"1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural " The word for this is Hereditarian, and "determine" is a strawman. "or individual achievement" Nobody thinks this. ", usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others." The word for this is Supremacist. Why mix it all up? Guilt by association? Why use a vague "ism" that can be applied all over the place? Cheap rhetoric?
so the Oxford English dictionary uses "cheap rhetoric" now does it? http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/racism - "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races" or how about the Cambridge Dictionary http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/racism - "the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races:" or is it more a case of you having to claim "cheap rhetoric" in order to justify your own racism?
Sadly these definitions do not match the word racist as commonly hurled at people, including myself. So I guess they are indeed incorrect. Further the wider Oxford definition includes "characteristics specific to a race". Well sure, ancestry. So any rational person is a "racist". Great, who cares.
I can provide one. "A vague term of abuse used to lump together people who note the existence of ancestry, people who think there are average racial differences, people who think everyone in a race is the same*, people who oppose their own demographic genocide, and people who want to gas all other races." *Which literally nobody ever has or does. Etymology: made up by Communists to suppress discussion of human differences.
or is it more a case of you having to claim "cheap rhetoric" in order to justify your own racism? really, then you should have no issue providing a link to that then, please do
No. It's me using unassailable logic to demonstrate that calling someone a racist is, ironically, mindless name calling.
Link to the dictionary they comes from please, I did ask for "dictionary definitions that differ from the one provided." or is it merely your made up definition in order to justify your own racism.
if the cap fits, which it certainly does on you, then wear it. Despite your inane attempts to justify your racism by trying to re-define it to suit your own agenda you are what you are. Adding in the little thing about "mindless name calling" is nothing more than you attempt to shift the blame and guilt from yourself to others .. a cheap trick
sorry, did I ask you for your "broad interpretation", which would be nothing more than your biased opinion anyway, or did I ask you for a link to your unproven assertion of "Further the wider Oxford definition includes "characteristics specific to a race". Well sure, ancestry. So any rational person is a "racist". Great, who cares. " . .do please try to stay on track and not try to squirm away from your own assertions.
In post 24 I asked for you to explain why you are calling me a racist. I think that could be a helpful object lesson here.
Of course I made it up. I am fleshing out the conclusions of your quotes to expose the absurdity. Why should I dredge up other definitions? Oxford is considered authoritative, and it is false in this case.
Mikemikev is engaging in wordplay and basically trolling. He knows that he is a racist going by the common definition of the word. The problem with labeling some people based on the given definitions is that racists change their ideological views all the time. Racial Supremacists used to be quite common but now hardly any racist says they want to rule other races. Racial hereditarians believe that their brand of racism (Scientific Racism) has scientific validity and is at worst an opinion on a scientific topic. I have found that the third definition of the word that I posted is most useful because it simply describes racial discrimination which is in line with its real world use. You don't have to be a hereditarian or a supremacist to be hateful or intolerant based on race. Mikemikev's use of racial slurs and dehumanizing comments absolutely qualify him as a racist based on that definition. As for the hereditarian angle I have found this book passage to be helpful.
You may ask me to say this or that, and I may or may not. According to your Oxford definition "racism" can be, among other things, the belief that all members of a race share a characteristic, n'est pas? Btw it's hilarious your dictionary quotes have strikingly different definitions.
I owe you nothing other than to point you to the definition of racism and ask do you fit that definition .. the answer is an unequivocal yes. I am not interested in your attempts to re-define things in an attempt to justify your own racism.
I'm trying to analyse your definitions. Apparently the various contradictory dictionary definitions are all correct. You are making vague unsubstantiated accusations of illogic, refusing to analyse your own definitions, and, in hilarious irony, calling me "racist" at the end of every post.
Neither of the definitions I posted contain "the belief that all members of a race share a characteristic" so yet again you attempt to misrepresent. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...english/racism - "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...british/racism - "the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races:" Only in the mindset of those who are delusional and engage in their own created fantasies. - - - Updated - - - any and all of them, the premise of both definitions supplied is exactly the same, you may engage in as many word games as you wish .. the end result never changes, you fit the definition.
not one of them contradicts the other, that is just your attempt to squirm away from what you are. Unlike you I have no need to try and change those definitions, I have nothing to hide or fear from them, you on the other hand do .. hence why you engage in word games and personal disingenuous comments in a futile attempt to justify your racism. you are as transparent as glass.
and I for one will not allow him to get away with it .. this illogical presumption that he can change the definition of racism in order to justify it simply to make himself feel better. I have no issue with research data being presented that may show differences in intelligence etc, that is not racist .. what is-is then using that data as a stick to beat the drum of one race being "better" or superior than the other.
Oxford says it's the belief all members of a race share characteristics exclusively. Cambridge says it's the belief race influences people's qualities (whatever that means) and members of others races are not as good (on average or always?). These are different. Cheap ad hominem.
nice comment mining, or cherry picking if you prefer. how about using the full quote and not what you think adheres to your illogical premise "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races" the highlighted part is exactly what you do.
