Being sexually attracted to (or repulsed by) certain racial types: the acceptable face of racism?

THOUGHT: "We don't hire/sleep with Asians. Ever."

haha. er, actually, you didn't really get it

the point was, saying "i haven't encountered an asian woman whom i've found attractive" isn't necessarily racist. but to say "i find asian women unattractive" is.

the first is factual, the second is an ill-informed generalisation.

to assume that "ms. chen" is an asian/chinese name, is probably also racist but i guess you got that, anyway.

You may want to also see this thread of mine:

Making positive generalisations about people in other cultures/races - classic or dud?

I was lurking in an ILX chat room when a few British ILXors referred to curly hair as 'mingy'. Sorry, but that IS bigoted.

However, it would not be reasonable to ask the law, or an individual, to guarantee equality of result. (In fact, equality of opporunity is more or less a guarantee of inequality of result.) In other words, nobody would expect all actors in society to be entitled to exactly the same life experiences as all others, and even if we expected an open-minded person to be willing to consider marrying partners of all races, we wouldn't expect him or her to actually marry someone from every race, one after the other. At some point one leaves abstract principles (of equality) and makes a commitment to a particularity. One judges. One chooses. Choice is inevitable. It would be silly to say that every choice is a massive discrimination against the things unchosen.

Chen is one of the "lao bai xing" or old 100 names, one of the most common of Chinese surnames. To assume that "Chen" is a Chinese name is hardly racist, it is informed. To assume that Ms. Chen is Chinese may or may not be racist based on whether one is looking at the person or on the telephone. Even looking at the person, one might not be able to tell whether Ms. Chen were Chinese, but it would not be an ignorant racist assumption.

However, not be reasonable guarantee equality of to ask the law, it would or an individual nobody would expect, to result. (In fact, equality of opporunity of inequality of result.) In other words, all actors in society to be entitled life experiences as all others, and even is more or to exactly the same less a guarantee if we expected an open-minded person to be willing to consider marrying every race, one partners of all races, we wouldn't expect him or her to actually marry someone from after the other. At some point one leaves abstract principles (of equality) and Choice is inevitable. makes a commitment to a particularity. One judges. One chooses. It would be silly to say that every choice is against the things unchosen a massive discrimination

i get the feeling that the actual points of my posts early would never actually be read, anyway.

IRL, I think there are very few cases where race and gender are immaterial to judgement. These are still 'differences that make a difference', and need to be taken into account when we make judgements. If they aren't, our judgements can't be fair. So I think the image of Justice wearing a blindfold is a rather silly one, and I also think that to call people 'racist' and 'sexist' -- if it just means they take race and gender into account -- is a wrongheaded criticism.

'My it ain't so open that anything could crawl right in...'

shorthand = prejudice