I don't know if he says that in good faith, or if there's a subtext I'm missing, but it seems like there's a reasonable way to interpret this that doesn't involve Adams harbouring an unfair negative prejudice.
I don't expect anyone is going to come along and steelman his argument for us, but I do have difficulty seeing how the NYP's article and the general reaction follows from what I naively impute from Adams' quotes.
To be clear, I'm not trying to say who's right or anything, I'm saying that I think as someone disconnected from US racial politics I seem to lack some necessary context.
If a group doesn't respect you, it's fair to ignore them. Tough shit if they are offended by the response. Plus, if you apply this to /everyone equally/ it's not discrimination.
Also as already mentioned by another commenter: group !== race
If I am slapped in the face unprovoked by every red-haired person I meet, there comes a point where I am absolutely justified in simply avoiding red-haired people. I don't owe red-haired people anything. I have no responsibility to put my face in harm's way with masochistic naivety until they do the expected.
Same if it's only 90% of them. Same if it's only 10% of them. It's nobody's choice but my own. It's my right.
I see enough LiveLeak style videos, I am familiar enough with the interracial crime statistics, I see enough articles, videos, social media posts and comments to know that a significant proportion of black people hate us for being White. Violent hatred.
The unfortunate reality for your worldview is that I can significantly improve the health, wealth, and happiness of myself and my family by avoiding blacks wherever possible. That's not my problem. You need to confront the nature and culture of these people that results in this fact, not anger at me for not being submissive or stupid enough to pretend to be ignorant of it.
You don’t sound very happy. You sound very, very angry.
Of course I'm angry.
Fortunately I live in a very White area (recently fled a multiracial city). I rarely see foreigners now. I haven't seen an African for weeks. It's very peaceful and beautiful, and everyone is lovely. My day-to-day is very happy indeed.
So we develop shortcuts to quickly decide where to spend our limited resources. They aren't rigorous or fair. There are too many to even be able to do that. They are cursory and quick by necessity and follow our likes and interests.
One bad experience can shape the exclusion of whole groups. Poor speller? Nigerian prince? [Delete]
This discrimination isn't wrong. The asker is the one who is imposing and the recipient is not obliged to satisfy. Even if their filter is completely illogical or even racist.
When it comes to judging people or limiting access to our markets and public spaces. I agree that such shortcuts should not be used. This is a realm where such shortcuts are inappropriate.
Conflating the two doesn't help though, like there isn't a place for discrimination at all.
You inferred race
PS: Just a joke about hypocrisy of some individuals, I personally support all kinds of different discriminated groups, both locally and globally, including Jews.
Generally, Jewish people (either the religious or the ethnic group, for different reasons) per se are not generally included in “people of color”, though the religious group overlaps with “people of color”. But “people of color” is not a catch-all for all marginalized groups, or even all racial/ethnic marginalized groups, Jewish people being excluded from it is no more “hypocrisy” than “Black” not generally including East Asians.
My go to theory, is that some people, who are not quite clear of racial biases, wanted to have a name for specifically and strictly for black people, but without ever using word "black". So they have constructed a hypocritical landmine by their own hands, and after "other" people of color readily showed up, from all across the globe, they are in a collective denial.
In classical racial theory terms, Jewish people, as a (sub)racial group are, actually, White (the subcategory hierarchy running, from the top, Caucasian -> Mediterranean -> Semitic -> Jewish.)
Now, its true that despite classic racial theory being intimately connected to various forms of White supremacy, most actual forms of White supremacy include bigotry that operates on different levels than classic races, and treats lots fo White subgroups as either non-White or inferior within the broader White race, but that’s a side issue. “People of color” has never been intended to mean “every group marginalized by the particular people adhering to White supremacy in the immediate social context”; it is fairly inclusive, but its not intended as a catchall, and exclusion of people from that label is not discrimination against them.
> My go to theory, is that some people, who are not quite clear of racial biases, wanted to have a name for specifically and strictly for black people, but without ever using word “black”.
Actually, he term was one of many used during the period of de jure discrimination to refer to people of black ancestry (in some times and places, like “mulatto”, with precise legal definitions which distinguished it from “black”.)
From there it was one of many terms adopted to varying degrees within the community of black ancestry (sometimes, as equivalent to “black”, and sometimes, within some corners of the community that use “black” more narrowly, with a broader definition.)
It faded as an identity label within that community, and was recycle for broader use fairly recently (“black and brown” has been used in a fairly similar sense for a longer time, and still has considerable currency; a lot of activists will use “black and brown people” as the general collective term, but something like “woman of color” when referring to an individual – actual or hypothetical – person.)
> 1. Treat everyone as an individual (no discrimination).
> 2. Avoid any group that doesn't respect you.
The irony is that the second point is literally discrimination. Wholesale avoiding a specific race, regardless of your reasoning, is racist by definition.
This is no different than Kanye talking about “the Jews”.
Don’t take group generalizations (especially distorted ones) and prejudiciously apply them to individuals.