Michigan City Council Candidate: Keep Community white

[The Black Forrest]

Agreed, her comments are backwards and racist and don't deserve a place in the overton window

She's entitled to her opinion as are you, even if you're both in the wrong on this particular subject.

Nobody is arguing she can’t. It’s better they are out in the open.

[Neko-koku]

Both all kinds of ethnonat (including ethnonats in China) and Islamism scare me. Let's just give them some place away from us and let them do something that isn't hurting us. That's it. Authoritarians gonna authoritarian. Let them do it AWAY FROM us so that we aren't affected.

That's just like cats and dogs. Dogs gonna bark. Dogs gonna bite. So let dogs go to their kennels away from kitty areas so that we cats don't have to be affected by them.

Jesus what is it with you and cats?

Cats symbolize freedom lovers. Dogs symbolize collectivists. Let all the dogs go to their kennels. They can bite each other, bark or dominate each other. We cats just need to have our nice catio free from these things.

[Volkish Amerika]

She's entitled to her opinion as are you, even if you're both in the wrong on this particular subject.

Nobody is arguing she can’t. It’s better they are out in the open.

Agreed. It's better that such opinions are allowed to be discussed in public, rather than being held back for fear of mockery or backlash.

[Corunia and Mironor]

Nobody is arguing she can’t. It’s better they are out in the open.

Agreed. It's better that such opinions are allowed to be discussed in public, rather than being held back for fear of mockery or backlash.

Partially agreed, she should be allowed to express her views so people can publicly point out how dumb they are

[The Black Forrest]

Nobody is arguing she can’t. It’s better they are out in the open.

Agreed. It's better that such opinions are allowed to be discussed in public, rather than being held back for fear of mockery or backlash.

Hmmm no; mockery is allowed. What do you define as backlash?

[Volkish Amerika]

Agreed. It's better that such opinions are allowed to be discussed in public, rather than being held back for fear of mockery or backlash.

Hmmm no; mockery is allowed. What do you define as backlash?

My apologies for not clarifying what I meant in my previous post. In essence what I meant is that she shouldn't fear being mocked for her opinions, but by all she should be prepared to deal with the consequences that come with speaking her mind. With regards to the backlash, I'm referring to possible threats against her, her family, or property due to her statements.

[Estanglia]

Because she has a view on how she believes ought to choose marital partners, there's nothing wrong with that.

There's nothing wrong with her having a view, but there is something wrong with her view.

---

And yes, she's expressing a view that people of a race should marry people of that same race, how is that prejudicial? What race is that prejudiced against exactly? Against black people? Why, because she thinks its wrong for a white person to marry a black person? But she also thinks its wrong for a black person to marry a white person over another black person....so that would make her, by your logic, prejudiced against white people? It makes no sense.

She's prejudiced against race mixing.

If I, a white person, marry a black person, she would disagree with that.
But if I marry a white person, that would be okay.

The only difference between these two scenarios is that the race of my partner is different. Thus, she is racist.

The fact is believing people should marry members of their own race isn't a racist view at all, it does not imply contempt for other races or a belief that any race is superior or inferior to another. Its a view that all races are equal but should marry within their own people. What could possibly be hateful about that?

The fact that, if I marry outside of my race, I am doing something wrong and that I should only be marrying other whites.

---

Its not racist because the persons turned away can live in diverse neighbourhoods or live in homnogenous neighbourhoods with members of their own race.

So, if I was to bar entry to black people to my shop, it's not racist as long as there's another shop that bars entry to white people? How does that make sense?

---

Well a homogenous community won't stay homogenous for long if it can't be enforced. But that enforcement isn't discriminatory because, again, any non-white person turned away still has the right to form his own racially-homogenous community solely reserved for his racial group, so again every racial group has the same legal rights.

The enforcement is indeed discriminatory because I am being barred from entry because of something I can't control.

The fact that I can do the same thing to others changes nothing.

---

Except if Marysville says "no darkies allowed," it is forceful and mandatory. I don't care if you're willing to give me a brown people neighborhood. I have a right to live wherever I feel like living in america. This woman can shove it, she literally gets triggered when she sees a Mexican and white person holding hands

Who cares? Live your life the way you want. Let every race have the right to live in homogenous or diverse communities at their choosing. If a white-only neighbourhood won't let you live there it doesn't matter, you can live in a neighbourhood reserved for your race or a neighbourhood that is diverse and open to everyone. I'm all for maximising personal choice.

Ironically, you're advocating for removing personal choice too.

I wouldn't be able to make the personal choice to live in an area reserved for others from other races if your ideas came about. Hence, my personal choice is minimised.

---

[Neko-koku]

Comment:

Do brown (excluding South Asians of course) and black people even have the ability to prevent themselves from getting globally exterminated by whites?

Nope. That is, browns and blacks only exist on this planet because whites still temporarily allow them to. This permission can be withdrawn at any time.

Yet browns and blacks still dare to complain about white people. Lmao. What if they actually withdraw the permission and kill you all just because they can?!

I guess you also think hostages shouldn't complain about their takers to the police because the takers are nice enough to not kill them?

Where is the police in this analogy? Aliens? There are no norm-enforcers here.

If a few white people just want to exterminate all brown people for lolz or whatever then all brown people will simply disappear no matter how innocent they are. Who cares? If you put yourself in the position of rabbits you will be eaten by carnivores and you being eaten is among the most natural events in the world. You had enough time to get nukes and other WMDs precisely to deal with this scenario..and you still do. If you are caught by 14/88 drone club of Berlin or something in 2030 then it's your problem.

Here is one of the most beautiful things about the Sinosphere, namely people in this region are very unlikely to overestimate how nice humans are. If people have the ability to kill you and get away with it we know that they will predictably kill you and get away with it. If you are stupid enough to trust social norms or human morality instead of raw deterrence then you will predictably be killed.

No matter who you are...don't ever fucking call yourself a helpless victim for this invites nothing but more abuse for the phrase "helpless victim" essentially means "someone who can not retaliate effectively against their abusers".

[Rojava Free State]

I guess you also think hostages shouldn't complain about their takers to the police because the takers are nice enough to not kill them?

Where is the police in this analogy? Aliens? There are no norm-enforcers here.

If a few white people just want to exterminate all brown people for lolz or whatever then all brown people will simply disappear no matter how innocent they are. Who cares? If you put yourself in the position of rabbits you will be eaten by carnivores and you being eaten is among the most natural events in the world. You had enough time to get nukes and other WMDs precisely to deal with this scenario..and you still do. If you are caught by 14/88 drone club of Berlin or something in 2030 then it's your problem.

Here is one of the most beautiful things about the Sinosphere, namely people in this region are very unlikely to overestimate how nice humans are. If people have the ability to kill you and get away with it we know that they will predictably kill you and get away with it. If you are stupid enough to trust social norms or human morality instead of raw deterrence then you will predictably be killed.

No matter who you are...don't ever fucking call yourself a helpless victim for this invites nothing but more abuse for the phrase "helpless victim" essentially means "someone who can not retaliate effectively against their abusers".

If I thought we could reason with people based on morality alone, I wouldn't own a gun. I understand that many people do not give a shit about it, so the second best deterrence is to make them aware that by attempting any aggression against you, they may be putting their own life in danger.

[Neko-koku]

Where is the police in this analogy? Aliens? There are no norm-enforcers here.

If a few white people just want to exterminate all brown people for lolz or whatever then all brown people will simply disappear no matter how innocent they are. Who cares? If you put yourself in the position of rabbits you will be eaten by carnivores and you being eaten is among the most natural events in the world. You had enough time to get nukes and other WMDs precisely to deal with this scenario..and you still do. If you are caught by 14/88 drone club of Berlin or something in 2030 then it's your problem.

Here is one of the most beautiful things about the Sinosphere, namely people in this region are very unlikely to overestimate how nice humans are. If people have the ability to kill you and get away with it we know that they will predictably kill you and get away with it. If you are stupid enough to trust social norms or human morality instead of raw deterrence then you will predictably be killed.

No matter who you are...don't ever fucking call yourself a helpless victim for this invites nothing but more abuse for the phrase "helpless victim" essentially means "someone who can not retaliate effectively against their abusers".

If I thought we could reason with people based on morality alone, I wouldn't own a gun. I understand that many people do not give a shit about it, so the second best deterrence is to make them aware that by attempting any aggression against you, they may be putting their own life in danger.

This doesn't work against large-scale attacks though.

[Rojava Free State]

If I thought we could reason with people based on morality alone, I wouldn't own a gun. I understand that many people do not give a shit about it, so the second best deterrence is to make them aware that by attempting any aggression against you, they may be putting their own life in danger.

This doesn't work against large-scale attacks though.

That's why we have armies. They're like the guns of nations

[Neko-koku]

This doesn't work against large-scale attacks though.

That's why we have armies. They're like the guns of nations

Well, eventually there is no safety without Samson Option.

[Purgatio]

That's why we have armies. They're like the guns of nations

Well, eventually there is no safety without Samson Option.

What is that?

[Purgatio]

Because she has a view on how she believes ought to choose marital partners, there's nothing wrong with that.

There's nothing wrong with her having a view, but there is something wrong with her view.

---

And yes, she's expressing a view that people of a race should marry people of that same race, how is that prejudicial? What race is that prejudiced against exactly? Against black people? Why, because she thinks its wrong for a white person to marry a black person? But she also thinks its wrong for a black person to marry a white person over another black person....so that would make her, by your logic, prejudiced against white people? It makes no sense.

She's prejudiced against race mixing.

If I, a white person, marry a black person, she would disagree with that.
But if I marry a white person, that would be okay.

The only difference between these two scenarios is that the race of my partner is different. Thus, she is racist.

The fact is believing people should marry members of their own race isn't a racist view at all, it does not imply contempt for other races or a belief that any race is superior or inferior to another. Its a view that all races are equal but should marry within their own people. What could possibly be hateful about that?

The fact that, if I marry outside of my race, I am doing something wrong and that I should only be marrying other whites.

---

Its not racist because the persons turned away can live in diverse neighbourhoods or live in homnogenous neighbourhoods with members of their own race.

So, if I was to bar entry to black people to my shop, it's not racist as long as there's another shop that bars entry to white people? How does that make sense?

---

Well a homogenous community won't stay homogenous for long if it can't be enforced. But that enforcement isn't discriminatory because, again, any non-white person turned away still has the right to form his own racially-homogenous community solely reserved for his racial group, so again every racial group has the same legal rights.

The enforcement is indeed discriminatory because I am being barred from entry because of something I can't control.

The fact that I can do the same thing to others changes nothing.

---

Who cares? Live your life the way you want. Let every race have the right to live in homogenous or diverse communities at their choosing. If a white-only neighbourhood won't let you live there it doesn't matter, you can live in a neighbourhood reserved for your race or a neighbourhood that is diverse and open to everyone. I'm all for maximising personal choice.

Ironically, you're advocating for removing personal choice too.

I wouldn't be able to make the personal choice to live in an area reserved for others from other races if your ideas came about. Hence, my personal choice is minimised.

---

1) That argument makes no sense, its like saying banning child marriage is ageist because my only problem with your spouse is her age and I wouldn't mind her being your spouse if she were older. But that's not discriminatory at all, because everyone who wants to get married is subject to the same equivalent rules (ie all spouses must marry people above a certain age). In the same thing here, all races are subject to the same rules, white and black and Hispanic and Asian alike, she thinks all races should marry within their own race and not outside it. No race is being placed in an inferior or superior position to any other, it's equality in the truest sense of the word.

Saying she hates black people because she wants a white person to not marry a black person is ridiculous because by that logic she also hates white people since she wants a black person not to marry a white person. By your twisted logic this woman hates every racial group including her own.

2) Right, so I guess male and female bathrooms are gender-discriminatory too, right? Of course not, gendered bathrooms aren't discriminatory because if you're a man and you can't use the women's bathroom, who cares? Use the men's bathroom, it still exists. No gender is being prejudiced or placed in an inferior status or position because both genders have access to a bathroom reserved for their own and if you're gender non-binary those restrooms exists too. Its equality.

Likewise, its not discriminatory just because you can't reside in a neighbourhood because of your race, because every racial group is being given the option to form their own neighbourhood or community reserved for their own people, stock and progeny. I don't see the harm in that.

[Rojava Free State]

There's nothing wrong with her having a view, but there is something wrong with her view.

---

She's prejudiced against race mixing.

If I, a white person, marry a black person, she would disagree with that.
But if I marry a white person, that would be okay.

The only difference between these two scenarios is that the race of my partner is different. Thus, she is racist.



The fact that, if I marry outside of my race, I am doing something wrong and that I should only be marrying other whites.

---

So, if I was to bar entry to black people to my shop, it's not racist as long as there's another shop that bars entry to white people? How does that make sense?

---

The enforcement is indeed discriminatory because I am being barred from entry because of something I can't control.

The fact that I can do the same thing to others changes nothing.

---

Ironically, you're advocating for removing personal choice too.

I wouldn't be able to make the personal choice to live in an area reserved for others from other races if your ideas came about. Hence, my personal choice is minimised.

---

1) That argument makes no sense, its like saying banning child marriage is ageist because my only problem with your spouse is her age and I wouldn't mind her being your spouse if she were older. But that's not discriminatory at all, because everyone who wants to get married is subject to the same equivalent rules (ie all spouses must marry people above a certain age). In the same thing here, all races are subject to the same rules, white and black and Hispanic and Asian alike, she thinks all races should marry within their own race and not outside it. No race is being placed in an inferior or superior position to any other, it's equality in the truest sense of the word.

Saying she hates black people because she wants a white person to not marry a black person is ridiculous because by that logic she also hates white people since she wants a black person not to marry a white person. By your twisted logic this woman hates every racial group including her own.

2) Right, so I guess male and female bathrooms are gender-discriminatory too, right? Of course not, gendered bathrooms aren't discriminatory because if you're a man and you can't use the women's bathroom, who cares? Use the men's bathroom, it still exists. No gender is being prejudiced or placed in an inferior status or position because both genders have access to a bathroom reserved for their own and if you're gender non-binary those restrooms exists too. Its equality.

Likewise, its not discriminatory just because you can't reside in a neighbourhood because of your race, because every racial group is being given the option to form their own neighbourhood or community reserved for their own people, stock and progeny. I don't see the harm in that.

Yeah there were black neighborhoods under apartheid in South africa. They were called townships. Apartheid was still discriminatory and wrong

[Neko-koku]

Well, eventually there is no safety without Samson Option.

What is that?

Ability to destroy the world.

[Estanglia]

1) That argument makes no sense, its like saying banning child marriage is ageist because my only problem with your spouse is her age and I wouldn't mind her being your spouse if she were older. But that's not discriminatory at all, because everyone who wants to get married is subject to the same equivalent rules (ie all spouses must marry people above a certain age).

The age, whilst a prominent factor, is no longer the only one.

There's the fact that we generally consider kids to be separate from adults and that children under a given age are incapable of consent.

Either way, it is indeed discriminatory.

And why the hell would applying a discriminatory rule to all (like 'no marrying outside your race') suddenly stop it from being discriminatory? Discrimination doesn't suddenly stop becoming discrimination when every group faces equal discrimination.

In the same thing here, all races are subject to the same rules, white and black and Hispanic and Asian alike, she thinks all races should marry within their own race and not outside it. No race is being placed in an inferior or superior position to any other, it's equality in the truest sense of the word.

Racism doesn't require one race to be placed below another. One definition of it is 'discrimination based on race', and unless discriminating against one = thinking they're inferior, then it can indeed be racist.

And it's only equality in that everyone is equally barred from marrying other races.

Saying she hates black people because she wants a white person to not marry a black person is ridiculous because by that logic she also hates white people since she wants a black person not to marry a white person. By your twisted logic this woman hates every racial group including her own.

All I said is that she's racist, not that she hates black people.

2) Right, so I guess male and female bathrooms are gender-discriminatory too, right?

They are.

Of course not, gendered bathrooms aren't discriminatory because if you're a man and you can't use the women's bathroom, who cares? Use the men's bathroom, it still exists.

Why does an option existing for me suddenly make it non-discriminatory?

It's still discriminatory. The fact that an option exists for me changes nothing.

No gender is being prejudiced or placed in an inferior status or position because both genders have access to a bathroom reserved for their own and if you're gender non-binary those restrooms exists too. Its equality.

Discrimination doesn't require one to be inferior to be discrimination.

Likewise, its not discriminatory just because you can't reside in a neighbourhood because of your race, because every racial group is being given the option to form their own neighbourhood or community reserved for their own people, stock and progeny. I don't see the harm in that.

It is.

And, as for harm, how about the restriction of personal choice of what area one can live in?

[Purgatio]

1) That argument makes no sense, its like saying banning child marriage is ageist because my only problem with your spouse is her age and I wouldn't mind her being your spouse if she were older. But that's not discriminatory at all, because everyone who wants to get married is subject to the same equivalent rules (ie all spouses must marry people above a certain age).

The age, whilst a prominent factor, is no longer the only one.

There's the fact that we generally consider kids to be separate from adults and that children under a given age are incapable of consent.

Either way, it is indeed discriminatory.

And why the hell would applying a discriminatory rule to all (like 'no marrying outside your race') suddenly stop it from being discriminatory? Discrimination doesn't suddenly stop becoming discrimination when every group faces equal discrimination.

In the same thing here, all races are subject to the same rules, white and black and Hispanic and Asian alike, she thinks all races should marry within their own race and not outside it. No race is being placed in an inferior or superior position to any other, it's equality in the truest sense of the word.

Racism doesn't require one race to be placed below another. One definition of it is 'discrimination based on race', and unless discriminating against one = thinking they're inferior, then it can indeed be racist.

And it's only equality in that everyone is equally barred from marrying other races.

Saying she hates black people because she wants a white person to not marry a black person is ridiculous because by that logic she also hates white people since she wants a black person not to marry a white person. By your twisted logic this woman hates every racial group including her own.

All I said is that she's racist, not that she hates black people.

2) Right, so I guess male and female bathrooms are gender-discriminatory too, right?

They are.

Of course not, gendered bathrooms aren't discriminatory because if you're a man and you can't use the women's bathroom, who cares? Use the men's bathroom, it still exists.

Why does an option existing for me suddenly make it non-discriminatory?

It's still discriminatory. The fact that an option exists for me changes nothing.

No gender is being prejudiced or placed in an inferior status or position because both genders have access to a bathroom reserved for their own and if you're gender non-binary those restrooms exists too. Its equality.

Discrimination doesn't require one to be inferior to be discrimination.

Likewise, its not discriminatory just because you can't reside in a neighbourhood because of your race, because every racial group is being given the option to form their own neighbourhood or community reserved for their own people, stock and progeny. I don't see the harm in that.

It is.

And, as for harm, how about the restriction of personal choice of what area one can live in?

1) You do realise the phrase 'equal discrimination' is a misnomer, right? It can't be discriminatory to lay down a rule that people in racial groups should marry or have children only within that racial group, because its a rule that does not discriminate against any specific racial group. Which racial group is experiencing discrimination under such a system where interracial marriage is illegal? You can't point to any one specific racial group that's suffering discrimination because the rule itself isn't discriminatory. Its not like its illegal for black people to marry outside their race but white people can marry anyone they want, that would be actual discrimination.

2) Yes, the fact that you have the right to reside in a neighbourhood reserved for your race makes it non-discriminatory because everyone, regardless of race, enjoys the same legal rights, namely (a) the right to live in a diverse neighbourhood or (b) if they choose, to live in a neighbourhood or community reserved for members of their own racial group. Ie everyone regardless of race enjoys these same two legal rights, ie the very opposite of racial discrimination.

[Salandriagado]

Traitors like these do not deserve to be pardoned, let alone commemorated, and you are lucky the South wasn't put under direct rule to root out the remnants of the reactionary slaveowning CSA.

Keep the bullshit coming son. The men who those statues honor certainly deserve to be honored and commemorated more than the people calling for their removal/the cowardly officials who removed them.

Why? Because they killed people in defence of slavery?

[Salandriagado]

Pray tell, what "values" do you believe are on the line?



Nah.

I would much prefer to see those statues stay up then see more statues of degenerates go up. At least the confederate leaders had some degree of honor unlike the people you lot idealize.

Honour? You mean like being literal slave traders?

As for your question...Having rap music blaring in the streets,

No particular relationship to skin colour, so far as I can tell.

having mosques on every street corner or hijabs wearing women present in the street.

The problem being?

That's with mentioning having all of those nausea inducing foreign "Restaurants" serving so called "food".

Food with actual taste being available does not impel you to eat it.

The bottom line is if you don't want to assimilate into the culture of a community, you have no place there.

You evidently have no desire to assimilate into the equality-based culture of the United States, so when are you going to leave and go to somewhere that better matches your values? The Islamic State seems like the closest match.

[Necroghastia]

1) You do realise the phrase 'equal discrimination' is a misnomer, right? It can't be discriminatory to lay down a rule that people in racial groups should marry or have children only within that racial group, because its a rule that does not discriminate against any specific racial group. Which racial group is experiencing discrimination under such a system where interracial marriage is illegal? You can't point to any one specific racial group that's suffering discrimination because the rule itself isn't discriminatory. Its not like its illegal for black people to marry outside their race but white people can marry anyone they want, that would be actual discrimination.

This is the either the most ignorant or most insidious argument I have ever seen.
How is it not discriminatory that Allison can marry Bob because they're both white, but she can't marry Claire because she's black?
And how the fuck would you even handle mixed-race people in this dumbass system?
Hell, how many racial categories are you going to make and arbitrarily divide people into?

2) Yes, the fact that you have the right to reside in a neighbourhood reserved for your race makes it non-discriminatory because everyone, regardless of race, enjoys the same legal rights, namely (a) the right to live in a diverse neighbourhood or (b) if they choose, to live in a neighbourhood or community reserved for members of their own racial group. Ie everyone regardless of race enjoys these same two legal rights, ie the very opposite of racial discrimination.

And please, do tell me how such a community's ethnic purity would be enforced without discriminating. I'll wait.

[Estanglia]

1) You do realise the phrase 'equal discrimination' is a misnomer, right? It can't be discriminatory to lay down a rule that people in racial groups should marry or have children only within that racial group, because its a rule that does not discriminate against any specific racial group. Which racial group is experiencing discrimination under such a system where interracial marriage is illegal? You can't point to any one specific racial group that's suffering discrimination because the rule itself isn't discriminatory. Its not like its illegal for black people to marry outside their race but white people can marry anyone they want, that would be actual discrimination.

2) Yes, the fact that you have the right to reside in a neighbourhood reserved for your race makes it non-discriminatory because everyone, regardless of race, enjoys the same legal rights, namely (a) the right to live in a diverse neighbourhood or (b) if they choose, to live in a neighbourhood or community reserved for members of their own racial group. Ie everyone regardless of race enjoys these same two legal rights, ie the very opposite of racial discrimination.

It seems that we're using different definitions of discrimination.

From your logic, it seems that, as long as two groups of people have the same rights, there's no discrimination because a group of black people and a group of white people can do the same things (in this case, create a racially homogenous community).

But for me, two people being treated differently based on identity is discrimination. If a black man wanted to move to a white community but was blocked, that would be discrimination to me. It doesn't matter that there are black communities that the black man can move to that a white man couldn't. To types of people are being treated differently on identity, even though those two groups have the same legal rights. Thus, discrimination.

Or, more simply, you're looking at the society whilst I am looking at the individual.

[Purgatio]

1) You do realise the phrase 'equal discrimination' is a misnomer, right? It can't be discriminatory to lay down a rule that people in racial groups should marry or have children only within that racial group, because its a rule that does not discriminate against any specific racial group. Which racial group is experiencing discrimination under such a system where interracial marriage is illegal? You can't point to any one specific racial group that's suffering discrimination because the rule itself isn't discriminatory. Its not like its illegal for black people to marry outside their race but white people can marry anyone they want, that would be actual discrimination.

This is the either the most ignorant or most insidious argument I have ever seen.
How is it not discriminatory that Allison can marry Bob because they're both white, but she can't marry Claire because she's black?
And how the fuck would you even handle mixed-race people in this dumbass system?
Hell, how many racial categories are you going to make and arbitrarily divide people into?

Hence why people like this woman don't like interracial procreation, because it threatens the ability of racial communities to preserve their own people in future generations. You've hit the nail exactly on the head.

Its not discrimination because you're so focussed on this isolated case of Allison, Bob and Claire without looking at the wider society. Again, what specific racial group is suffering discrimination? The answer is none, because every racial group is subject to the same, equal legal regulation, that it is a condition for marriage and procreation that your partner be of the same race as you. All persons, regardless of race, are subject to the same legal condition for marriage. That's not discrimination, it's equality.

And please, do tell me how such a community's ethnic purity would be enforced without discriminating. I'll wait.

Same mistake. You're obsessed with looking at the fact that a white person gets turned away from a black-only community that you're missing the forest for the trees, the fact that both white and black people have the same legal right to live in either heterogenous or homogenous communities of their choosing. Same legal rights, regardless of race.

[Salandriagado]

This is the either the most ignorant or most insidious argument I have ever seen.
How is it not discriminatory that Allison can marry Bob because they're both white, but she can't marry Claire because she's black?
And how the fuck would you even handle mixed-race people in this dumbass system?
Hell, how many racial categories are you going to make and arbitrarily divide people into?

Hence why people like this woman don't like interracial procreation, because it threatens the ability of racial communities to preserve their own people in future generations. You've hit the nail exactly on the head.

That ship sailed literally millions of years ago.

Its not discrimination because you're so focussed on this isolated case of Allison, Bob and Claire without looking at the wider society. Again, what specific racial group is suffering discrimination? The answer is none, because every racial group is subject to the same, equal legal regulation, that it is a condition for marriage and procreation that your partner be of the same race as you. All persons, regardless of race, are subject to the same legal condition for marriage. That's not discrimination, it's equality.

The answer is "all of them". It's quite possible to discriminate against all groups at once.

[Purgatio]

Hence why people like this woman don't like interracial procreation, because it threatens the ability of racial communities to preserve their own people in future generations. You've hit the nail exactly on the head.

That ship sailed literally millions of years ago.

Its not discrimination because you're so focussed on this isolated case of Allison, Bob and Claire without looking at the wider society. Again, what specific racial group is suffering discrimination? The answer is none, because every racial group is subject to the same, equal legal regulation, that it is a condition for marriage and procreation that your partner be of the same race as you. All persons, regardless of race, are subject to the same legal condition for marriage. That's not discrimination, it's equality.

The answer is "all of them". It's quite possible to discriminate against all groups at once.

So everyone enjoys the same conditions, obligations and rights under the law, regardless of race...where's the discrimination? Discrimination against everyone in the same way is a misnomer because discrimination implies unequal rights and obligations.