re: #161 chunkymonkey

That is an entirely useless definition.

Then demonstrate how.

It’s obviously not the one Charles uses. For example, if Newt was to call me a Jungle Bunny, Charles would claim that Newt was racist, which by most people’s thinking would likely be true. By your definition, unless Newt “thinks race exists,” there’s absolutely nothing racist about his comment.

No, the comment is still racist. He’s not, if he doesn’t believe in race, then he’s just a cynical opportunist, using the language of a racist in order to court racists. Which, I think, does describe a few people on the GOP; not racist themselves, but perfectly willing to engage in racist dog-whistling to get votes.

Thank you for allowing me to make that point.

So yeah, I have several problems with your definition.

You gave one, which was facile. Someone can say something racist without being a sincere racist. Racism, as a personal attribute, is believing that race exists. Racism, as a behavior in action, is insulting, demeaning, ostracizing, or penalizing people for being of a certain race. You may not sincerely believe they deserve it, but the behavior is still racism.