5 ms·

This is a common reaction, and it started from a misunderstanding of the terms. I recommend reading https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism https://

This is a common reaction, and it started from a misunderstanding of the terms. I recommend reading https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism And then https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism Of course, it's a complex topic, and there's a lot more great material which would help you get a better understanding. While particularly focused on a specific type of racism in the US, includes a decent 101 on racism generally - https://medium.com/@absurdistwords/how-to-discuss-race-with-black-people-faq-pt-1-2534db9e3409 https://medium.com/@absurdistwords/how-to-discuss-race-with-...

julianmarq 9y ago
If you were going for discrediting calling something "a white-sausage party" as if it were a bad thing isn't racist by linking that, you failed. The very first definition in your own link on racism: > : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race Inherent inferiority, I'd assume, fits within that mind frame. As for sexism, the second definition. > : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex Now you'll start thinking of ways to complaint to the dictionary so that those definitions can be changed in a way that it's only about "minorities", I'm sure.
- selllikesybok 9y ago
  I'm not sure how saying that a non diverse group is inferior to a diverse group is equivalent to saying that the specific elements making up the non diverse group is inferior? Like, saying all-white is inferior to mixed is not the same as saying white is inferior. Also, do recall usages b and c, and that they are important to consider, and specifically see my third link for better explanation of how.
  - julianmarq 9y ago
    > I'm not sure how saying that a non diverse group is inferior to a diverse group is equivalent to saying that the specific elements making up the non diverse group is inferior? That you don't see it is framed as a question. Ok, look at it harder and come back to me when you have an actual answer instead of a question on your own reading capacity. > Like, saying all-white is inferior to mixed is not the same as saying white is inferior. Yes, it is, that's exactly what it is. I'd ask you which mental hoops led you to think it isn't but I know every single one of them will be a fallacy so I won't bother asking. > Also, do recall usages b and c, and that they are important to consider, and specifically see my third link for better explanation of how. You don't get to tell me which definitions to use. And I'm not reading some rant rationalizing why racism and sexism is good based on the target.
    - selllikesybok 9y ago
      >That you don't see it is framed as a question. To restate: "I'm not sure how saying that a non diverse group is inferior to a diverse group is equivalent to saying that the specific elements making up the non diverse group is inferior[. Could you please clarify]?" Thought it was implied. Sorry to be unclear. >Yes, it is, that's exactly what it is. I'd ask you which mental hoops led you to think it isn't but I know every single one of them will be a fallacy so I won't bother asking. You haven't added anything here, just restated your original thinking that I don't get. Here's what makes sense to me: 1 + 1 = 2 1 < 2 1 = 1 >You don't get to tell me which definitions to use. And I'm not reading some rant rationalizing why racism and sexism is good based on the target. It's not that there are more than one competing definition. There are several complimentary ones and ignoring the rest does not promote better discussion. If you read the third link, that's so not an accurate assessment of it's contents.
      - julianmarq 9y ago
        > 1 + 1 = 2 1 < 2 1 = 1 No, no, you're doing a false equivalency. This is what you're saying: 1+1=2 but 2>2 if the second 1 is of a different race/sex/orientation/etc. > It's not that there are more than one competing definition. There are several complimentary ones and ignoring the rest does not promote better discussion. ... According to you.

julianmarq 9y ago

If you were going for discrediting calling something "a white-sausage party" as if it were a bad thing isn't racist by linking that, you failed. The very first definition in your own link on racism: > : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race Inherent inferiority, I'd assume, fits within that mind frame. As for sexism, the second definition. > : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex Now you'll start thinking of ways to complaint to the dictionary so that those definitions can be changed in a way that it's only about "minorities", I'm sure.

selllikesybok 9y ago
I'm not sure how saying that a non diverse group is inferior to a diverse group is equivalent to saying that the specific elements making up the non diverse group is inferior? Like, saying all-white is inferior to mixed is not the same as saying white is inferior. Also, do recall usages b and c, and that they are important to consider, and specifically see my third link for better explanation of how.
- julianmarq 9y ago
  > I'm not sure how saying that a non diverse group is inferior to a diverse group is equivalent to saying that the specific elements making up the non diverse group is inferior? That you don't see it is framed as a question. Ok, look at it harder and come back to me when you have an actual answer instead of a question on your own reading capacity. > Like, saying all-white is inferior to mixed is not the same as saying white is inferior. Yes, it is, that's exactly what it is. I'd ask you which mental hoops led you to think it isn't but I know every single one of them will be a fallacy so I won't bother asking. > Also, do recall usages b and c, and that they are important to consider, and specifically see my third link for better explanation of how. You don't get to tell me which definitions to use. And I'm not reading some rant rationalizing why racism and sexism is good based on the target.
  - selllikesybok 9y ago
    >That you don't see it is framed as a question. To restate: "I'm not sure how saying that a non diverse group is inferior to a diverse group is equivalent to saying that the specific elements making up the non diverse group is inferior[. Could you please clarify]?" Thought it was implied. Sorry to be unclear. >Yes, it is, that's exactly what it is. I'd ask you which mental hoops led you to think it isn't but I know every single one of them will be a fallacy so I won't bother asking. You haven't added anything here, just restated your original thinking that I don't get. Here's what makes sense to me: 1 + 1 = 2 1 < 2 1 = 1 >You don't get to tell me which definitions to use. And I'm not reading some rant rationalizing why racism and sexism is good based on the target. It's not that there are more than one competing definition. There are several complimentary ones and ignoring the rest does not promote better discussion. If you read the third link, that's so not an accurate assessment of it's contents.
    - julianmarq 9y ago
      > 1 + 1 = 2 1 < 2 1 = 1 No, no, you're doing a false equivalency. This is what you're saying: 1+1=2 but 2>2 if the second 1 is of a different race/sex/orientation/etc. > It's not that there are more than one competing definition. There are several complimentary ones and ignoring the rest does not promote better discussion. ... According to you.