so a group of people who identify with each other = a race then? you're saying that to attack an ethnicity is racist, so this would be what you're saying :| for instance, if I made a group of friends and we all identified with a particular interest of hobby - we're now a race - wow! seriously?!(Original post by 04MR17)
I've seen the definition: 'a category of people who identify with each other'. Can this not be applied to Muslims?Mexicans? Christians? I don't see why not.
yes? what else? it's certainly not "racism" without "race"So what then? Ethic-group-ist?!
depends how much you deserve me being nice to you obviously, but after you intensely strawmanned me, *and* used the word "racist" in a spineless and opportunistic manner to advance a political narrative, I just don't see the reason now.What happened to reading the other post? What happened to having a discussion about US politics? What happened to not using expletives because it's a nice way of corresponding with people?
see, this is the thing - if you want to call somebody a RAC(e)ist, if they ARE attacking a "race"< then you can! but if they're not attacking a "race", then you can't! because your definition of "ethnicity" does not allow for it. because ethnicity is, if we're going to use that^ definition, all encompassing! if you called me and my friends an "ethnicity", not for the sake of hobbies or interests, but "tribal" bonds (which is very ambiguous - let's just say we're a group that lives, eats and sleeps in unison - that's probably enough to be "tribal") - if you attack me and my friernds - you're being "racist". your rules, not mine. you said "to attack an ethnicity is racism~".Conversations evolve, sh*t happens.Did you say that my comments were untrue? Yes. Therefore I was named as a liar. I am insulted by that remark, and hence: it was an insult.Merriam Websters definition of ethnicity: "ethnic quality or affiliation." Their definition of ethic group: "large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background."
I didn't say you did - *I* did, because it's what you call "an analogy" - or a comparison, to compare the logics of two things - the logic you employed fell down when I used that logic with regards to political cultures. that's all.A much more fluid definition than your biologically more rigid definition. These constructs of identification are all socially fabricated anyway. But if you want this argument then I can happily keep going.
I am up. I did not suggest that racism could be targeted towards liberalism.
countries aren't races, nor are pieces of technology though. and even if I disliked it BASED on its origin, what if that origin had a non-biological explanation? for instance, what if, in thailand, 50% of their fish were illegally obtained, and hence, I resented purcahsing from this country? does the method of obtaining the fish (an illegality) suggest that I am racist against all thais? :| no. it means I dislike the METHODS of (50% of) the THAI FISHING INDUSTRY. not the thai race.And again, you're confusing your semantics.I am not desperate.It can be racist towards that country e.g. I don't like iPhones because they're American. Whilst that's not actually true, the sentiment of dislike based on origin is fundamentally racist.Well don't. You're a long way away.
From GCSE to A level, it's all changing