The Oxford English Dictionary sees itself as a 'book of record', showing how a word has been or is used. It isn't a rule book of English.
It is a fact that if any two populations have been selected to be 'equal' in one characteristic it is unlikely that they will be 'equal' when compared in another characteristic. For example ten members of Group A have the same average intelligence as ten members of Group B. Would we expect the average age and heights to be the same? The more characteristics we compare the bigger the differences we will observe. Note also that if, say, Group A is taller on average than Group B it is perfectly possible for the tallest person to be in Group B and the shortest in Group A.
Racism as a word becomes meaningless when one hears someone object to a phrase like "French people come from France", a statement of the obvious in saner times and completely neutral in terms of ethnicity or birthplace.
Yes, it has become a catchphrase which is just bandied around at random. I doubt that many of those who use the word ever stop to ask themselves what they actually mean by it!
I've followed you now for a couple of years on Youtube. Generally I agree with and appreciate your views. It is encouraging that someone else has similar views and is eloquent enough to put them out there, so to speak. Please keep up the good work and thanks once again, also for the follow.
The use of the word racism is completely out of control. In America and elsewhere. If you try to talk about it or seek a solution, then next word used is racist. If you try to describe the issues, the next words are hate speech.
If you can't talk about a problem, how do you fix it?
Multiple studies have shown that, generally speaking, people prefer to associate and mate with others with whom they feel affinities of race, culture, religion etc.
Is universal preference racism ? Only when white people do it, because leftist ideology says so.
Multiple studies have shown that generally, humans prefer to associate and mate with others with whom they share ethnic affinities.
This is discrimination, but is it ‘racism’ ? Blacks and Asians flock together in their respective areas thanks to this universal motivation. That’s fine, indeed it is encouraged by left-leaning people. It’s only ‘racism’ when whites do it, because leftist ideology says it is.
Simon says "The importance of defining a word, before we use it in a conversation" (and so did François-Marie Arouet, 1694–1778, a.k.a.'Voltaire').
But, it seems that both are in the wrong, in a practical sense, because if one can not convince the other of one's own definition (regardles of reason or 'proof', ie. a dictionary), what remains is how to treat one another.
This is a topic that I am awaiting to find in those who are viewed (by the establishment, and a part of the public) as 'far-right' (ie. 'racists'), and how they will treat 'the real far-right'. — Will they too demonise/stigmatise them?...
... which brings another topic: How democracy's freedom of Speech is made (in public): When one stigmatises the other, that one will be silent (Ref. eg. 'grooming-gangs'), or angry (the "left-wingers" do not understand this?, despite they know how they themselves would react/feel if accused of moral wrong-doing?, no empathy?).
And, it (F.o.S) is not finally decided by principles, but culture, which has become two, because both 'sides' are drifting apart.
Regarding Simon's "speak or write objectively about such an emotionally charged subject as racism".
"objectively"?, from an european's ("western world") perspective, or a human-nature one? — Simon gives the answer: "dislike of, and contempt for, foreigners [eg. "English and Irish"] has been around for the whole of recorded history".
(John Cleese says that Terry Jones do not understand that 'The welsh is put on Earth to serve the English'.)
So, it is about time that (west) europeans too take their place along-side all other peoples on Earth, which will not happen until they have managed to lay aside their (guilt of?) racist history.
After all, race/ethnicity is only one of many many sociological denominators, which may or may not make a difference (good or bad: Is choosing For someone an act of 'discrimination' of an other?), on group level and the individual, depending on the situation, and the person (humans make exceptions; Ref. how Daryl Davis, b. 1958 was treated by Roger Kelly).
rationality and racism are often the same. For example, Jess Jackson reported feeling relief when walking down the street and on turning saw that the person behind was white.
You speak truly!
Thank you!
The Oxford English Dictionary sees itself as a 'book of record', showing how a word has been or is used. It isn't a rule book of English.
It is a fact that if any two populations have been selected to be 'equal' in one characteristic it is unlikely that they will be 'equal' when compared in another characteristic. For example ten members of Group A have the same average intelligence as ten members of Group B. Would we expect the average age and heights to be the same? The more characteristics we compare the bigger the differences we will observe. Note also that if, say, Group A is taller on average than Group B it is perfectly possible for the tallest person to be in Group B and the shortest in Group A.
Racism as a word becomes meaningless when one hears someone object to a phrase like "French people come from France", a statement of the obvious in saner times and completely neutral in terms of ethnicity or birthplace.
Yes, it has become a catchphrase which is just bandied around at random. I doubt that many of those who use the word ever stop to ask themselves what they actually mean by it!
Hi Simon,
I've followed you now for a couple of years on Youtube. Generally I agree with and appreciate your views. It is encouraging that someone else has similar views and is eloquent enough to put them out there, so to speak. Please keep up the good work and thanks once again, also for the follow.
Thanks for your good opinion. It's nice to see that some of those who watch my YouTube stuff are also keen to read longer pieces which I write.
Could not have put it better myself. Well done Simon
Based on the last definition of the word Racism, I could possibly be a racist. For I do desire England to be primarily for the native inhabitants.
Quite right too!
The use of the word racism is completely out of control. In America and elsewhere. If you try to talk about it or seek a solution, then next word used is racist. If you try to describe the issues, the next words are hate speech.
If you can't talk about a problem, how do you fix it?
This is very true.
Multiple studies have shown that, generally speaking, people prefer to associate and mate with others with whom they feel affinities of race, culture, religion etc.
Is universal preference racism ? Only when white people do it, because leftist ideology says so.
Yes, everybody does it, but only white people are wicked for behaving in this way!
Multiple studies have shown that generally, humans prefer to associate and mate with others with whom they share ethnic affinities.
This is discrimination, but is it ‘racism’ ? Blacks and Asians flock together in their respective areas thanks to this universal motivation. That’s fine, indeed it is encouraged by left-leaning people. It’s only ‘racism’ when whites do it, because leftist ideology says it is.
Simon says "The importance of defining a word, before we use it in a conversation" (and so did François-Marie Arouet, 1694–1778, a.k.a.'Voltaire').
But, it seems that both are in the wrong, in a practical sense, because if one can not convince the other of one's own definition (regardles of reason or 'proof', ie. a dictionary), what remains is how to treat one another.
This is a topic that I am awaiting to find in those who are viewed (by the establishment, and a part of the public) as 'far-right' (ie. 'racists'), and how they will treat 'the real far-right'. — Will they too demonise/stigmatise them?...
... which brings another topic: How democracy's freedom of Speech is made (in public): When one stigmatises the other, that one will be silent (Ref. eg. 'grooming-gangs'), or angry (the "left-wingers" do not understand this?, despite they know how they themselves would react/feel if accused of moral wrong-doing?, no empathy?).
And, it (F.o.S) is not finally decided by principles, but culture, which has become two, because both 'sides' are drifting apart.
Regarding Simon's "speak or write objectively about such an emotionally charged subject as racism".
"objectively"?, from an european's ("western world") perspective, or a human-nature one? — Simon gives the answer: "dislike of, and contempt for, foreigners [eg. "English and Irish"] has been around for the whole of recorded history".
(John Cleese says that Terry Jones do not understand that 'The welsh is put on Earth to serve the English'.)
So, it is about time that (west) europeans too take their place along-side all other peoples on Earth, which will not happen until they have managed to lay aside their (guilt of?) racist history.
After all, race/ethnicity is only one of many many sociological denominators, which may or may not make a difference (good or bad: Is choosing For someone an act of 'discrimination' of an other?), on group level and the individual, depending on the situation, and the person (humans make exceptions; Ref. how Daryl Davis, b. 1958 was treated by Roger Kelly).
rationality and racism are often the same. For example, Jess Jackson reported feeling relief when walking down the street and on turning saw that the person behind was white.
I'm sure we all know the feeling!