Yes, I'm asking you to repeat it because what you're saying is absolutely insane and completely detached from the rest of the world. You might check the definition other people around you are using, I'll even give you a handy link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
"Today, some scholars of racism prefer to use the concept in the plural racisms, in order to emphasize its many different forms that do not easily fall under a single definition. They also argue that different forms of racism have characterized different historical periods and geographical areas.[24] Garner (2009: p. 11) summarizes different existing definitions of racism and identifies three common elements contained in those definitions of racism. First, a historical, hierarchical power relationship between groups; second, a set of ideas (an ideology) about racial differences; and, third, discriminatory actions (practices).[13]"
This is exactly what the OP is talking about -- they are pointing out that some forms of racism are worse than others, and one thing that makes one form of racism worse than other forms is when there's a power imbalance that historically has resulted in the oppression of one group. Two individuals in a marginalized group getting into a scuff over an issue of race is one kind of racism, yes, but the damage is localized between themselves. One group of people, from a position of power an authority, subjugating and oppressing another group of people over an issue of race is a completely different matter.
Okay. Some scholars also think we should get rid of any and all market restrictions. The wide consensus as understood by literally everyone except those few very special scholars is still different.
You characterized the position of the other poster as "absolutely insane and completely detached from the rest of the world". Yet their view is at least supported by some scholars in academia and I'll also add is the majority viewpoint in my social circles and most of the academics and authors I read.
From my point of view, your point of view is the one that is the minority view. But I recognize it as valid point of view rather than characterizing you as "absolutely insane" and out of touch with "literally everyone except those few very special scholars".
Can you even prove that the view you espouse is the majority view? You've stated this multiple times as a reason for discounting the other poster's (and by extension my own) point of view, but you haven't made any effort to back up your assertion.
Well, I can say for sure that the classical interpretation is the official corriculum in school in germany, finland, france, england, russia , austria, switzerland, poland, slovakia and denmark. Those are all countries I know people in to discuss such matters. Since the whole population of those countries (and probably a lot more) has learned the regular meaning of the word, I'd say they are probably more than some group of scholars who really like their theory.
But you still haven't made a case for "the regular meaning" of racism, such that it makes what the other poster said "absolutely insane". To me, "absolutely insane" is a very extreme thing to say. The absolute insanity I've experienced in the past is on the level of believing your cats are microchipped by the CIA to spy on you. So when you characterize someone as "absolutely insane", and it's shown that there is credible scholarly research that supports their claim, I think you are under a burden to state your case at a higher level than pointing out you have friends in other countries who believe the same as you. You've made an appeal to popularity by pointing to your friends and making a leap to say everyone thinks like you and them. I also have friends in the above countries who do not think the same as you and your friends. Now where does that leave us? Nowhere.
Here's what I'm getting at. There is a difference between what you and I believe, and it doesn't come down to "absolute insanity". We can each make a logical, principled case for our positions. I implore you to open your self up to the other side instead of dismissing it with the vitriol you have exhibited.
I'm from one of those countries and while, on one hand, it seems perfectly logical to argue "racism is racism is racism", I think there's a widespread recognition here that it's not as simple as that. If you consider racism as part of the human condition, something that is exhibited by people regardless of their own race, then you must also realise that its impact is far more significant when the majority exhibits it than when the minority does. In that sense there's, if you like, two 'sides' to racism: 'motive' (or 'intent') and effect. The first may be broadly equal across groups of different sizes, but the latter certainly isn't.
>Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the *superiority* of one race over another.
in your hypothetical about being assaulted by a black woman did you really mean that she believed herself to be of a *superior* race? or did you mean something else?
