4 ms·

The GP is concerned that a word appearing in legal statutes is being redefined in a way that changes the law. A fair concern in isolation from policing consider

by RhysU 6y ago

The GP is concerned that a word appearing in legal statutes is being redefined in a way that changes the law. A fair concern in isolation from policing considerations. "Species"-level differences are off the table. Everybody can have babies with everybody else. All the babies can grow up to have babies with all the other ones. Clearly, humans are 1 species. With "species" addressed the 3rd proposed definition becomes "Racism is the (...) belief that there exist multiple human races". (Is the existence of race contentious? What is being used for the definition of "race"?) I disagree that this 3rd definition leads to the GP's 1st or 2nd. Existence of differences does not always imply separating per those differences. Nor does it require placing false emphasis on anything. It can, certainly, but it need not. The GP's point remains open.

Kednicma 6y ago
There is no such thing as race. That's what makes this entire affair so frustrating; merely believing that races exist is racist. If you can show me a society that is racist but that nonetheless ensures equal rights for all races, then I'll retract the point. However, from what I've seen, every government which thinks that race is real has enacted racist policies, so I think that the burden of proof will be hard to meet. CIMO, caste, aboriginals, reservations, blood quanta, and more; governments enshrine whatever hateful bigotry their people demand. It is worth pointing out that, even if race did not exist, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also bans discrimination based on national origin. This covers Central American foreign nationals being neglected and experimented on in our concentration camps; it covers Indian-Americans being rejected for jobs because of the caste of their last name; it even covers African-Americans being pulled over for driving-while-black. Ultimately, most racist practices are netted by the national-origin clause and the concept of race does not need to be invoked.

by RhysU 6y ago

Kednicma 6y ago

There is no such thing as race. That's what makes this entire affair so frustrating; merely believing that races exist is racist. If you can show me a society that is racist but that nonetheless ensures equal rights for all races, then I'll retract the point. However, from what I've seen, every government which thinks that race is real has enacted racist policies, so I think that the burden of proof will be hard to meet. CIMO, caste, aboriginals, reservations, blood quanta, and more; governments enshrine whatever hateful bigotry their people demand. It is worth pointing out that, even if race did not exist, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also bans discrimination based on national origin. This covers Central American foreign nationals being neglected and experimented on in our concentration camps; it covers Indian-Americans being rejected for jobs because of the caste of their last name; it even covers African-Americans being pulled over for driving-while-black. Ultimately, most racist practices are netted by the national-origin clause and the concept of race does not need to be invoked.