Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
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!

So when CAN you call someone a racist?

135678

Posts

  • GoodOmensGoodOmens Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I think it would help if we establish a couple basic statements that we all can agree on.
    1. Many people of all races are overly sensitive about a variety of topics.
    2. Many people of all races are assholes.
    3. It's a problem when a person's perceived capabilities in life are affected by other people's perception of their race (or religion or nationality or sexual orientation or such). That problem may have no solution, however, until we have determined that for certain it would be wise to seek a solution.
    4. Al Sharpton is a twat.

    GoodOmens on
    steam_sig.png
    IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    [Or, to put it another way, at what point does someone get to stop apologizing for the actions of others who look somewhat like him? And I mean this for any group, not just white people.

    If "someone" is actually running into this problem all the time rather than just making it up on the internet then perhaps "someone" is being more of a dick than he thinks
    There are far too many people who spend far too little time introspecting on their actions.

    electricitylikesme on
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    edited May 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    Yes, welcome to America, learn the language or GTFO.

    NEWS FLASH: English Not Official Language of United States

    Yes, English is by far the most widespread language in this country, and people "should" learn it, because hey, it never hurts to learn a new language---being able to communicate effectively with others is always beneficial.

    Nevertheless, there are plenty of areas in this same country wherein Spanish, French, Italian, Chinese, etc. are spoken far more often than English. In fact--and this is going to shock you--English was not the first European language spoken in North America! Many parts of the USA have been effectively bilingual or non-English speaking since they were settled by Europeans.

    ...Not to mention that everything I've heard about teaching English is that it's a difficult language to learn, with lots of confusing spellings, pronunciations, and grammatical structures. If unifying the nation through language is our goal, maybe we should be making everyone learn Spanish instead.

    Zalbinion on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    Yes, welcome to America, learn the language or GTFO.

    NEWS FLASH: English Not Official Language of United States

    Yes, English is by far the most widespread language in this country, and people "should" learn it, because hey, it never hurts to learn a new language---being able to communicate effectively with others is always beneficial.

    Nevertheless, there are plenty of areas in this same country wherein Spanish, French, Italian, Chinese, etc. are spoken far more often than English. In fact--and this is going to shock you--English was not the first European language spoken in North America! Many parts of the USA have been effectively bilingual or non-English speaking since they were settled by Europeans.

    ...Not to mention that everything I've heard about teaching English is that it's a difficult language to learn, with lots of confusing spellings, pronunciations, and grammatical structures. If unifying the nation through language is our goal, maybe we should be making everyone learn Spanish instead.
    I really don't like Spanish, but that could just be the mode of my exposure to it. German, Chinese or Japanese seem better. But I suck at learning languages and will never learn any of those, but if I had to choose I'd definitely roll with Chinese. That'd just be hella handy.

    electricitylikesme on
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited May 2007
    GoodOmens wrote: »
    I think it would help if we establish a couple basic statements that we all can agree on.
    1. Many people of all races are overly sensitive about a variety of topics.

    Oh gee I wonder which races he's talking about
    2. Many people of all races are assholes.

    Which has fuck-all to do with this. The point is that some of them actually have power to seriously adversely affect other people's lives.

    3. It's a problem when a person's perceived capabilities in life are affected by other people's perception of their race (or religion or nationality or sexual orientation or such). That problem may have no solution, however, until we have determined that for certain it would be wise to seek a solution.

    No, no, it's way better if we wait for it to solve itself, that has totally worked so far
    4. Al Sharpton is a twat.

    Oh shit I didn't see that one coming from like, three weeks ago

    Jacobkosh on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    And that right there is a problem with the individual. Education is the short term solution, the long term is the integration of the all races, which is what we are working toward.

    "Intergration"? What the fuck does that even mean?

    http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/6500.html

    "While Baugh coined the term linguistic profiling, there is nothing new about the prejudice, as observing his mother's phone conversations taught him. Even now it still is only a sideline in his scholarship as the nation's foremost expert on varied African-American English, also called Ebonics. It was not until he was about 38, with a doctoral degree, before he ever considered researching linguistic profiling. After being appointed to the Center for Advanced Studies in Behavior at Stanford University, he went shopping for a house for his family, then living in Los Angeles. He telephoned agents advertising houses. When he made those calls he used what he calls his "professional" English. Even George Bernard Shaw's fictitious linguist Henry Higgins would not conclude that he is African-American using that voice. All agents seemed eager to show him houses for sale. When he showed up, most welcomed him warmly, but four, surprised by his race, told him the properties were no longer available.

    Here's a guy who "intergrated" well enough to get a mask the sound of his voice. And it still wasn't enough. And that was just in terms of finding a decent neighborhood to live.
    Even if you're 50 years old and you've gotten by fine without it?

    Yes, welcome to America, learn the language or GTFO.

    You seem to miss the point. A lot of the immigrants in question were already welcomed to America, gained citizenship, etc. Why should they be forced to learn a language that they aren't otherwise compelled to against their will?
    So whats your solution? Discriminate against people to even things out?

    Well, at the very least, it would be nice to acknowledge the problem, rather than simply pretending it doesn't exist and hope it goes away.

    You're right, that story you posted was so unreported that it has it's own wikipedia entry and 23 references listed at the bottom. My bad. If you really want to compare references of biased media coverage, then let's observe here:

    Critics of MWWS also point to the example of the media coverage of Jessica Lynch versus the coverage of Shoshana Johnson.

    Jessica Lynch (March 23, 2003) - Captured in Iraq War. Cited as an example of Damsel in Distress Syndrome. Rescued by U.S. Forces (April 1, 2003)

    Shoshana Johnson (March 23, 2003) - the first black female prisoner of war in the military history of the United States. She and Jessica Lynch were taken captive during the same ambush, but Johnson received very little media attention in comparison to Lynch. Rescued by U.S. Forces April 13, 2003.

    Media critics suggest that Lynch's story was promoted because Lynch was a more palatable and identifiable figure to promote: a young, blonde white woman. Johnson, on the other hand, was a black woman who was a single mother. [15]


    Now, rarely in the real world do you have good control environments to make comparisons, as others have pointed out. In this case, however, we are discussing two separate women who were both kidnapped in the same way, at the same time, at the same incident.
    And whats your solution? Discriminate against someone else to even things up? Demand the law decide how many and who can have jobs based on skin color more than skill?

    Sure, I suppose in the same sense that consfiscating stolen property is allowing the state to take private property that doesn't belong to them, and dictate what people should and should be allowed to own.

    Schrodinger on
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    GoodOmens wrote: »
    I think it would help if we establish a couple basic statements that we all can agree on.
    1. Many people of all races are overly sensitive about a variety of topics.
    2. Many people of all races are assholes.
    3. It's a problem when a person's perceived capabilities in life are affected by other people's perception of their race (or religion or nationality or sexual orientation or such). That problem may have no solution, however, until we have determined that for certain it would be wise to seek a solution.
    4. Al Sharpton is a twat.

    #2 and #4 are completely irrelevant, #1 is only relevant because it's the excuse people use to ignore the people whose sensetivity level is perfectly reasonable and because the group with the most power is invariably immune to group-membership based attacks, and #3 conspicuously ignores gender, not to say that necessarily implies anything, but it's rather conspicuous that religion and nationality got in ahead of it.

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    Yes, welcome to America, learn the language or GTFO.

    NEWS FLASH: English Not Official Language of United States

    Yes, English is by far the most widespread language in this country, and people "should" learn it, because hey, it never hurts to learn a new language---being able to communicate effectively with others is always beneficial.

    Nevertheless, there are plenty of areas in this same country wherein Spanish, French, Italian, Chinese, etc. are spoken far more often than English. In fact--and this is going to shock you--English was not the first European language spoken in North America! Many parts of the USA have been effectively bilingual or non-English speaking since they were settled by Europeans.

    ...Not to mention that everything I've heard about teaching English is that it's a difficult language to learn, with lots of confusing spellings, pronunciations, and grammatical structures. If unifying the nation through language is our goal, maybe we should be making everyone learn Spanish instead.

    Founding fathers of this country. Spoke English. English is the national language in 30 states. While there are plenty of places in this country that speak other langauges, the majority speak english, the majority have always spoken english, and if your not going to learn it i stand by GTFO.

    There is no reason to come to this country and not learn the language. Knowing English increases your ability to communicate with everyone here, it can increase your job marketability, it does nothing but help immigrants who come here get a better llife. NOT learning English is quite detremental, but its fine to ignore that while picking strawberrys and standing outside Home Depot looking for day labor.

    Unless of course you people want Spanish to be the language spoken strictly by the lower class. Hell you want to throw numbers out there about how hard it is for a black man vs a white man with a drug conviction, want to throw in the same results for a spanish guy who speaks no english?

    If Spanish even pushed to be the official language youd have a god damn civil/race war on your hands, and that sad part is it might actually help the racial tension by giving everyone who speaks English an enemy that doesnt.

    Its simple, come to America, learn the damn language, and work your butt off to get a chunk of the freedom and prosperity we enjoy. Dont just come here, get mential crap jobs, and refuse to assimilate.

    People who refuse to learn the damn language i hate. Course that makes me racist right? Except refusing to learn English isnt a race. People seem to forget that.

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited May 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    English is the national language in 30 states

    :lol: :lol: :lol:

    Jacobkosh on
  • DodgeBlanDodgeBlan PSN: dodgeblanRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    Yes, welcome to America, learn the language or GTFO.

    NEWS FLASH: English Not Official Language of United States

    Yes, English is by far the most widespread language in this country, and people "should" learn it, because hey, it never hurts to learn a new language---being able to communicate effectively with others is always beneficial.

    Nevertheless, there are plenty of areas in this same country wherein Spanish, French, Italian, Chinese, etc. are spoken far more often than English. In fact--and this is going to shock you--English was not the first European language spoken in North America! Many parts of the USA have been effectively bilingual or non-English speaking since they were settled by Europeans.

    ...Not to mention that everything I've heard about teaching English is that it's a difficult language to learn, with lots of confusing spellings, pronunciations, and grammatical structures. If unifying the nation through language is our goal, maybe we should be making everyone learn Spanish instead.

    Founding fathers of this country. Spoke English. English is the national language in 30 states. While there are plenty of places in this country that speak other langauges, the majority speak english, the majority have always spoken english, and if your not going to learn it i stand by GTFO.

    There is no reason to come to this country and not learn the language. Knowing English increases your ability to communicate with everyone here, it can increase your job marketability, it does nothing but help immigrants who come here get a better llife. NOT learning English is quite detremental, but its fine to ignore that while picking strawberrys and standing outside Home Depot looking for day labor.

    Unless of course you people want Spanish to be the language spoken strictly by the lower class. Hell you want to throw numbers out there about how hard it is for a black man vs a white man with a drug conviction, want to throw in the same results for a spanish guy who speaks no english?

    If Spanish even pushed to be the official language youd have a god damn civil/race war on your hands, and that sad part is it might actually help the racial tension by giving everyone who speaks English an enemy that doesnt.

    Its simple, come to America, learn the damn language, and work your butt off to get a chunk of the freedom and prosperity we enjoy. Dont just come here, get mential crap jobs, and refuse to assimilate.

    People who refuse to learn the damn language i hate. Course that makes me racist right? Except refusing to learn English isnt a race. People seem to forget that.
    If every mexican wore a tie and spoke english they would get good, corporate jobs! I invited him to my party but he won't come in!

    I suppose you think every white investment banker and head hunter in Hong Kong should learn cantonese, too?

    DodgeBlan on
    Read my blog about AMERICA and THE BAY AREA

    https://medium.com/@alascii
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Racism is a tough subject...

    if you limit it to the definition of "implying a race is superior then another" you eliminate afirmative action from being considered racist I suppose. I guess we have to come up with another word, racial bias? Either way, hiring someone because of the color of their skin, or not hiring them for that reason, is wrong IMO. I get the reasons behind it, and I get the goal its trying to achieve, I just dont think the end justifies the means. Racial bias may not be as bad as racism, but I think it can be just as, if not more, unfair.

    One thing that bothers me is comedy. First off, I am bored of hearing the same tired jokes about black culture, or more recently, hispanic culture. I dont understand why most minority comics dont come up with universal material. Most good comics, who happen to be white males, admittedly, do jokes that pretty much anyone can relate to. Theres no racial or sexual bias in discussing how hot pockets are gross...

    But complaining about bad comics isnt the issue... the thing that really irritates me is the fact that a black or hispanic comic can stand up on the stage and tear white guys apart. Like, really racist stuff that if the tables were turned would be condemned imediately. How can Carlos Mencia stand there and spit out the most stereotypical crap imaginable and not get kicked off TV but one comment about nappy headed hos ends a mans career.

    Jesus...that was one of the worst example of over-reacting ever, but thats probably for another thread.

    Point is, I dont like double standards. And racial bias sets a lot of them, so does sexual bias. And I know its easy to say "youre a white male with very little problems, stop whining." But I just dont like the fact the world can sit there and be conciously unfair. Like, yes, things arent equal yet, miniorities still dont get a fair share. But it seems like peoples solution is to treat the white male unfair in other situations as a balancing. Its like when the umpire makes a bad call, and then they conciously make another bad call as a make up call.

    Thats not the right way to go about fixing the problem.

    Concious racial bias is bad, and I guarentee it creates legit racism from white males who otherwise wouldnt have it. You may agree with affirmative action and other situations of racial bias but you also have to see how such things could create an animosity from white males who are being treated differently because of the color of their skin while society just goes 'yeah thats cool.'

    I guess the difference is, when minorities get the shaft, the general opinion of society is "that sucks and thats racist." But when white males get the shaft society goes "hey, it helps make up for all the times you guys got the upper hand!"

    And maybe if you look at races as wholes it makes sense, but at the individual level it doesnt. And if you are a white male who gets passed over due to the color of his skin and society just goes "you had it coming, whitey!" You arent going to be pleased.

    But to answer the question...one time on xbox live the other team was a group of hispanics, and when they found out they were playing white guys they went on a racial tirade about how white guys dont do anything for society and blacks and hispanics are way better. They then talked about mexican gardeners banging our white wives, and how we should go drink some zimas.

    I think it was safe to call them racist.

    Disrupter on
    616610-1.png
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2007
    If you're going to insist that your fellow citizens speak fluent english, you should at least have a crack at learning it yourself some time. I hear there are night classes available in most cities and towns for very reasonable prices!

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    Founding fathers of this country. Spoke English.

    I'm sure that they also spoke French and Latin, and maybe Spanish as well. What's your point?
    English is the national language in 30 states.

    How can an individual state dictate the national language?
    While there are plenty of places in this country that speak other langauges, the majority speak english, the majority have always spoken english, and if your not going to learn it i stand by GTFO.

    Really? Even the spanish speaking people and spanish speaking communities that have been around since before this country was even founded? You realize that these were people here before the Manifest Destiny, correct? Moreover, what does the majority have to do with anything? If the majority of people in this country can walk, should we forced crippled people to learn to walk as well?
    There is no reason to come to this country and not learn the language.

    What if your people were already here to begin with?
    Knowing English increases your ability to communicate with everyone here, it can increase your job marketability, it does nothing but help immigrants who come here get a better llife. NOT learning English is quite detremental, but its fine to ignore that while picking strawberrys and standing outside Home Depot looking for day labor.

    Which I'm sure that non English speakers will more than take into consideration before promptly ignoring you.
    Hell you want to throw numbers out there about how hard it is for a black man vs a white man with a drug conviction, want to throw in the same results for a spanish guy who speaks no english?

    Non-sequitor.

    Schrodinger on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited May 2007

    How can an individual state dictate the national language?
    Perhaps i should say official language, happy?

    Really? Even the spanish speaking people and spanish speaking communities that have been around since before this country was even founded? You realize that these were people here before the Manifest Destiny, correct? Moreover, what does the majority have to do with anything? If the majority of people in this country can walk, should we forced crippled people to learn to walk as well?

    Are your really, really equating a physical handicap with the unwillingness to learn to speak English?
    What if your people were already here to begin with?

    Then we probably killed most of your people and put the rest on reservations. Your point? Most of the original settlers now speak English interestingly enough.
    Which I'm sure that non English speakers will more than take into consideration before promptly ignoring you.
    How can they take it into consideration if they cant understand a word im saying?
    Non-sequitor.

    How so? Logically if your going to compare a black man, vs a white man with a 18 month incarceration, why dont we see how many handicaps we need to give the white guy before the non-english speaker has a chance.

    How about we give him three years of drug possession, on parole for manslaughter, visible tattoos, heck what else can we throw on? The sad part is, hes still more marketable than the guy who cant speak English, unless we want him to work under the table, for minimum wage, doing a suck job that no one wants.

    And what the heck does any of this have to do with Racism?

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Disrupter wrote: »
    if you limit it to the definition of "implying a race is superior then another" you eliminate afirmative action from being considered racist I suppose. I guess we have to come up with another word, racial bias? Either way, hiring someone because of the color of their skin, or not hiring them for that reason, is wrong IMO. I get the reasons behind it, and I get the goal its trying to achieve, I just dont think the end justifies the means. Racial bias may not be as bad as racism, but I think it can be just as, if not more, unfair.

    People shoplift from stores, causing the store to lose money. In return, the stores charge you extra, in order to cover that cost. Is that fair? Is that fair that the store is basically taking money that belongs to you, to pay for things that you didn't personally steal from them? To make you pay for someone else's crime? It might not be as bad as stealing, but I think it can be just as, if not more, unfair.
    I dont understand why most minority comics dont come up with universal material. Most good comics, who happen to be white males, admittedly, do jokes that pretty much anyone can relate to. Theres no racial or sexual bias in discussing how hot pockets are gross...

    Yeah, I have no idea what you're talking about. Most white comedians suck. Most black comedians suck. Most hispanic comedians suck. If there were more Asian comedians, I would assume that most of them suck as well. As for doing jokes that everyone can relate to, obviously, they wouldn't be selling many tickets if people couldn't relate to them. I seriously doubt that the only people watching Dave Chapelle are black. When Chris Rock starts discussing relationships, do you have to be a black person to relate to that?
    How can Carlos Mencia stand there and spit out the most stereotypical crap imaginable and not get kicked off TV but one comment about nappy headed hos ends a mans career.

    Maybe because he sells well to white people?

    Ned Holness isn't offensive. Not because he he's half-German, but because he's not funny, and his jokes don't have any bite to them. He's a hack comedian, and as a result, no one really gives a damn, nor is anyone willing to dignify him by giving him free controversy and publicity (which, BTW, Comedy Central would love to see happen, given how they market him.). As for how he can still be on the air, this is a network that at one point feaatured a show about hand puppets re-enacting prank phone calls.

    This pretty much sums it up:
    http://www.superdeluxe.com/sd/contentDetail.do?id=D81F2344BF5AC7BB4BA2EC9D2B8EB11E2524A88FEE73BB43
    Concious racial bias is bad, and I guarentee it creates legit racism from white males who otherwise wouldnt have it.

    What makes you so sure that they otherwise wouldn't have it? Because they don't go around lynching black people, therefore, they can't possibly be racist? Chances are that if something like that sparks a racist reaction, then it was already there to begin with.
    You may agree with affirmative action and other situations of racial bias but you also have to see how such things could create an animosity from white males who are being treated differently because of the color of their skin while society just goes 'yeah thats cool.'

    In order to create animousity, the white person in question would have to believe that the black guy who got the position didn't deserve it, where as he as the white guy did. Why is he making the assumption that the black guy didn't deserve it and that the white guy did? Yeah, there's a word for that. It's on the tip of my tongue.

    Unfortunately, this type of thing happens all the time. "Dammit, if I was a minority, then I would have scholarships offers practically shoved down my throat!" The idea being that the black people currently applying for said scholarships aren't qualified, where as the white person automatically is. Moreover, despite the rhetoric, it's not so much "If I was a minority" as it is "If I was a white person pretending to be a minority," since you still haven't had to overcome the institutionalized social stigma and racism that a minority did. Whenever a white person insists that they would have an easy time if only they were black, I can't help but translate that as "Even though I'm only average as a white person, I still believe that I'm smarter than the competitive black person out there, and therefore more deserving of their scholarships than they are."

    Affirmative action doesn't create racism, it simply brings racist assumptions to the surface, where they can be acknowledged and dealt with.
    But when white males get the shaft society goes "hey, it helps make up for all the times you guys got the upper hand!"

    Yes. "The shaft." You used to get a distinct and measurable advantage over minorities for simply being white, and you still do, but now it isn't as strong as it was before. Oh woe is you.
    And maybe if you look at races as wholes it makes sense, but at the individual level it doesnt. And if you are a white male who gets passed over due to the color of his skin and society just goes "you had it coming, whitey!" You arent going to be pleased.

    Just out of curiousity, why is it that an individual black person can't be sure that he got passed over as a result of skin color, where as an individual white person can? How do you know you weren't passed over simply because you weren't qualified?
    But to answer the question...one time on xbox live the other team was a group of hispanics, and when they found out they were playing white guys they went on a racial tirade about how white guys dont do anything for society and blacks and hispanics are way better. They then talked about mexican gardeners banging our white wives, and how we should go drink some zimas.

    I think it was safe to call them racist.

    You do that. Xbox live is a great place for social observation.

    Schrodinger on
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Disrupter wrote: »
    I guess the difference is, when minorities get the shaft, the general opinion of society is "that sucks and thats racist." But when white males get the shaft society goes "hey, it helps make up for all the times you guys got the upper hand!"

    White males don't get the shaft for simply being white males. A white male has try a fuck of a lot harder to get the shaft than a member of any other group, especially in the U.S..

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    Are your really, really equating a physical handicap with the unwillingness to learn to speak English?

    In terms of your appeal to majority fallacy, yes. Learning a brand new language can be exceedingly difficult when a) it is a difficult language to begin with, b) you're really old, and c) you're in an environment where you don't have to use it.
    Then we probably killed most of your people and put the rest on reservations.

    Yay for intergration!
    How can they take it into consideration if they cant understand a word im saying?

    You're right. In that case, they'll just ignore you altogeher. Problem solved.
    How so? Logically if your going to compare a black man, vs a white man with a 18 month incarceration, why dont we see how many handicaps we need to give the white guy before the non-english speaker has a chance.

    Actually, the main handicap wasn't selling cocaine. The main handicap was being black. Any idiot could figure out that selling cocaine would be a detriment to getting a job. THe point of the article was to show that being black was an even BIGGER detriment.
    And what the heck does any of this have to do with Racism?

    You brought it up, dude.

    Schrodinger on
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Disrupter wrote: »
    I guess the difference is, when minorities get the shaft, the general opinion of society is "that sucks and thats racist." But when white males get the shaft society goes "hey, it helps make up for all the times you guys got the upper hand!"

    White males don't get the shaft for simply being white males. A white male has try a fuck of a lot harder to get the shaft than a member of any other group, especially in the U.S..


    see, thats exactly the bias that im talking about. Because the majority of situations involve a white male being given an advantage, the prospect of one being given negative treatment is imediately poo-pood.

    I GUARANTEE it happens.

    The simple fact that there is legislation that requires the hiring of minorities to fill quotas implies that somewhere, sometime a white man was passed over for a job because the buisness needed to fill the quota.

    Which is unfair and bullshit. But because of the fact his race is usually given the advantage, nobody gives a shit about the individual who gets screwed.

    Yes, overall white males have it good. It doesnt make using racial bias when hiring any more "ok" because it doesnt impact the overall, it impacts the individual.

    Disrupter on
    616610-1.png
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Yay for intergration!
    Welcome to now. Our genocidal expansionist history ended quite a while ago. Now we just assimilate people.
    You're right. In that case, they'll just ignore you alltogeher. Problem solved.

    Which is pretty much the case now. They dont want to learn english, its to hard, so lets just ignore anyone who speaks it. Dont see a problem with that i take it?
    Actually, the main handicap wasn't selling cocaine. The main handicap was being black. Any idiot could figure out that selling cocaine would be a detriment to getting a job. THe point of the article was to show that being black was an even BIGGER detriment.

    Yep now lets take a black man vs a guy who doesnt speak english, which will be the bigger detrement?

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    I guess the difference is, when minorities get the shaft, the general opinion of society is "that sucks and thats racist." But when white males get the shaft society goes "hey, it helps make up for all the times you guys got the upper hand!"

    White males don't get the shaft for simply being white males. A white male has try a fuck of a lot harder to get the shaft than a member of any other group, especially in the U.S..


    see, thats exactly the bias that im talking about. Because the majority of situations involve a white male being given an advantage, the prospect of one being given negative treatment is imediately poo-pood.

    I GUARANTEE it happens.

    The simple fact that there is legislation that requires the hiring of minorities to fill quotas implies that somewhere, sometime a white man was passed over for a job because the buisness needed to fill the quota.

    Which is unfair and bullshit. But because of the fact his race is usually given the advantage, nobody gives a shit about the individual who gets screwed.

    Yes, overall white males have it good. It doesnt make using racial bias when hiring any more "ok" because it doesnt impact the overall, it impacts the individual.

    Assuming everyone has a quota (which isn't actually how affirmative action works in the vast majority of institutions), how high is that quota? Is it 10%? So in order to get shafted, the first thing you have to do is be less qualified than 90% of applicants. The next thing you have to do in order to get the shaft, is to assume that despite being less qualified than 90% of applicants overall, you were more qualified than all of the minority applicants who were hired. I see you've built yourself a nice little self-fulfilling prophecy here. Also, a hypothesis that cannot be disproven is an invalid hypothesis, "the shot I never miss" variety. "Oh but you missed it!" "No, I was a couple inches off the right spot, the shot I missed was not the shot I never miss!"

    Since you've GUARANTEED it happens, cite a case.

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Disrupter wrote: »
    see, thats exactly the bias that im talking about. Because the majority of situations involve a white male being given an advantage, the prospect of one being given negative treatment is imediately poo-pood.

    There's a big difference between negative treatment, and not being given a positive advantage. We're dealing with the latter.
    The simple fact that there is legislation that requires the hiring of minorities to fill quotas implies that somewhere, sometime a white man was passed over for a job because the buisness needed to fill the quota.

    Quotas?

    Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
    The Supreme Court held that the UC Davis medical school admissions program violated the equal protection clause with the institution of quotas for underrepresented minorities. However, the court ruled that race could be one of the factors in university admissions.


    Your complaints about 29 years late to the game. Are you even 29 years old?
    Yes, overall white males have it good. It doesnt make using racial bias when hiring any more "ok" because it doesnt impact the overall, it impacts the individual.

    Which individuals? You still haven't explained how you're distinguishing between the ones who didn't get in because of AA, and the ones who wouldn't have gotten in even in its absense.
    Detharin wrote: »
    Welcome to now. Our genocidal expansionist history ended quite a while ago. Now we just assimilate people.

    Yes, finish the process that we started. Leave no culture left that isn't white.
    Which is pretty much the case now. They dont want to learn english, its to hard, so lets just ignore anyone who speaks it. Dont see a problem with that i take it?

    Nope. If they want to ignore you, then that's their right.
    Yep now lets take a black man vs a guy who doesnt speak english, which will be the bigger detrement?

    And your point is... what?

    It's like having a debate on whether smoking causes cancer, and all you can bring up is, "Let's have them breathe in asbestos, then they'd REALLY get cancer!" Yes, maybe so, but what exactly is the point that we're supposed to respond to?

    Sheesh, is this the type of gibberish that other people would have to look forward to if they learned English? No thank you.

    Schrodinger on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Assuming everyone has a quota (which isn't actually how affirmative action works in the vast majority of institutions), how high is that quota? Is it 10%? So in order to get shafted, the first thing you have to do is be less qualified than 90% of applicants. The next thing you have to do in order to get the shaft, is to assume that despite being less qualified than 90% of applicants overall, you were more qualified than all of the minority applicants who were hired. I see you've built yourself a nice little self-fulfilling prophecy here. Also, a hypothesis that cannot be disproven is an invalid hypothesis, "the shot I never miss" variety. "Oh but you missed it!" "No, I was a couple inches off the right spot, the shot I missed was not the shot I never miss!"

    Since you've GUARANTEED it happens, cite a case.

    No, VC, you're not looking at it the right way.

    See, he's white. Therefore, he's entitled to the job in question.

    That darkie who got the job? Well, he's black. So he's not entitled to the job in question.

    When black people fail, it's because they weren't good enough. When white people fail, it's because some darkie took their slot. If there was no such thing as affrmative action, then there would be 100% employment among white people.

    White people deserve opprotunities. Black people don't. That's the status quo. Anything that attempts to change the status quo is therefore wrong.

    What's so racist about about that?

    Schrodinger on
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    wow...can you just not read? Let me keep it simple so you cant somehow decide to interpret it through your CRAZY glasses which you are apparently wearing...

    Here we go:

    Race should NEVER be looked at when determining if someone should be hire. Affirmative action creates the potential for this occur. Therefore its wrong.

    Disrupter on
    616610-1.png
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Disrupter wrote: »
    wow...can you just not read? Let me keep it simple so you cant somehow decide to interpret it through your CRAZY glasses which you are apparently wearing...

    Here we go:

    Race should NEVER be looked at when determining if someone should be hire. Affirmative action creates the potential for this occur. Therefore its wrong.

    Race is ALWAYS looked at when an employer interviews an applicant. Literally, staring right at it. Ergo, go fuck yourself off a bridge.

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2007
    keep digging...

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Disrupter wrote: »
    wow...can you just not read? Let me keep it simple so you cant somehow decide to interpret it through your CRAZY glasses which you are apparently wearing...

    Here we go:

    Race should NEVER be looked at when determining if someone should be hire. Affirmative action creates the potential for this occur. Therefore its wrong.

    Except only in an ideal world would that ever occur. And the world isn't perfect, so race will always be a factor in hiring regardless.

    Rook on
  • AcidSerraAcidSerra Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Assuming everyone has a quota (which isn't actually how affirmative action works in the vast majority of institutions), how high is that quota? Is it 10%? So in order to get shafted, the first thing you have to do is be less qualified than 90% of applicants. The next thing you have to do in order to get the shaft, is to assume that despite being less qualified than 90% of applicants overall, you were more qualified than all of the minority applicants who were hired. I see you've built yourself a nice little self-fulfilling prophecy here.

    Not to be the bad guy here, just wanted to point out your math is about 3 miles off center. If quota is 10% of total positions, since 10% of total applications would bankrupt people with employees they can't afford, then in all likelyhood it would be case by case since wholesale hirings are few and far between, if you lose position placing you below 10% then you MUST hire a minority. Meaning they could be in the top 1% and still not get the job. [Edit] And all hirings after quota are on the same footing as if there was none, and maybe with quota padding sitting in the back of their mind.

    HOWEVER, if your company is in a location and industry that actually has quotas and less than 10% of your company are minorities... you've a got a problem.

    AcidSerra on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2007
    This is where I bring up that "a lot of institutions actually have to anonymise applicants completely in order to eliminate bias" stuff, huh. Like how orchestras have to audition players with a screen separating the judge and player so the player's gender doesn't affect the judges' decision.

    mmmm, yup. seems like the time.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    keep digging...

    Oh, you want me to tell him about how group-membership impairs peoples ability to gain these qualifications he's so obsessed with in the first place, making the qualifications themselves in many cases a tool of group-membership based discrimination in hiring?

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    but why embrace that imperfection in society? its hypocritcal....

    Again, im not arguing that the end doesnt justify the means, because I dont have the information and general omnipotence to know if it does...

    I personally dont think its the right way to go about trying to alleviate the problem

    Lets say you have two applicants that are identical in every way, except one is white and one is black.

    In scenerio A) they both apply for the same job. The white guy is hired because the owner is white and feels he would have more in common with a white guy and thus thinks he would get along with him better.

    In scenerio b) they both apply for the same job. The black guy is hired because of affirmative action.

    How is one of these scenerios any worse then the other?

    Disrupter on
    616610-1.png
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    AcidSerra wrote: »
    Assuming everyone has a quota (which isn't actually how affirmative action works in the vast majority of institutions), how high is that quota? Is it 10%? So in order to get shafted, the first thing you have to do is be less qualified than 90% of applicants. The next thing you have to do in order to get the shaft, is to assume that despite being less qualified than 90% of applicants overall, you were more qualified than all of the minority applicants who were hired. I see you've built yourself a nice little self-fulfilling prophecy here.

    Not to be the bad guy here, just wanted to point out your math is about 3 miles off center. If quota is 10% of total positions, since 10% of total applications would bankrupt people with employees they can't afford, then in all likelyhood it would be case by case since wholesale hirings are few and far between, if you lose position placing you below 10% then you MUST hire a minority. Meaning they could be in the top 1% and still not get the job. [Edit] And all hirings after quota are on the same footing as if there was none, and maybe with quota padding sitting in the back of their mind.

    HOWEVER, if your company is in a location and industry that actually has quotas and less than 10% of your company are minorities... you've a got a problem.

    I didn't say 10% of positions. I went with the absurd-crazy notion of quotas because it seemed the one he'd relate to. It really doesn't matter anyway since quotas aren't usually the means of affirmative action used.

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Disrupter wrote: »
    but why embrace that imperfection in society? its hypocritcal....

    Acknowledge != embrace. Invest in a fucking thesaurus, dildo.

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    human being on the internet != dildo. invest in a expletive thesaurus, insult.

    Why are you people so keen on insults here on the debate and discourse forums. Is this why you come to the internet, because if you have these conversations in real life youd quickly run out of actual points to make and then throw out insults and get punched? Honestly, fucking discuss things without being a douche maybe?

    And creating systems which further extend the imperfection is embracing it.

    Disrupter on
    616610-1.png
  • AcidSerraAcidSerra Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    keep digging...

    Oh, you want me to tell him about how group-membership impairs peoples ability to gain these qualifications he's so obsessed with in the first place, making the qualifications themselves in many cases a tool of group-membership based discrimination in hiring?

    If he hasn't heard anyhting else you've said what makes you think he'll hear this? =P

    And I used positions because your applicants example does not work in any way shape or form, period. Either quotas have a 100% effect on the decision or a very very small effect on the decision. Therefore your example is absolutely meaningless and all your sarcastic and cutting remarks are straight up worthless.
    If you want to bite the guy with truth about AA, use something true.

    AcidSerra on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Yes, finish the process that we started. Leave no culture left that isn't white.
    What exactly are you blathering about here? What is the point of this statement or line of reasoning? That because we failed to kill EVERYONE 200 years ago that....?
    Nope. If they want to ignore you, then that's their right.
    The right to ignore the entire English speaking populous of the country? To what purpose? What, if anything, would the advantage of doing so? Lets look at his logically, most people who immigrate want a better life, more money, and to flee the shithole conditions of their home country.

    So why come here, and not learn the language? Its spoken by the vast majority of the people here, the inability to speak it handicaps you, and prevents you from getting better jobs. The point is that if you want to talk about racial inequality and that non-whites are at a disadvantage why would you want to further handicap yourself by not learning the Native tongue of the nation you immigrate to?

    It's like having a debate on whether smoking causes cancer, and all you can bring up is, "Let's have them breathe in asbestos, then they'd REALLY get cancer!" Yes, maybe so, but what exactly is the point that we're supposed to respond to?

    Sheesh, is this the type of gibberish that other people would have to look forward to if they learned English? No thank you.

    What is your point exactly here? That people should not have to learn the language when they immigrate to a country. except to do it legally you have to speak the language. Here you go, the legal requirements on becoming a citizen.

    Language

    Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language. Applicants exempt from this requirement are those who on the date of filing:

    * have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 15 years and are over 55 years of age;
    * have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 20 years and are over 50 years of age; or
    * have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant’s ability to learn English.

    My point in all this, is that every person living in America should be able to speak English. It increases your chances of a better life, it helps prevent the exploitation of people, and its a legal requirement for being an American citizen.

    So what exactly is your point in all this?

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Disrupter wrote: »
    human being on the internet != dildo.

    A thing whose only real application is to have characteristics similar enough to an erect penis to get the job done before being tossed in a box in the closet = dildo, though.

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Disrupter wrote: »
    wow...can you just not read? Let me keep it simple so you cant somehow decide to interpret it through your CRAZY glasses which you are apparently wearing...

    Here we go:

    Race should NEVER be looked at when determining if someone should be hire. Affirmative action creates the potential for this occur. Therefore its wrong.

    Once again, you state your opinion. Once again, I'll cite this article.

    http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/6500.html

    While Baugh coined the term linguistic profiling, many who suffer from twisted stereotypes about dialect have known for decades about the racist tactic. His mother knew and took protective action. When he was a youngster in Philadelphia, he could tell if she were talking to a white person or a black person on the telephone.

    His study shows that some companies screen calls on answering machines and don't return calls of those whose voices seem to identify them as black or Latino.

    Some companies instruct their phone clerks to brush aside any chance of a face-to-face appointment to view a sales property or interview for a job based on the sound of a caller's voice. Other employees routinely write their guess about a caller's race on company phone message slips.

    Such discrimination occurs across America, says Baugh, who is also a professor of psychology and holds appointments in the departments of Anthropology, Education and English, all in Arts & Sciences.

    If the availability of an advertised job or an apartment is denied at a face-to-face meeting with a person of color, employers and renters know that they can be accused of racism. However, when accused of racist and unfair tactics over the phone, many companies have played dumb about racial linguistic profiling.

    Schrodinger on
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    AcidSerra wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    keep digging...

    Oh, you want me to tell him about how group-membership impairs peoples ability to gain these qualifications he's so obsessed with in the first place, making the qualifications themselves in many cases a tool of group-membership based discrimination in hiring?

    If he hasn't heard anyhting else you've said what makes you think he'll hear this? =P

    And I used positions because your applicants example does not work in any way shape or form, period. Either quotas have a 100% effect on the decision or a very very small effect on the decision. Therefore your example is absolutely meaningless and all your sarcastic and cutting remarks are straight up worthless.
    If you want to bite the guy with truth about AA, use something true.

    He's not concerned with truth, I don't see truth swaying him. I see mocking his ridiculous persecution fantasies as fun, though. The % of applicants thing is more applicable to colleges, I've never worked for a company that used quotas before but with schools if you're doing quotas it makes the most sense to require a certain proportion of incoming freshmen rather than the enrollment level since in 4 years your positions-filled quota is suddenly empty.

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I...I dont see why you are restating that article.

    Again, its as if your saying that because some people are racist, it makes it the it ok for others to be...

    My argument isnt that there doesnt exist a serious problem with racial bias in hiring. There most definately is, and it needs to be addressed.

    My argument is that its hypocritical to try to fight this problem through a system that relies on using racial bias to re-tip the scales.

    Disrupter on
    616610-1.png
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Disrupter wrote: »
    I...I dont see why you are restating that article.

    Again, its as if your saying that because some people are racist, it makes it the it ok for others to be...

    My argument isnt that there doesnt exist a serious problem with racial bias in hiring. There most definately is, and it needs to be addressed.

    My argument is that its hypocritical to try to fight this problem through a system that relies on using racial bias to re-tip the scales.

    Your argument is that you acknowledge that there is a problem, but think it would be "wrong" to do anything about it.

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Sign In or Register to comment.