Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Trump or Hillary

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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?!

    So what then? Ethic-group-ist?!
    yes? what else? it's certainly not "racism" without "race"

    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?
    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.

    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."
    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~".

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    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?!
    At what point have I written that? Nowhere. Please refrain from inventing things I've written. Thank you. I've just explained the difference between an ethnic group and an ethnicity using Merriam Webster. If you are going to ignore that, then you cannot tell me how to use logic.
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    yes? what else? it's certainly not "racism" without "race"
    Is racism discriminating against something or someone based on their origin? If that's not racism then what is it?
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    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.
    The point was conversations evolve. And we're now revolving back to where we've already been because one of us either has really short memory or we haven't read the posts properly.
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    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 friends - you're being "racist". your rules, not mine. you said "to attack an ethnicity is racism~".
    I still can't believe you're using the term 'ethnicity' when I've already provided you with evidence that ethnic group is a different thing and ethnic group is what I'm talking about! No. It would depend on why. If I attacked you and your tribe, because of the tribe itself and dislike towards that collective identity then what is it? Racism? If not, then what do you call it?
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    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.
    Because I'm not talking about political cultures. You are. Therefore, stick to the point.
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    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.
    iPhones are not biological either. It depends on why you dislike Thai fish. If you dislike it, simply because its Thai, then I would describe that as racist; if you dislike it because of illegal fishing methods then that isn't racist, because it has little to do with the identity of the origin of the product.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you have exam superstitions?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.