Which people-groups are currently allowed to be hated?
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
19 Oct 2010, 9:35 am
hyperlexian wrote:
racism =/= reverse racism
False, it is the same thing, and as long as you are going to argue ad naseum the opposite goal I will do the same but with wasting less words upon you. Verbal negation is what you really do, like a toddler who's just learned how to say "no" for the first time and decides to use it all the time for eternity.
19 Oct 2010, 9:41 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
It's sort of like a rich person saying "I'm starving" after just having eaten 2 hours earlier as compared to an unemployed person who hasn't been able to afford to eat for a week saying "I'm hungry". The rich person is more used to eating when they want to that if they were deprived of it they'd feel cheated instantly, whereas the unemployed person getting to eat a meal doesn't happen that often and saying "I'm hungry" for them is an understatement whereas saying "I'm starving" for the rich person is an overstatement.
Likewise, as the internal act of getting offended becomes more and more socially reprehensible, the more frivolous the items taken offense at will be. With more freedom of speech permitted, and unpunished, more offenses are bound to occur but recognition of what actually merits offense will be refined as well.
When I worked at McDonald's, for instance, there would often be customers offended at the slightest of things - like having to wait 2 minutes and 45 seconds while fries cooked in the deep fryer. Compare this to what the employees have to put up with near constantly - angry customers and managers who keep threatening their employment status. The customers enter with the attitude of aristocracy and the mindset that the people who wait upon them are servants, and as such any offense happening within the mind of a customer often leads to threats from the customer and demands that the persons they have taken offense at be executed. They don't know how to control their emotions because they believe the internal act of taking offense to be external and thus seek the removal of the cause of their internal offense. Now it might not be good business to have employees allowed to talk-back to such high minded individuals as that form of customer, as that type of customer would walk out after getting offended to the point, for them, of being homicidal, but if it were a general situation that employees could respond in kind to such customers I think that more people would finally grow a spinal column and have a bit more emotional fortitude.
Likewise, as the internal act of getting offended becomes more and more socially reprehensible, the more frivolous the items taken offense at will be. With more freedom of speech permitted, and unpunished, more offenses are bound to occur but recognition of what actually merits offense will be refined as well.
When I worked at McDonald's, for instance, there would often be customers offended at the slightest of things - like having to wait 2 minutes and 45 seconds while fries cooked in the deep fryer. Compare this to what the employees have to put up with near constantly - angry customers and managers who keep threatening their employment status. The customers enter with the attitude of aristocracy and the mindset that the people who wait upon them are servants, and as such any offense happening within the mind of a customer often leads to threats from the customer and demands that the persons they have taken offense at be executed. They don't know how to control their emotions because they believe the internal act of taking offense to be external and thus seek the removal of the cause of their internal offense. Now it might not be good business to have employees allowed to talk-back to such high minded individuals as that form of customer, as that type of customer would walk out after getting offended to the point, for them, of being homicidal, but if it were a general situation that employees could respond in kind to such customers I think that more people would finally grow a spinal column and have a bit more emotional fortitude.
thank you for providing a perfect analogy to support the idea that reverse racism is not as bad as regular racism (if it exists at all, which has not been established). in this analogy, a white male who experiences "racism" is like the rich man claiming to be starving. i think white people have become oversensitive ("offended at the slightest of things", as you said) to perceived racism, but it pales in comparison to what minorites have hostorically experienced.
even the idea that the rich people externalize blame fits really well. one example of reverse racism that was under consideration was the idea of being passed over for a job because of a white skin tone. in fact, it very likely has more to do with qualifications and experience, because hiring quotas are generally based on proportionally representing the actual population within the workforce. anyway, instead of a person taking responsibility for becoming a competitive choice in the workforce, the tendency is to blame the employers for supposedly racist hiring practices.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
19 Oct 2010, 9:51 am
hyperlexian wrote:
true, it is anecdotal, as are all examples of reverse racism. sure, reverse racism is wrong in principle, but since there is no verifiable evidence it is happening... it is a pointless ummm point.
i disagree that racism against whites is the same thing as racism against minorities, even if it does happen. after a couple hundred years of slavery and subjugation, we can talk.
i disagree that racism against whites is the same thing as racism against minorities, even if it does happen. after a couple hundred years of slavery and subjugation, we can talk.
You have to realize that racism against whites is the same thing and it only serves to embitter those people against minorities and eventually serves to do little more than continue the racism.
As far as whether it's happening or not: your stating that it's okay is all the fodder that's needed for people to start pulling out that victim card.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
19 Oct 2010, 11:01 am
hyperlexian wrote:
Dox47, you just made me laugh out loud on the bus. you dismissed my anecdotal experience, then reintroduced it as an argument against me! nice try, but that won't work. how can i help you to understand that the experiences of reverse racism are laughably minor compared to the experience of systemic racism suffered by minorities. as i recall, many people disagreed that hiring quotas were even valid example of racism of any sort, so it does not function as an example here.
I dismissed your anecdotal experience because it had no relevance beyond shedding light on your personal views. That you'd then claim that there was no evidence of "reverse" racism, having just related a personal episode describing it, seemed disingenuous at best. What you fail to understand is that regardless of the impact or historical precedent, racism is always wrong, and it is always equally wrong.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
19 Oct 2010, 11:24 am
Dox47 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Has anyone mentioned this, which is not on the list (sorry, haven't read all 6 pages):
The obese. People see it as a choice (which isn't necessarily true, but some people are pretty stubborn in that opinion). It is the closest thing we seem to have right now as a free-for-all target.
The obese. People see it as a choice (which isn't necessarily true, but some people are pretty stubborn in that opinion). It is the closest thing we seem to have right now as a free-for-all target.
Smokers too; it's amazing what people think is acceptable behavior towards someone who's smoking.
True, I saw a bit of that with my father. But the argument exists there, in specific situations, that the person is taking an action that can harm another. That isn't true when the target of hate is merely overweight (although there are times they could inconvenience you, which they should be willing to address, like in close quarters seating).
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
19 Oct 2010, 12:06 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
racism =/= reverse racism
False, it is the same thing, and as long as you are going to argue ad naseum the opposite goal I will do the same but with wasting less words upon you. Verbal negation is what you really do, like a toddler who's just learned how to say "no" for the first time and decides to use it all the time for eternity.really? because your multiple threads on the same topic are the same thing... pot/kettle. the cute simile is especially fun! let me try:
your repeated arguments and threads on the same topic are like a whiny 5-year-old who stamps his foot and says, "it's not fair!" and endlessly refuses to listen to any reason.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
19 Oct 2010, 12:20 pm
hyperlexian wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
...There is no such thing as "reverse" racism, only racism, and it is always wrong...
...reverse racism is wrong in principle... ...i disagree that racism against whites is the same thing as racism against minorities...
"reverse racism" is a stupid and, to be honest, racist term. it implies that there is a specific group that is the only source of "racism" and any "racism" directed at them is reciprocation and, therefore, justifiable. what is this "specific group?" is it a race?
'cause that's a pretty racist way of looking at racism.
so if the direction of racism isn't important, "reverse racism" being racism, shouldn't you feel a bit silly attempting to contradict the statement: "racism is racism?"
argue your point. don't argue to argue. arguing that "X /= X" is just trying to be right and even if you win, it's a hollow victory.
want to argue about racism from that angle? point out the disparity in severity and acceptance.
and ffs, stop pretending that "minority" means non-white (especially when your anecdote was about you being a white minority) or that "minority" is a race. my irony meter overloads every time someone attacks the idea of racist white people while implying that all non-white races = "other."
and just because i don't think it gets said enough,
Dox47 wrote:
...There is no such thing as "reverse" racism, only racism, and it is always wrong...
_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)
19 Oct 2010, 12:31 pm
okay, i will clarify. anybody can experience what appears to be discrimination (or gender bias, which for the sake of a refreshing break, i will use an an example below). but we don't have any proof to show that the occurrences are caused by racism or sexism. theoretically, it is possible, but there is no evidence to show any kind of disadvantage caused by the supposed anti-white racism or anti-male sexism (with the exception of anecdotal reports).
racism implies some detriment or disadvantage caused to the groups affected. whites are not hurting in our system, so they would not seem to have any actual problems with racism. i would encourage anyone to demonstrate that whites have any disadvatantage in our system... the evidence does not exist. that is why i would not call it racism.
for example, a male could be passed over for a welding job. however that does not mean that sexism is a problem in the welding industry - it just means that the man was passed over for that particular job. it could have been due to his credentials, his experience, or any other reason.
just because there is the appearance of a man not getting the job because of his gender, it does not mean that sexism is the underlying cause. there may even be a hiring quota of females, but that does not make it sexism to pass him over for the job. it is already a male-dominated industry, therefore a detriment to males could not be proven by a single male being passed over for a job. the industry was sexist to begin with, and the hiring quotas help ELIMINATE systemic sexism.
selective hiring is a good idea. that doesn't make it racism against whites or sexism against men. a minority or female applicant is required to have equal qualifications to any white or male counterpart. if they are chosen for a job, the primary reason must be that they are the best candidate.
the definition of racism is hotly contested, but wikipedia has a succinct definition that i agree with:
Quote:
Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.[1] Racism's effects are called "racial discrimination." In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or receive preferential treatment.
do you see that the minor actions that appear to be racism against whites are not included in this definition?
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
19 Oct 2010, 12:42 pm
hyperlexian wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
It's sort of like a rich person saying "I'm starving" after just having eaten 2 hours earlier as compared to an unemployed person who hasn't been able to afford to eat for a week saying "I'm hungry". The rich person is more used to eating when they want to that if they were deprived of it they'd feel cheated instantly, whereas the unemployed person getting to eat a meal doesn't happen that often and saying "I'm hungry" for them is an understatement whereas saying "I'm starving" for the rich person is an overstatement.
Likewise, as the internal act of getting offended becomes more and more socially reprehensible, the more frivolous the items taken offense at will be. With more freedom of speech permitted, and unpunished, more offenses are bound to occur but recognition of what actually merits offense will be refined as well.
When I worked at McDonald's, for instance, there would often be customers offended at the slightest of things - like having to wait 2 minutes and 45 seconds while fries cooked in the deep fryer. Compare this to what the employees have to put up with near constantly - angry customers and managers who keep threatening their employment status. The customers enter with the attitude of aristocracy and the mindset that the people who wait upon them are servants, and as such any offense happening within the mind of a customer often leads to threats from the customer and demands that the persons they have taken offense at be executed. They don't know how to control their emotions because they believe the internal act of taking offense to be external and thus seek the removal of the cause of their internal offense. Now it might not be good business to have employees allowed to talk-back to such high minded individuals as that form of customer, as that type of customer would walk out after getting offended to the point, for them, of being homicidal, but if it were a general situation that employees could respond in kind to such customers I think that more people would finally grow a spinal column and have a bit more emotional fortitude.
Likewise, as the internal act of getting offended becomes more and more socially reprehensible, the more frivolous the items taken offense at will be. With more freedom of speech permitted, and unpunished, more offenses are bound to occur but recognition of what actually merits offense will be refined as well.
When I worked at McDonald's, for instance, there would often be customers offended at the slightest of things - like having to wait 2 minutes and 45 seconds while fries cooked in the deep fryer. Compare this to what the employees have to put up with near constantly - angry customers and managers who keep threatening their employment status. The customers enter with the attitude of aristocracy and the mindset that the people who wait upon them are servants, and as such any offense happening within the mind of a customer often leads to threats from the customer and demands that the persons they have taken offense at be executed. They don't know how to control their emotions because they believe the internal act of taking offense to be external and thus seek the removal of the cause of their internal offense. Now it might not be good business to have employees allowed to talk-back to such high minded individuals as that form of customer, as that type of customer would walk out after getting offended to the point, for them, of being homicidal, but if it were a general situation that employees could respond in kind to such customers I think that more people would finally grow a spinal column and have a bit more emotional fortitude.
thank you for providing a perfect analogy to support the idea that reverse racism is not as bad as regular racism (if it exists at all, which has not been established). in this analogy, a white male who experiences "racism" is like the rich man claiming to be starving. i think white people have become oversensitive ("offended at the slightest of things", as you said) to perceived racism, but it pales in comparison to what minorites have hostorically experienced.
even the idea that the rich people externalize blame fits really well. one example of reverse racism that was under consideration was the idea of being passed over for a job because of a white skin tone. in fact, it very likely has more to do with qualifications and experience, because hiring quotas are generally based on proportionally representing the actual population within the workforce. anyway, instead of a person taking responsibility for becoming a competitive choice in the workforce, the tendency is to blame the employers for supposedly racist hiring practices.
I think the problem isn't that so-called reverse racism is any less wrong, but more that the term tends to be misapplied. Employment quotas and affirmative action aren't racism; they may be ill advised policy, but they are not racism, and the use of the term in that situation is inappropriate.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
19 Oct 2010, 1:00 pm
People should be allowed to hate whoever they like.
That doens't really change what they can and cannot do in respect to the law. Besides, hate is an emotion of weakness, it makes you vulnerable and easily manipulated. It also often creates weak rationalization for causes that would otherwise make no sense. So why would you put yourslef through that?
19 Oct 2010, 1:29 pm
Eldanesh wrote:
People should be allowed to hate whoever they like.
That doens't really change what they can and cannot do in respect to the law. Besides, hate is an emotion of weakness, it makes you vulnerable and easily manipulated. It also often creates weak rationalization for causes that would otherwise make no sense. So why would you put yourslef through that?
That doens't really change what they can and cannot do in respect to the law. Besides, hate is an emotion of weakness, it makes you vulnerable and easily manipulated. It also often creates weak rationalization for causes that would otherwise make no sense. So why would you put yourslef through that?
I hate being dirty. My hatred of being dirty motivates me to stay clean. So what is wrong with hatred?
ruveyn
19 Oct 2010, 1:36 pm
That's not so bad, but wouldn't your health be improved if you motivation for sanitation was aligned with more objective standards? IE: Bacteriaphobes who haven't realized the human body lives in synergy with many bacteria strains that improve bodily function?
Last edited by Eldanesh on 19 Oct 2010, 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
19 Oct 2010, 1:39 pm
Eldanesh wrote:
That's not so bad, but wouldn't your health be improved if you motivation for sanitation was aligned with more objective standards? IE: Bacteriaphobes who haven't realized the human body lives in synergy with many bacteria strains that improve bodily function?
Whatever moves a person to do the right thing or a useful thing is o.k..
ruveyn
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Why is Elmer Fudd hated? |
Yesterday, 10:47 pm |
| What can I do if I don't go to social groups, volunteering? |
12 Apr 2024, 10:47 am |
| Groups Go to Court to Get Wolves Relisted in Montana & Idaho |
13 Apr 2024, 5:33 pm |
| What do people expect people of a certain age to look like? |
29 Feb 2024, 9:19 pm |
