"...but some questionable statement about what actually constitutes 'racism' and whether other sorts of hostility were the same thing or a discrete phenomenon, lured me back a few posts ago"
This gets more and more bizarre as it proceeds.
Stephen Lawrence was a Londoner - his parents were, I think, West Indian.
His case was dealt with and is still referred to as a racist attack - did the five thugs that killed him do so because they hated Londoners - or what?
He was stabbed to death because of his colour, maybe his attackers should have been accused of being 'colourists' - waddya think?
The police were investigated following the case and were found to be "institutionally racist", not because of their attitude to specific races but because of how they dealt with cases involving non-whites, non Brits... foreigners in general.
The law of "incitement to race hatred" covers Pakistanis, West Indians, Travellers.... whether they are true races or not - would anybody care to contradict this?
I will totally agree that the over-use and unfair application of the term 'racist' does devalue the coin, but I don't think that even Keith's best friend could accuse anybody of that here.
I am of the opinion that this is argument has been engineered to create a smoke-screen and present Keith with a 'get out of jail free' card, an opportunity he is more than ready to grasp with both hands, as displayed here.
Despite his nonsensical '"many Mudcatters" claim, as far as I am concerned anybody who states openly that "I firmly believe that all male Pakistanis are culturally implanted" to tend them towards having sex with underage girls, is guilty of one of the worst examples of incitement to race hatred that I have personally encountered in my lifetime - an entire gender of an entire ethnic community in one fell swoop.
To attempt to defend this by whatever means is to align yourself with it.
Jim Carroll