DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**SallyIsNice5** · 10-16-2009, 07:16 PM

But why did you put the list of beliefs in the racialist category and even told me that in parlance I would be called racist?

I thought things like different responses to medication or adaptations of races to climate where evidence-based?

Are you having some serious problems reading English?

a) I said that you would be a racialist if we were being careful about terminology. In COMMON PARLANCE you would be a racist, because the distinction between racism and racialism is rarely acknowledged.

b) I have no idea why you're complaining about some aspects of racial differences being strongly evidence based. I gave an example of this myself to demonstrate that there was a continuum of beliefs about the inherent properties of different races, ranging from the self-evident "I believe black people are better at not getting sunburn than white people" to the obviously controversial "I believe that white people tend to be less violent and more intelligent than black people as a result of genetic differences" and beyond. My point is that the line between racialism and simple knowledge is somewhat fuzzy, but can be defined at least broadly. You said that certain beliefs about biological differences that are based on evidence would be considered simply evidence based belief not racialism. Or to rephrase it almost everyone would be considered racialist to a degree if he acknowledges these facts. And you also said the distinction between racism and racialism is rarley made and that racialists are most often branded racist.

So is it not logical from this that simply stating a fact can cause someone to call you a racist? And is it not true that being percieved a racist often comes with unpleasant consequences?

Yes the distinction is fuzzy, but what if you get called a racist simply because many people are scientifically iliterate and don't know that what you are stating isn't contraversial among experts at all? (example: What would have people said if you went around saying even a decade or so ago that your race is relevant to your treatment?) Shouldn't we strive for a society where saying 2+2=4 (to borrow from Orwell) dosen't cause you to loose social status?

10-16-2009, 07:16 PM	#21
SallyIsNice5 Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 553 Senior Member	But why did you put the list of beliefs in the racialist category and even told me that in parlance I would be called racist? I thought things like different responses to medication or adaptations of races to climate where evidence-based? Are you having some serious problems reading English? a) I said that you would be a racialist if we were being careful about terminology. In COMMON PARLANCE you would be a racist, because the distinction between racism and racialism is rarely acknowledged. b) I have no idea why you're complaining about some aspects of racial differences being strongly evidence based. I gave an example of this myself to demonstrate that there was a continuum of beliefs about the inherent properties of different races, ranging from the self-evident "I believe black people are better at not getting sunburn than white people" to the obviously controversial "I believe that white people tend to be less violent and more intelligent than black people as a result of genetic differences" and beyond. My point is that the line between racialism and simple knowledge is somewhat fuzzy, but can be defined at least broadly. You said that certain beliefs about biological differences that are based on evidence would be considered simply evidence based belief not racialism. Or to rephrase it almost everyone would be considered racialist to a degree if he acknowledges these facts. And you also said the distinction between racism and racialism is rarley made and that racialists are most often branded racist. So is it not logical from this that simply stating a fact can cause someone to call you a racist? And is it not true that being percieved a racist often comes with unpleasant consequences? Yes the distinction is fuzzy, but what if you get called a racist simply because many people are scientifically iliterate and don't know that what you are stating isn't contraversial among experts at all? (example: What would have people said if you went around saying even a decade or so ago that your race is relevant to your treatment?) Shouldn't we strive for a society where saying 2+2=4 (to borrow from Orwell) dosen't cause you to loose social status?
	Quote