Would you trust the opinion of a relative stranger who was not racist more than that of another relative stranger who was racist if the opinion was on a matter that was not directly related to society?

It depends on who is better qualified to answer. I mean I’d probably say, “What makes you say that?” after either opinion. Then I’d judge based on their qualifications. Racism, while awful and unfortunate, isn’t going to change that 4+4=8 and not 15. You know?

Racists demonstrate a basic inability to be objective by virtue of their racism.

I probably would. The racist inherently shows a lack of strong judgment skills and an inability to assess situations rationally and objectively.

I would have a hard time not favoring the non- racist. Like juwhite1 said, it shows a lack of judgment and, in my opinion, logic.

But, if they are not racist because an alien told them to stop that is another ball of wax.

I’d place much less value in the racists response. As has been said, the trait shows a large lack of judgment, as well as considerable ignorance. There seems to have been at least one study that found that humans have less genetic diversity than our closest genetic “relatives”.

It depends whether they bring race into it when it’s clearly irrelevant. If they turn it round to race to justify their views, I’m not likely to have much to trust in them.

For that question, No. I’d consider both answers equal. Their opinion of another culture has nothing to do with a question that doesn’t have anything to do with society. And by saying you’d trust the opinion of a non-racist because a racist “demonstrates lack of judgement” is prejudice in itself.