|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 17 2023 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2023 07:32 BlackJack wrote:On December 17 2023 07:03 micronesia wrote:
Another issue is equating hosting an extra party for "person of color" colleagues with hosting a "no whites" party. Mathematically, they are the same thing from set theory perspective, but in practice they are not. If Boston only hosted one elected official party this holiday season, and they invited everyone except for the white colleagues, then that would definitely be newsworthy. If Boston hosts a party for all elected officials, and an extra smaller one for a subset of colleagues, that's not really newsworthy. It makes for a great soundbite though when you take it out of context.
The only reason to go to that extra party is if you are a person of color. That's the whole point.
edit: That extra party shouldn't offer lots of advantages over the main party (other than the camaraderie among fellow persons of color) though or else it's potentially unfair. Holding the "all colleagues" party in a Motel 6 parking lot but the more selective party at the Four Seasons ballroom deserves scrutiny. It’s odd that you acknowledge that mathematically this party is the same as a “no whites” party but in practice it’s not, and then your reasoning is that there are other parties where everyone is invited including the whites. That makes no sense. The other parties have no bearing on whether or not this particular one is a no whites party. So it is indeed a “no whites” party both mathematically and in practice but you just think it’s not so bad since there are other parties where everyone can attend. Seems like rationalization that you for sure would not offer in a million years if the excluded race were not the whites, although you can correct me if I’m wrong on that. So, Whites having "all whites" parties is ok, but having a "no whites" party isn't? And since I don't think your getting the analogy, there are a whole lot of "all white" parties happening all the time because the white people in charge simply don't hire any non-white people who could then come to their parties. To stop the "all whites" parties you first have to actively discriminate by forcing some non-white people into the eligible circles in the first place. Because we can see the (un)natural order of things by looking out the window for the past 2+ millenia, when giving the chance the default for the western world is pretty clearly "all white"
Not only is it disingenuous to equate an overrepresentation of whites in certain areas as a “whites only” party where minorities aren’t allowed, but it’s not even accurate. Every major company is spending money to increase diversity in their workforce, the idea of “we only want to hire whites” exists nowhere except in your head. Based on what I jus googled, 30-40% of ivy league admissions are white. Hardly a whites only party in our most elite universities. 75% of congress is white which is an overrepresentation of the US population but people of color also skew younger and we only elect boomers. Please tell us where you think these “white only” parties exist in present day America and not 1950s America.
|
On December 17 2023 08:37 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2023 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:On December 17 2023 07:32 BlackJack wrote:On December 17 2023 07:03 micronesia wrote:
Another issue is equating hosting an extra party for "person of color" colleagues with hosting a "no whites" party. Mathematically, they are the same thing from set theory perspective, but in practice they are not. If Boston only hosted one elected official party this holiday season, and they invited everyone except for the white colleagues, then that would definitely be newsworthy. If Boston hosts a party for all elected officials, and an extra smaller one for a subset of colleagues, that's not really newsworthy. It makes for a great soundbite though when you take it out of context.
The only reason to go to that extra party is if you are a person of color. That's the whole point.
edit: That extra party shouldn't offer lots of advantages over the main party (other than the camaraderie among fellow persons of color) though or else it's potentially unfair. Holding the "all colleagues" party in a Motel 6 parking lot but the more selective party at the Four Seasons ballroom deserves scrutiny. It’s odd that you acknowledge that mathematically this party is the same as a “no whites” party but in practice it’s not, and then your reasoning is that there are other parties where everyone is invited including the whites. That makes no sense. The other parties have no bearing on whether or not this particular one is a no whites party. So it is indeed a “no whites” party both mathematically and in practice but you just think it’s not so bad since there are other parties where everyone can attend. Seems like rationalization that you for sure would not offer in a million years if the excluded race were not the whites, although you can correct me if I’m wrong on that. So, Whites having "all whites" parties is ok, but having a "no whites" party isn't? And since I don't think your getting the analogy, there are a whole lot of "all white" parties happening all the time because the white people in charge simply don't hire any non-white people who could then come to their parties. To stop the "all whites" parties you first have to actively discriminate by forcing some non-white people into the eligible circles in the first place. Because we can see the (un)natural order of things by looking out the window for the past 2+ millenia, when giving the chance the default for the western world is pretty clearly "all white" Not only is it disingenuous to equate an overrepresentation of whites in certain areas as a “whites only” party where minorities aren’t allowed, but it’s not even accurate. Every major company is spending money to increase diversity in their workforce, the idea of “we only want to hire whites” exists nowhere except in your head. Based on what I jus googled, 30-40% of ivy league admissions are white. Hardly a whites only party in our most elite universities. 75% of congress is white which is an overrepresentation of the US population but people of color also skew younger and we only elect boomers. Please tell us where you think these “white only” parties exist in present day America and not 1950s America.
I'd say the fact they are actively spending money to increase diversity proves the point, the diversity did not already happen naturally.
|
In order to view "no whites" events as acceptable you would have to first believe that white people as a category are oppressors of non white people, so that they have to be excluded in order for the others to feel safe.
While it was true in the past that some powerful white people were indeed oppressors, I don't think they still exist today, or at least in a widespread manner that justifies discriminating against white people.
|
United States42252 Posts
On December 17 2023 08:34 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2023 07:55 KwarK wrote:On December 17 2023 07:32 BlackJack wrote:On December 17 2023 07:03 micronesia wrote:
Another issue is equating hosting an extra party for "person of color" colleagues with hosting a "no whites" party. Mathematically, they are the same thing from set theory perspective, but in practice they are not. If Boston only hosted one elected official party this holiday season, and they invited everyone except for the white colleagues, then that would definitely be newsworthy. If Boston hosts a party for all elected officials, and an extra smaller one for a subset of colleagues, that's not really newsworthy. It makes for a great soundbite though when you take it out of context.
The only reason to go to that extra party is if you are a person of color. That's the whole point.
edit: That extra party shouldn't offer lots of advantages over the main party (other than the camaraderie among fellow persons of color) though or else it's potentially unfair. Holding the "all colleagues" party in a Motel 6 parking lot but the more selective party at the Four Seasons ballroom deserves scrutiny. It’s odd that you acknowledge that mathematically this party is the same as a “no whites” party but in practice it’s not, and then your reasoning is that there are other parties where everyone is invited including the whites. That makes no sense. The other parties have no bearing on whether or not this particular one is a no whites party. So it is indeed a “no whites” party both mathematically and in practice but you just think it’s not so bad since there are other parties where everyone can attend. Seems like rationalization that you for sure would not offer in a million years if the excluded race were not the whites, although you can correct me if I’m wrong on that. This gets us back to my point. You don’t get it and that’s okay. Not everyone needs to understand everything. I dont think you getting his point actually. If he happen to nominate Black women - thats fine, announcing beforehand that you will nominate black person is discrimination. If he happen to say that he will nominate white person and then nominated one, I have suspicion that you would understand Black Jack point.
You’re not getting it either, and that’s okay too.
|
On December 17 2023 08:48 gobbledydook wrote:
In order to view "no whites" events as acceptable you would have to first believe that white people as a category are oppressors of non white people, so that they have to be excluded in order for the others to feel safe.
While it was true in the past that some powerful white people were indeed oppressors, I don't think they still exist today, or at least in a widespread manner that justifies discriminating against white people.
That's very reasonable, but if you, like Gorsameth, take equality of outcome as you yardstick to measure racism it becomes legitimate to discriminate against whites again (mostly seen as completely fine), against jews (not completely fine for most people) and against Asians (seen as repulsive for most people) for example.
|
United States24631 Posts
This is a tricky topic to understand if you assume it's simple and devoid of nuance.
|
|
|
On December 17 2023 08:37 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2023 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:On December 17 2023 07:32 BlackJack wrote:On December 17 2023 07:03 micronesia wrote:
Another issue is equating hosting an extra party for "person of color" colleagues with hosting a "no whites" party. Mathematically, they are the same thing from set theory perspective, but in practice they are not. If Boston only hosted one elected official party this holiday season, and they invited everyone except for the white colleagues, then that would definitely be newsworthy. If Boston hosts a party for all elected officials, and an extra smaller one for a subset of colleagues, that's not really newsworthy. It makes for a great soundbite though when you take it out of context.
The only reason to go to that extra party is if you are a person of color. That's the whole point.
edit: That extra party shouldn't offer lots of advantages over the main party (other than the camaraderie among fellow persons of color) though or else it's potentially unfair. Holding the "all colleagues" party in a Motel 6 parking lot but the more selective party at the Four Seasons ballroom deserves scrutiny. It’s odd that you acknowledge that mathematically this party is the same as a “no whites” party but in practice it’s not, and then your reasoning is that there are other parties where everyone is invited including the whites. That makes no sense. The other parties have no bearing on whether or not this particular one is a no whites party. So it is indeed a “no whites” party both mathematically and in practice but you just think it’s not so bad since there are other parties where everyone can attend. Seems like rationalization that you for sure would not offer in a million years if the excluded race were not the whites, although you can correct me if I’m wrong on that. So, Whites having "all whites" parties is ok, but having a "no whites" party isn't? And since I don't think your getting the analogy, there are a whole lot of "all white" parties happening all the time because the white people in charge simply don't hire any non-white people who could then come to their parties. To stop the "all whites" parties you first have to actively discriminate by forcing some non-white people into the eligible circles in the first place. Because we can see the (un)natural order of things by looking out the window for the past 2+ millenia, when giving the chance the default for the western world is pretty clearly "all white" Not only is it disingenuous to equate an overrepresentation of whites in certain areas as a “whites only” party where minorities aren’t allowed, but it’s not even accurate. Every major company is spending money to increase diversity in their workforce, the idea of “we only want to hire whites” exists nowhere except in your head. Based on what I jus googled, 30-40% of ivy league admissions are white. Hardly a whites only party in our most elite universities. 75% of congress is white which is an overrepresentation of the US population but people of color also skew younger and we only elect boomers. Please tell us where you think these “white only” parties exist in present day America and not 1950s America.
The contortions people are going through and the terrible analogies people are giving are wild, maybe it's they who would be more comfortable in 1950s America. They could justify anything. As usual, the same people who see the effects of racism in every disparate outcome, every hand gesture, and every turn of phrase are a-ok if the multiracial city council of a major US city has racially exclusive activities. Apparently it's an institution in need of serious help, since we need this type of thing to fix grave injustices a la the Supreme Court.
|
On December 17 2023 08:59 micronesia wrote:
This is a tricky topic to understand if you assume it's simple and devoid of nuance.
This and the sentences like:
It is not that simple
World is not just black and white it is all shades of grey
You wont understand it
are in general used to excuse something bad, which cant really be excused without distorting facts. instead of "distorting facts" use "putting facts in the right context" and you have basically prescription to justify anything.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland24393 Posts
On December 17 2023 09:27 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2023 09:19 Introvert wrote:On December 17 2023 08:37 BlackJack wrote:On December 17 2023 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:On December 17 2023 07:32 BlackJack wrote:On December 17 2023 07:03 micronesia wrote:
Another issue is equating hosting an extra party for "person of color" colleagues with hosting a "no whites" party. Mathematically, they are the same thing from set theory perspective, but in practice they are not. If Boston only hosted one elected official party this holiday season, and they invited everyone except for the white colleagues, then that would definitely be newsworthy. If Boston hosts a party for all elected officials, and an extra smaller one for a subset of colleagues, that's not really newsworthy. It makes for a great soundbite though when you take it out of context.
The only reason to go to that extra party is if you are a person of color. That's the whole point.
edit: That extra party shouldn't offer lots of advantages over the main party (other than the camaraderie among fellow persons of color) though or else it's potentially unfair. Holding the "all colleagues" party in a Motel 6 parking lot but the more selective party at the Four Seasons ballroom deserves scrutiny. It’s odd that you acknowledge that mathematically this party is the same as a “no whites” party but in practice it’s not, and then your reasoning is that there are other parties where everyone is invited including the whites. That makes no sense. The other parties have no bearing on whether or not this particular one is a no whites party. So it is indeed a “no whites” party both mathematically and in practice but you just think it’s not so bad since there are other parties where everyone can attend. Seems like rationalization that you for sure would not offer in a million years if the excluded race were not the whites, although you can correct me if I’m wrong on that. So, Whites having "all whites" parties is ok, but having a "no whites" party isn't? And since I don't think your getting the analogy, there are a whole lot of "all white" parties happening all the time because the white people in charge simply don't hire any non-white people who could then come to their parties. To stop the "all whites" parties you first have to actively discriminate by forcing some non-white people into the eligible circles in the first place. Because we can see the (un)natural order of things by looking out the window for the past 2+ millenia, when giving the chance the default for the western world is pretty clearly "all white" Not only is it disingenuous to equate an overrepresentation of whites in certain areas as a “whites only” party where minorities aren’t allowed, but it’s not even accurate. Every major company is spending money to increase diversity in their workforce, the idea of “we only want to hire whites” exists nowhere except in your head. Based on what I jus googled, 30-40% of ivy league admissions are white. Hardly a whites only party in our most elite universities. 75% of congress is white which is an overrepresentation of the US population but people of color also skew younger and we only elect boomers. Please tell us where you think these “white only” parties exist in present day America and not 1950s America. The contortions people are going through and the terrible analogies people are giving are wild, maybe it's they who would be more comfortable in 1950s America. They could justify anything. As usual, the same people who see the effects of racism in every disparate outcome, every hand gesture, and every turn of phrase are a-ok if the multiracial city council of a major US city has racially exclusive activities. Apparently it's an institution in need of serious help, since we need this type of thing to fix grave injustices a la the Supreme Court. You have the favourite to be the next US president saying that immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country, slightly bigger deal than a people of colour Christmas party no? You all worked up about that actual racism or what?
Why would you be? It’s democratic after all
|
On December 17 2023 09:27 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2023 09:19 Introvert wrote:On December 17 2023 08:37 BlackJack wrote:On December 17 2023 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:On December 17 2023 07:32 BlackJack wrote:On December 17 2023 07:03 micronesia wrote:
Another issue is equating hosting an extra party for "person of color" colleagues with hosting a "no whites" party. Mathematically, they are the same thing from set theory perspective, but in practice they are not. If Boston only hosted one elected official party this holiday season, and they invited everyone except for the white colleagues, then that would definitely be newsworthy. If Boston hosts a party for all elected officials, and an extra smaller one for a subset of colleagues, that's not really newsworthy. It makes for a great soundbite though when you take it out of context.
The only reason to go to that extra party is if you are a person of color. That's the whole point.
edit: That extra party shouldn't offer lots of advantages over the main party (other than the camaraderie among fellow persons of color) though or else it's potentially unfair. Holding the "all colleagues" party in a Motel 6 parking lot but the more selective party at the Four Seasons ballroom deserves scrutiny. It’s odd that you acknowledge that mathematically this party is the same as a “no whites” party but in practice it’s not, and then your reasoning is that there are other parties where everyone is invited including the whites. That makes no sense. The other parties have no bearing on whether or not this particular one is a no whites party. So it is indeed a “no whites” party both mathematically and in practice but you just think it’s not so bad since there are other parties where everyone can attend. Seems like rationalization that you for sure would not offer in a million years if the excluded race were not the whites, although you can correct me if I’m wrong on that. So, Whites having "all whites" parties is ok, but having a "no whites" party isn't? And since I don't think your getting the analogy, there are a whole lot of "all white" parties happening all the time because the white people in charge simply don't hire any non-white people who could then come to their parties. To stop the "all whites" parties you first have to actively discriminate by forcing some non-white people into the eligible circles in the first place. Because we can see the (un)natural order of things by looking out the window for the past 2+ millenia, when giving the chance the default for the western world is pretty clearly "all white" Not only is it disingenuous to equate an overrepresentation of whites in certain areas as a “whites only” party where minorities aren’t allowed, but it’s not even accurate. Every major company is spending money to increase diversity in their workforce, the idea of “we only want to hire whites” exists nowhere except in your head. Based on what I jus googled, 30-40% of ivy league admissions are white. Hardly a whites only party in our most elite universities. 75% of congress is white which is an overrepresentation of the US population but people of color also skew younger and we only elect boomers. Please tell us where you think these “white only” parties exist in present day America and not 1950s America. The contortions people are going through and the terrible analogies people are giving are wild, maybe it's they who would be more comfortable in 1950s America. They could justify anything. As usual, the same people who see the effects of racism in every disparate outcome, every hand gesture, and every turn of phrase are a-ok if the multiracial city council of a major US city has racially exclusive activities. Apparently it's an institution in need of serious help, since we need this type of thing to fix grave injustices a la the Supreme Court. You have the favourite to be the next US president saying that immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country, slightly bigger deal than a people of colour Christmas party no? You all worked up about that actual racism or what?
This was part of BlackJack's point. This way of thinking is prevalent everywhere. One stupid Christmas party is not the most important thing in the world, but it's a mindset that infects so many of America's elite and governmental institutions. I might as well ask why, if Trump is less than a year from a fascist dictatorship, everyone here seems so interested in defending meaningless acts of racial discrimination? Don't you think it makes trying to defeat the Orange Man more difficult if you can't even disapprove of any racial exclusionism that excludes whites?
|
United States24631 Posts
On December 17 2023 09:26 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2023 08:59 micronesia wrote:
This is a tricky topic to understand if you assume it's simple and devoid of nuance. This and the sentences like: It is not that simple World is not just black and white it is all shades of grey You wont understand it are in general used to excuse something bad, which cant really be excused without distorting facts. instead of "distorting facts" use "putting facts in the right context" and you have basically prescription to justify anything.
Well I didn't say "you won't understand it" or "world is not black and white". But sometimes, topics actually are tricky to understand even if they don't seem that way. I can think of about 100 off the top of my head, and this seems to be one of them. Even if you are correct that my statement, in other circumstances, often is used to excuse bad things, that doesn't mean it's the case this time. Also, citation needed.
|
|
|
On December 17 2023 08:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2023 08:37 BlackJack wrote:On December 17 2023 07:38 Gorsameth wrote:On December 17 2023 07:32 BlackJack wrote:On December 17 2023 07:03 micronesia wrote:
Another issue is equating hosting an extra party for "person of color" colleagues with hosting a "no whites" party. Mathematically, they are the same thing from set theory perspective, but in practice they are not. If Boston only hosted one elected official party this holiday season, and they invited everyone except for the white colleagues, then that would definitely be newsworthy. If Boston hosts a party for all elected officials, and an extra smaller one for a subset of colleagues, that's not really newsworthy. It makes for a great soundbite though when you take it out of context.
The only reason to go to that extra party is if you are a person of color. That's the whole point.
edit: That extra party shouldn't offer lots of advantages over the main party (other than the camaraderie among fellow persons of color) though or else it's potentially unfair. Holding the "all colleagues" party in a Motel 6 parking lot but the more selective party at the Four Seasons ballroom deserves scrutiny. It’s odd that you acknowledge that mathematically this party is the same as a “no whites” party but in practice it’s not, and then your reasoning is that there are other parties where everyone is invited including the whites. That makes no sense. The other parties have no bearing on whether or not this particular one is a no whites party. So it is indeed a “no whites” party both mathematically and in practice but you just think it’s not so bad since there are other parties where everyone can attend. Seems like rationalization that you for sure would not offer in a million years if the excluded race were not the whites, although you can correct me if I’m wrong on that. So, Whites having "all whites" parties is ok, but having a "no whites" party isn't? And since I don't think your getting the analogy, there are a whole lot of "all white" parties happening all the time because the white people in charge simply don't hire any non-white people who could then come to their parties. To stop the "all whites" parties you first have to actively discriminate by forcing some non-white people into the eligible circles in the first place. Because we can see the (un)natural order of things by looking out the window for the past 2+ millenia, when giving the chance the default for the western world is pretty clearly "all white" Not only is it disingenuous to equate an overrepresentation of whites in certain areas as a “whites only” party where minorities aren’t allowed, but it’s not even accurate. Every major company is spending money to increase diversity in their workforce, the idea of “we only want to hire whites” exists nowhere except in your head. Based on what I jus googled, 30-40% of ivy league admissions are white. Hardly a whites only party in our most elite universities. 75% of congress is white which is an overrepresentation of the US population but people of color also skew younger and we only elect boomers. Please tell us where you think these “white only” parties exist in present day America and not 1950s America. I'd say the fact they are actively spending money to increase diversity proves the point, the diversity did not already happen naturally.
Actually it did. The overt and acceptable levels of racism against white people to the point of “hey everybody let’s bring back segregation” didn’t happen until very recently. That’s well after we made tremendous progress in diversity without resorting to overt racism. Was it perfect? No, of course not. You’re just deciding that the progress that was made wasn’t good enough so instead we’re going to piss on MLK’s dream and go back to judging people based on the color of their skin as if that will lead to more racial harmony.
|
On December 17 2023 09:42 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2023 09:26 Razyda wrote:On December 17 2023 08:59 micronesia wrote:
This is a tricky topic to understand if you assume it's simple and devoid of nuance. This and the sentences like: It is not that simple World is not just black and white it is all shades of grey You wont understand it are in general used to excuse something bad, which cant really be excused without distorting facts. instead of "distorting facts" use "putting facts in the right context" and you have basically prescription to justify anything. Well I didn't say "you won't understand it" or "world is not black and white". But sometimes, topics actually are tricky to understand even if they don't seem that way. I can think of about 100 off the top of my head, and this seems to be one of them. Even if you are correct that my statement, in other circumstances, often is used to excuse bad things, that doesn't mean it's the case this time. Also, citation needed.
Apologies I should have add "from my personal experience" so unfortunately I wont have citations. Thats on me.
Lets have a look on some posts here:
On December 17 2023 06:25 KwarK wrote:
You really don’t get it. And that’s okay. Not everyone has to understand everything. Don’t worry about it.
Then Kwark gives explanation which have nothing to do with whether situations Black Jack mention were racist or not.
Spoiler: they were - underlying circumstances may justify them, but wont change them.
Then is yours which I quoted in my previous post which is quite neat (well done by the way, it was a pleasure). Basically you suggest that we lack understanding to conclude whether it was racist or not, because of complexity of it. This is actually not the case. It is quite obvious discrimination. You may reread discussion and you will notice that no one actually even tried to challenge that. Now whether it is justified or not is a different discussion, if you want to have it I am all open - please tell me what justifies discrimination based on race and I will challenge your points, or agree with them depends on how well you present them.
Edit: typos
|
United States24631 Posts
I think your post is an impressive confirmation of exactly what I said.
The reason why I posted what I did was not because I was trying to hurl insults and defend Kwark... it was actually the opposite. Some of what he said was implying that some people here are too dumb to understand this topic. My counterpoint was that probably nobody here is too dumb, but they need to try to actually understand it better instead of just assuming they understand it and aren't oversimplifying the matter. For what it's worth when I first first encountered cases like the ones Blackjack introduced I had the same reaction initially as some other posters here are having, piling on to the 'discriminatory' behavior being criticized.
|
On December 17 2023 11:55 micronesia wrote:
I think your post is an impressive confirmation of exactly what I said.
The reason why I posted what I did was not because I was trying to hurl insults and defend Kwark... it was actually the opposite. Some of what he said was implying that some people here are too dumb to understand this topic. My counterpoint was that probably nobody here is too dumb, but they need to try to actually understand it better instead of just assuming they understand it and aren't oversimplifying the matter. For what it's worth when I first first encountered cases like the ones Blackjack introduced I had the same reaction initially as some other posters here are having, piling on to the 'discriminatory' behavior being criticized.
This is brilliant, I really enjoy it and thank you for the answer.
I never said that you were throwing insults (far as I am concerned there isn't single thing in the world that anyone understands fully, let alone me). I also never thought you try to defend Kwark - I quoted his post only as an explanation why I consider phrases mentioned earlier as muddying the water (so to speak). Apologies if that was impression you got from my post - it was not my intention. My point was that you were trying to defend something undefendable by suggesting that we cant understand it fully, which is not the case here.
Now to stay on topic:
Do you think events Black Jack mentioned were discriminatory? (please note it is not a question if discrimination was justified)
Do you think discrimination based on race is justified?
If it is what warrants justification?
In all honesty I dont think there is a way to honestly answer this questions, without either agreeing that events were discriminatory, or that discrimination based on race is in some cases justified.
|
Yeah its a topic that is hard for people who like to avoid context and nuance to understand and we get that.
In all honesty I dont think there is a way to honestly answer this questions, without either agreeing that events were discriminatory, or that discrimination based on race is in some cases justified.
Yeah there is cases where its justified. If you have an inefficient market due to existsting discrimination within that market, its justified to correct the inefficiencies. Race is no different to gender age position that you play education or experience, what matters to normal people is the intent and context. Why does the NCAA not allow players who've been paid to be a professional player play college sports? How does anyone hire for a position or decide who to promote or not to promote. who gets a bank loan and who doesn't get a bank loan? What Restaurant should I go to and what should I eat when I get there? What fruit should I eat this week? How does a sports team figure out who to hire to play sportgame. These are all situations where discrimination happens.
It comes off that its not that you take offence to discrimination based on race but you are questioning why people are okay with it in this case. When Kwark says "yeah you don't get it its okay" its because you're not trying to argue if its okay or not you're just trying to score a gotcha that it exists and happens. I get the feeling that next we're going to have to talk about if racism has ever existed and if it has an effect on whats going on today, and thats just boring and werid that it needs to be talked about.
|
On December 17 2023 13:08 Sermokala wrote:Yeah its a topic that is hard for people who like to avoid context and nuance to understand and we get that. Show nested quote +In all honesty I dont think there is a way to honestly answer this questions, without either agreeing that events were discriminatory, or that discrimination based on race is in some cases justified. Yeah there is cases where its justified. If you have an inefficient market due to existsting discrimination within that market, its justified to correct the inefficiencies. Race is no different to gender age position that you play education or experience, what matters to normal people is the intent and context. Why does the NCAA not allow players who've been paid to be a professional player play college sports? How does anyone hire for a position or decide who to promote or not to promote. who gets a bank loan and who doesn't get a bank loan? What Restaurant should I go to and what should I eat when I get there? What fruit should I eat this week? How does a sports team figure out who to hire to play sportgame. These are all situations where discrimination happens. It comes off that its not that you take offence to discrimination based on race but you are questioning why people are okay with it in this case. When Kwark says "yeah you don't get it its okay" its because you're not trying to argue if its okay or not you're just trying to score a gotcha that it exists and happens. I get the feeling that next we're going to have to talk about if racism has ever existed and if it has an effect on whats going on today, and thats just boring and werid that it needs to be talked about.
Bolded 1: disagree
Italic1: that seems terrifyingly close to something what slave trader would say
Bolded 2: not true some of those are choice, some are not.
Italic 2: honestly WTF it has to do with anything????
Bolded 3: they pick the best one?? (again look Italic2 )
Italic 3: this is half way correct - I do take offence to discrimination, but i do question why people are ok with it in some cases.
Bolded 4: I am not - I am arguing whether it was racial discrimination, or not.
Italic 4: you clearly misunderstood. On this forum it is impossible for me to "score a gotcha" and anyway I dont care about it. Did you ever wondered why I am posting here rather than on other forums? Clearly most people here disagree with me. Thing is I dont believe in opinions of people who agree on everything, I am interested in opinions of people who have different view than mine, that lets me see arguments from their side and understand their view (sadly I often fail at both - that is however my concern not yours)
Bolded 5: one of the more documented things in the history and recent times - comparing to Micronesia posts it feels like you not even trying, or arent capable of doing so...
Italic 5: my entire point is that whether examples posted by Black Jack are racist is irrelevant to the fact if they are justified or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
