[notfashion]

I'm not sure the scenarios "some of my best friends are of the opposite sex" or "some of my best friends are of another race" have much bearing on sexism or racism. Loving someone from a different category doesn't automatically dissolve all antagonism or prejudice—it might just override it in a specific case. Relationships are multidimensional. You would need to provide evidence that these bonds of love/affection somehow erode prejudice toward a given 'other' in general. There are many historic cases of celebrities who have been widely accepted despite massive ongoing prejudice against the group of which they are a member. Affection for celebrities is not the same as familial love, but I do think this suggests that the way people feel about individuals doesn't translate in a simple way to their attitudes to whole groups.

[scarmig]

As one potential example, though I'd want to see more data on actual relationships, regions with more immigrants tend to have warmer feelings toward immigrants, even among the non-immigrant population.

[jlawson]

Because the non-immigrants who don't want to live among foreigners tend to leave and/or not move in. Simple self-selection.

Real life example of someone like this would be John Cleese, who moves from London to Bath after London lost its English identity.

Compare: People who eat burgers like burgers more than people who don't. Is it because eating burgers makes you like burgers, or because only people who like burgers will choose to eat burgers?

[BurningFrog]

John Cleese lived in the US for 10 yers and married three Americans.

I think it's clear he's fine with foreigners, and that London quote got way overinterpreted.

[naasking]

> Real life example of someone like this would be John Cleese, who moves from London to Bath after London lost its English identity.

That seems more like an example of how easily statements get exaggerated and take on a life of their own. Cleese said something that was way overinterpreted, but he didn't move because of what he claimed. I'm not sure where you got that idea.

[kedean]

Counterpoint to you last example just for fun...people who live in places with a lot of highly rated burger restaurants eat more burgers because they are surrounded by good burgers, not because of an inherent love for ground beef patties.

I think the general sentiment was more about the neutral people who hold a view but could be accepting of something different, rather than the people who are staunchly against something.

[claudeganon]

> Loving someone from a different category doesn't automatically dissolve all antagonism or prejudice—it might just override it in a specific case.

Well-put. One need only think of how many men love their individual wives/sisters/mothers while otherwise being deeply misogynistic.

[harimau777]

I think that it's likely not that having affection for someone of a different race or sexuality means that someone isn't or won't be bigoted. Rather its that it provides an opening for someone to re-evaluate their beliefs.

[tkel]

Exactly. For example Thomas Jefferson fathered 6 children with a slave of his. The millions of men who believed their wives had no right to vote, that it wasn't their place. The parents who shame their kids for their sexuality or gender identity. Prejudice and love can co-exist.

[esyir]

There were also women that were nonchalant, or even the large female anti-suffrage movements as well. Suffrage was seen by some (yes, women) as a threat to the family structure, amongst other reasons for oppision. Framing this as "prejudice" alone ignores the culture/opinions of the people of this era.

[tkel]

Yeah, we call that internalized misogyny

[esyir]

Not everything needs to be structured in oppressor-victim dynamics so you can slap a label on it. That's like calling the male-only draft externalized misandry.

[claudeganon]

Thomas Jefferson raped a woman because he was a wealthy slave-owner in a white supremacist, patriarchal society and could do so with impunity.

If you want to understand how to overcome prejudice, it begins with acknowledging historical reality for what it was and not trying to bend your understanding of events to correspond to foundational myths and deifications.

[tzs]

It's more nuanced than simply a wealthy slave-owner doing whatever he wanted with impunity.

When Jefferson was appointed has the US envoy to France and spent over two years living in Paris, he took Sally Hemings with him. This was before he started having sex with her.

France had abolished slavery, and under French law at the time if you brought a slave into France they had the right to leave slavery and remain in France if they wished.

Jefferson and Hemings started their sexual relationship while in Paris. When Jefferson went back to the US, she agreed to go with him (and thus return to slavery) in exchange for his agreeing to certain conditions, including that any children they had together would be freed.