First of all, thank you for your thorough and thoughtful response, I do appreciate this.
I do have some issues though. The gist here, is that you feel it should all be based on intent?
I think I might need to be more specific. We have thoughts, and that's on the one hand. We also undertake actions, and that's on the other hand. Whether one is a racist has to do with thoughts--the first hand. I ask, "what's in his heart?" We can have a silent racist among us that types not a word. Whether we know one is a racist is not (in the moment) all that important. The truth remains steadfast and stands wholly independent of what we know or can prove.
Shifting now to the second hand. Care not a whit about what one may think, some might say. Okay, but be careful not to be too quick on the trigger when accusing someone of being a racist. Oh yes, hold people accountable for their actions. If a harm has come upon a black man at the hands of a white, hold him (and hold him tightly) to answer for the harm to which he has committed, but attribute it not to racism--especially when no race related ill-will predicated the actions.
That's a bit weird it seems to me, because intent is actually a very difficult thing to determine let alone prove. Especially when dealing with a social taboo, which racism is. Suppose one tried to define, say, pedophilia by intent; almost everyone accused of it could insist verbally that they meant no harm, even honestly believe themselves that they meant no harm, while still having committed the same objective crime through their speech or actions. It doesn't really mean anything to say "I didn't mean it that way", if the practical outcome of your choices is the same whether you did or not.
I know no one likes homosexuality and pedophilia mentioned in the same sentence, but let me compare and contrast for further illumination. A particular man attracted to the same sex that never once acted on his attraction to other men proposed to a woman, got married, had kids, and suppressed his desires--and did so until the day he died. That man that died was a homosexual, as it was his attraction (and not his acting on his attraction) that has him properly labeled as such.
A pedophile that secretly and successfully keeps discreet his sexual attraction to children remains a trusted member of society. We're not going to punish him for any wrongful deeds towards children precisely because he has committed no physical misdeeds. Yet, just like the homosexual, the pedophile is just what he his, not because of actions that we care about but because of what's in his heart.
Prevailing studies among the educated masses (and some common sense to boot) reflect the opinion that while acting on homosexual urges are not harmful to society, acting on pedophelic urges are, so while we condemn the pedophile not for his thoughts in silence but his acts upon children, we (well, some) condemn those that condemn homosexuals who outwardly act upon their urges.
Again, we must still be careful. A pedophile leaned over and with his hand braced upon a seat to keep his balance, and in that instant, a little girl sat her bottom down upon his hand. God help him if his inadvertent mistake is taken the wrong way should he decide to openly admit his attraction. Same with racists who genuinely dislikes blacks yet with full deliberation remains unbiased in his daily duties--especially if his actions appear race retaliatory in nature.
For instance, this family was terrorized by a drunk person regardless of whether they believe that she disliked them, though in this case it is pretty clear that she did, since unlike in many similar cases, she said as much outright.
If what she did was wrong, then hold her accountable--even if it wasn't racism. The issue, however, is whether her actions stem from a racist attitude. One beef I have is in declaring acts against minorities as racist when there is purity of heart, but it also extends further: when there is negative thought, and if it's concerning race, it should be limited to the kinds of thought that reflects what racism used to be.
If I harm someone and do so because he's black, that's different than harming someone that is black. Yeah, the punch to the face hurts as much, but the basis for the hit matters.
I do not actually think that dislike should come into things at all, honestly. It's just too fuzzy a concept. Do I "genuinely dislike" someone because I honestly believe they are mentally inferior due to their skin color, for instance? I may well "like" someone without respecting them, or without hiring them, or without wanting my daughter to marry them.
Good point. Damn good point. Getting past this might prove monumental. First, let me dig a hole and say that skin color is just a visually observable proxy for the real underlying issue. Racism is about race; it's not everything about it, but it certainly pertains to an extent. Racism has to do with cultural predisposition. There may be racists who speak as if skin color is the thing that matters. I don't think so. I think it's the things that prevails in thought regarding cultural characteristics. But regardless, not hiring someone precisely because they're black (or rather because they belong to a member of that race) is an act, a prejudicial act.
The other two are not acts, but by my own account, it's what's in the heart that signals whether an act based upon it is racist or not. That being said, there's still the nagging issue as to whether or not that's sufficient. If a white man refuses to accept that his white daughter wants to date a black man, and if he truly has absolutely no issue with blacks so long as they stick to their own kind, then this brings us full circle to needing precision to the conditions that determine the presence of racism. The position I've been putting forward (still testing the waters, so to speak) is that racism isn't just any bigoted position regarding race. The prevailing new age perspective, apparently, is that all negative thoughts and negative consequences are worthy of being deemed racist. I'm just somewhat hesitant, somewhat resistent, and somewhat apprehensive to caving to such an idealized all-encompassing view that allows too much in. But yes, I presume it's inline with newer thoughts on the matter, kind of like how old definitions of "atheist" were narrower in scope but now include weak atheists.
Should I get off scot free simply because I can make some sort of case for "liking" them? I "like" my cat a great deal, but I wouldn't consider her to have the same rights or be due the same moral considerations as a fellow human. This would be true even if I honestly convinced myself that I consider her an equal; my actions would still out me at the end of the day, or at least the next time I stuff her in the kennel before going on a business trip. I guess my point here is, someone who earnestly believes in racist ideology doesn't need to dislike anyone personally to be discriminatory on the basis of racist pseudoscience.
And frankly the whole thing starts to sound like thought policing when you put it that way. I honestly do not care whether people like each other. You can dislike me all you like, as long as you treat me equally and without prejudice. Your thoughts are your own, it is your actions and statements that affect me, so they are the only things I really care about.
Oh goodness no. Punish people for what they do, not what they think; however, if I treat you badly and because it's out of predjudice, that's especially egregious.
