Quote:Racism is entirely defined by what a racist thinks... obviously.
You have retreated to a circular definition of racism.
Quote:Please read the quote again. You literally just quoted me explaining why its racist.
Yes Gandalf. You insisted could only be racist if they use the term "white". Then you changed your mind and said it could go either way.
Quote:Saying 'whites are not really white' etc is not an argument for how statements that refer to skin colour need not be racist.
Correct. As I explained it is an argument for why skin colour is not fundamentally different to geographic ancestry in terms of whether something is racist.
Perhaps you could address the point now. Or have you given up on defending your efforts to redefine racism and retreated to misunderstanding every single point?
Quote:If anything it makes it more clear-cut racism - illogical, falacious assertions based on a completely warped perception of reality - are the very hallmarks of a racist, wouldn't you agree?
You are straying off topic Gandalf. The "hallmarks of a racist" are a hopeless way of defining what is racism (just like the reast of your efforts in this thread).
Quote:Offering more nuanced categorisations that are actually closer to the reality (eg "people whose ancestors are from Africa etc" - as opposed to the absurd broad stroke "all non-whites") puts the racist on the path towards non-racism IMO.
Are you saying it is not racist if it is true?
Quote:Tell me you're not trying to tell me that the more logical and more accurate reflection of reality it is, the *MORE* racist it is?
I think it is irrelevant. You could define your group with absolute clarity, such as "doctors" or "people whose ancestors lived in England in 1850" - but the clarity of the grouping is irrelevant to whether it is racist