Is it Racist to Not Date a Particular Race?

Author: Stronn

Posts

Total: 169
#31
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@Stronn
I would say it depends on the reason.  Racism is all in the intention.  


If you're not dating them because a particular physical features Is unattractive, then it's not necessarily racist. But if the reason has to do with the race itself regardless of attractiveness factors, then I'd say it's racist. 

One example of racism would be not wanting to have mixed babies for instance. 

One example of not racism would be finding bright red hair unattractive.  


Note that in the second example, there could be cases where you still might date someone of that race because they might not have red hair. 


#32
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Stronn
It is the ole joke, why does the easter bunny hide his eggs?

He doesnt want anyone to know that he is messing around with a chicken.

Generally people are attracted to other people and most often opposite sexes attracted to each other physically.

Then all other attributes come into play. Ex there are those at DDO who liked to call Stormy Daniels "horseface".

I personally find Trumps face to be closer to a "horse face" than Stormys, but that just gets into peoples personal attractions.

I find Stormy { white } much more attractive than I do Trump { Orange }. I like all colors but often partial to green { emerald } because of ancient mystical associations with Asia?


#33
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Stronn
This should be based on around fairness. 
To answer your question yes it would be racist but it depends on the situation if it is fair or unfair to judge them.
Example of fair blame: A does not want to date a person who doesn't have the same skin as A because they are different.
Example of unfair blame: A does not want to date a person who doesn't have the same skin as A because they don't share same interests.

Unfair blame would be if the person based their decision outside race.
Fair blame would be if the person based their decision based on race. 
This is based on if they are capable adult so above 25. 
#34
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Stronn
I have preferences in who I am attracted to. I prefer white, Indian, and Latino guys. That being said, I have found people of many others races attractive. I do not rule out dating any race completely. I recognize that I generally prefer some racial groups to others in dating, but I am open to dating anyone I find attractive.
#35
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
I think were it comes racist and unacceptable, particularly in gay culture, is when someone issues a blanket proclamation like "no Asians." That kind of remark implies that the speaker wouldn't even entertain the possibility of sleeping with an Asian person, which goes beyond sexual preferences and moves into racist territory.

235 days later

#36
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,084
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Which is worse?

Choosing who to date irrespective of political correctness?

Or being forced to date in respect of political correctness?
#37
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@zedvictor4
Which is worse?

Choosing who to date irrespective of political correctness?

Or being forced to date in respect of political correctness?

I guess it depends on how much it is brought up. If you are talking about me just going out with a minority group then I don't think I have a problem with it but if they can't stop talking about how white people are x and they are y then it would be pretty boring conversation to have. I think it is very rare for me to learn something new from that.

So if you mean force as in my personal restrictions or state restrictions then that would be worse.

Don't know how I could like someone based on it

#38
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,674
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
no  

470 days later

#39
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
I often use this analogy as it concerns discrimination in other contexts to point out the hypocrisy and inconsistent reasoning in response to discriminatory practices. That is, what if a government were to implement a quota which all must follow as it pertained to whom they decide to date and potentially engage in coitus? Why would one's practice of discrimination as it concerned sex be any less reprehensible than one who employs? And for those who'll mention that employment is categorically different from dating, I ask that one considers prostitution. For a prostitute who does not engage in coitus outside of her so-called "race," should she be sent to "sensitivity training"? What about a 5% quota for other so-called "races"? Should an escort service revamp their workforce despite the preferences of their clientele? 

Is it discriminatory on the basis of so-called skin color (racist) to not date a particular "race"? Yes. But so what?
#40
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
Mostly because unlike gender, race is only tangible in the aspect of culture, furthermore - unlike gender - there is no psychological study demonstrating that everybody has a racialsexuality or racialromanticism - perhaps you have a type, but to not want to date someone specifically because of their race is not equivalent to not wanting to date someone because of their gender- it is a fundamental false equivalence you've made

#41
Trent0405
Trent0405's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 471
3
9
11
Trent0405's avatar
Trent0405
3
9
11
I suppose it is racist, but the real question here is whether this racial discrimination is okay. Now, if someone doesn't want to date a person of x race because, "we all know how they are," than that would not be okay. However, if you don't want to date a certain race for aesthetic reasons, then there is no problem. People have little control over what they are attracted to, so I have no issue with people rejecting a race for that reasons.
#42
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,362
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Trent0405
Sounds like yes and no, to me.

Words often have many meaning and connotations depending on context.
#43
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Mostly because unlike gender, race is only tangible in the aspect of culture, furthermore - unlike gender - there is no psychological study demonstrating that everybody has a racialsexuality or racialromanticism - perhaps you have a type, but to not want to date someone specifically because of their race is not equivalent to not wanting to date someone because of their gender- it is a fundamental false equivalence you've made
It's not a false equivalence because I did not make the equivalence you suggested. I did not make mention of gender at all. And note that I also did not mention "attraction" at all.

#44
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
Its a false equivalence in the sense that you implied such a connection - for example: "Why would one's practice of discrimination as it concerned sex be any less reprehensible than one who employs?"

Thats you comparing sex and race (also not the same) in regards to work-place discrimination - and applying it to dating - I bring it up because they can't be compared - they don't correlate. So no - my example doesn't exactly correlate with your argument; however, it does refute the comparison you attempt to make
#45
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Its a false equivalence in the sense that you implied such a connection - for example: "Why would one's practice of discrimination as it concerned sex be any less reprehensible than one who employs?"

Thats you comparing sex and race (also not the same) in regards to work-place discrimination - and applying it to dating - I bring it up because they can't be compared - they don't correlate. So no - my example doesn't exactly correlate with your argument; however, it does refute the comparison you attempt to make
No, I "implied" no such thing. And yes, I did make a comparison using sex (not gender) because both dating and employment involve two or more parties interacting. Not to mention, I also made sure to make reference to prostitution which combines both sex and transactional interactions (e.g. employment.) Your assertion that the two cannot be compared is categorically false especially in light of escort services and pimps and ho's. But even if were to ignore those, we still could consider dating sites which involves two people employing the services of an intermediary. "Blackpeoplemeet.com" is "racist" in that their protocol involves exclusion on the basis of so-called "race."But so what?

What if a so-called "white" parent, for example, doesn't want to hire a so-called "black" babysitter? What would/should be the protocol there?

#46
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
Even if you could compare dating and employment (you can't - you need one to live - you need the other to thrive - a fundamental difference there) there is a difference between sex and race in obvious ways - you even dropped this point in your response, defaulting to your comparison between income and dating as the simple praxis - the two involve interaction - if that were the case then conversation is analogous to work, and a hand shake is analogous to work - the fact that two people are interacting does not logically lead to the conclusion that the two things are therefore comparable - that is a non-sequitur. 

Furthermore - that is.... racist - simple as that. Now - the actual ability to make a "protocol" out of a thing that is intrinsically hard to regulate is a non-starter in the first place
#47
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Even if you could compare dating and employment
One could.

(you can't...)
I just did.

you need one to live - you need the other to thrive
One needs neither to live or thrive. One doesn't have to work to live; this is a complete falsehood.

a fundamental difference there
The only difference here is context. You are arguing on the context of necessity; I'm arguing on the context of interaction and choice. You're operating on a non-sequitur, suggesting that I'm comparing the "necessity" of the two. I am not. So your contention is invalid.

There is a difference between sex and race in obvious ways - you even dropped this point in your response
No, I did not. I approached an angle that did not directly involve sex and race; I never dropped it.

the two involve interaction - if that were the case then conversation is analogous to work, and a hand shake is analogous to work
Yes, in the context of mere interaction, they're all analogous. Stating them as though they imply absurdity doesn't demonstrate absurdity.

the fact that two people are interacting does not logically lead to the conclusion that the two things are therefore comparable
Yes, they are given the context. You invoked the concept of necessity; I did not.

Furthermore - that is.... racist - simple as that. Now - the actual ability to make a "protocol" out of a thing that is intrinsically hard to regulate is a non-starter in the first place
How would/should one regulate parents choosing temporary guardians for their children, difficulty notwithstanding? That is, how would/should one regulate the aforementioned parent from making racist decisions as it concerns the supervision of their children?


#48
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,084
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
#47

Mr A in top form.
#49
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Well yes, but actually no.

If I don't wanna date you because you are black and I think black people are bad, I am racist.

If I don't wanna date you because you are way too nasty, I am not racist in this case.


#50
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
If the premise says YES, then it would mean that aces/aros would be misanthropic seeing they don't fancy the idea of dating anyone, and pansexuals would not be racist just because they can accept the idea of dating people of all kinds.

Just because not dating doesn't mean racist. I mean, adults who date children are the one seen as creepy and down bad... Just because you wanna date people your age doesn't mean you hate children or old people.

If the radical SJWs really gonna cancel you for dating a white person when all you care about is hair, genitals, and personality, let logic be fallen onto them and realize themselves.
#51
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,977
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Stronn
If by race you mean skin tone and not culture(s), then yeah, you’re a racist. 


#52
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,362
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Reece101
What about 'orange skin tones, such as Trump?
Isn't that more colorist?
#53
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,977
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
Trump has never looked good. All that’s going for him is his money and narcism. 

I’m sure someone could pull off that level of orange who isn’t unfit and elderly. 
#54
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
In order to eat in this society - yes - you do need to work, you could argue that one could be a child or an elderly person, perhaps as someone who is incapable of working in general. Those are the obvious outliers, but even if you didn't live in a society (which is what I'M discussing) you still need to put in labor of some sort in exchange for resources - which is, practically speaking, what work is. 

So yes, you do indeed need to work in order to live, with the exception of the literal exceptions. The next is the argument of "neccessity" but we disagree on the extent of its necessity, I would WANT all people to be able to live without working; however, that is not the reality. You have simply asserted such as the truth without actually demonstrating it. However in order to purchase food, or home for any amount of time significantly speaking one must work. I suppose you could argue that the rich don't need to work either, then the obvious argument is that most people aren't rich enough for that to be the case. My point is, for a majority of people, working is necessary to live.

Furthermore, yes - it is absurd, because you are trying to take ONE part of work and state that as the only bit which matters in regard to its labeling; however, that is not at all the most essential parts which make work work. Perhaps you could argue that what YOUR talking about is only defined as far as interaction; however, your discussion regarding the laws of work would clearly use the LEGAL definition of work which is: "the performance of services for which remuneration is payable." - you could argue about the interpretation of performance of service, and what payable is, but these are ESSENTIAL bits to the meaning BEHIND work.



#55
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
You are saying: "income" and "dating" are the same - when they are very clearly - not the same. Your analogy does not work - you speak of non-sequiturs while committing a false equivalence.  That's not all though, you are also saying, that sex and race are the same - however you only defend your argument regarding work and dating - your  second-from-last response:

"No, I "implied" no such thing. And yes, I did make a comparison using sex (not gender) because both dating and employment involve two or more parties interacting. Not to mention, I also made sure to make reference to prostitution which combines both sex and transactional interactions (e.g. employment.) Your assertion that the two cannot be compared is categorically false especially in light of escort services and pimps and ho's. But even if were to ignore those, we still could consider dating sites which involves two people employing the services of an intermediary. "Blackpeoplemeet.com" is "racist" in that their protocol involves exclusion on the basis of so-called "race."But so what?

What if a so-called "white" parent, for example, doesn't want to hire a so-called "black" babysitter? What would/should be the protocol there?"
Your only "defence" is that there is one section in where sex and income come into correlation; however, SEX and DATING are not necessarily the same thing. 
Dating: "to regularly spend time with someone you have a romantic relationship with:" So - you have made a comparison that applies in a SINGLE field, SOME of the time, in other words - it is a FALSE EQUIVALENCE to compare such a thing to ALL instances of Dating. 

As for your question: If your decision regarding a baby-sitter is RACE, then that person is being racist. To actually regulate would require a massive ramp up of babysitting websites- it would have to include professionalizing recruiting for, and dispensing of babysitters - it would probably have to do-away with citizens individually choosing baby-sitters. The best idea I have is for some kind of group for people to order the service of another, without any picture or such. Kinda like how ordering food is, you don't get to choose who does and who doesn't order your food - but that is based on the promise that each driver who comes is trained to bring you your food, so would the baby-sitters all have to be trained to take care of children.
#56
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
In order to eat in this society - yes - you do need to work, you could argue that one could be a child or an elderly person, perhaps as someone who is incapable of working in general.
No, you don't. One could be a thief; one could be homeless living in a shelter; one could be an heir or heiress to a large fortune; one could fish or hunt for food, etc. I could be generous and state that I know that which you're attempting to argue, but when you flesh it out, it's a conclusion that cannot be extended with consistency.

Those are the obvious outliers,
No, they're really not. If one looks at the labor force participation rate, which I believe is around 60% (correct me if I'm wrong) then that would suggest that around 40% are not working. If we assume that half of those people are participating in some of illegal work (not necessarily criminal, but outside of state prescription) then that would leave at least 20% of people who are eating without working.

you still need to put in labor of some sort in exchange for resources - which is, practically speaking, what work is. 
Let's remember this.

My point is, for a majority of people, working is necessary to live.
No, your point was that working is necessary to live. If you want to change your position, that fine. But your point is somewhat diminished now that you've qualified it with "majority."

Perhaps you could argue that what YOUR talking about is only defined as far as interaction; however, your discussion regarding the laws of work would clearly use the LEGAL definition of work which is: "the performance of services for which remuneration is payable." - you could argue about the interpretation of performance of service, and what payable is, but these are ESSENTIAL bits to the meaning BEHIND work.
Okay, let's operate on your definition of work. Suppose I run an escort service (a.k.a. "compensated dating") and my clientele consist exclusively of so-called white men. My patrons prefer so-called white women exclusively, and the women in my service prefer so-called white men exclusively. Now the state interferes and decrees that I must employ so-called Black, Hispanic, and Asian women. Not only that, but I as well as those under my employ also cannot refuse service on the basis of so-called race.

Let's say that a so-called Black would-be patron calls my service and requests a woman, but all I have available are three so-called White women who refuse to date or have sex with anyone other than so-called White men. Upon learning of this, the so-called Black would-be patron threatens to sue my service for discrimination. Does he have a case? Should he have a case? Should I attempt to compel them by threatening to fire them? After all, "they need to eat, too." Do I pay off the would-be so-called Black patron as recompense for discrimination? What was wrong with my operation scheme before government interference?




#57
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,035
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
Just to be clear, there are many more factors involved in selecting a partner than just comparing 23-and-me percentages.

#58
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
You are saying: "income" and "dating" are the same
No, I am not.

when they are very clearly - not the same. Your analogy does not work
an analogy does not require a direct equivalence. It only requires an aspect of a person, action, subject etc. being compared to that of another while applying a different context. Here case in point:

Athias giving up a carton of coconut water would be like a monkey giving up a banana. In this analogy, am I stating that I'm a monkey? No. I'm comparing my unwillingness to the alleged unwillingness of a monkey's; or conversely, I'm comparing my attachment to that of a monkey's. I'm not saying that I'm a monkey.

Your only "defence" is that there is one section in where sex and income come into correlation; however, SEX and DATING are not necessarily the same thing. 
Dating: "to regularly spend time with someone you have a romantic relationship with:
No, they are not necessarily the same thing. But they aren't necessarily all that different given that "romantic relationships" are define by sexual attraction.

As for your question: If your decision regarding a baby-sitter is RACE, then that person is being racist.
Yes, it's racist.

To actually regulate would require a massive ramp up of babysitting websites- it would have to include professionalizing recruiting for, and dispensing of babysitters - it would probably have to do-away with citizens individually choosing baby-sitters.
Yes, it would be difficult--almost as difficult, or comparably difficult, to revamping one's entire workforce to accommodate quotas.

The best idea I have is for some kind of group for people to order the service of another, without any picture or such. Kinda like how ordering food is, you don't get to choose who does and who doesn't order your food - but that is based on the promise that each driver who comes is trained to bring you your food, so would the baby-sitters all have to be trained to take care of children.
And if the babysitter is refused at the door? What if the couple calls the service again and request a so-called White babysitter?

#59
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Just to be clear, there are many more factors involved in selecting a partner than just comparing 23-and-me percentages.

Thus, I refer to it as "so-called Race."

#60
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
It's ethnocentric but not inherently racist.

There are even neonazis and rednecks that aren't particularly racist (which is linked to superiority complex and denial of essential things and trade to other races) but instead they are ethnocentric; they just believe in 'keeping it in the race' when it comes to sex and love.

If you would date all races except one, that's probably due either to racist attitudes or childhood trauma with someone of that race.

I say 'racist attitudes' because racism is, in the end, a systemic issue not an individualistic approach issue. An individual can be racist in action when being violent, hiring/firing based on race, bullying so on and so forth but in selectively dating on an individual level one can't truly be racist, they can have racist attitudes.

The reason you can't truly be racist and only be ethnocentric based on this thread's topic is because the denial of dating you as an individual isn't equivocal to denying a race equal rights and career opportunities (which are the two primary branches of racism when denied). You're not special enough or supreme enough to be something that when denied to date to another race is justifiably 'racist' in impact.