Is being prejudiced against racists, the same as being prejudiced against a race?

[Gary Childress]

So, one argument I have heard from the right directed against leftists, specifically from Michael Millerman, is that the left are against the radical right because the current left doesn't truly support "free speech". It won't let someone say racial slurs in a classroom for example. Is stating racial slurs a form of "free speech"? Should we allow people to state racial slurs in professional or social settings such as schools, media, etc? If the left does that, will Millerman then feel able to say that the left is for "free speech?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVpZgLmGRrg

[MikeNovack]

Start with Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) and follow with Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), Texas v. Johnson (1989) , and
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)

In other words, when is/isn't protected "free speech" (but instead might even be "assault") figured in four Supreme Court cases all within 50 years.

[Phil8659]

Exactly what is race?

That is like saying which came first the chicken or the egg. Now that question stumps a lot of dim wits, An egg, or chicken egg, is a chicken in a particular stage of development.

The question then becomes, which is younger, the egg or the chicken.

So, is man different from himself? If you claim that mankind can be differentiated by race, what do you mean, because there is no standard definition.

When you talk about racist, you are speaking about a particular sociopathic affliction.

As a mind is responsible for the behavior of the body within which it resides, you can only possibly object to a person's behavior, not the fact that they are a person.
Nobody can cure your reading comprehension problems but yourself.

Man has only one definition A man is responsible for their own behavior, by biological fact.

[accelafine]

Wokies are the biggest 'racists' of all, which is why every second word the morons utter is 'racist'. They are OBSESSED with skin tone. The wankers refuse to even define the word (because then they would be forced to use it correctly and hence lose its magical powers ).

[Gary Childress]

Exactly what is race?

That is like saying which came first the chicken or the egg. Now that question stumps a lot of dim wits, An egg, or chicken egg, is a chicken in a particular stage of development.

The question then becomes, which is younger, the egg or the chicken.

So, is man different from himself? If you claim that mankind can be differentiated by race, what do you mean, because there is no standard definition.

When you talk about racist, you are speaking about a particular sociopathic affliction.

As a mind is responsible for the behavior of the body within which it resides, you can only possibly object to a person's behavior, not the fact that they are a person.
Nobody can cure your reading comprehension problems but yourself.

Man has only one definition A man is responsible for their own behavior, by biological fact.

Scientifically human beings are all one species with no "subspeciation". That does not stop some people obsessing over groups with different genetic attributes having more or less than their group or being numerically greater or lesser than their group. Kudos to you for knowing that. Some people actually believe in human subspeciation.

[accelafine]

Exactly what is race?

That is like saying which came first the chicken or the egg. Now that question stumps a lot of dim wits, An egg, or chicken egg, is a chicken in a particular stage of development.

The question then becomes, which is younger, the egg or the chicken.

So, is man different from himself? If you claim that mankind can be differentiated by race, what do you mean, because there is no standard definition.

When you talk about racist, you are speaking about a particular sociopathic affliction.

As a mind is responsible for the behavior of the body within which it resides, you can only possibly object to a person's behavior, not the fact that they are a person.
Nobody can cure your reading comprehension problems but yourself.

Man has only one definition A man is responsible for their own behavior, by biological fact.

Scientifically human beings are all one species with no "subspeciation". That does not stop some people obsessing over groups with different genetic attributes having more or less than their group or being numerically greater or lesser than their group. Kudos to you for knowing that. Some people actually believe in human subspeciation.

We are also all basically nonexistent at the quantum level. So what? At THIS level we 'appear' to be solid objects. At THIS level we prefer to live around people who have the same culture and values as we do. So what?

[Gary Childress]

Exactly what is race?

That is like saying which came first the chicken or the egg. Now that question stumps a lot of dim wits, An egg, or chicken egg, is a chicken in a particular stage of development.

The question then becomes, which is younger, the egg or the chicken.

So, is man different from himself? If you claim that mankind can be differentiated by race, what do you mean, because there is no standard definition.

When you talk about racist, you are speaking about a particular sociopathic affliction.

As a mind is responsible for the behavior of the body within which it resides, you can only possibly object to a person's behavior, not the fact that they are a person.
Nobody can cure your reading comprehension problems but yourself.

Man has only one definition A man is responsible for their own behavior, by biological fact.

Scientifically human beings are all one species with no "subspeciation". That does not stop some people obsessing over groups with different genetic attributes having more or less than their group or being numerically greater or lesser than their group. Kudos to you for knowing that. Some people actually believe in human subspeciation.

We are also all basically nonexistent at the quantum level. So what? At THIS level we 'appear' to be solid objects. At THIS level we prefer to live around people who have the same culture and values as we do. So what?

Unless I'm mistaken, culture and values are acquired environmentally, not genetically. Race is genetic, culture and values are not.

[accelafine]

Scientifically human beings are all one species with no "subspeciation". That does not stop some people obsessing over groups with different genetic attributes having more or less than their group or being numerically greater or lesser than their group. Kudos to you for knowing that. Some people actually believe in human subspeciation.

We are also all basically nonexistent at the quantum level. So what? At THIS level we 'appear' to be solid objects. At THIS level we prefer to live around people who have the same culture and values as we do. So what?

Unless I'm mistaken, culture and values are acquired environmentally, not genetically. Race is genetic, culture and values are not.

Tell that to wokies. I don't care.

[MikeNovack]

Unless I'm mistaken, culture and values are acquired environmentally, not genetically. Race is genetic, culture and values are not.

Well........ close but no cigar? "Race" is supposedly based on some genetic difference. By which I mean, those deemed to be of a different race are supposed to be because of genetics. So race is actually a SOCIAL classification. The genetic difference may be real or may be unreal (as long as believed real).

Thus in US cultural history, the category "white" socially defined. You don't have to go too far back to find Jews, Italians, etc. not in the club.

[Gary Childress]

Unless I'm mistaken, culture and values are acquired environmentally, not genetically. Race is genetic, culture and values are not.

Well........ close but no cigar? "Race" is supposedly based on some genetic difference. By which I mean, those deemed to be of a different race are supposed to be because of genetics. So race is actually a SOCIAL classification. The genetic difference may be real or may be unreal (as long as believed real).

Thus in US cultural history, the category "white" socially defined. You don't have to go too far back to find Jews, Italians, etc. not in the club.

Fair enough. There are genetic differences in human beings but there is no subspeciation. Judaism is a religion and Italian is a cultural or national identity. They are not "races" even in a pseudo technical sense.

[Impenitent]

Unless I'm mistaken, culture and values are acquired environmentally, not genetically. Race is genetic, culture and values are not.

Well........ close but no cigar? "Race" is supposedly based on some genetic difference. By which I mean, those deemed to be of a different race are supposed to be because of genetics. So race is actually a SOCIAL classification. The genetic difference may be real or may be unreal (as long as believed real).

Thus in US cultural history, the category "white" socially defined. You don't have to go too far back to find Jews, Italians, etc. not in the club.

Fair enough. There are genetic differences in human beings but there is no subspeciation. Judaism is a religion and Italian is a cultural or national identity. They are not "races" even in a pseudo technical sense.

no subspeciation because of genetic differences? you may say there isn't, but in practice there sure as hell is...

Downs syndrome? Autism? where does he fit on the spectrum? or a myriad of other learning "disabilities"?

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

Fair enough. There are genetic differences in human beings but there is no subspeciation. Judaism is a religion and Italian is a cultural or national identity. They are not "races" even in a pseudo technical sense.

The point I am making is that SOCIAL, not based on any actual genetic differences. These were BELIEVED to be "racial" differences.

The scientific reality is that there are no races. There are genetic differences. But what we call "race" today is NOT genetic in the scientific sense. The scientific reality is that genetic variation in a species tends to be greatest where the species originated. So thinking of the "black race", there are more genetic differences WITHIN Africa than between Africans and all humans living elsewhere. The scientific reality is what (say the white race) has that are absent from Africans are genes from the Neanderthals.

[Gary Childress]

Well........ close but no cigar? "Race" is supposedly based on some genetic difference. By which I mean, those deemed to be of a different race are supposed to be because of genetics. So race is actually a SOCIAL classification. The genetic difference may be real or may be unreal (as long as believed real).

Thus in US cultural history, the category "white" socially defined. You don't have to go too far back to find Jews, Italians, etc. not in the club.

Fair enough. There are genetic differences in human beings but there is no subspeciation. Judaism is a religion and Italian is a cultural or national identity. They are not "races" even in a pseudo technical sense.

no subspeciation because of genetic differences? you may say there isn't, but in practice there sure as hell is...

Downs syndrome? Autism? where does he fit on the spectrum? or a myriad of other learning "disabilities"?

-Imp

Practice isn't always in congruence with physical reality. "Subspecies" is a human term of classification, a socially constructed term used for specific purposes of taxonomy. Nature does not always nicely match human concepts, nor does nature obey any kind of rules that say that it has to have a nice orderly and neat taxonomy at all. Taxonomy is a social construction. Social constructions exist nowhere outside of the human mind. They are not rules that nature must follow.

[accelafine]

Fair enough. There are genetic differences in human beings but there is no subspeciation. Judaism is a religion and Italian is a cultural or national identity. They are not "races" even in a pseudo technical sense.

The point I am making is that SOCIAL, not based on any actual genetic differences. These were BELIEVED to be "racial" differences.

The scientific reality is that there are no races. There are genetic differences. But what we call "race" today is NOT genetic in the scientific sense. The scientific reality is that genetic variation in a species tends to be greatest where the species originated. So thinking of the "black race", there are more genetic differences WITHIN Africa than between Africans and all humans living elsewhere. The scientific reality is what (say the white race) has that are absent from Africans are genes from the Neanderthals.

Who said it has to be 'scientific'? 'Race' is simply a word that humans came up with to organise and describe themselves. It's neither 'right' nor 'wrong'. What exactly ARE you saying? That the reason Asian people look different from European/black African/Indian people is 'social construct'?

[accelafine]

So 'race' = 'bad'. Naughty no no. 'Racist' to use it.

'Ethnicity' = 'good'. Acceptable to the wokazis. Proves your are politically sound and socially acceptable.

Phew. That clears up the confusion. You're welcome.