I reluctantly start a new thread in a desperate bid to get an actual answer from FD.
As you all know, FD's favourite retort to the claim that Islamophobia is racism - is to quip that Islam is not a race. FD's position, therefore, is that racism can only be racism if it refers to actual genetic "races". FD, feel free to stop me here if I've misrepresented you in any way - since I haven't inserted any quotes yet. But I'm hoping common sense kicks in here and you won't dispute that.
It is therefore strange when FD refers to the phrase "arabia for arabs" as a case of "blatant racism". For example:
freediver wrote on Dec 14
th, 2016 at 8:09pm:
but when Aussie makes a clear reference to racial groupings as well as his desire for genocide, you suddenly can't see it?
Apparently, the "clear reference to racial groupings" as well as "his desire for genocide" is all encapsulated in that one phrase "arabia for arabs" - correct FD?
Just one problem - arabs are not a race, they are a linguistic group, defined only by the language they speak - not from any genetic commonalities that might class them as a "race" - as understood by the 19th century notion of the word.
Interestingly, when I pointed out this clear contradiction in FD's position, he flayed away in deflection in typical fashion - but certainly didn't deny that it is indeed true that arabs are not a race (and therefore rendering his whole premise about racism flawed):
freediver wrote on Dec 15
th, 2016 at 1:38pm:
Quote:arabs are not a race
And inbred people are? Where are you trying to go with this Gandalf? An expose on the mental contortions of a Muslim reformer?
So FD, if you wouldn't mind just clarifying for us all, how the phrase 'arabia for arabs' is blatant racism - given that you don't dispute the fact that arabs are not a race. Thanks.