I left out "especially..." since it's a non-essential criterion. The first part is a necessary criterion. This is how you analyse definitions logically. The part I left out is irrelevant. Claiming otherwise is a cheap evasion. The first part claims racism is the belief race members all share characteristics exclusively, no? I couldn't care less what I do. Is my reading of the definition correct?
So again you are attempting to redefine the definition to suit .. how dishonest. The "especially ..." is part of the definition, that you wish to attempt to ignore it says a lot about your creditability. No.
I'm nailing down the essential criteria. Anything after "especially..." doesn't always apply, right? What are the necessary conditions in that definition?
No your attempting to misrepresent the definition to suit. it is a fact that people have different characteristics .. that is not racism, what is racism is using those different characteristics as a stick to promote that one "race" is superior to another, which is exactly what you do. To say that I have white skin and another person has black skin, is nothing more than recognising the different characteristics we have .. however if I then say that my white skin makes me better than the person with black skin then that is racism. Exactly the same for supposed differences in brain size etc, it is not the differences that are racist per se, it is how those differences are presented and used. for it to be racism then "especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races"
I'm absolutely not misrepresenting the definition. Why use the word "especially" if the second criterion applies in all cases? Bad wording? And the second part says "distinguish it" meaning distinguish races in total, but you talk about judging individuals. Which is it? And you agree the definition requires exclusive racial characteristics, contradicting your earlier assertion.
I understand what you are saying and in spirit agree with your argument. But I also understand that I cannot control what constitutes racism to others. I was once accused of being racist because at the time all my neighbors were white. The argument was silly as Boise Idaho is overwhelmingly white and its my home town. So by the logic of the person who called me racist, for the year I had Hispanic neighbors I was not racist, but when they moved out and a white couple moved in I magically became racist again. To me racism is a bias against an entire group of people simply because of the color of their skin. Some will agree with me while others will disagree... such is life.
HELLO, I'M A RACIST, PLEASED TO MEET YOU By Selwyn Duke July 23, 2010 NewsWithViews?com There is such a thing as a conditioned response? Here's an example: Leftists call conservatives "racists?" Conservatives cower and stutter some defense? Leftists call conservatives "racists" some more? Conservatives cower some more? Question: How do you think you break this pattern? We've seen this again with the recent vitriol spewed by NAACP head Ben Jealous (a fitting last name)? Speaking at the NAACP convention in Kansas City, Jealous accused the Tea Party of, take a guess ? ? ? cue the "Jeopardy!" music ? ? ? "racism?" Just as predictably, many conservatives are running around trying to convince everyone that, by gum, they really are swell guys? No, really? I'm not a racist? I don't beat my wife? I don't kick my dog? I eat my organic vegetables and drive a Prius? Look, why don't we just save everyone the trouble? Every time a conservative renders an opinion, we can just play a recording with a little weaselly voice screeching, "You're a waci st! You're a wacist!" (Barney Frank style) followed by a music video featuring The Cowering Conservative - I mean, 1950s-style, duck-and-cover footage with the tune and all? And such conservatives abound? Oh, don't get me wrong, conservative brethren, I love ya', man? But, frankly, too many of you are saps? You really don't get it? People who advocate d welfare reform in the 1990s were accused of being "racist?" If you're for border control, you're "racist?" If you criticize Obama, you're "racist?" If you oppose quotas, you're "racist?" If you say that, be it nature or nurture, there are differences among groups, you're "racist?" If you want English to be the national language, you're "racist?" The word has become meaningless, only used to stifle and stigmatize opposition? And if calling you a heretic worked in that regard, the left would do that? And if calling you a Fig Newton worked, they would do that? Nevertheless, the ploy prevents sap conservatives from speaking - and even conceiving of - certain truths? They won't say that so-called racial profiling is just part of proper profiling, they pay lip service to the relativistic idea that all cultures are morally equal, they refuse to call bigoted blacks such as Obama and Eric Holder out on their bigotry, they tolerate double standards with respect to hate-crime-law application and racial jokes, and they let whites persecuted for making innocent comments twist in the wind? They won't speak unfashionable truths for fear of becoming unfashionable people? Well, all I can say is that if the Truth can be "racist," then hello, I'm a "racist?" Pleased to meet you? And this gets at a deeper point? On the O'Reilly Factor recently, Bill O'Reilly was discussing the Jealous situation with Professor Marc Lamont Hill? You know, Hill is the fellow with a Cracker- Jack-box Ph?D? who looks like a high-school kid heading to the prom? Anyway, the goo d professor, in so many words, put forth the leftist definition stating that only whites can be " racist" because being so requires one to have "institutional power?" OK, whatever? I accept the definition? Really, I do? I just reject the word? What I mean is, I've long warned against using the Lexicon of the Left? "Racism" is a term as stupid as "ageism," only, we're inured to it? We forget that "ism" refers to a doctrine, system or theory? Thus, of course "racism" will denote doctrine, and is it any surprise that the doctrine is dumb? Leftist doctrine is usually dumb? But what's even dumber is that we actually embrace the left's doctrinal terms? This is why I prefer using what simply refers to attitude - "bigotry" - as in Barack Obama is a bigot, Eric Holder is a bigot and Ben Jealous is a bigot? As for "racism, " it was originated by the left? So leave it to them? They can define it? They can whine it? And if they ask me, I'll tell them where they can stick it? The point is that you can't prove you're not a "racist" to the left, because they'll just define "racist" as being whatever you are? In fact, sap conservatives, understand something: You're not going to "prove" anything to the NAACP? You're not going to prove anything to the mainstream media? You're not going to prove anything to any dyed-in-the-fool liberal? They are enemies ? And enemies aren't interested in proof; they're interested in propaganda? So cultivate the right warrior attitude? Look at it like this: If you were engaging in a cold war against the Nazis in 1938, would you bend over backwards to "prove" to them that their propaganda about you was invalid? Of course not! They know it's invalid - that's the nature of evil's propaganda ? And it's designed to invalidate you? And you don't respond to enemies with defensiveness and measured responses? You propagandize against them? Now, this doesn't mean you have to lie? Note that while "propaganda" generally has a negative connotation today, it doesn't denote dishonesty? It is simply, informs The Free Dictionary, "the organized dissemination of information, allegations, etc?, to assist or damage the cause of a government, movement, etc?" And to damage leftists' cause, all we need do is tell the truth about them? So what this does mean is that you have to stop being "conservative" and start being bold? The only consistent political definition of a "conservative" - the only ones that holds across time and place - is "one who desires to maintain the status quo?" Well, maintenance men are seldom warriors? Conservatives too often take a conservative approach, being cautious while their enemies are callous? They too often bring a rhetorical knife to a rhetorical gunfight? They too often act like losers - and lose? I am not saying that we should stop making reasoned arguments, but those are for the reasonable (those who can be swayed)? They are wholly inappropriate for unreasonable charges from dishonorable children? They deserve your boot? You spit in their eye? For enemies bent on your destruction don't want compromise; they won't yield to reason? They are to be fought and, God willing, defeated? This means that when a Congressman Joe Wilson shouts "You lie!" at Barack Obama, you respond, "Representative Wilson was wrong? Obama lies a lot?" It means that when the left bristles at a satirical letter to Lincoln, you understand that bold, fresh pieces of insanity will always hate satire? And, personally, do I really care that some Tea Party folks juxtaposed Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler on a billboard? Not really? I'm just not that concerned about Mr? Hitler's reputation? And what of civility? Be wary? When the left is civil - or calls for civility - it's usually a ruse? It's simply the tactic that best helps them achieve their aims at the moment? Here's how it works: Leftists lie through their teeth, and then, when you respond with righteous indignation, they pout like little girls, saying, "You're mean! You're intolerant! What happened to civility! [Translation: You called our lies lies! How dare you!]" Understand that the effect here is to stop sap conservatives from calling lies lies, thus allowing the left to use its greatest weapon with impunity? Also understand that the worst form of impoliteness is insincerity in discourse? And understand something else: Leftists are cowards? They are creatures of the pack, finding their strength only in numbers? After all, what do you think being politically correct is all about? It means doing what's fashionable in our time, what makes you popular? A man who believes in Truth, such as Thomas More, will die for his principles, alone, twisting in the wind? A liberal goes the way the wind blows and will die for nothing? Stand up to leftists en masse, and they'll fold like a tent? So free yourself? Laugh at the "racism" shtick? Make it a badge of honor? Call lefti sts what they are: cowards, bigots, liars, demagogues, and, worst of all by far, enemies of Truth? Fight fire with fire? Remember, millions of good Americans are sick and tired of political correctness and will stand with you? So just say to our leftist legal aliens: If you like name-calling and you want to fight, OK? I'm a racist, sexist homophobe, and I'm in your face? What's it to ya'? 2010 Selwyn Duke - All Rights Reserve
As I said before I believe that the most reasonable definition of racism is the third definition from the dictionary that I cited. Racism is hatred or intolerance based on race. That definition works because there's no unintentional baggage nor can any sane person make a semantic dispute. It's also how most people apply the word in real life. A racist is someone who hates people because of their race or won't accept them because of their race. You don't have to be a racial supremacist, hereditarian, separatist or any other variant of ideologue to be a racist you simply have to be hateful or intolerant of a race. That answers the OP's question of what is racism. Now as for whether Mikemikev himself qualifies as a racist going by that definition one need only look at his post history. Here are two quotes from Mikemikev from other webpages that show his racial hatred. Disclaimer: Mods these quotes are relevant to the topic and while they contain offensive language they are necessary for making my point. I have left the links out so as not to advertise other websites. So Mikemikev is known to use racial slurs, dehumanize racial groups and attack his opponents with racist insults. With the evidence right there to be seen how then, Mikemikev, do you deny NOT being a racist (going by the definition I supplied)?
Direct quotes in From Dreams of My Father by Barack Hussein Obama II, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Dunham, aka Barack Dunham, aka Barack Soebarkah "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites." [SOURCE: page 15] "There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white . . " "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names." This was about his time in college, disapproving of what he called other "half-breeds” who gravitated toward whites instead of blacks. [SOURCE: pages 99-100] "Yes, I'd seen weakness in other men -- Gramps and his disappointments, Lolo and his compromise. But these men had become object lessons for me, men I might ... never emulate, white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own." "You do not work hard enough, Barry. You must help in your people's struggle. Wake up, black man!" [SOURCE: page 220]
Obama went through an identity crisis in his youth. If you think those quotes make him a racist then you haven't read the book. And no, he never legally changed his name. He want by Barry as a kid because Barack sounded too foreign but he never went by any of those other names.
So maybe Robert Byrd, Bill Clinton and Louis Farakan are just going through an identity crisis too. We should ignore ALL negative remarks made about race, since they too may be just finding their way. As far as Barry's name, on his application for the Bar Exam, Soebarkah perjured himself when he lied that he never used any other alias(s).
I typed in Barry Soebarkah and all I got were a bunch of conspiracy theory websites that have no credibility.
Of course you would say that if it exposes your messiah, who ever he really is. Read one and think for yourself.
Thank you for this as it shows beyond all shadow of doubt that the poster in question equates exactly to the definition of a racist .. racism is not showing that races have different characteristics it is using those differences to claim a superiority and demean other human beings.
I read the top result. They didn't provide any evidence supporting their claims which is what conspiracy theorists often do. You should know who Obama is by now. He's the President of the United States who has written two books about his life. Every sane person in the world should know who he is. This garbage about different aliases is nothing but an attempt at character assassination. This is just another rumor designed to cause people to distrust the President. Obama is not a racist and he's not any of the other things people say about him to damage his reputation. I agree. I think that there is a racist agenda behind claims that races differ in mental traits but ultimately racism is about demeaning and discriminating against people based on race.
Oh there is most certainly a racist agenda behind those studies, that is not to say that the studies are right or wrong .. it is not the studies themselves that are racist, it is how they are used to demean and discriminate against others. I could say that a study shows that people with red hair and green eyes score, on average, 10 points less on IQ test than blond haired, blue eyed people, now that could be correct and as such is not racist in it's conclusion .. however, if I was to say that the study proves that red haired, green eyed people should be separated from blond haired, blue eyed people and their breeding curtailed then that is racist.
So I take it you're a birther. Do you realize how insane it sounds to normal people that there's a conspiracy surrounding the location of Obama's birth? He was born in Hawaii. I have no problem debating you on this.
It shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that you lost the debate about the wooly definition of racism and have to resort to ad hominem arguments.
