Yes, unless the subject or issue under discussion is whether or not someone is a dualist or an atheist.
Why would it matter whether someone is or calls themselves a dualist, an atheist or a racist? The content of the issue/subject under discussion is unaffected by whatever people label themselves as.
Do you realize that the person making an argument is irrelevant, the argument stands or falls ON ITS OWN MERITS and regardless of who is making it?
Sure, because in this example of yours the subject/issue under consideration appears to be trying to understand why a person opposes open borders. If you are making the claim “you are a racist, because of X Y Z reasons, therefore because of those reasons you would oppose open borders” AND if the issue being discussed was actually wondering why the person was opposing open borders, then fine. That is a very limited example you gave. Let me give another example. The subject is open borders, are they good or bad? Someone opposes them and makes some arguments for their position, and you respond by saying they oppose open borders because they are a racist. In this example, clearly what you did was not in the spirit of the debate and was fallacious and irrelevant to the subject at hand. You should be talking about open borders themselves and studying the arguments either way ON THEIR OWN MERIT, not attacking the person making the argument or acting as if the person’s personal worldviews or however you want to label them somehow has a bearing upon the arguments they are making.
Honestly, since when did people forget that ideas must be evaluated on their own merit, at the level of ideas directly? It really makes no difference if an idea is being espoused by me, you, Pee Wee Herman or Hitler. The idea must be determined true or false, good or bad on its own merits.
Only if that context is “is this idea or person racist?”
In that case then you are changing the subject of the discussion. Unless the subject was literally to compare different types of racism. The point of the OP here is not “as long as the subject being discussed has to do directly with racism itself”. No, the point is that 99.99% of the time racism itself is NOT the subject or issue under discussion, and THEREFORE IN THOSE CASES it is fallacious to bring up “that’s racist” or “you’re racist” in those discussions.
Even with affirmative action or Jim Crow, those things should be evaluated fairly and objectively on their own merits, and not because they can be called “racist”.
No, most people (in the west) seem fine with being racist as long as the harmed and limited group is white European-descended people. And most people around the world (outside of the west) seem pretty much fine with some degree of racism considering almost anywhere you go on earth you will find racist attitudes toward one group or another, whether that is prioritizing their own race over others and/or deprioritizing certain races they consider in conflict with their own or inferior to their own for some reason.
Sculptor’s comprehension is awful.. ¿a case of emotion taking over and blinding reason?
So this was the initial exchange.. 
“Mags claimed that because that person was Albanian then he was undeserving of any help, not because of any thing about the person, but was guilty of assocation BECAUSE he belonged to a nationality, some of whose other members have committed a crime..”
_
He didn’t commit any crime? 
The video explicitly states that he did.
This is a misunderstanding of the ad hominem fallacy. To be a fallacy, it’s not enough to merely describe the speaker or their worldview, it has to be used as a premise in the argument against their point. Describing a person or their worldview isn’t itself ad hominem.
Because in any discussion, there are a lot of unstated premises. For example, in a disagreement about abortion, two theists will have very different points of disagreement from an atheist and a theist. If early in the conversation one person says, “that makes you sound like an atheist”, that description helps them hone in on the relevant points of disagreement.
Right, this is my “You’re an atheist, so you’re obviously wrong about tax policy” example.
However, if two people agree that racism is false, then arguing that a stated belief about open borders entails racism is an argument on the merits – it’s a reductio.
4 posts were merged into an existing topic: Race and Technology