The Gaming Den

virgileso wrote:Racism includes ethnic prejudice, and the United Nations acknowledges that there is no distinction between racial and ethnic discrimination.

"An ethnic group is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed."

Common heritage is neither assumed nor real for Muslims. Muslim is not an ethnic group. If this example commenter were made aware of the fact that his brother were converted to Islam, he would be as prejudicial towards his brothers beliefs as anyone else.

And I'd call the people who burn the American flag in a demonstration against the 'infidels' racists as well, and they're not going to differentiate what part of America someone is from.

virgileso wrote:And I'd call the people who burn the American flag racists as well, and they're not going to differentiate what part of America someone is from.

??????

So now, it's racist to hate countries, ideas, specific named individuals...

So, is everyone who wants to arrest murderers a racist too?

Kaelik wrote:"An ethnic group is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed."

Common heritage is neither assumed nor real for Muslims. Muslim is not an ethnic group. If this example commenter were made aware of the fact that his brother were converted to Islam, he would be as prejudicial towards his brothers beliefs as anyone else.

You kind of forgot the next part of that quote: "This shared heritage may be based upon putative common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance."

virgileso wrote:

Kaelik wrote:"An ethnic group is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed."

Common heritage is neither assumed nor real for Muslims. Muslim is not an ethnic group. If this example commenter were made aware of the fact that his brother were converted to Islam, he would be as prejudicial towards his brothers beliefs as anyone else.

You kind of forgot the next part of that quote: "This shared heritage may be based upon putative common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance."

Yes, hating Americans makes you racist. This definition is literally so wide it includes every sentient being on the planet as racist.

virgileso wrote:

Kaelik wrote:"An ethnic group is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed."

Common heritage is neither assumed nor real for Muslims. Muslim is not an ethnic group. If this example commenter were made aware of the fact that his brother were converted to Islam, he would be as prejudicial towards his brothers beliefs as anyone else.

You kind of forgot the next part of that quote: "This shared heritage may be based upon putative common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance."

Yes, if that religion is a heritage, that is inherited, it can be a source of ethnicity.

If on the other hand, your religion spreads by you know, going around and recruiting everyone in sight, then it's not a heritage.

But taking a step backward, if the UN admitted that there was no difference between apples and oranges, would they become the same thing? I mean, I get that you want to define everything in the universe as an ethnicity so you can then grandfather everything in the universe backward into racism so that you can get away with your stupid bullshit where anyone that hates any group of people is a racist, but damn.

Hating someone for having a religion, or being born in a country is not racist. That's why we have other words for things, so you don't use the same word for everything in the universe.

No way at all has anyone justified the use of Racism to apply to ethnicities in the first place, even if ethnicity really did mean "any group of people anywhere."

So yes, Uber and I have an heritage of not being bat shit fucking insane. So you are being racist against our ethnicity every time you insult us.

So either you can back down and admit that races applies to races, and that ethnicities are about heritable issues, not whatever you damn well feel like tomorrow, or you can admit to being racist by your own definition.

Hating people for sharing a nationality (largely because nationalism carries cultural baggage) is racist. Ethnicity pertains to shared racial, cultural, religious, or linguistic traits; and racism includes ethnic prejudice. It's in the fvcking dictionary.

virgileso wrote:Hating people for sharing a nationality is racist. Ethnicity pertains to shared racial, cultural, religious, or linguistic traits; and racism includes ethnic prejudice. It's in the fvcking dictionary.

And WTF is so special about religious or cultural or linguistic traits?

Is it racist to hate people for being Communists?

Is it racist to hate people for chopping of women's clitoris. What if they are Mayan and ritually murder people.

Is it racist to oppose ritual murder? Seriously, ideas do not get to be protected when they are wrong by the racist card. The Racist card is only for irrational hatreds. Rational Hatreds like you know, fucking murder, are not subject to the racist card.

virgileso wrote:Hating people for sharing a nationality is racist.

No, we have another word for that. Expand your vocabulary.

Kaelik wrote:That's why we have other words for things, so you don't use the same word for everything in the universe.

Yes, we have words. Unlike you, I use their actual definitions, and don't decide to change their meaning to make myself right.

ubernoob wrote:Yes, hating Americans makes you racist. This definition is literally so wide it includes every sentient being on the planet as racist.

In fairness, the kind of people who use the broadest definition of racism generally do think that every sentient being on the planet is racist, so at least they're consistent.

While I don't think anti-Islamic sentiment is racist in itself, you can't really deny that a lot of anti-Islamic sentiment is bound up with anti-Arab sentiment. Islamophobia isn't racism, but in many cases it comes from or is associated with racism.

I should make it fucking clear that I am not accusing anyone who dislikes Islam of being a bigot. There are damned good reasons to oppose the spread of Wahabist Islam and Wahabi cultural norms. On the other hand, especially in the UK, 'we don't like Islam' can be a pretty obvious code phrase for 'we hate those dirty brown people'.

virgileso wrote:

Kaelik wrote:That's why we have other words for things, so you don't use the same word for everything in the universe.

Yes, we have words. Unlike you, I use their actual definitions, and don't decide to change their meaning to make myself right.

Once again, Islam is not a heritage, as it passes completely without reference to lineage.

So it is not racist.

Even if it was actually an ethnicity, which it is not, racism does not include ethnic hatreds:

"Racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.[1] As a practice, it means the same thing as racial discrimination."

So yes, you absolutely do make up your own definitions to try to be right, and the fact that your definitions of heritage and racism actually make you a racist is just a hilarious side effect.

Gnosticism Is A Hoot wrote:While I don't think anti-Islamic sentiment is racist in itself, you can't really deny that a lot of anti-Islamic sentiment is bound up with anti-Arab sentiment. Islamophobia isn't racism, but in many cases it comes from or is associated with racism.

I agree, and even said as much, stating in multiple places that the mentioned commenter was probably racist, but that we have no evidence for that other than allusion to other people who hate Islam often being racist as well.

virgileso wrote:Yes, we have words. Unlike you, I use their actual definitions, and don't decide to change their meaning to make myself right.

Just out of curiosity, where does ethnicity stop?

If, according to Merriam Webster, ethnicity includes "common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background" (The italicized goes to you, Kaelik, since you brought up heritable), at what point is a group no longer an ethnicity?

Is growing up in a conservative, rural area and hanging out with other conservative, rural kids an ethnicity? It growing up in a city and hanging out in a ghetto an ethnicity? By this definition, people are obviously capable of having multiple and conflicting ethnicities, right? Is that like Munchkin, where you get all the benefits of every group you're classified in, but all the negatives, too?

The only thing I don't see in there is gender. Does that mean that it can't be an ethnicity, even if you're raised in an all female or all male group?

What the hell is wrong with you? If you're going to start trying to quote Merriam, look more closely because race includes the definition of "a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics."

Obviously the word 'racist' varies with some people in terms of context; as I don't use it to refer to people who hate those who play Monopoly. Yes, I use it in a broader fashion (religion and nationality), though I usually preclude it with a descriptor (religious racism). That doesn't mean I use the most extreme definition.

Maj wrote:Just out of curiosity, where does ethnicity stop?

Is growing up in a conservative, rural area and hanging out with other conservative, rural kids an ethnicity? It growing up in a city and hanging out in a ghetto an ethnicity? By this definition, people are obviously capable of having multiple and conflicting ethnicities, right? Is that like Munchkin, where you get all the benefits of every group you're classified in, but all the negatives, too?

The only thing I don't see in there is gender. Does that mean that it can't be an ethnicity, even if you're raised in an all female or all male group?

From what I understand, ethnicity stops when the group doesn't identify with each other. To a large extent, religion comes with cultural baggage, so I'd think it difficult for people of the same religion to not identify with each other. I don't see why you wouldn't label a group of conservative, rural people an ethnicity.

Fitting under multiple ethnic groups is quite possible, but people tend to classify and reduce themselves and others into only one, usually with different standards. My brother-in-law is Indian, but is also American because of cultural assimilation and that whole legal status thing, but I'm sure random racists on the street wouldn't consider him American and would also call him a raghead (because they're ignorant racists).

As for gender, strictly speaking by the definition I've found, it doesn't give ethnicity. I would consider an all male or all female group an ethnicity though, just an ethnicity that includes the characteristic of mono-gender, since groups have more than one quality in which to identify with. Mythical Amazonians wouldn't really identify with a 50s housewife, for example, so they don't really share an ethnicity.

'Race' isn't anything but some identifier of one's ancestors. Most people get their religion, language, color, and mode of dress from their ancestors - most likely their most direct ones.

Attacking someone for looking like an ethnicity is racism. Not religious intolerance. The Coptics didn't share a religion with the people being protested, so how could it be religious intolerance that they were targeted?

Who would be idiot enough to derail the thread again with their pet projects to be pedantic about racism not to include whatever race or ethnicity because, well, whatever?

-Crissa

You know, even if there were an all-male or all-female ethnicity - none exist in known history - there would still be those of the opposite gender that held that ethnicity. The closest we have to that are the 'lost boys' of polygamous sects, as an example. They share that ethnicity, even though they are outcasts.

Crissa wrote:'Race' isn't anything but some identifier of one's ancestors. Most people get their religion, language, color, and mode of dress from their ancestors - most likely their most direct ones.

Attacking someone for looking like an ethnicity is racism. Not religious intolerance. The Coptics didn't share a religion with the people being protested, so how could it be religious intolerance that they were targeted?

Crissa, does your disengenous stupidity know literally no bounds?

The commenter in a thread did not defend the violence against the Coptics. He did not partake in the violence. He is literally not at all related to the violence.

So here's a match, and you can burn down your strawman, and the grown ups can get back to discussions that don't involve you accusing someone of racism for the actions of other people who are not him.

virgileso wrote:From what I understand, ethnicity stops when the group doesn't identify with each other. To a large extent, religion comes with cultural baggage, so I'd think it difficult for people of the same religion to not identify with each other. I don't see why you wouldn't label a group of conservative, rural people an ethnicity.

Fitting under multiple ethnic groups is quite possible, but people tend to classify and reduce themselves and others into only one, usually with different standards. My brother-in-law is Indian, but is also American because of cultural assimilation and that whole legal status thing, but I'm sure random racists on the street wouldn't consider him American and would also call him a raghead (because they're ignorant racists).

As for gender, strictly speaking by the definition I've found, it doesn't give ethnicity. I would consider an all male or all female group an ethnicity though, just an ethnicity that includes the characteristic of mono-gender, since groups have more than one quality in which to identify with. Mythical Amazonians wouldn't really identify with a 50s housewife, for example, so they don't really share an ethnicity.

The problem with your attempts to generalize racism is that some things, like racism, should be reserved to only describe bad things we don't want. But your comprehensively terrible version of racism includes, as I've already pointed out:

1) The ethnicity of murderers.
2) The ethnicity of homophobes.
ect.

So in fact, it would be an act of racism to be gay (Or at least, not a self hating gay). That is fucking retarded.

Which is why racism needs to be reserved for hating people for reasons besides ideas, because ideas need to be hated.

Kaelik wrote:The commenter in a thread...

...Wasn't at all in anything I referred to.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:

Kaelik wrote:The commenter in a thread...

...Wasn't at all in anything I referred to.

-Crissa

Akula: The commenter in this thread said X, what a racist.

Kaelik: None of those things are racist.

Crissa: Yes they are Kaelik.

...

Crissa: Remember when I explicitly contradicted you and said that the commenter was racist. Turns out I wasn't talking about the commenter, I was talking about the commenter. Easy mistake to make. Also 2 + 2 = 5.

Religious intolerance is not synonymous with racism.

So, what is beating people up because they're Arabs and speak Arabic?

Moving goalposts is all you.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:The Coptics didn't share a religion with the people being protested

Kaelik wrote:The commenter in a thread did not defend the violence against the Coptics.

Just like we don't have Arabics or Hindis, Coptics don't exist. Copts do, though.

Crissa wrote:Attacking someone for looking like an ethnicity is racism. Not religious intolerance.

How can you look like an ethnicity that spans race and culture?

The goal of the people who attacked the two Copts was to attack members of a specific religion. They "identified" the religion in question based on the assumption that if someone looks Arab, they must be a Muslim.

Is that racism because they equivocated Arab to Islam, or is it religious intolerance because their goal was to specifically attack adherents of Islam? Or both? Neither?

Whatever it was, it sucks. Bigotry of any form that is translated into violence is unacceptable.

Maj wrote: Is that racism because they equivocated Arab to Islam, or is it religious intolerance because their goal was to specifically attack adherents of Islam? Or both? Neither?

Whatever it was, it sucks. Bigotry of any form that is translated into violence is unacceptable.

I'd go with both. The assumption that your race links with a certain religion is racism, IMO. Religious intolerance was the obvious motive for the protest/attack.

Have the organisers put out an apology, or is that too much to ask?

Crissa wrote:So, what is beating people up because they're Arabs and speak Arabic?

Moving goalposts is all you.

No, I'm not moving goalposts.

Akula claimed that words written by a commenter were racist. I pointed out they are not, you claimed they were, and are now moving the goal posts.

For me to be moving the goal posts, I would have had to set them at "beating people up for looking like Arabs (And therefore obviously Muslim) is not racist." Since I never said that, and never set the goals there, I'm not moving the goalpost, I'm just still pointing out that people should not be calling racism when things are not about race.