Your "racial" preference IS racist, and here's why

[Ms Ragnarok]

Phallic Wonderland

Ms Ragnarok

Phallic Wonderland

volley15

My sister is white. She absolutely refuses to date anyone who is white. She's only ever dated black men. Is this reverse racism now?

Who the hell actually cares? If there is something that automatically makes one more attracted to one over another in a sexual nature who actually cares? Personally, I wouldn't limit myself to anyone one race. I've liked white guys, black guys, Hispanic guys, but if someone only likes a certain one SEXUALLY.... get over it. I don't see that big of a deal. My sister likes black guys, more power to her. A co-worker of mine(white), she only dates white guys, more power to her. Another co-worker, he(Hispanic) only dates Hispanic women, more power to him. Frankly, I don't give a s**t.

Can't we just move past the point where everything is inherently racist and just calm the [********] down?

Nope, everything has to be racist... Oh, except when you're a minority because then you can never be racist. "Racially discriminatory" but NEVER racism. That there's white people labels.

Apparently we have to be open-minded and do/be/say good things about everything and everyone or we're bad people who obviously have something wrong with ourselves.

I'm not quite sure where the OP asks you to do this. Evaluate the (possible?) connection between the depiction of racial minorities in the media and it's effect on people's perceptions of these minorities? Yeah, sure. Evaluate the situation of a society that epitomizes a certain standard of attractiveness and it's implications of the treatment of those who do not fulfill those standards, most specifically in regards to race? Yeah. Engage in discourse to inform/refute these ideas, yeah. To make you personally feel bad (it, to me, seems you post like this because you're sensitive about something...) and to make you personally change your behavior? Not so much. In fact, Omorose has often said that this thread is not about you or any individual person. The thread is an (attempt?) to debunk this idea that racial preferences are not racist or have no foundation in a larger racist dialogue.

And if you feel guilty at the potential of being called racist or having your behavior called racist... then perhaps that's a good time to evaluate yourself. (And if you don't feel guilty or don't actually care, then there's not really a reason to act sensitive about the idea, yeah?)

Mind you, the yous in the last paragraph are semi-general. You do seem sensitive about this, but, admittedly, it might be for other reasons.

I totally had a long-a** well though response ready to submit but it timed out while I was feeding my son. I'll have to rethink and come back to it.

No worries. cat_3nodding

[Omorose Panya]

low iq 111

idk.... i'll just show an example: before jane took sociology 101 she assumed all black guys had large dicks and loved tupac. she wasn't into rap, she was into jazz. so she didn't really want to befriend any black people back then. but then she learned about race and how humans just made it up. so now she ignores race and dates a black guy with a medium peen who enjoys kenny g.
boom. effects of ignoring race.

stare

This is the most incoherent drivel I have read all day.

[Robot Macai]

Omorose Panya

low iq 111

idk.... i'll just show an example: before jane took sociology 101 she assumed all black guys had large dicks and loved tupac. she wasn't into rap, she was into jazz. so she didn't really want to befriend any black people back then. but then she learned about race and how humans just made it up. so now she ignores race and dates a black guy with a medium peen who enjoys kenny g.
boom. effects of ignoring race.

stare

This is the most incoherent drivel I have read all day.

And you're responding to it.

[low iq 111]

Omorose Panya

low iq 111

idk.... i'll just show an example: before jane took sociology 101 she assumed all black guys had large dicks and loved tupac. she wasn't into rap, she was into jazz. so she didn't really want to befriend any black people back then. but then she learned about race and how humans just made it up. so now she ignores race and dates a black guy with a medium peen who enjoys kenny g.
boom. effects of ignoring race.

stare

This is the most incoherent drivel I have read all day.

Not to sound argumentative, but do you have any kind of proper counter- point, or is "nuh-uhhh" all you have to say? Because I think I see your problem. WINNING should not be your goal in this discussion, or if it is you should first think about trying to understand what your opposition is talking about. Until you manage that, you've not much hope of properly telling me off.

[Omorose Panya]

Robot Macai

Let's say that racial preferences are racist. Frankly, I don't have a hard time swallowing that idea at all.

However, I must ask: why does it matter? To those that have racial preferences (I don't, personally), what would motivate them to care about your view that it is racist enough to actually change their behavior in any meaningful fashion? Racist or not, the fact of the matter is, they don't want to ******** blacks, or they only want to ******** Asians, or whatever else.

This isn't about them changing their behavior. If they had to change something, which this thread is not not, it should be the way they think about who they are and are not attracted to to. In other words, they've got to remember that races ("asian" wink and continents ("african" wink are super diverse, so "I am not attracted to South Americans," for example, does not make sense in practical terns.

As stated, this is not about attraction itself --- it's not about encouraging anyone to try to convince themselves that individuals whom they perceive as ugly are actually liek supah hawtt brah, or even vice versa; it is about realising the racist categorisation that's going on among an entire people as a concept. That they associate an entirely diverse group as negative (or positive) has to do with their conception of the group, I'm pretty sure that I posted something about that in the OP---that we're unlikely to conceive of groups of people whom we associate with negative things as "attractive" or other positive things, and similarly that we're unlikely to conceive of groups of people whom we associate with positive things as "unattractive." I want people to think about these things.

Excuse the dumb explanation. It's three AM and my insomnia is preventing me from getting any sleep, even though I am damn tired.

[Robot Macai]

Omorose Panya

Robot Macai

Let's say that racial preferences are racist. Frankly, I don't have a hard time swallowing that idea at all.

However, I must ask: why does it matter? To those that have racial preferences (I don't, personally), what would motivate them to care about your view that it is racist enough to actually change their behavior in any meaningful fashion? Racist or not, the fact of the matter is, they don't want to ******** blacks, or they only want to ******** Asians, or whatever else.

This isn't about them changing their behavior. If they had to change something, which this thread is not not, it should be the way they think about who they are and are not attracted to to. In other words, they've got to remember that races ("asian" wink and continents ("african" wink are super diverse, so "I am not attracted to South Americans," for example, does not make sense in practical terns.

As stated, this is not about attraction itself --- it's not about encouraging anyone to try to convince themselves that individuals whom they perceive as ugly are actually liek supah hawtt brah, or even vice versa; it is about realising the racist categorisation that's going on among an entire people as a concept. That they associate an entirely diverse group as negative (or positive) has to do with their conception of the group, I'm pretty sure that I posted something about that in the OP---that we're unlikely to conceive of groups of people whom we associate with negative things as "attractive" or other positive things, and similarly that we're unlikely to conceive of groups of people whom we associate with positive things as "unattractive." I want people to think about these things.

Excuse the dumb explanation. It's three AM and my insomnia is preventing me from getting any sleep, even though I am damn tired.

So if you don't want to change anything in terms of behavior, what's the point? It's not just intangible, but it's totally meaningless. It's just idle thought at best.

[Omorose Panya]

low iq 111

Omorose Panya

low iq 111

idk.... i'll just show an example: before jane took sociology 101 she assumed all black guys had large dicks and loved tupac. she wasn't into rap, she was into jazz. so she didn't really want to befriend any black people back then. but then she learned about race and how humans just made it up. so now she ignores race and dates a black guy with a medium peen who enjoys kenny g.
boom. effects of ignoring race.

stare

This is the most incoherent drivel I have read all day.

Not to sound argumentative, but do you have any kind of proper counter- point, or is "nuh-uhhh" all you have to say? Because I think I see your problem. WINNING should not be your goal in this discussion, or if it is you should first think about trying to understand what your opposition is talking about. Until you manage that, you've not much hope of properly telling me off.

What is with all of these phony disclaimers? Geez. If you sound argumentative, then adding "Not to sound argumentative" at the beginning is not going to change anything.

A counterpoint to what? Seriously, what in the blue ******** are you even trying to say there?

[Omorose Panya]

Robot Macai

So if you don't want to change anything in terms of behavior, what's the point? It's not just intangible, but it's totally meaningless. It's just idle thought at best.

...So do all ED threads have to aim to get people to change their behavior to be meaningful? Say, an abortion thread is meaningless unless the OP can persuade women to never have abortions or to throw wild college abortion parties?

[Robot Macai]

Omorose Panya

Robot Macai

So if you don't want to change anything in terms of behavior, what's the point? It's not just intangible, but it's totally meaningless. It's just idle thought at best.

...So do all ED threads have to aim to get people to change their behavior to be meaningful? Say, an abortion thread is meaningless unless the OP can persuade women to never have abortions or to throw wild college abortion parties?

I think they should, at the very least, advocate a policy change of some kind.

[Ms Ragnarok]

low iq 111

Vixianna

low iq 111

Vixianna

low iq 111

actually it's not pretending....and yeah i would say it does because you then treat everyone the same regardless of race because of what you think...so

Actually it is.
And no you don't. No one in America treats everyone the same on the basis of race, unless they are an infant. There's way too much baggage in this country. And ignoring that race exists doesn't stop it from having effects, it just hides it.

lol okay....i give up. you know how everyone acts and thinks. lol. just ....i can't....
...i already explained why even infants could be racist though....
ignoring that race exists prevents said person from being racist. you can't change how other people think too much, but it does make the person doing it different. so yeah, it would have effects...

How?

Explain how you ignoring race means that racial effects won't happen. Exxxxppppllllaaain to mmeeeeee...

idk.... i'll just show an example: before jane took sociology 101 she assumed all black guys had large dicks and loved tupac. she wasn't into rap, she was into jazz. so she didn't really want to befriend any black people back then. but then she learned about race and how humans just made it up. so now she ignores race and dates a black guy with a medium peen who enjoys kenny g.
boom. effects of ignoring race.

That's not exactly an issue of ignoring race, that's an issue of ignoring racial stereotypes. Saying that is an issue of ignoring race implies that monster dicks and liking Tupac are characteristics of a race and not that of racial stereotyping. Essentially it's the difference between... "Jane ignored that he was black thus allowing her to find out he had an average sized d**k and liked Kenny G." vs. "Jane ignored the racial stereotypes of black men thus allowing her to find out that he had an average sized d**k and liked Kenny G." The first implies an issue of race, the other implies an issue of racial stereotypes. Liking Tupac and having monster dicks aren't an issue of race, they're an issue of racial stereotyping.
Ignoring that he was black didn't make it so she found a black lover with an average d**k size and liked Kenny G, ignoring the stereotype of black men having massive dicks and liking Tupac did. It's a pretty important difference.
So, uh, almost?

[I AM R U]

Omorose Panya

I AM R U

I'm not "offended" by you using the phrase butthurt... It's just annoying the way you use it quite often, and it leaves the other person thinking "Oh, what the heck did I do that she's getting so worked up?" It also diminishes your position by portraying you as less articulate and informed than you are - reverting to glib references of my hurting butt rather than actually addressing what I'm saying? My boyfriend objects - he hasn't caused me pain during sex for years wink
(This is a joke - I have a weird sense of humour ;p )

Ah, I don't always defend Angel - sometimes he's a douche, but he is my friend. I defend him when I agree with him, and blast him when I don't.

Also, I like the OP better now. And I agree, that in media etc., minority groups are reduced to stereotypes that often reflect previous racist perceptions within society, and that I do agree that individuals' sexual preferences can reflect racist discourse, and that everyone should think about where their perceptions of others comes from - HOWEVER, I would still argue that this can both apply to everyone, with all areas of society often displayed as stereotypes in media. It makes it easier for them, and while members of society often know that isn't right, more pressure needs to be put on the media not be so lazy. I don't know about America, but it's starting to happen in Australia, with the audience making it clear to the media that they are interested in seeing a decrease in lazy stereotyping. Finally, I would also disagree that EVERY SINGLE individual in the world's sexual preferences AGAINST EVERYONE are based on racist discourses. Many people do seem to be able to take every individual as they come, and see them for themselves, without a per-conception based on racial theory. I don;t know, maybe I just do believe the good in people, or maybe I'm just very lucky in the humanity I have witnessed, but for the most part I would argue that it is a minority of people who continue to be influenced by racial discourse, and that the majority are able to critically reflect on their own decision making process. Indeed, I think factors other than race are common today, such as religion, political views sexuality etc. when people make "snap-decision" judgements about others.

I would also argue, although only briefly, and I am happy to admit my knowledge of the situation in America isn't particularly good, that the characterization of minority racial groups has improved dramatically, with more positive than negative depictions being displayed. These are often still stereotyping, I admit, but their positive ones rather than negative ones, in a manner more similar to the stereotyping of majority races (I'm not saying they portray them as being "the same", just that a shift has occurred where it is more normal to see a positive portrayal, rather than a negative one, as is customary among "majority" races).

You're saying is that you and others choose to ignore my entire argument and other words I've used because you see that I've used the word "butthurt." Hn. Well, then, if it is a matter of selective interpretation and it doesn't even have to do with offense, then I won't stop using it.

Wow, honey. For someone who spends a lot time telling people they fail at comprehension, you ought to read what people say a little more carefully. I did not say that I and others have chosen to completely ignore EVERYTHING you've said because the phrase "butthurt". I said it diminishes your creditability. That's all.

Quote:

However! It is because I am unconvinced that there was an instance in which I did not even attempt to refute someone's argument and instead (not in addition) just pointed out that they were butthurt about something or another. I would ask you to explain where that happened, but y'know, I'll search myself. Ctrl + F "butthurt" in my post history reveals that:

* It does not even appear until the fourth page, upon which is shows up four times: two are from you, one is me asking you about the word, and only one is me using it on my own in this post. And, lookie there: an explanation is attached.

* It appears twice on page five, but Chitsa said it.

* It appears twice on page six--- the same post of you asking me to "Maybe stop being so butthurt?"

* Three times on page seven: Once from the same Chitsa quote, the second use by me here, and a third is a duplicate quoted in my post to you, which I will quote once I get to the original.

* Twice on the next page: in the post to you mentioned above, and in a post to Mika quoting the tidbit in the OP that says it.

* Nothing on the next page, but once on page 10 from Vixi.

* Two more on page 13, here and here.

* The OP is on page 14, and I've already stated that it is used once there.

So what does the above tell us?

* In my post history for this thread, it appears 16 times in a total of 14/140 posts.

* Six of those 16 are in original posts (not duplicate quotes) from me.

* It was a response to others' posts, and used in the same context every time (describing emotional reactions from others) . Contextually, it makes little sense to conclude that I was "getting so worked up" about anything because of the usage.


This tells us that I do not use it "so often" and that, in every instance I used it, it was stated in addition to a full refute, and not instead of one as you suggest. That lets us know that your analysis does not reflect reality and is itself likely an emotional reaction. Y'know, what I'd call "butthurt." wink

You used in your very first reply to me, I'm fairly sure. That was enough to create an impression. And your overblown reaction now, to a very brief comment (humorously phrased, too, I'd like to add, and certainly not intended to provoke) kinda proves just how "emotional" you are.

Quote:

But Chitsa, Joe, and Angel, as evident in this and the other thread, have all made the same mistake you did: Ignore my refute and allowed your --- something. emotions? --- to delude you from the reality of the situation. Somehow the facts that I (a) gave full refutes, and (b) much, if not all, of the complaints you all brought up were borne of your own misreading of the OP and posts in the thread, as evidenced by the sections and posts you all mentioned and quoted to support your points, has bypassed all of you, and yet you all seem so perplexed by my calling attention to these things ("comprehensionphail" and "butthurt" wink . As a treat, I'll explain more instances of your misunderstanding stemming from you simply misreading my OP:

1) Green: The OP neither states nor implies that it cannot be applied to everyone.

2) Blue: This is neither stated nor implied anywhere in the OP.

3) Purple: I never stated that this is about individuals (it's not an never was), and the OP explicitly stated as much since v2.

As for the second part of that sentence, if the person is classifying these individuals racially, then they certainly are not "seeing them for themselves," but as members of socially-designated groups. Race informs us how to perceive and treat people in the same way that gender does, and how we choose to interact with them is based off of those things, along with the other facets of social identity as we learn about them. Someone cannot have a neutral interpretation, as you suggest, while using a socially-loaded system of classification.

4) Orange: I never stated that other things do not inform it. The very fact that I included women (i.e gender) suggests that I am taking an intersectional approach.

Oh. So we agree then.

[Lupin_IV]

this thread is stupid. OP is just a racist playing victim.

[Iamnotsuicidesoldier1]

The Willow Of Darkness

Iamnotsuicidesoldier1

Omorose Panya

low iq 111

Omorose Panya

Yeah, why can't we just pretend that these social systems of oppression don't exist? That way massive oppression would still be occurring but at least we won't have to think about it.

that's not what i'm talking about though. it's not pretending they don't exist, it's being a less racist person by not acknowledging race. you are always on some sort of rampage how people should stop doing one thing or another, like having preferential skin color in terms of attraction, yet you refuse to stop doing something racist yourself.

you are the biggest hypocrite of all.

How does one go about recognising that racial oppression exists, as well as addressing it, if one does not acknowledge race? How does one discuss racism and other systems of oppression in specific terms, such as the disproportionate imprisonment of black men for drug-related crimes? Or the effect of arguably racist immigration policies (or, at the very least, the rhetoric used to defend them) on Latino Americans and their families?

Do you ague the same thing about gender? We should just pretend that it is not a fully established unit of oppression in this society?

Well gender exists but race doesn't.

Just because the KKK says you're different and bad and stuff doesn't mean that you are; if you start to believe that propaganda you're already losing.

Not really, gender categories are just as much a particular "invented" category as race is.

This is even true about "gender" sorely as an identification of sexual organs. Both catergpisation on the basis of skin colour and "gender," in this sense, categorise on the nature of someone's physiology.

X and Y chromosomes and breeding are legitimate things.

It's not like you could breed with a walrus, or with the same gender/sex, or whatevsz, so it's basically an inherent thing in nature; kind of a huge thing, I mean a 1/23 difference is 4.34% genetic difference, way huger than us and monkeys even, on average.


I mean I guess if the innate humungous having different organs isn't a real difference than there's no difference between a human and a rock, or a dinosaur, or anything.

But that's a little silly.

[Iamnotsuicidesoldier1]

Omorose Panya

Iamnotsuicidesoldier1

Well gender exists but race doesn't.

Just because the KKK says you're different and bad and stuff doesn't mean that you are; if you start to believe that propaganda you're already losing.

There is a difference between "exists" and "exists as a biological differentiation." That is to say that something isn't nonexistent just because it is not biological.

I said "gender" intentionally because I am differentiating gender(socialisation) and sex(biology). But even our conception of biological sex is inaccurate because of our rigid gender roles: there are between an estimated 70 million and 350 million intersexed individuals, and yet they are not acknowledged in the common discourse about biological sex.

Insofar as categorisation resulting from socialisation, gender(social identity) is as much a construct as is race(social identity).

wut

Anyways it doesn't matter, because even if it's invented, it's non-existent in our world.


As soon as you start believing in it you start setting yourself up for failure. xp

[Iamnotsuicidesoldier1]

Omorose Panya

Iamnotsuicidesoldier1

Omorose Panya

low iq 111

Iamnotsuicidesoldier1

Race is not existent, therefore only the perception of it exists.

Hence if you prefer a "race", and seek to categorize people that way, ever at all, you're racist.

i'm offended that the op even says "black people" or "white people"

Yeah, why can't we just pretend that these social systems of oppression don't exist? That way massive oppression would still be occurring but at least we won't have to think about it.

Oppression doesn't suddenly cease to exist because race doesn't.

People are being unfairly prosecuted, race doesn't have to exist for it to exist.


It's even more disgusting that they want to isolate and dehumanize people in a way by suggesting they're a different species or something.

I mean, cro magnon man, maybe, neanderthals, probably ,Sasquatch definitely, chupacabra probably, aliens most likely, but humans are so close together it's almost ridiculous. I mean, 4-6 inches is a 20% difference. Common among geckos, but that would be the equivalent of being 7 foot or 4'6 if we assume 5'10 is average height. Especially among ourselves, there is very little difference, and most of those that do exist are entirely cosmetic. Looking different isn't the same as being different, and it's not that different anyways. xp

Racial oppression would, because opportunities would not be divided along racial lines. Are you unaware of how and why race was created in America? It wasn't always "just there." I have a link about it in the OP.

Uh...

Someone oppressing other people exists, that doesn't mean there has to be a legitimate reason for oppression for oppression to exist.


These people invent a reason and then attack that claiming people are a part of a "group".

That doesn't mean the group exists or all the characteristics they portray to having been in there exist. xp