polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 16
th, 2016 at 11:40am:
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
Gandalf have you shifted from insisting "Arabia is for Arabs" is not racist because Arabs are not a race, to saying it is not racist because it implies no inferiority?
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 4
th, 2017 at 6:45pm:
Clearly words don't have meaning FD, since 'sand negro' is not a race, yet its still racist. And there is no reason to assume the term is 'referring to a race' whenever someone uses it - any more than 'inbred retarded muslim' is.
Are you not assuming that Moses is referring to a race when he uses the term?
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8
th, 2017 at 7:35am:
I'm pretty sure I said before that racism necessarily involves the typecasting of particular ethnic or cultural groups. Doctors are neither, they are a profession.
Actually you went out of your way to exclude the need for one:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 4
th, 2017 at 4:02pm:
You are getting closer, and I'm glad to see you finally concede "actual races" (and who knows what that is) are not necessary for racism to exist. That is a good starting point. But when you start with this premise, your continued insistence that racism still requires a race to be specifically defined becomes redundant. Why would it? If you already acknowledge that racism can be based on "fake" races, why can't it be based on other "fake" and abritrary categorisations - that we just label 'defining race' for good measure? Your assertion that 'sand negro' is defining race is just as baseless as my assertion that labelling the entire muslim population inbred retards is defining race. Sure, you can say that 'sand negro' is "defining" a race, but its redundant and meaningless anyway - especially when you already acknowledge it doesn't even matter if its an "actual" race. The only relevant point about 'sand black person', in terms of being racist, is that like all racist terms its a blanket broad-stroke that reduces a diverse and disparate group of people into one big monolith - homogenised by their inferiority and negative attributes. You can call that 'defining' a race if you like, but its literally no different to any other negative broad-stroking of the entire muslim population - like insisting that they are all inbred and therefore retarded.
polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 17
th, 2016 at 3:55pm:
Personally, I believe that racism can be directed at any distinct ethnic, cultural and even religious group - as I've explained many times before.
Why is a professional group not subject to racism but a religious grup is?
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 3
rd, 2017 at 12:08pm:
no, you're not listening to what I have already explained. Prejudice and hate on the basis of fabricated categorisations - such as "all blacks" is the epitome of racism - precisely because the categorisation is arbitrary and wholly unscientific. The commonality in all forms of racism is what they call 'outgroup homogeneity' - prejudice against members of a "group" that are perceived to be all the same. In this case, all the many different cultures and ethnicities who happen to have black skin are reduced to the one type. In moses' case, reducing all muslims to a monolithic group of inbred, psychopathic retards. Thats not to say it isn't based on an element of truth - a minority of muslims are inbred, and rates are higher than anywhere else.
Gandalf here you are also excluding any ethnic basis, while including the examples of doctors being born intelligent and industrious, Muslims being born stupid, etc
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 4
th, 2017 at 7:17am:
No, you're not paying attention. I didn't say the stereotype "all muslims are stupid" - on its own is not racist. I said the logic that "all muslims are stupid - because Islamic text is nonsensical (and only an idiot would believe it)" - is not racist. Crude yes, ignorant yes - but not racist. Of course if you extend that logic to say that the only people who are naturally drawn to that nonsensical text are those that are inbred and therefore born retarded (ie "all muslims are retarded")- then it would become racist.
Gandalf how is this any different to the example of doctors being intelligent and industrious?
Quote:Thanks Frank. So when inbred people from a specific region have inbred kids, for hundreds of generations - so the kids resemble their people (ie all retarded), not the people on another continent, and with the resemblance comes socialisation, behaviour and the rest (eg all psychopathic, all depraved, all squat to pee etc)
When Moses referred to 100% of Muslims, do you think he was referring to Muslims from a specific region, or do you think he included white Muslims like you?
Forum
Pages: 
What is racism? (Read 93232 times)
