Racial discrimination is morally wrong in any context - including dating and sex

[aociswundumho]

Anti-discrimination laws regarding race exist for a simple reason: to guarantee equal opportunity and protect people from the humiliation of being rejected for something they didn’t choose and can’t change.

That principle doesn’t magically vanish when it comes to dating and sex. Racial discrimination in dating and sex is just as morally wrong as in housing or employment, because it rests on the same toxic idea: that a person’s worth is defined by their race.

Whether you say, "I won’t hire a black person" or "I won’t rent to an asian family" or "I won’t date a latino" you're doing the same thing - reducing someone’s humanity to skin color. That’s the moral failure.

These racial dating preferences often draw directly from typical racist stereotypes, which are often the same shit you'll see in labor and real estate markets.

If racism in employment and housing is wrong because it denies opportunity and harms dignity, then racism in dating is wrong for the exact same reasons. Prejudice doesn’t get a free pass just because it’s dressed up as personal preference. In fact that's how you violate anti-discrimination laws - by showing a personal preference for race.

 

[aociswundumho]

Let me address a common objection:

"But I can’t help who I’m attracted to" - fine, then neither can a landlord or employer. If you don't accept 'personal preference' as a defense for racial discrimination in housing or hiring, then you shouldn't accept it in dating either.

 

[j brown's body]

Discrimination in housing may be illegal but we still talk about black and white neighborhoods as though they were the most natural thing in the world.

And the reason for DEI is because even though discrimination in hiring is illegal, most of upper management is still white.

As a black student once succinctly said to me "all we got upis the law."

I understand her point.

 

[Gatsby]

Anti-discrimination laws regarding race exist for a simple reason: to guarantee equal opportunity and protect people from the humiliation of being rejected for something they didn’t choose and can’t change.

That principle doesn’t magically vanish when it comes to dating and sex. Racial discrimination in dating and sex is just as morally wrong as in housing or employment, because it rests on the same toxic idea: that a person’s worth is defined by their race.

Whether you say, "I won’t hire a black person" or "I won’t rent to an asian family" or "I won’t date a latino" you're doing the same thing - reducing someone’s humanity to skin color. That’s the moral failure.

These racial dating preferences often draw directly from typical racist stereotypes, which are often the same shit you'll see in labor and real estate markets.

If racism in employment and housing is wrong because it denies opportunity and harms dignity, then racism in dating is wrong for the exact same reasons. Prejudice doesn’t get a free pass just because it’s dressed up as personal preference. In fact that's how you violate anti-discrimination laws - by showing a personal preference for race.

You aren't entitled to sex from anyone. You don't have to like or agree with their decision, but no means no.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Anti-discrimination laws regarding race exist for a simple reason: to guarantee equal opportunity and protect people from the humiliation of being rejected for something they didn’t choose and can’t change.

That principle doesn’t magically vanish when it comes to dating and sex. Racial discrimination in dating and sex is just as morally wrong as in housing or employment, because it rests on the same toxic idea: that a person’s worth is defined by their race.

Whether you say, "I won’t hire a black person" or "I won’t rent to an asian family" or "I won’t date a latino" you're doing the same thing - reducing someone’s humanity to skin color. That’s the moral failure.

These racial dating preferences often draw directly from typical racist stereotypes, which are often the same shit you'll see in labor and real estate markets.

If racism in employment and housing is wrong because it denies opportunity and harms dignity, then racism in dating is wrong for the exact same reasons. Prejudice doesn’t get a free pass just because it’s dressed up as personal preference. In fact that's how you violate anti-discrimination laws - by showing a personal preference for race.

Date who you want to. However love and economics don’t translate cleanly.

 

[CLAX1911]

Discrimination in housing may be illegal but we still talk about black and white neighborhoods as though they were the most natural thing in the world.

And the reason for DEI is because even though discrimination in hiring is illegal, most of upper management is still white.

Yeah d e i is making demands for something that they're just isn't enough of instead of actually trying to change the demographics

As a black student once succinctly said to me "all we got upis the law."

I understand her point.

I didn't understand upis I assume that's an error I can't figure out what you meant.

 

[CLAX1911]

You aren't entitled to sex from anyone. You don't have to like or agree with their decision, but no means no.

But why are you entitled to anything else from someone else?

 

[Napoleon]

Ahhh. Lefty incels.

 

[MamboDervish]

Let me address a common objection:

"But I can’t help who I’m attracted to" - fine, then neither can a landlord or employer. If you don't accept 'personal preference' as a defense for racial discrimination in housing or hiring, then you shouldn't accept it in dating either.

This is an entirely false equivalent. Period. Full stop.

 

[Gatsby]

But why are you entitled to anything else from someone else?

Because society is willing to tolerate a lot more interference in the workplace than in who someone chooses to have sex with. (Similar to why we have a long list of labor regulations but a very short list of relationship regulations.) One is mostly on individuals to figure out for themselves; the other is more transactional and therefore subject to more economic regulations.

If someone is being racist in their relationships, that's on them. If someone is being racist in the workplace, that's on society.

 

[Loulit01]

Anti-discrimination laws regarding race exist for a simple reason: to guarantee equal opportunity and protect people from the humiliation of being rejected for something they didn’t choose and can’t change.

That principle doesn’t magically vanish when it comes to dating and sex. Racial discrimination in dating and sex is just as morally wrong as in housing or employment, because it rests on the same toxic idea: that a person’s worth is defined by their race.

Whether you say, "I won’t hire a black person" or "I won’t rent to an asian family" or "I won’t date a latino" you're doing the same thing - reducing someone’s humanity to skin color. That’s the moral failure.

These racial dating preferences often draw directly from typical racist stereotypes, which are often the same shit you'll see in labor and real estate markets.

If racism in employment and housing is wrong because it denies opportunity and harms dignity, then racism in dating is wrong for the exact same reasons. Prejudice doesn’t get a free pass just because it’s dressed up as personal preference. In fact that's how you violate anti-discrimination laws - by showing a personal preference for race.

What the hell are you talking about? Do you have a point somewhere in the nonsense?

 

[CLAX1911]

Because society is willing to tolerate a lot more interference in the workplace than in who someone chooses to have sex with.

So the lines are arbitrary

(Similar to why we have a long list of labor regulations but a very short list of relationship regulations.) One is mostly on individuals to figure out for themselves; the other is more transactional and therefore subject to more economic regulations.

If someone is being racist in their relationships, that's on them. If someone is being racist in the workplace, that's on society.

What's a workplace other than a relationship are you not free to associate.. that was in the First amendment.

 

[aociswundumho]

Because society is willing to tolerate a lot more interference in the workplace

That's a cop out.

Society will tolerate pretty much whatever the state imposes upon it.

 

[Slartibartfast]

So the lines are arbitrary

What's a workplace other than a relationship are you not free to associate.. that was in the First amendment.

Society itself is arbitrary social construct, so of course the lines are. The same is true for money, culture, wealth, borders, economics, businesses, etc. nothing natural governs any of this beyond psychological and physical drives.

 

[aociswundumho]

One is mostly on individuals to figure out for themselves; the other is more transactional and therefore subject to more economic regulations.

Sorry, but if you think romantic relationships aren't transactional, then you've never been in one.

 

[Gatsby]

So the lines are arbitrary

Yes? So are speed limits, ages of consent, and tax laws. "Arbitrary" doesn't mean "unimportant."

What's a workplace other than a relationship are you not free to associate.. that was in the First amendment.

Not all relationships are regulated the same, nor should they be.

 

[CLAX1911]

Yes? So are speed limits, ages of consent, and tax laws. "Arbitrary" doesn't mean "unimportant."

Speed limits maybe arbitrary. Age of consent maybe it is within a year or two.

But arbitrarily saying who you can in can't associate with depending on what activity you're doing is way more arbitrary

Not all relationships are regulated the same, nor should they be.

Why should they be regulated?

 

[aociswundumho]

Not all relationships are regulated the same, nor should they be.

What criteria are you using to decide which of our personal relationships should be regulated by some dirtbag politician?

 

[CLAX1911]

What criteria are you using to decide which of our personal relationships should be regulated by some dirtbag politician?

He doesn't seem to be able to nail it down.

 

[Slartibartfast]

He doesn't seem to be able to nail it down.

You’re never going to nail it down because society itself isn’t logical and people largely are not rational actors. It’s all negotiation between groups that have social power who often want what they want for identity reasons.

 

[CLAX1911]

Society itself is arbitrary social construct,

So sorry to use a structure by it's very nature it's not arbitrary.

so of course the lines are.

Well after that stupid thing you said in the first part of this post I don't expect you to make any more sense

The same is true for money, culture, wealth, borders, economics, businesses, etc.

That's not though.

nothing natural governs any of this beyond psychological and physical drives.

So you don't think there's a moral component to law?

 

[Slartibartfast]

So sorry to use a structure by it's very nature it's not arbitrary.

Well after that stupid thing you said in the first part of this post I don't expect you to make any more sense

That's not though.

So you don't think there's a moral component to law?

(earthly) Morality is just a social emotional drive that has been shaped by evolutionary pressure, which is why it’s so imprecise. Even that is arbitrary and is a survival function.

That imprecision in the human mind and behavior is why SCOTUS couldn’t figure out what porn was for example.

 

[Real blank]

Let me address a common objection:

"But I can’t help who I’m attracted to" - fine, then neither can a landlord or employer. If you don't accept 'personal preference' as a defense for racial discrimination in housing or hiring, then you shouldn't accept it in dating either.

Are you one of those pick up artists ?

 

[Gatsby]

Why should they be regulated?

Are you asking specifically why we should have civil rights laws in the workplace, or are you asking more generally why we should have any labor regulations whatsoever?

To answer the first part of that: Because the United States had an ugly history, within living memory of some people, of economically and systematically disadvantaging some groups based on their race or perceived race. And civil rights laws are a relatively non-intrusive way to prevent that from happening going forward.

What criteria are you using to decide which of our personal relationships should be regulated by some dirtbag politician?

Because most people consider it a lot more intrusive for the government to demand that Chad and Tyrone each get equal time to plow you, than for the government to demand that you don't write workplace job advertisements saying "Irish need not apply." If you disagree, you are welcome to run for Congress or President on a platform of "You must have sex with all races an equal amount of time," and make your case to the voters for that law.

 

[spud_meister]

Anti-discrimination laws regarding race exist for a simple reason: to guarantee equal opportunity and protect people from the humiliation of being rejected for something they didn’t choose and can’t change.

That principle doesn’t magically vanish when it comes to dating and sex. Racial discrimination in dating and sex is just as morally wrong as in housing or employment, because it rests on the same toxic idea: that a person’s worth is defined by their race.

Whether you say, "I won’t hire a black person" or "I won’t rent to an asian family" or "I won’t date a latino" you're doing the same thing - reducing someone’s humanity to skin color. That’s the moral failure.

These racial dating preferences often draw directly from typical racist stereotypes, which are often the same shit you'll see in labor and real estate markets.

If racism in employment and housing is wrong because it denies opportunity and harms dignity, then racism in dating is wrong for the exact same reasons. Prejudice doesn’t get a free pass just because it’s dressed up as personal preference. In fact that's how you violate anti-discrimination laws - by showing a personal preference for race.

The same is true about sex. If you refuse to date a man, it's simply misandry.