Racism? Or Simply Preference? Who Is Right Here?

[Llbaker]

sorry with missing word added ...

True but what if you wanted to have sex with someone you liked? Would being a fair person involve having sex on a first come first basis from the second after you turned 18? Your post makes me wonder what your sexual experience actually is - if any at all.

I'm peering below the surface of conscious thought to explore what causes attraction, preference, etc.

I'm thinking, ideally, our attractions would be based on characteristics for which people are responsible in some sense (content of character).

Of course, generally, and for me too, we are very very far from that. Attraction and preference emerges from the deep unconscious areas of instinct and conditioning.

 

[Llbaker]

For me, my desire for guys who are well built, stems from my insecurities concerning the skinniness of my body (in my younger years); kind of a fantasy, seeing me in them, sort of thing. I think the same thing goes for my desire for well hung guys. I would love to be bigger in size, and am slowly working on it, but there's still that jealousy/envy going on that attracts me to such guys. So, I'm wondering this: isn't it possible that, to some degree, there can't be some envy or jealousy in someone that causes them to have preferences of one type over another? I think it is more than possible. If the preference is based upon envy, then how can that be prejudice? Now, I'm not so blind to think that prejudice can't play a part in preferences, it most certainly can. But the thing I find true about a lot of what prejudice is based upon, is fear. And that fear is based upon insufficient information or incorrect information.t, and, then, nothing worthwhile is gained.

Good exploration of the psychological roots of preferences. However, there are many many other deep unconscious processes going on. Notice that the writer wasn't aware of the roots of his preferences "when they were happening", but in retrospect after analysis and some preferences had changed.

In my analysis, status and hierarchy is key to it all. Can that wiring be changed? Should it?

 

[Llbaker]

I didnt, but Im kinda not suprised. He was saying some pretty inflammatory remarks about plenty of people. And he had a habit of downright being abusive at times. Looks like it finally caught up to him

There are some thought police around. Not necessarily anyone actually in this discussion.

I objected to one of his rants I considered over the top dealing in stereotypes. I argued against it in a post, but I never complain to authorities about what people think, say, or write.

He did mis-characterize what I was saying often. I don't think he did it consciously though. He was just deep into his own perspective.

 

[deleted464787]

There are some thought police around. Not necessarily anyone actually in this discussion.

I objected to one of his rants I considered over the top dealing in stereotypes. I argued against it in a post, but I never complain to authorities about what people think, say, or write.

He did mis-characterize what I was saying often. I don't think he did it consciously though. He was just deep into his own perspective.

I have no problem with the fact that he had arguments that opposed mine. That’s to be expected in a forum like this—not everyone is going to agree.

I did have a problem with him flat out lying about people, and the fact that he labels people as a method of discrediting them—fortunately everyone here seemed to see through it.

he also had a bad habit of being a hypocrite. You can’t call someone a misogynist, then try to make fun of them for “being on their period” in the same breath.

and his whole argument that I’m trying to keep people from talking about racism because I want to keep black people oppressed was just stupid. If I didn’t want people talking about racism, I wouldn’t have made the thread to begin with.

 

[Llbaker]

For instance, he insisted my use of the word handicap was intended to be globally stigmatizing when it was clear in paragraph after paragraph I was using the word in its pristine sense of relative advantage/disadvantage is specific situations--like it is used in sports.

 

[deleted464787]

For instance, he insisted my use of the word handicap was intended to be globally stigmatizing when it was clear in paragraph after paragraph I was using the word in its pristine sense of relative advantage/disadvantage is specific situations--like it is used in sports.

Well, people of Spaj's ilk (if he even has an ilk) give a lot more power to words than they should. They get offended by words/phrases like "handicap" and "leftist" and "weed out."

Hes more hung up on the verbiage than he is on the actual message being said. Thats why arguing with him was like arguing with a doorknob. I could lay out a complete argument for him that would be 5 paragraphs long, and he'd find 1 or 2 WORDS (not even sentences) he had a problem with and fixate on those. And that would cause him to completely miss the entire argument altogether.

Theres no helping people like that. He's set in his ways, and I fear by now, he's too far gone and that would never change.

 

[hypolimnas]

Thats why arguing with him was like arguing with a doorknob. .

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[hypolimnas]

Well, people of Spaj's ilk (if he even has an ilk) give a lot more power to words than they should. They get offended by words/phrases like "handicap" and "leftist" and "weed out."

Hes more hung up on the verbiage than he is on the actual message being said. Thats why arguing with him was like arguing with a doorknob. I could lay out a complete argument for him that would be 5 paragraphs long, and he'd find 1 or 2 WORDS (not even sentences) he had a problem with and fixate on those. And that would cause him to completely miss the entire argument altogether.

Theres no helping people like that. He's set in his ways, and I fear by now, he's too far gone and that would never change.

It was declared by a man from Arkansas

'Idiots and fools, I can't stand this,

I won't be ignored,
even when you are bored!'

He tried hard to hit ... but did mostly miss!

 

[jtm011]

I didnt, but Im kinda not suprised. He was saying some pretty inflammatory remarks about plenty of people. And he had a habit of downright being abusive at times. Looks like it finally caught up to him

There are some thought police around. Not necessarily anyone actually in this discussion.

I objected to one of his rants I considered over the top dealing in stereotypes. I argued against it in a post, but I never complain to authorities about what people think, say, or write.

He did mis-characterize what I was saying often. I don't think he did it consciously though. He was just deep into his own perspective.

He would regularly twist my words as I've seen him do to both of you and it was almost in a malicious, childish, deliberately deceptive way. He reported some of my posts which he felt butthurt about, even though they were factual or comical and not aimed at him, instead of debating me like an adult and using logic not emotions. He always played the "victim" card in everything. Lastly, it seemed he had too much time on his hands. If he was busy working a job he wouldn't have 18 hours a day every day to post on here.

The point is, the thought police (a product of the leftists) seem to be infiltrating so many parts of society that now I don't even post anything remotely opinionated on this site because someone who doesn't agree with my opinion may take unreasonable personal offense and report the post, so I just hold my opinions inside. Who needs the aggravation? This is unfortunately a very unhealthy turn of events because we have shifted away from allowing everyone to express their ideas freely without repercussion into a world where everyone is expected to think one approved way or be excommunicated out of society.

 

[hypolimnas]

He would regularly twist my words as I've seen him do to both of you and it was almost in a malicious, childish, deliberately deceptive way. He reported some of my posts which he felt butthurt about, even though they were factual or comical and not aimed at him, instead of debating me like an adult and using logic not emotions. He always played the "victim" card in everything. Lastly, it seemed he had too much time on his hands. If he was busy working a job he wouldn't have 18 hours a day every day to post on here.

The point is, the thought police (a product of the leftists) seem to be infiltrating so many parts of society that now I don't even post anything remotely opinionated on this site because someone who doesn't agree with my opinion may take unreasonable personal offense and report the post, so I just hold my opinions inside. Who needs the aggravation? This is unfortunately a very unhealthy turn of events because we have shifted away from allowing everyone to express their ideas freely without repercussion into a world where everyone is expected to think one approved way or be excommunicated out of society.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[jtm011]

 

[DiamondHeart89]

I think it’s racist. I also know no one can make you sleep with people you don’t want to. It seems like the majority of people have said similar things. I don’t think this issue will ever be rectified until all people after generations and generations of breeding, if the Earth lasts that long, are similar in color. I think you should remove the “mostly attracted to white men” from your profile and only hook up with white guys if that’s what you want.

 

[hypolimnas]

I think it’s racist. I also know no one can make you sleep with people you don’t want to. It seems like the majority of people have said similar things. I don’t think this issue will ever be rectified until all people after generations and generations of breeding, if the Earth lasts that long, are similar in color. I think you should remove the “mostly attracted to white men” from your profile and only hook up with white guys if that’s what you want.

Well what you are referring to is the ideology of the melting pot. You can read a good article about that on Wikipedia. It is seen as flawed and even rascist in its denial of diversity and pluralism. I would ask why do you want to reduce everyone to being the same? Diversity can be tolerated and celebrated. People can make up their own minds about what suits them. We are social animals, the more we are the same then the more we focus on tiny differences. Before you call something or someone racist it would also be helpful to clarify your definition - hopefully it won't be one you have invented yourself.

 

[Nigel Atkinson]

Well what you are referring to is the ideology of the melting pot. You can read a good article about that on Wikipedia. It is seen as flawed and even rascist in its denial of diversity and pluralism. I would ask why do you want to reduce everyone to being the same? Diversity can be tolerated and celebrated. People can make up their own minds about what suits them. We are social animals, the more we are the same then the more we focus on tiny differences. Before you call something or someone racist it would also be helpful to clarify your definition - hopefully it won't be one you have invented yourself.

I find this interesting that you're now saying that diversity can be celebrated. When you have taken the stance you have in this thread.

 

[hypolimnas]

I find this interesting that you're now saying that diversity can be celebrated. When you have taken the stance you have in this thread.

Do you mean I don't fit what ever box is convenient for you. I am anti racist, and believe racism a matter of policy, politics and research. I do not believe condeming dating preferences is the most important area for antiracists to focus on. It is a convenient topic for social media, and important for conciousness raising in some situations. Racism impacts peoples lives in terms of education, health, employment, family violence, it shouldn't be trivialised. Most of the people crying racism in the context of dating preferences know nothing about what they are talking about beyond what they feel. Well that is no substitute for real knowledge and commitment to change the world.

 

[Nigel Atkinson]

Do you mean I don't fit what ever box is convenient for you. I am anti racist, and believe racism a matter of policy, politics and research. I do not believe condeming dating preferences is the most important area for antiracists to focus on. It is a convenient topic for social media, and important for conciousness raising in some situations. Racism impacts peoples lives in terms of education, health, employment, family violence, it shouldn't be trivialised. Most of the people crying racism in the context of dating preferences know nothing about what they are talking about beyond what they feel. Well that is no substitute for real knowledge and commitment to change the world.

Lmao ! This is completely ignorant. You can't claim to be anti-racist while simultaneously defending racism in the dating world. Let's not trivialize racism while also downplaying blatant racism as a dating preference. You want to know how to change the world ? Not whitewashing something that has a psychologically affect on millions of people. That in the long run gives them a complex and makes them believe that aren't good enough.

 

[Llbaker]

I find this interesting that you're now saying that diversity can be celebrated. When you have taken the stance you have in this thread.

The popular meaning of racism revolves around a damaging belief in the superiority of the white race and resulting discrimination against others.

However, there is another meaning that is more general: collectivism based on race, similarly to collectivism based on ethnicity or tribe. Minorities in the West, for some reason--perhaps to counteract the ravages of the white racism of the past, are encouraged to develop (defensive?) racial or ethnic identity or collectivism while whites have been discouraged from the same for some time now.

So, do we want to get rid of only the superiority aspect that characterized white racism or racial collectivism/ identity itself? Does diversity mean racial and ethnic collectives competing against each other like teams? If racial and ethnic "identity" remains, competition and conflict seems inevitable. Some extreme racists have said your skin color or "looks" is your army uniform in the inevitable war of races and ethnicities and tribes.

Or, are we looking toward a future without racial and ethnic identity / collectivism? -- the melting pot that finally results in people identifying with the "human race" instead of races and ethnicities based on skin color, roots, history, whatever. . . .?

Is "diversity" the polar opposite to the melting pot?

 

[Llbaker]

Lmao ! This is completely ignorant. You can't claim to be anti-racist while simultaneously defending racism in the dating world. Let's not trivialize racism while also downplaying blatant racism as a dating preference. You want to know how to change the world ? Not whitewashing something that has a psychologically affect on millions of people. That in the long run gives them a complex and makes them believe that aren't good enough.

If people are to retain their "diverse" racial and ethnic and even tribal cultures don't they have to avoid dating, mating and marriage that mixes said diversities? I'm not advocating for that. I lean in the opposite direction toward the so called melting pot path and the emergence of a new relatively uniform human culture based on reason and science.

Seems to me said diversities should become interesting historical facts to study, not active "identities" or "collectivisms" for the here and now.

 

[deleted464787]

Lmao ! This is completely ignorant. You can't claim to be anti-racist while simultaneously defending racism in the dating world. Let's not trivialize racism while also downplaying blatant racism as a dating preference. You want to know how to change the world ? Not whitewashing something that has a psychologically affect on millions of people. That in the long run gives them a complex and makes them believe that aren't good enough.

yes, let’s force me to have sex with everyone regardless of whether or not I’m attracted to them. Because my lack of sex with them has had a psychological effect on millions of people. And if I don’t have sex with everyone, then I must be “whitewashing” real racism in the world...

no, but seriously. If someone has that much psychological damage from being rejected for sex, that’s a that’s a “them” problem. Not a “me” problem.

I’ve been turned down before, and I’m fine, I’ve learned how to deal with it. I would never shame someone for not having sex with me. I’m stronger than that.

 

[Nigel Atkinson]

If people are to retain their "diverse" racial and ethnic and even tribal cultures don't they have to avoid dating, mating and marriage that mixes said diversities? I'm not advocating for that. I lean in the opposite direction toward the so called melting pot path and the emergence of a new relatively uniform human culture based on reason and science.

Seems to me said diversities should become interesting historical facts to study, not active "identities" or "collectivisms" for the here and now.

No they don't have to avoid dating or marriage. Because just like any interracial marriage. When they have children. They teach their children their cultures and this said diversities that you feel will be lost. Is retained. The children of interracial marriages don't come out the same complexion either. Science will tell you that.