Of course not, why would I?

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

No reason why you would be one.But that doesn't preclude a discussion about what might constitute a racist.The poster Derben who got red carded, for example, a while ago.He wrote some things that suggested that,unlike you,he might view a neighbour differently in terms of whether they were desirable or not based upon their race.

? Man you do believe some guff don't you.....Put that weed away and the hippy clichés.

Flawed or not, sensible or not a dislike of outsiders is a natural human reaction. That's what I have stated.....You using words like 'hostility' is an example of someone talking about the extremes of my point.

I also take to task your implication that positivity should be preferred to negativity and that positive emotions will be reciprocated......It's nonsense....Look at the world as it is....Not how you would like it to be.....The world is run mainly by self interest. It has always been run this way as that's how human beings work.....even at the cellular level.

As for positivity or negativity.....neither should be preferred.....rationality should be the preferred approach. A balanced person understands that

Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Aug 2015 5.27pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I would say nothing beats my mum's steak and kidney pudding, does that make ethnocentrist, or perhaps borderline racist/fasicst?

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

An ethnocentrist tends to classify and judge people very much by their ethnicity and characterise and judge people in terms of characteristics they ascribe to specific ethnicities (often negative characteristics attributed to ethnicities not their own) as opposed to the actual personal traits of an individual.It can encompass those who believe in the inherent superiority of their own ethnicity .The term has been round for over a hundred years.

Its not dissimilar to the way a lot of people used to define and judge people of another race in terms of supposed racial characteristics.But reflects a more sophisticated approach to analysis of prejudices and preferences and fear of "the other" and staying in or retreating into reassuring "similar groups",where the prejudices and preferences are based on "people who are different and come from somewhere else".It also allows for the large differences in ethnicities of people of the same race.

An example of this could be to suggest all Romanians are inherently more predisposed to criminal behaviour than another ethnic group or that all people from pakistan are inherently more pre-disposed to engage in child abuse.

An example of it is often the United States (in terms of there being an overarching US ethnicity).The United States has often thought of itself as just generally "better" than other nations.The same with say Japan at times, and Britain in days of Empire,and Confucian China.Nazi Germany being a more obvious example.

Obviously,it only applies where the individual differentiates on the basis of ethnicity,as opposed to,for example, political views,or not wanting to mix with people of any ethnicity (including one's own) who are naff, or LS' (bless him) touching example of his mum's cooking.

An ethnicity may encompass things like language,religion,customs,culture history and may be race-related.

We almost all at times have preferences for things associated with our own ethnicity (ie when I lived for a year in the US going for an ale from time to time in the local expat pub,though not to the exclusion of "breathing in" lots of US culture),its a question of degree and the extent of knee jerk negative prejudice towards people of other ethnicities.An ethnophobe would be a person with an irrational fear of people of differing ethnicity/ethnicities to them

Edited by legaleagle (23 Aug 2015 9.25pm)

Not necessarily.And bear in mind I used the word "inherently".