> To be fair, I'm talking about labeling, not the larger social structures groups inhabit.
I am also talking about labelling. But we as a society don't go around and say "you're gay, and you're gay , and you're gay" - we listen to what people identify as. This is fundamentally different from racism, which is rooted in behaviour, which we don't have to listen to self-identity for. That's my whole point.
> I don't believe pure actions are how humans derive intent. Actions are often used as an implication toward the state of mind. A child hitting another child is an action that does not connotate racist behavior under most conditions. Per your own statement: "even if you think you're not being racist, you might be racist from the PoV of someone you were racist towards" - the classification is arbitrary based on observation.
How are the classifications arbitrary if they are based on observation?
> That's an opinion. Given the existence of homosexual behavior in animals, I think there is a biological component that is separate from conscious decisioning.
No, it's not an opinion. You can't look at someone and accurately judge their sexual preferences. You can't even necessarily look at their actions - how many gay people had to live straight lives in the past?
The only way to properly arrive at someone's sexual preferences is to ask them.
> I do not subscribe to the idea that "black" is a specific differentiation in humans. It's an arbitrary label based on observation.
I don't understand how you're arriving at "black" being arbitrary based on observation, since it's an identification. Someone isn't black because they "act black".
I am also talking about labelling. But we as a society don't go around and say "you're gay, and you're gay , and you're gay" - we listen to what people identify as. This is fundamentally different from racism, which is rooted in behaviour, which we don't have to listen to self-identity for. That's my whole point.
> I don't believe pure actions are how humans derive intent. Actions are often used as an implication toward the state of mind. A child hitting another child is an action that does not connotate racist behavior under most conditions. Per your own statement: "even if you think you're not being racist, you might be racist from the PoV of someone you were racist towards" - the classification is arbitrary based on observation.
How are the classifications arbitrary if they are based on observation?
> That's an opinion. Given the existence of homosexual behavior in animals, I think there is a biological component that is separate from conscious decisioning.
No, it's not an opinion. You can't look at someone and accurately judge their sexual preferences. You can't even necessarily look at their actions - how many gay people had to live straight lives in the past?
The only way to properly arrive at someone's sexual preferences is to ask them.
> I do not subscribe to the idea that "black" is a specific differentiation in humans. It's an arbitrary label based on observation.
I don't understand how you're arriving at "black" being arbitrary based on observation, since it's an identification. Someone isn't black because they "act black".