ICERD was signed in the US in 1966 and ratified in 1994. It has been adopted pretty much worldwide except for a handful of holdouts including North Korea. It basically says all forms of discrimination are abhorrent and are to be outlawed, this included preference.
I can't tell you how many times I've had women and "enlightened" men on here or people in my life chastise me for not respecting preference. Where are the lines drawn? If I preferred to date within my own race, or only preferred to date one gender, would you judge me as racist or sexist? What if I have a favorite color? Am I an unethical for PREFERRING a favorite color? Are the other colors inferior to my favorite?
I see nothing but unfettered support for homosexuals. Why is it they aren't called out for their blatant sexism in preferring to date only one gender? What about heterosexuals?
My answer is, no. I think a favorite color is simply better, that doesn't mean I have an explicit problem with other colors. That doesn't mean we should CLEANSE the world of other colors. I can't have a favorite without those that aren't my favorite. It's inextricably linked. Is this not the heart of diversity and tolerance? Don't tell me I'm a bad person for liking something. I'm allowed to like something as much as I'm allowed to not like something. When you look at it through that lens, does racism or sexism even matter? To that end, how are you going to know anyway?
I have a problem with the ambiguous definition of racism and sexism to begin with. Racism can mean believing one race is superior, or inferior to others. Which is NOT illegal. However, it can also mean prejudice, another ambiguous term. This can mean having racist beliefs, again not illegal. Or it can refer to prejudicial actions, which ARE illegal. Actions, not belief. I think that scares a lot of people. The US constitution never has, and never will police thought. They don't have the authority or the resources to do that. That's why the public and private sector spend soo much money trying to get into our heads. It's sacred space. Protected by law, and just impractical to attempt infiltrating anyway. It's inhumanly possible to be inside everyone's head at once, at least until they figure out a way to permanently shove our phones up our asses.
BUT, we must also recognize that we are human. We have freedom of choice, but we don't necessarily get to pick our choices. None of us chose what we were born with. Some “choices” are made for us. That's why I like how the US code is set up, sans Affirmative Action. It basically says, we must learn to work together to plow the field, sow the seed, harvest the stalks, silo the grain, bring it to the kitchen, bake the bread...but we don't have to break it with one another if we don't want to. We have freedom of association. Our right to produce, our right to PURSUE happiness is protected. And our right to consume, our freedom to discriminate to our heart's content, is protected. That's the balance of communalism and individualism.
It's like, yeah, I'll work along side people from all backgrounds. That doesn't mean I have to hang out with you afterwards. You do you, I do me. No bad blood. Is this a reasonable compromise that everyone can agree too?
DEI is under intense fire right now. Companies like Coca-Cola are falling flat trying to push diversity on the basis of superficial characteristics. Focusing on our differences is having the opposite effect, undoing cohesion. This is where the Right has a point. Character is what should matter. If character is what's focused on, then the superficial does not matter if we are all assumed to be equal on the inside. You have to judge on a case by case basis. This means any individual or even as a collective CANNOT be held accountable for the actions of others. You can have pride in your ancestry. But you don't get any credit for their actions if you don't take any of the blame. Study history, learn from it, but you are not responsible for it. This is the gamble the Left side of the aisle HAS to take if they want any sort of credibility. Their typical response, much like the Republicans on wealth inequality, has been distract and deflect.
On political issues in general, I’d be wary of being one of on those who stick their heads in the sand. Those annoying people whom either nothing or everything bothers them. Relentlessly positive or negative. Everything is always hunky dory or always shit and you can’t do anything about it regardless.
Perhaps this can help us as society. If we can't eliminate racism or sexism, then perhaps in the meantime, we can at least learn to tolerate it in a peaceful way so no one experiences negative consequences while benefitting from the positive, hopefully. No one is guaranteed happiness, only the right to pursue it.
Most Helpful Opinions