Louisiana JP Refuses Interracial Marriage License

[Monique]

Let's reference the Office of the United Nations High Commissionar for Human Rights, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm" .

"Resolved to adopt all necessary measures for speedily eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and manifestations, and to prevent and combat racist doctrines and practices in order to promote understanding between races and to build an international community free from all forms of racial segregation and racial discrimination,"

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm#part1" "In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

If you ask "are you a mixed race couple" and say "I won't marry you because of it" you are violating the above convention.

 

[George Jones]

If her kids somehow didn't know that children of interracial marriages are usually misfits

Because this is a response to a post, I'm not sure if you're putting this froward as true. If so, you have to provide a valid source, not just (perceived) anecdotal evidence.

or got his facts right (seems like he did)

Again, you have to provide a valid source, not just (perceived) anecdotal evidence, that his facts (according to the AP news article)

most interracial marriages do not last long ... "those children suffer"

are correct.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Testing a person for sickle cell anemia because they're black and have a higher incidence of it would be racist?

Perhaps, since recent ancestors from West Africa is a lot more significant than race itself. Sickle cell anemia isn't inherently linked to race. It's linked to regions that have a history of malaria (sickle cell blood cells give a person increased resistance to malaria).

It would still seem irresponsible to ignore an increased possibility to have sickle cell anemia.

Your interpretation doesn't follow the accepted definition of racism, anyway. Racism is the belief that racial characteristics create superior races and/or inferior races. You might legitimately argue that the JoP's reasoning isn't racism in itself, since it could be his reaction to racism in his community, but his reasoning is based on racist beliefs either way.

You seriously want to pick over the definitions of racism and racialism. Technically what he said isn't racist, it is racialist.And your "is this racist" example is <inset insult here>.
It's blatantly obvios that isn't racist/racialinst/whatever, so why ask. It's obvious its not, for the following reason:

You arent testing them becuase they are black. You are testing them becuase being black they have a higher risk.
There is a subtle but cruical difference there.
A racist/racialist test would be testing a black person for AIDS purely becuase they are black, and "all those blacks in Africa have it." It doesn't matter if they are responsible people who've not slept around or used IV drugs, or been anywhere remotely near someone HIV+.

Now if this person has come over from a country with a prevelent AIDS problem, say Zimbabwe, then there is a greater statistical chance of them being HIV+. If you did the test for this reason it would NOT be racialist.

 

[Galteeth]

You already do have such rights. It just requires a lawyer and its expensive. Marriage is a quick and easy way to change your legal relationship with a person which grants you certain rights due to that relationship. Otherwise anyone can technically have all the same benefits, it just costs a lot more.

There's a bit more to it then that. For example, in New Jersey, there is currently a law that requires employers to cover spouses under health insurance plans. Now, I am personally against this law. But Gay couples, who can get civil unions here, don't have the same right.

Now even if they got it, this law still discriminates against single people, or unmarried couples. Furthermore why should the government force any business to adopt a specific health care plan? But that is a little off topic.

The point is, once the government starts awarding benefits to special groups, these group are naturally going to start competing with each other for a bigger piece of the pie. If everyone had the same rights, regardless of whether they were married, single, straight, gay, black, white, whatever, these issues wouldn't come up. There would still be discrimination and racism of course, but it wouldn't have any teeth.

 

[Hurkyl]

If you ask "are you a mixed race couple" and say "I won't marry you because of it" you are violating the above convention.

If and only if the purpose or effect is to nullify or impair the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

By that convention, simply being a distinction based on race is not sufficient to be racial discrimination.

 

[Monique]

If and only if the purpose or effect is to nullify or impair the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

By that convention, simply being a distinction based on race is not sufficient to be racial discrimination.

Please explain yourself because that does not make sense.

 

[Hurkyl]

Please explain yourself because that does not make sense.

Reorganizing Article 1.1 gives:

In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any X which has the purpose or effect of Y​

If something is merely an X, it is not "racial discrimination". Only if it is both X and has the purpose/effect of Y does it satisfy Article 1.1's definition of "racial discrimination".

People have been arguing all thread that the JoP deserves condemnation simply because his actions were X often without any reference to Y. Some have even explicitly stated that X is all that matters. That is what I oppose.

X and Y are, of course, defined by:

X = distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin​

Y = nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.​

 

[mheslep]

If and only if the purpose or effect is to nullify or impair the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

By that convention, simply being a distinction based on race is not sufficient to be racial discrimination.

Please explain yourself because that does not make sense.

Making, say, a test available for sickle cell anemia to blacks is a distinction based on race, not racial discrimination.

 

[Sorry!]

Making, say, a test available for sickle cell anemia to blacks is a distinction based on race, not racial discrimination.

This has already been made clear?

I don't see how it is relevant. Testing people who have been scientifically proven to have a higher risk for a disease means nothing...

To say that because of your race and the race of your potential children I will not allow you to marry, is a RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. This is based SOLELY on races.

And ideasrule like I said before I would be GLAD for you to post some articles PROVING that people of mixed race get treated worse than any other person. From my personal experience and research I am quite convinced it is the OTHER way around.

As for when I said I felt like making a WW2 comparison it was because, I'm pretty sure, that Hitlers rationale for everything was because it would BETTER the world. So I guess that Hitler wasn't a racist or even prejudiced in any way either... he must've just read his fact sheet wrong.

 

[Monique]

Reorganizing Article 1.1 gives:

In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any X which has the purpose or effect of Y​

If something is merely an X, it is not "racial discrimination". Only if it is both X and has the purpose/effect of Y does it satisfy Article 1.1's definition of "racial discrimination".

People have been arguing all thread that the JoP deserves condemnation simply because his actions were X often without any reference to Y. Some have even explicitly stated that X is all that matters. That is what I oppose.

X and Y are, of course, defined by:

X = distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin​

Y = nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.​

Denying marriage would be Y. I have the fundamental human right to be treated equally under the law (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/" ). Marriage falls under the law. If I can't marry someone based on race (X), the equation is compete.

The 1967 Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional (as was mentioned before) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia" :
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."[/color]

 

[BobG]

You seriously want to pick over the definitions of racism and racialism. Technically what he said isn't racist, it is racialist.


And your "is this racist" example is <inset insult here>.
It's blatantly obvios that isn't racist/racialinst/whatever, so why ask. It's obvious its not, for the following reason:

You arent testing them becuase they are black. You are testing them becuase being black they have a higher risk.
There is a subtle but cruical difference there.



A racist/racialist test would be testing a black person for AIDS purely becuase they are black, and "all those blacks in Africa have it." It doesn't matter if they are responsible people who've not slept around or used IV drugs, or been anywhere remotely near someone HIV+.

Now if this person has come over from a country with a prevelent AIDS problem, say Zimbabwe, then there is a greater statistical chance of them being HIV+. If you did the test for this reason it would NOT be racialist.

You're ticked off because I presented an argument in the form of a question? I mean, you're correct the answer is obvious.

You're probably not ticked off at the argument, itself, since you presented essentially the same argument, except with statements vs any bs questions. Except for one minor problem with your testing scenario.

US HIV statistics by race

US Sickle Cell Anemia statistics by race (scroll all the way down and click on Table 1)

Blacks are roughly twice as likely to have Sickle Cell anemia as they are to have HIV, but they have much higher rates for both diseases than other races in the US. I think testing blacks for HIV because of their race would be considered racist by many people. Screening for Sickle Cell Anemia in the 70's was considered racist by many people, as well. In fact, the distrust of genetic testing can be traced back to how the military and insurance companies handled results of Sickle Cell screening (http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/p443/p443_chap01.pdf ). (I would say that those days showed there have to be provisions to ensure patient privacy for any medical screeening program rather than that genetic screening shouldn't be used because of the chance of misuse.)

There are those that still take offense at classifying Sickle Cell Anemia as a black disease (the prevalence clearly does follow having ancestors from malarial regions; not by race). They take offense in spite of the fact that Sickle Cell screening has doubled the expected life time of those that suffer from Sickle Cell Anemia.

Hurkyl is right that many confuse making race based decisions with racism and the results of that confusion can cause harm. If associating screening of blacks in the US for Sickle Cell and for HIV based upon their race is seen as racism, then resistance to getting the necessary tests increases and fewer people with the highest risk get the tests.

Both tests could be rejected, either because one knows that their ancestors came from South Africa instead of malarial regions of Africa or because one knows their own sexual history and knows they have little to no risk of HIV. Both tests should receive higher prominence when treating black patients so they can consider the info and make a decision about their own personal risk.

 

[xxChrisxx]

You appear to have missed the whole point of my argument.

The fact you bothered to find statistics to 'disprove my testing scenario' makes it clear you just totally looked past the point. What is being tested is totally irrelevent.

The point was the motivation behind the testing/anything determines if its racist or not.

Sicle cell testing - racial based but fine because its proven that black people are sttictically/genetically more likely to have it.Testing for x PURELY BECUASE someone is of a specific racial origin is racialist.
Testing for x because someone is black AND is there fore like to be higher risk is not.

Do you not see the difference? the outcome is the same but the motivation is different.EDIT: Re-reading your post makes me unsure if you got the point I was trying to make or not acutally.

 

[Sorry!]

You appear to have missed the whole point of my argument.

The fact you bothered to find statistics to 'disprove my testing scenario' makes it clear you just totally looked past the point. What is being tested is totally irrelevent.

The point was the motivation behind the testing/anything determines if its racist or not.

Sicle cell testing - racial based but fine because its proven that black people are sttictically/genetically more likely to have it.


Testing for x PURELY BECUASE someone is of a specific racial origin is racialist.
Testing for x because someone is black AND is there fore like to be higher risk is not.

Do you not see the difference? the outcome is the same but the motivation is different.


EDIT: Re-reading your post makes me unsure if you got the point I was trying to make or not acutally.

I've posted this about 5x in this thread. No one seems to understand the subtle difference though.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I've posted this about 5x in this thread. No one seems to understand the subtle difference though.

i do :D

 

[ideasrule]

And ideasrule like I said before I would be GLAD for you to post some articles PROVING that people of mixed race get treated worse than any other person. From my personal experience and research I am quite convinced it is the OTHER way around.

That was never my belief. I've been asking for factual information on the treatment of mixed-race children throughout the thread, and the anecdotes that were posted suggested they do get treated worse. If you have any information to the contrary, please post it; those anecdotes might not be representative.

As for when I said I felt like making a WW2 comparison it was because, I'm pretty sure, that Hitlers rationale for everything was because it would BETTER the world.

That's also the alleged rationale for all politicians, peace activists, philanthropists, scientific expeditions, child care programs, social security nets, health care programs, spacecraft ...what else? The fact that Hitler claimed X is good/true doesn't prove X is not good/true.

 

[xxChrisxx]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Time to lock the thread. We all lose.

 

[ideasrule]

Sicle cell testing - racial based but fine because its proven that black people are sttictically/genetically more likely to have it.


Testing for x PURELY BECUASE someone is of a specific racial origin is racialist.
Testing for x because someone is black AND is there fore like to be higher risk is not.

Do you not see the difference? the outcome is the same but the motivation is different.

By the same reasoning:

Condemnation of interracial marriages - racial based but fine IF its proven that mixed children are more likely to be ostracized

Condemning interracial marriages PURELY BECAUSE one of the partners is black is racist
Condemning interracial marriages because one of the partners is black AND his children are therefore more likely to be ostracized is not

 

[BobG]

You appear to have missed the whole point of my argument.

The fact you bothered to find statistics to 'disprove my testing scenario' makes it clear you just totally looked past the point. What is being tested is totally irrelevent.

The point was the motivation behind the testing/anything determines if its racist or not.

Sicle cell testing - racial based but fine because its proven that black people are sttictically/genetically more likely to have it.


Testing for x PURELY BECUASE someone is of a specific racial origin is racialist.
Testing for x because someone is black AND is there fore like to be higher risk is not.

Do you not see the difference? the outcome is the same but the motivation is different.


EDIT: Re-reading your post makes me unsure if you got the point I was trying to make or not acutally.

I don't think I've ever said anything that disagreed with your point. I disagreed that considering race automatically made a decision racist (or racialist).

I just found it ironic that you would use HIV screening as an example of a racialist decision. There was an initial negative reaction to sickle cell screening of blacks and any suggestion that blacks should be screened for HIV generates a very strong negative response. Both have strong statistical correlations, yet both have causes unrelated to race.

I do find your distinction between racialist/racist to be a little confusing, though. Part of that is unavoidable since both words have changed meaning rather drastically from pre-WWII days.

 

[xxChrisxx]

By the same reasoning:

Condemnation of interracial marriages - racial based but fine IF its proven that mixed children are more likely to be ostracized

Condemning interracial marriages PURELY BECAUSE one of the partners is black is racist
Condemning interracial marriages because one of the partners is black AND his children are therefore more likely to be ostracized is not

I was waiting or this one coming and have the short yet perfect response.You can have children without getting married. Making that excuse for denying marriage feeble and ultimitely futile.

I would have to agree that on reflection, if the JoP was just misguided to believe that he was helping the unborn/unconceved child. Then he is an idiot.

However unlike the liklyhood of genetic conditions and reasons for testing, the JoP being human can engage in the practise of lying and pretending.Either way the JoP 's reasoning is feeble. The jury is out on if he is a lying racist or misguided moron.

I don't think I've ever said anything that disagreed with your point. I disagreed that considering race automatically made a decision racist (or racialist).

I just found it ironic that you would use HIV screening as an example of a racialist decision. There was an initial negative reaction to sickle cell screening of blacks and any suggestion that blacks should be screened for HIV generates a very strong negative response. Both have strong statistical correlations, yet both have causes unrelated to race.

I do find your distinction between racialist/racist to be a little confusing, though. Part of that is unavoidable since both words have changed meaning rather drastically from pre-WWII days.

I could have used any condition/whatever to make my point. However HIV was the first that comes to mind, as it's rampant amongst black people in africa (especially in places like zimbabwe), its also still got a stigma about it in the west. Sickle cell doesn't have a stigma attached to it, so is less 'shocking' an example.

To be honest I just lump everything under racist usually, as the two words have so many different meanings and connotations that it's confusing to keep up.

 

[mgb_phys]

Either way the JoP 's reasoning is reasoning feeble. The jury is out on if he is a lying racist or misguided moron.

Don't be too hard on the guy - he could be both!

 

[xxChrisxx]

Don't be too hard on the guy - he could be both!

Bah! "reasoning is reasoning feeble"

I really should pay attention to what I type, will stop me looking like a tool. (well, maybe stop me looking like a tool)

 

[BobG]

None of the posts in this thread talked about whether the judge's claims are factually inaccurate. (I know Ivan mentioned Obama, but he can hardly be representative.) Is it true that "most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society"? If it is, I don't see anything wrong with the judge's decision. Children are human beings; they deserve the best possible life and the highest possible chance of having a promising future. If a child of a mixed couple is going to be ostracized, he/she should be spared the suffering and not be born in the first place.

I know it's easier to sympathize with a mixed couple who have names, lives, and feelings than with children yet to be born, but it's not as if those children won't one day have names, lives, and feelings and be capable of suffering.

I think the accuracy of the JoP's claims are irrelevant. The real question is who gets to decide what kind of life your children are going to be raised in? Who gets to decide if you even get to raise kids?

 

[Zantra]

clearly some folks on here sympathize with the JOP. We're now just going in somantic circles. None can say for certain what his actual "intentions" were. We can only on the limited amount of information we have. He claims that he's not a racist, yet his actions are racially toned. This is starting to sound like the "Bill Clinton" of word definitions.

So that we are all on the same page, from dictionary.com:

rac⋅ism  /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
Use racism in a Sentence
See web results for racism
See images of racism
–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another

So based on def 2, we could infer that anyone acting as an agent of the goevernment (read JOP) who promotes the ideology of intolerance of another human being- and he is promoting it by making it a point of issue, falls into the the category of a racist.

Now, I will concede that it does require some very basic inferences of logic to assume that if someone confirms the belief that he supports it, but ignorance is no excuse for this topic in this time period. So he can't hide behind some assumption that he was devoid of any social awareness regarding racism in the deep south, in 2009 where it continues to be such an issue, relative to the rest of the country.

Here's the root of the issue: It's just a backhanded compliment: you're not bad-looking, for a fat ugly ogre. It's the same thing as saying I'm going to discriminate against you to prevent your child from being discriminated against. While some may argue somantically that he's not technically a racist, there are definable racial overtones, and while he may not be guilty in the strictest sense on a technicality, the court of public opinion has already judged it, and I have to agree. In fact, it would take a Bill Clinton to talk his way out of this one!

Besides, you can't defend his statement without inferring that he's either a liar or unintelligent. There's no win here for this guy.

What bothers me is that people are working very hard to justify his behavior as an innocent misstep or "well intentioned. i could go to the Nazi well, but I'll refrain. HOWEVER.. One could ask: is it REALLY better for the offspring of this couple not to breed, or better for HIM? Because while he says one thing, his actions indicate the other. And let's see...thinning out the herd, gentetic manipulation to provide a more harmonious "race".. I know I've heard that before... let's seee.

Ahh well.. you'll figure it out.

 

[Zantra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Time to lock the thread. We all lose.

Don't be such a posting Nazi

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This is starting to sound like the "Bill Clinton" of word definitions.

Seriously? We aren't talking about the finer distinctions of the term "lynching" here. There is a gulf of difference between a person who has misguided ideas of how to help others and a person who hates and oppresses others.

So that we are all on the same page, from dictionary.com:

rac⋅ism  /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
Use racism in a Sentence
See web results for racism
See images of racism
–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another

So based on def 2, we could infer that anyone acting as an agent of the goevernment (read JOP) who promotes the ideology of intolerance of another human being- and he is promoting it by making it a point of issue, falls into the the category of a racist.

I highlighted points which you seem to be taking for granted. We have seen no evidence that the JoP is hateful or intolerant or that he feels people of other races or inferior or of a lesser achievement. You consider him a racist and so infer these things though there is no evidence of them and shine on any idea that he may be telling the truth when he says he is concerned for the welfare of children. You infer that because it is a poor and misguided idea that it is only an excuse for an inherently racist idea. I really don't understand how the idea
being illogical means that he must be racist, yet another illogical idea.

Now, I will concede that it does require some very basic inferences of logic to assume that if someone confirms the belief that he supports it, but ignorance is no excuse for this topic in this time period. So he can't hide behind some assumption that he was devoid of any social awareness regarding racism in the deep south, in 2009 where it continues to be such an issue, relative to the rest of the country.

I am not sure exactly what you are saying here. But yes you are inferring much based on very little. If you would like I can probably find you several articles inferring that blacks must be inferior to whites based on facts from prison, crime, and educational statistics. To racists it is only logical. And using statistics really is more logical than using word definitions to pick apart the logic behind a couple of statements in order to infer a persons inner thoughts and convictions.

Here's the root of the issue: It's just a backhanded compliment: you're not bad-looking, for a fat ugly ogre. It's the same thing as saying I'm going to discriminate against you to prevent your child from being discriminated against. While some may argue somantically that he's not technically a racist, there are definable racial overtones, and while he may not be guilty in the strictest sense on a technicality, the court of public opinion has already judged it, and I have to agree. In fact, it would take a Bill Clinton to talk his way out of this one!

In fact you are using semantics to imply that he is obviously racist, as I noted earlier. There is a general definition for the term "discriminate" which does not necessitate hate or value judgment. You argue the aptness of the terms application and then jump straight from "discrimination" to "racial discrimination", since it involves race and so technically applies, and so by logical slight of hand lump in the additional connotations specific to the term "racial discrimination" without ever arguing the aptness of the additional connotations.

The "court of public opinion" can be quite ugly. It is of course where we tend to see the most bigotry and closed mindedness. I try not to associate myself with it.

Besides, you can't defend his statement without inferring that he's either a liar or unintelligent. There's no win here for this guy.

There are many people intelligent and otherwise who have been against mixed marriage and interbreeding. Ironically it is apparently the very reason why the laws were instituted which brought the poor couple before this Justice of the Peace.

What bothers me is that people are working very hard to justify his behavior as an innocent misstep or "well intentioned. i could go to the Nazi well, but I'll refrain. HOWEVER.. One could ask: is it REALLY better for the offspring of this couple not to breed, or better for HIM? Because while he says one thing, his actions indicate the other. And let's see...thinning out the herd, gentetic manipulation to provide a more harmonious "race".. I know I've heard that before... let's seee.

Ahh well.. you'll figure it out.

Yes well, apparently my whole family are on par with Hitler then. My step father's traditionalist family who tried to prevent him from marrying my mother because she is white. My southern grandparents who have been brainwashed from childhood with racist ideas but who are probably the nicest people you could ever meet and would never treat anyone poorly at all for any reason short of murder. They happened to be far more accepting of my step father than his family were of my mother by the way.
Yes, I supposed that about half of the people in the world that I care about most are really as despicable and disgusting as Nazis no matter how nice and well intentioned of people they are.

 

[Monique]

Condemning interracial marriages PURELY BECAUSE one of the partners is black is racist
Condemning interracial marriages because one of the partners is black AND his children are therefore more likely to be ostracized is not

Both are racial discrimination by the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, it is as simple as that. You can argue all you want, but it just is not right and it is against the law. The Supreme Court has made a verdict that it is racial discrimination, who are you to say that it is not.

 

[Monique]

Yes, I supposed that about half of the people in the world that I care about most are really as despicable and disgusting as Nazis no matter how nice and well intentioned of people they are.

Murderers can be really nice people as well you know, this is an absolutely ridiculous argument. What are you going to say, 'oh never mind what he did, he really meant it in a good way'.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Murderers can be really nice people as well you know, this is an absolutely ridiculous argument. What are you going to say, 'oh never mind what he did, he really meant it in a good way'.

You still don't get the fact that to be racist means to hate and be intolerant do you? Generally hateful and intolerant people don't concern themselves with the welfare of the people whom they hate. How about fearful people? Would you call a black person who is afraid of white people because he is worried that they may call the police on him or have him arrested a racist? He is discriminating based on race. And he is even having negative thoughts about people of a certain race. But wait, he's not being hateful is he? Or intolerant? He's just worried and afraid and maybe out of experience or from some things that people have told him. He doesn't actually hate these people. So no we won't call him a racist. He is just misguided by stereotypes or had particularly bad experiences, and maybe he even knows better than I do the likelihood that he will be arrested for no particular reason.

Would you call him a racist? And please explain your answer.

 

[Monique]

You still don't get the fact that to be racist means to hate and be intolerant do you? Generally hateful and intolerant people don't concern themselves with the welfare of the people whom they hate. How about fearful people? Would you call a black person who is afraid of white people because he is worried that they may call the police on him or have him arrested a racist? He is discriminating based on race. And he is even having negative thoughts about people of a certain race. But wait, he's not being hateful is he? Or intolerant? He's just worried and afraid and maybe out of experience or from some things that people have told him. He doesn't actually hate these people. So no we won't call him a racist. He is just misguided by stereotypes or had particularly bad experiences, and maybe he even knows better than I do the likelihood that he will be arrested for no particular reason.

Would you call him a racist? And please explain your answer.

I have explained myself enough, I am not going to go around in circles. See post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2405010&postcount=206".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I have explained myself enough, I am not going to go around in circles. See post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2405010&postcount=206".

So he is a racist then. I see. Interesting.