jaselle

OK that's a good argument. It's perhaps a flaw of the word "racist" that it can include systemic racism, when it connotes individual racism.

That's very fair yes. But how can you tell those who are anti-religion for racist reasons from those who are for not?

I don't really see how that's related. Even if it were motivated by racism, that'd be equally authoritarian to any other motive, since authoritarianism is about ceding rights from individuals to the government and it doesn't matter what the motivation for that is.

What bothers me about this perspective is the implicit assumption that everyone who thinks that public displays of religion should be banned is actually motivated by racism, rather than recognising that somebody can be against this for non-racist reasons.

So this is something that you saw once or twice ever?

Yeah I agree about Canada. I have seen apartheid in reference to Israel Palestine quite frequently. But it's a very one-state-solutionist sense.

Not to disrespect your argument, but low key you're using some real reddit-style language yourself. You're kinda dodging making any points of substance and instead substituting in academic vocabulary to make it look like you have the upper hand. It's a bit cringe and NGL kinda looks like AI.

I think the analogy would not be to say genocide refers to only the holocaust, but rather that "holocaust" refers to only the holocaust. Which I agree with, on the grounds that I rarely see people use the term "holocaust" generically, and when they do I assume it's the same mistake as when people call all consoles "nintendos," or when people think all Roman emperors are "Caesars."

That said, apartheid is a generic term IMO.

I don't really agree with your proscriptive, semantic argument regarding apartheid, as the word is frequently used in reference to other states with racial or ethnic tensions. In some of those instances it may be an exaggeration of course, but that doesn't invalidate its use more broadly.

That said, I don't agree that Canada is a literal apartheid state. Perhaps the argument is that reserves are a form of apartheid, but that's rather naïve -- reserves are (semi-)sovereign FN land, and first nations people have all the same legal rights as other citizens and then some, including the right to live off-reserve.

We have socialism in Canada. The theory is that we permit capitalism to do what it excels at -- optimise for efficiency -- while enforcing our values through taxpayer money. That's the theory at least. In practice, we don't have capitalism in check at all, and our socialism, while better than our neighbour's, is insufficient for many.

Trump is insane.

a poem is considered a text

so this is very little tbh.