Quote:


So now you define racist by what a racist thinks? Isn't that a little circular?

Quote:


Now I need to correct you on what you said:

Quote:


Quote:


I see no wiggle room there Gandalf. Are you changing your mind yet again? If you do allow people who say "white" to have their own thoughts on why they say white, are we back to superiority as the deciding factor? That is, it is racist to say doctors are intelligent?

Quote:


Gandalf, do you realise that white people are not actually white, black people are not actually black, yellow people not yellow etc? The easiest way to define what is actually meant by such terms is with a definition just like yours - ancestors from a certain region. If you want to get even more detailed, it would end up looking like the definition of Arab on wikipedia. Thus, my definition is not fundamentally different from yours. In addition, yours is still a poorly defined broad-brush group that includes a lot of European immigrants into England. There is no substantial difference, just a bit of pedantry.

freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2017 at 7:23am:


err... I'm putting this down to you not thinking this through before you typed it. Read it again and see how silly this really is.

Racism is entirely defined by what a racist thinks... obviously.

freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2017 at 7:23am:


Please read the quote again. You literally just quoted me explaining why its racist.

freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2017 at 7:23am:


Saying 'whites are not really white' etc is not an argument for how statements that refer to skin colour need not be racist. As I keep saying, racism, as (imaginary) assertions of the superiority and inferiority of (imaginary) 'races', obviously gives scant regard to what actually exists in the real world. 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? 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. 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?

What is racism?

ISLAM!

I will repeat that so that ALL are aware!

Frank wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2017 at 8:57pm:



Two wrongs don't make a right, Soren.   Simples, really.   

kemal wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2017 at 7:04pm:

kemal wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2017 at 7:17pm:

Quote:


You have retreated to a circular definition of racism.

Quote:


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:


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:


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:


Are you saying it is not racist if it is true?

Quote:


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

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2017 at 8:29pm:


lol retreated? Can you quote me suggesting anything contrary? How, prey tell, to you define racism if not by what the racist thinks? This should be good.