3 ms·

> It’s hardly racist to express personal preference. I mean, it's a racist personal preference. Caring about whether the expression of it is racist seems besid

> It’s hardly racist to express personal preference. I mean, it's a racist personal preference. Caring about whether the expression of it is racist seems besides the point?

drb91 8y ago
I am probably being too pedantic here, as it is certainly unethical to state that publicly as a mayor. I only mean to convey there’s no such thing as an unethical thought, only unethical actions. Among other things, it is certainly socially acceptable to date or socialize mostly with people inside your own race, and I don’t know of many people who would hold this behavior to be racist. EDITS: wording, clarity. Apologies.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  >there’s no such thing as an unethical thought, only unethical actions Gladly throwing myself in the pedantry to avoid the real discussion, the only reason we listen to other people at all is that their words are related to their thoughts and their actions. So, the reason you'd admonish someone for saying something horrible is that they indicated they were thinking something horrible, which gains status as horrible because it congruent with a mind that would do something horrible.
  - drb91 8y ago
    You’re right. If they had said something slightly different, I would be mad. It certainly isn’t behavior to condone. In a political context, it probably is racist. That said, I still do not think I would call it racism. Most of us prefer to be around people our own age when given the opportunity—for shared culture, lifestyles, etc. Is that ageist? I really don’t think that bigotry really applies here. It’s much more useful to apply solely to actions, which are easier to reason about. Discriminatory personal preference can certainly be harmful, but it seems like a distinct social phenomenon to bigotry. More pedantry... > So, the reason you'd admonish someone for saying something horrible is that they indicated they were thinking something horrible No, the reason would be fear that they would act on their thoughts, or because their speech did affect people, not that their thoughts are themselves immoral.
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      Archie Bunker has a lot of leeway in his social life and armchair social theorizing, but that's mainly because it has little chance of impacting anything (although there are some who would debate that on the grounds that your social life can support your professional life). In this thread, people are upset because it was said to have come from a person who was in power, someone who might be able to realize an unsavory ideal they were harboring. Edit: To complete the pedantry, note that the end of my sentence brings it in line with the content your objection to the start of the sentence: >which gains status as horrible because it congruent with a mind that would do something horrible.

> It’s hardly racist to express personal preference. I mean, it's a racist personal preference. Caring about whether the expression of it is racist seems besides the point?

drb91 8y ago

I am probably being too pedantic here, as it is certainly unethical to state that publicly as a mayor. I only mean to convey there’s no such thing as an unethical thought, only unethical actions. Among other things, it is certainly socially acceptable to date or socialize mostly with people inside your own race, and I don’t know of many people who would hold this behavior to be racist. EDITS: wording, clarity. Apologies.

whatshisface 8y ago
>there’s no such thing as an unethical thought, only unethical actions Gladly throwing myself in the pedantry to avoid the real discussion, the only reason we listen to other people at all is that their words are related to their thoughts and their actions. So, the reason you'd admonish someone for saying something horrible is that they indicated they were thinking something horrible, which gains status as horrible because it congruent with a mind that would do something horrible.
- drb91 8y ago
  You’re right. If they had said something slightly different, I would be mad. It certainly isn’t behavior to condone. In a political context, it probably is racist. That said, I still do not think I would call it racism. Most of us prefer to be around people our own age when given the opportunity—for shared culture, lifestyles, etc. Is that ageist? I really don’t think that bigotry really applies here. It’s much more useful to apply solely to actions, which are easier to reason about. Discriminatory personal preference can certainly be harmful, but it seems like a distinct social phenomenon to bigotry. More pedantry... > So, the reason you'd admonish someone for saying something horrible is that they indicated they were thinking something horrible No, the reason would be fear that they would act on their thoughts, or because their speech did affect people, not that their thoughts are themselves immoral.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    Archie Bunker has a lot of leeway in his social life and armchair social theorizing, but that's mainly because it has little chance of impacting anything (although there are some who would debate that on the grounds that your social life can support your professional life). In this thread, people are upset because it was said to have come from a person who was in power, someone who might be able to realize an unsavory ideal they were harboring. Edit: To complete the pedantry, note that the end of my sentence brings it in line with the content your objection to the start of the sentence: >which gains status as horrible because it congruent with a mind that would do something horrible.