If you read what I wrote, instead of just attacking the words "real world", you'd see the refutation. I was opposing your legalistic conceptualization of the problem, preferring a more pragmatic approach, based on "real world" context. Legalistically, opposing prejudice and imposing prejudice could be equivalent, if you focus in the reductionistic idea of "treating people differently," but in practice they're vastly different.

I wasn't quibbling about whether it's "thinking or people." Of course it's the thinking you were referring to! The black codes were passed over a hundred years ago!

But you do see the thinking as equivalent. You see opposing persecution as the same sort of thinking involved in being a persecutor. You focus on the reductionistic legalistic concept of "treating people differently" and ignore the vast practical differences in how and why they treated people differently, and what effect it has on society as a whole.

And even legalistically, they're not the same sort of thinking anyway. "Denying rights to a persecuted minority" is very different from "preventing the majority from persecuting a minority." The only similarity is that they both recognize that there are minorities and majorities.

I'm not "soooooooooo" afraid of that at all. I'm "soooooooooo" in favor of civil rights. And in practice, the right you're advocating for has been used extensively to deny blacks and other minorities their rights.