Racist or mild Fetish?

[diggity]

I have a friend - black chick, married a white dude. At one point she made the remark to me that if her husband had only dated black chicks, she would have never gone out with him due to some white guys just wanting to get with black chicks.

 

So here’s the scenario.

 

White girl, only dates black guys or white guy, only dates Asian girls, etc.

 

Is that racist?

Racist because the girl in this scenario isn’t willing to date anyone who’s not black or does it fall into another category. I’m not really willing to accept “preference” as an answer due to the decision being so heavily based on race.

 

 

I’ve spoke with others around the office I work with and there’s been some pretty wild responses/reactions so I thought this would be fun to hear peoples opinions on.

[misteraven]

rac·ism

ˈrāˌsizəm/

noun

1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
   "a program to combat racism"
   synonyms: racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, casteism
   "Aborigines are the main victims of racism in Australia"
   
   • the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
     noun: racism
     

[misteraven]

As per definition, if it’s actually a preference, then it can’t be racism. Some might argue its racism against your own race, but that doesn’t fall within the characteristics of the definition either.

[diggity]

I took a look at that definition earlier but wasn’t satisfied with it because it didn’t take into consideration that someone may prefer another race to their own. It assumes that you think your race is the best and all others suck.

 

If you change the statement “I only date white guys” to “I only hire white guys” it’s seems to fall more in a racist/discrimination area. Argument being that you are giving preferential treatment due to race as denying those who are not of that race.

[diggity]

Here’s the racial fetish wiki.

 

Racial fetishism involves fetishizing a person or culture belonging to a race or ethnic group—therefore it involves racial/ethnic stereotyping and objectifying people whose bodies are stereotyped, and at times their cultural practices.[1][2][3] This can include having strong racial preferences in dating. For example, an Asian fetish focussing on East Asian, Southeast Asian and to some extent South Asian women is quite prevalent

[Hua Guofang]

I think the terminology is wrong these days. This is what I was taught as part of a sociology major 10-15 years back:

Generalisation: assigning characteristics regardless of individual difference

Racism: making generalisations based on race regardless of individual difference

Racial discrimination: discrimination based on race.

 

With those definitions you can still have positive racism and neutral racism like "Asians are good at math" just like you can have neutral sexism "Women are more geared to emotional understanding than they are at spatial recognition".

[misteraven]

Damn, but Asian’s are pretty good at math though.

 

Not sure man... A lot of this falls into the binary dichotomy rant I’ve expressed elsewhere. For those new or newly back...

 

Here’s some food for thought: Divide and conquer is a war strategy that literally goes back thousands of years. It’s a main treatise in the Art of War, which is like the Bible of War strategies from ancient China BC. It’s still studied in Mikitary Academies and I’ve heard it referenced regularly as recently as the wars in the Middle East.

 

Straying slightly off topic, but in this last decade, we’ve seen new boogie men and golden oldies pop back up from Al Qaiada to ISIS and from Russia to North Korea. We’ve also seen real angst and division catapult riots and protests by class, sex, sexual preference, gun ownership, religion, nationality, immigration status and especially race.

 

Now I’m not saying that there aren’t issues across all those lines, but I do believe that the last decade has done far more harm than good as far as addressing those issues. Each has been systematically appropriated by the mainstream media just at the right critical moment to usher in a national outrage that conveniently happens when an election is ramping up or some other catalyst for change is on the horizon. It conveniently fades out as soon as fatigue starts setting in and quickly replaced by yer another national emergency or outrage.

 

Going to say this, though by social media standards, it would be far from politically correct... I honestly never thought much about any of this stuff until there was suddenly a riot on TV or it became the platform someone was looking to capture votes on. I’m not some dormant racist by any means and I have zero doubt that anyone that knows me in real life can point to a hint, let alone evidence of that. Yet these last couple years made me kind of nervous about being white in some situations. When there was some national game of young black kids supposedly punching white people in the back of the head, shit seemed sketchy. When an MTA worker was punched and died from knocking his head on the ground after being punched, it was hard to not be weary when a bunch of rowdy young black kids we’re mobbing their way down a sidewalk. Likewise, when Ebola was the next epidemic and on the 24/7 news cycle for weeks, it took a minute to realize that literally 3 people in 320 million contracted it and that staying home glued to the TV wasn’t the best thing to do.

 

Point I’m making is that every time the dust settles, suddenly a new issue jumps up and consumes everyone. There’s never a solution to it and the dynamic each time is divisiveness. Shit that has us arguing with each other, shit that were told is an outrageous grievance that can only be solved by voting for so and so or ensuring that so and so can’t be elected because of it.

 

Back during the Obama administration when he both chambers of Congress we’re under democratic control, he did nothing regarding control. In fact, a bit later in his term, he got a standing ovation from most of Congress when he announced an executive decision that banned citizens from all small arms weapons greater than 50 caliber. Watched for days as loops of that announcement were played everywhere all the while wondering why nobody called out the fact that it was bullshit. That small arms according to military definition are any caliber 50 and below so he was banning something that technically never existed. Since citizens can’t own weapon platforms greater than small arms, even according to our second amendment, it was all bullshit.

 

Likewise, we currently have a sitting president that actually spoke at an NRA convention, who’s son has regularly attended each NRA convention in the last couple years in a very public way and a president that also controls both chambers of Congress, yet concealed carry reciprocity is all but dead, there’s no longer any discussion on suppressors being removed from requiring $200 tax stamps, bump stocks are their way to being banned and I there’s just as many bills being passed around and debated as their ever was.

 

Don’t mean to make it about guns each time, but it’s a subject I know well and serves as the vehicle to describe that while we argue, the status quo maintains.

 

Now continuing the thought process... it’s sciebti fact that if you flip a coin a thousand times, the chances of it falling in heads or tails is about 50/50. The only thing that throws this off is introducing a third option, in which case it throws the chances off completely. That is fact.

 

Now is it too much a leap of faith to suspect that maybe the DNC and RNC not only understand that concept, but have come to embrace it?

 

That just maybe, they realize the goal is power. Consolidating it and maintaining it. That is priority number one. That averaging out the rest and realizing they need to hand over the reigns occasionally to the other guy, that basically steering the horse in the same general direction is okay because they get to steer about half the time as well and well, they’re mostly moving in the same direction.

 

Meanwhile, we pick a team based on platforms that have us more and more divided. Nothing gets done and when we point that out, they say it’s because of the other guy and come ejection time, it’s your duty to make a difference.

 

Then when you peel back the blind partisan loyalty, you see that Obama bombed more countries than Bush. Ran exponentially more drone sorties than Bush which absolutely counters the platform the DNC stands on. In fact they gave him a Nobel Peace prize. Then you have Bush, who expanded government beyond anything that any president before air after has done with the creation of the DHS and TSA. That by doing that and the various economic programs he created, that he also spent exponentially more money than any president before him. There’s a million other examples we can review that prove that at the end of the day, there’s no substantial difference between the two parties. That the platforms the campaigns are built on are more about click bait bullshit that only leads to further divisiveness and that judged by their actual track record and it’s real world impact on the nation, that the horse just keeps steadily following the same path it’s been on regardless of which team is at the reigns.

 

I’ve put this podcast link out there lots of times, but seriously... give it a listen: http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/the-great-lie-of-dichotomy

 

So looping back to the topic, not sure splitting hairs on this matters man. People like who they like. If it’s not the color of their skin, it’s the size of their tits or how muscular they are or not. That’s just part of the human condition as is racism in one form or another. Not saying it’s good or right, but fact is nature in general and humans specifically most often gravitate towards familiarity. You feel safe when you understand something and there’s nothing easier to understand than people that are most like you. Doesn’t mean we should think lesser of those that aren’t, and doesn’t always have to be about that.

 

Anyhow, that’s today’s rant. Sorry it ran so long. And yes, actually did peck this out on an iPhone. And indeed that sucks, so excuse the auto corrects and typos.

[One Man Banned]

One of my first thoughts reading this was an old Seinfeld episode where he says how is it racist if I like her race?

Society would do well to understand terms such as bias, prejudice, discrimination, racism, and the accompanying subtypes. Lot of people who say they're not racist, or they don't discriminate, are the first people who are or do (no reference to present company).

Anyhow, there's not enough evidence here to say this chick is racist, but her vagina might be.

[misteraven]

LOL

[diggity]

Racial fetishism involves fetishizing a person or culture belonging to a race or ethnic group—therefore it involves racial/ethnic stereotyping and objectifying people whose bodies are stereotyped, and at times their cultural practices.[1][2][3] This can include having strong racial preferences in dating.

[One Man Banned]

Later on I recalled a situation of a black girl who only dated white guys. Most would never know this about her, but turns out she was molested or abused when younger, think by family. Anyhow, girl wanted to go on with her life and have normal relationships but getting close to a black man was too much of a trigger so she just wouldn't fuck with blacks. If you didn't know this about her I guess you were left to draw your own conclusions re: her preference.

[Mercer]

Racism, Prejudice, and Discrimination are 3 different things. Preferring to date someone of a particular race is not racist, nor is it prejudice (per say), but it is discriminatory though. It could be considered prejudice if you discriminate based on pre-judging women based on race, like saying I won't date white girls because they can't cook.

 

Discrimination is usually considered a bad thing, but isn't always bad, or harmful. One could expect some social backlash for being being openly discriminatory, especially in a racial context, but discrimination itself is usually more harmful to the discriminator without even considering social backlash.

 

In this example of dating, lets say someone prefers only Asian women. If the person lives in an area where the single population has less than 100% Asian women, that person's chances of finding a high quality mate are cut in direct proportion to the percentage of availiable females of their preferred race. In a large population, this does little to effect the dating prospects of women of other races on an individual basis, and can only be proven to be harmful towards the discriminator.

 

IMHO nobody should feel guilty about preferring to date someone of a particular race, even if it's a preference for one's own race. Personally, I prefer to discriminate based on looks, social & other skills, along with moral character. Anyone telling someone else they shouldn't have a preference for a particular race, is probably racist themselves.

Edited June 15, 2018 by Guest

[misteraven]

@Mercer getting all scientifical about shit. Good stuff man.

[Mercer]

Just read Discrimination & Disparity by Thomas Sowell.

 

Doesn't fit the progressive narrative so it will never happen, but this book should be a mandatory course in schools.

 

Edited June 15, 2018 by Guest

[misteraven]

@Mercer No doubt you've seen my "Weigh In" threads... I just published a new one this morning: https://forum.12ozprophet.com/threads/weigh-in-individual-privacy-and-freedom-versus-collective-safety-and-security.148242/

 

If you have the time, I think it would be amazing if you we're to kick off something similar, perhaps with that book and the theory / opinion behind it as an opening topic?

 

My personal goal / agenda with that thread series, as well as this forum in general is to remind people to really think. I'm really not at all concerned with their position and certainly not looking to encourage people to copy my own positions on topics. Rather, as discussed with quite a few people (most recently @6Pennies), it really does seem that society and especially the younger generations are being discouraged from learning basics like healthy skepticism, critical thinking, rhetoric and respectful / intelligent debate. Everything is engineered to be click bait, emotionally fueled and reactionary. People seem to feel compelled to join the mob, even when the practices violate the ideologies. Ethics is out the window entirely and in we've become so hyper divisive that everything is us against them with every opportunity to vilify the opposition pursued with enthusiasm and vigor.

 

Its crazy man and I'm genuinely concerned about where its all headed. Especially when in the meantime, the country keeps marching towards that cliff and regardless of what side of partisan politics people chose to be on (and the overwhelming pressure really is to chose one side or another), it all winds up being the same thing riding under one of two banners.

 

Anyhow, I think you could really make a difference in helping spark intelligent and insightful conversation and hopefully open a few eyes, as well as get a few people thinking deeper and hopefully questioning the narrative and the world around them.