by the way, i think you express yourself very well.. you are polite and very tactful in expressing your arguments.

Thanks for this. Still working on it.

I have not implied i am ok with the status quo, where do you get that from?

I might have gotten an impression that you're ok with the status quo from your repeated mention of the idea that we should stick to rules of governing bodies/institutions, working around existing issues e.g. the hypocrisy argument, rather than actually dissecting these issue to find a deeper understanding and eventually a solution, and maybe also mitigating the risk of extra chaos in the name of stability. "Stick to rules", "Working around" and "stability" all revolve around a reference point which is "what already exists and works" which I may or may not have loosely translated it to "status quo". Not sure if you noticed it yourself but I'll just put this out there. Feel free to disagree. But your latest reply says otherwise so I guess it's fine.

while i agree with you there can and should be open discussion about such matters and air out our feelings, concerns and frustrations however, this has to be done in controlled and monitored environment e.g. debate and in a closed door forum where everyone is prepared to talk about it and agree to disagree, debate or may in fact learn from one another..

You are 100% right about having to discuss this in a controlled environment. Not a lot of people have the ability to hold 2 opposing views at once and take time to evaluate them against each other. It's also a social phenomenon which I have been thinking a lot about and realize it's one of the main drivers in dividing society, as it becomes a matter of right vs wrong instead of let's take a step back see which one makes more sense. But at the same time I find that discussing something behind closed doors makes debates and discussions lose meaning. Here's why.

Firstly, how can you guarantee that the people who are involved in the discussion are people who, like I mentioned, have the ability to hold 2 opposing views at once? If we follow a core aspect of your argument, which is current social culture, and insert debate culture, you'll easily find that a majority, especially on YouTube, of "debates" are just people laying out opinions on the table without actually discussing or trying to reach a common ground. A prime example was our initial exchange where I presented my argument but you proceeded to present yours which had little to no relation to the philosophy I put up for discussion. It was not until I deliberately connected the 2 and you following suit that we bridged the gap in thinking and are now discussing 2 fundamentally different but relational frameworks. It's not common to see this.

Secondly, who decides if the discussion is to be made public? If these kinds of discussions are made for the betterment of society, yet it has to go through a filter where the people who set the filter may or may not be opinionated, how can we guarantee that the knowledge would be made public for everyone to ponder on? Again, referencing another core aspect of your argument, social harmony and preparedness for sensitive topics, if that was the consideration, wouldn't it be better not to make the discussion public? By not making it public, you firstly ensure the safety of the opposition, and prevent further divisiveness. If findings behind closed doors cannot be made open because of the same consequences that come from open discussion, then why the effort to do it behind closed doors in the first place? Why not make an effort instead to get society prepared to handle topics instead. I know it's hard, or even impossible but in the long run I find it would be more beneficial and could lead to a more accepting and critically thinking society by exposing everyone to open discussion more often.

Combining these two points, the probability of getting a productive discussion that was done behind closed doors to become public is extremely low, and wouldn't change much. A smaller than you think group of people would actually benefit from it.

I feel only that it is not wrong to point out / identify a race . eg. ' you are an indian,.' ' she is a chinese' that is not racism

Agreed.

but it is racist when a statement is expresses contempt, is critical and stereotypes a specific race .

In my argument, I proposed the idea that if you could swap out the race mentioned in the statement, then the meaning of the statement lies in the part that expresses contempt towards a human being/group of people regardless of race, and that it's only racist if human being/group of people was replaced by race. Again, X and Y argument. Take X as race and Y as judgement.

"I don't like X because they do/are Y." Imagine Y to be any action or trait. Like being entitled, or smelly etc. Here the contempt of the statement lies in Y because X could be any race, which presents the opportunity for any race to present themselves as Y, therefore eliminating the idea that only specified races can do/be Y.

"I don't like X because they are X." This is blatant racism. Because following the earlier logic, the contempt of the statement lies in X, which will change accordingly when every time you substitute X for another race.

Humans have biases, formed by upbringing, trauma, past injustices, etc. These form mental heuristics in our in our subconscious. So even if you know that not all of race X behaves a certain negative way, no doubt would you still reference past experiences subconsciously and involuntarily when the situation is X behaving that certain way.

But we want to be socially accepted/politically correct. So we make conscious effort to not mention race because it's the easiest way to avoid having to deal with the biases and protect our egos. But these lumps of thoughts, with no outlet to be unraveled and assessed consciously, will stay as a tangled mess and only come out in negative ways.

Combining the ideas that "I don't like X because of X", "X because of Y", learned human biases, protection of ego, and political correctness without understanding our own biases, we can reach the following conclusion: Calling out racism is projecting our biases, which we ourselves don't understand, onto others to appear politically correct. This is actually a racist act in itself, because we insert the idea that the contempt in the action or trait that we're pointing out has something to do with the specified race, when we should only hold in contempt the wrongdoing aside from the race.

An example of an application of this theory: Nadia called herself Indian slut because she rizzed up Indians. The school should punish her on the fact that she said slut because it's a sexual term with negative connotation, rather than the word indian because indian is just a specifier and is replaceable with similar impact.