by Aslan » Thu Jan 28, 2016 8:35 am
Slow slow
Ok, first of all, why are you taking a correct (I assume it is) biological definition of 'race' regarding genetics, but then assume that you can conclude the legal definition of 'racism' from that point on. This is a highly disputed field of studies.
The legal definition of racism across the western world is based on anthropological arguments and not the distinctions based on research done in laboratories.
Conclusion: I hate to break it for you, but you cant make up definitions on your own. Racism means racial discriminatiom, whereas 'discrimination' should be pretty clear, 'racial' in that context is as stated, very disputed but amongst the pretty common and undisputed aspects, you find skin color, ethnic and national origin (including citizenship), descent of any kind.
Besides: if you werent a racist you would still discriminate. Dont rly rate that post high in terms of intellectual content. Good times back when smart people trolled the dumb ones, but seems like the dumb ones want to copy us now?
Edit: you can call yourself xenophobe if you prefer to, but you are still a racist from a jurisprudential pov (by (most) (inter-)national law).
Last edited by
Aslan on Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.