Is it 'racist' to slur racists?

What? No.

When i object to a racist's position, it isn't his or her race i am objecting to, it is their opinion. To restate, one takes offense based on their statements and behavior, as a manifestation of their belief; their race is not relevant. Ergo, expressions of dissent or offense regarding a racist opinion is not racism.

Can that same reaction to racism be a product of prejudice? Sure, depending upon the offended person's upbringing and environment, but it is not necessarily so.

Still, an objection to racism is already objecting to a particular event of the same, whereas racism cannot appeal to events, except in so far as they are already projected by a racist perspective. Racism's objection to events is both general and unspecifiable, and therefore historically ungrounded. I.e. racism can only recognize events as "historical", insofar as they conform to an ideological profile. All other events are disposed of as unique "exceptions", regardless of any evidence of their long-term development or personal import.

All that is to say, that while all racism is necessarily prejudiced, all negative reactions to racism are not. Racism provides plenty of concrete examples that may be, simply and a posteriori, judged.

(A crucial difference between racism and "anti-racism" can be easily demonstrated by examining the difference between the objects of their abuse. Racists insult, slur and offend a broad spectrum of persons who likely have not done anything to the racist individual or the group to which he perceives himself to belong, and racists attack those persons based on an aspect of themselves that they did not choose. "Anti-racists" (if such social beings exist, the term seems, to me, to be a case of a cultural double negative) may insult, slur and offend racist persons, but do so on the basis of those persons' statements or actions behavior that they did choose; or after they have been harmed, or after they have perceived the larger society as subject to harm by the racist's action.)

To conclude, while racism seems to be an example of social behavior that requires prejudice, countering racist statements and actions does not. A critical objection to racism requires only an awareness of the historical record or familiarity with culturally diverse persons v. the racist ideological profile; no prejudicial preparation is required.

(Meh...i've submitted some clumsily phrased posts to this forum, but this has got to be in the top ten. Bah. Still, it makes sense, i swear.)

For a non-white person, it would be "racist", I guess, to call a white racist a "white bastard", but merely just and fair to call him a "racist bastard".

Exactly right. It is perfectly appropriate to denigrate a person's actions without defaming the person.

It would be racist to say that all white people are racist.

Prejudice is a preconceived idea. It means that you make a judgement before you have taken the time to consider the fact. If you look at the facts and then after a rational thought process decide that someone is a racist, then that isn't prejudice (by definition).

Truth is a defense.

This is a simple question. The answer is 'no'.

yes of course it is racist to recognize racists as a race, it is the same argument that mean to take advantage from wrong existence as a normal fact

racist is essentially evil bc it is about living by enjoyin races existence knowin that races belong to rights oppositions

this is why it is very hard to objectively mean insultin smthg or others

one must b above everything reality of whatever meant negatively to prove it being opposed to existence
or one must act the most individually possible so clearly not involvin anything but itself reality

...and only a person like Mark Noble could ask a question as dumb as that.

I was inspired by one of your condescending posts lustig...... Racist twat!

lol:)