Is discrimination okay if against whites???

Page 3 of 6 [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,145

24 Mar 2022, 4:59 am

HighLlama wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
sigh! we seem to go in circles on this forum. like one of ironpony's threads except on steroids.

the missing element which everybody on this thread (except Kraichie) has missed is the power differential. Social and institutional power remains in the hands of old white men in courtrooms, boardrooms and in committees and in senior management. Laws are made and acted upon to favor you if you belong to the majority community, minorities get the short end of the stick in terms of discrimination.


Laws benefit a minority too. If government is property, law will benefit those with the most property--which are a minority group. The problem is most people expect the law to work for them and continually wonder why it doesn't. It's not supposed to.


correction, they benefit some members of a minority who (even then) still have to face a another hundred or so barriers in life



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,145

24 Mar 2022, 5:45 am

funeralxempire wrote:
I'm not sure it's discrimination to point out that most of the people who write and pass discriminatory laws all fall into one demographic.

For starters that observation doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything.
Secondly, is it untrue or just likely to provoke butthurt from people who vote to enable discriminatory laws to be passed?


whatever laws exist don't stop Disneyland from rubbing it in the faces of native Americans.



Gotta love watching teenage girls saying "scalp em"
Reminds of the Covington boys



QuantumChemist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,910
Location: Midwest

24 Mar 2022, 10:12 am

HighLlama wrote:
QuantumChemist wrote:
Why can it not be about what you can do with your abilities rather than your skin color/sex/sexual orientation/religion/etc... I do not think I will ever fully understand the fallacy of the human race.


It should be about that, but things like Affirmative Action exist because institutions find it hard to think of a better solution. If we could trust people in general to develop better character and accept truth over self-image, hiring people based on ability would be more common. Since bad people can misrepresent themselves, institutions will create a rule to compensate.

Also, these institutions are about power, not ability. If they were concerned with doing the best, we would not have the environmental and social problems we have. Companies would not work so hard to hide if they produce carcinogens, for example--they would apologize, compensate, and do better. So in a system which devalues transparency you can't expect anything else. Civilization mutes instinct while promising sustainability. This is a fallacy, which is why you see the result you do.


We have to do EEO training to be on any hiring committees. During the training, it warns against hiring others based solely upon their sex/race/sexual orientation/religion/age/etc. The hiring committee members are to consider candidates based on their ability to do the job (including accommodations for those who need them). My coworkers took this same training, yet none of them took it to heart. They want to make a class system, using minority members as the lower tier instead of as equals. That is why they do not want old white men. How would you feel about that? I refused to serve on any more hiring committees after I saw that happening with them. My boss openly participated in the process. He does not want to pick candidates that can challenge his grip of power over the department.

I always hoped that the other faculty members will see the light and change their ways, but they are just too evil now to do so. They have become accustomed to breathing each other’s methane. It is better for me to just leave and let them rot together than to try to change their behaviors. I just hope my next job has a better working environment and they will not act like that towards others there.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

24 Mar 2022, 10:20 am

QuantumChemist wrote:
We have to do EEO training to be on any hiring committees.  During the training, it warns against hiring others based solely upon their sex/race/sexual orientation/religion/age/etc.  The hiring committee members are to consider candidates based on their ability to do the job (including accommodations for those who need them).  My coworkers took this same training, yet none of them took it to heart.  They want to make a class system, using minority members as the lower tier instead of as equals.  That is why they do not want old white men. How would you feel about that?  I refused to serve on any more hiring committees after I saw that happening with them.  My boss openly participated in the process.  He does not want to pick candidates that can challenge his grip of power over the department.

I always hoped that the other faculty members will see the light and change their ways, but they are just too evil now to do so.  They have become accustomed to breathing each other’s methane.  It is better for me to just leave and let them rot together than to try to change their behaviors.  I just hope my next job has a better working environment and they will not act like that towards others there.
Change "faculty members" to "management", and you can tell the same story about the corporate world.

Sad.



NoClearMind53
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 25 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 369

18 Apr 2022, 2:46 am

cyberdad wrote:
sigh! we seem to go in circles on this forum. like one of ironpony's threads except on steroids.

the missing element which everybody on this thread (except Kraichie) has missed is the power differential. Social and institutional power remains in the hands of old white men in courtrooms, boardrooms and in committees and in senior management. Laws are made and acted upon to favor you if you belong to the majority community, minorities get the short end of the stick in terms of discrimination.

The other thing is, at least in the US, a lot of the current racial disparities are not just due to "white people being racist". They are due to our countries long history of racism combined with persistent and/or worsening class inequality. To understand where we are today, we have to look at history. People who were deliberately prevented from owning their own property (through racist laws and other underhanded BS like redlining) end up not doing as well economically. Because, whether people admit it or not, most baseline wealth (a small home worth some money) is passed on through inheritance. Then you get chronically underfunded education due to education being funded based on local property values. It all adds up. Problems that go back generations don't just evaporate overnight. This country was extremely racist just 50 years ago.



Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,120
Location: Outter Quadrant

18 Apr 2022, 5:24 am

No it is not ….okay …and have been the subject of completely unwarranted discrimination by black people here .
Generally operating without constraint as low level functionaries . Involving gateway medical treatment .
In physical rehab units and health maintenance areas . In which these people are responsible for getting people in for appointments . Your records are changed and your appt.s. Suddenly become cancelled after you have travel some distance . With physical disabilities to arrive to these appt.s This is not uncommon . At the larger medical institution , I go to . It has been consistent . And ongoing enough for me to notice . Especially when after having travelled all that way . Had been told by the same physical rehab unit managing personnel that , a appt , I was holding the card for in my hand . Had been cancelled because , I did not show up for a previous appt. Inspite of the fact of no such appt. Ever had been made known to me..This had occurred with both male and female medical gatekeepers in more than one dept. And this place under normal circumstances uses 2 method of notification.Then of course , I find out that the man running the patients advocate office in the same hospital is black .. So any complaints concerning this behavior that go to him by myself, I have found go there to disappear . From all outward appearances .
This hospital operates in a predominately black neighbourhood.
It could be my autism but I can mask very well for short periods of time. This may open me to attack.but these are my experiences .
Usually at this very large facility .


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1933
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,769
Location: wales

18 Apr 2022, 9:52 am

Discrimination is never OK if it's intended to cause harm.

Discrimination is good if it's intended to prevent harm.

A blanked and simplistic thought process of "white person bad....mmmmkaayyy?" Is nothing but harmful.



Ettina
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,971

21 Apr 2022, 4:03 pm

League_Girl wrote:
People fearing a majority is not discrimination because it holds no power. While a woman fearing men in general is misandry, her fear of men holds no power against them so this is socially acceptable which is why no one bats an eye about it and while people just shrug it off.


Just because a group has less power than another group doesn't mean individuals in that group can't hold power over individuals in the other group. Eg a misandrist woman could have and abuse power over an individual man. And that abuse still matters even though it's not part of a larger societal pattern.

It's also possible for discrimination dynamics to reverse. Eg many Muslim countries have Suni vs Shiite discrimination, and which group holds the power to oppress the other group can switch depending on the religious affiliation of whoever is in power. (The same used to be common in Europe with Catholic vs Protestant.)

Plus, reverse discrimination often ends up targeting people who are close enough to the privileged group to seem similar to them, but not actually close enough to have the same privileges. Eg trans people (both MtF and FtM, by different people) are often simultaneously targeted by misandry and denied male privilege. Bisexual people are often targeted by hatred against straight people but also don't have access to straight privilege. Mixed race people often end up targeted by racism by both white people and non-mixed (or less obviously mixed) non-white people.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Apr 2022, 6:10 pm

Nades wrote:
Discrimination is never OK if it's intended to cause harm.

Discrimination is good if it's intended to prevent harm.

A blanked and simplistic thought process of "white person bad....mmmmkaayyy?" Is nothing but harmful.


It is also stupid/illogical/emotionalistic thinking. 8)



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Apr 2022, 6:13 pm

Ettina wrote:
Just because a group has less power than another group doesn't mean individuals in that group can't hold power over individuals in the other group. Eg a misandrist woman could have and abuse power over an individual man. And that abuse still matters even though it's not part of a larger societal pattern.

It's also possible for discrimination dynamics to reverse. Eg many Muslim countries have Suni vs Shiite discrimination, and which group holds the power to oppress the other group can switch depending on the religious affiliation of whoever is in power. (The same used to be common in Europe with Catholic vs Protestant.)

Plus, reverse discrimination often ends up targeting people who are close enough to the privileged group to seem similar to them, but not actually close enough to have the same privileges. Eg trans people (both MtF and FtM, by different people) are often simultaneously targeted by misandry and denied male privilege. Bisexual people are often targeted by hatred against straight people but also don't have access to straight privilege. Mixed race people often end up targeted by racism by both white people and non-mixed (or less obviously mixed) non-white people.


Agreed.
"Life is simple for simple people." 8)



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,137

23 Apr 2022, 12:55 am

Angnix wrote:
one of her posts said "the only group of people I'm afraid of are straight white middle-aged males"

Is saying you're afraid of a group discrimination, or just sharing a genuine feeling of fear? I think it's rather a borderline statement, there might be malice behind it or there might not be. I suspect there was a little bit of malice in it. As a white male, I don't think I'd have been very offended or felt very threatened by it if I'd seen it when I was middle-aged. I doubt the remark harmed anybody or incited any aggression. It might have been more dangerous if it had been said by somebody who had much influence over people's opinions, such as a leader or celebrity, though I still have trouble understanding how anybody can be so gullible as to be swayed one iota by such people - if anybody told me that a group of people frightened them, I'd just take it as a remark they were making about themselves, and it wouldn't affect my own feelings about that group unless I had good reason to think that the speaker was particularly good at identifying safe and dangerous groups. But I know it goes on. Trump insinuated bleach was a Covid cure and one or two people drank bleach, Prince Charles said he didn't like modern architecture and a group of Arabs pulled a lot of money out of architectural projects in London. Why any of those people trusted those sources of "information," I don't know.

As for "affirmative action," I presume that's a euphemism for "positive discrimination," i.e. preferential treatment of groups that are supposed to be underprivileged. I can see why they do it, but personally I think it's too blunt an instrument to tackle any problems of discrimination. I think the ill-feeling it probably causes would likely backfire on the group it seeks to help, the sense of unfairness felt by other groups who lose out is rational, and its not a sensible way to share out resources and opportunities. It's a quick-and-dirty fix, and I'd prefer an intervention that more directly addressed the fact of discrimination, such as better education and perhaps policing of negative discrimination where appropriate. Though it may be complicated to figure out what's appropriate.



30yoboomer
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 30 Apr 2022
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 24
Location: Pontic-Caspian Steppe

30 Apr 2022, 10:30 pm

What does discrimination mean? if it means to deny service or association with someone sure. any privately owned business should have the right to discriminate against anyone under any standard they choose. private property as well as bodily autonomy are human rights, the state pointing a gun at someone's head to let you into their place of business is not. If free speech only applies to the state anti-discrimination laws should only apple to the state as well.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,145

30 Apr 2022, 10:52 pm

NoClearMind53 wrote:
People who were deliberately prevented from owning their own property (through racist laws and other underhanded BS like redlining) end up not doing as well economically. Because, whether people admit it or not, most baseline wealth (a small home worth some money) is passed on through inheritance. Then you get chronically underfunded education due to education being funded based on local property values. It all adds up. Problems that go back generations don't just evaporate overnight. This country was extremely racist just 50 years ago.


Which is why there's such a movement to effectively ban teaching of American history that casts white Americans in a bad light historically. We've been through this too in Australia back in the 1990s when the then conservative prime minister John Howard stuck his nose in school curriculim saying that he doesn't want school kids to be exposed to what he called a "black armband" perspective of Australian history. It was framed in what was called the "history wars" which are particularly relevant to countries like Germany and Japan who have the challenge of teaching WWII to their school education system.

So why is this relevant to the thread? because large segments of the republicans and their supporters are claiming that initiatives like the 1619 project (which literally teaches how America colonies were founded from Slavery) is somehow discriminating against white people :roll:

35 states have banned CRT which is code to scare teachers to not mention race lest they lose their jobs. The fact is the early colonies that were established in the US (particularly in the south) might not have survived without slavery.

Discrimination against whites is an oxymoron. It doesn't exist. "White" is an invention of slave owners and the perpetuation of this term is (ironically) paying homage to human traffickers in the early years of the American colonies.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

30 Apr 2022, 11:05 pm

cyberdad wrote:
NoClearMind53 wrote:
People who were deliberately prevented from owning their own property (through racist laws and other underhanded BS like redlining) end up not doing as well economically. Because, whether people admit it or not, most baseline wealth (a small home worth some money) is passed on through inheritance. Then you get chronically underfunded education due to education being funded based on local property values. It all adds up. Problems that go back generations don't just evaporate overnight. This country was extremely racist just 50 years ago.


Which is why there's such a movement to effectively ban teaching of American history that casts white Americans in a bad light historically. We've been through this too in Australia back in the 1990s when the then conservative prime minister John Howard stuck his nose in school curriculim saying that he doesn't want school kids to be exposed to what he called a "black armband" perspective of Australian history. It was framed in what was called the "history wars" which are particularly relevant to countries like Germany and Japan who have the challenge of teaching WWII to their school education system.

So why is this relevant to the thread? because large segments of the republicans and their supporters are claiming that initiatives like the 1619 project (which literally teaches how America colonies were founded from Slavery) is somehow discriminating against white people :roll:

35 states have banned CRT which is code to scare teachers to not mention race lest they lose their jobs. The fact is the early colonies that were established in the US (particularly in the south) might not have survived without slavery.

Discrimination against whites is an oxymoron. It doesn't exist. "White" is an invention of slave owners and the perpetuation of this term is (ironically) paying homage to human traffickers in the early years of the American colonies.


It is the abuse by activists that is the problem.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,145

30 Apr 2022, 11:19 pm

Pepe wrote:
It is the abuse by activists that is the problem.


what abuse? which activists?



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,148
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

30 Apr 2022, 11:42 pm

A lot of the discussion of Affirmative Action here maps on to the problem of competing virtues - one is equality of opportunity, another is a practical sense that our economy causes people to stack up at the bottom and if part of our problem is racial wealth inequality then the upper classes need to be more mixed in their racial constitution, and the middle class, and so on. Particularly with making the middle class more multicultural the goal isn't wrong, just very difficult to pull off when there's been scam after scam and oppression after oppression against outside groups.

To that a critical problem to solve is figuring out when the goals have been achieved, and in which areas, like for example having a lot more black middle class entrants is great, one would hope that - as well - quality of education and safety from really caustic survival environments can be given to those who want it really of any race if their goal is upward mobility and giving back.


As for discrimination against whites, and in particular the classic WASP males, lets just say that revoking preferential treatment on race alone should be a goal and that white men should be forced to the same competence standards as everyone else. Part of the challenge here though is that I've found most of the batisht crazy scenarios where I felt like I was a fresh-pressed college intern working for Hunter Thomson and the Attorney in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, where there was more collective psychosis and dysfunction than anything that looked like competence, it was small family shops and firms, of the sort that you'd hope would rise or fall based on competence or lack of it but really they tend to muddle along - even if they're a nightmare under the hood - based on an upper-class yuppy veneer which looks credible, just that having worked at one of these there was a sharp realization that we were shoveling slop into a blender. I got fired within a month, largely because my 3.8 GPA at the time came from being really good at organizing facts, OTOH I was terrible at hammering down sheer chaos into anything like coherent 1040's, cash receipts / cash disbursements journals, I mean stuff where required documents were routinely half missing, what was written looks like someone either wrote it on their stomach, scribbled what they thought looked 'word-like', or just left something blank altogether and asked me to slot it into an account - needless to say that as a spectrumite that broke me, and it tended to break me anytime I ran into it.

Discrimination 'against' whites, if it becomes a thing, is on one level just wrong as much as it is against anyone else but there's the additional issue of practicality, ie. that it can turn a nearly non-existent number of real neonazis to thousands, then tens of thousands, and if the reaction to that is to double down things just get worse. To do that to a majority is to create such a powerful fringe that it would eat those who aren't with it and go on to take out it's wrath both on those white men who disagree and any minorities it deems worthy of said contempt.


This is where I really think precision is critical rather than speaking colloquially, like saying for example that discrimination against whites is okay on a reparative basis to even the playing field, my biggest beef with that is such efforts should not be pushed to that threshold, should not be understood that way by those promoting it, and rather than just snowing those who promote it as useful idiots for a more sinister plan it's critical that those who are seeing it as solving a particularly deep societal problem have the tools and are encouraged to use tools that limit/narrow the scope of said efforts and make it abundantly clear when they've crossed an ethical line in that push. If human confirmation bias makes that impossible then, as Jonathan Haidt brings up regarding the problems in academia, what's needed is institutional disconfirmation and a counterpoised group who'll make it clear to them when they've gone too far (although I don't necessarily think this is a silver bullet if both sides rather than vetting each other simply double down and declare war on each other). If and when integrity can neither be held by a group proposing a move and can't be hashed out by opposing groups then that whole scenario, on recent trends, smells of increasing scarcity and the really big problems making everyone a bit crazy might be somewhere else and that somewhere else needs to be dealt with even if it's more arcane and less intuitively graspable as social oppression or other things that can get people immediately motivated (sadly a lot of what we get limbicly motivated by is just not right for 21st century problems).


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin