>While I question the notion of a "clash of civilisations[sic]," you're saying this like it's a bad thing.
I don't see where he assigned a value to this prediction. It seems to me that you've done that for him, both in this comment and the one accusing him of racism.
He stated "doing jobs white people don't like doing." How do you interpret this? This is, by definition, stating that by being white alone, the population carries a characteristic.
>I don't see where he assigned a value to this prediction.
They're independent clauses ("I question that this event is occurring _and_ it seems as if by the preposition 'as a taxpayer', you expect a little theatrics instead of quiet aversion of harm.").
>He stated "doing jobs white people don't like doing." How do you interpret this? This is, by definition, stating that by being white alone, the population carries a characteristic.
Only if you're a twat.
He was making a general observation: that minorities tend to do jobs that white people don't want to do.
And he's right. That's a simple observation, one which carries no value judgment. It just is.
That's not being racist; it's making an observation. If you think that any statement which differentiates between the races in any way - even if only tangentially - is a racist statement, then frankly, you need to get over yourself.
That's not racism.
>While I question the notion of a "clash of civilisations[sic]," you're saying this like it's a bad thing.
I don't see where he assigned a value to this prediction. It seems to me that you've done that for him, both in this comment and the one accusing him of racism.