WHAT IF ?

[AProudLefty]

What "IF" a bullfrog had wings? It would not bump its ass every time it jumped. Why do all leftists live in a world of hypothetical realities that have never happened? Reason and Logic do not exist in the mind of a leftist.

Who said it happened?

[T. A. Gardner]

No, if race is something you "look past" then you're a racist.

So you are claiming to not be a racist one has to consider race in their decisions about another person? For example, one would have to treat a Black different than a White because of their race? That appears to be what you are claiming here.

[AProudLefty]

Imagine the police not giving the race of the suspect they're looking for.

[LV426]

So you are claiming to not be a racist one has to consider race in their decisions about another person?

Yes, of course. Someone's race is a part of their identity. By ignoring it, you are denying that person's identity. It also implies that their race is something bad that you must "look past" despite it. So race clearly does matter to you a great deal since you're actively trying to erase it. Now, how could you prove you're not racist if someone's race is something you're "looking past"? Why are you looking past it? Because race makes you uncomfortable. So you're really just telling on yourself.

For example, one would have to treat a Black different than a White because of their race? That appears to be what you are claiming here.

Black people are treated differently because of their race, already. Acknowledging someone's race isn't treating someone differently. It's acknowledging their identity. By saying you wish to remove that from the consideration, you're saying that race makes you so uncomfortable, you don't even want to deal with it. That's cowardice. And racist.

[Ralph]

Who said it happened?

Today's word for the uneducated lefties. HYPOTHETICAL: An opinion based primarily on surmise rather than objective evidence. SURMISE: infer as truth void of evidence. WHAT IF...….you actually comprehended these words?

[AProudLefty]

Today's word for the uneducated lefties. HYPOTHETICAL: An opinion based primarily on surmise rather than objective evidence. SURMISE: infer as truth void of evidence.

Then you're being redundant. That's bad grammar.

[LV426]

Imagine the police not giving the race of the suspect they're looking for.

Race makes so many people uncomfortable, and it's not hard to see why.

Someone who "doesn't see race" doesn't want to have a conversation about race because of what it would eventually lead them to say, revealing their inherent racist bigotry.

And you can get them to that point really quickly by saying "why is my ____ skin something you aren't looking at?"

[T. A. Gardner]

Yes, of course. Someone's race is a part of their identity. By ignoring it, you are denying that person's identity. It also implies that their race is something bad that you must "look past" despite it. So race clearly does matter to you a great deal since you're actively trying to erase it. Now, how could you prove you're not racist if someone's race is something you're "looking past"? Why are you looking past it? Because race makes you uncomfortable. So you're really just telling on yourself.

I don't need to acknowledge their identity racially to deal with them almost all of the time. I'm not trying to erase race, but rather ignore it as unimportant in dealing with someone almost always.

Black people are treated differently because of their race, already. Acknowledging someone's race isn't treating someone differently. It's acknowledging their identity. By saying you wish to remove that from the consideration, you're saying that race makes you so uncomfortable, you don't even want to deal with it. That's cowardice. And racist.

Not by me they aren't. I don't need to acknowledge someone race to deal with them in business, in most--almost all--social settings, or most of the time otherwise. What makes me uncomfortable is someone making a big deal out of race when there is no reason to bring it up.

[LV426]

I don't need to acknowledge their identity racially to deal with them almost all of the time.

Well, their identity is also their race, so you're just being an asshole when you say this. Why don't you want to acknowledge their race? What do you lose by doing that?

[LV426]

I'm not trying to erase race, but rather ignore it as unimportant in dealing with someone almost always.

See this is privilege...it's not important for you because you've never had to live your life as a different race.

And yes, by "not seeing color" you are erasing their race so that you can deal with just a part of the person instead of the whole person.

You got small dick energy, there.

[T. A. Gardner]

Well, their identity is also their race, so you're just being an asshole when you say this. Why don't you want to acknowledge their race? What do you lose by doing that?

Why do I need to if it is irrelevant to the issue at hand? If I were say a credit / loan officer at a bank, why do I need to acknowledge their race? It should be irrelevant to my deciding to issue a loan or not. That is but one example.

[LV426]

Not by me they aren't. I don't need to acknowledge someone race to deal with them in business, in most--almost all--social settings, or most of the time otherwise. What makes me uncomfortable is someone making a big deal out of race when there is no reason to bring it up.

A lot of vague qualifiers in there that belies your true intent.

So what is the difference between the situations where you acknowledge race vs. when you don't?

And you might not want to talk about race, but that's just you. Imagine if I said "I was looking past the color of your eyes to see your character". Wouldn't that imply that the color of your eyes was problematic for me?

[Sailor]

Why do I need to if it is irrelevant to the issue at hand? If I were say a credit / loan officer at a bank, why do I need to acknowledge their race? It should be irrelevant to my deciding to issue a loan or not. That is but one example.

This common sense will go right over most liberals heads.

[LV426]

Why do I need to if it is irrelevant to the issue at hand?.

Race is always relevant, just ask any black person about how their skin color affects how they're treated.

And you're saying that their black skin is a problem that you have to look past (but won't say why you are looking past it...?) in order to judge their character. But that actually makes it possible for us to judge your character.

Why are you "looking past" someone's race if you don't think that their race is a problem to be looked past?

If I were say a credit / loan officer at a bank, why do I need to acknowledge their race?

For many reasons; non-discrimination, Civil Rights, shielding yourself from liability should your actions result in discriminating practices like redlining.

It should be irrelevant to my deciding to issue a loan or not. That is but one example.

Why should it be irrelevant? Why should skin color be irrelevant? Because it makes you uncomfortable to talk about because doing so would reveal inherent bigotry you don't want anyone to see.

[T. A. Gardner]

A lot of vague qualifiers in there that belies your true intent.

So what is the difference between the situations where you acknowledge race vs. when you don't?

And you might not want to talk about race, but that's just you. Imagine if I said "I was looking past the color of your eyes to see your character". Wouldn't that imply that the color of your eyes was problematic for me?

It would be rare to need to consider race or ethnicity in everyday life. It might come up if you were discussing family history, or a particular holiday or event. But it really should play no role in day-to-day life which is like say 95% of the time or more.

Your second example shows someone with prejudice in mind, eg., by extension a racist. A non-racist wouldn't care. Now, if someone were to say "Your eyes are an interesting color," that is a complement and statement about an aspect of eye color for the person. It holds no prejudicial value as it doesn't make a value judgement about the person.