It’s not a racial supremacy argument, it’s a genetic trate developed mostly in regions where the consumption of milk was necessary due to the climate before we all got fridges and international trade.
It has absolutely nothing to do with rasism as it is in no way or form connected to race. People in northern India are mostly tolerant while populace from the southern part are not.
Dislike the joke? That’s fine, but get of your high and condesending horse.
Eh… while I think that guy is full of shit, race is an entirely made up concept and discriminating based on any genetic trait is the exact same as racism. Semantical arguments are kinda bad.
It’s just that no one here was discriminating because the joke in the comment and the one in the OP only work by making fun of this kind of discrimination in the first place.
I disagree though. Sure, racism is just a word we made up, as are all words, but words must have fixed a fixed meaning or else they stop making sense or end up inaccurate. For racism, at least according to Miriam-Webster which I hope we can agree is a serious source, the word is defined as to discriminate, oppress, hold prejudice or produce a superior trait in a certain race. Rough snippet as I am on mobile, but feel free to read the definition in more detail.
Nobody with the ability to digest lactose feel superior to those who cannot. Nobody is discriminated against because they cannot digest it.
Nobody really cares.
And because it is in no way bound to a particular race only, it just cannot be racism. Using that word here waters out the definition of it.
I am probably beating a dead horse here, but it has been bothering me for a while that the bar to throw this word at someone is not just low; it’s completely gone, and that is indicative of a serious problem.
Calling someone a racist is supposed to be a serious accusation.
I’m just a random guy arguing with a stranger online. It’s a waste of both my time and his as neither of us will change our minds. I just needed to vent a little and speak up against those who, in my humble opinion, willfully and maliciously sour the debate climate. It’s beyond rude to call someone that without it being true.
I definitely agree with the point you’re making, though I’d just like to add that other dictionaries define racism as including discriminating by ethnicity, which is such a dubiously defined word it could be just about anything, and certainly can apply to your example of different parts of india.
I am also very much influenced by the german definiton of the word, seeing how that’s my native language, which (according to duden) is “Lehre, Theorie, nach der Menschen bzw. Bevölkerungsgruppen mit bestimmten biologischen oder ethnisch-kulturellen Merkmalen anderen von Natur aus über- bzw. unterlegen sein sollen” - translated: “Teaching or Theory according to which people with certain biological or ethnical-cultural traits are supposed to be naturally superior or inferior to others”. This could of course include lactose tolerance (and I’d say if the comment hadn’t been a joke, it’d hit the definition perfectly)
So I guess to a degree it wasjust a translation issue. The whole idea of using race to describe humans is seen as inherently racist here, so any definition of racism using that word feels 80 years outdated to me.
Anyway back to work, cheers for an actual rational discussion, even if I think we’re only really in disagreement over semantics anyway
Right right, it’s not a racial supremacy argument it’s just that some ethnicities and cultures are naturally genetically superior to others (with a heavy correlation to skin tone). /Sarcasm
It’s not a racial supremacy argument, it’s a genetic trate developed mostly in regions where the consumption of milk was necessary due to the climate before we all got fridges and international trade.
It has absolutely nothing to do with rasism as it is in no way or form connected to race. People in northern India are mostly tolerant while populace from the southern part are not.
Dislike the joke? That’s fine, but get of your high and condesending horse.
Eh… while I think that guy is full of shit, race is an entirely made up concept and discriminating based on any genetic trait is the exact same as racism. Semantical arguments are kinda bad.
It’s just that no one here was discriminating because the joke in the comment and the one in the OP only work by making fun of this kind of discrimination in the first place.
Appreciate the well written response.
I disagree though. Sure, racism is just a word we made up, as are all words, but words must have fixed a fixed meaning or else they stop making sense or end up inaccurate. For racism, at least according to Miriam-Webster which I hope we can agree is a serious source, the word is defined as to discriminate, oppress, hold prejudice or produce a superior trait in a certain race. Rough snippet as I am on mobile, but feel free to read the definition in more detail.
Nobody with the ability to digest lactose feel superior to those who cannot. Nobody is discriminated against because they cannot digest it.
Nobody really cares.
And because it is in no way bound to a particular race only, it just cannot be racism. Using that word here waters out the definition of it.
I am probably beating a dead horse here, but it has been bothering me for a while that the bar to throw this word at someone is not just low; it’s completely gone, and that is indicative of a serious problem.
Calling someone a racist is supposed to be a serious accusation.
I’m just a random guy arguing with a stranger online. It’s a waste of both my time and his as neither of us will change our minds. I just needed to vent a little and speak up against those who, in my humble opinion, willfully and maliciously sour the debate climate. It’s beyond rude to call someone that without it being true.
Thanks for reading and have a great day.
I definitely agree with the point you’re making, though I’d just like to add that other dictionaries define racism as including discriminating by ethnicity, which is such a dubiously defined word it could be just about anything, and certainly can apply to your example of different parts of india.
I am also very much influenced by the german definiton of the word, seeing how that’s my native language, which (according to duden) is “Lehre, Theorie, nach der Menschen bzw. Bevölkerungsgruppen mit bestimmten biologischen oder ethnisch-kulturellen Merkmalen anderen von Natur aus über- bzw. unterlegen sein sollen” - translated: “Teaching or Theory according to which people with certain biological or ethnical-cultural traits are supposed to be naturally superior or inferior to others”. This could of course include lactose tolerance (and I’d say if the comment hadn’t been a joke, it’d hit the definition perfectly)
So I guess to a degree it wasjust a translation issue. The whole idea of using race to describe humans is seen as inherently racist here, so any definition of racism using that word feels 80 years outdated to me.
Anyway back to work, cheers for an actual rational discussion, even if I think we’re only really in disagreement over semantics anyway
Ebenfalls!
Schön Tag noch
Right right, it’s not a racial supremacy argument it’s just that some ethnicities and cultures are naturally genetically superior to others (with a heavy correlation to skin tone). /Sarcasm
Hahaha you bloody idiot.
Correlation does not imply causation. By your backwater logic nature itself is racist.
It’s not genetic superiority, it’s adaptation and evolution. In the future we might all be lactate intolerant because we don’t need to not be anymore.
I usually strive not to use ad hominem but for you I made an exception. That’s how moronic I find your total lack of critical thinking.
Go outside and touch some grass man. Life’s to short to sit on a high horse.
Enjoy ignorance of a real problem that causes real harm, I will keep my 0 tolerance policy.