What is your definition of a racist?

I have read that definition but I don't subscribe to it and I don't believe most academics accept it either.

If you hate someone because of their race, you are racist.

please no politics wrote:

seattle dude wrote:

This is an excellent analysis.

I have read that definition but I don't subscribe to it and I don't believe most academics accept it either.

If you hate someone because of their race, you are racist.

I don't subscribe to that definition above either and I don't think the poster who presented it does either based on his analysis of it. I do think that this definition has become the dominant one in the social sciences. Whether most academics in those disciplines actually believe it is a different story. I think people have now become too afraid to challenge that narrative.

I n my sociology class the prof distinguished between institutional level racism and individual level racism. Blacks don't have the power in our society to create racist institutions on a broad level (like the state sponsored systematic real estate steering--that's white racism on an institutional level) but they can still be racist on a local, individual level (like attacking random whites simply due to the color of their skin). This seems like a reasonable idea. Yet several students got offended and said blacks can never be racist. They are just fighting back against their oppressors. But the poor white Bosnian immigrant who got killed in St Louis simply because of his skin color was not an oppressor. It's racism to assume he was.

Science has proven that we are all one race. End of discussion.

I think you are a racist if you have prejudice against a person because of their ethnicity.

There was a dumb black temp who told me (Asian looking but half White) while AT WORK that he dislikes white people was racist as hell. Pretty happy he was quit / never became full time because he was useless.

I had a half a mind to report him, but was apprehensive of stirring the pot.

Racist: a trustafarian who never bothered to learn basic grammar or spelling, never held a job, benefitted from the college admissions scandal, . . . . . . and thinks that they are better than the servants who raised them.

Not Jamin wrote:

Anybody who criticizes a “person of color”. If you are a republican, then you are automatically a racist because you disagree with liberals.

In summary, you are a racist if you aren’t a liberal.

If you are a republican, you don't just hate everyone who isn't white, you also hate Jesus and hate America.

What do you do for work? You sound unusually coherent and thoughtful.

Have you ever discussed race relations in a class?

Blacks consider any opinion they have is truth and any opposing position by a white person is near worthless.

Whites are afraid to speak and fear someone would think they are racist.

Actually fear of being considered racist, seems to be a fear that many whites have.

Not Jamin wrote:

Anybody who criticizes a “person of color”. If you are a republican, then you are automatically a racist because you disagree with liberals.

In summary, you are a racist if you aren’t a liberal.

What part of no politics didn't you understand?

observed a few things wrote:

Have you ever discussed race relations in a class?

Blacks consider any opinion they have is truth and any opposing position by a white person is near worthless.

Whites are afraid to speak and fear someone would think they are racist.

Actually fear of being considered racist, seems to be a fear that many whites have.

You sound like a racist, really.

One of the forms of racism that is common on this board is simply the subdivision of people into distinct groups. Quoting Wikipedia:

"The ideology underlying racist practices often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different due to their social behavior and their innate capacities as well as the idea that they can be ranked as inferior or superior"

I've seen a few threads on this board where people to try to define racial groupings, or similarly to inject race into a conversation. They aren't doing so in a vacuum, they're either doing so because they (and everyone else) have some preconceived notion of what it means to be a member of that group (for example the term "Black" already exists in our lexicon), or because they're trying to make sense of some of the patterns that they've observed in the world.

I don't know if this makes someone "a racist", but it is a racist form of thought.

FWIW, genetics researchers have separate words for "race" and "ancestry", where "race" is a word that has important social factors tied to it. Many phenotypic outcomes are tied to race and not ancestry, or vice-versa.

Anyone who disagrees with me.

Some posters have indicated that their is no such thing as different races. I don't disagree with that. But as you implied the term racist has evolved to refer to severe bias against a group of people who have been grouped based on a phenotype.

It is a subjective term but most people can come to a majority consensus and identify a racist person or racist action when they see one.

And you can be sure that that person does not consider themselves or actions as racist.

In fact, at the same time that are saying something that collectively offends a group of people, they get highly offended when they are called racist for doing that.

Star wrote:

It is a subjective term but most people can come to a majority consensus and identify a racist person or racist action when they see one.

And you can be sure that that person does not consider themselves or actions as racist.

In fact, at the same time that are saying something that collectively offends a group of people, they get highly offended when they are called racist for doing that.

Like another word, I think the word "racist" or "racism" has literally had it's literal definition change.

The classical definition is a belief that race is a primary determinant of traits or capabilities, and is also a primary factor for discrimination or antagonism toward a group of people who are of the same race.

It does now seem to be used to describe someone who says things a group of people of a race find offensive. To me, that assumes the motive is race. It could also be a lack of sensitivity or ignorance. But the word (or label) still carries the stigma of the classical definition, which again to me would not be proper.

The reason it is subjective is because you can never verify the motive of the derogatory actions.

Star wrote:

The reason it is subjective is because you can never verify the motive of the derogatory actions.

Mostly true, and if you can't verify it you can't say it is a fact, thus to me,, means you cannot say "the person (or remarks) is" racist; at best you can say you "think (or find) the person (or remarks) is" racist. So basically it is an opinion.

But, clearly some statements are less subjective than others.

Racist = most of the people on this board. This is judging by the overwhelming number of posts stating (valid or invalid) reasons why blacks are racist, while avoiding the overwhelming levels, depths and effects of traditional white racism. A very loose analogy, but imagine back in the day when the slave master accused the slave for hating him for the color of his skin, while he committed his atrocities. Boo-effin-hoo! I'm not saying blacks can't be racist but on a grand scale, you need to look in the mirror and see why you (as a white person) so badly desire seek out black racism and cling to it. The elephant isn't in the room, ladies/gentlemen... it's sitting on the house.

Something that is subjective comes down to opinion.

You can certainly give an opinion so you can certainly say something is racist in your opinion.

If a consensus of the public thinks something or someone is racist than saying that means you are with the majority opinion.

This isn’t a court of law thing.