Which people-groups are currently allowed to be hated?

Page 7 of 9 [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next


Which people-groups are currently allowed to be hated?
Christians 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
"Fundies" 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
"Neocons" 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Whites 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Non-whites 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Men 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Women 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Adults 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Teens 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Children 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Infants 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
Unborns 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Elderly 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
"Racists" 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
"Homophobes" 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
A combination of the above and more 31%  31%  [ 11 ]
Nobody *is* "allowed" to be hated, but hating some groups is often more socially acceptable than hating others. 33%  33%  [ 12 ]
Total votes : 36

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

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.

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).


Eldanesh
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 292
Location: Canada

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?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

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?


I hate being dirty. My hatred of being dirty motivates me to stay clean. So what is wrong with hatred?

ruveyn



Eldanesh
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 292
Location: Canada

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.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

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



Eldanesh
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 292
Location: Canada

19 Oct 2010, 1:44 pm

But they could be more effective if their motivation is pragmatic not absolute (emotional). It is better to consider the means to an end, rather than just an end



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Oct 2010, 1:54 pm

Eldanesh wrote:
absolute (emotional)


Absolute is not the same as emotional.


Mathematics is as close to absolute as most people would be willing to concede, you know 1 + 2 = 3, 4(5 + 6) = 20 + 24, etc. Emotional would be hurling the textbook.



Eldanesh
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 292
Location: Canada

19 Oct 2010, 2:11 pm

Word choice!
Absolute in the sense that emotions are often a motivation without an understanding, but I can see how it could be viewed differently,/ misconstrued.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

19 Oct 2010, 2:34 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
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?


Notice that it also doesn't cover minor inconveniences to any race, nor does it cover disparaging statements about other races that fall short of claiming genetic inferiority.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

19 Oct 2010, 5:59 pm

Fundies , neocons, racists and homophobes are all morons.As they are morons they deserve no respect whatsoever. Lack of respect however is not hate. But just because I don't hate a person it doesn't mean she is not a moron.


_________________
.


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

19 Oct 2010, 6:10 pm

Dox47 wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
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?


Notice that it also doesn't cover minor inconveniences to any race, nor does it cover disparaging statements about other races that fall short of claiming genetic inferiority.

yes.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Oct 2010, 6:18 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
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?


Notice that it also doesn't cover minor inconveniences to any race, nor does it cover disparaging statements about other races that fall short of claiming genetic inferiority.

yes.

Did you notice that the definition you provided from the Omniscient Wikipedia said that racism also involves preferential treatment? The policies of Affirmative Action and "Equal Opportunity Employment" were made by Congress and the Senate. These policies encourage the preferential treatment of some individuals over others on the basis of skin color or other minority status, so Congress and the Senate encourage racism.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

19 Oct 2010, 6:28 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
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?


Notice that it also doesn't cover minor inconveniences to any race, nor does it cover disparaging statements about other races that fall short of claiming genetic inferiority.

yes.

Did you notice that the definition you provided from the Omniscient Wikipedia said that racism also involves preferential treatment? The policies of Affirmative Action and "Equal Opportunity Employment" were made by Congress and the Senate. These policies encourage the preferential treatment of some individuals over others on the basis of skin color or other minority status, so Congress and the Senate encourage racism.

nope, that is a minor inconvenience as long as disproportionately more white people have positions in those same fields. in many cases, even with equal opportunity employment programs, certain groups are still disadvantaged. affirmative action is intended to change systemic racism (also included in the definition).

besides, if there is a job to fill, and there are 2 equal candidates - one white and one black, why shouldn't the black person be selected, in those careers where they are underrepresented? why not fill the job with an individual who is institutionally disadvantaged, if all other aspects are equal?

in that definition, the "preferential treatment" is based on the idea of superiority. nobody is saying racial minorites are superior - simply equal. based on that distinction, affirmative action is not racist.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Oct 2010, 6:43 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
if there is a job to fill, and there are 2 equal candidates -


Then flip a coin.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

19 Oct 2010, 6:55 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
if there is a job to fill, and there are 2 equal candidates -


Then flip a coin.

ahh, i see that once again you have ignored my main point. i already explained in the comment itself as to why one candidate would be chosen over another, but you are disregarding that part.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Oct 2010, 7:07 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
if there is a job to fill, and there are 2 equal candidates -


Then flip a coin.

ahh, i see that once again you have ignored my main point. i already explained in the comment itself as to why one candidate would be chosen over another, but you are disregarding that part.


In another thread you actually responded that some forms of racism are acceptable. I hope you don't mind me disregarding that one as well.