Is this racist?

[♪alt13]

The Daughter Of Oklahoma’s Governor Caused An Uproar After She Posed In A Headdress For Her Indie Band
https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/daughter-of-governor-of-oklahoma-causes-an-uproar-after-she

 

[One Brow]

What you're suggesting is that this being a racial slur is inescapable, regardless of intent of the communicating party and regardless of interpretation of the receiving party. You are suggesting, in essence, the inescapability of the comparison of the black man to a primate -- a reminder, if you will -- despite neither party apparently intending it as such. Your demand, rather, is to continue to persist -- nay, insist -- that the demeaning cultural context continue to prevail as the predominate cultural context. Of this, you are absolutely oblivious. This is racism.

That's an interesting perspective, considering that in the first post you quoted, I specifically said that I didn't know if Gobert's comparison would qualify as racism or not. That should have made clear that I do think, in the appropriate cultural context, such a comparison would not be racism. Can you harmonize your statement that I think such comparisons are inescapable in general, with my statement that I had no idea if a given instance was actually racist or not? Until you can explain this to some degree, what reason would I have to think you might be accurate?

Now, I did say that had an American, like Favors, made the same tweet that Gobert did, that would be racism. Note that in response to the tweet from Gobert, the American used an image of an alien, not another non-human primate. Consciously or not, deliberately or not, he responded in a different manner.

Is it a "racial slur"? I think we agree it is a slur. Therefore, you seem to be implying that an American could make such a slur, and not have it be a racial slur. If by that, you mean it's not a conscious attempt to demean the race of the person, of course that's possible. Racism does not require intent. However, regardless of intention, this effect is nonetheless to further the demeaning of a group of people.

I am supporting, in essence, the inescapability of the segregation and differentiation being enhanced comparison of the black man to a primate -- a reminder, if you will -- despite neither party apparently intending it as such, due to the current state of American culture. My demand is to continue to insist that the demeaning cultural context can not be ignored in the USA while it prevails as the predominate cultural context in the USA.

 

[Stoked]

That's an interesting perspective, considering that in the first post you quoted, I specifically said that I didn't know if Gobert's comparison would qualify as racism or not. That should have made clear that I do think, in the appropriate cultural context, such a comparison would not be racism. Can you harmonize your statement that I think such comparisons are inescapable in general, with my statement that I had no idea if a given instance was actually racist or not? Until you can explain this to some degree, what reason would I have to think you might be accurate?

Now, I did say that had an American, like Favors, made the same tweet that Gobert did, that would be racism. Note that in response to the tweet from Gobert, the American used an image of an alien, not another non-human primate. Consciously or not, deliberately or not, he responded in a different manner.

Is it a "racial slur"? I think we agree it is a slur. Therefore, you seem to be implying that an American could make such a slur, and not have it be a racial slur. If by that, you mean it's not a conscious attempt to demean the race of the person, of course that's possible. Racism does not require intent. However, regardless of intention, this effect is nonetheless to further the demeaning of a group of people.

I am supporting, in essence, the inescapability of the segregation and differentiation being enhanced comparison of the black man to a primate -- a reminder, if you will -- despite neither party apparently intending it as such, due to the current state of American culture. My demand is to continue to insist that the demeaning cultural context can not be ignored in the USA while it prevails as the predominate cultural context in the USA.

It can be. I call my oldest daughter Monkey all the time. I do this as she tends to hang on me like a monkey. So while phrases and terms do have context they can be used outside that context. Calling someone a monkey/ape/chimp...can clearly be racist but it is not always racist.

 

[One Brow]

It can be. I call my oldest daughter Monkey all the time. I do this as she tends to hang on me like a monkey. So while phrases and terms do have context they can be used outside that context. Calling someone a monkey/ape/chimp...can clearly be racist but it is not always racist.

Exactly. It's a bit selective, but still a decent partial summary.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

...let's put it this way, if he had posted this here at Jazzfanz....he would have been dinged with an "infraction".....which doesn't go away for 6 months! I've been dinged twice for just mentioning the white, soft, fuzzy stuff that use to be picked in the fields in the deep South!

No, you've been dinged cause you're a dyed-in the cotton racist with a long history here of racially charged posts, though you try to hide your racism by using code words. Understandably, obvious racists like you are not extended the benefit of the doubt that others without such well-established racist bonafides might be granted.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

. The idea I've disputed is at which point an arbitrary cultural context enters into, or rather is superimposed upon, a given situation.

You are suggesting, in essence, the inescapability of the comparison of the black man to a primate -- a reminder, if you will -- despite neither party apparently intending it as such. Your demand, rather, is to continue to persist -- nay, insist -- that the demeaning cultural context continue to prevail as the predominate cultural context. Of this, you are absolutely oblivious. This is racism.

Please quote where this "point" you are arguing against was made. Once. In this thread.

You're making ******** up to prop up your argument. Don't.


Sent from the JazzFanz app

 

[Magic Spray]

Not racist: Gobert is French. He is unable to be racist. Ask any critical race theorist.

And by any critical race theorist I mean do not be a dumbass. Of course it's racist but who gives a ****.

 

[infection]

Please quote where this "point" you are arguing against was made. Once. In this thread.

You're making ******** up to prop up your argument. Don't.

Which point? This one?

The idea I've disputed is at which point an arbitrary cultural context enters into, or rather is superimposed upon, a given situation.

If this is what you mean, then I'm somewhat baffled that you're asking me to quote where this point was made as it is self-evident to anyone who's read the thread to realize we're talking about whether or not it is racism for an interaction like this to happen between Gobert/Favors and Rush. Even One Brow would concede that. If you're stating that the conclusions I'm arguing haven't been mentioned in this thread, then you've missed the point I'm actually making. And that's precisely why I'm making the argument.

That's an interesting perspective, considering that in the first post you quoted, I specifically said that I didn't know if Gobert's comparison would qualify as racism or not. That should have made clear that I do think, in the appropriate cultural context, such a comparison would not be racism. Can you harmonize your statement that I think such comparisons are inescapable in general, with my statement that I had no idea if a given instance was actually racist or not? Until you can explain this to some degree, what reason would I have to think you might be accurate?

I understand you qualified your statement dependent on French social customs. The statement and idea I more challenge is the bolded which has no qualifiers:

In answer to the original question: I'm not sure. I don't know enough about the French culture to say whether being compared to non-human primates was a common way to depict black people as sub-human. Had that been a post by Favors, the answer would be yes.

Is it a "racial slur"? I think we agree it is a slur. Therefore, you seem to be implying that an American could make such a slur, and not have it be a racial slur. If by that, you mean it's not a conscious attempt to demean the race of the person, of course that's possible. Racism does not require intent. However, regardless of intention, this effect is nonetheless to further the demeaning of a group of people.

Your wording suggests either overt attempts to demean the race of the person or "not a conscious attempt to demean the race of the person". Every possibility demands tying demeaning mental imagery to the interaction. This is a false dichotomy. You contend that as being part of their culture, this race issue is, or at least should be, most salient. In essence, they should be inextricably bound to the imagery of blacks likened unto primates. They are unable to possess their own independent context and are unable to be unfettered from the demeaning cultural context that you're insisting they perpetuate. They must not explore their freedom of thought or interaction but must return swiftly to the mental shackles from which they came.

Of course, I'd presume you would not find this a reasonable conclusion, but that's not unreasonable for you to feel that way with how deeply imbedded into this culture these biases are and the generations of white privilege that have allowed arguments, such as yours, to unknowingly presume that one can tell black individuals how to think. A form of contemporary slavery, if you will, perpetuated by those without any insight into their own prejudiced thoughts.

 

[One Brow]

Your wording suggests either overt attempts to demean the race of the person or "not a conscious attempt to demean the race of the person". Every possibility demands tying demeaning mental imagery to the interaction. This is a false dichotomy.

It's an irrelevant dichotomy. Overt, covert, unintentional, or otherwise, the key idea is that neither intent nor lack of intent makes it racist.

You contend that as being part of their culture, this race issue is, or at least should be, most salient. In essence, they should be inextricably bound to the imagery of blacks likened unto primates.

Technically, 'should not be, but nonetheless is'.

They are unable to possess their own independent context and are unable to be unfettered from the demeaning cultural context that you're insisting they perpetuate. They must not explore their freedom of thought or interaction but must return swiftly to the mental shackles from which they came.

A private, independent context can be expressed in a private, independent space and not be subject to the public, interactive context. When people speak publicly, though, the public context will be present, and to act as though it is not present is to further the effects of the cultural stigma. We (not some separate "they", but all of us, as a society) bear responsibility for our public words, and if you interpret this to mean we are fettered by mental shackles from this responsibility, than I can only pity you for your lack of empathy.

Of course, I'd presume you would not find this a reasonable conclusion, but that's not unreasonable for you to feel that way with how deeply imbedded into this culture these biases are and the generations of white privilege that have allowed arguments, such as yours, to unknowingly presume that one can tell black individuals how to think.

Yet, I have not addressed how Favors should think, nor Gobert, nor Rush. I was discussing the effects of the actions they (hypothetically) take. I agree that white privilege prevents white people from being able to understand many of the effects of racism on black people, and limits the scope of what they do understand. However, we can certainly talk about the effects on white people from the use of racist imagery by black people, and in particular how it's used to by white people to further justify their own racist expressions. There is a difference between saying 'I don't like hearing about injustice' and 'people use this to justify their own injustice'.

A form of contemporary slavery, if you will, perpetuated by those without any insight into their own prejudiced thoughts.

We are all 'enslaved' by the existence of consequences to our actions.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

It's an irrelevant dichotomy. Overt, covert, unintentional, or otherwise, the key idea is that neither intent nor lack of intent makes it racist.

I completely disagree.
A racist is somebody who believes that a race is superior to one or all other races.
Racist actions, or racism, need to be based on this belief in order to qualify as racism.

Intent, or lack of intent as it ties to your belief structure about races, is a key piece in knowing if something is racist or something else.

 

[One Brow]

I completely disagree.
A racist is somebody who believes that a race is superior to one or all other races.
Racist actions, or racism, need to be based on this belief in order to qualify as racism.

Intent, or lack of intent as it ties to your belief structure about races, is a key piece in knowing if something is racist or something else.

Your definition overlooks measured, systemic differences in the treatment of black people by those who would do not think that white people are better than black people. Therefore, your definition is inadequate to addressing the issue.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Which point? This one?

Yeah, no ****.

If this is what you mean, then I'm somewhat baffled that you're asking me to quote where this point was made as it is self-evident to anyone who's read the thread to realize we're talking about whether or not it is racism for an interaction like this to happen between Gobert/Favors and Rush. Even One Brow would concede that. If you're stating that the conclusions I'm arguing haven't been mentioned in this thread, then you've missed the point I'm actually making. And that's precisely why I'm making the argument.

You're baffled?!??!? Baffled?!?!? Ohhhh reeeeeeally?

Keep that crap in the classroom where most of the stupid **** you've spewed belongs. You must bore the **** out of people.

Read this back to yourself and tell me how it answers my question. All I read was a bunch of hyperbolic deflections and theoretical mental masterbation. The only reason you've typed any of this is to flex. This conversation is simple, and you don't get it.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Your definition overlooks measured, systemic differences in the treatment of black people by those who would do not think that white people are better than black people. Therefore, your definition is inadequate to addressing the issue.

Incorrect.
The intent was there in the beginning.
If a parent teaches a child that black people are less than white people and teach them to treat them in a manner to show that, while the child may not be held responsible for those actions unless they continue said treatment as an adult, the intent was still there from the parent. The racist actions were performed by the parent. If the child chooses to accept these ideas, and continues to act so, the actions of the child will also be considered racist as the intent will be there.

If person A calls me a cracker with the intent to belittle me because I'm white, that may be considered a racist comment.

If person B calls me a cracker without full knowledge of what that means and has no intent to belittle me because I'm white, that is not a racist comment in the context of the situation.

In general practice you may feel that comment is a racist comment, but that is a generalization.
In each instance you need to have intent to judge it to be racist.
You may be able to pin racism on the person that taught person B to say cracker if they did it with intent to harm racially. It really depends on the situation.

The "victim" can judge how they want. Some take no offense, others seem to be the boy who cried "racism".

If I decided to call you what many view as a racial slur, thinking it's funny for some reason, I would assume you would be offended and call me out as a racist.

If I decided to call one of my friends that same racial slur, still thinking it's funny for some reason, there would be no offense taken and they would know it's a joke (though a poor one) and not racially motivated.

I could say the same thing to two different people and have no real racism as a motivations, just a bad sense of humor.

You would say both are racism.
I would say neither is racism.
Someone else may say one is racism and the other is not.

My take is to go by the definition of the word, which states it is based on a belief and intent is part of that belief.

 

[One Brow]

Incorrect.
The intent was there in the beginning.

How do you know that?

If a parent teaches a child that black people are less than white people and teach them to treat them in a manner to show that, while the child may not be held responsible for those actions unless they continue said treatment as an adult, the intent was still there from the parent. The racist actions were performed by the parent. If the child chooses to accept these ideas, and continues to act so, the actions of the child will also be considered racist as the intent will be there.

I do not disagree with what you wrote, but it is the converse of what you claimed above. I agree that racist intentions are followed by racist actions. You said that if the action is racist, racism is always intended. I say that people who have no intention of behaving in a racist fashion (as far as can be determined) nonetheless do so.

If person A calls me a cracker with the intent to belittle me because I'm white, that may be considered a racist comment.

It's a bigoted comment, but it will never have the effect of confirming to you that your being white makes you part of the rightful out-group of society, for teh simple reason that whites are treated as the rightful in-group in society, and other races are the exceptional cases.

If person B calls me a cracker without full knowledge of what that means and has no intent to belittle me because I'm white, that is not a racist comment in the context of the situation.

In either case, the name can not reinforce a societal stigma that does not exist, and so is not racist. It may or may not be bigoted.

In general practice you may feel that comment is a racist comment, but that is a generalization.
In each instance you need to have intent to judge it to be racist.

Then you need to have a word that describes effect, as opposed to intent. What is your choice for that word, describing the out-grouping of someone without intent? Critical race theory uses "racism" (describing the effect), and distinguises this from bigotry (the intent). What's your preferred word choice for the effect?

If I decided to call you what many view as a racial slur, thinking it's funny for some reason, I would assume you would be offended and call me out as a racist.

Me, specifically? I might call out your thought as a racist thought. However, as I have said many times, all humans have racist thoughts (including me). I would not call you out as "a racist", as opposed to some mythical "non-racist".

My take is to go by the definition of the word, which states it is based on a belief and intent is part of that belief.

OK. What's your word to describe the effect of otherizing people based on race, with no intent to do so?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

How do you know that?

Without a belief that one race is better than another, you can't have racism. If there is not intent, or this belief at the base, it's not there.

I do not disagree with what you wrote, but it is the converse of what you claimed above. I agree that racist intentions are followed by racist actions. You said that if the action is racist, racism is always intended. I say that people who have no intention of behaving in a racist fashion (as far as can be determined) nonetheless do so.

And if true racism the intent, or belief system was put into place by somebody. If somebody has no intention of behaving in a racist fashion (as far as can be determined) then it is not racism, but something else.

It's a bigoted comment, but it will never have the effect of confirming to you that your being white makes you part of the rightful out-group of society, for teh simple reason that whites are treated as the rightful in-group in society, and other races are the exceptional cases.

Interesting that you think racism is only against non white. You are still ignoring the message of the comment I made in your attempt to prove nobody can be racist against whites. I'm pretty sure the definition of racist didn't say "unless you are white".

In either case, the name can not reinforce a societal stigma that does not exist, and so is not racist. It may or may not be bigoted.

Oh, and you are the King and keeper of all societal stigma's so you can say what does and does not exist.
Secondly it doesn't matter if there is a stigma or a chicken pot pie. If the intent is to harm or belittle me because of my race, no matter the words, it is racism.
If the intent is not there, it is something else.

Then you need to have a word that describes effect, as opposed to intent. What is your choice for that word, describing the out-grouping of someone without intent? Critical race theory uses "racism" (describing the effect), and distinguises this from bigotry (the intent). What's your preferred word choice for the effect?

Ignorant would be a good start. You are using critical race theory as your basis of knowledge of what racism is? No wonder you don't understand it and think it's everywhere. Critical race theory probably does more to spread racism than help solve it.

Me, specifically? I might call out your thought as a racist thought. However, as I have said many times, all humans have racist thoughts (including me). I would not call you out as "a racist", as opposed to some mythical "non-racist".

You yourself have said if a person performs a bigoted action, they are a bigot at that moment and in that context.
Interesting that you don't use the same logic for similar principles.
So to be clear, you would not call a person a racist, if they clearly just performed a racist action or statement?

Nice job pushing your critical race theory about everyone being a racist. If we are all racists, then we are all equal in that and you should stop talking about it.
You should just get to the point and say you want whatever race you are to be the one you see as having an advantage.

OK. What's your word to describe the effect of otherizing people based on race, with no intent to do so?

Again, Ignorant would be a good start. If the reason behind the action or words is not racially motivated, then it is motivated by something else. If it is motivated because they think you are ugly and they fear ugly people, maybe you can call them an ugliest. It might be we are all ugliests deep down at our core. Check it out and let me know.

 

[One Brow]

Without a belief that one race is better than another, you can't have racism. If there is not intent, or this belief at the base, it's not there.

Evidence says otherwise.

Interesting that you think racism is only against non white.

Interesting that in the paragraph you quoted when I made that comment, I talked only in terms of in-groups and out-groups, and that you understand that whites are the in-group so well you didn't even bother to object to that characterization.

However, it is true that, whenever you can think of a useful word, behavior that stigmatizes an out-group only stigmatizes that out-group, not the in-group.

Ignorant would be a good start.

Ignorance is random and unpredictable. The effects of what I am calling racism are systemic and predictable. So "ignorant" is a terrible start.

You are using critical race theory as your basis of knowledge of what racism is? No wonder you don't understand it and think it's everywhere. Critical race theory probably does more to spread racism than help solve it.

It lifts up the rock to show the racism underneath, it does not create it.

You yourself have said if a person performs a bigoted action, they are a bigot at that moment and in that context.
Interesting that you don't use the same logic for similar principles.
So to be clear, you would not call a person a racist, if they clearly just performed a racist action or statement?

If they regularly performed such acts, I might say they are steeped in racist thoughts. However, it's counter-productive to label the person like that. It offers no insight into the person labeled, and allows those whose racism is less frequent or less obvious to provide themselves with a cloak of "not a racist", as if it were a binary condition.

Nice job pushing your critical race theory about everyone being a racist. If we are all racists, then we are all equal in that and you should stop talking about it.

You mean, the way everyone is sinful, so Christians should stop talking about sin?

You should just get to the point and say you want whatever race you are to be the one you see as having an advantage.

I'd prefer no race to have an advantage. While I appreciate that personal benefits come from my face having an advantage, it's still wrong.

Again, Ignorant would be a good start. If the reason behind the action or words is not racially motivated, then it is motivated by something else. If it is motivated because they think you are ugly and they fear ugly people, maybe you can call them an ugliest. It might be we are all ugliests deep down at our core. Check it out and let me know.

Again, if it was merely ignorance, it would be random and unpredictable. People react negatively to the memes they have, not to memes they do not possess.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Evidence says otherwise.

You must be interpreting what you think is evidence incorrectly.

Interesting that in the paragraph you quoted when I made that comment, I talked only in terms of in-groups and out-groups, and that you understand that whites are the in-group so well you didn't even bother to object to that characterization.


However, it is true that, whenever you can think of a useful word, behavior that stigmatizes an out-group only stigmatizes that out-group, not the in-group.

I did not address your "in-group" claims at all which if you interpret that as acceptance you are wrong.
You are trying to use some created categorization as an excuse as to why racism isn't racism if it's against whites... or "in-group" if you want to call white people that.

Should that be a new category on HR forms now? I'll have to check the box [In Group, non hispanic]

You are making excuses to explain why racism against whites is okay because technically according to you it's not racism even if racially motivated because whites are too cool for school, and the cool kids on campus. Pretty pathetic explanation imo.

Ignorance is random and unpredictable. The effects of what I am calling racism are systemic and predictable. So "ignorant" is a terrible start.

Because you seem to think racism is only if the person on the receiving end of something thinks it's racism, then it's racism and even then if they don't but you do... it's still racism. You are wrong, completely.
Racism can only be racism if it occurs under a belief that one race is better than another.

Ignorance is just as systemic and predictable as racism.

It lifts up the rock to show the racism underneath, it does not create it.

More like it paints the walls in racism and tells people to look at the walls.

If they regularly performed such acts, I might say they are steeped in racist thoughts. However, it's counter-productive to label the person like that. It offers no insight into the person labeled, and allows those whose racism is less frequent or less obvious to provide themselves with a cloak of "not a racist", as if it were a binary condition.

It seems your story has changed since the bigot talk a while back.

You mean, the way everyone is sinful, so Christians should stop talking about sin?

Good comparison, and I suppose yes. Focus on the positive, focus on the good in people. Encourage people. If we constantly focus on the negative it's much more difficult to improve. If I'm reminded every minute I'm a racist sinner, that's what this self fulfilling prophecy stuff is you mentioned in some thread. If I hear that all the time, before you know it I'll be a racist sinner all the time and stop trying to improve and accept it. If the messages I receive are good and positive messages I'll use that as self fulfilling prophecy and try to be better.

I'd prefer no race to have an advantage. While I appreciate that personal benefits come from my face having an advantage, it's still wrong.

You trying to say you think you're hot and get all the ladies? Brag, brag, brag. It is wrong though, and not fair.
While I agree that I don't think any race should have an advantage, or any group have an advantage, this is not living in reality. It's a nice utopia idea.
I don't necessarily agree with what you think is an advantage to any one group, and I also think there are advantages to other groups or races that are completely ignored.

Again, if it was merely ignorance, it would be random and unpredictable. People react negatively to the memes they have, not to memes they do not possess.

I said ignorance was a good starting point. There are plenty of intentions behind acts. Racism is only one. Ignorance is only one. There can be a multitude of intentions or beliefs behind one action. People react in all sorts of ways and the reaction is not all "meme" related.

 

[One Brow]

You must be interpreting what you think is evidence incorrectly.

If you research this phenomenon at all, you'll find that 1) the vast majority of people believe that all races should be treated equally, and 2) nontheless, these is a great diparity in how people of different races are treated. Both of these points have been researchesd and varified in many different ways. The same applies to gender, sexual orientation, etc. This phenomenon deserves a name. It can't be ignorance, because if you were ignorant of the race/gender/orientation of a person, you would not treat them differently. It's a knowledge of race/gender/orientation and negative associations attached to certain races/genders/orientations. That's racism/sexism/homophobia (again, choose a better word, if you can).

I'm getting the impression you just don't believe this sort of differential treatment sans intent exists. How much evidence would you need to believe it? Would link three studies be enough? 5? What's your number?

I did not address your "in-group" claims at all which if you interpret that as acceptance you are wrong.

I didn't say you addressed them. I said you quoted them, and in your response translated them into white as the in-group and black as the out-group.

You are trying to use some created categorization as an excuse as to why racism isn't racism if it's against whites... or "in-group" if you want to call white people that.

Bigotry is always wrong; in particular, it's wrong to be bigoted regarding white people. However, bigotry does not always have an equal effect. Racism, whether derived from bigotry or not, comes from the effect of those with a relative degree of social power to influence the lives of those with a lesser degree of social power, and how this influence operates.

Should that be a new category on HR forms now? I'll have to check the box [In Group, non hispanic]

Non-hispanic is also an in-group. So are male, straight, and cissexual.

You are making excuses to explain why racism against whites is okay because technically according to you it's not racism even if racially motivated because whites are too cool for school, and the cool kids on campus. Pretty pathetic explanation imo.

I am making a case why the social impact of negative differential treatment of blacks had a large effect on the lives of blacks, and any negative differential treatment whites receive a mush smaller impact. The size of a harm does not make it a non-harm, but the size of the harm is worth noting and worth encouraging changing.

Because you seem to think racism is only if the person on the receiving end of something thinks it's racism, then it's racism and even then if they don't but you do... it's still racism. You are wrong, completely.
Racism can only be racism if it occurs under a belief that one race is better than another.

Then you still need a term for the existence people who believe that everyone is equal, but nonetheless engage in differential treatment. It can't be ignorant, because if you are ignorant of a difference, you have no basis for differential treatment.

Ignorance is just as systemic and predictable as racism.

Yes, but the effects are different.

More like it paints the walls in racism and tells people to look at the walls.

You can't define an empirical effect out of existence, just because yo ufind it inconvenient. You can close your eyes to it, and then complain when others talk of what they see, or choose to open your eyes.

It seems your story has changed since the bigot talk a while back.

I reserve the right to update my opinions and decisions with new evidence. However, you did not ask if I would call that person a bigot, but a racist. Since I use the words "bigotry" and "racism" to describe different phenomena (either of which can exist without the other), there is no issue with me saying that you can say someone is a bigot, but no one should be labeled a racist. However, since you seem to conflate these two separate meanings, you seem to find this confusing.

Focus on the positive, focus on the good in people. Encourage people. If we constantly focus on the negative it's much more difficult to improve.

If we never focus on the negative, we never have a reason to improve. Am I really the only source of race discussions in your life? Dollars to doughnuts that you have plenty of people in your life who would tell you you're not bigoted. Most people know this about themselves.

You trying to say you think you're hot and get all the ladies? Brag, brag, brag. It is wrong though, and not fair.

Appearance-wise, I am more on the in-group side. Just one more axis of privilege in my favor.

While I agree that I don't think any race should have an advantage, or any group have an advantage, this is not living in reality. It's a nice utopia idea.

If we don't like our reality, and we can try to change it to be a little closer to what we want it to be. First, though, we have to see that it's not already there.

I don't necessarily agree with what you think is an advantage to any one group, and I also think there are advantages to other groups or races that are completely ignored.

There are small, deliberately constructed, partial counters to known advantages. It's only privilege that lets you see that as an advantage.

I said ignorance was a good starting point. There are plenty of intentions behind acts. Racism is only one. Ignorance is only one. There can be a multitude of intentions or beliefs behind one action. People react in all sorts of ways and the reaction is not all "meme" related.

I agree we all have many reasons behind our actions. In fact, we are often not aware of all our reasons.