polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 4
th, 2017 at 8:08am:
freediver wrote on Sep 1
st, 2017 at 3:49pm:
I think Gandalf once tried to argue that he could not possibly be racist because races do not exist.
No I didn't. As usual you are clueless as to my actual arguments.
Here is Gandalf arguing that criticising Islam must be counted as racism because races don't exist:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 1
st, 2017 at 9:52pm:
Quote:The racial discrimination act has been broadened to absurd levels, just like your efforts to redefine the word racism.
"racism" has to be redefined when its root word "race" literally has no meaning. And when someone who is preaching these sorts of gems of wisdom goes off and thinks that prejudice based on a linguistic group is "blatant racism" or boldly claims that "Asians" are a race - you know the word is in trouble.
Basically its because people like you are so clueless about "race", that "racism" must be redefined.
But as you say FD, 'racism' is very much real - even if it has nothing to do with your confused notion of "race". It is probably the most destructive form of prejudice that exists in society, and constantly threatens to pull it apart. That is why its important to have specific laws that guard against it.
polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 16
th, 2016 at 11:40am:
I reluctantly start a new thread in a desperate bid to get an actual answer from FD.
As you all know, FD's favourite retort to the claim that Islamophobia is racism - is to quip that Islam is not a race. FD's position, therefore, is that racism can only be racism if it refers to actual genetic "races". FD, feel free to stop me here if I've misrepresented you in any way - since I haven't inserted any quotes yet. But I'm hoping common sense kicks in here and you won't dispute that.
It is therefore strange when FD refers to the phrase "arabia for arabs" as a case of "blatant racism". For example:
freediver wrote on Dec 14
th, 2016 at 8:09pm:
but when Aussie makes a clear reference to racial groupings as well as his desire for genocide, you suddenly can't see it?
Apparently, the "clear reference to racial groupings" as well as "his desire for genocide" is all encapsulated in that one phrase "arabia for arabs" - correct FD?
Just one problem - arabs are not a race, they are a linguistic group, defined only by the language they speak - not from any genetic commonalities that might class them as a "race" - as understood by the 19th century notion of the word.
Interestingly, when I pointed out this clear contradiction in FD's position, he flayed away in deflection in typical fashion - but certainly didn't deny that it is indeed true that arabs are not a race (and therefore rendering his whole premise about racism flawed):
freediver wrote on Dec 15
th, 2016 at 1:38pm:
Quote:arabs are not a race
And inbred people are? Where are you trying to go with this Gandalf? An expose on the mental contortions of a Muslim reformer?
So FD, if you wouldn't mind just clarifying for us all, how the phrase 'arabia for arabs' is blatant racism - given that you don't dispute the fact that arabs are not a race. Thanks.
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 2
nd, 2017 at 12:44pm:
freediver wrote on Jan 1
st, 2017 at 5:57pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 31
st, 2016 at 7:49pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 30
th, 2016 at 8:54am:
Racism still exists even if you don't think races do Gandalf.
So what is 'racism' then FD? What are the allowed parameters?
freediver wrote on Dec 30
th, 2016 at 8:54am:
Welcome to the English language Gandalf. Words have meaning.
Excellent point FD. For example, 'anti-semite' is a term that is restricted to being anti-jew, even though a 'semite' refers to all people who speak a semitic language, of which jews are just one. Welcome to the English language innit
English can be very difficult for newcomers because of these inconsistencies, but I assure you that the words still have meaning despite them. Like I said, keep at it and you'll get the hang of it eventually.
Well apparently you haven't got the hang of it yet - here you seem to accept that the term "anti-semitism" can mean something different to its literal meaning, but the same thing can't happen with the term "racism". Can you explain that?
And you haven't answered the question - what is "racism" in your view ? What is allowed and what is not? Because, no offense, you seem rather confused about it all: Islamophobia is not allowed - because muslims are not a 'race' - but 'arabia for arabs' is not just racism - its
blatant racism, because... err... arabs aren't a race either, but a linguistic group? You never did explain how that works. Is it because you are completely clueless about 'race' itself - thinking, for example, that there is an "Asian" race? Has it clicked yet how utterly ridiculous that is?