Telika: However, racism, in a broad sense, is a specific form of discrimination. And racism isn't a thing-that-goes-way-beyond-discrimination.
Atlantico: In a broad sense your hand is your leg.
Racism is the catalyst for violence like lynching, for slavery, not for whether you get a cab or not. If you equate racism with discrimination, you're so off base it's like you've never seen racism in action or met any actual racists. They exist.
Violence, like lynching a black man in S-USA is not discrimination, but rather the inhuman violence restricted only for things outside our own species (check out a chicken farm sometime). Because the racists simply don't see people different from them as real humans.Because they are fucking racists.
Racism obviously calls for discrimination, just as water tends to make one wet, but we don't consider drowning "getting wet, in a broad sense".
No, you are wrong here. Firstly because you assume effects specific to racialism, while other discriminating rhetorics can have the same effects. War propagandas, for instance, are not always based on genetic arguments, but still feature enough deshumanizing arguments to justify satisfaction or indifference to the fate of national "others". Street beatings or institutional violence can still be targetted at human groups that are defined by other differentialisms than genome. Many countries have classes of citizen (or non-citizens) defined by non-racialist categorisations. Ethnic cleansings can be based on language, religion, assumed ideology, all sorts of labels having just in common "these people, they are all the same" or "these people they will/must never be part of us".
And then your second fallacy is to assume a different nature for different levels of practical discrimination (various degrees of social exclusions, and symbolic/physical violence), ignoring how they are based on a similar worldview (differentialism, essentialism, determinism), actualized differently in different circumstances. When there is somewhere a shared representation of inferiority of a given group, when this background belief is present, historical circumatances alone determine how it will be expressed. The difference of degree is not a difference of nature, and the real issue is the underlying belief that enable them: the social representations that define and radicalize this "otherness", and that holds the potential of practical discrimination however it is being implemented by different individuals or in different historical circumstances.
And then you are even wrong when thinking there is a clear cut difference of belief between racialist views and czlturalist views. Antisemitism, for instance, is nowadays both and neither. Antisemits often claim to know that judaism is not a race, yet it doesn't affect their discourses (on the attributes of "jews"). Culturalists can act "it is no race" while still effectively describing a "race" through the mechanical determinism and the homogeneity of their understanding of "culture" (in other words, they switch to the 'cultural' narrative while importing all the contents of 'racial' narratives and not grasping one bit how 'culture' is different from 'race'). And just like cultural discrimination has often racialist components (even by another name), racialist discourses themselves are never purely racialist, as the race construct itself is stretched to blatantly social categories by circumstances (the 'tutsi' category included people that its own racialist logic would normally exclude, such as lukewarm people, people who rejected this differentialism, people who were judged close to 'tutsis', etc).
You imagine a clear cut difference of content (and rationalizations) between racialist and culturalist or nation-based forms of racism, and you shift the issue of racism to some behavioural threshold. You should be more curious about the history of racisms, its mechanisms, and its evolutions, instead of taking at non-analytical face value all that is related to it.
Atlantico: In a broad sense your hand is your leg.
By the way, if you
still have issues with that, try to think of terms that are used differently (more narrowly or more broadly) in different contexts of relevance. One exemple being "animal", which is mostly used as opposed as "human", but, academically, includes humans.
This polysemy allows for fallacies like : "Hey, don't treat people like that, that's how we treat animals" "- People ARE animals, i don't understand what you mean." Try to pinpoint the element of bad faith in that selective reference to one decontextualized meaning of the word.
