Only Want to Date White Girls, is this Racist?

[Seriong]

It doesn't muddy the term really, it merely classifies things according to motivation, the effect of the actions taken under that motivation to be determined later.

Which muddies the term. Or do you deny the fact that "racism" is a word with a culturally negative connotation?

It has a negative connotation. It also has a common definition. It is also common to use the word 'racist' to describe actions that benefit a someone due to their race, even if they do not harm anyone else.

Also, it's hardly eccentric to do something that's done by the majority of people. Most people date in their own race.

Eccentric, not in the sense of being out of the ordinary, but in the sense of being inanely specific about certain things.

That's an eccentric quality generally, not a definition of eccentricity. However I don't wish to quibble over that word.

His contention however is that attraction is entirely subjective,

Which I agree with.

and is therefore equally based on opinion, as it would be to have any view of a race that cannot be corroborated by facts and reality. Therefore, if we classify other things based on that criteria (As the definition I set forth as a conglomerate of his posts, which I would love for him to confirm or deny as the definition he is using broadly) as racist, then we must to judge this racist.

Except that's a stupid definition of racism. I don't accept that definition, at all. It's a child's definition.

What definition do you believe is being used there? The one I provided, or the one you have characterized him to be providing?

It would necessitate the opnion that X race is unnatractive, yes, but so long as that is recognized as a personal, subjective opinion, and not one that is a measure of reality, then I see no problem with it. It generates no unjut harm, it brings about no form of oppression, and consequently, there is absolutely no reason to consider it racist.

You are taking connotation to be indicative of definition, which is not true. Abnormal carries a negative connotation, however its definition is in part the same as atypical, which has a neutral connotation.

[Seriong]

No it's not racist. Not more than wanting to date someone of the opposit sex is homophobic.

You want the word sexist, homophobia doesn't mention gender.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Think what you will, I lost all my interest in discussing with you since you said that "discrimination towards another races doesn't mean it's racism"; which in itself is fucking racism.

When I read this, I thought you paraphrased and then misquoted. I was wrong.

Racism as a term should be limited to explicitely harmful things. It shouldn't be haphazardly used to described any old form of discrimination that involves skin colour.

There's this sinking feeling. As if, the Titanic itself was sinking.

Tell me about it. Right now, I'm not even sure how he can manage to dig a bigger hole than the one he just jumped into.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Says the one who came up with this "quote of wisdom":

So are AA programs designed to specifically target disadvantaged black individuals racist Soldati?

The thread. Stick to it.

Not entertaining your threadjacking and wanking off.

[Celestial Divinities]

I mean, this is historically a well-accepted phenomenon, so I'm not sure it's your place to categorically deny it without any sort of reasoning, at the very least. If it's not true, then why do many minorities typically value white standards of beauty so highly?

Why? Why do you think it's such an insane idea that growing up surrounded by a whitewashed and racist media could affect someone's preferences in a partner?

I don't think it's such an insane idea, what I think is an insane idea is when you propose that it's nigh impossible for people to not be that way.

A preference of race will be "just like any other preference" when we live in a world where white people never owned black people, when PoC make just as much on the dollar as white people, when we have equal representation in the media, when people stop dying because of racism. There is no KKK of hair color or age or intelligence. Race is different.

No, race is not different. It's only different so long as people continue to treat it differently. There is no law of the universe which states it HAS to be different. It's different, because people will it to be different.

I will it not to be different, as many others do. And since the entire point of this topic is to discuss whether or not racial preferences in attractiveness are intrinsically racist, that will is the only part of this conversation that truly matters. It's the only fucking thing I've been deabting this entire fucking time. That yes, it's NOT racist, because it's entitely possible that people have racial preferences that are NOT founded upon racist reasoning. Because yes, race CAN be just like hair or eye colour. And for many, that is reality.

Your unwillingness to accept that reality is, frankly, not my problem.

There is no "law of the universe" but there is hundreds of years of history making it different that will not go away because you will it to. And if you'll see my original post, I admitted that it is possible for it to be an innocent preference, if extremely unlikely. "I prefer girls with fair skin" is for example a much less racist way of expressing this preference.

[Aurora Novus]

It has a negative connotation. It also has a common definition. It is also common to use the word 'racist' to describe actions that benefit a someone due to their race, even if they do not harm anyone else.

The fact that it has a negative connotation makes everything else irrelevant, unless you're willing to try and change that connotation. But the fact is when you use the word "Racism" to refer to things which do not generate harm, it muddies the term, because people begint o associate the negative connotation of the word with harmless behaviors, or behaviors that do not woaarent the level of negativiy attributed to the word. It's the same issue with using the word "rape" in "satutory rape". the word "racism" conjures certain imagry in people's minds, and to use that word, and in turn, associate that imagry with something completely different from that imagry is harmful.

What definition do you believe is being used there? The one I provided, or the one you have characterized him to be providing?

What I have carictarized as being provided is what has been provided.

It would necessitate the opnion that X race is unnatractive, yes, but so long as that is recognized as a personal, subjective opinion, and not one that is a measure of reality, then I see no problem with it. It generates no unjut harm, it brings about no form of oppression, and consequently, there is absolutely no reason to consider it racist.

You are taking connotation to be indicative of definition, which is not true. Abnormal carries a negative connotation, however its definition is in part the same as atypical, which has a neutral connotation.[/quote]

I'm not taking connotation to be indicative of definition. However, it's quite clear that connotation influences people's perception of a word, and consequently, certain scenarios, reagrdless of the definition. Therefore, to use a definition that can communicate negaive imagry in association with non-negative behaviors is, simply put, fucking stupid. Reserve the word racism to refer to only negative things, in accordance with the negative connotations it carries.

[Aurora Novus]

So are AA programs designed to specifically target disadvantaged black individuals racist Soldati?

The thread. Stick to it.

Not entertaining your threadjacking and wanking off.

This isn't a threadjack, this is important to the the point you are attempting to make against me. Don't dodge the question just because you're nervous about answering it. You want to say that it is unreasonable for me to state that one can be racially discriminatory without being racist.

So. Are AA programs design to specifically target disadvantaged black individuals racist? Yes or no. I want to know if you actually believe the rhetoric coming out of your mouth. Because according to you, they would be racist.

If, however, you are inclined to say they aren't racist:

...you can be discriminatory when it comes to race without being racist.

[Celestial Divinities]

I mean, this is historically a well-accepted phenomenon, so I'm not sure it's your place to categorically deny it without any sort of reasoning, at the very least. If it's not true, then why do many minorities typically value white standards of beauty so highly?

Why? Why do you think it's such an insane idea that growing up surrounded by a whitewashed and racist media could affect someone's preferences in a partner?

I don't think it's such an insane idea, what I think is an insane idea is when you propose that it's nigh impossible for people to not be that way.

A preference of race will be "just like any other preference" when we live in a world where white people never owned black people, when PoC make just as much on the dollar as white people, when we have equal representation in the media, when people stop dying because of racism. There is no KKK of hair color or age or intelligence. Race is different.

No, race is not different. It's only different so long as people continue to treat it differently. There is no law of the universe which states it HAS to be different. It's different, because people will it to be different.

I will it not to be different, as many others do. And since the entire point of this topic is to discuss whether or not racial preferences in attractiveness are intrinsically racist, that will is the only part of this conversation that truly matters. It's the only fucking thing I've been deabting this entire fucking time. That yes, it's NOT racist, because it's entitely possible that people have racial preferences that are NOT founded upon racist reasoning. Because yes, race CAN be just like hair or eye colour. And for many, that is reality.

Your unwillingness to accept that reality is, frankly, not my problem.

It is also not a matter of willing. Whether or not you choose to ignore race, that doesn't change the fact that you are constantly being bombarded with a white standard of beauty which is reflected in people's every day thoughts and choices. Your choice to treat race as if it is any other phenotype does not change anything and is frankly almost irrelevant. The fact that "many others do" is also irrelevant.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm not taking connotation to be indicative of definition. However, it's quite clear that connotation influences people's perception of a word, and consequently, certain scenarios, reagrdless of the definition. Therefore, to use a definition that can communicate negaive imagry in association with non-negative behaviors is, simply put, fucking stupid. Reserve the word racism to refer to only negative things, in accordance with the negative connotations it carries.

So we should only use the words that doesn't make you cry, is that it?

TO throw your own words back at you; the fact you decide to get up on arms to defend such a position that goes against reality is, frankly, not my issue.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The thread. Stick to it.

Not entertaining your threadjacking and wanking off.

This isn't a threadjack, this is important to the the point you are attempting to make against me. Don't dodge the question just because you're nervous about answering it. You want to say that it is unreasonable for me to state that one can be racially discriminatory without being racist.

So. Are AA programs design to specifically target disadvantaged black individuals racist? Yes or no. I want to know if you actually believe the rhetoric coming out of your mouth. Because according to you, they would be racist.

If, however, you are inclined to say they aren't racist:

...you can be discriminatory when it comes to race without being racist.

It is a threadjack. Alcoholics Anonymous has nothing to do with dating; why should I answer your question?

Just, stop. You're making yourself look even more pathetic. Right now you're just grasping at straws to be proven right. Not going to work.

[Aurora Novus]

There is no "law of the universe" but there is hundreds of years of history making it different that will not go away because you will it to.

History is irrelevant. History does not determine laws of logic. If it's possible to have racial preferences that are not based upon racism, then it's possible, regardless of the history we find ourselves with.

History doesn't change because I will it, no. How history influences me, and what my preferences are based upon, however, does.

And if you'll see my original post, I admitted that it is possible for it to be an innocent preference, if extremely unlikely. "I prefer girls with fair skin" is for example a much less racist way of expressing this preference.

Saying that "fair" is less racist than "white" is petty nonsense. I'll not take part in it.

Though I would perhaps modify my preference as "pale", since it's not just whiteness, but extreme palness, a "ghostly whiteness", that I find most attractive. Which most people tend to find unatractive actually. But that's not quite relevant.

[Aurora Novus]

It is a threadjack. Alcoholics Anonymous has nothing to do with dating; why should I answer your question?

Just, stop. You're making yourself look even more pathetic. Right now you're just grasping at straws to be proven right. Not going to work.

The fuck? Alchoholics Anonymous? I'm talking about Affirmative Action programs. Get it together.

This has everything to do with the topic at hand. You want to say that it's unreasonable for me to make the claim that one can be racially discriminatory without being racist. That is a direct assault against my claim that racial preferences in dating can be devoid of racism.

So, answer the question. The only one who looks pathetic right now is you, dancing around it twice.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So, answer the question. The only one who looks pathetic right now is you, dancing around it twice.

One of us is looking like my clients who lost their shit because they were proven wrong over the phone when I was helping them fix their issues; that person isn't me.

You're doing everything you can to grasp at straws to debunk my argument. Fact is, you really can't given those are YOUR words, and YOUR words carry certain connotations into this.

[Celestial Divinities]

There is no "law of the universe" but there is hundreds of years of history making it different that will not go away because you will it to.

History is irrelevant. History does not determine laws of logic. If it's possible to have racial preferences that are not based upon racism, then it's possible, regardless of the history we find ourselves with.

History doesn't change because I will it, no. How history influences me, and what my preferences are based upon, however, does.

Well you're just really special then, not being influenced by history or society. You are an outlier and should never have been counted.

And if you'll see my original post, I admitted that it is possible for it to be an innocent preference, if extremely unlikely. "I prefer girls with fair skin" is for example a much less racist way of expressing this preference.

Saying that "fair" is less racist than "white" is petty nonsense. I'll not take part in it.

Though I would perhaps modify my preference as "pale", since it's not just whiteness, but extreme palness, a "ghostly whiteness", that I find most attractive. Which most people tend to find unatractive actually. But that's not quite relevant.[/quote]
I do not mean or say it is a less racist preference, I said it was a less racist way off expressing it. It sounds like racist and will certainly offend a lot less people.

[Aurora Novus]

I'm not taking connotation to be indicative of definition. However, it's quite clear that connotation influences people's perception of a word, and consequently, certain scenarios, reagrdless of the definition. Therefore, to use a definition that can communicate negaive imagry in association with non-negative behaviors is, simply put, fucking stupid. Reserve the word racism to refer to only negative things, in accordance with the negative connotations it carries.

So we should only use the words that doesn't make you cry, is that it?

TO throw your own words back at you; the fact you decide to get up on arms to defend such a position that goes against reality is, frankly, not my issue.

I'm not defending a position that goes against reality. I'm pointing out the (very real) fact that racism carries a social negative connotation, and in response to that, I'm making the claim that it's fucking stupid to define racism in any way that might conflate that negative connotation with non-negative behaviors. It serves no benefit to define non-negative behaviors as racist, it serves only as a detriment.

The fact that you push so hard to use the word racism in this context shows that you hold it to be something negative, not because you have any particular feelings towards a given definition itself. You want to portray racial preferences in dating as something negative, and you want to do so principly because of issues you've raised about non-whites and dating. You are, in essence, trying to use racism as a tool to shame people into giving into your entitlement complex. Deplorable.

[Getrektistan]

I mean, this is historically a well-accepted phenomenon, so I'm not sure it's your place to categorically deny it without any sort of reasoning, at the very least. If it's not true, then why do many minorities typically value white standards of beauty so highly?

Why? Why do you think it's such an insane idea that growing up surrounded by a whitewashed and racist media could affect someone's preferences in a partner?

I don't think it's such an insane idea, what I think is an insane idea is when you propose that it's nigh impossible for people to not be that way.

I mean, you didn't really answer my question. Why is it that almost every American culture, as well as many non-American ones, has a strong undercurrent of purely white beauty standards?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So we should only use the words that doesn't make you cry, is that it?

TO throw your own words back at you; the fact you decide to get up on arms to defend such a position that goes against reality is, frankly, not my issue.

I'm not defending a position that goes against reality. I'm pointing out the (very real) fact that racism carries a social negative connotation, and in response to that, I'm making the claim that it's fucking stupid to define racism in any way that might conflate that negative connotation with non-negative behaviors. It serves no benefit to define non-negative behaviors as racist, it serves only as a detriment.

The fact that you push so hard to use the word racism in this context shows that you hold it to be something negative, not because you have any particular feelings towards a given definition itself. You want to portray racial preferences in dating as something negative, and you want to do so principly because of issues you've raised about non-whites and dating. you are, in essence, trying to use racism as a toold to shame people into giving into your entitlement complex. Deplorable.

Just a tip, champ. I have perhaps dated more women than you, without using the entitlement card; so this is not benefiting me in any way.

I am using a definition that historians and sociologists use. Again, just because it makes you cry "but I'm not a racist!" when I point out a preference can be racist if it is grounded in racist logic isn't my fucking problem; it's yours.

[Aurora Novus]

So, answer the question. The only one who looks pathetic right now is you, dancing around it twice.

One of us is looking like my clients who lost their shit because they were proven wrong over the phone when I was helping them fix their issues; that person isn't me.

I haven't lost my shit at all. I am, however, pointig out the absolutel fuck up you made in trying to characterize my statement as an absurd one.

You're doing everything you can to grasp at straws to debunk my argument. Fact is, you really can't given those are YOUR words, and YOUR words carry certain connotations into this.

So, what's your answer? Is it racist or not? Is it possible to be racially discriminatory without being racist? Go on, asnwer Soldati. Answer.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

One of us is looking like my clients who lost their shit because they were proven wrong over the phone when I was helping them fix their issues; that person isn't me.

I haven't lost my shit at all. I am, however, pointig out the absolutel fuck up you made in trying to characterize my statement as an absurd one.

You're doing everything you can to grasp at straws to debunk my argument. Fact is, you really can't given those are YOUR words, and YOUR words carry certain connotations into this.

So, what's your answer? Is it racist or not? Is it possible to be racially discriminatory without being racist? Go on, asnwer Soldati. Answer.

Because it is absurd, and your taunts are pretty childish.

[Aurora Novus]

Just a tip, champ. I have perhaps dated more women than you, without using the entitlement card; so this is not benefiting me in any way.

You've most certainly dated and slept with more women than me. But I've never been one to use the number of sexual conquests one has made as a measure of their worth. Curious that you seem to.

I am using a definition that historians and sociologists use.

No. No you're not. Historians and Sociologists use a definition of racism that is far more complex that "racially discriminatory". Their definitions deal with power relations and such.

Again, just because it makes you cry "but I'm not a racist!" when I point out a preference can be racist if it is grounded in racist logic isn't my fucking problem; it's yours.

Again, I've never contested that racial preferences are racist if grounded in racsit logic. I have explicitely agreed with that claim.

You, however, are hellbent on charatcerizing nigh all racial preferences as possessing racist logic backing them. Which is fucking absurd. This is summarized in your attempt at mocking me for saying that one can be racially discriminatory without being racist.

[Aurora Novus]

I haven't lost my shit at all. I am, however, pointig out the absolutel fuck up you made in trying to characterize my statement as an absurd one.



So, what's your answer? Is it racist or not? Is it possible to be racially discriminatory without being racist? Go on, asnwer Soldati. Answer.

Because it is absurd, and your taunts are pretty childish.

Taunt? This isn't a fucking taunt. It's a challenge to your bullshit accusation against me. A challenege you've dodged three times now. Are you even aware of what's going on anymore? I mean, you mistook AA for Alchoholics Anonymous earlier, so maybe you aren't.

[Aurora Novus]

I don't think it's such an insane idea, what I think is an insane idea is when you propose that it's nigh impossible for people to not be that way.

I mean, you didn't really answer my question. Why is it that almost every American culture, as well as many non-American ones, has a strong undercurrent of purely white beauty standards?

I didn't asnwer it because the question is irrelevant. It was posed as a challnenge to a percieved rejection of the claim you were making. I do not, however, reject the claim you were making. Consequently, answering the question was, and is, irrelevant.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Just a tip, champ. I have perhaps dated more women than you, without using the entitlement card; so this is not benefiting me in any way.

You've most certainly dated and slept with more women than me. But I've never been one to use the number of sexual conquests one has made as a measure of their worth. Curious that you seem to.

I am using a definition that historians and sociologists use.

No. No you're not. Historians and Sociologists use a definition of racism that is far more complex that "racially discriminatory". Their definitions deal with power relations and such.

Again, just because it makes you cry "but I'm not a racist!" when I point out a preference can be racist if it is grounded in racist logic isn't my fucking problem; it's yours.

Again, I've never contested that racial preferences are racist if grounded in racsit logic. I have explicitely agreed with that claim.

You, however, are hellbent on charatcerizing nigh all racial preferences as possessing racist logic backing them. Which is fucking absurd. This is summarized in your attempt at mocking me for saying that one can be racially discriminatory without being racist.

Not making a statement with my sexual conquests. I am just saying your attribution to me trying to feel entitled is irrelevant because I don't use arguments to feel entitled to something. There's a big difference between the two you should recognize, before passing judgement on me and my "deplorable" practices.

Also, pleas study History of Ideas, it will help you realize you're wrong.

And my mockery at you for saying one can be racially discriminatory without being racist is deserving of mockery because it's so removed from reality and you're just venting at me because of something you brought to yourself. I don't see what's wrong there.

[Getrektistan]

I mean, you didn't really answer my question. Why is it that almost every American culture, as well as many non-American ones, has a strong undercurrent of purely white beauty standards?

I didn't asnwer it because the question is irrelevant. It was posed as a challnenge to a percieved rejection of the claim you were making. I do not, however, reject the claim you were making. Consequently, answering the question was, and is, irrelevant.

So you don't reject the claim that sexual preference towards whites is the result of a racist culture? Because that's the reason I was asking that question. If you do reject that claim, then you have to explain how exactly it came about that all sorts of cultures all around the world just so happen to have white beauty standards.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Because it is absurd, and your taunts are pretty childish.

Taunt? This isn't a fucking taunt. It's a challenge to your bullshit accusation against me. A challenege you've dodged three times now. Are you even aware of what's going on anymore? I mean, you mistook AA for Alchoholics Anonymous earlier, so maybe you aren't.

Maybe because AA is what Alcoholics Anonymous stands for? I mean, really now, one must be more honest than that if you're even going to take a jab at me.

And well, if it isn't a taunt, what is it, then? Because I don't believe your bullshit excuse that it is a "challenge" when you yourself said the quote and I did nothing but rehash it. Not my problem your own words can be used as weapons.