New to this board, define "racism"

If one observes large differences between two groups of people, and reacts accordingly (be it negative, positive) is he being logical?

If one notices a correlation is he being intellectually dishonest by ignoring it?

As humans do we not exercise prejudice every day to survive? (if I run in front of a moving car I may die) is prejudice inherently bad?

If a zebra runs away from a lion, is he not exhibiting prejudice?

yeah survival instincts are something an animal is very familiar with obviously

I feel you are being defensive and pushing to make this a moral issue when other people just gave you straightforward definitions.

>If one observes large differences between two groups of people, and reacts accordingly (be it negative, positive) is he being logical?

Yeah.

The dictionary definition of racism is divorced from morality.

You do know that cows will bully cows of different colors?

cows dont talk like other people do though.
we're talking about people here not cows

bullies are pretty neat though

That's discrimination, not racism.

Racism is the belief that one race is inherently better than another (e.g. I'm white, you're black, so I am better than you).

You did say racism didn't exist among other races though.
But yeah, if it got to be more than "treating someone like shit becasue they got a different color" it's pretty logical as we are the only ones who are likely to meet populations from far away habitats and probably the only ones who may construct an at least semi-advanced racial scale.

I'm simply attempting to understand the rule, as a history and philosophy board our goal should be the pursuit of truth by contrasting your own beliefs with others and perhaps changing or adapting your own after exercising logic, BANNING a way of thought seems counterproductive to this goal.

So in order to post here, one must divorce themselves from prejudice, an inherent trait of life that has allowed the animal kingdom to survive, and instead wrap to logic to a common acceptable ground to be heard here?

now ur just being bigoted im calling the thought police right now

It isn't just believing that races hold certain characterizes that occur much more commonly in their race? So you may think one race is superior in one certain habitat and another race in another one, not necessarily thinking any race is superior to everyone else.

Come at me you little bitch.

>The word “racist” and its conjugations does not appear in the English language until the 1920s – see Peter Frost’s cultural history *. If you asked Shakespeare if he was a “racist,” he would not know what you meant.
>“Racist” is essentially a term of abuse which no group or party has ever applied to itself. Like most such epithets, it has two meanings – a clear objective one, describing a person who fails to believe in the anthropological theories of human equality which became first popular, then universal in the mid-20th century; and a caricature of the vices, personal or political, typically engaged in by such a foul unbeliever.

I'd say that narrow a definition would better describe "racial supremacy".

If I assume every chink likes rice, isn't that racist?

>It isn't just believing that races hold certain characterizes that occur much more commonly in their race?
No. It's not racist to say black people are more lactose intolerant than white people, that's a simple fact. An example of racism would be "blacks are good for nothing except being slaves".

see racism is a made up construct made up ironically by "talking" animals that doesnt exist anywhere else

bullying isnt racism is just a brutal form of flirting

If I am born in a culture that prefers bowing to shaking hands, and all of my life i've been bowing as a greeting.

Then I go over to a country for a business trip that does the opposite, to avoid being racist should I bow or shake hands?

>So in order to post here, one must divorce themselves from prejudice, an inherent trait of life that has allowed the animal kingdom to survive, and instead wrap to logic to a common acceptable ground to be heard here?

My point is that racism is inherently neither bad nor good.

So racism must be inherently negative against the other.

Can one be racist if he takes pride in the accomplishments of his own race?

So if racism is not inherently bad, why must we refrain from exercising it in philosophical debate/discussion?

I am not advocating for shitposts, but if a well thought out logical argument for a belief system is brought up, but one poster may consider it racist (which is obviously a flexible definition) should it be silenced? Ignored?

>So if racism is not inherently bad, why must we refrain from exercising it in philosophical debate/discussion?

I never said we should.

that's not being racist. That's being a cultural outsider.

Am I not treating a person differently based on race?

The reason racism should not be discussed philosophically as a valid viewpoint is because it adds credence to that argument. There's no logic in being racist but a reasonably educated person with racist viewpoints could add ethos to something that shouldn't have it. Racism can definitely be discussed in a way that asks why it exists, why it survives or dies and why it's similar to other beliefs such as xenophobia and related to other beliefs like nationalism.

No, you are experiencing culture clash and have been confronted with the decision to either be polite in their culture and not risk awkwardness in meeting or to hold fast in your own cultural beliefs and be seen as strange or weird. "when in Rome..." but that's not a law or anything.

As a way to try to understand what is or is not racist I want to try a little game with you all.

Which of these statements are racist?

1. I'm proud that I am asian, we invented gunpowder and had some of the longest running empires in human history!

2. I'm only attracted to jewish girls, arabs just look so ugly to me!

3. Here are some crime statistics, it says here that american blacks commit about 25x more violent assaults against whites than whites do against blacks! Perhaps there is a difference in culture between the races!

4. I deny the official explanation/the existance of the Holocaust, and here is why...

5. African nations have historically been less able to produce new advancements in technology and art as other nations

6. You are a dirty kike nigger loving faggot

7. You are a fat neckbeard redneck unintelligent racist

You are denying that I reacted differently because of his race?

What if he comes over to my country, and I shake his hand instead of bowing? Am I being racist by that definition? Am I not reacting to him differently based on his race?

1. not racist
2. not racist
3. not racist
4. antisemitic
5. not based on evidence; no evidence given
6. racist
7. not racist, cutting it close

1: Not racist
2. Not racist
3. Not racist
4. Not racist
5. Not racist
6. Racist
7. Racist

Then you're being accommodating to his cultural beliefs though they might be surprised or uncomfortable with exchange if done badly or in poor taste. It's not racist. It's based on culture.

So if someone claims that 599,999,999 jews died instead of the full 6 million, he is an antisemite?

>no evidence
Assume they give evidence is it racist?

>not racist
Redneck is not racist towards white people?

I'm starting to think "antisemitic" is the same as black lives matter

for 5 let me also say that how good art is is subjective and that whether African nations have less good or visually or sonically pleasing art is an opinion, so cannot be argued

Lol 5,999,999*

Perheps then, the definition is not appropriate, if that action is not racist (shaking a white persons hand and bowing to an asian) than "acting differently to a person based on their race" is wrong.

Is asking someone about their race racist? If someone is black I would say "what is it like being a black man?" And if they were white I would say "what is it like being a white man?" Am I not tailoring my speech to their race?

I'm saying that if a person denies an atrocity was committed against the Jewish peoples of Europe in the 1930's to 1940's, then are antisemitic and arguing against well documented and proven history. I'm also saying that even if 6 million is a ballpark estimate,it was at least a significant number of people to the point that to dwindle it down to say the thousands or to none at all would be antisemitic and a rejection of the proven historical atrocity against the jews.

If hard evidence was given that African nations before the advent of European imperialism was very little to no real breakthroughs in language or science or culture, then it would not be racist in the same way crimes stats are not racist though they are biased.

Redneck is not a racist term though it is derogative in that sentence. Cracker would put over the line.

Hatred of another individual based in race
Feeling of superiority over another based on race

The end.

I'm starting to think you're really stupid. Stop posting.

The belief that a group is natively and uniformly inferior or superiority to others, and that these groups can be readily defined without controversy

1. Racist.
2. Racist, if you mean white Jews.
3. Tricky one. Do you think this cultural difference is rooted in biological difference? Can it be changed?
4. Not racist. Depending on what comes after, it can be antisemitic.
5. Potentially racist, depending on your conclusion.
6. Racist.
7. Not racist.

Only the last two are racist

Bowing to random Asians is not racist but it is really stupid and ignorant. Should probably have an idea of who you're dealing with and what country before doing that, likewise with random white people.

Conversations on race is not the same as having a belief about someone based on race or treating someone with prejudice based on race which would all be racist. However those questions you asked could be considered rude based on the individual.

Which part is antisemitic, the thought of questioning, the questioning, the conclusion or "hating jews" based on the findings?

Do all holocaust deniers (ie anyone who doesn't conform to the EXACT official explanation of the holocaust) hate jews?

What is your definition of racist, i'm curious about you

So we agree that the definition is too broad and leads to misunderstandings.

Nah, Jack Chick doesn't conform to the official explanation of the holocaust but he doesn't hate jews: he blames it on Catholics.

I don't think he is more racist than anyone else. I do think his obsession with creed is similar to some other people's obsession with color.

>That's discrimination, not racism.

Discrimination is an umbrella term you nugget.

Racism is just discrimination on a racial basis.

To me, racism is the belief that there are significant physical and mental differences between races of humans, and they should be treated differently.

I'm sure you can look up Holocaust denial and what scholars thoughts on it are but questioning what happened and how big of a tragedy it was can be antisemitic. While saying for instance only a few thousand jews dies is not actually saying it didn't happen, it is putting lo little emphasis on it especially compared to how many died during the war, it's is almost covering it up. Denying it in full is also covering it up. The implication that jews masterminded the holocaust is a conspiracy and is almost certainly antisemitic since it would pretty much generalize all jews as this secretive group that used lies and forgery to meet their own ends. Moreover using this conspiracy to rationalize hating a group of people is antisemitic.

Just the thought of thinking the holocaust is made up is reasonable to an extent that most people question if all that happened in the past really happened. Of course that is biased towards one's own value of viewpoint. Just because you weren't there and saw it for yourself or were not shown all the evidence for you to peer over for your own time is not a logical reason to say something didn't happen.

Racism isn't incredibly broad but it does lead to misunderstandings, yes.

Why do Clapistanis Mistake Ethnic groups for Races?

Answer the first part of my question

How is 1 and 2 racist?
How is 7 racist?
Is racism inherently bad?
Can facts be racist?

What is your definition of racism?

power × prejudice^3

So only those in power can be racist? Can a poor white man be racist? Can obama be racist?

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race - Merriam Webster

That's not true. Every race can be racist. It is foolish to think otherwise.

>How is 1 and 2 racist? How is 7 racist?

1 implies that these successes are the result of Asians being... Asian.
2 states a clear preference of one race over the other.

I said 7 is not racist,

>Is racism inherently bad?

Morality is subjective. The better queston: is it useful?

>Can facts be racist?

If races are actually different, then yes.

What if one believed that race is a secondary determinant to human traits?

What if one recognized the differences but doesn't advocate superiority or inferiority?

Is racism inherently bad TO YOU

then literally everyone who's not blind and deaf is racist since your brain reacts differently based on how people look no matter whether you like it or not

How is 7 not racist*

The idea is that race doesn't determine anything. If there are any true differences between races, it is cultural among different nationalities.

It describes a stereotypical subsect of whites, but not the white race in general. It contains no racial slurs.

It's like calling blacks "thugs".

Are hereditary traits cultural?

Does culture determine strength, intelligence or bone structure?

I don't know. Discriminating based on race fucks over a lot of people, but in my opinion, so is pretending everyone is equal.

A white can be a thug, by definition a redneck must be white

If I call someone a nigger but than insist that I'm only referring to certain black people, not all black people, does nigger lose the racism?

No, I don't think so. You will end up being racist even you don't want to, "Nigger" is a slur that is synonymous with anti-black racism in the public conciousness. You can't give it a different meaning, and just expect society to accept it. It could happen, but it would take a long gradual change.

by many definitions here AA is racist then

And?

I one believes multiculturalism doesn't work, and thinks that ethnohomogenious cultures work the best and attempts to further the cause of a safe space for all, including whites, does that make him racist?

Affirmative Action is banned in my state for being racial discrimination, what's your point?

Preconceptions about inviduals with identifiable traits based on misapplying perceived statistics to those individuals.

Racism being a special case of this where identifiable trait happens to be associated with race.

No, that's not really racist. Fucking stupid opinion, but not racist.

We'll save that argument for another thread :^)

Who determines said statistics are "misapplied"? Does the fact that they are "wrong" make it racist?

Misapplying in this case meaning using a statistic to evaluate an individual.
I guess it works sometimes because statistics but statistics are pretty poor if the sample size is 1.

The perceived statistics in this case being the part that's potentially fallible due to confirmation bias or when working off false facts or when observing only a particular part of a population.

Can it be said that some groups are more resistant to racism than others in the world?

So all statistics are inherently wrong if used practically (in a smaller scale?)

Some may argue that question is racist

Not necessarily but they're probably just less reliable since the sample might not be representative of the population initially observed in the statistic because reasons.
But I'm talking out of my ass anyway since I barely have a real clue about statistics so I'm going to shut up now.

Just remember, something isn't wrong because it "feels wrong"

It's a shame, we still haven't come closer to a definition of racism that encompasses everything without being too broad, that also is justified to ignore in discussion on this board.

Anyone else want to try their hand at a definition of racism and a case for excluding it from philosophy?

If you call some white New York socialite a redneck you will only get confused stares, or maybe a chuckle if his family has rural origins. That's because a white New York socialite has none of the characteristics of the redneck, besides race.

Meanwhile everyone calls Obama a nigger and I've never heard anyone ask in what way Obama qualifies as a nigger.

The term has obvious anti white sentiment, just because the word isn't defined as "every single white person" doesn't mean it isn't racist

For example "wetback" doesn't mean every hispanic, but noone would argue it's racist.

Discrediting a white person for being white is racist too

So does the recipient's reaction determine if it is or isn't racist?

For example if I call a white man a cumskin, and he laughs, am I being racist?

The idea is that all races are equal and have no differences, so is it racist to question this fact?

If this is true, then is racism inherently bad?

Let's say they research this question and discover that there are differences between the races that supercede culture. Does that mean that racism has validity to it?

If the understanding is that racism is Isa bad thing we must resist, it can't be defined in physical terms but rather ethical terms.

It would make more sense to say that racism is the act of allowing race determine a man's value. This definition proves racism is immoral and illogical and frees many people from blame and hate simply because they have opinions that are unpopular.

Maybe, but that wasn't my point at all.

>The term has obvious anti white sentiment
It doesn't. "Redneck" is a term most commonly used by whites to insult other whites. Often for being undignified or acting in a way considered undignified for whites, much like "white trash." Is "chav" or "bogan" anti-white too?

>"wetback" doesn't mean every hispanic, but noone would argue it's racist.
No one can argue that it's insulting, and it's certainly tied to a specific minority, but it's not used to insult an entire race, so it's hardly racist. No one is going to call Ted Cruz a wetback without irony.

Well then we get into discussion, what determines value? Is any of that determined by race?

So something as flexible or unpredictable as a persons emotions determine if something is racist, and can't be posted here (your rights end where my feelings begin)?

Well now its semantics, fine you don't consider it racist, even if the word is disparaging to whites and ONLY whites