3 ms·

If you have an opinion (any opinion really) about a race or a national origin, that makes you a bigot, yes. Non-bigots don't have opinions on a color of a skin,

If you have an opinion (any opinion really) about a race or a national origin, that makes you a bigot, yes. Non-bigots don't have opinions on a color of a skin, nor a place of birth. Those things are not chosen by an individual and therefore should not be discussed nor should the individual be generalized based on them. You can criticize an individual based on their action regardless of where they're from or how they look like. As soon as you start generalizing everyone who looks like them / is born in the same area as them, you become a bigot. There, you were already so close to being self-aware that I hope I helped you achieve awareness.

zaroth 7y ago
I think you misread what I wrote. Nothing in there was an opinion about a race or a national origin.
- input_sh 7y ago
  No, you haven't expressed any opinion here. You've alleged that you do have some though: > around sensitive topics that happen to involve race and national origin.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    I’ve been careful not to, because the point isn’t to argue a side, it’s to discuss how valid political arguments might be suppressed due to wrongful accusations of, e.g. racism or alleged violations of terms / codes of conduct. To be clear I agree with your first two paragraphs. It’s only the third which alleges that you’re correcting a belief I have, that I do take issue with. So I think again you’re reading into what I wrote too much. Why beat a dead horse, but the point there is to recognize that e.g. “immigration policy” is necessarily going to impact populations that are predominantly of a certain race and/or national origin. But crucially, it’s not racist to think that a country should have a border or debate how set immigration policies are enforced along that border. It’s not racist to examine sub-populations which are moving illegally across the border, e.g. to examine the prevalence of drug running, human trafficking, or gang activity within that sub-population, or to examine the share of that sub-population that is currently charged or has been found guilty of committing a violent crime versus other populations such as legal immigrants or natural citizens. This is just basic sociology. So that’s what I mean by “sensitive [political] topics” that happen to involve race and national origin.

zaroth 7y ago

I think you misread what I wrote. Nothing in there was an opinion about a race or a national origin.

input_sh 7y ago
No, you haven't expressed any opinion here. You've alleged that you do have some though: > around sensitive topics that happen to involve race and national origin.
- zaroth 7y ago
  I’ve been careful not to, because the point isn’t to argue a side, it’s to discuss how valid political arguments might be suppressed due to wrongful accusations of, e.g. racism or alleged violations of terms / codes of conduct. To be clear I agree with your first two paragraphs. It’s only the third which alleges that you’re correcting a belief I have, that I do take issue with. So I think again you’re reading into what I wrote too much. Why beat a dead horse, but the point there is to recognize that e.g. “immigration policy” is necessarily going to impact populations that are predominantly of a certain race and/or national origin. But crucially, it’s not racist to think that a country should have a border or debate how set immigration policies are enforced along that border. It’s not racist to examine sub-populations which are moving illegally across the border, e.g. to examine the prevalence of drug running, human trafficking, or gang activity within that sub-population, or to examine the share of that sub-population that is currently charged or has been found guilty of committing a violent crime versus other populations such as legal immigrants or natural citizens. This is just basic sociology. So that’s what I mean by “sensitive [political] topics” that happen to involve race and national origin.