People here have been discussing how to teach people about equality, how to resolve racism in the young. My comment was about ensuring that is targeted correctly, both in youth and older people, so it actually works.

You cannot fix something, if you target the wrong thing to fix. You cannot fix something, if you don't even understand the source of the issue.

But sure... yell at the guy trying to rationally frame this issue, so we can correctly fix it.

That makes sense.

What presumption!

A few responses, are not indicative of the world, or even a majority opinion. They do not indicate "the way everyone else does", and in fact may be responses from people misusing the word!

This seems more to be the case, for the responses either tried to paint my statments in a poor light, even after I clarified my usage, or went off the deep end.

When you do the "a-ha, gotcha, I meant something totally unexpected by the word 'hate'" thing,

What are you even talking about? I clearly defined this from the start.

most of what you manage to communicate is that you think racial hatred is a game.

A game? It is as if you have not read my posts, or this thread. Or even the post you are responding to.

Just because I think racism can exist without hatred, does not mean racism cannot be hate based. This all or nothing, this "it is this way, and no other way", this "a problem can only be approached from one angle" thinking seldom results in solutions.

And we want to fix things, right? We don't just want to complain, and throw words at it, right?

Or do we want to understand, frame correctly, then fix?

Yes, racism can exist without hatred. We can view an ancient dead civilization through a racist lens without hating the people we study. But, so what?

This thread started from a specific example - segregated swimming pools. I don't know why you've written so much on this thread without actually discussing the issue.

We know whites were angry about desegregating swimming pools, and committed violence in order to preserve their belief in a segregated society protecting the legal and social status of whites over blacks.

That's not simply saying "there was hate", but giving a reason for the belief (white supremacy) an explanation of the anger (increasing desegregation overturned the status people regarded as their birthright), and a way out of it (showing beloved Mr. Rogers share a wading pool with his black friend, Officer Clemmons).

That's a chance to correct it, through Mr. Rogers' deliberate anti-racist efforts.

You earlier wrote "My prior comments discussed zero acts of violence", which rather highlights that your comments are completely decoupled from how Mr. Rogers was responding to widespread acts of violence when blacks tried to swim in what had been white-only swimming areas. That's the context everyone else is addressing.

So don't be surprised when people are irritated by your irrelevant hypotheticals.

This is what I was referring to. I responded to a specific point, of a specific post, about a specific thing.

This happens all the time. It's how conversation works. Yet you continue to ignore context, continue to ignore what I was discussing, which I have reiterated in every single reply. Instead, you find fault that I was not discussing.. what? What you wanted to discuss?

I repeat again, and go back to my original reply, we must truly understand cause, to effect correction.

For some reason this appears to bother you greatly. All of your replies have been to posts of mine stating this. Apparently, you disagree?

Well, why even bother responding? You apparently don't care for cause, and get upset at targeted correction.

There's little else to say here.

See above.