When does a thread become racist

Originally posted by Wickerman
So what are "caucasian, african and mongoloid" ?

~wickerman~

Segregation lables, made up by a white man who was convinced he was superiour to Black (when he invaded and enslaved Blacks in Africa), american indians (when he slaughtered them for being savage) and Maya or native inhabitants of now Latin America (when he invaded, enslaved and murdered colonies and colonies of people)

We are ALL biologically the same - we all have two legs and two arms and a head and all organs in the same place, thus we cannot be a ''different race of human being'' 😐

Black people are black, because they came from Africa. Africa = very very hot. Very hot = people in order to adpat to the sourroundings have darker skin, etc, etc, etc.

What does differnt race of human look like? Do they have hands growing out of their head? What? I am yet to meet one shockish

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Lil has this tiresome theory trying to re-define the meaning of words to try and fit her own view on things. It isn't true and it doesn't work.

Me and every single sociologist out there.

For someone who keeps on preaching about how much of language he studies i would at least hope youd know that words create reality, NOT reflect it.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Segregation lables, made up by a white man who was convinced he was superiour to Black (when he invaded and enslaved Blacks in Africa), american indians (when he slaughtered them for being savage) and Maya or native inhabitants of now Latin America (when he invaded, enslaved and murdered colonies and colonies of people)

We are ALL biologically the same - we all have two legs and two arms and a head and all organs in the same place, thus we cannot be a ''different race of human being'' 😐

Black people are black, because they came from Africa. Africa = very very hot. Very hot = people in order to adpat to the sourroundings have darker skin, etc, etc, etc.

What does differnt race of human look like? Do they have hands growing out of their head? What? I am yet to meet one shockish

So....by your "obviously not flawed" theory [/sarcasm] , dobermann's labeled the rest of the canine races, because they weren't like them...i mean....all dogs regardless of "race" have 4 legs and a head....so.....there isn't more than ONE race of dogs.... icon5

~wickerman~

So what your saying is we can say what we want about each other because we only percieve we are different or hurt 😕

I don't think legislation or biology works like that we are all share a lot of the same gene sequences, but the expression or phenotype is a little different😄

Originally posted by Wickerman
So....by your "obviously not flawed" theory [/sarcasm] , dobermann's labeled the rest of the canine races, because they weren't like them...i mean....all dogs regardless of "race" have 4 legs and a head....so.....there isn't more than ONE race of dogs.... icon5

~wickerman~

BAd example that was 🙁

And all of this has little to do with the perception of people and the way words affect them😄

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
BAd example that was 🙁

1. if you mean yours, you're correct.

2. We're off-topic as whirly has stated

~wickerman~

Legislation in the UK states if someone feels someone is being racist towards them, then for that person they are, although it is not necessarily a criminal act as intent needs to be proved. On here I think often it is ignorance, but I argue intent is present. This is what upsets me and I find somewhat distasteful,

Its not a question of intolerance of race. Its more of an intolerance towards attitude.

Originally posted by whirlysplat
So what your saying is we can say what we want about each other because we only percieve we are different or hurt 😕

I don't think legislation or biology works like that we are all share a lot of the same gene sequences, but the expression or phenotype is a little different😄

True, we assign words to different thinks then hide biehind it when it comes to being blatantly racist. Today, many academics dont refer to people as ''race'' but ''ethnicity'' (im sure you heard this already)

Take for example the ''N'' word. Im not sure if i should say it.

''Negro'' is spanish for black (as you might already know) but overtime it has gained a meaning far more complex then the one to begin with.

This word is use to degrate people, its used by biggots to feel superiour, while it originaly was marely color descriptive.

Similar goes for race - a term used to segregate people into groups - ''you are different race to me'' is ''othering'' of that person. Simply saying ''different enthicity'' is far different than saying ''different race''

But people seem to feel good hiding behind the fact that ''everyone says it'' and ''its accepted now'' to breeed more biggotry.

I hope one day use of word ''race'' becomes as offencive to people as the N word is today.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
True, we assign words to different thinks then hide biehind it when it comes to being blatantly racist. Today, many academics dont refer to people as ''race'' but ''ethnicity'' (im sure you heard this already)

Take for example the ''N'' word. Im not sure if i should say it.

''Negro'' is spanish for black (as you might already know) but overtime it has gained a meaning far more complex then the one to begin with.

This word is use to degrate people, its used by biggots to feel superiour, while it originaly was marely color descriptive.

Similar goes for race - a term used to segregate people into groups - ''you are different race to me'' is ''othering'' of that person. Simply saying ''different enthicity'' is far different than saying ''different race''

But people seem to feel good hiding behind the fact that ''everyone says it'' and ''its accepted now'' to breeed more biggotry.

I hope one day use of word ''race'' becomes as offencive to people as the N word is today.

That's taking it to an extreme. As long as there are biological differences between two groups of people, they CAN be categorized as different. Sociologists like to theorize waaaaay too much.
Seeing as how they CAN be categorized as different, that DOESN'T make it alright to use the biologically-based classification in order to offend people.

~wickerman~

Try it yourself -

Say this, and then see which one sounds better to you -

''You are a DIFFERENT RACE to me''

''You are a DIFFERENT ETHINCITY to me''

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
True, we assign words to different thinks then hide biehind it when it comes to being blatantly racist. Today, many academics dont refer to people as ''race'' but ''ethnicity'' (im sure you heard this already)

Take for example the ''N'' word. Im not sure if i should say it.

''Negro'' is spanish for black (as you might already know) but overtime it has gained a meaning far more complex then the one to begin with.

This word is use to degrate people, its used by biggots to feel superiour, while it originaly was marely color descriptive.

Similar goes for race - a term used to segregate people into groups - ''you are different race to me'' is ''othering'' of that person. Simply saying ''different enthicity'' is far different than saying ''different race''

But people seem to feel good hiding behind the fact that ''everyone says it'' and ''its accepted now'' to breeed more biggotry.

I hope one day use of word ''race'' becomes as offencive to people as the N word is today.

I understand your "race of man" idea its not new and Suzuki a well known philosopher and scientist (no not the one who makes motorbikes) did some excellent research which semi supports this point of view based on human genome research.

Do you think the comments used on here are OK.

Originally posted by Wickerman
That's taking it to an extreme. As long as there are biological differences between two groups of people, they CAN be categorized as different. Sociologists like to theorize waaaaay too much.
Seeing as how they CAN be categorized as different, that DOESN'T make it alright to use the biologically-based classification in order to offend people.

~wickerman~

No it isnt. Its not an extreame in the slightest, its the reality - the origins of the word and the meaning work exactly the same.

Both sound equally benign to me.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Try it yourself -

Say this, and then see which one sounds better to you -

''You are a DIFFERENT RACE to me''

''You are a DIFFERENT ETHINCITY to me''

They're both equally correct, and just fine. The only problem with those two phrases is if they're used in order to belittle someone. Other than that.....they're correct.

~wickerman~

Originally posted by whirlysplat
I understand your "race of man" idea its not new and Suzuki a well known philosopher and scientist (no not the one who makes motorbikes) did some excellent research which semi supports this point of view based on human genome research.

Do you think the comments used on here are OK.

You messed up a quote, but i understood 😛

Yes - i believe the comments are ok. I feel free to critisize religion, its something chosen, while place of birth and colour are not.

Simply put if something is said based on ethnicity and I include religion in that to put someone down on this forum, as has happened recently is that right?

Originally posted by Wickerman
They're both equally correct, and just fine. The only problem with those two phrases is if they're used in order to belittle someone. Other than that.....they're correct.

~wickerman~

And when have I questioned the validity or the corectness of the terms? I said two replies above that accademics use ''ethnicity'' to substitute ''race''. Of course both are correct - but one is more segretory than the other.

You not seeing a differance does not suprise me either.

Originally posted by whirlysplat
Simply put if something is said based on ethnicity and I include religion in that to put someone down on this forum, as has happened recently is that right?

I dont understand what you mean?