3 ms·

Well, I can say for sure that the classical interpretation is the official corriculum in school in germany, finland, france, england, russia , austria, switzerl

Well, I can say for sure that the classical interpretation is the official corriculum in school in germany, finland, france, england, russia , austria, switzerland, poland, slovakia and denmark. Those are all countries I know people in to discuss such matters. Since the whole population of those countries (and probably a lot more) has learned the regular meaning of the word, I'd say they are probably more than some group of scholars who really like their theory.

ModernMech 6y ago
But you still haven't made a case for "the regular meaning" of racism, such that it makes what the other poster said "absolutely insane". To me, "absolutely insane" is a very extreme thing to say. The absolute insanity I've experienced in the past is on the level of believing your cats are microchipped by the CIA to spy on you. So when you characterize someone as "absolutely insane", and it's shown that there is credible scholarly research that supports their claim, I think you are under a burden to state your case at a higher level than pointing out you have friends in other countries who believe the same as you. You've made an appeal to popularity by pointing to your friends and making a leap to say everyone thinks like you and them. I also have friends in the above countries who do not think the same as you and your friends. Now where does that leave us? Nowhere. Here's what I'm getting at. There is a difference between what you and I believe, and it doesn't come down to "absolute insanity". We can each make a logical, principled case for our positions. I implore you to open your self up to the other side instead of dismissing it with the vitriol you have exhibited.
oneeyedpigeon 6y ago
I'm from one of those countries and while, on one hand, it seems perfectly logical to argue "racism is racism is racism", I think there's a widespread recognition here that it's not as simple as that. If you consider racism as part of the human condition, something that is exhibited by people regardless of their own race, then you must also realise that its impact is far more significant when the majority exhibits it than when the minority does. In that sense there's, if you like, two 'sides' to racism: 'motive' (or 'intent') and effect. The first may be broadly equal across groups of different sizes, but the latter certainly isn't.

ModernMech 6y ago

But you still haven't made a case for "the regular meaning" of racism, such that it makes what the other poster said "absolutely insane". To me, "absolutely insane" is a very extreme thing to say. The absolute insanity I've experienced in the past is on the level of believing your cats are microchipped by the CIA to spy on you. So when you characterize someone as "absolutely insane", and it's shown that there is credible scholarly research that supports their claim, I think you are under a burden to state your case at a higher level than pointing out you have friends in other countries who believe the same as you. You've made an appeal to popularity by pointing to your friends and making a leap to say everyone thinks like you and them. I also have friends in the above countries who do not think the same as you and your friends. Now where does that leave us? Nowhere. Here's what I'm getting at. There is a difference between what you and I believe, and it doesn't come down to "absolute insanity". We can each make a logical, principled case for our positions. I implore you to open your self up to the other side instead of dismissing it with the vitriol you have exhibited.

oneeyedpigeon 6y ago

I'm from one of those countries and while, on one hand, it seems perfectly logical to argue "racism is racism is racism", I think there's a widespread recognition here that it's not as simple as that. If you consider racism as part of the human condition, something that is exhibited by people regardless of their own race, then you must also realise that its impact is far more significant when the majority exhibits it than when the minority does. In that sense there's, if you like, two 'sides' to racism: 'motive' (or 'intent') and effect. The first may be broadly equal across groups of different sizes, but the latter certainly isn't.