Flowen said:
"Racial preference" is malleable in that it's a learned prejudice and not a preference. As infants we seek parity in features to help with recognition, but after that there's really no excuse. I guess you could say "I'm not attracted to anyone who looks different from my general features" and it would mean you just hadn't grown up. My point is that racial preference is not the same thing as having a preference for a specific sex, and should not be treated the same way.
And how is this unique from any other physical preference? Is someone born with a preference for blondes over brunettes? Tomboys over classically feminine women? Or was it learned? Also, just because a preference is learned does not necessarily mean it's malleable, particularly consciously malleable. Our physical preferences can change, but how do we consciously control that?
Note: While I think racial preference and sexual preference are different, I don't think they are in such a way as to be treated differently in this situation. However, for the sake of this discussion, I won't even consider that and leave sex out of the equation entirely.
They're making a racist statement regardless of intent. Yes, I understand that in most cases people are just being lazy when they say things like "I'm not attracted to X race." when they really mean "I haven't found a lot of people of X race that I find attractive, but there are surely exceptions.". The problem is that lazy dialogue like that fuels things like sexism or racism. By making a statement such as "I don't find x race attractive" when you don't really mean that adds support to the people who do mean it and are racists. Making a racist statement does not make you a racist, but it certainly helps those who are and builds a case towards you being one.
So in other words, you are consciously choosing to put the racist implications behind it even though you recognize and admit you know that's not what they're talking about? So why is it lazy dialogue as opposed to lazy reading? I get the "Hey, this could be misinterpreted, so you may want to rephrase this," because god knows I'm anal with people, but from where I'm sitting it looks like you're knowingly misrepresenting what they're saying to make them appear to be something you know they're not. That seems so much worse than simply misspeaking or misinterpreting what they're saying.
Edit: I feel it's prudent to point out there is a big "IMO" pasted over this so as to avoid the idea that I'm trying to belittle you rather than simply giving my perspective. Because I'm trying to be nicer to people.
Jacques Joseph said:
"Having black skin" is a physical feature, one that black people tend to have (yes, I know, there are exceptions but that´s what they are - exceptions). Silly as it may be, someone may happen to be not attracted to it. That hypothetical someone should be able to say "I´m not attracted to black people" without being judged harshly for it.
That's pretty much what I'm saying.
I´m adding all these "hypotheticals" because a person saying things like this will, I think, more often than not, be racist; but not because of just saying this but more because of the thought processes behind that, i.e. they will usually refuse to go out with black people because they think they are all stupid, or junkies or fat or whatever which, of course, is racist.
This would be where we disagree, then. Kind of like what you said, someone might not go out with someone else because they hold racist attitudes toward their race. Or they might not because it just doesn't get their blood pumping. But I don't think it would be right to assume the former based simply off the statement "I'm not attracted to black people." There are certainly additional things you could bring in to support such a claim, but I don't think the aforementioned statement is sufficient.
