Notices
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 580
Like Tree154Likes

Thread: Affirmative action and skin colour

  1. #1 Affirmative action and skin colour 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    In the United States, affirmative action refers to equal opportunity employment measures that Federal contractors and subcontractors are legally required to adopt. These measures are intended to prevent discrimination against employees or applicants for employment on the basis of "color, religion, sex, or national origin".[1][2] Examples of affirmative action offered by the United States Department of Labor include outreach campaigns, targeted recruitment, employee and management development, and employee support programs.[2]
    Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    The definition doesn't say that certain colour of skin should be inborn. If a white person will paint his skin in black colour on permanent basis will he qualify for an affirmative action?


    Antislavery
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    There are two completely different approaches to racial or "colour" identity.

    The first one does rely entirely on appearance - as used in South Africa. That resulted in families being split up because the visually black were not allowed to live with someone who was visually white and neither was allowed to live with someone classified as "coloured". So a couple who were classified as "coloured" could find themselves with none of their children allowed to live in their house - and not allowed to live with each other either. All because one child was born with darker skin than their parents and another was born with lighter skin than their parents.

    The more usual distinction relies on family history otherwise known as ethnic background. It wasn't so long ago that a US politician could be "outed" on the basis that a grandparent or great-grandparent was known to be from a slave background despite the fact that his (it was always his) appearance was much like any other person of entirely anglo/european background.

    And, of course, in Europe, plenty of people - not just the Nazis - considered it a matter of disgrace or shame that someone's forebears were Jewish or Romany. So people would abandon their families and go somewhere they weren't known and hope that no one from their former neighbourhood ever showed up to "out" them as gypsy or Jew just so that they could get into an occupation or social status that was otherwise closed to them. Likewise in the US, indigenous Americans (or First Nations) people who wanted to do so would go well away from their original homes and live in the general community. Of course, if they were "found out" they could be sent back to a reservation.

    The tradition in the USA and in Australia, Canada, NZ is to go by the person identifying as being from such a group. Normally there are specific provisions in legislation to delineate how people are and aren't included in various categories.


    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Affirmative Action is a racist measure in a racist culture (culture which happens to be sexist too btw). i roll my eyes each time i read someone refer to humans as "white" or "black", which means i get good exercise because hordes of people are racists without realizing it because they are in a racist culture in which refering to someone as a white or black man doesnt sound retarded to them (theres no such thing as white its abitrary but i wont explain it again).

    In the meantime, i refer to people as a green man, a blue woman and a brown man because ive decided to arbitrarily select iris pigmentation as the basis for my arbitrary labeling. cheers
    Last edited by icewendigo; March 1st, 2014 at 01:45 AM.
    jgoti, RedPanda and grmpysmrf like this.
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    theres no such thing as white its abitrary but i wont explain it again
    It's because these racial and ethnic classifications are stupid and arbitrary that we need laws to enforce non-discrimination and levelling-up.
    Stargate likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    theres no such thing as white its abitrary but i wont explain it again
    It's because these racial and ethnic classifications are stupid and arbitrary that we need laws to enforce non-discrimination and levelling-up.
    its fighting fire with fire (i understand the intent is good), but by using ridiculous classification as a basis for policy you are legitimising officialising these ridiculous labels (and disciminating based on these labels to boot!), like saying you are enacting the witch protection act to protect witches from discrimination instead of explaining theres no such thing as a witch flying on a broomstick

    its unrelated but i will say im also opposed to policy based on religion, its like having policy based on magic. like the attempt to allow people to discriminate based on their claims of religion, some individuals have demanded that women be discriminated against citing that not discriminating againt women was infringing on their religious freedom, thats like saying my magic only works if people with blue eyes are prevented from enetering the public library so if the town allows people with blue eyes to wantonly enter the library then my magical freedom or right to practice magic is infringed.
    Last edited by icewendigo; March 1st, 2014 at 02:11 AM.
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    its fighting fire with fire (i understand the intent is good), but by using ridiculous classification as a basis for policy you are legitimising officialising these ridiculous labels (and disciminating based on these labels to boot!)
    So you disagree that there's entrenched disadvantage in some sectors or groups of society because of such "ridiculous classification".

    I presume you're not old enough to remember the bad old days I'm talking about but several decades ago I was in a "ridiculous classification" group, two of them in fact. One I was a woman, and I was paid less than men doing the same word as I was - and by the same I mean sitting in a desk beside or in front of or behind me. Even when it was determined that women really should be paid the same for the same job, it took another three years of gradual increments before we reached parity. And the men thought they were doing us a favour - because it was only three years before that that a married woman like me was even allowed to keep my job. We were automatically dismissed the day after we married and rehired as "casuals" if we were "lucky". Though of course at that time I still couldn't buy a car or a house or sign a lease or take on a loan without a man to cosign or guarantee the transaction.

    I see all the remedies now being applied to other groups suffering the same kinds of disadvantages that women have still not fully shaken off as being entirely reasonable.
    Stargate likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    While I understand the basis of affirmative action I believe that reverse discrimination is taking place. Let us say there are 2 applicants that have almost equal resumes one is white the other black. Under the affirmative action the black must be given the job in order for a certain amount of employees to be of different ethnic make up within his company if the amount has not been reached. To force employers to hire people totally upon their ethnic makeup , to me, is reverse discrimination.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    "is reverse discrimination."i might miss something in the translation, but to me that is discrimination (based on skin color/ethnic/racism/sexism), I simply call that discrimination
    Last edited by icewendigo; March 1st, 2014 at 09:38 AM.
    Stargate and grmpysmrf like this.
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    To force employers to hire people totally upon their ethnic makeup , to me, is reverse discrimination.
    But it's not totally in the example you gave, is it. It's the very last thing where you're having to choose between two people because you only have one job to offer - the problem wouldn't arise if you were looking for two employees for two identical positions. You'd have hired both of them in that case.

    There are always these more or less arbitrary decisions to be made in employment processes. Even when you're offering 15 to 20 positions, the top 5 or 6 more or less select themselves because they are so obviously the best of the group. Once you're making those distinctions for the 10th to 15th you've probably got anywhere from 20 to 40 or even more entirely suitable candidates. At which point you're looking for something, anything, to make the difference between hiring and not hiring. And that's when you take a good hard look at the people already in that area or already selected from the group of applicants and you look for balance. Is the group overbalanced with a lot of people who like knitting or people who play badminton or people who do, or people who don't, have children? (Or any of the hundred other possibilities - like too many/ too few women or younger or older or men or South Asians or ... or ... or ... )

    The biggest effect that anti-discrimination policies have is to force people to think more carefully about the jobs themselves. It's happened to some extent for women - most people now don't think that women are automatically unsuitable for driving trucks and buses or for other positions that were reserved exclusively for men 30+ years ago. They need to reconsider their attitudes about the suitability of POC or immigrants or others who've not previously been employed for certain tasks or roles.

    This is uncomfortable and disturbing to people who've presumed in the past that someone who seemed to be "just like me" was automatically best suited. We used to have an issue here several decades ago in the public service with protestants and catholics. Even though there were no official barriers to promotion in any area, anyone from the "wrong" religion was destined for life in the lower ranks if they were assigned to certain workplaces. The way that was dealt with back then was to ask, quite openly, about religious affiliations so people were directed to more 'suitable' departments. Nowadays, the question itself is prohibited and so is that kind of discrimination.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    But when "quotas" are assigned to companies or else they get a Federal lawsuit against them that, to me, wouldn't be a very fair thing to be doing even though the effort to combat discrimination is being addressed. Employers would not be choosing between the "best" person for the position based on their resume but , in some instances, they would have to hire someone to fill the quota no matter what their resume is like but only because they are a different ethnic group or of another gender.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Employers would not be choosing between the "best" person for the position based on their resume but , in some instances, they would have to hire someone to fill the quota no matter what their resume is like but only because they are a different ethnic group or of another gender.
    Surely these quotas don't apply to corner shop sized operations. Any employer big enough to come within the purview of the law would have a workforce large enough that questions of "balancing" the composition of their workforce would arise in any event.
    Stargate likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Discrimination is not the act of selecting someone based on an arbirary criteria that is less qualified (doubt this would actually be a significant occurance) but just selecting among equally qualified individuals based on skin/iris/pubic hair/lung color is pure and unjustified discrimination imo.
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    Still, there is no answer on my question. The question was: "if some white person will paint his skin in black colour and will do so on more or less permanent basis, will he/she legally able to apply for an affirmative action and if not what would be legal definition of why not?".
    Antislavery
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Still, there is no answer on my question. The question was: "if some white person will paint his skin in black colour and will do so on more or less permanent basis, will he/she legally able to apply for an affirmative action and if not what would be legal definition of why not?".
    At least in the US, I believe it is completely based on your self-identified race. You wouldn't even have to paint your skin, just put down on the form that you are black. There isn't any skin color meter being used to measure your race. This is how Elizabeth Warren was able to get preferential treatment for her supposedly Native American heritage.

    It's kind of funny that the old Jim Crow or apartheid rules are still being applied, only now they are being used for racial preferences. Like the rule that one drop of African blood means you are African. So we say that Barack Obama is black, even though he is half white. Should Barack Obama be on the receiving end of reparations or should he be paying reparations? It's a ridiculous situation.
    Stargate likes this.
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    But when "quotas" are assigned to companies or else they get a Federal lawsuit against them that, to me, wouldn't be a very fair thing to be doing even though the effort to combat discrimination is being addressed. Employers would not be choosing between the "best" person for the position based on their resume but , in some instances, they would have to hire someone to fill the quota no matter what their resume is like but only because they are a different ethnic group or of another gender.
    I'm not sure legal hiring quotas actually exist in the strictest sense. Companies whose employee make-up does not reflect the percentages of women and minorities in the population are just asked to demonstrate that they made reasonable efforts to recruit and interview and hire qualified applicants from those groups. Some large corporations actually like quotas because it allows them to easily prove, without an expensive lawsuit, that they don't discriminate, should an individual applicant claim he/she was not hired because of race or gender.
     

  17. #16  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    To force employers to hire people totally upon their ethnic makeup , to me, is reverse discrimination.
    But it's not totally in the example you gave, is it. It's the very last thing where you're having to choose between two people because you only have one job to offer - the problem wouldn't arise if you were looking for two employees for two identical positions. You'd have hired both of them in that case.
    It's racist, sexist, culturally elitist, or what other specific factor you have used to determine hiring.
    If you choose someone for something (whether it's good or bad) based solely on race, sex, or ethnicity, makes the decision racist, sexist, or culturally elitist.
    No way around it.
    Harold14370 and Stargate like this.
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    I'm not sure legal hiring quotas actually exist in the strictest sense. Companies whose employee make-up does not reflect the percentages of women and minorities in the population are just asked to demonstrate that they made reasonable efforts to recruit and interview and hire qualified applicants from those groups. Some large corporations actually like quotas because it allows them to easily prove, without an expensive lawsuit, that they don't discriminate, should an individual applicant claim he/she was not hired because of race or gender.
    Maybe not in the strictest sense, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If you are "asked" to prove you don't discriminate, I can imagine that could cost you some money, which you wouldn't have to risk if you have the "right" number of minorities on the payroll.
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Still, there is no answer on my question. The question was: "if some white person will paint his skin in black colour and will do so on more or less permanent basis, will he/she legally able to apply for an affirmative action and if not what would be legal definition of why not?".
    From my understanding of your question, a person doesn't apply for affirmative action (as defined in the wiki source). If a person was purposely trying to falsify their identity to benefit from, then they could be called out for the fraud. I am not familiar with the the penalties of such a crime. If you fit the requirement of a protected class (i.e. One drop of blood for African Americans as was establish in the slavery era), then you are a member of that class.
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    I'm not sure legal hiring quotas actually exist in the strictest sense. Companies whose employee make-up does not reflect the percentages of women and minorities in the population are just asked to demonstrate that they made reasonable efforts to recruit and interview and hire qualified applicants from those groups. Some large corporations actually like quotas because it allows them to easily prove, without an expensive lawsuit, that they don't discriminate, should an individual applicant claim he/she was not hired because of race or gender.
    Maybe not in the strictest sense, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If you are "asked" to prove you don't discriminate, I can imagine that could cost you some money, which you wouldn't have to risk if you have the "right" number of minorities on the payroll.
    Yeah, it probably costs money, but as long as a regulation costs your competitor money too, it doesn't really matter.
    adelady likes this.
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    It's racist, sexist, culturally elitist, or what other specific factor you have used to determine hiring.
    If you choose someone for something (whether it's good or bad) based solely on race, sex, or ethnicity, makes the decision racist, sexist, or culturally elitist.
    No way around it.
    I agree in principle. But in Canada, it's legal in many respects.. I live close to several Native reserves and it's legal to specify in advertisements that the applicant be native, although, more typically, they say the applicant should be able to speak Ojibwa and "have knowledge of Ojibwa culture and traditions." The language requirement might seem reasonable, except that most Ojibwa here can't speak Ojibwa and it is rarely their first language.

    I have mixed feelings about such racial preferential treatment. On the one hand, I grew up in Detroit in the late 60s, where people couldn't buy houses in certain neighborhoods, couldn't go to certain restaurants, couldn't walk down the street holding the hand of a person of a different race without risking getting beaten up. Many people, black and white, worked very hard to change that. So I abhor racism. On the other hand, I understand that where I live, Native people don't just want to receive medical care or education or police protection. They want to be the doctors and nurses and teachers and cops who are providing those things in their community. So I'm well aware that if a native personwith my qualifications, or even less, applies for the same job I applied for, I'm not going to get it.
    Last edited by DianeG; March 3rd, 2014 at 11:36 AM.
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    [its fighting fire with fire (i understand the intent is good), but by using ridiculous classification as a basis for policy you are legitimising officialising these ridiculous labels (and disciminating based on these labels to boot!), like saying you are enacting the witch protection act to protect witches from discrimination instead of explaining theres no such thing as a witch flying on a broomstick.
    If the government defined witches as "non-Christian women who practice another religion" and arrested, tortured and killed them regularly then it would indeed make sense to pass witch protection acts to protect witches. Not because witches exist, but because people who the government calls witches are being arrested, tortured and killed.

    The reason that we use the term "black" as a basis for affirmative action is not because civil rights leaders arbitrarily chose a race to promote. It was because the GOVERNMENT engaged in a systematic program to deny blacks the right to marry, to go to school, to vote etc etc. And the term THEY used was "black." (Or colored, or mulatto, or negro, or whatever other arbitrary term was in vogue.) Much of this government-created discrimination has persisted even after they stopped targeting them; affirmative action seeks to correct that injustice. Hopefully one day it will no longer be necessary.
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    It was because the GOVERNMENT engaged in a systematic program to deny blacks the right to marry, to go to school, to vote etc etc. And the term THEY used was "black." (Or colored, or mulatto, or negro, or whatever other arbitrary term was in vogue.) Much of this government-created discrimination has persisted even after they stopped targeting them; affirmative action seeks to correct that injustice. Hopefully one day it will no longer be necessary.
    By Government, you mean "We the people." It was tyranny by the majority, as it continues to be against gays in many places.
    MrMojo1, grmpysmrf and umbradiago like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    "We the people."
    I dont share your assessment of the democratic nature of the governments. The Government is a hierarchy(ies) that uses money and secrecy/propaganda to manipulate the people and is itself manipulated/corrupted by the money of an influential few. How can the US government be labeled as "We the people" when we the people are ignorant of an lied to about "we the people" open transparent operations to commit murder and terrorism and coup d'etats like Operation Ajax (and many others), imo the governments are not "we the people" but organisations that are more similar to corrupt and secretive hierarchies.

    IMO, Oligarchs and monarchists and fascists'
    favourite meme is the ~"Tyranny of the Majority"~(harp music) (edit:as well as for those living in a community with clashing opinions like people living with religious fundamentalists?), on my end I dont agree with the Tyranny of the Minority, the few or the One, which are governance problems. If you had a democratic entity with a given problem, it does not follow, that this problem is the outcome of the democratic form of governance as opposed to the reflection of social conditions, many countries that are as much (more) democratic than the US have no problems at all with gays ("gays in the military takes the dignity out of killing" as make believe republican Richard Martin would say).


    it would indeed make sense to pass witch protection acts to protect witches. Not because witches exist, but because people who the government calls witches are being arrested, tortured and killed.
    -Hey wait a minute! Wait one minute I say! Is this little girl a witch?
    -Hum, No, not that I know of
    - Ok then, you can proceed to torture and kill her, because we have a specific law the "Witch protection act" that prohibits torture and killing of "witches ", we all know torture and killing is all legal and wholesome with anyone thats not a witch!
    Last edited by icewendigo; March 3rd, 2014 at 01:23 PM.
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    -Hey wait a minute! Wait one minute I say! Is this little girl a witch?
    -Hum, No, not that I know of
    - Ok then, you can proceed to torture and kill her, because we have a specific law the "Witch protection act" that prohibits torture and killing of "witches ", we all know torture and killing is all legal and wholesome with anyone thats not a witch!
    Unfortunately (and as I am sure you know) back when we kept slaves we did not have laws that prevented it. So to fix your analogy:

    -Hey wait a minute! Wait one minute I say! Is this little girl a witch?
    -Hum, No, not that I know of
    - Ok then, leave her alone. She's just a little girl. And if you kill a regular little girl you can go to jail; it's only perversions before God who get that special government exception.

    And the unfortunate corollary:

    -Hey wait a minute! Wait one minute I say! Is this little girl a witch?
    -Yes. She turned David into a newt over there. See that newt?
    -Oh, wow. Should we torture and kill her?
    -No need! The government will do that for you. Just tell the magistrate.
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Nice speech.

    People vote for people with similar values. If you live in far too many districts in the US that often translates into an ignorant xenophobe, racist, anti-science religious nut representing that district. That is tyranny by the majority and generally gets worse the smaller the population represented. It also translates into laws to oppress challenges to that majority via voting obstruction, life time prohibitions on voting etc.

    -
    While affirmative action are a long ways from perfect, they are necessary in many places to insure everyone gets a fair chance. Other than complete transparency of employee pay and promotion, something that for good reason many businesses would object to, I'm sure there's a better way. Public dollar supported colleges/universities often already have transparency built in.
    adelady, MrMojo1 and grmpysmrf like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    If you live in far too many districts in the US that often translates into an ignorant xenophobe, racist, anti-science religious nut representing that district.
    If a large part of the population is "ignorant xenophobe, racist, anti-science religious nut" you have a problem right there in the first place. If you use Representative (as opposed to direct democracy etc) its not that democratic because you are unable to voice anything on specific issues. If your Representative is part of a rigged-delimitation area to boot its even worst. If the results can be predicted with media coverage and only 2 parties get most media coverage its even further away from anything democratic. What if the majority are cosmopolitan educated science oriented people and their majority view is swept aside by a minority of "ignorant xenophobe, racist, anti-science religious nut" thats even worse imo. Imo smaller is more representative, and its easier to vote with your feet and move to another community that is less regressive than when you have a pan-continental entity that launches wars and funds coup d'etats while everyone in that huge entity is relatively our of the governance picture all together. I understand the urge to have Elitist views when you are surrounded by religious morons, I might feel the same in that situation, but I think local democracy for governance and education/openness/transparency to help people progress is better
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I don't understand a word you said.

    The reality, whether you like to hear it or not is "We the people," is getting it's way for the most part in America. The representatives, for the most part, reflect the value of their populations. It's not a problem with government per say and it's rather artificial to separate the two. Only in the higher court systems is there really separation between the people and the government where sober, not worried about the next vote judges, can stand back and examine the broad context and consider both the will of the people, and larger social implications against our ideals and our history. Some of our representatives can do it as well--but they seem to be the minority or lack the moral fiber or skills to change the minds of their electorate when they disagree with them such a Governor Brewer's recent decision to veto anti-gay legislation.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    I don't understand a word you said.
    I assume the you is me
    Im not eloquent, I'll let other people speak about direct democracy and the anti-democratic aspects of our current system(s)
    If I can find videos I'll post them.
    cheers

    The reality, whether you like to hear it or not is "We the people," is getting it's way for the most part in America.

    I dont agree with this. If I offer you to drink dirty car oil or premium Valvoline oil, the act of choosing which type of refreshing car Oil to drink, doesnt mean you get what you wanted (beer, orange juice, water, milk, coke, pepsi, etc, etc). But knowing my examples are lost, Ill try to find videos instead or have others lend a hand in explaining
     

  30. #29  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    To force employers to hire people totally upon their ethnic makeup , to me, is reverse discrimination.
    But it's not totally in the example you gave, is it. It's the very last thing where you're having to choose between two people because you only have one job to offer - the problem wouldn't arise if you were looking for two employees for two identical positions. You'd have hired both of them in that case.
    It's racist, sexist, culturally elitist, or what other specific factor you have used to determine hiring.If you choose someone for something (whether it's good or bad) based solely on race, sex, or ethnicity, makes the decision racist, sexist, or culturally elitist.No way around it.
    You're right. And it is exactly how white heterosexual men have been running things in the US for decades.
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    I dont agree with this. If I offer you to drink dirty car oil or premium Valvoline oil, the act of choosing which type of refreshing car Oil to drink, doesnt mean you get what you wanted (beer, orange juice, water, milk, coke, pepsi, etc, etc). But knowing my examples are lost, Ill try to find videos instead or have others lend a hand in explaining
    Right. But if you are part of the decision making process that decided "everyone should drink oil" then that's a bit different.
     

  32. #31  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    To force employers to hire people totally upon their ethnic makeup , to me, is reverse discrimination.
    But it's not totally in the example you gave, is it. It's the very last thing where you're having to choose between two people because you only have one job to offer - the problem wouldn't arise if you were looking for two employees for two identical positions. You'd have hired both of them in that case.
    It's racist, sexist, culturally elitist, or what other specific factor you have used to determine hiring.If you choose someone for something (whether it's good or bad) based solely on race, sex, or ethnicity, makes the decision racist, sexist, or culturally elitist.No way around it.
    You're right. And it is exactly how white heterosexual men have been running things in the US for decades.
    Wow, I'm sure if someone made a similar negative blanket statement about women or African Americans, gays, etc... many would feel justified in screaming "prejudice."
    It's not "White heterosexual men" It's, for the most part, the wealthy and the wealthy don't have a color or a gender. they simply have money.

    but beyond all of that, You're idea is to scream "racism is bad" and then turn around and legislate racism into being mandatory? Brilliant strategy.
    anticorncob28 likes this.
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    I think the word racism is not clearly defined, I for one do not know what to think when I am confronted with the term. If affirmative action was designed to protect any one from a different race, we first have to look at why it was necessary to make such a law in the first place. Why did they not make a law for affirmative action for equal rights and justice for women and based it on color? Affirmative action itself was designed to differentiate and bring about cultural disparity.
    If you pay a woman less for the same used energy that a man dissipates, are you not creating disparity among women and men? If you further separate by inducing affirmative action, is that not to some degree making the situation worst.
    What is the reason for affirmative action other than to divide and conquer?
    grmpysmrf likes this.
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    What is the reason for affirmative action other than to divide and conquer?
    I'll admit I copped a lot of nasty remarks, a lot of nasty remarks, when I eventually got pay equal to the men I worked with. And they didn't stop. 20 years later I was the Equal Employment Opportunity coordinator for a few months. The atmosphere on the executive floor was superficially much better than in other work areas, but I worked out that I was really there to act as a buffer. I got all the sexist misogynistic rubbish thrown at me that these senior officers weren't game to try on directly with the staff under their control. It was pretty tiring and tiresome. And it might support your idea that this was divisive, but it wasn't. It was merely sunlight on existing divisions, problems and some pretty mouldy attitudes.

    Things really are better now for women in that, and similar workplaces, than they were back in the early 70s.

    I think the word racism is not clearly defined, I for one do not know what to think when I am confronted with the term.
    Be glad. Be grateful.

    People who've learned to understand the term the hard way have no trouble knowing when they've been ignored for service in a shop or, just as likely, been singled out in some way. Barneys accused teen of using fake debit card for $349 belt because he's a

    And surely you've heard the expression "driving while black". Driving While Black - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    MrMojo1 and umbradiago like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Wow, I'm sure if someone made a similar negative blanket statement about women or African Americans, gays, etc... many would feel justified in screaming "prejudice."
    It's not "White heterosexual men" It's, for the most part, the wealthy . . ..
    Why are blanket statements about women or Muslims prejudicial - but blanket statements about the wealthy are not? In all cases, the problems are pre-judgments people make that replace actual experience.
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    You're right. And it is exactly how white heterosexual men have been running things in the US for decades.
    Wow, I'm sure if someone made a similar negative blanket statement about women or African Americans, gays, etc... many would feel justified in screaming "prejudice."
    It's not "White heterosexual men" It's, for the most part, the wealthy and the wealthy don't have a color or a gender. they simply have money.

    but beyond all of that, You're idea is to scream "racism is bad" and then turn around and legislate racism into being mandatory? Brilliant strategy.
    Not really because in large part, from the white school teacher who gives more attention to white kids, to small business owners who promote the white person earlier, to the jury who automatically disbelieves the witness who doesn't talk perfect English (because it's her third language) -what Weg's says is a quite large degree still true (just look at the gross over representation in Congress). It worth pointing out that while other forms of discriminations are improving, your point about the concentration of power and wealth is also sadly all too true--and three guesses what genetics that group look like in America--a lot like the whiny, sniveling, born with spoon in their mouth, arrogant male bunch who applauded Romney's divisive comments about those less fortunate.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  37. #36  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    D
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    To force employers to hire people totally upon their ethnic makeup , to me, is reverse discrimination.
    But it's not totally in the example you gave, is it. It's the very last thing where you're having to choose between two people because you only have one job to offer - the problem wouldn't arise if you were looking for two employees for two identical positions. You'd have hired both of them in that case.
    It's racist, sexist, culturally elitist, or what other specific factor you have used to determine hiring.If you choose someone for something (whether it's good or bad) based solely on race, sex, or ethnicity, makes the decision racist, sexist, or culturally elitist.No way around it.
    You're right. And it is exactly how white heterosexual men have been running things in the US for decades.
    Wow, I'm sure if someone made a similar negative blanket statement about women or African Americans, gays, etc... many would feel justified in screaming "prejudice."It's not "White heterosexual men" It's, for the most part, the wealthy and the wealthy don't have a color or a gender. they simply have money. but beyond all of that, You're idea is to scream "racism is bad" and then turn around and legislate racism into being mandatory? Brilliant strategy.
    The US finally has an African American President. All the Presidents prior to Obama, have been white heterosexual men. No women.

    Facts. Not blanket generalizations.

    Affirmative action wouldn't have been necessary if people were treated fairly and equitably, historically. But they weren't. I'm not pro affirmative action by the way, but I understand why it came into play.
    umbradiago likes this.
     

  38. #37  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    I'd argue he was targeted because he was young with that kind of money not because he was black. What commoner kid has that kind of scratch to throw down a belt?
     

  39. #38  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Wow, I'm sure if someone made a similar negative blanket statement about women or African Americans, gays, etc... many would feel justified in screaming "prejudice."
    It's not "White heterosexual men" It's, for the most part, the wealthy . . ..
    Why are blanket statements about women or Muslims prejudicial - but blanket statements about the wealthy are not? In all cases, the problems are pre-judgments people make that replace actual experience.
    Ahhh but I said "for the most part"
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    I'd argue he was targeted because he was young with that kind of money not because he was black. What commoner kid has that kind of scratch to throw down a belt?
    He's 19, and even at minimum wage pay quite capable of collecting that kind of money (hell, a 16 years old, I bought a $3000 sailboat at 16 after 3 years of working back in the 70s) and reported by a raciest cashier and stupidly targeted and detained by the cops who should have asked the cashier a lot more questions than the young man. Its disgusting that this sort of stuff still happens. What's the likelihood that the 19 year old will go back there for a job? Or even look for one in that neighborhood now that he has a negative impression of racism from the businesses and authorities there. Win or loose the case (he'll probably loose because standards of detainment are very very low), this is a great example of racial oppression and why social mobility is lower than Pakistan in the US as well as a range of other problems. Do you think Romney's grandchildren would have been questioned? Almost certainly not.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  41. #40  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    You're right. And it is exactly how white heterosexual men have been running things in the US for decades.
    Wow, I'm sure if someone made a similar negative blanket statement about women or African Americans, gays, etc... many would feel justified in screaming "prejudice."
    It's not "White heterosexual men" It's, for the most part, the wealthy and the wealthy don't have a color or a gender. they simply have money.

    but beyond all of that, You're idea is to scream "racism is bad" and then turn around and legislate racism into being mandatory? Brilliant strategy.
    Not really because in large part, from the white school teacher who gives more attention to white kids,
    Yikes! this is blatantly wrong. That isn't All White school teachers. I would say this is a minority of school teachers over all.

    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    to small business owners who promote the white person earlier,
    White business owners promoting white people? or their friends?

    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    to the jury who automatically disbelieves the witness who doesn't talk perfect English (because it's her third language)
    that's any poorly educated lazy speaker. even white people

    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    -what Weg's says is a quite large degree still true (just look at the gross over representation in Congress).
    That's wealth on display right there


    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    It worth pointing out that while other forms of discriminations are improving, your point about the concentration of power and wealth is also sadly all too true--and three guesses what genetics that group look like in America--a lot like the whiny, sniveling, born with spoon in their mouth, arrogant male bunch who applauded Romney's divisive comments about those less fortunate.
    Bleh it's more than white people that believe his brand of horse crap.
     

  42. #41  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    D
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    To force employers to hire people totally upon their ethnic makeup , to me, is reverse discrimination.
    But it's not totally in the example you gave, is it. It's the very last thing where you're having to choose between two people because you only have one job to offer - the problem wouldn't arise if you were looking for two employees for two identical positions. You'd have hired both of them in that case.
    It's racist, sexist, culturally elitist, or what other specific factor you have used to determine hiring.If you choose someone for something (whether it's good or bad) based solely on race, sex, or ethnicity, makes the decision racist, sexist, or culturally elitist.No way around it.
    You're right. And it is exactly how white heterosexual men have been running things in the US for decades.
    Wow, I'm sure if someone made a similar negative blanket statement about women or African Americans, gays, etc... many would feel justified in screaming "prejudice."It's not "White heterosexual men" It's, for the most part, the wealthy and the wealthy don't have a color or a gender. they simply have money. but beyond all of that, You're idea is to scream "racism is bad" and then turn around and legislate racism into being mandatory? Brilliant strategy.
    The US finally has an African American President. All the Presidents prior to Obama, have been white heterosexual men. No women.

    Facts. Not blanket generalizations.
    Those are all rich men. Not all white people get a cut of that wealth. White=/= rich
    Obama did not get his job because of affirmitive action. he had enough money to be heard and his message was better than Romney and McCain's... It's still wealth not white

    Quote Originally Posted by wegs
    Affirmative action wouldn't have been necessary if people were treated fairly and equitably, historically. But they weren't.
    nobody is treated fairly. If anybody is in a position to be exploited they will be. Since African Americans started out poor here they were the easiest to exploit right along with women.


    Quote Originally Posted by weg
    I'm not pro affirmative action by the way, but I understand why it came into play.
    I understand as well, and I agree something needed to be done but affirmitive action as it exists is racist/sexist and tokenism helps no one.
     

  43. #42  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    I'd argue he was targeted because he was young with that kind of money not because he was black. What commoner kid has that kind of scratch to throw down a belt?
    He's 19, and even at minimum wage pay quite capable of collecting that kind of money (hell, a 16 years old, I bought a $3000 sailboat at 16 after 3 years of working back in the 70s) and reported by a raciest cashier and stupidly targeted and detained by the cops who should have asked the cashier a lot more questions than the young man. Its disgusting that this sort of stuff still happens. What's the likelihood that the 19 year old will go back there for a job?
    Or even look for one in that neighborhood now that he has a negative impression of racism from the businesses and authorities there. Win or loose the case (he'll probably loose because standards of detainment are very very low), this is a great example of racial oppression and why social mobility is lower than Pakistan in the US as well as a range of other problems. Do you think Romney's grandchildren would have been questioned? Almost certainly not.
    It's not the norm. KIds don't save hell parents don't save. I still stand by him being young had more to do with it than black. If that kid's mom or dad had bought the belt I would bet there would have been no problem.
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Yikes! this is blatantly wrong. That isn't All White school teachers. I would say this is a minority of school teachers over all.
    Actually it's a pretty well supported fact, one being incorporated by good teaching programs in an attempt to make new teachers (83% are white) aware of their biases and ways to remove it as much as possible during assessments (e.g. have kids put their names on the back, double blind online assays etc) and in student feedback:
    http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2012-10763-001


    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    to small business owners who promote the white person earlier,
    White business owners promoting white people? or their friends?
    Both of which are illegal and why affirmative action exist in large part to break down such good-old-boy systems.

    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    to the jury who automatically disbelieves the witness who doesn't talk perfect English (because it's her third language)
    that's any poorly educated lazy speaker. even white people
    Perhaps. But it still disadvantages the lower educated (in English), which disproportionately tend to be minorities in the US (but at least things are getting better).

    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    It worth pointing out that while other forms of discriminations are improving, your point about the concentration of power and wealth is also sadly all too true--and three guesses what genetics that group look like in America--a lot like the whiny, sniveling, born with spoon in their mouth, arrogant male bunch who applauded Romney's divisive comments about those less fortunate.
    Bleh it's more than white people that believe his brand of horse crap.
    Do we really need to drag out demographics here? While there's some socio-economic progress in some minority groups--wealth since about 70s has increasing been concentrated on the richest of the rich white wealthy in America. It's not healthy for the nation.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Ahhh but I said "for the most part"
    Fair enough. And for the most part white heterosexual men have been running things in the US for decades.
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    It's not the norm. KIds don't save hell parents don't save. I still stand by him being young had more to do with it than black. If that kid's mom or dad had bought the belt I would bet there would have been no problem.
    So now it's not the norm for a black man (he's not a kid) to buy a $300 belt? Seriously, you sticking to this stupid argument? We all have biases (mine have been measured probably too much as an Army leader and now teacher), perhaps you should examine yours?
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Ahhh but I said "for the most part"
    Fair enough. And for the most part white heterosexual men have been running things in the US for decades.
    (cough cough...centuries even)
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I understand as well, and I agree something needed to be done but affirmitive action as it exists is racist/sexist and tokenism helps no one.
    That's not entirely true. The most important thing that tokenism helps with is role modelling. Kids who belong to a group excluded from particular occupations - women and black/indigenous people from most higher status jobs in the past, men from "female" occupations like nursing or childcare - can see that people like them can drive trucks or fight fires or climb chimneystacks or be doctors or be nurses or work as gardeners or be soldiers.

    This of course "helps no one" if the initial tokenism isn't backed up by freeing access to the necessary education, training, scholarships or whatever it takes for the excluded group to become part of the relevant workforce rather than mere window-dressing. "Whatever it takes" sometimes requires a bit of heavy-handed reminding the gatekeepers to education or employment or housing and the like that they can't rely on their own preconceptions about gender or colour or ethnicity to admit people they wouldn't have 10 or 40 years ago. They have to reconsider - and sometimes this is not just uncomfortable, it's downright confronting to think about your own assumptions and prejudices.

    But tokenism is one important precursor to genuine choice of occupation and lifestyle.
    Lynx_Fox and MrMojo1 like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  49. #48  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Ahhh but I said "for the most part"
    Fair enough. And for the most part white heterosexual men have been running things in the US for decades.
    You forgot wealthy.
    there is a difference between white hetoro and white wealthy hetero. if you think George W is going to be having a beer with white homeless guy on the corner you are crazy
     

  50. #49  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Yikes! this is blatantly wrong. That isn't All White school teachers. I would say this is a minority of school teachers over all.
    Actually it's a pretty well supported fact, one being incorporated by good teaching programs in an attempt to make new teachers (83% are white) aware of their biases and ways to remove it as much as possible during assessments (e.g. have kids put their names on the back, double blind online assays etc) and in student feedback:
    http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2012-10763-001
    Student feedback means nothing. student will say anything to justify a bad grade. Perception is not reality. Perhaps it's because I live and teach in California, but schools don't look like beverly hills (apparently the stereo type of all white people) there are barely any "white kids" let alone a majority of them in the classroom. Teachers have biases based on the side of the room they teach to and other sorts of things. Not because white people deserve a better education.


    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    to small business owners who promote the white person earlier,
    White business owners promoting white people? or their friends?
    Both of which are illegal and why affirmative action exist in large part to break down such good-old-boy systems.
    Well, we've seen how well that has worked. Meritocracy is dead!



    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    to the jury who automatically disbelieves the witness who doesn't talk perfect English (because it's her third language)
    that's any poorly educated lazy speaker. even white people
    Perhaps. But it still disadvantages the lower educated (in English), which disproportionately tend to be minorities in the US (but at least things are getting better).
    Not really racism if it happens to white people too, now is it? again a question of wealth and prestige over race. Just because minorities are disproportionately the lower educated doesn't make it racist. Besides, racism means it only happens to minorities. Which is clearly not the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    It worth pointing out that while other forms of discriminations are improving, your point about the concentration of power and wealth is also sadly all too true--and three guesses what genetics that group look like in America--a lot like the whiny, sniveling, born with spoon in their mouth, arrogant male bunch who applauded Romney's divisive comments about those less fortunate.
    Bleh it's more than white people that believe his brand of horse crap.
    Do we really need to drag out demographics here?
    Why would you? you think the KKK let's minorities in their little club? The KKK is racist. there is no wiggle room. there is no "yeah, but the overwhelming demographic is white." it's all white cause it's racist.

    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    While there's some socio-economic progress in some minority groups--wealth since about 70s has increasing been concentrated on the richest of the rich white wealthy in America. It's not healthy for the nation.
    finally you and I are in complete agreement again. I generally like what you have to say but we are in complete odds here.
     

  51. #50  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    It's not the norm. KIds don't save hell parents don't save. I still stand by him being young had more to do with it than black. If that kid's mom or dad had bought the belt I would bet there would have been no problem.
    So now it's not the norm for a black man (he's not a kid) to buy a $300 belt? Seriously, you sticking to this stupid argument? We all have biases (mine have been measured probably too much as an Army leader and now teacher), perhaps you should examine yours?
    Who said anything about not the norm for a black man to buy a 300 belt? certainly not me.

    My argument is that it's not the norm for kids to have $300 dollars to throw down on a belt. His color makes no difference. You are right, the fact that you think that I think "black men" can't buy expensive belts does say an awful lot about your biases though. Surprised you didn't pick up on that considering i wrote, "there would be no problem if his mom or dad bought it..." that kind of implies that a black person could still buy the belt without being shook down by the cops.
    While I agree yes, racism still exists and it's still pretty bad, it's not every where and there are enough examples around that we don't have to hunt for them or make them up.
     

  52. #51  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I understand as well, and I agree something needed to be done but affirmitive action as it exists is racist/sexist and tokenism helps no one.
    That's not entirely true. The most important thing that tokenism helps with is role modelling. Kids who belong to a group excluded from particular occupations - women and black/indigenous people from most higher status jobs in the past, men from "female" occupations like nursing or childcare - can see that people like them can drive trucks or fight fires or climb chimneystacks or be doctors or be nurses or work as gardeners or be soldiers.

    This of course "helps no one" if the initial tokenism isn't backed up by freeing access to the necessary education, training, scholarships or whatever it takes for the excluded group to become part of the relevant workforce rather than mere window-dressing. "Whatever it takes" sometimes requires a bit of heavy-handed reminding the gatekeepers to education or employment or housing and the like that they can't rely on their own preconceptions about gender or colour or ethnicity to admit people they wouldn't have 10 or 40 years ago. They have to reconsider - and sometimes this is not just uncomfortable, it's downright confronting to think about your own assumptions and prejudices.

    But tokenism is one important precursor to genuine choice of occupation and lifestyle.
    Tokenism is racism. the only reason those people are there is because of their race or sex or some other insignificant qualifier. and if all the company is going to hire is a token then what is the likelihood of me sliding into that spot when that token retires? not very good.
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    It's not the norm. KIds don't save hell parents don't save. I still stand by him being young had more to do with it than black. If that kid's mom or dad had bought the belt I would bet there would have been no problem.
    So now it's not the norm for a black man (he's not a kid) to buy a $300 belt? Seriously, you sticking to this stupid argument? We all have biases (mine have been measured probably too much as an Army leader and now teacher), perhaps you should examine yours?
    Who said anything about not the norm for a black man to buy a 300 belt? certainly not me.

    My argument is that it's not the norm for kids to have $300 dollars to throw down on a belt. His color makes no difference. You are right, the fact that you think that I think "black men" can't buy expensive belts does say an awful lot about your biases though. Surprised you didn't pick up on that considering i wrote, "there would be no problem if his mom or dad bought it..." that kind of implies that a black person could still buy the belt without being shook down by the cops.
    While I agree yes, racism still exists and it's still pretty bad, it's not every where and there are enough examples around that we don't have to hunt for them or make them up.
    Then why you keep talking about a kid buying an expensive belt? There was no kid. It has nothing to with the incident. It sounds like a pathetic excuse to justify the racism by the person who sold the belt and the detectives that were stupid enough to listen to that cashier. And even at that $300 bucks is nothing even for a teenager--a few weekends of lawn mowing or baby sitting. If it was 30,000 dollar coat, there might actually be good reason to verify a bit deeper (and most stores can easily do so without calling the cops). Who the hell are you, I, the cashier or the cops to judge what this adult can and can't buy? We should be proud he's doing well enough for himself to have a little bit extra to spend on a nicety as he wishes. Not making excuses for racism by others.
    Stargate likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  54. #53  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    It's not the norm. KIds don't save hell parents don't save. I still stand by him being young had more to do with it than black. If that kid's mom or dad had bought the belt I would bet there would have been no problem.
    So now it's not the norm for a black man (he's not a kid) to buy a $300 belt? Seriously, you sticking to this stupid argument? We all have biases (mine have been measured probably too much as an Army leader and now teacher), perhaps you should examine yours?
    Who said anything about not the norm for a black man to buy a 300 belt? certainly not me.

    My argument is that it's not the norm for kids to have $300 dollars to throw down on a belt. His color makes no difference. You are right, the fact that you think that I think "black men" can't buy expensive belts does say an awful lot about your biases though. Surprised you didn't pick up on that considering i wrote, "there would be no problem if his mom or dad bought it..." that kind of implies that a black person could still buy the belt without being shook down by the cops.
    While I agree yes, racism still exists and it's still pretty bad, it's not every where and there are enough examples around that we don't have to hunt for them or make them up.
    Then why you keep talking about a kid buying an expensive belt? There was no kid.
    19 years old, is a kid.
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    19 years old, is a kid.
    An 18 year old is a legal adult in the USA. He is not a kid, but a young man. Had he been charged with a crime, without hesitation it would be as an adult.
     

  56. #55  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Tokenism is racism. the only reason those people are there is because of their race or sex or some other insignificant qualifier. and if all the company is going to hire is a token then what is the likelihood of me sliding into that spot when that token retires? not very good.
    I'd say my being a woman is completely insignificant and irrelevant when judging whether I'm competent to function in teaching or accounting or law or economics. But it used to be so significant that I would be sacked from such positions just for getting married if I managed to sneak in through some back door or another.

    When an irrelevant attribute is used as an excuse to deny service or to refuse education or to restrict employment, it becomes very significant.

    Tokenism is only a token or, maybe a hindrance, to improving the life chances of the group in question - for now let's stick with women, indigenous people, African Americans. If a restaurant keeps a table in the window where the one and only family/couple who are POC are displayed while every other such couple/family is rejected because the restaurant is "full", then that's harmful tokenism. otoh, if a restaurant uses such a strategy to indicate to such people that their trade is welcome, that tokenism is used as the avenue for a better outcome.

    Similarly with employment. When a company brochure shows a team which includes women and POC all happily working together, that might look good to the shareholders or officials. But if every woman applicant and every POC, man or woman, applicant for jobs seems never to be quite good enough to get an interview, let alone a job offer, then that tokenism is either a mistake by the marketing agency or deliberate misdirection by tokenism on the part of the management. otoh, when such brochures are used to demonstrate to people that this really is a good place for all sorts of people to work, they know they'll get a fair consideration of any application they make.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  57. #56  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Ahhh but I said "for the most part"
    Fair enough. And for the most part white heterosexual men have been running things in the US for decades.
    You forgot wealthy.
    there is a difference between white hetoro and white wealthy hetero. if you think George W is going to be having a beer with white homeless guy on the corner you are crazy
    aw, really? but I thought W is ...Christian?
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    "for the most part white heterosexual men have been running things in the US for decades."
    It easy to confuse correlated artefacts ("white", "heterosexual", men) that are apparent/surface/blatant/superficial and actual relevant causes which may not be apparent but underlying (as is often the case when a cause is systemic for example, and/or a result of social structures that are overlooked as thought to be for granted and not examined with a critical perspective).
    Is Henry the 8th in charge because he is "white" and a man, as opposed to the "white" male peasant or Queen Elizabeth the female monarch?
    The problem with focusing on correlated factors is you let the real factors off the hook and potentially totally off the radar and unchallenged, while strategies to fix problems/symptoms are bound to patch/placate/fail without resolving the problem.

    This was just a side note and food for thought.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
     

  59. #58  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    The elephant in the room though, is that the US Presidents, the majority of them, have been of varying Christian denominations. This is the reason we have seen so much in the way of discrimination against race, ethnicity, and homosexuals. The people who have constructed the laws of the land, were by and large, religious bigots and sexists. Affirmative action was created to build diversity in the workplace, but honestly, religion is the great divider, here. It would be interesting to see what US history might have looked like, had ‘religion’ not played such a key role. I keep bringing up US presidents because…you can’t have a country run by Christian elitists, and expect the workplace to be diverse.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
     

  60. #59  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    19 years old, is a kid.
    An 18 year old is a legal adult in the USA. He is not a kid, but a young man. Had he been charged with a crime, without hesitation it would be as an adult.
    I am talking appearance not legality
     

  61. #60  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Ahhh but I said "for the most part"
    Fair enough. And for the most part white heterosexual men have been running things in the US for decades.
    You forgot wealthy.
    there is a difference between white hetoro and white wealthy hetero. if you think George W is going to be having a beer with white homeless guy on the corner you are crazy
    aw, really? but I thought W is ...Christian?
    Of course he is. a christian, he says to the voters.
     

  62. #61  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    The elephant in the room though, is that the US Presidents, the majority of them, have been of varying Christian denominations. This is the reason we have seen so much in the way of discrimination against race, ethnicity, and homosexuals. The people who have constructed the laws of the land, were by and large, religious bigots and sexists. Affirmative action was created to build diversity in the workplace, but honestly, religion is the great divider, here. It would be interesting to see what US history might have looked like, had ‘religion’ not played such a key role. I keep bringing up US presidents because…you can’t have a country run by Christian elitists, and expect the workplace to be diverse.
    I like this, but I will point out that the majority of the founders of this country were secularist atheists who, if they did believe in anything spiritual, believed in deism and nothing even close to modern day Christianity.
     

  63. #62  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    The elephant in the room though, is that the US Presidents, the majority of them, have been of varying Christian denominations. This is the reason we have seen so much in the way of discrimination against race, ethnicity, and homosexuals. The people who have constructed the laws of the land, were by and large, religious bigots and sexists. Affirmative action was created to build diversity in the workplace, but honestly, religion is the great divider, here. It would be interesting to see what US history might have looked like, had ‘religion’ not played such a key role. I keep bringing up US presidents because…you can’t have a country run by Christian elitists, and expect the workplace to be diverse.
    I like this, but I will point out that the majority of the founders of this country were secularist atheists who, if they did believe in anything spiritual, believed in deism and nothing even close to modern day Christianity.
    Nope, most (not all) were affiliated with Christian denominations. Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     

  64. #63  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Ahhh but I said "for the most part"
    Fair enough. And for the most part white heterosexual men have been running things in the US for decades.
    You forgot wealthy.
    there is a difference between white hetoro and white wealthy hetero. if you think George W is going to be having a beer with white homeless guy on the corner you are crazy
    aw, really? but I thought W is ...Christian?
    Of course he is. a christian, he says to the voters.
    haha I was being facetious.
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Haha,I love it. If the founding fathers did something bad, it's because they were Christian, but if they did something good, it's because they were atheists. You guys need to get on the same page.
     

  66. #65  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
     

  67. #66  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Haha,I love it. If the founding fathers did something bad, it's because they were Christian, but if they did something good, it's because they were atheists. You guys need to get on the same page.
    Religion has been silently governing the US throughout history.
    umbradiago likes this.
     

  68. #67  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    I like this, but I will point out that the majority of the founders of this country were secularist atheists who, if they did believe in anything spiritual, believed in deism and nothing even close to modern day Christianity.
    Not really. There were a few Diest (e.g Pain, Jefferson...perhaps Washington) and Unitarians(Adams), which by definition didn't believe in the resurrection, meaning they weren't Christian. All to a large degree followed the better parts of Christian ideals---even Jefferson, who though a Deist, and removed all the miracles from the New Testament with a razor blade--a book known as the Jefferson bible that would be the official bible of Congress for a while, thought Jesus's teachings were the best set available. More related to the thread, is they were more than willing to devalue blacks to maintain political equality between the South and Northern States and to decide not to decide the slavery question. Jefferson's writings probably reveal why--he wrestled greatly with the idea that all men should be free (while keeping slaves himself) with his belief that negro (as he would put it) weren't smart enough to govern themselves.
    MrMojo1 and umbradiago like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Haha,I love it. If the founding fathers did something bad, it's because they were Christian, but if they did something good, it's because they were atheists. You guys need to get on the same page.
    Religion has been silently governing the US throughout history.
    Yep, I think I've got it. America, bad. Christians, bad. Atheists good.
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    It's not the norm. KIds don't save hell parents don't save. I still stand by him being young had more to do with it than black. If that kid's mom or dad had bought the belt I would bet there would have been no problem.
    So now it's not the norm for a black man (he's not a kid) to buy a $300 belt? Seriously, you sticking to this stupid argument? We all have biases (mine have been measured probably too much as an Army leader and now teacher), perhaps you should examine yours?
    Who said anything about not the norm for a black man to buy a 300 belt? certainly not me.

    My argument is that it's not the norm for kids to have $300 dollars to throw down on a belt. His color makes no difference. You are right, the fact that you think that I think "black men" can't buy expensive belts does say an awful lot about your biases though. Surprised you didn't pick up on that considering i wrote, "there would be no problem if his mom or dad bought it..." that kind of implies that a black person could still buy the belt without being shook down by the cops.
    While I agree yes, racism still exists and it's still pretty bad, it's not every where and there are enough examples around that we don't have to hunt for them or make them up.
    Then why you keep talking about a kid buying an expensive belt? There was no kid.
    19 years old, is a kid.
    It would be interesting to know what you term as racism. Why do you think the young man was queried by the police?
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Haha,I love it. If the founding fathers did something bad, it's because they were Christian, but if they did something good, it's because they were atheists. You guys need to get on the same page.
    Religion has been silently governing the US throughout history.
    I would go as far as saying religion as been the main focus in almost all nations. We fight mainly over women, land, and most of all religion.
    grmpysmrf and umbradiago like this.
     

  72. #71  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Haha,I love it. If the founding fathers did something bad, it's because they were Christian, but if they did something good, it's because they were atheists. You guys need to get on the same page.
    Religion has been silently governing the US throughout history.
    Yep, I think I've got it. America, bad. Christians, bad. Atheists good.
    If the majority of the American Presidency consisted of Christians throughout its history, why was there so much oppression? Racism? Sexism? Discrimination? Since roughly 60-70% of America is made up of ''Christians,'' why is there still so much poverty? If Christianity was as good as it claims to be, as loving as it claims to be, as concerned about its brothers and sisters as it claims to be, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
    adelady and grmpysmrf like this.
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Haha,I love it. If the founding fathers did something bad, it's because they were Christian, but if they did something good, it's because they were atheists. You guys need to get on the same page.
    Religion has been silently governing the US throughout history.
    Yep, I think I've got it. America, bad. Christians, bad. Atheists good.
    If the majority of the American Presidency consisted of Christians throughout its history, why was there so much oppression? Racism? Sexism? Discrimination? Since roughly 60-70% of America is made up of ''Christians,'' why is there still so much poverty? If Christianity was as good as it claims to be, as loving as it claims to be, as concerned about its brothers and sisters as it claims to be, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
    I think the answer is religion is politics. I do not think religion and politics can be separate, the same politicians are the Christians, everything they do are based on their religious morals.
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Seems that this thread has gone off topic and has plotted a course to the Trash Bin.
     

  75. #74  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Haha,I love it. If the founding fathers did something bad, it's because they were Christian, but if they did something good, it's because they were atheists. You guys need to get on the same page.
    Religion has been silently governing the US throughout history.
    Yep, I think I've got it. America, bad. Christians, bad. Atheists good.
    If the majority of the American Presidency consisted of Christians throughout its history, why was there so much oppression? Racism? Sexism? Discrimination? Since roughly 60-70% of America is made up of ''Christians,'' why is there still so much poverty? If Christianity was as good as it claims to be, as loving as it claims to be, as concerned about its brothers and sisters as it claims to be, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
    I think the answer is religion is politics. I do not think religion and politics can be separate, the same politicians are the Christians, everything they do are based on their religious morals.
    Slavery wasn’t ‘moral.’ Women being treated like property,and not being permitted to vote, was not moral. Homosexuals being discriminatedwhen it comes to marital rights, isn’t moral.
    Christian leadership, or political? Sort of resembles the Bible,to me.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
     

  76. #75  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Seems that this thread has gone off topic and has plotted a course to the Trash Bin.
    The laws (and mindsets) that govern society, also affect the workplace.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Yep, I think I've got it. America, bad. Christians, bad. Atheists good.
    Not even close. But if that's the sort of stereotype you need to use to define people, go for it. It's definitely easier that way.
    wegs and grmpysmrf like this.
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Christianity might be (is) a correlated factor and not a causal factor. Non Christian countries also have poverty and oppression, and some non-Christian (Muslim) are not heavens of equality for women and gays. Imo (which everyone's entitled not to agree with), the common denominator(s) are archaic values based on traditions that have not evolved along with the changes in our understanding of nature/reality that are perpetuated in general and by "institutions*" that benefit from the status quo, as well as systemic aberrant mechanisms like hierarchy, money and secrecy/control of information. (*the typical structure of institutions is often also hierarchic, monetary-dependant/corrupt, secretive/controlling of information which can contribute to making them even more opposed/detrimental to social progress)


    ...So Affirmative action, something something on topic...
    grmpysmrf likes this.
     

  79. #78  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    It may seem OT, but discrimination didn’t start in theworkplace, so it won’t be resolved through affirmative action. I’m sort ofneutral on affirmative action, although understanding why it came into play,but it’s like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound.
    Stargate and grmpysmrf like this.
     

  80. #79  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    I like this, but I will point out that the majority of the founders of this country were secularist atheists who, if they did believe in anything spiritual, believed in deism and nothing even close to modern day Christianity.
    Not really. There were a few Diest (e.g Pain, Jefferson...perhaps Washington) and Unitarians(Adams), which by definition didn't believe in the resurrection, meaning they weren't Christian. All to a large degree followed the better parts of Christian ideals---even Jefferson, who though a Deist, and removed all the miracles from the New Testament with a razor blade--a book known as the Jefferson bible that would be the official bible of Congress for a while, thought Jesus's teachings were the best set available. More related to the thread, is they were more than willing to devalue blacks to maintain political equality between the South and Northern States and to decide not to decide the slavery question. Jefferson's writings probably reveal why--he wrestled greatly with the idea that all men should be free (while keeping slaves himself) with his belief that negro (as he would put it) weren't smart enough to govern themselves.
    I'm not talking about our presidents, I'm talking about the founders, those two things are very different . The Founders were not religious people. Jefferson and Franklin wrote our framework. Franklin was an atheist, Jefferson a Diest. They came here to basically escape theocracy not start a new one. Yes, the office has been dominated by "Christians" but much like republicans and democrats those labels mean completely different things based on the time periods you are referencing.
     

  81. #80  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Notice the first 5 presidents of the US were founding fathers and NOT religious.
     

  82. #81  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    It would be interesting to know what you term as racism.
    assigning assumed negative group characteristics to an individual with out actually knowing the individual.


    Quote Originally Posted by stargate
    Why do you think the young man was queried by the police?
    Because the cashier decided he looked to young to be throwing around cash like that on a meaningless article of clothing and called the police.
    Not saying it's right but it's certainly not racism either unless the cashier did so because he was black and not young. I have not heard as much though.
     

  83. #82  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Ahhh but I said "for the most part"
    Fair enough. And for the most part white heterosexual men have been running things in the US for decades.
    You forgot wealthy.
    there is a difference between white hetoro and white wealthy hetero. if you think George W is going to be having a beer with white homeless guy on the corner you are crazy
    aw, really? but I thought W is ...Christian?
    Of course he is. a christian, he says to the voters.
    haha I was being facetious.
    I know.
    I was helping.
     

  84. #83  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Haha,I love it. If the founding fathers did something bad, it's because they were Christian, but if they did something good, it's because they were atheists. You guys need to get on the same page.
    Religion has been silently governing the US throughout history.
    Yep, I think I've got it. America, bad. Christians, bad. Atheists good.
    If the majority of the American Presidency consisted of Christians throughout its history, why was there so much oppression? Racism? Sexism? Discrimination? Since roughly 60-70% of America is made up of ''Christians,'' why is there still so much poverty? If Christianity was as good as it claims to be, as loving as it claims to be, as concerned about its brothers and sisters as it claims to be, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
    I think the answer is religion is politics. I do not think religion and politics can be separate, the same politicians are the Christians, everything they do are based on their religious morals.
    I agree. Religion IS government. just look into history. Odd to me that people still go to church seeing that all they are doing is celebrating an archaic form of government.
    wegs and Stargate like this.
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    From my understanding of your question, a person doesn't apply for affirmative action (as defined in the wiki source). If a person was purposely trying to falsify their identity to benefit from, then they could be called out for the fraud. I am not familiar with the the penalties of such a crime. If you fit the requirement of a protected class (i.e. One drop of blood for African Americans as was establish in the slavery era), then you are a member of that class.
    Why a person suppose to hide that he/she underwent skin change? Shouldn't it be a free choice what colour of skin to have? And why only people with some inborn colour of skin suppose to benefit? If we assume that people are discriminated because of skin colour, should govt. base protection from discrimination only on some inborn qualities? What about discrimination based on religion or political views? If any person could accept some religion or political views consciously and during adulthood and request protection from discrimination, why a person cannot consciously adopt some skin colour and request for the same? Is it some inborn privilege?
    Antislavery
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    religion is politics
    Religion IS government
    Just a quick note to point out that in some countries outside the US, any politician starting to invoke God in his speeches, would be viewed as a buffoon laughing stock and could not get elected (the same way as if he invoked shamanic magic and ghosts from the mormonic panet Kolob). From such a perspective, "religion is government" could be similar to saying "Astrology is government!" or "Government is Shamanic Magic!". I realize that from someone in the US or Saudi Arabia, given their specific environment, it might indeed appear that these are related as a universal axiom. This said, I think I understand what you mean that organized religion is the old fashion way of influencing people (potentially useful tool for rulers), etc.


    Is it some inborn privilege?
    It is a priviledge defined by the people who fabricate it, I dont know what the actual legal definition is, but it can be anything since its pulled out of a hat to placate a problem with a solution that reflects the racist culture they find normal, (since the most obvious tool in the culture is the racist hammer, then the solution must be to hit the problem-dressed-as-a-nail with the racist hammer, of course, simple and easy, boing!) imo.
    Last edited by icewendigo; March 4th, 2014 at 02:53 PM.
     

  87. #86  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    From my understanding of your question, a person doesn't apply for affirmative action (as defined in the wiki source). If a person was purposely trying to falsify their identity to benefit from, then they could be called out for the fraud. I am not familiar with the the penalties of such a crime. If you fit the requirement of a protected class (i.e. One drop of blood for African Americans as was establish in the slavery era), then you are a member of that class.
    Why a person suppose to hide that he/she underwent skin change? Shouldn't it be a free choice what colour of skin to have? And why only people with some inborn colour of skin suppose to benefit? If we assume that people are discriminated because of skin colour, should govt. base protection from discrimination only on some inborn qualities? What about discrimination based on religion or political views? If any person could accept some religion or political views consciously and during adulthood and request protection from discrimination, why a person cannot consciously adopt some skin colour and request for the same? Is it some inborn privilege?
    I don’t know if you’re serious, or just at this point, being rude?

    Do you have any idea at all what African American people have gone through in the US, in American history? Are you familiar with the civil rights movement? Do you have any idea how African Americans have been passed over for jobs due to their skin color, alone? How they are often not promoted because of their skin color?

    For you to even suggest that we paint our skin another color, so we can ‘benefit’ from the ‘privilege’ of affirmative action, is offensive and disgraceful.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    (I dont think hes serious, well, since its so outlandishly out of touch with reality I assume he isnt)
     

  89. #88  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    I hope not. But, even if he’s joking. Affirmative action,the fact that it needs to exist at all, should tell us how discrimination stillexists, in a variety of forms.
    I don’t believe it’s the solution, but there’s nothing funnyabout discrimination.
    Stargate likes this.
     

  90. #89  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    We fight mainly over women, land, and most of all religion.
    Just precisely who is this we you speak of?

    In a thread where the issue is discriminating against people

    - and thereby excluding them from full participation in society -

    someone talks as though "women" are objects or prizes or assets to be pursued or contested and "won" or "lost" rather than as individual citizens or soldiers with the same rights and status as everyone else.

    Do you have any idea how offensive that is?

    Check your language.

    (That usually involves reconsidering your thoughts and your attitudes.)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  91. #90  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    We fight mainly over women, land, and most of all religion.
    Just precisely who is this we you speak of?

    In a thread where the issue is discriminating against people

    - and thereby excluding them from full participation in society -

    someone talks as though "women" are objects or prizes or assets to be pursued or contested and "won" or "lost" rather than as individual citizens or soldiers with the same rights and status as everyone else.

    Do you have any idea how offensive that is?

    Check your language.

    (That usually involves reconsidering your thoughts and your attitudes.)
    I am certainly not trying to offend any woman, I am not sure why you think I am doing that. The we I talk about is humans, I always include myself in that group, yet I disagree with what we do most times. If I used they you could ask me who am I speaking about. Religion seems to be the topic of the day when it comes to what people fight for, next land, this is also a big issue, women is most definitely not a commodity however, they or most men do not care what you want, right or wrong, they have fought wars over women. No Adelady, I am not trying to offend you or any woman and I am sorry if you misunderstood my point, I will watch my language as you put it, but as far as my thoughts and attitude goes I think they are in order.
     

  92. #91  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    We fight mainly over women, land, and most of all religion.
    Just precisely who is this we you speak of?

    In a thread where the issue is discriminating against people

    - and thereby excluding them from full participation in society -

    someone talks as though "women" are objects or prizes or assets to be pursued or contested and "won" or "lost" rather than as individual citizens or soldiers with the same rights and status as everyone else.

    Do you have any idea how offensive that is?

    Check your language.

    (That usually involves reconsidering your thoughts and your attitudes.)
    I think he was talking about nations and history in general. Helen of troy jumps directly to mind. Whether you like it or not men fight over women even wage war, that does not make them objects it just is what it is. Women fight over men... although, I doubt any wars have been waged. you can't help it you can't stop it, it just is. I used to have an ex girlfriend that would try to get me to fight for her by flirting with other guys in front of me. She used to say as much... "you guys could have fought it out for me" I never did and I eventually left that girl. But don't think you speak for all women when you say women aren't prizes. some woman want to be prizes and fought over.

    SO you can be mad over the sexism that has happened in the past but to be angry at someone that has pointed it out is just asinine.
     

  93. #92  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    But it's irrelevant to the topic of discrimination. If you are rejected for a job because of your gender, that's discrimination. Makes little difference if you think women like to be prizes or manipulate men. If a woman or man is declined a position within a company due to gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc...it's discrimination. When you are hiring for a position, you need to look at people without bias. If you can't, you shouldn't be in the position of hiring or firing employees.

    Sheesh, and we wonder why affirmative action exists? lol
     

  94. #93  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I am certainly not trying to offend any woman, I am not sure why you think I am doing that. The we I talk about is humans, I always include myself in that group, yet I disagree with what we do most times.
    Saints preserve us! This is like letting the kittens play with the knitting.

    If you want to say that men often fight over women - say exactly that! Don't try and say that you're talking about humans, when you're talking only about men.

    And the same thing goes for ...

    I think he was talking about nations and history in general.
    If you're talking about history, or if you're talking about modern people, don't say "we" if you're excluding any groups like women or disabled people or people of the wrong religion/colour/ethnicity or people who barrack for the wrong team.

    If you're talking about men, say so.

    When you want to talk about everyone, everywhere, all the time, make sure that you're not excluding anyone.

    Why is that so hard?
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  95. #94  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    But it's irrelevant to the topic of discrimination. If you are rejected for a job because of your gender, that's discrimination. Makes little difference if you think women like to be prizes or manipulate men. If a woman or man is declined a position within a company due to gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc...it's discrimination. When you are hiring for a position, you need to look at people without bias. If you can't, you shouldn't be in the position of hiring or firing employees.

    Sheesh, and we wonder why affirmative action exists? lol
    you have to discriminate when hiring other wise you would have to hire everybody. you just shouldn't be allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

    On the other side of that, it is still discrimination if you hire somebody based solely on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc...
    May as well draw straws if everybody has the same qualifications instead of going to gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc...
     

  96. #95  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I am certainly not trying to offend any woman, I am not sure why you think I am doing that. The we I talk about is humans, I always include myself in that group, yet I disagree with what we do most times.
    Saints preserve us! This is like letting the kittens play with the knitting.

    If you want to say that men often fight over women - say exactly that! Don't try and say that you're talking about humans, when you're talking only about men.

    And the same thing goes for ...

    I think he was talking about nations and history in general.
    If you're talking about history, or if you're talking about modern people, don't say "we" if you're excluding any groups like women or disabled people or people of the wrong religion/colour/ethnicity or people who barrack for the wrong team.

    If you're talking about men, say so.

    When you want to talk about everyone, everywhere, all the time, make sure that you're not excluding anyone.

    Why is that so hard?
    seems nit picky since we are all part of a nation that represents us. Yes not everyone agrees with the actions that the old RICH white men take us in but unfortunately it still represents us.

    For example, I supported NONE of George W Bushes stupid wars and I was vocally against them, but I still have to say "we" when I talk about the US going to war with the middle east because this is my nation and like it or not that dumbsh*ts action are a reflection of me because I reside in this nation. So, in that sense yes it is "we" even if not all groups are/were represented. It's a broad generalization because anything else would be exclusive and serve to divide and segregate us further. Nobody has time for that kind of nonsense and if you do your efforts could surely be used somewhere else in more constructive ways.
     

  97. #96  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post

    The biggest effect that anti-discrimination policies have is to force people to think more carefully about the jobs themselves. It's happened to some extent for women - most people now don't think that women are automatically unsuitable for driving trucks and buses or for other positions that were reserved exclusively for men 30+ years ago. They need to reconsider their attitudes about the suitability of POC or immigrants or others who've not previously been employed for certain tasks or roles.
    The advent of power steering probably played the biggest role in motivating women to begin driving large vehicles. Before that you needed some serious upper body strength to turn the wheel, and most women didn't have it. (Except perhaps a select few body builders or uncommonly large women.)

    Female drivers are still a rare sight in commercial trucking, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    D
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    To force employers to hire people totally upon their ethnic makeup , to me, is reverse discrimination.
    But it's not totally in the example you gave, is it. It's the very last thing where you're having to choose between two people because you only have one job to offer - the problem wouldn't arise if you were looking for two employees for two identical positions. You'd have hired both of them in that case.
    It's racist, sexist, culturally elitist, or what other specific factor you have used to determine hiring.If you choose someone for something (whether it's good or bad) based solely on race, sex, or ethnicity, makes the decision racist, sexist, or culturally elitist.No way around it.
    You're right. And it is exactly how white heterosexual men have been running things in the US for decades.
    Wow, I'm sure if someone made a similar negative blanket statement about women or African Americans, gays, etc... many would feel justified in screaming "prejudice."It's not "White heterosexual men" It's, for the most part, the wealthy and the wealthy don't have a color or a gender. they simply have money. but beyond all of that, You're idea is to scream "racism is bad" and then turn around and legislate racism into being mandatory? Brilliant strategy.
    The US finally has an African American President. All the Presidents prior to Obama, have been white heterosexual men. No women.

    Facts. Not blanket generalizations.

    Affirmative action wouldn't have been necessary if people were treated fairly and equitably, historically. But they weren't. I'm not pro affirmative action by the way, but I understand why it came into play.
    Is it not a blanket generalization to suggest that deserving African American candidates have been historically overlooked? That Obama getting the office is somehow important because he happens to be black?

    How would that even matter to a person who was not obsessed with generalized categorizations? How is it of any use to the country to elect a person just because he happens to fit into a category (which we all acknowledge as having no bearing on his abilities)?


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Ahhh but I said "for the most part"
    Fair enough. And for the most part white heterosexual men have been running things in the US for decades.
    (cough cough...centuries even)
    You think it might be racist to suggest that white heterosexual men were the only group in history that ever excluded another group? Should every male with white skin have to prove to all viewers that he is not a devil, or have it assumed that he is merely because he has the skin tone of a devil?

    You don't think any group of black, Asian, or Polynesian people ever excluded someone for looking different? You don't think a group of women ever excluded a person from joining them because he wasn't a woman? It's an exclusively white male phenomenon?

    .... or would it perhaps be more parsimonious to suggest that the white male exclusive group is simply the last exclusive group in recent history that everybody wanted to join and couldn't? Perhaps the others were exclusive also, but fewer people wanted to join them, and consequently fewer people noticed their exclusiveness?

    The real crime of the white male exclusive group, then, is being too successful. Not being exclusive (unless the other groups all had open enrollment.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    "Before that you needed some serious upper body strength to turn the wheel"

    maybe I was just unlucky but the only truck I ever drove required constant/repeating freaking painful schwartzeneger leg pushing of the clutch,
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I am certainly not trying to offend any woman, I am not sure why you think I am doing that. The we I talk about is humans, I always include myself in that group, yet I disagree with what we do most times.
    Saints preserve us! This is like letting the kittens play with the knitting.

    If you want to say that men often fight over women - say exactly that! Don't try and say that you're talking about humans, when you're talking only about men.

    And the same thing goes for ...

    I think he was talking about nations and history in general.
    If you're talking about history, or if you're talking about modern people, don't say "we" if you're excluding any groups like women or disabled people or people of the wrong religion/colour/ethnicity or people who barrack for the wrong team.

    If you're talking about men, say so.

    When you want to talk about everyone, everywhere, all the time, make sure that you're not excluding anyone.

    Why is that so hard?
    I agree that we might be missing the point you are making, however, the issue was not about women as such but what people do and fight for. I do not want to go there because I am not arguing that point. I am sorry that you picked up on it that way, but you are also unable to look at what was meant.

    Saints preserve us! This is like letting the kittens play with the knitting.
    You said it Adelady, but it goes both ways.
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    [its fighting fire with fire (i understand the intent is good), but by using ridiculous classification as a basis for policy you are legitimising officialising these ridiculous labels (and disciminating based on these labels to boot!), like saying you are enacting the witch protection act to protect witches from discrimination instead of explaining theres no such thing as a witch flying on a broomstick.
    If the government defined witches as "non-Christian women who practice another religion" and arrested, tortured and killed them regularly then it would indeed make sense to pass witch protection acts to protect witches. Not because witches exist, but because people who the government calls witches are being arrested, tortured and killed.

    The reason that we use the term "black" as a basis for affirmative action is not because civil rights leaders arbitrarily chose a race to promote. It was because the GOVERNMENT engaged in a systematic program to deny blacks the right to marry, to go to school, to vote etc etc. And the term THEY used was "black." (Or colored, or mulatto, or negro, or whatever other arbitrary term was in vogue.) Much of this government-created discrimination has persisted even after they stopped targeting them; affirmative action seeks to correct that injustice. Hopefully one day it will no longer be necessary.
    How do we know it is necessary, and what criteria will be used to decide when to end it?
    grmpysmrf likes this.
     

  101. #100  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It was because the GOVERNMENT engaged in a systematic program to deny blacks the right to marry, to go to school, to vote etc etc.
    "We the people" did that....and it would still be true in many parts of the US if tyranny of the majority were allowed. It's still done though far more subtle...for example, make it as hard as possible for certain groups to vote, harass certain groups for buying things out of their neighborhoods, giving them the crappiest room or apartment, straddling the law when it comes to employment, promotions etc.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; March 5th, 2014 at 10:01 PM.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2013, 12:41 PM
  2. Skin
    By jenousaime in forum Biology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 19th, 2011, 04:37 PM
  3. cute skin is here
    By james99 in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 10th, 2008, 02:52 PM
  4. Replies: 26
    Last Post: February 14th, 2008, 03:20 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •