[the_af]

I can say "I don't find most Chinese women attractive". Or I can say "Chinese women are so ugly, I cannot understand how people manage to reproduce in China". Do you see the difference? One statement is not racist and the other is.

[13years]

So you are saying racism is defined by the degree of some dislike vs. collectivist categorizations?

Otherwise, they do seem to be the same.

[coldtea]

Actually both are not racist. Both are subjective statements.

One needs not explicitly add "I, personally" to his personal correspondence.

"Chinese women are so ugly, I cannot understand how people manage to reproduce in China" should be read as: "I find Chinese women so ugly, that I cannot understand how people manage to reproduce in China".

[the_af]

I don't understand your point.

It's understood that in personal correspondence everything stated is the opinion of the author. Both my fictional examples were written from a personal point of view.

The actual difference was that one expressed a personal preference without being offensive; the other called a vast group of people "ugly", which is offensive, and expressed incredulity that they even managed to find each other sexually attractive enough to reproduce (which is naive as well as offensive).

Racism is primarily subjective, so that's no excuse either. Rational justifications for racism are more often than not a posteriori justifications.

[coldtea]

>It's understood that in personal correspondence everything stated is the opinion of the author. Both my fictional examples were written from a personal point of view.

Having established that...

>The actual difference was that one expressed a personal preference without being offensive; the other called a vast group of people "ugly", which is offensive

My point is that racism is not about being offensive (or not) in one's subjective opinions. Being rude is not the same as being a racist -- even if the characteristics you're rude about belong to a race of people.

>Rational justifications for racism are more often than not a posteriori justifications.

They might be, but without them there's no racism. Just personal preference or dislike, which people are entitled to.

"Freedonians look ugly" is not racist. "Freedonians are genetically inferior" is.

Even saying "freedonians are stupid" is borderline, because they might indeed be by the criteria of the one making that statement (e.g. they might value leisure, where the one making the statement might think that it's smarter to be productive).

[true_religion]

If racism were subjective, we wouldn't ban it in the public scope as there would be no clear standard for anyone to follow in their self-censorship.

Racism should reflect an attribute that can be factually proven---intelligence, strength, moral character at birth, etc.

It should not reflect a totally subjective physical attribute like beauty.

[the_af]

I've never heard your definition of racism ("attributes that can be factually proven"?). In my experience, racism is subjective and every rationalization is done afterwards. How often have you heard of someone convincing an avowed racist of anything based on arguments?

"I've always thought <class of people> were dumb, weak, morally bankrupt, and have brought decadence to our country, but now that I look at this scientific study I'm convinced otherwise".

[true_religion]

Every racist position I have ever heard of has been defanged by the truth, and proof. Racism is not bad because it makes you feel bad, it is bad because it is demonstrably untrue and basing your society on the bedrock of racist lies is simply shooting yourself in the foot.

I don't know why you disagree.

Do you think racist views are true, but we should ignore them out of political correctness?