Le Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:22:43 -0800, inspiré Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net écrivait la plume alerte : ....
Accepting that distinction did not make them racist. Nobody owns the word.
Yes, you are right, so I clearly stated in the definition it was a "cache sexe" for racism.
....
Why shouldn't they be? If these phenomena exist, they need to be described fairly. That doesn't mean agreeing with them. A racist article and an article about racism are two different things.
This is easy : racism means there is a difference between race. If in the article we show there is no such things as human races, how can you use a term such anti-caucasian racism without implying first there are different races, and as a consequence that regarding the race that are concerned the racism is different !!! If racism are different regarding the «race» you can compare them and say : oh anti-negro racism is worse than anti-caucasian racism or else. We face a contradiction in term like military music, and it also means we are not self consistent in our definitions.
However, I do not support the idea to block people who write racist articles. It's counter-productive. It's better to correct their articles and show them the limit (as defined by the law in France). And this as long as they are few and we can correct their articles.
Yes, but how should we face a massive and biased change of the definition.
The difficulty here is who decides what French law means?
It is secondary, first how do we handle conflicts regarding the infringement of the editorial rules concerning objectivity.
Eclecticology
Ethylocology,