11-23-2016, 05:33 PM
(11-17-2016, 12:56 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: He wrote acted upon in a harmful way. Are you harmed by riding in the back of the bus? No. Therefore it doesn't qualify as discrimination according to his misguided definition.
Yes, you are harmed by being forced to ride in the back of the bus because you're made to feel like a second-class citizen. Crossing the street to avoid someone is more of a gray area - pyschological "harmful", perhaps, but mostly pretty benign. Nothing comparable to kicking someone out of your store or refusing an interview or promotion.
You can be a bigot and tell all the offensive jokes you want in the privacy of your own home. But you're not a racist until you make a conscious act that causes actual harm to someone.
Although it's interesting you don't think being forced to ride in the back of the bus, or drink from a black's only water fountain is harmful...yet still think a person is a racist even if they've committed no outward or harmful act.
I guess what I'm saying is, despite what someone may believe, if we are defined by our actions then a person cannot be a racist until they take a harmful racist action, no? It's the difference between REAL discrimination and simply having bigoted views. Biases are natural, and everyone has them....some biases are associated with race, even if that's not the predominant factor. But bias and discrimination are not the same thing.
--------------------------------------------------------
