NATION

PASSWORD

Only Want to Date White Girls, is this Racist?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Cupola
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 375
Founded: Jun 08, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Cupola » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:24 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Cupola wrote:Complaints need to be filed and the products pulled out, as with any toxic product that's not supposed to be toxic. It's good that these studies are made so that more individual become aware that an age-old issue is still present in modern world.

That won't solve the problem. The UK, for example, faces the issue of illegal skin lightening creams STILL being supplied.

The best way to address this is to change public perception of minorities and beauty.

Agreed. Well, that should be done with lots of things like science and what political philosophies actually stand for, for example.
I am an unhyphenated libertarian or an anarchist without adjectives. I am for a lot of things. Also a member of the PC gaming master race. \☺
For: agnosticism, agorism, anarchism, anti-authoritarianism, anti-capitalism, anti-discrimination, anti-fascism, anti-statism, anti-theocracy, atheism, autarchism, autonomism, big tent, civic nationalism, collectivism, communism, cosmopolitanism, councilism, counter-economics, cryptoanarchism, direct democracy, egalitarianism, environmentalism, feminism, free market, georgism, hacktivism, humanitarianism, ignosticism, individualism, infoanarchism, libertarianism, LGBTQ rights, masculism, mutualism, naturism, pacifism, personism, privacy, public domain, scientism, secularism, skepticism, socialism, syncretism, transhumanism and voluntaryism.

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:24 pm

NAROLA-II wrote:
If you don't know the scenario YOU CAN'T MAKE ACCUSATIONS either.

Yes I can, and yes I will.
NAROLA-II wrote: And no, just saying I won't date X people is not racist automatically.

Yes it is.
NAROLA-II wrote:You would have to know why is that decision being taken. It can be just preference and preference is preference.

That's not a preference. Preference is defined as "a greater liking for one alternative over another or others." EXPLICITLY refusing to even entertain the idea of choosing something is not preference.

If I were to offer you an orange and an apple, and you pick the apple because you like apples more, that a preference. If I were to just offer you an orange and you refuse because "I don't eat oranges" that's not a preference, that's just a downright disgust for oranges. You aren't comparing the orange to an alternative, you simply don't like oranges and don't want to eat them.

An ACTUAL sexual preference would be, "I would date X people if we are attracted to each other, though I tend to find myself dating Y people more often."
Last edited by Mavorpen on Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Cupola
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 375
Founded: Jun 08, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Cupola » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:27 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
NAROLA-II wrote:You would have to know why is that decision being taken. It can be just preference and preference is preference.

That's not a preference. Preference is defined as "a greater liking for one alternative over another or others." EXPLICITLY refusing to even entertain the idea of choosing something is not preference.

If I were to offer you an orange and an apple, and you pick the apple because you like apples more, that a preference. If I were to just offer you an orange and you refuse because "I don't eat oranges" that's not a preference, that's just a downright disgust for oranges. You aren't comparing the orange to an alternative, you simply don't like oranges and don't want to eat them.

I actually agree with Mavorpen here, it's very racist since it excludes a specific or all the other groups as a whole.
I am an unhyphenated libertarian or an anarchist without adjectives. I am for a lot of things. Also a member of the PC gaming master race. \☺
For: agnosticism, agorism, anarchism, anti-authoritarianism, anti-capitalism, anti-discrimination, anti-fascism, anti-statism, anti-theocracy, atheism, autarchism, autonomism, big tent, civic nationalism, collectivism, communism, cosmopolitanism, councilism, counter-economics, cryptoanarchism, direct democracy, egalitarianism, environmentalism, feminism, free market, georgism, hacktivism, humanitarianism, ignosticism, individualism, infoanarchism, libertarianism, LGBTQ rights, masculism, mutualism, naturism, pacifism, personism, privacy, public domain, scientism, secularism, skepticism, socialism, syncretism, transhumanism and voluntaryism.

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:27 pm

Cupola wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:That won't solve the problem. The UK, for example, faces the issue of illegal skin lightening creams STILL being supplied.

The best way to address this is to change public perception of minorities and beauty.

Agreed. Well, that should be done with lots of things like science and what political philosophies actually stand for, for example.

Simply increasing diversity in the media would do wonders.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
NAROLA-II
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 23
Founded: Jun 06, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby NAROLA-II » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:32 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Cupola wrote:Complaints need to be filed and the products pulled out, as with any toxic product that's not supposed to be toxic. It's good that these studies are made so that more individual become aware that an age-old issue is still present in modern world.

That won't solve the problem. The UK, for example, faces the issue of illegal skin lightening creams STILL being supplied.

The best way to address this is to change public perception of minorities and beauty.


If the creams were to darken the skin, would you complain too? They would be "changing the public perception of beauty" as well, and to the "benefit" of minorities.

Also, isn't your "solution" as manipulative as the marketing drivel that we should all be white? If you change the perception of beauty, you are just as well pushing people into trying to be into one standard. In that context, why should people be forced to think anything is beautiful?

I think it's time we all grown up. This kind of bs speech is so proven wrong and long in the tooth, it hasn't addressed (again) anything. In the end you will just continue the problem, favor a voting minority over other and sell more cr*p. People should like what they like, use the products they want to use (if proven safe, obviously) and find beautiful what they find beautiful without crazy people telling them what to do undercovered into disguises like equality, political correctness, perception of beauty and all that.

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:35 pm

NAROLA-II wrote:
If the creams were to darken the skin, would you complain too? They would be "changing the public perception of beauty" as well, and to the "benefit" of minorities.

Uh, that's called tanning. You HAVE heard of tanning, right?
NAROLA-II wrote:Also, isn't your "solution" as manipulative as the marketing drivel that we should all be white?

No. My solution is to push the idea that we "shouldn't" be anything, that seeking an unattainable ideal is not worth it.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Trotskylvania
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17217
Founded: Jul 07, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Trotskylvania » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:39 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
NAROLA-II wrote:
If the creams were to darken the skin, would you complain too? They would be "changing the public perception of beauty" as well, and to the "benefit" of minorities.

Uh, that's called tanning. You HAVE heard of tanning, right?
NAROLA-II wrote:Also, isn't your "solution" as manipulative as the marketing drivel that we should all be white?

No. My solution is to push the idea that we "shouldn't" be anything, that seeking an unattainable ideal is not worth it.

Tanning, at least, is a natural defense against UV radiation flux.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in Posadism


"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga

User avatar
Soldati Senza Confini
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 86050
Founded: Mar 11, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Soldati Senza Confini » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:46 pm

Trotskylvania wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:Uh, that's called tanning. You HAVE heard of tanning, right?

No. My solution is to push the idea that we "shouldn't" be anything, that seeking an unattainable ideal is not worth it.

Tanning, at least, is a natural defense against UV radiation flux.


I have a great tan, so I guess I'm good to go?
Soldati senza confini: Better than an iPod in shuffle more with 20,000 songs.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.

"When it’s a choice of putting food on the table, or thinking about your morals, it’s easier to say you’d think about your morals, but only if you’ve never faced that decision." - Anastasia Richardson

Current Goal: Flesh out nation factbook.

User avatar
NAROLA-II
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 23
Founded: Jun 06, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby NAROLA-II » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:54 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
NAROLA-II wrote:
If you don't know the scenario YOU CAN'T MAKE ACCUSATIONS either.

Yes I can, and yes I will.


In every democratic country IT IS A CRIME TO CHARGE SOMEONE OF A CRIME (like racism) WITHOUT PROOF. Then again, you seem to be one of those who rather have some "progressive" dictatorship ruling where you can accuse anyone without proof. Maybe you would like the idea of forced relationships as well, now THAT would make minorities look good, isn't it.

Also, what's the point of your argument if you can make up things? If you don't even know the person and its reasons on such a personal choice and can still make harsh accusations, your words are as much worth as the kind of view you have (none).

Mavorpen wrote:That's not a preference. Preference is defined as "a greater liking for one alternative over another or others." EXPLICITLY refusing to even entertain the idea of choosing something is not preference.


Dictionary definition. I know I haven't had a choice for many things and I wouldn't do or like them, even if I had. That's preference. You, on the other hand, have such a stronger case with your dictionary definition of preference :rofl:

Mavorpen wrote:If I were to offer you an orange and an apple, and you pick the apple because you like apples more, that a preference. If I were to just offer you an orange and you refuse because "I don't eat oranges" that's not a preference, that's just a downright disgust for oranges. You aren't comparing the orange to an alternative, you simply don't like oranges and don't want to eat them.


I guess you are a greater racist than I'm then. If I don't pick the orange, doesn't mean I disgust them or I hate them. The way you put it, is like people who date other races just do it because they haven't any other choice, or that given the opportunity they should just be forced to do it. Both sick, you must recognize.

Mavorpen wrote:An ACTUAL sexual preference would be, "I would date X people if we are attracted to each other, though I tend to find myself dating Y people more often."


Using your apples to oranges (to bullshit) example, if I don't like apples at all I won't "tend" to find myself eating them never. And that doesn't mean I hate or "disgust" apples. What you describe is an ACTUAL attempt to force people into relationships YOU WANT THEM TO HAVE.

This is actually YOUR PREFERENCE. Also, you can be racist dating people from other races be it often or not. You talk a lot of things simple logic will dismiss. Someone maybe open to dating all kinds of people, but never ever do that because of many reasons like living in a country with only Y people. According to your definition of "ACTUAL sexual preference" they would be racist as well, because not ever they date other kind of people.

Usual "progressive" genius.
Last edited by NAROLA-II on Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:00 pm

NAROLA-II wrote:
In every democratic country IT IS A CRIME TO CHARGE SOMEONE OF A CRIME (like racism) WITHOUT PROOF. Then again, you seem to be one of those who rather have some "progressive" dictatorship ruling where you can accuse anyone without proof. Maybe you would like the idea of forced relationships as well, now THAT would make minorities look good, isn't it.

Uh... that's nice?

I'm not charging anyone of a crime, so I have utterly no idea what this has to do with anything I've posted.
NAROLA-II wrote:Also, what's the point of your argument if you can make up things?

I'm not. I'm using logic, reason, and historical and scientific facts to back up my argument.
NAROLA-II wrote:Dictionary definition. I know I haven't had a choice for many things and I wouldn't do or like them, even if I had. That's preference. You, on the other hand, have such a stronger case with your dictionary definition of preference :rofl:

Why yes, yes I do have a stronger case by actually using a dictionary rather than making up the definition for the word.
NAROLA-II wrote:
I guess you are a greater racist than I'm then. If I don't pick the orange, doesn't mean I disgust them or I hate them.

Yes, that's what I JUST said. Why are you repeating shit I already said?
NAROLA-II wrote:
The way you put it, is like people who date other races just do it because they haven't any other choice, or that given the opportunity they should just be forced to do it. Both sick, you must recognize.

Yes, I recognize this, which is precisely why I haven't made this argument and why you pretending I have is a pathetic straw man.
NAROLA-II wrote:
Using your apples to oranges (to bullshit) example, if I don't like apples at all I won't "tend" to find myself eating them never. And that doesn't mean I hate or "disgust" apples.

No, it means you hate, disgust, dislike, etc. apples. Take your pick of what word to use, the general feeling remains the same.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Rabbidskiya Republika
Envoy
 
Posts: 298
Founded: Apr 17, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Rabbidskiya Republika » Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:15 pm

Preferences are not Racist, unless you are a Racist for other reasons as well as having the Preferences.

I prefer White Women, but Black Ladies are ok too, same with Asian Women, Latinas, etc. Each Race has general differences in how they look, other than skin color, which is the usual factor in preferences.

Preferences do not mean you are a Racist. I have several friends of different Races, so does having a preference make me a Racist? NO. It does not.
Rabbidish Republic Army stronk!
Rabbidskiya Republika
http://www.nstracker.net/stats=rabbidskiya_republika
Förstöra kommunisterna!

For: Anarchy, Free Religion, Un-restricted Gun Ownership, Scandinavia, Poland, Russian Crimea, Russia, Putin, Polandball, Limited Abortion (Can be done for specific situations only), Free Speech, the Confederate Flag and Unrestricted Automobile ownership.
Against: Atheism, Socialism, Communism, Social Democracy, Racism, France, Liberalism, Marxism, Maoism, Leninism, Stalinism, Nazism, Slavery, Nuclear Power, Climate Change.

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:19 pm

Rabbidskiya Republika wrote:Preferences do not mean you are a Racist. I have several friends of different Races, so does having a preference make me a Racist? NO. It does not.

Uh... if your best argument is "I have black friends, I'm not racist," the chances of you being a racist exponentially increase.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Soldati Senza Confini
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 86050
Founded: Mar 11, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Soldati Senza Confini » Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:25 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Rabbidskiya Republika wrote:Preferences do not mean you are a Racist. I have several friends of different Races, so does having a preference make me a Racist? NO. It does not.

Uh... if your best argument is "I have black friends, I'm not racist," the chances of you being a racist exponentially increase.


I have to say this is true.

I don't mind dating women of all races, I do prefer certain looks on women more than others though.

IN general though I prefer athletic looks on women (the slim athletic type, not the muscular athletic).
Last edited by Soldati Senza Confini on Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Soldati senza confini: Better than an iPod in shuffle more with 20,000 songs.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.

"When it’s a choice of putting food on the table, or thinking about your morals, it’s easier to say you’d think about your morals, but only if you’ve never faced that decision." - Anastasia Richardson

Current Goal: Flesh out nation factbook.

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:28 pm

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:Uh... if your best argument is "I have black friends, I'm not racist," the chances of you being a racist exponentially increase.


I have to say this is true.

I don't mind dating women of all races, I do prefer certain looks on women more than others though.

IN general though I prefer athletic looks on women (the slim athletic type, not the muscular athletic).

I'll pretty much date anyone that likes science and anime/manga.

I'm not particularly picky.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Soldati Senza Confini
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 86050
Founded: Mar 11, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Soldati Senza Confini » Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:28 pm

Rabbidskiya Republika wrote:Preferences are not Racist, unless you are a Racist for other reasons as well as having the Preferences.

I prefer White Women, but Black Ladies are ok too, same with Asian Women, Latinas, etc. Each Race has general differences in how they look, other than skin color, which is the usual factor in preferences.

Preferences do not mean you are a Racist. I have several friends of different Races, so does having a preference make me a Racist? NO. It does not.


Well a preference is that you like one thing more than another. If you like white women but are open to date other races then no, you're not racist.

Plain refusal to date someone because of their skin color is racist.
Soldati senza confini: Better than an iPod in shuffle more with 20,000 songs.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.

"When it’s a choice of putting food on the table, or thinking about your morals, it’s easier to say you’d think about your morals, but only if you’ve never faced that decision." - Anastasia Richardson

Current Goal: Flesh out nation factbook.

User avatar
Soldati Senza Confini
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 86050
Founded: Mar 11, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Soldati Senza Confini » Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:31 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Soldati senza confini wrote:
I have to say this is true.

I don't mind dating women of all races, I do prefer certain looks on women more than others though.

IN general though I prefer athletic looks on women (the slim athletic type, not the muscular athletic).

I'll pretty much date anyone that likes science and anime/manga.

I'm not particularly picky.


I wonder if another thing that drives people off of dating other races is the fact that racism is still alive and well in America?

I mean, I have heard women say "I won't date you because my parents/family/social circle wouldn't approve of it because they think you'd just be with me for my citizenship or something, given you're Latino".
Last edited by Soldati Senza Confini on Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Soldati senza confini: Better than an iPod in shuffle more with 20,000 songs.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.

"When it’s a choice of putting food on the table, or thinking about your morals, it’s easier to say you’d think about your morals, but only if you’ve never faced that decision." - Anastasia Richardson

Current Goal: Flesh out nation factbook.

User avatar
United Marxist Nations
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33804
Founded: Dec 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby United Marxist Nations » Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:31 pm

Uh, if your preference simply ends up excluding most or all members of a race, then that doesn't make it preference. The argument involving food is sort of irrelevant. It's all about the reason and activeness of the exclusion. If it is active exclusion (that is, making the conscious decision not to date members of X race), then it is racist; if it is inactive exclusion (that is, simply ending up dating excluding that group simply by dating what one is more attracted to), then it is not.
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.

Eastern Orthodox Catechumen. Religious communitarian with Sorelian, Marxist, and Traditionalist influences. Sympathies toward Sunni Islam. All flags/avatars are chosen for aesthetic or humor purposes only
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:32 pm

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:I'll pretty much date anyone that likes science and anime/manga.

I'm not particularly picky.


I wonder if another thing that drives people off of dating other races is the fact that racism is still alive and well in America?

I mean, I have heard women say "I won't date you because my parents wouldn't approve of it because they think you'd just be with me for my citizenship or something, given you're Latino".

That's another part of it.

I've never had that problem, though. I've even dated a girl whose dad was racist. We got along rather well, actually.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Soldati Senza Confini
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 86050
Founded: Mar 11, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Soldati Senza Confini » Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:38 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Soldati senza confini wrote:
I wonder if another thing that drives people off of dating other races is the fact that racism is still alive and well in America?

I mean, I have heard women say "I won't date you because my parents wouldn't approve of it because they think you'd just be with me for my citizenship or something, given you're Latino".

That's another part of it.

I've never had that problem, though. I've even dated a girl whose dad was racist. We got along rather well, actually.


I've had the chance to date outside of my race as a Latino and I have to say I have never had a parent tell me they don't like me. In fact, most families I've spoken with tell the women I'm courting that I'm a great guy.

However, I do realize that interracial relationships are still seen as sort of taboo in America, even if certain members of the population are okay with it, which is why I'm wondering if that sort of... racism is a subconscious part of it all. It seems like it is, because even my dad is wary of me dating outside of my race because of that same reason: that not everybody looks a Latino/X pairing as normal, but more along the lines of social taboo; he doesn't care himself though.

Mind you, right now this is a racist exclusionary reasoning, but basically goes like this: you can't date me because my circle would shun me and make me miserable, along with guys from my race harassing me because I'm X and you're Y.
Last edited by Soldati Senza Confini on Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Soldati senza confini: Better than an iPod in shuffle more with 20,000 songs.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.

"When it’s a choice of putting food on the table, or thinking about your morals, it’s easier to say you’d think about your morals, but only if you’ve never faced that decision." - Anastasia Richardson

Current Goal: Flesh out nation factbook.

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:41 pm

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:That's another part of it.

I've never had that problem, though. I've even dated a girl whose dad was racist. We got along rather well, actually.


I've had the chance to date outside of my race as a Latino and I have to say I have never had a parent tell me they don't like me. In fact, most families I've spoken with tell the women I'm courting that I'm a great guy.

However, I do realize that interracial relationships are still seen as sort of taboo in America, even if certain members of the population are okay with it, which is why I'm wondering if that sort of... racism is a subconscious part of it all. It seems like it is, because even my dad is wary of me dating outside of my race because of that same reason: that not everybody looks a Latino/X pairing as normal, but more along the lines of social taboo; he doesn't care himself though.

My mom's actually the same way. She constantly tells me not to get my hopes up when it comes to dating outside my race, because as much as you may find a great girl outside of your race, their parents can completely ruin it for you.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
NAROLA-II
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 23
Founded: Jun 06, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby NAROLA-II » Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:58 pm

Mavorpen wrote:Uh, that's called tanning. You HAVE heard of tanning, right?
NAROLA-II wrote:Also, isn't your "solution" as manipulative as the marketing drivel that we should all be white?

No. My solution is to push the idea that we "shouldn't" be anything, that seeking an unattainable ideal is not worth it.


So, becoming darker is ok. Whiter is prejudice. Looking great mate!

Also, great idea. Let's not be anything. How is that possible? Dying? Such a smart guy with such original ideas. The unattainable idea is so fresh! Worked nice for Unilever's pockets, not so much for the rest of the world.

Mavorpen wrote:I'm not charging anyone of a crime, so I have utterly no idea what this has to do with anything I've posted.


Yes, you are saying people are being racist when they aren't. It's like saying someone is a thief and he or she isn't. It's a crime and it only shows people like you just like to look good, accuse people randomly for that purpose, not solving anything and then don't take responsibility for their mistakes.

Mavorpen wrote:I'm not. I'm using logic, reason, and historical and scientific facts to back up my argument.


Logic and reason? Certainly not. Historical facts and science can be used to justify racism as well, and they don't take each individual's thinking into consideration. Applying them to everyone so harshly is pure prejudice.

Mavorpen wrote:Why yes, yes I do have a stronger case by actually using a dictionary rather than making up the definition for the word.


Ok, you admit then that you base your whole argument on a dictionary definition (and a pretty poor one, defined with a mere example) on a subject where probably there are thousands of books TRYING to define it? Case closed.

Mavorpen wrote:
NAROLA-II wrote:
The way you put it, is like people who date other races just do it because they haven't any other choice, or that given the opportunity they should just be forced to do it. Both sick, you must recognize.

Yes, I recognize this, which is precisely why I haven't made this argument and why you pretending I have is a pathetic straw man.


You made this exact argument. If I don't pick the orange, I must hate it. To not be a fruit hater, therefore I must pick both even if I dislike, WHICH MEANS FORCED. If I have only the chance of picking the fruit I dislike, I also must take it, so as to meet your "actual preference" definition in which every so often you will do something you dislike to not be hateful. That implies that people dating different people, or eating different fruits, do it because at that moment they had no choice. Your babble looks better and better.

Mavorpen wrote:
NAROLA-II wrote:
Using your apples to oranges (to bullshit) example, if I don't like apples at all I won't "tend" to find myself eating them never. And that doesn't mean I hate or "disgust" apples.

No, it means you hate, disgust, dislike, etc. apples. Take your pick of what word to use, the general feeling remains the same.


It means you like fallacies and put words in other people's mouth. Not choosing something doesn't mean you hate it. I can respect 2 different people but vote for just one of them and never to the other. Don't even try to reply me if you don't have better arguments, I won't answer anymore.

Rabbidskiya Republika wrote:Preferences are not Racist, unless you are a Racist for other reasons as well as having the Preferences.

I prefer White Women, but Black Ladies are ok too, same with Asian Women, Latinas, etc. Each Race has general differences in how they look, other than skin color, which is the usual factor in preferences.

Preferences do not mean you are a Racist. I have several friends of different Races, so does having a preference make me a Racist? NO. It does not.


THIS! Though having friends of a certain race don't necessarily prove anything, you are right about preferences. But some people just will make up any amount of bullshit to say that you are wrong and they are the great saviors of humanity. See, this guy accusing you of being racist because you have friends of all races, now he would save the world. According to him, we would all have to date everyone even if we dislike it and the world would be a great place then. More like a nymphomaniac or a brainwashed political correct kind of guy, if you ask me. Don't waste time on that.

User avatar
Dakini
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23085
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Dakini » Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:08 pm

United Marxist Nations wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:It's probably a result of societal racism.
The reason you are unnattracted to them is that your perception of success and beauty has been warped by media and culture toward viewing middle class and upper class aesthetics as positive.
This is classist.

And due to societal racism, minorities are disproportionately shoved into the working class, though this is now reversing.
Does it make you a racist? No, but it might make you a victim of the effects.

Not entirely sure that that is entirely the case, but it definitely influences it; however, experiments have shown that people are generally more attracted to members of their own race, with the possible exception of Asians, who may or may not be more attracted to whites.

Do you have an actual link to this study? It sounds suspiciously similar to the results of a survey on OK Cupid... which isn't at all scientific or peer-reviewed. In addition, studies cannot do away with prejudice so you're not really going to be able to separate out the effects of societal influence and inherent attraction (if there even is such a thing as the latter).
Last edited by Dakini on Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:10 pm

NAROLA-II wrote:
So, becoming darker is ok. Whiter is prejudice. Looking great mate!

No, becoming darker and whiter is okay if the method is safe. You could at least pretend you're reading my posts.
NAROLA-II wrote:Also, great idea. Let's not be anything.

Uh... alright? If that's your brilliant idea, that's fine. Not sure why you hold such a belief, though.
NAROLA-II wrote:Yes, you are saying people are being racist when they aren't.

In other words, I'm not charging anyone of a crime. Being racist isn't a crime. Use words correctly, please.
NAROLA-II wrote:It's like saying someone is a thief and he or she isn't. It's a crime and it only shows people like you just like to look good, accuse people randomly for that purpose, not solving anything and then don't take responsibility for their mistakes.

Again, being racist isn't a crime.
NAROLA-II wrote:
Logic and reason? Certainly not. Historical facts and science can be used to justify racism as well,

No they cannot, especially not science. There is no scientific basis for race whatsoever.
NAROLA-II wrote:Ok, you admit then that you base your whole argument on a dictionary definition (and a pretty poor one, defined with a mere example) on a subject where probably there are thousands of books TRYING to define it? Case closed.

Indeed, case closed that my argument is significantly better yours.
NAROLA-II wrote:You made this exact argument.

Maybe in your fantasy world where people type things they don't actually type.
NAROLA-II wrote:If I don't pick the orange, I must hate it. To not be a fruit hater, therefore I must pick both even if I dislike, WHICH MEANS FORCED.

Yeah... you do realize I never said you HAVE to like all fruit, right? Your persecution complex isn't amusing.

NAROLA-II wrote:If I have only the chance of picking the fruit I dislike, I also must take it, so as to meet your "actual preference" definition in which every so often you will do something you dislike to not be hateful.

Yeah, no. If you're going to attack an analogy, at least TRY to understand that analogy.

Under my "actual preference" definition, the equivalent of holding preferences would simply be liking some oranges while not liking others while also generally liking apples more.

In other words, given the choice to eat an orange, you don't HAVE to take it or like it. I don't always eat oranges when given the choice. Some oranges I don't like. For example, I don't like oranges with seeds as much as I like seedless oranges. For example, I don't like blood oranges as much as I like regular oranges.
NAROLA-II wrote:Not choosing something doesn't mean you hate it.

It's a good thing I never said it does.

Now, what I actually said? Refusing to even ENTERTAIN the idea of choosing that something? THAT means you hate, dislike, etc. it.
NAROLA-II wrote:I can respect 2 different people but vote for just one of them and never to the other. Don't even try to reply me if you don't have better arguments, I won't answer anymore.

Please don't answer anymore if you can't even put forth five seconds into reading what's being posted. You don't understand anything I've posted. You clearly don't understand the analogy I presented. You don't have any right whatsoever to complain about arguments that you obviously do not comprehend.

If you just want something to bitch and moan and complain that you're being forced to do things when you aren't, you're in the wrong place. If you just want to bitch and moan about "HUUUR, PROGRESSIVES!" you're in the wrong place. I don't care about your persecution complex. I don't care about your failure to understand that just because something is a problem that should be addressed, does not mean the solution should involve legal action. Take off the tinfoil hat and actually address what's being posted.
Last edited by Mavorpen on Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
United Marxist Nations
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33804
Founded: Dec 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby United Marxist Nations » Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:13 pm

Dakini wrote:
United Marxist Nations wrote:Not entirely sure that that is entirely the case, but it definitely influences it; however, experiments have shown that people are generally more attracted to members of their own race, with the possible exception of Asians, who may or may not be more attracted to whites.

Do you have an actual link to this study? It sounds suspiciously similar to the results of a survey on OK Cupid... which isn't at all scientific or peer-reviewed. In addition, studies cannot do away with prejudice so you're not really going to be able to separate out the effects of societal influence and inherent attraction (if there even is such a thing as the latter).

It was on wikipedia, but I don't remember the actual page it was on. Also, of course there is such a thing as inherent attraction; one thing that is universal is facial symmetry.
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.

Eastern Orthodox Catechumen. Religious communitarian with Sorelian, Marxist, and Traditionalist influences. Sympathies toward Sunni Islam. All flags/avatars are chosen for aesthetic or humor purposes only
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.

User avatar
Upper America
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1862
Founded: Jun 10, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Upper America » Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:15 pm

It's not racist at all. I'm mostly attracted to white girls. It's just your preferences, which everyone has.
Pro: LGBT, Evolution, Obama, United States, capitalism, United Nations, South Korea, Israel, EU, Gun Control, Pro-Choice, Women's Rights, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech
Neutral: Creationism
Anti: Homophobia, Discrimination, Racism, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, Islamic State, Communism, Socialism, Chinese censorship

I am a Christian male who supports gay equality, abortion, and believes in evolution. Got a problem? Bring it up to the complaints department, that paper shredder to your right

Wars:
Operation Yaramaqui Liberation- Cancelled
Invasion of Vekalse (Operation Contagion)- Ongoing

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cerespasia, Dantek, EuroStralia, GeGeGeGe, Imperiul romanum, Misdainana, Northern Socialist Council Republics, RzeczPospolitaya, Yung City

Advertisement

Remove ads