Response to Himmy about racism

[EFLImpudence]

What sort of person would be motivated to do that I wonder? Someone as deranged as Winston and his ranting and raving at the term "electronic transformer"?

No, the sort of person who would be motivated to point out what "transformer" actually means.

 

[EFLImpudence]

What sort of person would be motivated to accuse someone of being racist when they are, in fact, not?

 

[ReganAndCarter]

Don't know about you lot, but it's Christmas day.

And I'm dreaming of a white Christmas!

 

[Doppleganger]

It is not an exaggeration. It is correct.
Every single post made on this forum in regards to concerns about racism, where you have responded you have on every occasion accused the person posting of being racist.

Then you'll have no difficulty at all in presenting evidence to support your theory?

 

[Doppleganger]

'I'm very comfortable with being separated from the racists.
But that is a cynical response.

Can you honestly believe that outing racism is more divisive than the racism itself?

But exaggeration is the name of your game'

So you agree with the point I made: you think all leavers are racists.

I think you have become very confused.
The comment that you refer to, above, was about whether accusing someone of racism, was divisive.
Hence my response: "Can you honestly believe that outing racism is more divisive than the racism itself?"

The comment was nothing at all to do with your exaggeration, that anyone suggests all leavers are racists.

 

[Doppleganger]

Good grief, you have in the past written thousands of abusive posts.

Then you'll have no difficulty in presenting evidence to support your theory?

 

[Doppleganger]

Also don't forget racism can only be justifiably claimed where race was the factor concerned.

It does NOT apply to prejudice based on:
nationality,
ethnicity,
religion etc.

That official bodies make this mistake does not make it right no matter how many times it is mistakenly claimed.

Have you advised the UN about their mistake?
They might appreciate someone explaining it to them.

Therefore, racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to a United Nations convention on racial discrimination, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

 

[transam]

The UN "him again"

They are more corrupt than the EU . Funds have been going on walk about for years . Dare say they are in Switzerland some where

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What sort of person would be motivated to accuse someone of being racist when they are, in fact, not?

The sort of person who, having given it thought, cannot understand who would want to render the word "racism" devoid of all meaning and impossible to use except one who wanted the whole concept of racism to become null and void, someone who wanted to make it impossible to criticise or describe or proscribe the expression of opinions and quite possibly the actions of people like HawkEye, ReganAndCarter, and their fellow travellers.

I've asked you before - why do you want to prevent people using the UN definition of the word? What is your underlying motive? Because I cannot see why any intelligent person who was opposed to racism would want to incur the damage to society and its laws which would result if they were successful in rewriting lexicographic history in the way they wanted.

 

[EFLImpudence]

The sort of person who, having given it thought, cannot understand who would want to render the word "racism" devoid of all meaning and impossible to use except one who wanted the whole concept of racism to become null and void,

It is not I but you who is doing that by calling virtually any criticism of any group racism.
I want to retain its meaning of believing one race is superior to another.

I've asked you before - why do you want to prevent people using the UN definition of the word?

Well, for a start, your frequent proposition that no matter how many are wrong about something, it does not make it right.
My frequent proposition that we should never assume those in charge know what they are doing.

Perhaps there are ulterior motives, I don't know.

Having said that, I am not sure the UN does do that.
Article 3 states:
"Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, ethnic or national origin or
religious intolerance motivated by racist considerations".
Why do they include the various classifications if they do, as you believe, think all come under the description of race?

What is your underlying motive?

Semantics, accuracy etc. and NOT diluting the seriousness of actual racism.

Because I cannot see why any intelligent person who was opposed to racism would want to incur the damage to society and its laws which would result if they were successful in rewriting lexicographic history in the way they wanted.

It is your belief that is damaging those things by diluting its meaning.


Can people of the same race be racist to each other - excluding convoluted examples?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It is not I but you who is doing that by calling virtually any criticism of any group racism.

No - not any criticism, only distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life

I want to retain its meaning of believing one race is superior to another.

But you cannot.

That horse has bolted long ago. That train left the station so long ago that the track has been turned into a cycling route and Kevin McCloud has made a TV programme about a couple who lived under the old platforms for 5 years with 3 small children while they converted the station into a family home.

Even were the term "race" to have any useful meaning in the context of social problems, which it does not, you cannot wind back the clock to a time when people believed that it did.

I wish that people had not started using "electrocute" to mean a non-fatal electric shock, but they did. And now that the concept of usage has prevailed, it is too late to undo the change. No matter how much I may criticise the lexicographers for what they did, and no matter how valid I believe my criticisms to be, I know that I cannot reverse what they did, and I know that to tell someone who reports that they were electrocuted "no you were not because you did not die" would be as fatuous as claiming that there was no such thing as electronic transformers.

Or as fatuous as claiming that a statement along the lines of "I hate all French people, and I would never employ, or rent a property to any Frenchman, and if I ran a restaurant I would refuse to serve them" is not "racist" because the French are not a different "race".

You must know that you are never, ever, no matter how much you go on about it, get what is now defined to be "racism" or "racial discrimination" changed to reflect what you think it should mean. You must know that you are never, ever, no matter how much you go on about it, get the rest of the world to start using the term according to how you want them to.

Or do you?

Genuine question #1:

Do you think that by going on about it you will be able to get the UN to change their definition, and you will be able to get the rest of the world to fall into line with you? Simple question - yes or no?​

Genuine question #2:

Using your definition of "race" please give an example of two distinct groups of Homo Sapiens which are different races.​

Can people of the same race be racist to each other - excluding convoluted examples?

What do you want "race" to mean?

 

[EFLImpudence]

No - not any criticism, only distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life

Why have you listed the separate categories if they all fall under race now?
You forgot religion - surely that has nothing to do with race.

But you cannot.
That horse has bolted long ago. That train left the station so long ago that the track has been turned into a cycling route and Kevin McCloud has made a TV programme about a couple who lived under the old platforms for 5 years with 3 small children while they converted the station into a family home.
Even were the term "race" to have any useful meaning in the context of social problems, which it does not, you cannot wind back the clock to a time when people believed that it did.

I wish that people had not started using "electrocute" to mean a non-fatal electric shock, but they did. And now that the concept of usage has prevailed, it is too late to undo the change. No matter how much I may criticise the lexicographers for what they did, and no matter how valid I believe my criticisms to be, I know that I cannot reverse what they did, and I know that to tell someone who reports that they were electrocuted "no you were not because you did not die" would be as fatuous as claiming that there was no such thing as electronic transformers.

...but that is not what you said when discussing electrocution.

Or as fatuous as claiming that a statement along the lines of "I hate all French people, and I would never employ, or rent a property to any Frenchman, and if I ran a restaurant I would refuse to serve them" is not "racist" because the French are not a different "race".

Well, that is the case. Has anyone been charged with 'racial discrimination' for refusing a white French person?
How close do these places have to be to not be racist? What about refusing to serve someone from the next street?

You must know that you are never, ever, no matter how much you go on about it, get what is now defined to be "racism" or "racial discrimination" changed to reflect what you think it should mean. You must know that you are never, ever, no matter how much you go on about it, get the rest of the world to start using the term according to how you want them to.

Probably not - if what you say is true.

Genuine question #1

:

Do you think that by going on about it you will be able to get the UN to change their definition, and you will be able to get the rest of the world to fall into line with you? Simple question - yes or no?​

Probably not - if what you say is true.​

Genuine question #2

:

Using your definition of "race" please give an example of two distinct groups of Homo Sapiens which are different races.​

Caucasian and Aboriginal Australian.​

What do you want "race" to mean?

The obvious distinction of the different human races. I think it is so simple, I can't believe it is a question.


In your restaurant, does refusal to serve a white French person and a black French person have no distinction, and would the courts (or UN) agree that they are both the same offence?
Were the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland racist? I don't remember anyone saying so or being prosecuted for it.

Can people of the same race be racist to each other - excluding convoluted examples?

 

[Doppleganger]

Why have you listed the separate categories if they all fall under race now?
You forgot religion - surely that has nothing to do with race.

I suspect religion is not forgotten, but intentionally excluded.
Therefore, it is no valid argument against BAS's comment. Almost a cynical comment, rather than a substantial argument.
The UN definition does not include religion either. It does however include cultural differences and that can encompass religion.

...but that is not what you said when discussing electrocution.

I haven't seen the electrocution discussion, but I suspect that it's a case of "horses for courses".
The definitions of electrocution and racism is not even in the same sphere, other than they are both social constructed concepts, possibly (probably) concepts which evolve over time and use.

Well, that is the case. Has anyone been charged with 'racial discrimination' for refusing a white French person?
How close do these places have to be to not be racist? What about refusing to serve someone from the next street?

Can people of the same race be racist to each other - excluding convoluted examples?

Put the the latter comment immediately following the former comment, and you may realise how ridiculous is your argument. You ask a question, asserting that the answer must not exploit convoluted examples, yet you have used a convoluted example in support of your argument!

Probably not - if what you say is true.
Probably not - if what you say is true.

Are you finally accepting that your faux pedantry is pointless?

Caucasian and Aboriginal Australian.

"among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

The obvious distinction of the different human races. I think it is so simple, I can't believe it is a question.

Your socially constructed thinking of the "obvious distinction of the different races" is obsolete.
"A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society. First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century the term race began to refer to physical phenotypical traits. Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct, that is, a symbolic identity created to establish some cultural meaning. While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race is not an inherent physical or biological quality.
Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
Your faux pedantry is obsolete!

Were the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland racist? I don't remember anyone saying so or being prosecuted for it.

No, they were sectarian, a bit like a civil war. Tribalist, if you like. Similar to family feuds. That is why you can't remember anyone being prosecuted for racism during the 'troubles'.
How is it relevant to this discussion?

Allow me to repeat: Your faux pedantry is obsolete!

 

[Notch7]

The comment was nothing at all to do with your exaggeration, that anyone suggests all leavers are racists

It was in response to my post, on a different, now locked thread.

So what you saying is, as usual, your response was a diversion.

And it is not an exaggeration, without exception any response you make to any person that raises concerns about immigration, is always that they are racist.

You dont want an adult discussion, you just want to virtue signal.

 

[Doppleganger]

I want to retain its meaning of believing one race is superior to another.

If we combine the current scientific thinking, with your extreme narrow definition of 'race', racism (between humans) cannot exist.
Therefore any and all prosecutions, charges , allegations, accusations, or definitions of and for racism, are null and void.

"among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

Try telling that to the judge. "A N Other cannot be guilty of racism because racism (between humans) is not possible."