NOS4A2

Again, using the term “race” is a lot different than believing the species can be subdivided into discreet biological units called races. My definitio...

Me pointing out your gossiping and backbiting and misrepresentations reveal a far insidious form of deception I want nothing to do with.

Using the term “race” is a lot different than believing the species can be subdivided into discreet biological units called races. My definition appli...

Oh right, the “discussion” was you rifling through my posts looking for transgressions.

If there was never any grounds in the first place, why would we continue utilizing that concept in our thinking?

My only point was that many refuse to use race in their scientific endeavors, not in their day to day speech.

But many have abandoned the use of “race” in their field. No one said they stop using those phrases. What a strange misrepresentation.

Believing the species can be subdivided into distinct biological entities called races is much different than noticing the difference in skin colors. ...

Thanks for the advice. But I prefer disputation and contention more than uniformity and consensus. Those are the enemies of the open mind and the open...

I’m not quite satisfied. For instance, how light-skinned can a black man be before you classify him as white? Where are these sorts of lines drawn for...

Then why do you say “skin color” and “ethnicity” and not “race”? No one said it would correct anything. I’m merely arguing that abandoning the false a...

There is a vast spectrum of skin colors. At what point for you does black end and white begin? At what color is your line drawn?

Sure it does. We abandon old concepts for new ones all the time, as anthropologists and geneticists abandoned race in favor of better ones,

I don’t think they are noticing actual differences, but are rather putting actual differences aside in search of qualities and essences in individuals...

Descriptive terms suffice to describe human beings. A white man is a man with fair skin, not necessarily the member of some race.

But the third explicitly assumes race. How can you believe one race is superior to another if you do not first believe “that humans may be divided int...

No doubt, many still see them as important, to the point that people get angry when they’re questioned. Many anthropologists and geneticists refuse to...

It’s just genetics. The problem for me is you choose to draw the demarcations in a way I want nothing to do with.

It’s not only a matter of utility but of basic fact. No accurate demarcation can be made between races. I see no utility in adopting unsubstantiated, ...

It’s an encyclopedia. I never cherry-picked any definition and in fact included all of it. The rest necessarily precede from the first. The definition...

And you’re kind, brilliant person... The definitions are related, but one doesn’t qualify the others as you so claim.

I didn’t, though if I knew someone was going to cherry-pick one statement from the thousands of previous statements in order to call me a liar, I migh...

You fail to note the semi-colons between them. Good riddance.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/racism

Seems pretty accurate to me.

I’m not aware of any race skeptics who devalue another based on the color of their skin. Perhaps an example? Yes, if the definition fits it fits.

I edited my earlier answer.

I don’t see it. The religion of the journalist should not weigh on his duty to the ethics of his craft, which is well documented.

Those people are racist by my definition. Perhaps your classifications are inaccurate and without utility.

For example?

Yes. I suppose they are not so anti-racist then.

Your definition excludes the underpinning ideology, the foundation upon which all racial discrimination is built.

I didn’t lie. I said “ I think I may just have trouble with grouping people in general“. I never said I never group people. So why lie?

It’s true that not all racists believe in race supremacy, or race nationalism or race segregation. I still don’t see any problem here.

How is that a problem?

My worry is the thinking furnishes a foundation of essentialism, magnifying a set of qualities that overshadow the vast majority of the reality.

I don’t think one has to believe in the theory of race to oppose racism.

Now you have to convince me that I’m trolling you and you aren’t trolling me.

I suppose anti-racist?

I’ve seen people form groups. I could draw a line around them and say “that’s a group”. You cannot do so with a race.

Edit: racists in general, supremacists in particular.

I don’t group them. They group themselves. Cheeky enough answer?

It think it just makes sense. Attach the suffix “ism” to the root word “race”. The belief, practice, ideology or doctrine of race. Put into practice d...

I group people according to their ideologies and superstitions, sure. I’ll concede that much.

I can agree with that.

Of course there are differences, but most are so superficial that a vast majority of the biology is left out of it.

I think that’s close. But I think in order to be racist one must apply biological taxonomy in his thinking.

Wouldn’t that be more class than race? I can imagine groups that organize on terms of socioeconomic status are multi-racial.

I don’t know, I think I may just have trouble with grouping people in general. Even more acceptable Terms like ethnicity or population bother me. I ca...

If you guys can be trolled by opposing opinions perhaps I’m not the problem.