Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Use of Racist Language (and Canada)

13»

Posts

  • CorvusCorvus Caw? VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Oh good lord.

    You know.

    They used to think that being JEWISH gave you an unfair advantage in basketball, and that they were the natural players of the sport.

    I'd love to hear what the explanation for this was.

  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Willeth wrote: »
    I've not read the thread in full, but I wanted to chip in and say that I find absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out that people are, in fact, different. It's perfectly okay to refer to a group as 'the blacks,' for example, or to say that white people in general might be better suited than others for a covert mission to the Arctic. It's when we start attributing negative or positive factors to those differences, based on nothing but assumption, that you start getting on shaky ground.
    I'm going to continue asserting this until someone acknowledges it.

    THE UN IS NOT CRITICIZING THE IDENTIFYING OF DIFFERENCES AMONG ETHNIC OR CULTURAL GROUPS

    The UN is criticizing the language used in official Canadian documents, specifically the term "visible minority." Everyone is patting each other on the back saying "fuck that PC lobby" which isn't at all what this is about. This is simply about the language used in official documents of the Canadian government and whether or not it should be changed.

    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • WillethWilleth Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    That's a complete contradiction. What is a 'visible minority' if not simply identifying differences? The term itself should not need to be questioned, its the usage and policies themselves that need to be reviewed. The 'PC lobby' comes into it because that's precisely what's caused all the kerfuffle around the phrase.

    @vgreminders - Don't miss out on timed events in gaming!
    @gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Corvus wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Oh good lord.

    You know.

    They used to think that being JEWISH gave you an unfair advantage in basketball, and that they were the natural players of the sport.

    I'd love to hear what the explanation for this was.

    http://www.tuftsobserver.org/snyderblog/2007/02/jewish_basketball.html

    Sports as a living are, for the most part, sought by people who do not feel that the system allows for them to succeed in business (Good Ol Boys Club, etc).

    Music has the same notion applied to it.

    They're like secret paths to wealth and fame for those whose way is blocked by WASPs.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Dortmunder wrote: »
    Which, by the way, is also why I think the term 'visible minority' is fine. It distinguishes from 'religious minority' or 'criminal minority' or any other kind of minority you want, and it identifies those who are most likely to be discriminated against (from us white folk) because of the colour of their skin.
    Why not "ethnic minority"? That's what the US uses in official documents, if I'm not mistaken, and the UN isn't criticizing that. The term "visible" brings undue attention to physical differences, which really isn't what these types of programs are trying to track. If it was really just about physical differences, why not track people by height? Or by melanin count? Or by nose size or eye shape or characteristics of hair, etc.?

    No, "visible minorities" are ethnic groups, groups of poeple culturally related who also often share similar physical traits. If this was really just about our "visible" differences, then it wouldn't really make sense to say Chinese or African or Latino or whatever. We would have to say light-brown, dark-brown, tall, short, etc. etc..

    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Willeth wrote: »
    That's a complete contradiction. What is a 'visible minority' if not simply identifying differences? The term itself should not need to be questioned, its the usage and policies themselves that need to be reviewed. The 'PC lobby' comes into it because that's precisely what's caused all the kerfuffle around the phrase.
    No it's not. There are already many terms in common circulation which don't highlight physical differences, especially since as my preceding post outlined, this really isn't about physical differences, it's about cultural and socio-economic differences.

    The PC lobby is a strawman that somehow lets people think they're cool and/or making a point when they attack it.

    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Willeth wrote: »
    Chake99 wrote: »
    Could it not be argued that it would make sense to provide greater aid to those belonging to minorities in need, to both counterbalance the inequality of society at large, and to try and integrate such people into all levels of society so such discrimination ends?
    I think that would probably end up tipping the scales the other way, to be honest. That's not equality, that's forced inequality.
    But what if 10 white and 10 black people apply for 12 jobs. 5 of the black people and 7 of the white people are the most qualified for the position, however the company when left to its own devices would higher 9 white people and 3 black people. Then what happens?

    What if the government insists on the company hiring six of each color, then what happens?

    The latter results in pretty much the same thing as I postulated; the former is why we need to have those indications of race and creed on the forms in the first place, I guess. I just question what the company uses it for every time I have to write 'White British' on a form.
    I never fill out that field. If it's mandatory I write "Canadian".

  • WillethWilleth Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    celery77 wrote: »
    The PC lobby is a strawman that somehow lets people think they're cool and/or making a point when they attack it.
    Considering I'd never heard the term 'PC lobby' before your post above, I can't subscribe to that. Based on my own observations, I've seen that the majority of people are oversensitive to race, origin, etc.

    But yeah, after read your previous post I realise that I should really go and read the fucking thread already. I'll be back shortly.

    @vgreminders - Don't miss out on timed events in gaming!
    @gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
  • urbmanurbman Registered User
    edited March 2007
    Now honestly they need to do one of two things.

    A) Classify people of their ancestry by continent.
    or
    B) Have the name of very country on the damn forms.

    Think about it. Middle easterners and Russians are Asians. There is a heavy white population in Africa(there was a big fight in my school because the white daughter of two white South Africans wanted to put Afro-American on a state paper). I want special government treatment because I come from Irish decent and the Irish have been treated like shit in this country, but I cant because Irish are white. Which brings up my point, they have skin color(white and black) then they have continental (Asian or Middle Eastern) and then cultural background (Hispanic) options on the forms I have encountered. So I say either get rid of the damn shit or go all out and include every country as an option to choose from on that list, because hell Im German Irish Slovakian and Native American and I dont look totally white, yet that is what Im told to put on a form.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    celery77 wrote: »
    Dortmunder wrote: »
    Which, by the way, is also why I think the term 'visible minority' is fine. It distinguishes from 'religious minority' or 'criminal minority' or any other kind of minority you want, and it identifies those who are most likely to be discriminated against (from us white folk) because of the colour of their skin.
    Why not "ethnic minority"? That's what the US uses in official documents, if I'm not mistaken, and the UN isn't criticizing that. The term "visible" brings undue attention to physical differences, which really isn't what these types of programs are trying to track. If it was really just about physical differences, why not track people by height? Or by melanin count? Or by nose size or eye shape or characteristics of hair, etc.?

    No, "visible minorities" are ethnic groups, groups of poeple culturally related who also often share similar physical traits. If this was really just about our "visible" differences, then it wouldn't really make sense to say Chinese or African or Latino or whatever. We would have to say light-brown, dark-brown, tall, short, etc. etc..

    I would imagine "visible minority" is primarily useful when determining racist intent in crimes and any other situation where race is a factor. Since stuff like DWB etc primarily relies on snap judgements where all the criminal has to go by to determine someone's etnicity is their appearance, in most crimes with racist intent the victim is only going to be someone who's "visibly" a minority.

    For example, gays are a minority, but in the vast majority of situations, people are not "visibly" gay, and so if say, a gay guy was mugged it's probably not related to the fact that he was gay. Replace the gay guy with a black guy, and it's possible that the guy was chosen to be mugged sepcifically because he was black.

    I probably could have explained it better, but that's the first thing I thought of.

    ezek1t.jpg
  • DortmunderDortmunder Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    celery77 wrote: »
    Dortmunder wrote: »
    Which, by the way, is also why I think the term 'visible minority' is fine. It distinguishes from 'religious minority' or 'criminal minority' or any other kind of minority you want, and it identifies those who are most likely to be discriminated against (from us white folk) because of the colour of their skin.
    Why not "ethnic minority"? That's what the US uses in official documents, if I'm not mistaken, and the UN isn't criticizing that. The term "visible" brings undue attention to physical differences, which really isn't what these types of programs are trying to track. If it was really just about physical differences, why not track people by height? Or by melanin count? Or by nose size or eye shape or characteristics of hair, etc.?

    No, "visible minorities" are ethnic groups, groups of poeple culturally related who also often share similar physical traits. If this was really just about our "visible" differences, then it wouldn't really make sense to say Chinese or African or Latino or whatever. We would have to say light-brown, dark-brown, tall, short, etc. etc..

    No, I don't think 'ethnic minority' does the trick. Imagine that there are 1000 people living in a tiny little country. 800 of them have white skin, 200 have brown skin. Of the 800 white-skinned people, 700 are Irish, and 100 are Scottish. Scotts would be the Ethnic minority, while the people with brown skin are the Visible minority.

    Now, I suspect that the brown-skinned people are more likely to be discriminated against than the Scotts - just because that's the way the world works. If the government of this little micro-country instituted some laws to protect those most likely to be discriminated against, and said it applied to the "Ethnic Minority"...see what I am saying?

    steam_sig.png
  • CorvusCorvus Caw? VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Corvus wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Oh good lord.

    You know.

    They used to think that being JEWISH gave you an unfair advantage in basketball, and that they were the natural players of the sport.

    I'd love to hear what the explanation for this was.

    http://www.tuftsobserver.org/snyderblog/2007/02/jewish_basketball.html

    Sports as a living are, for the most part, sought by people who do not feel that the system allows for them to succeed in business (Good Ol Boys Club, etc).

    Music has the same notion applied to it.

    They're like secret paths to wealth and fame for those whose way is blocked by WASPs.

    Thanks.

  • Chake99Chake99 Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Willeth wrote: »
    Chake99 wrote: »
    Could it not be argued that it would make sense to provide greater aid to those belonging to minorities in need, to both counterbalance the inequality of society at large, and to try and integrate such people into all levels of society so such discrimination ends?
    I think that would probably end up tipping the scales the other way, to be honest. That's not equality, that's forced inequality.
    Its not equality, but it is trying to make up for the inherent inequality of society, and bring equality in the future and reduce current inequality.

    It is unfairly forced equality.
    But what if 10 white and 10 black people apply for 12 jobs. 5 of the black people and 7 of the white people are the most qualified for the position, however the company when left to its own devices would higher 9 white people and 3 black people. Then what happens?

    What if the government insists on the company hiring six of each color, then what happens?

    The latter results in pretty much the same thing as I postulated; [/quote]
    It really isn't. Note that in my example when the government forces quotas the hiring practices are actually more just (though not quite perfect).
    the former is why we need to have those indications of race and creed on the forms in the first place, I guess. I just question what the company uses it for every time I have to write 'White British' on a form.

    I'm pretty sure that legally you are not required to fill that out on the form.

    Hic Rhodus, Hic Salta.
  • WillethWilleth Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Forced inequality for the sake of an end result of equality is still inequality to begin with.
    Chake99 wrote: »
    Note that in my example when the government forces quotas the hiring practices are actually more just (though not quite perfect).

    Wait, what? Are you actually suggesting that hiring equal amounts of employees from different recial backgrounds, regardless of skill, is a positive thing?

    @vgreminders - Don't miss out on timed events in gaming!
    @gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited March 2007
    Willeth wrote: »
    Forced inequality for the sake of an end result of equality is still inequality to begin with.
    Chake99 wrote: »
    Note that in my example when the government forces quotas the hiring practices are actually more just (though not quite perfect).

    Wait, what? Are you actually suggesting that hiring equal amounts of employees from different recial backgrounds, regardless of skill, is a positive thing?

    The point has been explained above for you better than I will here, but: Employers hire discriminatorially >> Levelled out by quotas/affirmative action/whathaveyou >> Equality. It's not perfect, but it's generally better than leaving people to their own devices.


    Willeth wrote: »
    celery77 wrote: »
    The PC lobby is a strawman that somehow lets people think they're cool and/or making a point when they attack it.
    Considering I'd never heard the term 'PC lobby' before your post above, I can't subscribe to that. Based on my own observations, I've seen that the majority of people are oversensitive to race, origin, etc.

    But yeah, after read your previous post I realise that I should really go and read the fucking thread already. I'll be back shortly.

    Anyone complaining about "political correctness gone mad!!!!!!!!!!??" is invariably a giant knob.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    The general notion of minority quotas is to try and balance out the economic head start the majority has.

    It's just that the end result is questionable and the method is even moreso.

    Because there's such a thing as a rich black guy and a ghetto-poor white guy.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited March 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Well, it never used to have any negative connotations. It's what the blacks themselves preferred to be called. And then one day they decided they preferred "black", and that if you called them "negroes" you were a racist.

    Yeah, those fickle blacks, why can't they make up their fucking minds. Yeesh.

    Okay. As African-Americans moved from illiterate slavery (where they were called all sorts of things, "Negro" or "colored" probably being by far the most innocuous) into literate enfranchisement, they took notice of the fact that the official language holding them back from full participation usually involved those words, and developed an understandable resentment of the terms. Black kind of bubbled up to the surface as a substitute after the '40s, although some people prefer African- or Afro- or whatever. I know it's confusing, and maybe they'll look sympathetically at your plight if you put in a request for clarification at the next global shareholders' meeting of Black Folk International.

    Or you could just get up a little earlier in the morning, drink a little more coffee, and try to put in the immense taxing work of remembering that your black friend Rick likes to be called "black" and your black coworker Bob likes to be called "Jamaican." It's what I do; and rather than live in constant terror of offending someone to the point that I develop a nasty streak of petty preemptive snark and an unbridled sense of martyrdom, if I goof up I make all appropriate apologies and since my intent was clearly benign (without, it should be said, making light of their concerns) and my friends aren't insane, it's not a big deal.

    All most people really want is to be treated civilly and with respect and not have retarded assumptions made about them - about their athletic prowess or math ability or, for that matter, how likely their fragile psyches are to ASPLODE over a semantic term because of something you read in the damn Wall Street Journal. It doesn't sound like much, but gosh this thread reminds me of what a fucking mountain it actually is.

  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    urbman wrote: »
    (there was a big fight in my school because the white daughter of two white South Africans wanted to put Afro-American on a state paper).

    What happened?

    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
13»
Sign In or Register to comment.