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!
Colored Folk Need Not Apply to this [Racism] Thread
Posts
edit: and "we aren't racists! Our customers are! We just cater to their racist behavior!" isn't a valid defense and I don't understand why that isn't obvious
Wow. 2 years worth of pay? Dude will never have to work again! What a greedy fuck!
Kids with lip rings aren't a protected minority.
You can't separate the two. How did the hotel make the distinction on which employees would be treated like shit?
BY RACE!
The hotel actively and willingly made the decision to comply with a guest's request to engage in a discriminatory and illegal activity. Engaging in mental gymnastics in order to rephrase the situation so it doesn't sound quite as bad doesn't change that fact.
Neither are gays or young people. Does that make it okay?
Actually, gays are. And I'm pretty sure you can't discriminate based on age either.
No, actually, gays aren't a protected class universally, and you can only "not discriminate" against those over 40.
Well shit then. I guess we better just throw out the protected class for everybody!
What exactly is your point?
That just because someone "isn't a protected minority" doesn't make it okay to discriminate against them.
Federal anti-discrimination statutes have as much to do with politics as "what's right" and you really shouldn't be pointing at those as the be-all and end-all of what is and is not discrimination.
Unless you're purely talking legally, that is.
If you're talking to me, my point was you can't say "It's okay because that's not a protected class" in response to the challenge that was made. Because if you replace "lip ring" with "young" or "gay" then the outcome is the same, but the argument is goosey from a "don't discriminate" perspective, because that's clearly still discrimination, except it's legal.
You need to come up with a more persuasive argument that actually addresses the point. IT'S THE LAW doesn't cut it.
Maybe you could clarify what it is that you want to know or what argument you think is inconsistent, as well as what if anything it has to do with the case at hand.
Morally.... well, morally it's still not as bad as singling out the black guy, but it's still not okay.
Plus, the vast majortiy of resturants don't allow lip ring kid to wear his lip ring while working, because there is a good chance it will offend someone.
Is it wrong that as soon as I read this, my brain though of a man in a British-Man-Pretending-To-Be-A-Woman's voice "There you go bringing class into it again!" a la Monty Python?
Seriously though, this is dumb on both sides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States
Personally I think the use of the commerce clause is goosey like most uses of the commerce clause, but the result is sound from an "equal rights" perspective.
In the eyes of the law that's how it is. It is that way because, at some point, we decided as a society that it was okay to discriminate against some people and not other people. The classes that get protected generally match up with things that people can't change. You can take out the lip ring, but you can't stop being black or female or gay. It sucks for the lip ring folks, but if we just made discrimination illegal in general without exceptions I think our culture would grind to a halt.
Except that it's okay to discriminate against certain classes of people- like homosexuals and the young, both things that can't be changed- which was my point to begin with.
Forget it though, it's moot anyway.
I see the problem. We just need to find something you find repulsive before you break. How about a well-mannered fellow with a swastika tattoo on his forehead? Would you be fair and give him a tip for good service?
You would wind up with asshats like the Florida doctor wanting to know what political party you're registered with before he provides you with service.
Rigorous Scholarship
Harvard Law Student: 'African Americans Are, On Average, Genetically Predisposed To Be Less Intelligent'
haha,
irony
If faith is just a silent tribute, mine is just a desperate act.
Yeah, and people thought YALE produced the "intelligent white racist" of academia. The Right is gonna be all over this one to bash Harvard for sure..
Human evolution hasn't been able to weed out things like poor eyesight, diabetes, male pattern baldness, the fact that we can't synthesize our own vitamin C, etc. So why in the world would it weed out mediocre intelligence? And when I say "mediocre intelligence," I don't mean "so stupid that it's amazing that they can even remember to breathe." I mean, "Has a slightly lower aptitude when it comes to the SATs."
Why the fuck would evolution care about your SAT score?
There's also the huge difference in terms of how blacks have been institutionally discriminated against in the US compared to people with lip rings. They're simply not equivalent in terms of needing legal protection.
In general it's stupid for a number of reasons to argue that any but the most isolated, homogeneous communities in the modern world are affected in noticeable intangible categories (like intelligence) by their genetic makeup alone.
EDIT: damn, got the gender and the school wrong, thanks for the catch Fencingsax. Also, rethought it a bit, and I think what really sets off alarm bells in that email isn't really the refusal to rule out any particular possibility so much as the implicit support for (as one of her peers put it in a note that HuffPo published) "the false notion of biological race," wherein our cultural ideas about race actually reflect the biological reality, which is of course dangerous nonsense.
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
Wait, you think that your kid would perform equally well in Nigeria?
Why do I suddenly suspect that she's a libertarian?
I don't think she would have used Nigeria if she were trying to argue the totally genetic-determinist position that her kids would be exactly as well off no matter where they were; even the most generous reading of that sentence, though, has her casually claiming to be both so beautiful and so smart that her very genes guarantee these qualities to her children. It's almost unbelievably arrogant, except she's a student at Harvard Law so it's entirely believable.
Most excellent example. Unfortunately, not one that helps your point. Women do tend to perform worse on math tests, and plenty of research has shown that stereotype threat has a huge amount to do with it. More to the point, intervention studies have demonstrated that when efforts are taken to control for stereotype threat (by changing the environment, not touching the actual test) the gender difference on those math tests disappears.
Something tells me Black people have to go through experiences like 100x worse than the comments girls get about math.
we should ask larry summers what his take on all of this is
I was going to say...
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."