This OP is in response to this quote (plus all the other hysterical dummies on the forums using these words): "If something is racist it is inherently discriminatory, so no, its a category and an adjective not a conclusion of a proposition".
The terms "racism" and "racist" are inherently inaccurate words, loaded with politically charged bias. The latter is self-evident whenever you call something/someone one of these terms. The former takes a bit more explaining.
If someone said, "Blacks belong in slavery," most people will respond to that by saying it's racist. Fair enough. It expresses racial hatred. It deserves the politically charged terminology and social ostracization. I wouldn't criticize the usage of those terms ("racism" and "racist") there.
If someone said, "Blacks have lower I.Q's than Whites", some people will respond to that by saying it's racist. Now, unfortunately, this is a scientifically verifiable fact, and thus in responding with your hysterical, sloppy language, you're not only slandering the people making the claim, but you are engaging in anti-scientific behaviour. Whether a fact is "racist" or not is beside the point, and you're getting in the way of genuine scientific research with this nonsense term.
If someone said, "A lot of Asian people live there", I have heard people say that this is racist. A demographical, verifiable fact gets slammed with a pejorative because your cult lingo is stupid.
That's the issue with the terms. They are catch-all and don't house necessary distinctions required for nuance, AND THEN they slander and destroy factual work in various ways.
Instead of using these stupid terms, when you hear things like "6 million was not enough" or "all Asians eat dogs alive", use the term "racial hatred". It's far more accurate, it doesn't screw up science and demographic observations, and, most importantly, you don't look like a bloody idiot.
