Basing it around skin color, however, is extremely arbitrary.

Although skin color is actually an excellent argument as to why 'race realism' is, in fact, real.

It's evolutionary. People select for traits suitable to their environment.

Darker skin develops around the equator. Lighter skin tones developed further away.

Where the whole thing goes wrong is when people ignore the cultural influence.

Race realism isn't so much of a problem - and shouldn't even really be that much of a taboo - compared to race determinism.

Non-white people are more likely to be lactose intolerant. Darker skinned people are more likely to tolerate sun exposure better than a white person.

White people more frequently can't handle spicy foods, as those are generally preferred in more temperate climates.

The funny point to all of this is, all of these traits are related to one another. They're physiological differences that equate to consistent environmental selectors. People who try to sell you identity politics along the lines of race realism, however, aren't accounting for the true deterministic factor, Culture.

I'm a culturist.

I'm not sure what the parameters are of that label, but most likely I am too.

I am more likely to trust someone who I know holds principles like mine regardless of what they look like, as opposed to trusting someone who looks like me based solely on that fact.

Webster doesn't have the definition that I'm using it for so I guess that means we get to make up new meanings too.

presumably, someone who values cultural identity over arbitrary identity.

Although whatever this is has it as ```One who holds prejudices against a culture``` https://www.wordnik.com/words/culturist

I do think that's far more fair than prejudice against a race.

Culture is far more connected to a person's character than skin color.

Culture can change but race can't.

There's also the point of accepting that culture is different in different parts of the world.

I can accept that some Asian cultures have no problems eating dog, for instance. In the United States, though, I do take some issue.

Yeah. People can do whatever where they are from but if they come to the west I think they need to assimilate.

(Food is the first and foremost thing I go to when I think of culture)

I'll go one better.

'Multiculturalism' is only possible on a personal level. (read: sustainable)

By that, a nation should have one culture to it.

But people should hold that culture, and any additional cultural values they hold, with, say, American culture being in the forefront.

I have no problem with people speaking whatever language is native to them at home. I have no problems with teaching a native tongue to children. That's awesome, and makes for a much smarter kid, frankly.

That common culture, in this case, common language, though...

That's needed in order for a nation's people to relate to one another.

A Bi-lingual Quebec, for instance, tends to lend itself towards separatist movements.

If racist means you have prejudice against races and culturist means you have prejudice against cultures does that mean socialists have prejudice against society? <:TimThink:482277772497125378>

The answer is yes.

'isms' and 'ists' are only really that dangerous if you start making policy around them.

Especially when you can warp the definition to make it not affect you.

Trying, specifically, to work to the favor or detriment of an 'ism' will lead down a dark path.

It's far better to establish principles, and let those principles guide your judgement.

Laws against Islamism, for instance, are far darker than principled laws against negative elements of islamism, if that makes any sense...

That is to say, for example, saying that genital mutilation should be disallowed, full stop

That permanent life-altering decisions like that should be reserved for the individual when they reach the age of consent,

That is far more based in principle than hatred for a group.

Would banning the hijab be under that or is that more of a grey area?