Eh What the point? You ask can this on any board and most people will say no.
The point is the fact I'm thinking that being not racist relates to empathy and being tolerable, friendly to others, and so on, while being racist relates to having a logical approach to the issue (ie coldy look at crime statistics, IQ distribution, historical accomplishments, genetic compabilities, eugenics, etc). Most people I know are not NTs and they aren't racist as well.
I'm not sure if there's a coloration between NT's and racism.
Aren't we all? teehee
Yes of course, we all are.
So is there an inherent problem in the way the question is being asked? Surely there is a difference between someone who berates anyone Arabic-looking as a "terrorist sand-nigger" and someone who makes a mildly racist joke about "three Mexicans that walk into a bar?"
The thing is that most people exhibit some degree of black (not the race) humor. At the end of the day, it's often rather harmless, whereas the first can be extremely damaging.First seems malicious and second simply uncouth.
Theme underlying both is race-based generalization. @1010830, you'll probably need to define racism.
The thing is that most people exhibit some degree of black (not the race) humor. At the end of the day, it's often rather harmless, whereas the first can be extremely damaging.
Right, but my point is that, while on a scale, surely it's important to have some sort of threshold for "racism." If not, then for clarity's and utility's sake we need a new definition.
My point is that if literally everyone is racist to some degree, how is the word even meaningful anymore? Sometimes it's useful to have subcategories under a head word. For example, with anger, we differentiate between annoyance and rage, etc. How is this not the similar?Don't think the problem is clarity or utility. Think the problem is sensitivity to the connotations of being ID'd as racist.
Making a new word might serve to detach that baggage...or it may serve to simply give people a cognitively permissible "pass" at soft racism. Probably both?
My point is that if literally everyone is racist to some degree, how is the word even meaningful anymore? Sometimes it's useful to have subcategories under a head word. For example, with anger, we differentiate between annoyance and rage, etc. How is this not the similar?
It is all how one defines "racist". Everyone has biases. It's just part of being human. Many of these biases involve characteristics like race, gender, religion, nationality, or even disability. I suppose I would reserve the racist (or sexist or homophobic) label for those who are unapologetic about their biases, and make no effort to understand and correct them as they come up.My point is that if literally everyone is racist to some degree, how is the word even meaningful anymore? Sometimes it's useful to have subcategories under a head word. For example, with anger, we differentiate between annoyance and rage, etc. How is this not the similar?