Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or you could take five minutes to read up on cultural racism.

Questioning certain true aspects of a religion that is incompatible with the western world is not racism or cultural racism or any new term coined to deflect rational and real arguments that need addressing. Otherwise I could claim again that America and Europe are cultural racist for pressuring Christian churches to wed homosexual couples. so why is the teachings of Islam off limits but other religions fair game? if a large percentage of people belonging to a certain religion support stoning, is it racist to question it? sorry culturally racist to question it? especially if they want to bring that practice to the western world as well?

Whose lumping a whole society of people together and been racist towards them? nobody here from what Ive seen. what you're doing is lumping questioning a religions ideology or practices with been racist to a people. not quite the same thing im afraid. I could say for example "I find the bibles views on killing none believers or whatever highly questionable and deplorable" then you would come in and say "anyone who says this is lumping everyone together and its racist" questioning a religions book, ideology or practices taken no matter how small or large scale is NOT been racist towards a whole people. Its questioning something they have or follow, not the people themselves. You can't be racist or even "culturally racist" to an ideology, only a people. You are free to question ideologies and religion all you want, its your human right to do so.

Again feel free to say question the bible or Christan practices I certainly wouldn't call you a cultural racist for doing so because it would be stupid.

Cultural racism is not a new term. Deal with it.

And I didn't just blanket call the argument racist, I explained why: the assumption that all Arab culture is a homogenous blob IS racist, because it attributes traits, ideas and values to people not based on who they are, but where they are from. It's the same thing Nuggz accused me of doing earlier in the thread, and he wasn't entirely wrong.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Cultural racism is not a new term. Deal with it.

The term "culture racism" was first used in the beginning of the 1980s.

It is and is most popular mainly in Sweden only. Deal with it please.

Here is a small article: No one is asking the women in Cologne what they feel

In it, a few women have brief quotes about the event. Here are some of them:

"Because refugees are now a burning topic, the media all of a sudden report about these events, but what nobody wants to admit is that these things happen all the time. I'm sorry to break this to you, but German-born men also harass and rape."

Tanja says she had several friends who were at the central station while the attacks took place. "Even they told me that they don't want the debate to become a refugee topic again. This is yet again to talk over our heads, to ignore our reality."

"People are insisting on making this a political story, trying to shift the focus on pro- or anti-refugees. But in fact, no one is listening to what we have to say - the women who have been suffering from this violence in the streets on a daily basis long before refugees even came here," she says.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I explained why: the assumption that all Arab culture is a homogenous blob IS racist, because it attributes traits, ideas and values to people not based on who they are, but where they are from.

So you're now saying that a culture based in any location doesn't have its own culture? that you can't say that Arab nations follow an Arabic culture? what you said is really stupid, sorry it is.

So if I say that an Islamic countries peoples will have ideas and values of Islam and follow Islam, thats cultural racism to you? or saying that the people of Israel will mostly follow Jewish traditions is also racist because it generalised based on location and religion of said location..ok

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Cultural racism is not a new term. Deal with it.

And I didn't just blanket call the argument racist, I explained why: the assumption that all Arab culture is a homogenous blob IS racist, because it attributes traits, ideas and values to people not based on who they are, but where they are from. It's the same thing Nuggz accused me of doing earlier in the thread, and he wasn't entirely wrong.

It is a new term actually. And no I will not "deal with it", I reject it as absurd. The wikipedia article lists hatred and bigotry between rival baseball teams as an example of cultural racism.

A more accurate term would be cultural xenophobia. It is not racism Trying to link it to Racism is ad hominem.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Cultural racism is not a new term. Deal with it.

The term "culture racism" was first used in the beginning of the 1980s.

It is and is most popular mainly in Sweden only. Deal with it please.

30 years old is hardly a novel concept. Also, citation needed. Further, even if it is, so what? Are you honestly going to argue that the country of origin or usage of a certain idea decides that idea's merit? My irony meter might not withstand that.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Here is a small article: No one is asking the women in Cologne what they feel

In it, a few women have brief quotes about the event. Here are some of them:

"Because refugees are now a burning topic, the media all of a sudden report about these events, but what nobody wants to admit is that these things happen all the time. I'm sorry to break this to you, but German-born men also harass and rape."

Tanja says she had several friends who were at the central station while the attacks took place. "Even they told me that they don't want the debate to become a refugee topic again. This is yet again to talk over our heads, to ignore our reality."

"People are insisting on making this a political story, trying to shift the focus on pro- or anti-refugees. But in fact, no one is listening to what we have to say - the women who have been suffering from this violence in the streets on a daily basis long before refugees even came here," she says.

*phew*

I was worried that this thread was never going to shift over to the "All men are evil rapists" angle. I can rest easy now.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
30 years old is hardly a novel concept. Also, citation needed. Further, even if it is, so what? Are you honestly going to argue that the country of origin or usage of a certain idea decides that idea's merit? My irony meter might not withstand that.

In terms of English language defination 30 years is nothing to claim cultural racism is some real ingrained thing and its original land of been coined up is the UK, its just really popular now in Sweden because it lets people call other people racists and get around that whole questioning a religion isn't about race card and thats not me saying its a big thing mainly in Swedish circles thats what the definition of cultural racism told me when searched for online Its not even really accepted:

“Cultural racism” is not yet a standard label in the race and racism literature, especially in the United States. It is virtually absent in the anthropological literature

My irony meter isn't even needing using here just the fact that your argument against anyone elses debate on the religion is to call them new wave racists and be done with it. No counter points made or discussing anything brought up just you talk about a religion as a whole and not literally case by case you're a racist. Well excuse me for expecting a little more than that, because last I checked a human couldn't be racist to an idea, only actual people.

You shouldn't call people racist for questioning a religion anyway, you'd hate to have racist start to have positive connotations

"Hey guys that part about stoning been cool in your religion. I don't think we should accept that in the west ok. Now most stuff is cool but I also don't think we should practice the parts about killing homosexuals either, if you don't practice that its cool but we should all agree to disagree with those that preach its cool yeah?" < cultural racist.

If people agree with your cultural racists you're going to start seeing all those racists in positive lights now aren't you. Lets keep the terminology for racist for actual racists. Christianity went through a reformation no reason Islam can't its not racist to modernize some of its ideologies that are harmful and still practiced in certain places in the world.

This isn't racism either, men from those places admit there is a cultural clash and law/women issues with general immigrants/refugees that can be addressed/changed.

When he first arrived in Europe, Abdu Osman Kelifa, a Muslim asylum seeker from the Horn of Africa, was shocked to see women in skimpy clothes drinking alcohol and kissing in public. Back home, he said, only prostitutes do that, and in locally made movies couples “only hug but never kiss.”

Confused, Mr. Kelifa volunteered to take part in a pioneering and, in some quarters, controversial program that seeks to prevent sexual and other violence by helping male immigrants from societies that are largely segregated or in which women show neither flesh nor public affection to adapt to more open European societies.

^ Cultural racist hes generalizing a culture and people instead of saying that nobody ever all follow one type of thinking when its part of your culture but is up for change. Such a racist.

That mans words are the whole issue wrapped up in a bow and as you can see its got nothing to do with racism its everything to do with cultural differences and changes but look how many people make this about racism to counter simple cultural issues been addressed. "Racist!" is the counter and its not even needed people should be able to talk about this, even people from those cultures talk openly about it. What is a clear cut cultural clash issue has been made into a racial one thanks to overly PC individuals been unable to even look at other cultures without feeling guilty.

Deleted. I can't be bothered to argue this gak.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Cultural racism is not a new term. Deal with it.

And I didn't just blanket call the argument racist, I explained why: the assumption that all Arab culture is a homogenous blob IS racist, because it attributes traits, ideas and values to people not based on who they are, but where they are from. It's the same thing Nuggz accused me of doing earlier in the thread, and he wasn't entirely wrong.

Jesus, it's always the Swedes.

How does the assumption that Arab culture is homogenous (it both is and isn't, but that's more because there are various sects of Islam than anything else) make people assign traits, ideas and values based on race? That makes NO SENSE, man. NONE.

It's like saying that because I say I disagree with fruits that I assume vegetables are thieves. Your argument is nonsensical.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Here is a small article: No one is asking the women in Cologne what they feel

In it, a few women have brief quotes about the event. Here are some of them:

"Because refugees are now a burning topic, the media all of a sudden report about these events, but what nobody wants to admit is that these things happen all the time. I'm sorry to break this to you, but German-born men also harass and rape."

Tanja says she had several friends who were at the central station while the attacks took place. "Even they told me that they don't want the debate to become a refugee topic again. This is yet again to talk over our heads, to ignore our reality."

"People are insisting on making this a political story, trying to shift the focus on pro- or anti-refugees. But in fact, no one is listening to what we have to say - the women who have been suffering from this violence in the streets on a daily basis long before refugees even came here," she says.

Are those quotes from victims or randoms on the street?

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Here is a small article: No one is asking the women in Cologne what they feel

In it, a few women have brief quotes about the event. Here are some of them:

"Because refugees are now a burning topic, the media all of a sudden report about these events, but what nobody wants to admit is that these things happen all the time. I'm sorry to break this to you, but German-born men also harass and rape."

Tanja says she had several friends who were at the central station while the attacks took place. "Even they told me that they don't want the debate to become a refugee topic again. This is yet again to talk over our heads, to ignore our reality."

"People are insisting on making this a political story, trying to shift the focus on pro- or anti-refugees. But in fact, no one is listening to what we have to say - the women who have been suffering from this violence in the streets on a daily basis long before refugees even came here," she says.

None of those quotes are from victims. I wonder if their opinions would change if they were targeted and victimized by a perp whose culture told him it was okay to do so.

Maybe not. But the quoted folks have no more valid opinion than the rest of us discussing it here. They are not privy to additional information.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Here is a small article: No one is asking the women in Cologne what they feel

In it, a few women have brief quotes about the event. Here are some of them:

"Because refugees are now a burning topic, the media all of a sudden report about these events, but what nobody wants to admit is that these things happen all the time. I'm sorry to break this to you, but German-born men also harass and rape."

Tanja says she had several friends who were at the central station while the attacks took place. "Even they told me that they don't want the debate to become a refugee topic again. This is yet again to talk over our heads, to ignore our reality."

"People are insisting on making this a political story, trying to shift the focus on pro- or anti-refugees. But in fact, no one is listening to what we have to say - the women who have been suffering from this violence in the streets on a daily basis long before refugees even came here," she says.

Are those quotes from victims or randoms on the street?

No, from an activist of a feminist group.

None of those quotes are from victims. I wonder if their opinions would change if they were targeted and victimized by a perp whose culture told him it was okay to do so.

Maybe not. But the quoted folks have no more valid opinion than the rest of us discussing it here. They are not privy to additional information.

Thats the issue NOT religion. By the very nature of cultures, you have immigrants coming in with different cultural norms. Layer on that the vast majority of troublemakers are males, and that you and have an environment where large groups of males are cut loose from their underlying society (having emigrated to a completely different trouble) and you develop a problem that needs to be addressed.

And it can be done without being "racist." Classes and programs on what society is in the home country, and thorough policing. Also as noted, this is not just an immigrant issue, but a society issue in every society.

 CptJake wrote:

None of those quotes are from victims. I wonder if their opinions would change if they were targeted and victimized by a perp whose culture told him it was okay to do so.

Maybe not. But the quoted folks have no more valid opinion than the rest of us discussing it here. They are not privy to additional information.

not to mention the rich title "No one asks what the women think" when really they have just picked women who share the sites views on the subject. When clearly we have seen a lot of women in protests in recent days over what happened asking for talks on immigration and lack of assimilation, clearly not thinking the same as these random women they asked. Saying no one asked the women what they think and then not even asking any of the women present or attacked is really disingenuous and funny considering the quotes they cherrypicked talk of people using it to further their agenda and yet the entire piece if that.

"Because refugees are now a burning topic, the media all of a sudden report about these events, but what nobody wants to admit is that these things happen all the time. I'm sorry to break this to you, but German-born men also harass and rape."

Yes so that mean that it can never be a large group of foreign men from a different culture assaulting women then, because similar things happen...great argument. It doesn't even negate anything about this case.

One man described how his partner and 15-year-old daughter were surrounded by a crowd outside the station and he was unable to help. "The attackers grabbed her and my partner's breasts and groped them between their legs."

A British woman visiting Cologne said fireworks had been thrown at her group by men who spoke neither German nor English. "They were trying to hug us, kiss us. One man stole my friend's bag," she told the BBC.

"Another tried to get us into his 'private taxi'. I've been in scary and even life-threatening situations and I've never experienced anything like that."

Interesting that instead of just addressing this issue that this is because a large influx of young men from a different culture came to Germany and have not assimilated, that those picked quotes instead try to make it seem like its just always been this way and because German men also grope it means that it can never ever be down to a different cultural clash. Thats like saying because there was terrorists in the world that wasn't about religion that no suicide bombing could ever be about religion in any situation.

 Frazzled wrote:
you have immigrants coming in with different cultural norms. Layer on that the vast majority of troublemakers are males, and that you and have an environment where large groups of males are cut loose from their underlying society (having emigrated to a completely different trouble) and you develop a problem that needs to be addressed.

If Germany accepted this reality they could sort a lot of the problems faster but everyone's still dancing around the completely irrelevant topic of racism. They're dancing around something that doesn't even need mentioning.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
People need to learn what race is.

That's good advice.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
So they don't pull the racism card for a religion.

Ok, I think perhaps before you start an argument about semantics, you need take your own advice and look up the definition of race, and maybe read a little about the etymology, and then maybe read about equivocation.

In recent times the word "race" has been used mostly to talk about "ethnicity" because that's a big talking point these days, but words are often polysemic, for example It can also pertain to competitions: "an egg and spoon race". In the past it was used more often to talk about nationality "the French race". That might sound peculiar to you, but it's a legitimate usage of the word. In its broadest sense, a race is a group of people (or things) with a common feature. It could be their religion, politics, disability, ancestry, upbringing, traditions, age, occupation, or even gender. While people like to make up more specific "isms" for many of those (sexism, chauvinism, classism, ageism etc... not to mention racism in its contracted meaning), they can all be squarely covered by "racism".

 Smacks wrote:
In its broadest sense, a race is a group of people with a common feature. It could be their religion, politics, disability, ancestry, upbringing, traditions, age, occupation, or even gender.

and you'd be wrong. I'm sorry but sex isn't race, age isn't race, occupation isn't a race. you can say it but it won't make it true I can make up a term right now to fit any argument I want thanks to language but it wouldn't make my argument work. Anyone who questions or argues against my conclusions is a racist they're meist as in anyone who is against me is racist I am a race now anyone who shares my opinion belongs to my race. See its silly isn't it. I did try to find "age racism" and "sex racism" and even "occupation racism" because you know dock workers are a race too couldn't actually find anything though....

what you're doing and I go onto explain is called Equivocation.
A common word play fallacy.

Not to mention racism still has nothing to do with the cultural assimilation topic at hand people are just making it about racism to quell anyone saying anything they disagree with which brings me back to the point I just made.

 Smacks wrote:
(sexism, chauvinism, classism, ageism etc... not to mention racism in its contracted meaning), they can all be squarely covered by "racism".

Sexism is not racism! for Gods sake stop your argument is stupid really really stupid. You're just making up rules for words now. No matter what you say sexism will not be blanket covered by the term racism because they share ism at the end. Stop your false association tactic.

 Smacks wrote:
but words are often polysemic, for example It can also pertain to competitions: "an egg and spoon race".

You might have a point if you're saying racism can also mean a type of fruit. what your doing is trying to claim racism can mean any number of things and be racism but thats false. I could say gravity means racism but its meaning wouldn't be the same, same as "race" people and "race" competition are not the same because they share the same word, the meaning of the word is different you're claiming racism can mean anything and keep the same meaning. Please stop. If we're at the level where we can make up anything we want to mean anything we want to fit our argument then this is going to turn into a mush of an argument at child like levels of changing the rules so you can win and I will take no part in child like levels of debate.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
and you'd be wrong. I'm sorry but sex isn't race,

Except I'm not wrong. Here is the definition, straight from the dictionary: "a group or set of people or things with a common feature or features." and the example given is sex: "some male firefighters still regarded women as a race apart"

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
what your doing is trying to claim racism can mean any number of things and be racism but thats false.

You were the one who said discriminating against religion isn't racism. What I'm doing is pointing out that you are demonstrably wrong.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
I could say gravity means racism but its meaning wouldn't be the same, same as "race" people and "race" competition are not the same because they share the same word, the meaning of the word is different you're claiming racism can mean anything and keep the same meaning. Please stop. If we're at the level where we can make up anything we want to mean anything we want to fit our argument then this is going to turn into a mush of an argument at child like levels of changing the rules so you can win and I will take no part in child like levels of debate.

You say you will take no part in it, but you were the one who started it. You were the one who made up the rule that race only pertains to "ethnicity" to fit your argument, and you were wrong. Stop making gak up, and I'll stop correcting you.

I agree with you that people shouldn't just pull the racism card out of their ass to try and win arguments by appealing to outrage, but that's actually beside the point.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


A more accurate term would be cultural xenophobia. It is not racism Trying to link it to Racism is ad hominem.

It's only ad hominem if it's attacking a person, rather than the argument. You're going to have to try awfully hard to find anywhere in this thread where I've called anyone a racist. Regardless, I don't care what you call the concept, the point is that painting Arabs as a culturally homogenous group is disingenious, just as painting all Christians as one homogenous group is stupid, or all Irish, or all Peruvians, or all...

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
30 years old is hardly a novel concept. Also, citation needed. Further, even if it is, so what? Are you honestly going to argue that the country of origin or usage of a certain idea decides that idea's merit? My irony meter might not withstand that.

In terms of English language defination 30 years is nothing to claim cultural racism is some real ingrained thing and its original land of been coined up is the UK, its just really popular now in Sweden because it lets people call other people racists and get around that whole questioning a religion isn't about race card and thats not me saying its a big thing mainly in Swedish circles thats what the definition of cultural racism told me when searched for online Its not even really accepted:

“Cultural racism” is not yet a standard label in the race and racism literature, especially in the United States. It is virtually absent in the anthropological literature

My irony meter isn't even needing using here just the fact that your argument against anyone elses debate on the religion is to call them new wave racists and be done with it. No counter points made or discussing anything brought up just you talk about a religion as a whole and not literally case by case you're a racist. Well excuse me for expecting a little more than that, because last I checked a human couldn't be racist to an idea, only actual people.

Firstly, source on the quote? Secondly, I've been rather explicit with pointing out that I'm not calling any person racist, I'm calling arguments racist (or "culturally xenophobic" or whatever you want to call it). You're stereotyping both German and "Arab" culture.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

You shouldn't call people racist for questioning a religion anyway, you'd hate to have racist start to have positive connotations

Stop putting words in my mouth. I haven't called anyone racist in this thread so far.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:


"Hey guys that part about stoning been cool in your religion. I don't think we should accept that in the west ok. Now most stuff is cool but I also don't think we should practice the parts about killing homosexuals either, if you don't practice that its cool but we should all agree to disagree with those that preach its cool yeah?" < cultural racist.

I'm starting to think that you need to work on your reading comprehension. I argued against treating large groups of people as a homogenous culture, not against specific criticism. Assuming that all Arabs or Muslims are totally behind stoning people to death is cultural racism/cultural xenophobia/whatever, arguing against the practise is not.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:


This isn't racism either, men from those places admit there is a cultural clash and law/women issues with general immigrants/refugees that can be addressed/changed.

When he first arrived in Europe, Abdu Osman Kelifa, a Muslim asylum seeker from the Horn of Africa, was shocked to see women in skimpy clothes drinking alcohol and kissing in public. Back home, he said, only prostitutes do that, and in locally made movies couples “only hug but never kiss.”

Confused, Mr. Kelifa volunteered to take part in a pioneering and, in some quarters, controversial program that seeks to prevent sexual and other violence by helping male immigrants from societies that are largely segregated or in which women show neither flesh nor public affection to adapt to more open European societies.

^ Cultural racist hes generalizing a culture and people instead of saying that nobody ever all follow one type of thinking when its part of your culture but is up for change. Such a racist.

You really need to work on providing sources for your quotes, otherwise this is going to be impossible. I read that article, so I know where the quote is from, but really, poor form.

Again, though, there's totally an argument for that being cultural racism, but that does not make the person making it a racist. I'll emphasize this as much as I can: Making a racist argument does not make one a racist.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:


That mans words are the whole issue wrapped up in a bow and as you can see its got nothing to do with racism its everything to do with cultural differences and changes but look how many people make this about racism to counter simple cultural issues been addressed. "Racist!" is the counter and its not even needed people should be able to talk about this, even people from those cultures talk openly about it. What is a clear cut cultural clash issue has been made into a racial one thanks to overly PC individuals been unable to even look at other cultures without feeling guilty.

We just had a page where multiple people argued that this sort of behaviour is "inherent" in "islam" or "Arabic culture". That's not "talking about it", that's lazily sitting back in one's couch and tut-tut-ing over how barbaric those savages are. If you don't want to be called on making a cultural racist/cultural xenophobic/potato argument, stop trying to argue that this kind of behaviour is "inherent" to people because they are of a certain culture or ethnicity.

 nullBolt wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Cultural racism is not a new term. Deal with it.

And I didn't just blanket call the argument racist, I explained why: the assumption that all Arab culture is a homogenous blob IS racist, because it attributes traits, ideas and values to people not based on who they are, but where they are from. It's the same thing Nuggz accused me of doing earlier in the thread, and he wasn't entirely wrong.

Jesus, it's always the Swedes.

I'm rather tempted to be rude, but I'll just thank you for proving my point.

 nullBolt wrote:
How does the assumption that Arab culture is homogenous (it both is and isn't, but that's more because there are various sects of Islam than anything else) make people assign traits, ideas and values based on race? That makes NO SENSE, man. NONE.

Good thing that's not what I'm doing. Refer to above points. For what it's worth (and I doubt anyone's going to care, but whatever) cultural racism doesn't have the "racism" part because it's about groups of people but rather because it's an evolution of the "classical", biological racism, using similar beliefs in the immutability of races/cultures and the "inherent" traits of peoples/cultures.

 Frazzled wrote:

None of those quotes are from victims. I wonder if their opinions would change if they were targeted and victimized by a perp whose culture told him it was okay to do so.

Maybe not. But the quoted folks have no more valid opinion than the rest of us discussing it here. They are not privy to additional information.

Thats the issue NOT religion. By the very nature of cultures, you have immigrants coming in with different cultural norms. Layer on that the vast majority of troublemakers are males, and that you and have an environment where large groups of males are cut loose from their underlying society (having emigrated to a completely different trouble) and you develop a problem that needs to be addressed.

And it can be done without being "racist." Classes and programs on what society is in the home country, and thorough policing. Also as noted, this is not just an immigrant issue, but a society issue in every society.

Man, this is bad, I'm agreeing with Frazzled 100 %. Then again, we're both dog lovers.

You know who else loved dogs though?!

@Smacks

No what you're doing is called an equivocation fallacy a common word association fallacy used to win arguments with false connections. You can keep saying you're right that you proved me wrong but you're still wrong. It won't make what you say true.

 Smacks wrote:
You were the one who said discriminating against religion isn't racism. What I'm doing is pointing out that you are demonstrably wrong.

Discrimination alone is not racism, its what you discriminate against that makes certain discrimination racism. A religion is not a race, therefor discriminating against or questioning a religion is not racism. Thats why people can discriminate against Christians of any colour and not be racists. Instead of trying to tac on racism to discrimination thats not about race perhaps use an actual term for people been discriminatory against a people of a certain religious background its called Religious intolerance/intolerant, instead of hilariously trying to make it new racism when it doesn't fit. Square peg for round hole indeed. you see thats where your occupation racism came in, discrimination against a people who share an occupation instead of refering to it simply as discrimination you tried to tac on race-ism to make it feel more negative you see, word connotation

Your whole argument hinges on a fallacy thats already shown as false, you can't argue it further using flawed foundations. Maybe when you can argue that saying that certain aspects of other cultures/practices do not mix with western lifestyles ei treatment of women in skirts or openly kissing in public and might need to be educated for assimilation into those cultures is racism without resorting to word fallacies we can talk.

I mean occupation racism, thanks for the laugh though.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
A religion is not a race.

That is a rule that only exists in your head. Back in the real world, people who share a religion can unequivocally fall under the purview of "race". It might sound awkward to you, but that is irrelevant.

I mean occupation racism, thanks for the laugh though.

Again you seem to be confused between what sounds right to you, and what is actually the case.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
A religion is not a race.

That is a rule that only exists in your head.

my god.....incredible. Did you get your education at clown college per chance

Merriam-Webster wrote:

3 race
noun
Definition of race

1
: a breeding stock of animals

2
a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics

3
a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : breed c : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits

4
obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition

5
: distinctive flavor, taste, or strength

Emphasis mine.

Link here.

I also like that you're poking fun at someone who's right while completely failing at providing sources for your claims, using shoddy punctuation, and failing to realize that emoticons aren't substitutes for punctuation.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
my god.....incredible. Did you get your education at clown college per chance

I take it that since you are resorting to childish insults, you have run out of arguments.

Where I got my education makes no difference, since you don't need to take my word for it. Go look in the dictionary, it is right there in black and white.

EDIT:

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
I enjoy this quote from the comments which reflect I think general societies views as well but not yours

Most of us have learned the difference between race and religion by the time we were in middle school

General society's views, might be termed "common usage". Race is commonly used to refer to ethnicity (in recent times), which appears to be why you aren't able to understand how it can have any other meaning, even though it definitely does.

In your quote it is clear for the context that the writer is using the word "race" to talk about ethnicity/ancestry, and distinguishing that from religion. Which is fair enough, religion and ancestry are distinct things. But trying to build an argument around that is you equivocating again, because you are pretending there is no other meaning. I could also find a quote about an "egg and spoon race", and using your same argument, try to say that a race can't ever be a group of people because it is only a competition "see, look how this PHD guy used the word". But that would clearly be an asinine argument, which is easily disproved by looking in a dictionary, ergo: your argument is asinine and easily disproved by looking in a dictionary.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On my phone, so no long rant, but treating "Arab" culture or "Islamic" culture as if it's a homogenous blob is actually racist*, since it attributes certain values to people based solely on their geographical origin.

*Note that there's a difference between an argument being racist and the person making it being racist. It's quite possible to make racist arguments without being a racist (hell, I'm guilty of it myself), but that does not change that the argument is rubbish.

Neither arab nor islamic are geographical terms. Arab is an ethnical term, it refers to a people sharing a common language, culture and self-identification (and yes, I am aware that there are significant regional differences between Arabs, but that is true for most peoples, languages and cultures). Islamic is a religious term referring to any of the many diverse religions originating from the writings of the Prophet Muhammad. Neither is bound to geography. Treating them as if they are homogenous blobs is technically wrong, but it is extremely common not only with arabs and islam, but also with all other groups such as christians, russians, americans, homosexuals etc. That is the problem of groups and subgroups being made up of individuals. That is just the way people think. People automatically divide everything in groups. If that is racist, than everything is racist. Not that "racism" still means anything nowadays... It has been thrown around so much and used to refer to so many completely different, distinct things that it has become wooden language.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On my phone, so no long rant, but treating "Arab" culture or "Islamic" culture as if it's a homogenous blob is actually racist*, since it attributes certain values to people based solely on their geographical origin.

*Note that there's a difference between an argument being racist and the person making it being racist. It's quite possible to make racist arguments without being a racist (hell, I'm guilty of it myself), but that does not change that the argument is rubbish.

Neither arab nor islamic are geographical terms. Arab is an ethnical term, it refers to a people sharing a common language, culture and self-identification (and yes, I am aware that there are significant regional differences between Arabs, but that is true for most peoples, languages and cultures). Islamic is a religious term referring to any of the many diverse religions originating from the writings of the Prophet Muhammad. Neither is bound to geography. Treating them as if they are homogenous blobs is technically wrong, but it is extremely common not only with arabs and islam, but also with all other groups such as christians, russians, americans, homosexuals etc. That is the problem of groups and subgroups being made up of individuals. That is just the way people think. People automatically divide everything in groups. If that is racist, than everything is racist. Not that "racism" still means anything nowadays... It has been thrown around so much and used to refer to so many completely different, distinct things that it has become wooden language.

You're right, I should've written "the culture of Arab countries" as opposed to just "Arab", and ditto for "Islamic". The point still stands though, making assumptions of homogenity in heterogeneous societies (i.e. pretty much everywhere) is silly at best, and dangerous at worst.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

I also like that you're poking fun at someone who's right while completely failing at providing sources for your claims, using shoddy punctuation, and failing to realize that emoticons aren't substitutes for punctuation.

I spot two ad hominem and no they're not right and just saying they're right from your opinion doesn't make it so. The definition of race is broad as we've mentioned before that still doesn't make questioning a religion racism because you still can be racist against, sex, occupation, religion or any other word thats under the term race. Racism is exclusively discrimination based on the biological definition of race not the others thats why someone who hates sports especially the racing ones are not racists.

As Ive said nobody in the real world associates racism with every term that comes under race doing that is more a Equivocation logical fallacy and is not regarded as factual reality.

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

Basically you've taken racism a term which has always had the connotation of discrimination based on biological race and applied it to every word under the dictionary of Race, many of which already have their own terms based on discrimination. Which is still regardless how many times you or he says it is not accurate and is a false argument and been a fallacy it distracts from the actual argument so you can seem like you have won the debate when in reality you have had no strong argument on the actual topic. Atleast what Ive presented is in logical realms of reality, takes into account interviews of actual immigrants and also takes into account cultural differences and education. all you have done is try to fallacy your way around the terminology and presented no argument against whats been said other than redefining racism so you can call peoples arguments on the topic racist so you can void whats been said. you have failed to make your own argument so you have used a fallacy to negate someone elses actual argument on the topic.

Poor show both of you. Im going to talk to people who can discuss their points about the actual subject without resorting to a page of logic fallacies literally attempting to redefine racism in lieu of making actual points. Literally you have gone a whole page arguing your rights to call people racists to void their arguments rather than debating and presenting your own argument.

but please ignore all of that and talk about emoticons some more at least I presented my on topic argument. Feel free to read it, its on those two pages, it talks about the differences in culture been the main points of all the issues currently faced in Germany and how racism is been used when its not necessary or even relevant to the topic, which is ironically where you two came in.
I'd look for both of your actual thoughts on the topic but I couldn't find them just lots of fallacies and calling other people wrong, great arguments really, if you can't make legit ones that is.

I'll end with this, this guy thinks you're wrong:
Todd Essig, Ph.D., is a Training and Supervising Psychoanalyst at the William Alanson White Institute and Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at New York Medical College.

I'm more inclined to agree with him and the general public and most places of education and the law on this matter than two people on a forum.

Have fun.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

The definition of race is broad as we've mentioned before that still doesn't make questioning a religion racism

WHICH IS NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING. Look, I've said it multiple times, I don't care if you call it cultural racism, cultural xenophobia, or what have you, the point I'm trying to make (which Iron_Captain for one seems to have been able to understand without any effort whatsoever) is that there isn't ever going to be a constructive discussion about the subject as long as people keep assuming that all Arabs have the same cultural values.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

Point.

Now, can you please stop pretending that I'm attacking people for being critical of islam?

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

I spot two ad hominem

It's only an ad hominem fallacy if it's irrelevant to the discussion. You attacked Smacks with an ad hominem, I'm pointing out the delicious irony. I'm not attacking you personally to deflect from any other argument, I'm attacking you personally because you're being a hypocrite, which IS about what you are doing personally.

Complaining about logical fallacies when I've repeatedly asked you to stop putting words in my mouth also isn't going to win you any points for consistency.

 Smacks wrote:

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
A religion is not a race.

That is a rule that only exists in your head. Back in the real world, people who share a religion can unequivocally fall under the purview of "race". It might sound awkward to you, but that is irrelevant.

Wait what? Please recheck your statement.

Religion is thought. Any person of any genetic makeup can be in a religion.
"Racial" characteristics are based on genes.