is that others do, and fight against racist ideology(that some races are superior to others simply because of the race).

The problem here is that all of those people who believe that there are human races satisfy your proposed definition of racism, as can be seen by looking at that definition. It's below...

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

I do not agree. I think you can notice differences without discriminating, the same way you can between individuals of all kinds. If I recognise a tall guy and a short guy are different, thats not a problem. If I then say “get the tall guy, inferior genes! Undeserving of human rights!” Or somesuch, then its a problem. “Tallism”.
I think you can even recognise advantages and disadvantages and its fine. The tall guy is better at getting stuff from high shelves. Doesnt mean the short guy is lesser, just different. The problem is racists who use that type of distinction to draw Their racist conclusions but we shouldnt concede the language to them.

My worry is the thinking furnishes a foundation of essentialism, magnifying a set of qualities that overshadow the vast majority of the reality.

The problem here is that all of those people who believe that there are human races satisfy your proposed definition of racism, as can be seen by looking at that definition. It's below...

How is that a problem?

Lol...im...sorry? — DingoJones

Oh no, I'm sorry for disturbing your delicate concentration.

The problem here is that all of those people who believe that there are human races satisfy your proposed definition of racism, as can be seen by looking at that definition. It's below...

How is that a problem? — NOS4A2

Not all who believe that there are human races also believe that some races are superior to others. Your definition does not take that into account. So... following from your definition, the anti-racists are racist if they believe that there are human races regardless of whether or not they also believe that one race is superior to another. That subsequent judgment is what's different between racists and anti-racists.(not racist). Your definition cannot draw that distinction between racists and anti-racists.

That's how.

Now you have to convince me that I’m trolling you and you aren’t trolling me. — NOS4A2

Alright, but you'll need to be honest. Why did you lie about having difficulty grouping people?

Not all who believe that there are human races also believe that some races are superior to others. Your definition does not take that into account. So... following from your definition, the anti-racists are racist if they believe that there are human races regardless of whether or not they also believe that one race is superior to another. That subsequent judgment is what's different between racists and anti-racists.(not racist). Your definition cannot draw that distinction between racists and anti-racists.

That's how.

It’s true that not all racists believe in race supremacy, or race nationalism or race segregation. I still don’t see any problem here.

Mr. Soul is right, thats precisely the problem I see with defining racism that way. I understand your concern about such differences overshadowing other more important things but who else but a racist (in the sense of discrimination based on race) is going to do that? Right? We dont want to set up the definition of racism to include people who do not hold views about the superiority of one race over another just so we can include the people who DO have those beliefs. We do not need to, we can easily identify those types of people (”racists”) by their views about racial inferiority Etc. No need to cast such a wide net.

Alright, but you'll need to be honest. Why did you lie about having difficulty grouping people.

I didn’t lie. I said “ I think I may just have trouble with grouping people in general“. I never said I never group people. So why lie?

It’s true that not all racists believe in race supremacy, or race nationalism or race segregation. I still don’t see any problem here. — NOS4A2

Thats only because you use the “wide net” definition of racism. I think believing in race superiority/inferiority IS what racism is. If you dont believe in racial inferiority/superiority, then there isnt a problem. Right?

Oh no, I'm sorry for disturbing your delicate concentration. — praxis

Ill forgive you this time I guess. :wink:

Mr. Soul is right, thats precisely the problem I see with defining racism that way. I understand your concern about such differences overshadowing other more important things but who else but a racist (in the sense of discrimination based on race) is going to do that? Right? We dont want to set up the definition of racism to include people who do not hold views about the superiority of one race over another just so we can include the people who DO have those beliefs. We do not need to, we can easily identify those types of people (”racists”) by their views about racial inferiority Etc. No need to cast such a wide net.

Your definition excludes the underpinning ideology, the foundation upon which all racial discrimination is built.

I still don’t see any problem here. — NOS4A2

All anti-racists who believe that there are human races are racist according to your definition.

All anti-racists who believe that there are human races are racist according to your definition.

Yes. I suppose they are not so anti-racist then.

Yes. I suppose they are not so anti-racist then. — NOS4A2

Wow. Biting the bullet.

It's a lie because, as I've previously mentioned, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no difficulty at all in grouping people and blanketly attributing them with particular characteristics.

It's a lie because, as I've previously mentioned, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no difficulty at all in grouping people and blanketly attributing them with particular characteristics.

For example?

No it doesnt. The opposite actually, it specifies those idealogical underpinnings as necessary for racism. What im excluding is people who simply recognise there are differences between certain people from different places, which we categorise as “race”. Those people are not racist.
Your definition doesnt have very good accuracy or utility, but maybe Im missing something. What good does defining racism in that way accomplish?

Those people are racist by my definition. Perhaps your classifications are inaccurate and without utility.

I do not think so. There are physical differences between certain groups of humans from different places/heritage. Of these physical differences, some generally correlate to skin colour (which is itself a physical difference). Examples might be hair colour (chinese generally are not born with blonde hair for example) or resistance to skin damage caused by sun exposure in the case of black people.
Thats accurate, and to include that as “racism” is too call anyone capable of noticing plain reality a racist. Thats not a good thing, as now it becomes more difficult to sort out the bad actors from the good ones, which is the reason why my way of defining racism had more utility. It helps identify bad actors...yours doesnt.
Obviously you are free to define it as you see fit, I just dont think it makes much sense.
Can you answer my question about the utility your definition provides? Im happy to change my mind for a better way of looking at this issue.

Your definition excludes the underpinning ideology, the foundation upon which all racial discrimination is built. — NOS4A2

There's quite a bit of irony here. What you've proposed here is not even necessary for one to be racist, let alone sufficient.

1. Some people deny that race is an actual biological category and yet still devalue another based upon the color of their skin. None of those people are racist according to your definition.

2. Some people devalued others based upon the color of their skin long before we took account of skin color with the term "race". None of those people are racist according to your definition.

3. Some people do believe that there are human races and do not devalue another based upon race. All of these people are racist according to your definition.

4. Some people fight against the ideology of devaluing another human based upon the color of their skin(race). All of these people are racist according to your definition.

Earlier I asked you what you called someone who devalues black people based solely upon their being black. You answered "racist".

How do you reconcile that answer with the other things you've claimed?

What about someone who does not believe that race is an acceptable grouping but devalues black people solely because they are black? Are these people exonerated from being racist simply because they do not believe that race is an acceptable grouping, regardless of the fact that they devalue blacks simply because they are black?

:brow:

Careful. If you carry on like that, shining the sunlight of reason, the vampire chatbot will explode. (I'm hoping the pieces don't fall on me.)

I edited my earlier answer.