Is racism acceptable if it is against "whites"?
09 Sep 2010, 2:43 pm
tomhead wrote:
I don't agree with the way the poll question is worded.
In a majority-white country, prejudice against whites, while just as invalid as any race-based prejudice, is not racism. Racism refers to social patterns directed by those in the majority, with disproportionate economic and social power, against those in the minority, who face disproportionate economic and social challenges.
In a majority-white country, prejudice against whites, while just as invalid as any race-based prejudice, is not racism. Racism refers to social patterns directed by those in the majority, with disproportionate economic and social power, against those in the minority, who face disproportionate economic and social challenges.
I notice that the majority of people in here agree that this thing called "racism" is terrible, evil and immoral, and yet there is still all this disagreement on what the word actually means.
Tomhead here has gone for the full-on marxist definition, whereby he tries to show that the interests of one section of society are more moral than the rest because the former section are "oppressed".
PS - Tomhead, I can't help wondering what you mean by disproportionate economic power. Take a hypothetical example where a 60% racial majority have 60% of the wealth. Would that be disproportionate? Or how about a 20% minority who had 40% of the wealth?
Last edited by codarac on 09 Sep 2010, 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
09 Sep 2010, 2:49 pm
No racism is not acceptable if it is against whites. I don't consider affermative action racism however.
_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre
READ THIS -> https://represent.us/
09 Sep 2010, 6:21 pm
hyperlexian wrote:
no disadvantaged group has ever, ever recovered to the status of the dominant group within 2 generations,
This is pretty vague. What does 'recovered to the status of the dominant group' mean? Does it mean that nobody can remember that there used to be a disadvantage? Does it mean equivalence of legal rights? Does it mean gaining famous, powerful leaders from your group? Does it mean exact equivalence as measured by 75 different factors?
How small of a disparity would you require before dropping the government imposed discrimination you support?
Quote:
there is a long way to go still.
I'm not sure there is a long way to go still. Definitely the distance already travelled is longer than what remains.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
09 Sep 2010, 6:34 pm
zer0netgain wrote:
The failure of a generation to achieve is largely tied to the effort they put into being intelligent, cultured, educated, and hard working. Any kid who lives on MTV, playing Xbox, never worked a job until they turned 17, treated school as a social club where getting Cs was good enough has ZERO right or expectation of opportunity, regardless of skin color, and I consistently see that when ANY minority makes any significant effort to prepare for adulthood, they go places and doors do open for them...often at a greater pace than would be so for a member of the majority who has worked just as hard.
While I basically agree with your point here, I have to disagree with your description of someone who hasn't tried hard. It is quite possible to have done most or all of what you mention without majorly harming your future prospects.
Someone who did what you describe might have to work somewhat harder when they pull their head out of their butt and start really trying, but as long as they actually start working hard they'll basically be fine.
But, yeah, somone who does that and keeps on doing it is screwed, regardless of how rich their parents are.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
09 Sep 2010, 6:53 pm
tomhead wrote:
In a majority-white country, prejudice against whites, while just as invalid as any race-based prejudice, is not racism. Racism refers to social patterns directed by those in the majority, with disproportionate economic and social power, against those in the minority, who face disproportionate economic and social challenges.
Your definition would make apartheid in South Africa non-racist, since black people are a majority there.
From Dictionary.com:
rac·ism
/ˈreɪsɪzəm/ [rey-siz-uhm]
–noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Racism is racism, no matter who it's against.
Quote:
For similar reasons (even though women technically outnumber men), a woman who believes men are intrinsically worthless is not a sexist. She's probably an idiot, but she's not a sexist.
World English Dictionary:
sexism (ˈsɛksɪzəm)
— n
discrimination on the basis of sex, esp the oppression of women by men
If a woman thinks all men are worthless, then she's sexist.
Quote:
But in terms of what I think the question is meant to ask, I think black and Latino separatism, while understandable and morally superior to white separatism, are still outmoded and harmful ideas.
What's the difference? Both forms advocate separation of races, right? Where's the moral superiority?
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
09 Sep 2010, 8:42 pm
hyperlexian wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
i disagree, because it has hardly been 2 generations since certain minorities had equal rights in the united states. it takes longer than that to rise above disadvantage.
I can see your position, but I think 2 generations is more than ample time.
Show me any minority who claims to be disadvantaged, and I could likely find 10 times as many majority people from the same economic background (I acknowledge that wealth is the biggest legal form of discrimination in society) who are just as bad off.
The failure of a generation to achieve is largely tied to the effort they put into being intelligent, cultured, educated, and hard working. Any kid who lives on MTV, playing Xbox, never worked a job until they turned 17, treated school as a social club where getting Cs was good enough has ZERO right or expectation of opportunity, regardless of skin color, and I consistently see that when ANY minority makes any significant effort to prepare for adulthood, they go places and doors do open for them...often at a greater pace than would be so for a member of the majority who has worked just as hard.
Short of a given person/company choosing to discriminate, society just does not hold minorities back. Whites don't go to better schools or get better teachers. The rich do, but you have poverty affecting all races, creeds and genders, not just selected ones.
systemic disadvantage resonates for a long time. considering some of the racism and sexism that is still rampant in our society, there is a long way to go still.
Ever ever? Within two generations? Some groups have become dominant almost overnight. Christians/Muslims in the Levant? They spent years swapping dominance, and often over very short time scales. Just to pick a random.
It still isn't realistic to claim that minorities are being held back in nations where those minorities have people in high government. If minorities were really being held back by racist government approved policies, there wouldn't be a black president, and wouldn't have been a black Chief of Staff (or whatever the rank was.) It COULD NOT happen.
The disabled and ethnic minorities are not comparable in this situation. One is a group that IN PERPETUITY will always be DISABLED in some manner. A man in a wheelchair is in a wheelchair regardless of what nation he is in, or who is in government. Some sort of approach has to be made towards that in any reasonable society. An adaptation to the situation which allows him to achieve his potential despite his disability. In that same reasonable society Black people are not disabled, nor are the Chinese, Kosovans, Bulgarians, etc etc. There is NOTHING that prevents a black man from doing the same job as an Arab/Welshman/Asian/Siberian. Nothing at all. He will be able to perform that job anywhere in the world, because he is able-bodied. See the difference there?
Look at it another way. In some sort of race-blind utopia, a person of any race could seek employment safe in the knowledge that their race will never be an issue in that job, or in getting that job. In the same "racism-free" society, the guy with one arm will still have just the one arm, still be in the wheelchair, still communicate using his hands, still be disabled, still need that levelling of the playing field. Creating a society where ethnicity is not an issue is not impossible, merely difficult.
That is not to say that prejudice doesn't exist in employment against any given group. My point (again) is that discriminatory policies are not HELPING society become prejudice-free, they are HINDERING IT. Find a better policy.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
09 Sep 2010, 10:01 pm
Macbeth wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
i disagree, because it has hardly been 2 generations since certain minorities had equal rights in the united states. it takes longer than that to rise above disadvantage.
I can see your position, but I think 2 generations is more than ample time.
Show me any minority who claims to be disadvantaged, and I could likely find 10 times as many majority people from the same economic background (I acknowledge that wealth is the biggest legal form of discrimination in society) who are just as bad off.
The failure of a generation to achieve is largely tied to the effort they put into being intelligent, cultured, educated, and hard working. Any kid who lives on MTV, playing Xbox, never worked a job until they turned 17, treated school as a social club where getting Cs was good enough has ZERO right or expectation of opportunity, regardless of skin color, and I consistently see that when ANY minority makes any significant effort to prepare for adulthood, they go places and doors do open for them...often at a greater pace than would be so for a member of the majority who has worked just as hard.
Short of a given person/company choosing to discriminate, society just does not hold minorities back. Whites don't go to better schools or get better teachers. The rich do, but you have poverty affecting all races, creeds and genders, not just selected ones.
systemic disadvantage resonates for a long time. considering some of the racism and sexism that is still rampant in our society, there is a long way to go still.
Ever ever? Within two generations? Some groups have become dominant almost overnight. Christians/Muslims in the Levant? They spent years swapping dominance, and often over very short time scales. Just to pick a random.
It still isn't realistic to claim that minorities are being held back in nations where those minorities have people in high government. If minorities were really being held back by racist government approved policies, there wouldn't be a black president, and wouldn't have been a black Chief of Staff (or whatever the rank was.) It COULD NOT happen.
The disabled and ethnic minorities are not comparable in this situation. One is a group that IN PERPETUITY will always be DISABLED in some manner. A man in a wheelchair is in a wheelchair regardless of what nation he is in, or who is in government. Some sort of approach has to be made towards that in any reasonable society. An adaptation to the situation which allows him to achieve his potential despite his disability. In that same reasonable society Black people are not disabled, nor are the Chinese, Kosovans, Bulgarians, etc etc. There is NOTHING that prevents a black man from doing the same job as an Arab/Welshman/Asian/Siberian. Nothing at all. He will be able to perform that job anywhere in the world, because he is able-bodied. See the difference there?
Look at it another way. In some sort of race-blind utopia, a person of any race could seek employment safe in the knowledge that their race will never be an issue in that job, or in getting that job. In the same "racism-free" society, the guy with one arm will still have just the one arm, still be in the wheelchair, still communicate using his hands, still be disabled, still need that levelling of the playing field. Creating a society where ethnicity is not an issue is not impossible, merely difficult.
That is not to say that prejudice doesn't exist in employment against any given group. My point (again) is that discriminatory policies are not HELPING society become prejudice-free, they are HINDERING IT. Find a better policy.
disabilities do not equal lifetime disadvantages, necessarily. many people with disabilities do not even need accommodations at work. however, they may be selected against for jobs because many employers do not allow them equal opportunities - the same situation as for minorities. i gave this example already, so this argument is going in a circle.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
10 Sep 2010, 6:19 am
hyperlexian wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
i disagree, because it has hardly been 2 generations since certain minorities had equal rights in the united states. it takes longer than that to rise above disadvantage.
I can see your position, but I think 2 generations is more than ample time.
Show me any minority who claims to be disadvantaged, and I could likely find 10 times as many majority people from the same economic background (I acknowledge that wealth is the biggest legal form of discrimination in society) who are just as bad off.
The failure of a generation to achieve is largely tied to the effort they put into being intelligent, cultured, educated, and hard working. Any kid who lives on MTV, playing Xbox, never worked a job until they turned 17, treated school as a social club where getting Cs was good enough has ZERO right or expectation of opportunity, regardless of skin color, and I consistently see that when ANY minority makes any significant effort to prepare for adulthood, they go places and doors do open for them...often at a greater pace than would be so for a member of the majority who has worked just as hard.
Short of a given person/company choosing to discriminate, society just does not hold minorities back. Whites don't go to better schools or get better teachers. The rich do, but you have poverty affecting all races, creeds and genders, not just selected ones.
systemic disadvantage resonates for a long time. considering some of the racism and sexism that is still rampant in our society, there is a long way to go still.
And, again, I question, "From what premise you are operating?" What do you define as "dominant group?"
Well-to-do White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs)?
News flash. The vast majority of "white" (classified as "majority) Americans live in lower-middle class to poverty. The "dominant group" you look at in America might be "white" but they are by and large the "wealthy white," and as I pointed out, every race suffers oppression on the basis on economic status.
Today, a minority has as much opportunity as any other person in the same general economic strata of society...perhaps even more when you consider the number of public policies, programs and organizations that push for the advancement and protection of minority interests. I've yet to see a single program designed to help white people who exist in generational poverty get anything to improve their standing in society.
Back in 1998, I saw a college student stage a media event for his own agenda where he criticized our school for being a place for "privileged white kids." He conveniently chose to omit the fact that over 90% of the student body depended on some form of financial aid to attend classes, and likely half of the student body were the first person in their family to ever attend college. Yeah, by virtue of physical location in the USA, the school was packed with a lot of "white" kids, but hardly any of them came from wealthy white families and certainly were not children of "privilege." That he even chose to lump Irish, German, French, Dutch, Italian, Greek, etc. (all of which have faced discrimination in US history) into one generalized race category as to magnify his self-proclaimed injustice of persecution as a "minority" on campus was the very definition of "racism."
Study the history of American immigrants. See how farmers and coal miners and factory workers were treated when they came to this country. See how being "white" didn't open doors for them because the mainstream "privileged" people didn't want "those kind" rubbing elbows up at their level of society.
"Minorities" (e.g., non-whites by current definition) are not the only people to be the victim of generations-long oppression and discrimination, and it's an insult to imply that their suffering is the only one that's relevant.
10 Sep 2010, 6:56 am
hyperlexian wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
i disagree, because it has hardly been 2 generations since certain minorities had equal rights in the united states. it takes longer than that to rise above disadvantage.
I can see your position, but I think 2 generations is more than ample time.
Show me any minority who claims to be disadvantaged, and I could likely find 10 times as many majority people from the same economic background (I acknowledge that wealth is the biggest legal form of discrimination in society) who are just as bad off.
The failure of a generation to achieve is largely tied to the effort they put into being intelligent, cultured, educated, and hard working. Any kid who lives on MTV, playing Xbox, never worked a job until they turned 17, treated school as a social club where getting Cs was good enough has ZERO right or expectation of opportunity, regardless of skin color, and I consistently see that when ANY minority makes any significant effort to prepare for adulthood, they go places and doors do open for them...often at a greater pace than would be so for a member of the majority who has worked just as hard.
Short of a given person/company choosing to discriminate, society just does not hold minorities back. Whites don't go to better schools or get better teachers. The rich do, but you have poverty affecting all races, creeds and genders, not just selected ones.
systemic disadvantage resonates for a long time. considering some of the racism and sexism that is still rampant in our society, there is a long way to go still.
Ever ever? Within two generations? Some groups have become dominant almost overnight. Christians/Muslims in the Levant? They spent years swapping dominance, and often over very short time scales. Just to pick a random.
It still isn't realistic to claim that minorities are being held back in nations where those minorities have people in high government. If minorities were really being held back by racist government approved policies, there wouldn't be a black president, and wouldn't have been a black Chief of Staff (or whatever the rank was.) It COULD NOT happen.
The disabled and ethnic minorities are not comparable in this situation. One is a group that IN PERPETUITY will always be DISABLED in some manner. A man in a wheelchair is in a wheelchair regardless of what nation he is in, or who is in government. Some sort of approach has to be made towards that in any reasonable society. An adaptation to the situation which allows him to achieve his potential despite his disability. In that same reasonable society Black people are not disabled, nor are the Chinese, Kosovans, Bulgarians, etc etc. There is NOTHING that prevents a black man from doing the same job as an Arab/Welshman/Asian/Siberian. Nothing at all. He will be able to perform that job anywhere in the world, because he is able-bodied. See the difference there?
Look at it another way. In some sort of race-blind utopia, a person of any race could seek employment safe in the knowledge that their race will never be an issue in that job, or in getting that job. In the same "racism-free" society, the guy with one arm will still have just the one arm, still be in the wheelchair, still communicate using his hands, still be disabled, still need that levelling of the playing field. Creating a society where ethnicity is not an issue is not impossible, merely difficult.
That is not to say that prejudice doesn't exist in employment against any given group. My point (again) is that discriminatory policies are not HELPING society become prejudice-free, they are HINDERING IT. Find a better policy.
disabilities do not equal lifetime disadvantages, necessarily. many people with disabilities do not even need accommodations at work. however, they may be selected against for jobs because many employers do not allow them equal opportunities - the same situation as for minorities. i gave this example already, so this argument is going in a circle.
Being selected AGAINST is not the same as being FAVOURED for. The act of making employers favour ethnic employees over any other simply because they are of an ethnic minority is inherently wrong. It would also be wrong to favour a disabled employee over another simply because they are disabled. The goal to aim for is when those things are not considered as a downside to employing that person. Enforced prejudice is NOT HELPING.
And it wasn't "temporary military dominance. It was the wholesale removal of one group and its replacement with another, commonplace in the Levant. Calling it "temporary military dominance" shows a lack of knowledge of the event and its intricacies.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
10 Sep 2010, 7:06 am
Macbeth wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
i disagree, because it has hardly been 2 generations since certain minorities had equal rights in the united states. it takes longer than that to rise above disadvantage.
I can see your position, but I think 2 generations is more than ample time.
Show me any minority who claims to be disadvantaged, and I could likely find 10 times as many majority people from the same economic background (I acknowledge that wealth is the biggest legal form of discrimination in society) who are just as bad off.
The failure of a generation to achieve is largely tied to the effort they put into being intelligent, cultured, educated, and hard working. Any kid who lives on MTV, playing Xbox, never worked a job until they turned 17, treated school as a social club where getting Cs was good enough has ZERO right or expectation of opportunity, regardless of skin color, and I consistently see that when ANY minority makes any significant effort to prepare for adulthood, they go places and doors do open for them...often at a greater pace than would be so for a member of the majority who has worked just as hard.
Short of a given person/company choosing to discriminate, society just does not hold minorities back. Whites don't go to better schools or get better teachers. The rich do, but you have poverty affecting all races, creeds and genders, not just selected ones.
systemic disadvantage resonates for a long time. considering some of the racism and sexism that is still rampant in our society, there is a long way to go still.
Ever ever? Within two generations? Some groups have become dominant almost overnight. Christians/Muslims in the Levant? They spent years swapping dominance, and often over very short time scales. Just to pick a random.
It still isn't realistic to claim that minorities are being held back in nations where those minorities have people in high government. If minorities were really being held back by racist government approved policies, there wouldn't be a black president, and wouldn't have been a black Chief of Staff (or whatever the rank was.) It COULD NOT happen.
The disabled and ethnic minorities are not comparable in this situation. One is a group that IN PERPETUITY will always be DISABLED in some manner. A man in a wheelchair is in a wheelchair regardless of what nation he is in, or who is in government. Some sort of approach has to be made towards that in any reasonable society. An adaptation to the situation which allows him to achieve his potential despite his disability. In that same reasonable society Black people are not disabled, nor are the Chinese, Kosovans, Bulgarians, etc etc. There is NOTHING that prevents a black man from doing the same job as an Arab/Welshman/Asian/Siberian. Nothing at all. He will be able to perform that job anywhere in the world, because he is able-bodied. See the difference there?
Look at it another way. In some sort of race-blind utopia, a person of any race could seek employment safe in the knowledge that their race will never be an issue in that job, or in getting that job. In the same "racism-free" society, the guy with one arm will still have just the one arm, still be in the wheelchair, still communicate using his hands, still be disabled, still need that levelling of the playing field. Creating a society where ethnicity is not an issue is not impossible, merely difficult.
That is not to say that prejudice doesn't exist in employment against any given group. My point (again) is that discriminatory policies are not HELPING society become prejudice-free, they are HINDERING IT. Find a better policy.
disabilities do not equal lifetime disadvantages, necessarily. many people with disabilities do not even need accommodations at work. however, they may be selected against for jobs because many employers do not allow them equal opportunities - the same situation as for minorities. i gave this example already, so this argument is going in a circle.
Being selected AGAINST is not the same as being FAVOURED for. The act of making employers favour ethnic employees over any other simply because they are of an ethnic minority is inherently wrong. It would also be wrong to favour a disabled employee over another simply because they are disabled. The goal to aim for is when those things are not considered as a downside to employing that person. Enforced prejudice is NOT HELPING.
And it wasn't "temporary military dominance. It was the wholesale removal of one group and its replacement with another, commonplace in the Levant. Calling it "temporary military dominance" shows a lack of knowledge of the event and its intricacies.
this is getting boring to explain the same thing over and over.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
10 Sep 2010, 7:21 am
hyperlexian wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
i disagree, because it has hardly been 2 generations since certain minorities had equal rights in the united states. it takes longer than that to rise above disadvantage.
I can see your position, but I think 2 generations is more than ample time.
Show me any minority who claims to be disadvantaged, and I could likely find 10 times as many majority people from the same economic background (I acknowledge that wealth is the biggest legal form of discrimination in society) who are just as bad off.
The failure of a generation to achieve is largely tied to the effort they put into being intelligent, cultured, educated, and hard working. Any kid who lives on MTV, playing Xbox, never worked a job until they turned 17, treated school as a social club where getting Cs was good enough has ZERO right or expectation of opportunity, regardless of skin color, and I consistently see that when ANY minority makes any significant effort to prepare for adulthood, they go places and doors do open for them...often at a greater pace than would be so for a member of the majority who has worked just as hard.
Short of a given person/company choosing to discriminate, society just does not hold minorities back. Whites don't go to better schools or get better teachers. The rich do, but you have poverty affecting all races, creeds and genders, not just selected ones.
systemic disadvantage resonates for a long time. considering some of the racism and sexism that is still rampant in our society, there is a long way to go still.
Ever ever? Within two generations? Some groups have become dominant almost overnight. Christians/Muslims in the Levant? They spent years swapping dominance, and often over very short time scales. Just to pick a random.
It still isn't realistic to claim that minorities are being held back in nations where those minorities have people in high government. If minorities were really being held back by racist government approved policies, there wouldn't be a black president, and wouldn't have been a black Chief of Staff (or whatever the rank was.) It COULD NOT happen.
The disabled and ethnic minorities are not comparable in this situation. One is a group that IN PERPETUITY will always be DISABLED in some manner. A man in a wheelchair is in a wheelchair regardless of what nation he is in, or who is in government. Some sort of approach has to be made towards that in any reasonable society. An adaptation to the situation which allows him to achieve his potential despite his disability. In that same reasonable society Black people are not disabled, nor are the Chinese, Kosovans, Bulgarians, etc etc. There is NOTHING that prevents a black man from doing the same job as an Arab/Welshman/Asian/Siberian. Nothing at all. He will be able to perform that job anywhere in the world, because he is able-bodied. See the difference there?
Look at it another way. In some sort of race-blind utopia, a person of any race could seek employment safe in the knowledge that their race will never be an issue in that job, or in getting that job. In the same "racism-free" society, the guy with one arm will still have just the one arm, still be in the wheelchair, still communicate using his hands, still be disabled, still need that levelling of the playing field. Creating a society where ethnicity is not an issue is not impossible, merely difficult.
That is not to say that prejudice doesn't exist in employment against any given group. My point (again) is that discriminatory policies are not HELPING society become prejudice-free, they are HINDERING IT. Find a better policy.
disabilities do not equal lifetime disadvantages, necessarily. many people with disabilities do not even need accommodations at work. however, they may be selected against for jobs because many employers do not allow them equal opportunities - the same situation as for minorities. i gave this example already, so this argument is going in a circle.
Being selected AGAINST is not the same as being FAVOURED for. The act of making employers favour ethnic employees over any other simply because they are of an ethnic minority is inherently wrong. It would also be wrong to favour a disabled employee over another simply because they are disabled. The goal to aim for is when those things are not considered as a downside to employing that person. Enforced prejudice is NOT HELPING.
And it wasn't "temporary military dominance. It was the wholesale removal of one group and its replacement with another, commonplace in the Levant. Calling it "temporary military dominance" shows a lack of knowledge of the event and its intricacies.
this is getting boring to explain the same thing over and over.
Which is STILL DISCRIMINATION.
If both applicants are equally qualified and the black one gets the job SIMPLY BECAUSE OF HIS RACE then it is discrimination. This is a BAD THING which makes the situation WORSE, NOT BETTER. Other applicants will feel that they have been rejected on unfair grounds, will blame the ethnic minority, and just feed the belief that "they are coming over here and stealing our jobs." In many places that attitude will exist even when the black applicant is BETTER qualified, which demonstrates that in that area society needs a lot of help. But REQUIRING employers to favour the ethnic minority applicant will only make it worse.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
10 Sep 2010, 7:30 am
discrimination =/= racism. and discrimination can be good thing if it helps people who are at a societal disadvantage. oh, and for the white males who may find themselves discriminated against... they can use the same advice as several people gave to minorities on this thread: they can just try harder and work harder to improve their own situation couldn't they? after all, if they are the very best qualified at the job, there will no competitiion with minorities any longer.
_________________
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: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
10 Sep 2010, 7:36 am
hyperlexian wrote:
discrimination =/= racism. and discrimination can be good thing if it helps people who are at a societal disadvantage. oh, and for the white males who may find themselves discriminated against... they can use the same advice as several people gave to minorities on this thread: they can just try harder and work harder to improve their own situation couldn't they? after all, if they are the very best qualified at the job, there will no competitiion with minorities any longer.
Not with preferential laws in place that seek to promote "equality" but in lieu cause its diametric opposite.
10 Sep 2010, 7:44 am
Yyou missed the point. the laws do not allow people who are less qualified to get a position. it promotes the hiring of a minority person of EQUAL qualifications, therefore if the white man is better qualified, or more skilled, the problem is solved. i guess it's time for this group to stop being complacent?
_________________
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: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
10 Sep 2010, 8:21 am
hyperlexian wrote:
Yyou missed the point. the laws do not allow people who are less qualified to get a position. it promotes the hiring of a minority person of EQUAL qualifications, therefore if the white man is better qualified, or more skilled, the problem is solved. i guess it's time for this group to stop being complacent?
In terms of equal qualifications, the "white man" will be selected against. In terms of superior qualifications, the "white man" may be able to obtain employment, but only if the cost of hiring an employee with no taxation benefits is offset by the quantity of work he can do in excess of the standard which others, who convey a taxation benefit due to their skin color or sexual preference or other qualifications entitling them to the benefits obtainable by merely being officially labeled a "minority", set.
