His pièce de résistance
https://www.resetera.com/threads/let%E2%80%99s-discuss-the-stupidity-of-%E2%80%9Chow-can-they-be-a-racist-if%E2%80%A6%E2%80%9D-or-%E2%80%9Ci%E2%80%99m-not-a-racist-because-i%E2%80%A6%E2%80%9D.104153/
Ethnophilia. That’s the word for it.
Well, being in a friendship or relationship does not necessarily mean you are not racist in some sense, but it is at least an indication that they may not be. Something it seems he and others like him seem unwilling to aknowledge.
We're supposed to accept his examples as well without any real context to why he has mentioned them. Dylann Roof needs no explanation, but Glen Greenwald? Is there really concrete evidence he is a racist, or is he just an example of someone whose opinions he doesn't like, and therefore he is a racist? For some reason I suspect the latter.
And that Proud Boy. Marrying a black woman and subsquently having black children with her, isn't typically the behaviour of a racist. White supremacists tend not to want black children. As far I know, being a Proud Boy does not equal being a Nazi. However, it does not necessarily mean there is no overlap.
It's not an indication one way or another, having a black friend just means you accept that black person, you can still harbor racist feelings toward black people as a whole while accepting that this black person you've befriended or married is "one of the good ones".
Well, it is not an categoric proof that they are not. The point I am making however is that it doesn't mean nothing. Someone who is seriously racist against black people tend not to want black children. Of course there may be exceptions to that rule, but I imagine more often than not, it would hold true. Therefore, it is at least some indication that they may not be. It is corroborating evidence. Not categoric proof in itself but can used to build a picture of a person's character.
It means shit. You are talking as if racism is borne of some logical point to point relational chart when instead it's a learned social experience, sort of like a conspiracy theory. Any evidence that would invalidate the overall theory (in this case that theory being black people are inferior) is given special exemption. Their minds are warped and they warp reality to fit.
Okay so lets say accusations of racism are brought into a court of law. It is presented to the court that the person is married to a black woman and has black children. You think the judge would go, 'this doesn't mean shit. this evidence should be discounted'?. lol
The idea that means absolutely nothing is absurd.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/newsone.com/3792568/devonte-hart-hannah-racist-parents/amp/
Finding examples does not dispute my argument. My argument is not having a black friend, or in this case adoptive parents raising black children, automatically discounts you from being racist, that's a stupid assumption, it is that it doesn't mean absolutely nothing.
For instance, in the case of the man that is a Proud Boy, (the implication I am assuming is he is a white supremacist). how many white supremacists out there do you think are married to a black woman and have black children? You could at least say it is atypical. So if the argument is he is a Proud Boy and therefore a white supremacist, and he says he's not becuase he is married to a black woman and has black children. It doesn't necessarily mean he isn't racist, but, as I said, it is at least an indication that he
may not be. Because it is atypical. It casts an element of doubt on the accusation.
It does make me wonder actually, how do you prove your innocence in some people's mind. How does this Proud Boy show he is not racist. What evidence can he bring to the table that wouldn't be automatically discounted? It means something in my mind. Maybe not by itself, but as corroborating evidence along with other evidence.
