No further questions...

To clarify, I don’t believe there is a biological group of people called Asians.

Person A didn't use the term"race". Thus, they did not believe that either. However, you charged them with racism by pointing out that they believed there was such a group of people.

Yes, people from Asia exist — NOS4A2

What are they called again... on your view?

"Asians"...

You've been hung by your own rope.

You refused my clarification. Hung by your own bad faith.

What you call "clarification" is a textbook example of moving the goalposts in the wild...

Being from a place isn't a matter of biology is it.
It's a matter of geography and culture.
And Asia is huge. There's a lot of cultural variation in it.
Then there's the Asian stereotype(s), which should be guarded against.

I don't think @NOS4A2 is that stupid here, I just think he's not articulating himself very well. Why it seems difficult to draw these distinctions clearly for him is a different matter?

What you call "clarification" is a textbook example of moving the goalposts in the wild...

Except I’ve defined my terms to you countless times, and you jumped on the one time I neglected to differentiate between the race “Asians” and the people from Asia. Textbook example of bad faith and sophistry.

I'm simply attempting to show that believing that there is a group of people called Asians does not count as having a racist worldview.

It's not my problem that he will not admit to believing that he's picking out a group of people just like the example he charges with "racism". Then perhaps, we could move towards realizing that that is not enough to count as being racist.

I'm simply attempting to show that believing that there is a group of people called Asians does not count as having a racist worldview. — creativesoul

Aye. "I am always consistent" is a weird vantage point to pick apart.

Do you belief there is a biologically distinct group of people called Asians?

That does not matter. Belief in race does not make one racist. That's what I'm trying to get through to you. It's not even necessary.

If you have milk and eggs, does it follow that there's no way to avoid having scrambled eggs?

That does not matter. Belief in race does not make one racist. That's what I'm trying to get through to you. It's not even necessary.

If you have milk and eggs, does it follow that there's no way to avoid having scrambled eggs?

I’ve been kind enough to answer your questions. I wonder if you will offer the same kindness.

Do you believe there is a biologically distinct group of people called Asians?

My personal belief about biologically distinct groups(scientific classifications) is irrelevant to whether or not belief that there are human races counts as having a racist ideology or worldview.

That's what's in contention here. You claim it is, and I'm claiming it is not. At least one of us is wrong.

My personal belief about biologically distinct groups(scientific classifications) is irrelevant to whether or not belief that there are human races counts as having a racist ideology or worldview.

That's what's in contention here. You claim it is, and I'm claiming it is not. At least one of us is wrong.

Since you won’t answer I’ll assume you do believe Asians are a biologically distinct group of people. Correct me if I’m wrong.

It’s racist because it refuses to acknowledge the genetic diversity of Asia, and assumes all Asians look and act a certain way.

I think the point is is that there is a cultural difference that is often strongly associated with physical appearances (not very surprising considering we’re fairly visually orientated creatures).

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.

All you have to do now is agree to understand those partially opposed perspectives on those two points then maybe address the point of the thread.

To clarify. Asians, determined by genetics or cultural points, are still a relatively distinct group demarcated by geopolitics. With asia there is a great variety of cultures as there are within any other geographic area.



Either way people do actually act differently (generally speaking) based on where they are from. Calling someone ‘racist’ for stating different human behaviors exist would be too much of a stretch for me. I do see the point your pushing though, just rather flat and trivial.

Either way people do actually act differently (generally speaking) based on where they are from. Calling someone ‘racist’ for stating different human behaviors exist would be too much of a stretch for me. I do see the point your pushing though, just rather flat and trivial.

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.

It’s racist because it refuses to acknowledge the genetic diversity of Asia, and assumes all Asians look and act a certain way — NOS4A2

Well, no... That's being ignorant. Lots of racists(most) are ignorant, but not all people who are ignorant are racist. One can think that there are human races without being ignorant of the diversity within in each. One can devalue another based upon race without being ignorant.

Not all racists look and act and believe the same things. The common denominator is the devaluation of another based upon race, skin color, ethnicity, etc. The devaluation is the part that makes it racist.

I would if they conflated the ethnicity with the biological races of those involved. — NOS4A2

What's a biological race such that it can be conflated with ethnicity?

Well, no... That's being ignorant. Lots of racists(most) are ignorant, but not all people who are ignorant are racist. One can think that there are human races without being ignorant of the diversity within in each.

So is the Asian race more Chinese or Indian? More Persian or Malay? More Iraqi or Indonesian?

First, there are no biological races, but an example might be the conflation between Arabs and Islam.

Then what were you talking about when you referred to confusing biological race with ethnicity?

Oh, is this another game you’re trying to play?

That's a legitimate question. Valid. Relevant.

Answer?

So is the Asian race more Chinese or Indian? More Persian or Malay? More Iraqi or Indonesian? — NOS4A2

You tell me. I do not think that there is such a thing as an "Asian race". You're the one using the terms. You're the one who needs to answer.

What's a biological race such that it can be confused with ethnicity?

The point about racism towards asians is that that is a real thing despite the fact that there is no Asian race. Thus... your definition fails yet again.

That’s right. There is no Asian race. Have a cookie.

Do you believe there are distinct biological groups called “races”?

Again, belief in distinct biological groups called "races" is irrelevant. Such a belief is neither necessary nor sufficient for devaluing another human based solely upon their being from a different race, having different skin color or ethnicity, etc.

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

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

:brow:

What does that amount to if there is no such thing as biological race?

But you DO understand that people use the term ‘race’ outside of scientific circles. You don’t have to like it, but they still do. You can even fill in any form on a standard national survey and it will say ‘race’.

Note: I always write ‘human’, leave or blank or tick ‘rather not say’.

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’.

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?

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’.

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

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.