Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Scholar
#126 Old 16th Feb 2012 at 6:36 PM
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. I do think that people have a right to say whatever they want to say, and that other people have a right to judge them accordingly. I think it's "okay" to use language in whatever way you want. No one has the right not to be offended. In terms of actions, I think everyone has the right to act in any way that doesn't hurt/coerce others. Saying that you don't want to date someone, for whatever reason, isn't coercing that person into anything, and the only thing being hurt is that person's feelings, which isn't a form of violence and is something that can't be helped sometimes when the desires of two different people don't line up.

I think it's perfectly fine to choose not to associate with someone who expresses racist opinions, and it's something I'd do, myself. That person expressing those opinions doesn't have a right to your company. But, ultimately, I think you're trying to make a moral argument about something that isn't a moral issue. Initiating violence on someone is wrong, regardless of your reasoning, but your opinions have no moral character. You are as good or bad as your actions, not your beliefs. A person with racist opinions is not someone I would find pleasant to spend time with, but it doesn't mean that person is inherently a bad person if he/she isn't actually hurting anyone.
Advertisement
Theorist
#127 Old 16th Feb 2012 at 11:34 PM
I think you're absolutely wrong, and racism does make you a bad person. There are degrees of bad people of course, but racism is so inherently destructive to society it's hard to say how a racist could be a "good" person. And why demonstrate racist speech for any reason other than to demonstrate poor manners?
Scholar
#128 Old 17th Feb 2012 at 1:30 AM
Racism is only situationally destructive. It's only destructive if a person willing to act violently holds those views, and, in that case, it is the violence that is wrong. In a person who holds those views, but is otherwise peaceful, it's distasteful, but harmless. Morally good things are worthy of reward/praise and morally bad things are worthy of censure/punishment; something that isn't worthy of either of those categories is not something that should be considered a moral issue. If you still think it's a moral issue, ask yourself whether you think it's really right to punish someone for thoughtcrime.
Theorist
#129 Old 17th Feb 2012 at 2:24 AM
Again, I disagree. It's entirely destructive. It's inherently the belief that people are less then you for nothing more than things beyond their control. Whether we "punish" something is irrelevant to whether it's right or wrong. Socially there are entire classes of crimes that aren't morally wrong, but are damaging (or not damaging) to society. That doesn't invalidate them as crimes, and neither does a thing's lack of punishment dismiss its moral imperative to eliminate it. I care less if someone is secretly racist than explicitly racist, but that doesn't excuse it. I care less if someone isn't "really" racist and only speaks the words but isn't racist, but that doesn't mean the words themselves aren't harmful, that the propagation and prolongation of racist ideas (whether intentional or not) isn't itself harmful to society.

So yes, you're free to be a racist. Thinking racist thoughts isn't, and shouldn't be a crime. But it still makes you a bad person. Compare that to drug addicts: Drug addiction is illegal, it doesn't necessarily make you a bad person in the sense of maliciousness. It makes you a criminal. It might make you weak. And that's irrelevant to whether you feed your addiction or not.
Scholar
#130 Old 17th Feb 2012 at 2:40 AM
My contention is that things that are harmful to others are wrong, though. I'm saying that, if you do something to hurt someone else (beyond the small emotional upsets that are unavoidable), you are doing something wrong. But racism in and of itself doesn't hurt anyone. It is only harmful when paired with other behaviors, and it is those other behaviors that are doing the actual harm. If you think that racism is harmful in-and-of-itself, I want you to provide an example, because I don't see it as being harmful in-and-of-itself.

Again, I think it's perfectly reasonable to choose not to associate with someone who is racist, but that choice is made as a matter of personal taste, and is not a universal moral statement.
Theorist
#131 Old 17th Feb 2012 at 7:06 AM
And I'm saying that every racist is harmful, because racism is harmful to society whether it's a skinhead beating up a black man or it's a quiet racist who simply doesn't associate with Koreans because "they all look alike." Racism is antisocial, because it's anti-society, because it's a trick of light: There are no races, only the human race. It harms the racist and it harms people who associate with the racist, by narrowing the socializations that naturally branch from any individual, solely based on a fiction of difference that doesn't exist. Allowing racism to exist even dormant, without taking turns acknowledging it's destructiveness only allows it to fester. Just because someone only has murderous thoughts doesn't mean they're a murderer, but neither does it suggest anyone should stop trying to keep a lid on those sorts of things - people's internal feelings have an unfortunate habit of spilling out into their external actions, and in several cases those actions are disagreeable enough that at the very least it's important to keep telling people they're disagreeable. Prime their pumps with consequences and peer pressure, so to speak.

Can you provide an example where racism is good, and/or being seen as a racist is something that moral people could possibly see in anything less than a negative light? On the other hand, perhaps you're getting hung up on "bad people." Everyone has asshole friends. Just because someone is a racist doesn't mean they can't change, any more than any other negative personality trait usually brought on by ignorance and/or monkey instincts can't be (and should be) corrected. But to excuse racism is to empower racism, simply because one racist is a monster curb stomping his way into prison and another racist is a mild mannered accountant, doesn't make one's racism better than the other one. It just means that in addition to the poor social grace to be a racist, one of the guys is also violent. Violent behaviors are antisocial too. No matter who you are, you associate with bad people of one flavor another. Maybe some of you aren't particularly good people yourselves, to one degree or another. I'm certainly not perfect, but I think it's important to acknowledge destructive behaviors in yourself and others whether it's racism or whatever. You can't simply wave away something socially upsetting just because it's not the worst example of socially upsetting behaviors, it's important to demonstrate awareness of such things. Just because someone is a bad person because of "X behavior" isn't a death sentence, it's something to fix.

Or perhaps you're even getting weirder: A racist who never acts in a racist way, never even so much as to disassociate by action or inaction or subtly influence others? That's a theological question: If something exists but no one can ever tell by any metric, does it exist? It's such a narrow ledge of semantics I mostly say it's as irrelevant as trees falling in the wilderness where no one hears them. If it's unseen, unheard of, and unknown then for all practical points it doesn't exist. That doesn't excuse it either, it simply makes it irrelevant until such time as it changes. It might be interesting as a thought experiment, but in general I find touchy-feely koans that simply plot language without actually doing anything or providing some point of useful reference kind of silly.

Or maybe your Big L libertarian streak just rejects that there should be any social contract whatsoever? Social anarchy, everyone minds their own business until they ape out and start up with the politics of sticks and matches again?
e3 d3 Ne2 Nd2 Nb3 Ng3
retired moderator
#132 Old 17th Feb 2012 at 1:07 PM
Default Staff notice
Please be polite.

Mistermook, you are becoming insulting, which is not good for a debate. Please do not post in this thread again today.
Field Researcher
#133 Old 17th Feb 2012 at 1:48 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
And I'm saying that every racist is harmful, because racism is harmful to society whether it's a skinhead beating up a black man or it's a quiet racist who simply doesn't associate with Koreans because "they all look alike." Racism is antisocial, because it's anti-society, because it's a trick of light: There are no races, only the human race. It harms the racist and it harms people who associate with the racist, by narrowing the socializations that naturally branch from any individual, solely based on a fiction of difference that doesn't exist. Allowing racism to exist even dormant, without taking turns acknowledging it's destructiveness only allows it to fester.


I agree with what you say here, racism is very damaging to society and even passive racism acts as a poison that eventually spreads to the rest of society. I grew up in the apartheid era in South Africa and I remember what is was like. I also remember the names I was called in school because I was not a racist.

Even now, 20 years after the fact we still suffer from this attitude because now "racism" is the trump card that gets used as an excuse for everything from corruption to incompetence.
The feeling now is that if anyone has anything to say about your conduct, you scream racial discrimination and they have to back off regardless. This is just as damaging to society.
Luckily the majority of people in my country seem to realize that people are just people and that we all want basically the same things.
As for what you said about there being only one race, the human race. I agree with you 110%! My dearest wish for this world is that all people would realize this. Maybe then we can get somewhere as a species.

So by all means, date people of other races and hasten the day!
Instructor
#134 Old 17th Feb 2012 at 3:11 PM
Racism can influence others, especially children. It can have a poisioning influence on the impressionable. A racist parent, can influence a child to think those values are ok. It has a poisioning influence in my opinion.
Scholar
#135 Old 17th Feb 2012 at 5:38 PM
@Mistermook: I'm not entirely sure what you said that is considered insulting; you started into slight ad hominem, but nothing really insulting. In any case, I'll make my post and wait until you're able to post here again tomorrow.

I think the place where we don't see eye to eye is where you seem to be implying that society has a right to include people in it that don't want to be included in it. I think there is nothing inherently wrong with someone being anti-social. If a person decides to simply keep his own company, he isn't hurting anyone. He isn't helping anyone either, but I don't think that people have an absolute obligation to help others. It's nice to help others, but it's not wrong to not help others. In the same vein, if someone chooses to only associate with those of his/her own race, those not of his/her own race don't have any right to association with that person, so it's not wrong for that person not to associate with them. Basically, people should be thought of as individuals. No individual can coerce another individual into association, so, even if a person selectively chooses to associate with individuals with certain characteristics, he/she should be free to do so. Choosing to only associate with individuals with certain characteristics is not harming those individuals without those characteristics, and therefore, those who quietly hold racist views and only act on those views in non-violent ways are not morally wrong. Those who act on those views with violence are, as I stated before, wrong because of the use of violence.

No, I can't provide an example where racism is good, but that doesn't disprove my point. I said that it isn't a moral issue. It isn't good or bad, it's just a personal taste. In the same way, I can't provide many examples of people who consider themselves conventionally moral who practice poly relationships, but that doesn't make a poly relationship morally wrong. A lot of bible thumpers will tell you that unconventional relationships like that are destroying society by subverting marriage, but I don't think that society really needs conventional marriage to function smoothly. It's just a matter of taste. And I don't think that not actively punishing racists empowers racism. Not actively punishing something doesn't mean supporting it. It is possible to take a fairly neutral stance on something. In my case, I don't "punish" racists, though I do choose not to associate with them. That may be a deterrent to racism, if the racist in question has some reason for wanting to associate with me. Further, I think that our society has largely transitioned to a more enlightened view of racism. Most people who are filled with hate for other races are the way they are because they were taught to be. Our society is teaching that kind of hate less and less. I think, eventually, the majority of people will be taught to view others as individuals whose worth is determined by their personal characteristics, not things they have no control over.

I do reject the "social contract" that people like to say we engage in. I didn't agree to any contract, and there's no way for me to escape the contract, so the use of the term 'contract' is incorrect. I don't think that the concept of a social contract is wrong, as long as it is actually agreed to, so I think that polycentric law would be an acceptable alternative to the current system. In any case, I am a voluntaryist, which makes me a "small l" libertarian.
Lab Assistant
#136 Old 18th Feb 2012 at 5:59 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
There are no races, only the human race.


You just made my day...Thank You.

Quote: Originally posted by SimsLover50
Racism can influence others, especially children. It can have a poisioning influence on the impressionable. A racist parent, can influence a child to think those values are ok. It has a poisioning influence in my opinion.

Indeed. Good example of that is of this kid I knew who believed racism is genetic....
His family is/was and so is he.
Sad.

Been downloading like crazy...so many great creators here! Neglecting forums...will be back soon...ish.
Mad Poster
#137 Old 11th Apr 2012 at 3:17 AM
I haven't posted in this thread for awhile, but this quote by Mistermook sums up the entire debate.

Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
There are no races, only the human race.


All people who choose to not date black men, black women, asian men, white men, white women, whatever the color or ethnicity they scratch off their list, are discriminating simply because of skin color, and not on character, heart, religion, humor, career, any number of other factors that can determine how well we get along with someone. I have yet to be convinced that choosing not to date a beautiful and intelligent black woman (or the like) because you don't like her skin, isn't considered ignorant or racist.

"Going to the chapel of Love"

the girls club . statistics . yearbook .
Field Researcher
#138 Old 3rd May 2012 at 2:40 AM
Choose someone for the things you have in common and not for what you look like on the outside. Though people will certainly be attracted to another by what they look like, when you have been with someone for awhile, you begin to see the exterior counts very little. It's about being like-minded. Find someone who thinks like you, who has the same aspirations, likes, desires, etc.

So if you think about what i just said, two people who are of the same culture, regardless of anything else, will have a better chance at a successful relationship than two opposites that are attracted to each other for a short while. People who are of the same culture have more in common with each other than those who are of different backgrounds.

It's so elementary.
Test Subject
#139 Old 3rd May 2012 at 3:15 AM
I think that there's a difference between not dating someone because of their race, and not dating someone because generally people of that race tend not to suit your "type", the second example being not racist but maybe a bit picky, the first example being quite racist and prejudiced.
Field Researcher
#140 Old 10th May 2012 at 1:05 PM
hmm well I haven't posted to this thread in a while and I don't care if my lack of attraction to other races make me racists because I just don't give a sh!t what random people think about me. I personally know a racist and I am not like him at all and I can't stand it when he judges people like that. is this hypocritical you say? everyone is a little hypocritical and I do not think this is more hypocritical than the average person.
I know many people are saying "well you don't know all the people of that race. there are billions of people in this world" true but if I've come across a few females I like (I say this because I never thought I'd even be slightly bi) but not a guy of another race then the likelihood would be so small that it wouldn't even be worth mentioning. generally using the word never wouldn't be a great idea but in this case, it's not as bad and people use the word epic all the time but do we have a problem with that? never is not like using the word hate or anything else that is similarly negative.
plus I mean I'm boy crazy so that's one thing that makes the likelihood so small. I am certainly picky with guys but picky=/racist

also if you call me racist, you might as well call me homophobe for not being attracted to gay people. maybe I'm also against married guys too since I'm not attracted to them (I know these are probly for different reasons though)

anyway I don't think it matters if people don't find someone attractive because of their skin color. I have ugly eyes (one is wonky), I look way younger than I'm supposed to be and if someone didn't want to date me because of it, I would totally understand. I wouldn't want to date me either. appearance plays an important role in a mate because it's like a puzzle. if it doesn't all fit then it just won't work.
sure looks are fleeting but if you're going to spend a lot of time with someone, you need to be attracted to them first. I'm not sure if this makes any sense but think of it as like a movie. in order to be interested in seeing one, the trailer needs to draw you in. in other words the trailer is appearance in this case. some people need more than that, they need other clips to make sure they want to see it. the attraction lasting a while would be the clips.

you may not believe me when I say I haven't found the inside of everyone I've encountered of another race attractive but it's true. I think we are confusing sexual attraction with a platonic admiration here.


maybe you still disagree with me because I'm not making any sense to you or you misunderstand me (I get misunderstood a lot). in that case, I do not expect to make sense to other people. I'm an Aquarius so I do believe that I'm detached from this world. I often feel so different than everyone else (you can call me an alien.) so my preference/attraction would be no exception. maybe this is why I'm a bit of a loner.
I also know that if we all agreed with each other than the world would be boring so I welcome all disagreements. I just thought I'd make this post to shed some new light onto my perspective

this was an essay >.< I'm not good at condensing and hopefully I didn't make some points that were redundant from my last post...oh well it can be good to reiterate when you're adding stuff as a good memory refresher right? esp if you write as much as I do.
Alchemist
#141 Old 11th May 2012 at 8:44 PM Last edited by SuicidiaParasidia : 14th May 2012 at 11:05 AM.
the thing is, about the "well you dont know everyone of that race" argument, is that thats NOT how the human mind works. it does not NEED to know all of the people in the world to form and apply a judgment. if it did, we'd all be dead for lack of being able to say "hey, that guy in the overcoat in the alleyway with a knife and evil glint in his eye looks funny, i think i'll judge him as scary/unpleasant and walk the other way now". judgment serves a purpose, in most RATIONAL creatures. its there so that you dont go leaping off of cliffs for hope that they might be different from the other cliffs youve leaped off of.
its a nice theory and all, but "you havent met everyone, you cant make that call" pales in comparison to a series of negative experiences. and since nobody is colorblind yet, it serves no real function other than being just another pretty saying like "guns dont kill people, people do"--i think the gun helps.

if a person meets enough people of a specific ethnicity that drive them up a wall, i can hardly see how theyre NOT supposed to think badly of the entire race. theory only goes so far; if in person, every single person youve EVER met from that specific race has been a jerkwad to you...the next time you see a new face of that ethnicity, you will not be able to think "hey, i bet hes alright, because people from that culture seem to have a TREND of being alright". it will be "ew, a black/white/brown/whatever person. walking the other way now", and while its not politically correct, it is justifiable. and NOT racist, seeings how you are not going out of your way to discriminate against them, however, it IS prejudice.
..but not without a little help from the "other side", if its one of those cases where the majority of the people you encounter of that race really do act like jerkwads. tolerance is a good idea, but tolerance of rotten behavior is a dangerous endeavor.

i believe, as a general rule for ALL races, people should be aware that no matter what your demographic is, it reflects badly on everyone else when you act like a jerkwad. if enough people of a certain race act like jerkwads, i think that has something to do with people becoming prejudice against certain races when it comes time to date someone, but on the other hand...who exactly is ever OWED a date, simply by being a minority? im a woman, im a minority--should every person i ask out be forced to date me, because they dont know me well enough to judge me as a woman? what about homosexuals? its not FAIR when a straight person falls in love with a homosexual person, but it happens, and should that homosexual person be made to date the straight person because thats unbiased? or visa versa? everyone has biases. even skin color preference, is a bias. but its not necessarily racist or malice-based.

additionally:
@SimsLover50: i dont think that pertains to everyone. children may be small and underdeveloped, but they have a habit of shaking their parents teachings off if theyre rebellious/intellectual enough. for example, my father was racist. highly racist. i couldnt bring my other friends around him because he'd say really rude things, but i couldnt talk back to him about it because he was one of those "old fashioned" parents that rewarded critical thinking/"disrespecting your elders" with a cuff upside the head.
now, did he WANT me to adopt his views? possibly. but he could never make me accept them, because through public school i had gained the experience of having friends who were black, who were hispanic, who were asian...these people that i observed my father insulting on a regular basis. and i knew these people were not the things he was saying they were. thusly, i could mentally give him a middle finger and ignore what other hateful filth spewed from his mouth and decide for myself to not discriminate against others based solely on their skin color. and i recall this point in my life, i was only around 10-11 years old. so please dont think that ALL kids are incapable of differentiating between reality and parental influence.
...but then, i do also realize that kids these days arent exactly encouraged to use their heads. theyre more told that they simply cant grasp these things, because they are currently inferior to adults. which...is NOT a productive frame of mind.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Instructor
#142 Old 15th May 2012 at 7:54 PM
Is it sexist to not want to date someone based on their gender?

Is it ____ to no want to _____ someone based on ____?

Maybe this is just one of those "not my type" constructs I keep hearing so much about.
Lab Assistant
#143 Old 15th May 2012 at 9:20 PM Last edited by kerryanne13 : 15th May 2012 at 9:21 PM. Reason: dang typos.
I normally tend to find white guys more attractive in that "OMG he's soooo hawt" kind of way and yes I think it's shallow because I'm 38 and should be past this reaction. But just because I find a person visually appealing isn't when I make my decision that I'll actually try flirting with them no matter what their skin color is, I have to get a gauge of their personality. If their personality compliments mine I then find myself truly attracted and then try dating them. For instance, I was never really attracted at first sight to a lot of guys no matter what color they were, but I lost my heart to a woman finally *lol* I don't find myself attracted to other women, just her so it's sort of weird. But my true attraction is to a person's personality, not what is on the outside.
Scholar
#144 Old 16th May 2012 at 12:20 AM
Quote: Originally posted by piggypeach

I, personally, think that people these days in society have an obsession of race. They either are TOO worried about being racist and are scared to even make a remark to a black person such as "you're so lucky you don't have to worry about being tan", (which is totally not racist), or completely rude and without regard for others.

If any of you want to disagree with me about anything, go ahead, but this is how I see life and it will not change unless I see a better way to look at things. So if someone is going to disagree with me about something purely based on opinion that I've said, you clearly have no regard for other people's thoughts. I'm sure that some of you will not agree with me but please just mention your opinion, but don't try to contradict mine.


Wow, that's quite the speech.

I'm just going to go ahead and say that I can disagree with what you've said based purely on opinion, and if you disagree with me, then you clearly have no regard for other people's thoughts. I don't see why your opinion should be protected against anyone who may politely disagree.

That whole "you don't have to worry about tanning" thing just seems a bit presumptuous. I don't know if I'd exactly call it racist, but unless you know that person well, it just seems like a really rude thing to say. Not everyone aspires to be tan, and clearly you have no regard for other people's personal style.

clearly just no regard at all.

"You're born naked, and everything else is drag."
dA
Last.fm
tumblr
Alchemist
#145 Old 16th May 2012 at 1:37 AM
Quote: Originally posted by piggypeach
So if someone is going to disagree with me about something purely based on opinion that I've said, you clearly have no regard for other people's thoughts.


so if someone cant disagree with you based on what youve said, what exactly are they allowed to disagree with you based on? what somebody else said?
and why exactly should i have regard for anyone elses thoughts, if those thoughts are false/silly/inaccurately formed/presented badly? why is regard an entitlement?

and disagreements are usually contradictions. contradictions are opposing ideas. how is someone supposed to disagree without contradicting you? the end of your post sounds like one giant "dont disagree with me"! ...ironically, "dont disagree with me" is among one of those most disagreeable ideas out there.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Mother Function
retired moderator
#146 Old 16th May 2012 at 7:55 AM
*stumbles in*

I was literally just having this conversation a few hours ago with my (African American) boyfriend. He told me that I look like the type of black girl that would only date white men...whatever that means. When I told him that I would never date a white guy, he asked me to explain why.

Basically, I told him that there is no real justification, it's just a preference. I'd rather date my own race because it's what I like. And, if I were to date outside my race, it would only be with a darker skinned Hispanic guy. I don't know, I just like my colors to match.

I don't think that it's racist to date someone based on their skin color, as long as that's not the only thing you're focused on. I would never say that only dark skinned people are attractive to me because boy are there some hot white guys out there (I'm looking at you Christian Bale!), but when it comes down to it, if I had to pick someone to get into a serious relationship and settle down with, it would be with someone of my own race/color.

"Holy Shift! Check out the asymptotes on that mother function!"
Instructor
#147 Old 17th Jun 2012 at 3:43 AM
I know this is an old thread, but the post that I made above was one that I didn't think through at all and I was incredibly tired and in a bad mood. I'm sorry to anyone that was offended or... or just didn't like it. I didn't mean to say "you can't disagree with me" I meant to say "you can't contradict an opinion, because it's an opinion, and not a fact, and there is no right or wrong". That was a rude thing to say as I had intended it to be, but it came out wrong and sounded 10,000,000 times worse. Of course everyone has the right to disagree with me, and again I'm sorry to everyone.

♫ She's got sunset on her breath, I inhaled just a little bit now I got no fear of death ♫
Forum Resident
#148 Old 28th Aug 2012 at 3:25 AM
Well a gay person stating that they only date men doesn't make them sexist, it just means their aren't attracted to the opposite. If you aren't attracted to black people/white people/asian people etc. then I dont see the problem
Field Researcher
#149 Old 28th Aug 2012 at 4:18 AM
Daluved1 said:
>>Basically, I told him that there is no real justification, it's just a preference. I'd rather date my own race because it's what I like. And, if I were to date outside my race, it would only be with a darker skinned Hispanic guy. I don't know, I just like my colors to match<<

LOL!

I really think it is just a preference for many people, what makes your heart beat a little faster. There may be some who wouldn't date out of their race/ethnicity/whatever because they are racist, but I think it's more common for people to simply like their colors to match

On the other hand, I have a male Caucasian (Irish) friend who ONLY likes Asian women. He doesn't care what type of Asian. I had another male Caucasian friend who ONLY liked Hispanic women. I had a Caucasian female friend who would date lots of different men but REALLY LIKED black (not African American, because they could be Nigerian) men. A few of my Asian friends only dated Caucasians. Yeesh! Were they reverse racist? I don't think so, I think they just liked what they liked, like rocky road or chocolate chip.

For me it doesn't matter, it only matters that the guy be a good person and the same religion as I. I've had crushes on all kinds of men of all races...but I just melt over Irish accents. Ha!
Retired
retired moderator
#150 Old 28th Aug 2012 at 5:44 AM Last edited by kiwi_tea : 6th Sep 2012 at 1:36 PM. Reason: discrete>discreet
Quote:
Well a gay person stating that they only date men doesn't make them sexist, it just means their aren't attracted to the opposite.


Apples with oranges. Gender is a biological category, and homosexuality almost certainly has a biological basis as well. Gender preference is just a completely different kettle of fish to racial preference. Gay people don't really have a choice, or their ability to choice is radically limited. Race is a social category, not a biological one. Skin colour is biological but as DrowningFishy observed, it doesn't equate to race. I'm Polynesian and I have white skin and features like an Irishman. Saying I'm "white" or "Polynesian" is not very informative in most social spheres, it's just a trivial label that race-realists attach a heap of unjustified tags onto.

There's a bit of bad science in this thread. For example:

Quote:
Well, scientifically-speaking, there are only four races. Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, and Aboriginal.


This is just nonsense. None of those are discrete, identifiable, consistent categories, and this is a very dated attempt to shore up the tenuous notion that races exist in any meaningful biological sense by defining them through geography. There is a sense in which Mistermook is right, there is only really one race, and it's the human one. There's also a sense in which races are real social categories we've carved out, like churches or nations. Not biological, just social. There's as much genetic variety within races as between them, and what constitutes a "race" is incredibly arbitrary. Kenan Malik is an excellent writer about race. He notes:

"Defining someone by their continent of origin [which is the basis for the "four races" hypothesis] is really to establish in which of the first major migration their ancestors took part. For instance, to say that someone has African ancestry is to say that his or her ancestors did not make the journey out of Africa. To describe somebody as a 'Pacific Islander' is to suggest that their ancestors made that very first journey along the coastline of Arabia and Asia and across the sea to Australia. We have seen that about four per cent of total human variation comprises differences between the major Continental groups. That four percent is a reflection of the genetic differences between the various bands who made those original journeys. Does it transform contemporary descendants of those original wanderers into distinct races? That is not a question science can answer, because it is a question of how one wishes to interpret that difference.
'Geographical origins do not in themselves constitute races', the philosopher Naomi Zack writes, 'and to assume that they do in the absence of comprehensive supporting human evolutionary data is an egregrious bit of flimflam that begs the question of whether or not there are races.'"
- Strange Fruit; Why Both Sides are Wrong in the Race Debate

Frankly I think the main problem is people treat race as some sort of informative category. It's really not. If you're looking at another human being and assuming their bone structure and skin colour can tell you very reliable information about who they are - you're being racist. If you're looking at another human being and their bone structure and skin colour gives you a boner/ladyboner, you might want to examine whether that's because you've been heavily influenced to find those features attractive, but it might not be harmful unless you're shooting down nice people left right and centre and doing yourself and others a disservice just cos they aren't your desired skin-colour. But the same thing kind of applies if you're shooting down people left right and centre cos they're not your desired height.

Personally, I find it hard not to feel it's douche-y to select lovers based on skin-colour or height. But then, I melt for an accent. So I'm a hypocrite, aren't I?

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
 
Page 6 of 15
Back to top