The difference betweem implicit bias and racism.

Our inherent response mechanisms were programmed long ago; implicit biases are reactionary, volatile, largely under the radar of conscious awareness. They do not imply blanket racism.

Implicit bias is the mind’s way of making uncontrolled and automatic associations between two concepts very quickly. In many forms, implicit bias is a healthy human adaptation — it’s among the mental tools that help you mindlessly navigate your commute each morning.

Implicit bias translates to all sorts of behavioral patterns, from the people you allow your children to hang out with to the partner you marry. Now that implicit bias has made its way on the national stage as a debatable talking point, chances are credible research regarding what causes it and how it operates might suffer.

Implicit bias is just one of many psychological processes that shape how we interact with one another. We also tend to be better at remembering the faces of people in our own racial group, or to subconsciously favor people in our group. The fear of being stereotyped psychologically weighs on people.

Much of the time, these biases and their expression arise as the direct result of a perceived threat. When people feel threatened, they are more likely to draw group boundaries to distinguish themselves from others … White people … express more negative attitudes toward Asian Americans when they perceive an economic threat.

Explicit bias, which serves as a firm foundation for racist attitudes, can be consciously regulated through mindset training. Implicit bias is more nuanced. As mentioned in the Times article, people attending sensitivity programs might believe themselves ‘cured’ and hence continue to act with reprehensible yet unconscious patterns. Two recent examples are Airbnb hosts and Uber drivers refusing to rent to or properly tip people of other ethnicities.

Attempting to wish away unconscious processes is futile. Implicit bias is part of the foundation of racism, but it is not a synonym for it.

https://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/implicit-bias-is-not-racism


I think the word racist or racism may be one of the most overly used, and incorrectly applied word in our language (Ben's recent thread about guns being a prime example). I think it's often used, not as an attempt to accurately describe someone with racists beliefs, but as a thinly veiled ad hominem argument.

I think it's usually used correctly. For example, in my link between racism and gun enthusiasm thread, I cited a Ron Paul newsletter in which he comments on "black crime," talks about training with guns and says "for the animals are coming."

That's clearly referring to black people as animals, saying they threaten white people who must be prepared to shoot them. That's not implicit bias, it's explicit racism.

Ben Reilly wrote:I think it's usually used correctly. For example, in my link between racism and gun enthusiasm thread, I cited a Ron Paul newsletter in which he comments on "black crime," talks about training with guns and says "for the animals are coming."

That's clearly referring to black people as animals, saying they threaten white people who must be prepared to shoot them. That's not implicit bias, it's explicit racism.

So if I cite the view of a blacks lives matter leader, with hate against white people. That to you would prove the link between black lives matter and racism against whites then?

Are you fucking kidding me as this being your evidence?

I can give you plenty of evidence for the former, but the vast majority of black lives matter people are not racist and simple care about blacks not being killed by police.
Do I think there reasoning is wrong thinking the vast majority of blacks shot by the police is down to racism?
Yes and its whipped up by the left wing media, because nobody cares when whites are killed by the Police
I get why bklacks are concerned when other blacks are shot by the Police, but to use your reasoning is what to me incites a further divide with such rank stupidity. Using a quote from someone

Ben Reilly wrote:I think it's usually used correctly. For example, in my link between racism and gun enthusiasm thread, I cited a Ron Paul newsletter in which he comments on "black crime," talks about training with guns and says "for the animals are coming."

That's clearly referring to black people as animals, saying they threaten white people who must be prepared to shoot them. That's not implicit bias, it's explicit racism.

In a Ron Paul letter, the animals could be government workers.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I think it's usually used correctly. For example, in my link between racism and gun enthusiasm thread, I cited a Ron Paul newsletter in which he comments on "black crime," talks about training with guns and says "for the animals are coming."

That's clearly referring to black people as animals, saying they threaten white people who must be prepared to shoot them. That's not implicit bias, it's explicit racism.

In a Ron Paul letter, the animals could be government workers.

Please don't bullshit a professional bullshitter. That "animals" reference was in an article about so-called black crime, not about government workers.

Maddog wrote:

“I think the word racist or racism may be one of the most overly used, and incorrectly applied word in our language”

I agree. Also the word “bullying” and “offended”.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

In a Ron Paul letter, the animals could be government workers.

Please don't bullshit a professional bullshitter. That "animals" reference was in an article about so-called black crime, not about government workers.

How odd, are you actually omitting to being a bullshitter here ben?

There is no black crime, there is crime and how people are dran to this dependent on where they live

I imagine if Ron Paul had of lived in Chicago, he would have called this italian crime in the 1930's

Do you think that would have been racist to say Ben?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

In a Ron Paul letter, the animals could be government workers.

Please don't bullshit a professional bullshitter. That "animals" reference was in an article about so-called black crime, not about government workers.

I would have to see the letter.

But if it's your contention that some gun owners are racist, I'll agree with you.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/

It appears that Lew Rockwell has made racist comments. That's about all that can be derived from these newsletters.

eddie wrote:Maddog wrote:

“I think the word racist or racism may be one of the most overly used, and incorrectly applied word in our language”

I agree. Also the word “bullying” and “offended”.

The word racist implies something horrific about someone. It's a serious allegation that has been so overused that's getting no more than an eyeroll in reaction in many instances.

It's like Aesops fable and the boy who cried wolf.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:Maddog wrote:

“I think the word racist or racism may be one of the most overly used, and incorrectly applied word in our language”

I agree. Also the word “bullying” and “offended”.

The word racist implies something horrific about someone. It's a serious allegation that has been so overused that's getting no more than an eyeroll in reaction in many instances.

It's like Aesops fable and the boy who cried wolf.  

I totally agree. It’s overused and lost its flavour.

+1

I'd have to see examples of people misusing the term "racist." I think most people probably use it correctly, but some people have chosen to shine the spotlight on a few idiots who have misused it, because it suits their agenda.

What would this agenda be, Ben? you might ask. Well, I'll tell you.

The agenda is to get people to think that most accusations of racism are silly. Because they, the agenda setters, want racism to make a big comeback. So they pick a few idiots claiming racism and it serves the deeper agenda -- to divide people against one another.

Because the real cause is to divide, because as the Romans realized, division is conquest. Keep people from uniting against the powerful, and we are successfully conquered.

I wish I could green myself for that comment, actually.

Ben Reilly wrote:I'd have to see examples of people misusing the term "racist." I think most people probably use it correctly, but some people have chosen to shine the spotlight on a few idiots who have misused it, because it suits their agenda.

What would this agenda be, Ben? you might ask. Well, I'll tell you.

The agenda is to get people to think that most accusations of racism are silly. Because they, the agenda setters, want racism to make a big comeback. So they pick a few idiots claiming racism and it serves the deeper agenda -- to divide people against one another.

Because the real cause is to divide, because as the Romans realized, division is conquest. Keep people from uniting against the powerful, and we are successfully conquered.

Well that has to go down as the most wokest stupidity I have ever seen

Just about the majority of people condemn racism

What people are npow waking up to is identity greivance studies that actually hold racist concepts about white people themselves

Like "white fragility" by Robin DiAngelo

You think people questioning this is people trying to deny racism, when such a concept is racist itself?

How did your country garner independence?

Did they in the main unite behind a cause?

Sorry, but you are just about the dumbest most clueless idiot I have come across and then you post afterwards how clever you think you are?

ha ha ha ha

So do you not think Angela has misused what racism is?

Thanks, Didge, I take you calling me woke as a complement.

Ben Reilly wrote:Thanks, Didge, I take you calling me woke as a complement.

You are welcome buddy. I am always here to explain your pointless drivel to people

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Thanks, Didge, I take you calling me woke as a complement.

You are welcome buddy. I am always here to explain your pointless drivel to people

Sorry, I meant compliment. "Complement" would seem to mean that you give me something, which you most certainly do not.

I let you out of the basement tonight, even though eddie thought you should stay there longer. I should have listened to her.

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

You are welcome buddy. I am always here to explain your pointless drivel to people

Sorry, I meant compliment. "Complement" would seem to mean that you give me something, which you most certainly do not.

I let you out of the basement tonight, even though eddie thought you should stay there longer. I should have listened to her.

You can do what you like. Its your forum, but by you silencing me for my views, says more about you than it does about me

Like I say in real life you would not say boo to a goose, which was the point I was making the other night

If you want to silence me and place me in the basement. Do so, as all it does it shows you really have no control, but believe you have control over others. That is the power trip mindset you truely have

Ben Reilly wrote:I'd have to see examples of people misusing the term "racist." I think most people probably use it correctly, but some people have chosen to shine the spotlight on a few idiots who have misused it, because it suits their agenda.

What would this agenda be, Ben? you might ask. Well, I'll tell you.

The agenda is to get people to think that most accusations of racism are silly. Because they, the agenda setters, want racism to make a big comeback. So they pick a few idiots claiming racism and it serves the deeper agenda -- to divide people against one another.

Because the real cause is to divide, because as the Romans realized, division is conquest. Keep people from uniting against the powerful, and we are successfully conquered.

Great post, I'll give you the green you deserve

People complaining about the use of words is ludicrous, when we have the problems of climate change, resource shortages, pollution of our seas and economic inequality that we should be actually worrying about.

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I'd have to see examples of people misusing the term "racist." I think most people probably use it correctly, but some people have chosen to shine the spotlight on a few idiots who have misused it, because it suits their agenda.

What would this agenda be, Ben? you might ask. Well, I'll tell you.

The agenda is to get people to think that most accusations of racism are silly. Because they, the agenda setters, want racism to make a big comeback. So they pick a few idiots claiming racism and it serves the deeper agenda -- to divide people against one another.

Because the real cause is to divide, because as the Romans realized, division is conquest. Keep people from uniting against the powerful, and we are successfully conquered.

Great post, I'll give you the green you deserve

People complaining about the use of words is ludicrous, when we have the problems of climate change, resource shortages, pollution of our seas and economic inequality that we should be actually worrying about.

We should worry about all those things.
But we should also worry about speech.

I can’t really say anymore than that.

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I'd have to see examples of people misusing the term "racist." I think most people probably use it correctly, but some people have chosen to shine the spotlight on a few idiots who have misused it, because it suits their agenda.

What would this agenda be, Ben? you might ask. Well, I'll tell you.

The agenda is to get people to think that most accusations of racism are silly. Because they, the agenda setters, want racism to make a big comeback. So they pick a few idiots claiming racism and it serves the deeper agenda -- to divide people against one another.

Because the real cause is to divide, because as the Romans realized, division is conquest. Keep people from uniting against the powerful, and we are successfully conquered.

Great post, I'll give you the green you deserve

People complaining about the use of words is ludicrous, when we have the problems of climate change, resource shortages, pollution of our seas and economic inequality that we should be actually worrying about.

I would have thought starvation, finding cures for deadly illnesses and the end of slavery and inequality would be the first thoughts on anyone Liberal minded indivdual. As they are the most pressing and helping educate people by doing so to the concerns of climate change

In reality with climate change and even some Vegans I have debated recently. They talk the good talk but never want to make sacrifices themselves. As the best lifestyle for this planet and worked for thousands of years in human history was a hunter gatherer lifestyle. Hence no urbanization, no pollutions. No destroying of econsystems with farming. I can make many more points on this, but what are humans willing to sacrifice to save the planet?

Hardly anything, because they have become conditioned to a system, where they all want and need of.

phildidge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I'd have to see examples of people misusing the term "racist." I think most people probably use it correctly, but some people have chosen to shine the spotlight on a few idiots who have misused it, because it suits their agenda.

What would this agenda be, Ben? you might ask. Well, I'll tell you.

The agenda is to get people to think that most accusations of racism are silly. Because they, the agenda setters, want racism to make a big comeback. So they pick a few idiots claiming racism and it serves the deeper agenda -- to divide people against one another.

Because the real cause is to divide, because as the Romans realized, division is conquest. Keep people from uniting against the powerful, and we are successfully conquered.

Great post, I'll give you the green you deserve

People complaining about the use of words is ludicrous, when we have the problems of climate change, resource shortages, pollution of our seas and economic inequality that we should be actually worrying about.

I would have thought starvation, finding cures for deadly illnesses and the end of slavery and inequality would be the first thoughts on anyone Liberal minded indivdual. As they are the most pressing and helping educate people by doing so to the concerns of climate change

In reality with climate change and even some Vegans I have debated recently. They talk the good talk but never want to make sacrifices themselves. As the best lifestyle for this planet and worked for thousands of years in human history was a hunter gatherer lifestyle. Hence no urbanization, no pollutions. No destroying of econsystems with farming. I can make many more points on this, but what are humans willing to sacrifice to save the planet?

Hardly anything, because they have become conditioned to a system, where they all want and need of.

My list wasn't exhaustive didge, just a few examples

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I'd have to see examples of people misusing the term "racist." I think most people probably use it correctly, but some people have chosen to shine the spotlight on a few idiots who have misused it, because it suits their agenda.

What would this agenda be, Ben? you might ask. Well, I'll tell you.

The agenda is to get people to think that most accusations of racism are silly. Because they, the agenda setters, want racism to make a big comeback. So they pick a few idiots claiming racism and it serves the deeper agenda -- to divide people against one another.

Because the real cause is to divide, because as the Romans realized, division is conquest. Keep people from uniting against the powerful, and we are successfully conquered.

Great post, I'll give you the green you deserve

People complaining about the use of words is ludicrous, when we have the problems of climate change, resource shortages, pollution of our seas and economic inequality that we should be actually worrying about.

We should worry about all those things.
But we should also worry about speech.

I can’t really say anymore than that.

Complaining about what people say seems way more prevalent on many forums and facebook feeds than concerns about climate change, poverty and pollution. The distortion makes one seem greater than, or at least equal to the others, which it isn't. Free speech is not under attack in the UK.

Free speech is under attack everywhere, it’s why you watch what you say Les, always.

I may disagree with Eilzel on economic politics, but at least he sees past the bullshit of the cancel culture mob. Everything now today is based upon feelings, espcially in Universities. I mean how are we preparing future generations by mollycoddling them?

This is where Unoiversities get everything wrong. As Ben would say, free speech is an inalienable human right. Yet more and more from those of identity polictics advocates. Wish to deny people the very basic human right we should have. The ability to express our opinions. Even if we disagree with them. It is what it means to be secular

eddie wrote:Free speech is under attack everywhere, it’s why you watch what you say Les, always.

As we've been through endlessly here, not wanting to state someone (for example) looks awful or fat in a dress, is not an example of free speech being under attack. It is an example of not wanting to be needlessly mean without good cause, and far from being an example of free speech being under attack today, I'd call situations like that a historically accepted cultural norm.

I don't hold my opinions back, I'm just not going to say something nasty that contributes to nothing (like calling all immigrants cockroaches, or saying God hates Fags). Opinions and ideas are free to be spoken in the UK, they aren't forbidden or under attack.

Try living in Thailand or any other oppressive nation and you'll understand what lacking free speech actually looks like.

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:Free speech is under attack everywhere, it’s why you watch what you say Les, always.

As we've been through endlessly here, not wanting to state someone (for example) looks awful or fat in a dress, is not an example of free speech being under attack. It is an example of not wanting to be needlessly mean without good cause, and far from being an example of free speech being under attack today, I'd call situations like that a historically accepted cultural norm.

I don't hold my opinions back, I'm just not going to say something nasty that contributes to nothing (like calling all immigrants cockroaches, or saying God hates Fags). Opinions and ideas are free to be spoken in the UK, they aren't forbidden or under attack.

Try living in Thailand or any other oppressive nation and you'll understand what lacking free speech actually looks like.

But its never being honest in how you may feel of which I have never understood. I was brought  up to be as open and as front as possible.
How do we judge nastiness, when the intent is from a position of attemtping to do good? When we see someone wear something and thing they will be mocked. Is lying the best policiy here to them?

Or being open and honest that some people will mock them for this?

Are you being nasty to me with the view to give up smoking and what it does to my lungs?

Why do we refrain from saying being overweight is bad for someones health, for the very same reasons, as we are too afirad of hurting their feelings? ( No not making a view on any poster)

Opinions are being under attack though Eilxel and that is why a new group has formed an LGB group, because their vocies were not being heard. What matters is drawing a line between hate and reasonable criticism. Which the later is often and mistakenly taken as hate speech

I will always be honest with my friends if I do not like something. Its never based from a position of natiness but a position of care I hold for them. So if a dress does not suit them to me. What is the point in lying here? If people take offense from this, its because they fail to take criticism rationally

In early October, I received the following text from a friend: “I’m gonna be a sexy witch for Halloween?? And I was like??? Is this very unethical????”

She had reached out to me because my 11-times-great-grandmother was hanged for witchcraft in the Salem witch trials of 1692, and I’ve been studying witch hunts for years. I focus mostly on Salem, but I’ve also studied the great witch hunts of Europe and I track witch hunts happening today. Modern witch hunts are rampant: In the last 30 years, an estimated 30,000 people have been killed in witch hunts on every continent except Antarctica. That divides out to 1,000 people per year, or two to three people per day, and that’s a conservative estimate.

https://www.thenation.com/article/witch-costume-halloween/

I mean seriously. This is what winds me up, that there is such idiots out there like this.
That halloween and dressing at witches triggers people from mutiple generations from the past?

For fuck sake

phildidge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:Free speech is under attack everywhere, it’s why you watch what you say Les, always.

As we've been through endlessly here, not wanting to state someone (for example) looks awful or fat in a dress, is not an example of free speech being under attack. It is an example of not wanting to be needlessly mean without good cause, and far from being an example of free speech being under attack today, I'd call situations like that a historically accepted cultural norm.

I don't hold my opinions back, I'm just not going to say something nasty that contributes to nothing (like calling all immigrants cockroaches, or saying God hates Fags). Opinions and ideas are free to be spoken in the UK, they aren't forbidden or under attack.

Try living in Thailand or any other oppressive nation and you'll understand what lacking free speech actually looks like.

But its never being honest in how you may feel of which I have never understood. I was brought  up to be as open and as front as possible.
How do we judge nastiness, when the intent is from a position of attemtping to do good? When we see someone wear something and thing they will be mocked. Is lying the best policiy here to them?

Or being open and honest that some people will mock them for this?

Are you being nasty to me with the view to give up smoking and what it does to my lungs?

Why do we refrain from saying being overweight is bad for someones health, for the very same reasons, as we are too afirad of hurting their feelings? ( No not making a view on any poster)

Opinions are being under attack though Eilxel and that is why a new group has formed an LGB group, because their vocies were not being heard. What matters is drawing a line between hate and reasonable criticism. Which the later is often and mistakenly taken as hate speech

I will always be honest with my friends if I do not like something. Its never based from a position of natiness but a position of care I hold for them. So if a dress does not suit them to me. What is the point in lying here? If people take offense from this, its because they fail to take criticism rationally

I think you are taking this to the extreme. If it looked SO bad they'd be mocked then firstly, I expect they'd figure it for themselves; and second, I would say something since it would be stating the obvious.

Opinions being under attack is not the same as free speech being under attack. Opinions SHOULD be attacked, though not in the 'you can't say that' sense, but in the usual arena of civil discourse and argument. You should attack someone just for having an opinion, but challenging (or 'attacking') that opinion is fine so long as you give reasoning, and they should too.

The bizarre situation we have today is that by saying 'that is a racist thing to say' is apparently interpreted (by snowflakes) as an attack on free speech. It isn't. If I say that (which I rarely do) you'd better believe I have a good reason to say and will happily explain it.

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:

But its never being honest in how you may feel of which I have never understood. I was brought  up to be as open and as front as possible.
How do we judge nastiness, when the intent is from a position of attemtping to do good? When we see someone wear something and thing they will be mocked. Is lying the best policiy here to them?

Or being open and honest that some people will mock them for this?

Are you being nasty to me with the view to give up smoking and what it does to my lungs?

Why do we refrain from saying being overweight is bad for someones health, for the very same reasons, as we are too afirad of hurting their feelings? ( No not making a view on any poster)

Opinions are being under attack though Eilxel and that is why a new group has formed an LGB group, because their vocies were not being heard. What matters is drawing a line between hate and reasonable criticism. Which the later is often and mistakenly taken as hate speech

I will always be honest with my friends if I do not like something. Its never based from a position of natiness but a position of care I hold for them. So if a dress does not suit them to me. What is the point in lying here? If people take offense from this, its because they fail to take criticism rationally

I think you are taking this to the extreme. If it looked SO bad they'd be mocked then firstly, I expect they'd figure it for themselves; and second, I would say something since it would be stating the obvious.

Opinions being under attack is not the same as free speech being under attack. Opinions SHOULD be attacked, though not in the 'you can't say that' sense, but in the usual arena of civil discourse and argument. You should attack someone just for having an opinion, but challenging (or 'attacking') that opinion is fine so long as you give reasoning, and they should too.

The bizarre situation we have today is that by saying 'that is a racist thing to say' is apparently interpreted (by snowflakes) as an attack on free speech. It isn't. If I say that (which I rarely do) you'd better believe I have a good reason to say and will happily explain it.  

How is being honest taking things to the extreme?
I was raised to be as up front as possible to anything and to never fear what I believe in based upon the fears of others.
Maybe that is the Old catholic coming out of me, but to be tactful has benefits. THough to me is not being truely honest
I will never be afraid to tell someone that something does not suit them in my opinion.
As why ask my opinion?
To do so means me being truthful to them

Yoiu are differnt to many other people. Now females today cannot be allowed to show concern over female protected speaces without being attacked by basically biological men in dresses. Telling them what a female is. Can you not see the insanity in this?

Free speech is a wonderful thing. I don’t know what people are afraid of.

Ben Reilly wrote:I'd have to see examples of people misusing the term "racist." I think most people probably use it correctly, but some people have chosen to shine the spotlight on a few idiots who have misused it, because it suits their agenda.

What would this agenda be, Ben? you might ask. Well, I'll tell you.

The agenda is to get people to think that most accusations of racism are silly. Because they, the agenda setters, want racism to make a big comeback. So they pick a few idiots claiming racism and it serves the deeper agenda -- to divide people against one another.

Because the real cause is to divide, because as the Romans realized, division is conquest. Keep people from uniting against the powerful, and we are successfully conquered.

First of all, you would need to define the word racism.

"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

Then realize that many comments and feelings about race are down to bias, not thinking that one race is superior to another.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I'd have to see examples of people misusing the term "racist." I think most people probably use it correctly, but some people have chosen to shine the spotlight on a few idiots who have misused it, because it suits their agenda.

What would this agenda be, Ben? you might ask. Well, I'll tell you.

The agenda is to get people to think that most accusations of racism are silly. Because they, the agenda setters, want racism to make a big comeback. So they pick a few idiots claiming racism and it serves the deeper agenda -- to divide people against one another.

Because the real cause is to divide, because as the Romans realized, division is conquest. Keep people from uniting against the powerful, and we are successfully conquered.

First of all, you would need to define the word racism.

"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

Then realize that many comments and feelings about race are down to bias, not thinking that one race is superior to another.  

So if I were, for example, say "Jews are tight with their money," to you that wouldn't be racist, but biased?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

First of all, you would need to define the word racism.

"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

Then realize that many comments and feelings about race are down to bias, not thinking that one race is superior to another.  

So if I were, for example, say "Jews are tight with their money," to you that wouldn't be racist, but biased?

Correct, and it's not to me. It's based on the definitions of bias and racism. We don't get to make up our own definitions to attack others with ad hominems.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

First of all, you would need to define the word racism.

"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

Then realize that many comments and feelings about race are down to bias, not thinking that one race is superior to another.  

So if I were, for example, say "Jews are tight with their money," to you that wouldn't be racist, but biased?

Correct, and it's not to me. It's based on the definitions of bias and racism. We don't get to make up our own definitions to attack others with ad hominems.

   

Don't you think most people would consider that a racist statement, though? Is this really an argument about semantics; are people really that passionate about correctly using the word "racism" as it's defined in the dictionary?

Because it seems to me that a lot of the disdain toward the way people use the term "racism" comes from people who wish it was still acceptable to use racial slurs in polite company.

You are both wrong. The age old troupe around Jews and money is antisemitic. Which is based on a combined hate and bias against Jews. Leading to discrimination, persecution, violence and murder. Which originates from Christian times. When Christians could not be money lenders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_antisemitism

Remember antisemitism has many various forms, of which racism falls into the category of just one form. Racial antisemitism. Sometimes they are combined with other antisemitic categories, but all form based off one aspect. A hatred and bias agaisnt Jews. That is why antisemitism is so unique and different than any other form of racism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Correct, and it's not to me. It's based on the definitions of bias and racism. We don't get to make up our own definitions to attack others with ad hominems.

   

Don't you think most people would consider that a racist statement, though? Is this really an argument about semantics; are people really that passionate about correctly using the word "racism" as it's defined in the dictionary?

Because it seems to me that a lot of the disdain toward the way people use the term "racism" comes from people who wish it was still acceptable to use racial slurs in polite company.

I don't really make decisions based on popularity. I try to accurately define cases of bias and racism. Not go along to get along.