Pogo
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2012
- 123,708
- 22,748
so you say it's ok to treat people differently because of their race?
keep in mind in this scenario YOU don't get to define the difference, just said it's ok.
Nope -- YOU just said that. I made no value judgment; simply defined a definition. That's a neutral.
In fact we all treat others differently on account of their race, age, gender, social position, even ethnicity and religion. Do you speak the same way to a child as you do to your boss? Do you speak the same way to someone learning English as you do to your brother?
That's not "ÖK" or "not OK", it's simply how social structrue works. Again -- a neutral
not gonna buy into your singular use of the term. sorry. while i agree that's a lot of the definition, treating people with hate or antagonism due to their "race" is in fact racism.
Now you're moving your own goalpsost, retroactively introducing "hate and antagonism". Again, inserting value judgments where there were none.
now - when people criticized obama and his policies how come THEY were racist when they never claimed racial superiority?
They weren't. Not on that basis. I see you've expanded from Moving Goalposts to Strawman. Multitasking.
could it be someone is "bending" the term to fit their own agenda?
Sure looks that way.