|
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 |
Maybe it's different in the Netherlands/Sweden but it would not be considered even remotely acceptable if a black doctor came in and the patient said "I'm sure you're a fantastic doctor and I have nothing against you but I would feel more comfortable with a white doctor."
On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
If the patient have think that the doctor is fine but they themselves have an issue that makes them uncomfortable or unable to recive care because of an attribute that the doctor has it's fine.
"You're a fine doctor but your skin color just makes me uncomfortable." = fine
On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's not discrimination because the problem isn't how they view the doctor.
It's not discrimination because you're not rejecting the content of their character, just the color of their skin. 
|
Since folks seem to be stuck on this, I'll give it a shot.
Preference Prejudice and Discrimination
A preference isn't exclusive or prohibitory for others. Meaning "as long as they aren’t black" isn't a preference. Neither is "women shouldn't sing rock". Those are both discrimination. "I prefer male rock vocals" is a preference
Prejudice is a spectrum and its just part of how the human (and probably plenty of animals) brain works. It uses prejudice to limit the necessary brain processing/reach liminily satisfying (like "do I need to trigger fight or flight?") conclusions when encountering phenomena.
As Fleetfeet mentioned: "Everyone has prejudices, all you should be doing is attempting to be aware and ahead of your own." That means not automatically dismissing a band because of the race or gender of the singer, but it doesn't mean "more women prison guards!" or that you have to enjoy singers outside of your preferences + Show Spoiler +(though inevitably there will be things/people outside of your presumed preferences that meet/exceed any objective criteria that ostensibly make your preference superior, and if you insist on your "preference" to the exclusion of anything else, it can rapidly pass prejudice and land in discrimination)
-Preferences (as I described) are healthy.
-Prejudice frequently/naturally develops from preferences and is dangerous but unavoidable, so it requires vigilance.
-Discrimination + Show Spoiler +"the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability."
Discrimination can be relatively fine if it's something like refusing to eat a food you would probably actually enjoy if you tried it, or something like the cat example. It's not great and could be lowering your own quality of life unnecessarily (missing out on potential friends/partners/experiences because your discrimination is a turn-off/boring/off-putting/limiting or whatever) but we'll be okay. An rational/irrational aversion to a type of food, entertainment, or particular pet species can start as a preference and morph over time into prejudice and discrimination, but they're relatively minor/situationally "acceptable". Meaning that it might cause you to fail to meet others' preferred traits, but it doesn't typically have the sort of systemic/structural stuff that discrimination like racism and sexism have in US society.
Racism and sexism are very destructive types of discrimination. Vegetarianism, not so much+ Show Spoiler + (I've not done the ecological math but I presume that it nets out as a positive compared to say a raw meat diet which could be environmentally devastating if it was the norm)
If you have a preference for dogs that's perfectly fine. If you're prejudiced against cats, that's not ideal, but with vigilance it's harmless. If you discriminate against cats that's problematic, but not exactly devastating (presuming you're just a jerk/uncaring and not violent or whatever). Start trying to pass laws banning cats from existing/systematically attacking them and now you've taken a relatively harmless discrimination and elevated it to something that has to be directly addressed by society.
If you prefer the OB/GYN example:
+ Show Spoiler +If you have a preference for women OB/GYNs that's perfectly fine. If you're prejudiced against male OB/GYNs, that's not ideal, but with vigilance it's harmless. If you discriminate against male OB/GYNs that's problematic, but not exactly devastating (presuming you're just politely insistent about it when scheduling or whatever). Start trying to pass laws banning male OB/GYNs from existing/systematically attacking them and now you've taken a relatively benign (though still problematic) discrimination and elevated it to something that has to be directly addressed by society at large.
|
I actually agree with GH for once. I'd phrase it more as the whole thing being a spectrum with preference on the benign side and discrimination on the malignant side. I think he even gets into a nice dividing line between prejudice and discrimination, although some of his early discrimination examples seem more like prejudice to me.
The dividing line between prejudice and discrimination should be between personal avoidance versus trying to effect others. If a white guy would prefer to sit at a lunch counter with other whites, but accepts blacks, that's only preference. If he doesn't want to sit with a black guy at a lunch counter, that's prejudice. If he doesn't want black people to be allowed to sit at a lunch counter and in some way acts on it, that's discrimination.
Going back to the initial argument, you can dislike female voices in broadcasts. If you'd prefer a male voice but will watch the female anyways, that's preference. If you dislike it enough to turn it off, you're merely prejudiced. However, if you try to join a boycott or write letters to get that female voice fired, that's discrimination.
The only other thing I'd add is that anything "weird" will typically have a prejudice/preference against it at first. As you get used to something by being immersed in it, it will no longer be "weird" and you may find that you actually like it or at least accept it. My first time hearing a female broadcaster in College Football, I did have an immediate negative feeling. It felt weird and I didn't like it. However, after having been exposed enough to it, it no longer feels weird and I no longer have a negative reaction to her broadcasting a game. I'm probably at the point where I no longer even have a preference on that topic.
So if women ever want a fair shot at be broadcasters, some are going to have to be rammed down your throat until you're used to it enough to give them a fair shot.
|
On June 23 2024 02:59 BlackJack wrote:Maybe it's different in the Netherlands/Sweden but it would not be considered even remotely acceptable if a black doctor came in and the patient said "I'm sure you're a fantastic doctor and I have nothing against you but I would feel more comfortable with a white doctor." Show nested quote +On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
If the patient have think that the doctor is fine but they themselves have an issue that makes them uncomfortable or unable to recive care because of an attribute that the doctor has it's fine.
"You're a fine doctor but your skin color just makes me uncomfortable." = fine Show nested quote +On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's not discrimination because the problem isn't how they view the doctor.
It's not discrimination because you're not rejecting the content of their character, just the color of their skin.
This is the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm sorry you misunderstood my entire post.
|
On June 23 2024 05:30 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2024 02:59 BlackJack wrote:Maybe it's different in the Netherlands/Sweden but it would not be considered even remotely acceptable if a black doctor came in and the patient said "I'm sure you're a fantastic doctor and I have nothing against you but I would feel more comfortable with a white doctor." On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
If the patient have think that the doctor is fine but they themselves have an issue that makes them uncomfortable or unable to recive care because of an attribute that the doctor has it's fine.
"You're a fine doctor but your skin color just makes me uncomfortable." = fine On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's not discrimination because the problem isn't how they view the doctor.
It's not discrimination because you're not rejecting the content of their character, just the color of their skin. This is the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm sorry you misunderstood my entire post.
On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
If the patient has problem with their doctor because they think race, sex or sexuality makes them a worse doctor or person that's a problem.
If the patient have think that the doctor is fine but they themselves have an issue that makes them uncomfortable or unable to recive care because of an attribute that the doctor has it's fine.
You said it's not okay to think they are inferior because of X attribute, but it's okay to have a personal issue that makes them uncomfortable with a doctor of X attribute.
|
And in the rest of the post clearly explained racism is not such an issue. You are just trying to misinterpret me and it won't work because I'm just trying to explain facts to you not how I feel personally.
I had a patient with severe PTSD who only wanted to come in during certain quiet hours because they couldn't handle crowds, should I refuse them because they don't fit the mold of everyone else?
Find a similar case with PTSD against a certain skin colour and that wouldn't be discrimination either. But that hasn't happened and it probably never will. Against men however, that's not so uncommon.
As I said as long as you aren't both racist and an idiot it's extremely easy to pick a caregiver you want either way for any number of reasons as long as you don't say the quiet part out loud or you have an emergency when you can't choose.
And healthcare isn't going to change because it's better for everyone if people can visit someone they are comfortable with.
|
On June 23 2024 06:04 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2024 05:30 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 23 2024 02:59 BlackJack wrote:Maybe it's different in the Netherlands/Sweden but it would not be considered even remotely acceptable if a black doctor came in and the patient said "I'm sure you're a fantastic doctor and I have nothing against you but I would feel more comfortable with a white doctor." On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
If the patient have think that the doctor is fine but they themselves have an issue that makes them uncomfortable or unable to recive care because of an attribute that the doctor has it's fine.
"You're a fine doctor but your skin color just makes me uncomfortable." = fine On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's not discrimination because the problem isn't how they view the doctor.
It's not discrimination because you're not rejecting the content of their character, just the color of their skin. This is the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm sorry you misunderstood my entire post. Show nested quote +On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
If the patient has problem with their doctor because they think race, sex or sexuality makes them a worse doctor or person that's a problem.
If the patient have think that the doctor is fine but they themselves have an issue that makes them uncomfortable or unable to recive care because of an attribute that the doctor has it's fine.
You said it's not okay to think they are inferior because of X attribute, but it's okay to have a personal issue that makes them uncomfortable with a doctor of X attribute.
Is there an end-state for this line of objection outside of personally nitpicking people until they concede some level of prejudice or insensitivity they probably didn't disagree with in the first place?
I'm all for making people aware of their prejudices in a safe and healthy way. It just feels like you're digging a bit hard to call people racist (?) which would be ironic given your line "...mourning the loss of a time where we can have polite public discourse without otherizing the other side with terrible names" from the Munk debate post.
I don't see what your goal is outside making people face their smallest misconceptions on prejudice.
|
On June 23 2024 17:39 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2024 06:04 BlackJack wrote:On June 23 2024 05:30 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 23 2024 02:59 BlackJack wrote:Maybe it's different in the Netherlands/Sweden but it would not be considered even remotely acceptable if a black doctor came in and the patient said "I'm sure you're a fantastic doctor and I have nothing against you but I would feel more comfortable with a white doctor." On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
If the patient have think that the doctor is fine but they themselves have an issue that makes them uncomfortable or unable to recive care because of an attribute that the doctor has it's fine.
"You're a fine doctor but your skin color just makes me uncomfortable." = fine On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's not discrimination because the problem isn't how they view the doctor.
It's not discrimination because you're not rejecting the content of their character, just the color of their skin. This is the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm sorry you misunderstood my entire post. On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
If the patient has problem with their doctor because they think race, sex or sexuality makes them a worse doctor or person that's a problem.
If the patient have think that the doctor is fine but they themselves have an issue that makes them uncomfortable or unable to recive care because of an attribute that the doctor has it's fine.
You said it's not okay to think they are inferior because of X attribute, but it's okay to have a personal issue that makes them uncomfortable with a doctor of X attribute. Is there an end-state for this line of objection outside of personally nitpicking people until they concede some level of prejudice or insensitivity they probably didn't disagree with in the first place? I'm all for making people aware of their prejudices in a safe and healthy way. It just feels like you're digging a bit hard to call people racist (?) which would be ironic given your line "...mourning the loss of a time where we can have polite public discourse without otherizing the other side with terrible names" from the Munk debate post. I don't see what your goal is outside making people face their smallest misconceptions on prejudice.
The problem I'm trying to point out is that people are all over the map on these things and it leads to a lot of double standards and hypocrisy. For example, prominent atheists like Christopher Hitchens (RIP), Richard Dawkins and others would criticize many organized religions. They'd often get accused of Islamophobia for criticizing Islam. Nobody accused them of Christianophobia for criticizing Christianity. Notably it's often white liberal SJWs that would be the loudest to accuse them of Islamophobia. The SJWs themselves will comfortably rant about the white evangelicals in America suppressing women's rights or gay rights but feel the need to call anyone who talks about women/LGBT rights in majority muslim countries a racist. It's just ridiculous. This is just one example of how completely irrational and arbitrary people want to draw these boundaries and it's why people are getting sick of identity politics.
|
On June 23 2024 15:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
And in the rest of the post clearly explained racism is not such an issue. You are just trying to misinterpret me and it won't work because I'm just trying to explain facts to you not how I feel personally.
I had a patient with severe PTSD who only wanted to come in during certain quiet hours because they couldn't handle crowds, should I refuse them because they don't fit the mold of everyone else?
Find a similar case with PTSD against a certain skin colour and that wouldn't be discrimination either. But that hasn't happened and it probably never will. Against men however, that's not so uncommon.
As I said as long as you aren't both racist and an idiot it's extremely easy to pick a caregiver you want either way for any number of reasons as long as you don't say the quiet part out loud or you have an emergency when you can't choose.
And healthcare isn't going to change because it's better for everyone if people can visit someone they are comfortable with.
The bolded part is still literally discrimination. You might say "oh maybe we should have some empathy because they had this bad experience" or whatever but that doesn't magically not make it discrimination.
|
On June 23 2024 18:55 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2024 17:39 Fleetfeet wrote:On June 23 2024 06:04 BlackJack wrote:On June 23 2024 05:30 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 23 2024 02:59 BlackJack wrote:Maybe it's different in the Netherlands/Sweden but it would not be considered even remotely acceptable if a black doctor came in and the patient said "I'm sure you're a fantastic doctor and I have nothing against you but I would feel more comfortable with a white doctor." On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
If the patient have think that the doctor is fine but they themselves have an issue that makes them uncomfortable or unable to recive care because of an attribute that the doctor has it's fine.
"You're a fine doctor but your skin color just makes me uncomfortable." = fine On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's not discrimination because the problem isn't how they view the doctor.
It's not discrimination because you're not rejecting the content of their character, just the color of their skin. This is the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm sorry you misunderstood my entire post. On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
If the patient has problem with their doctor because they think race, sex or sexuality makes them a worse doctor or person that's a problem.
If the patient have think that the doctor is fine but they themselves have an issue that makes them uncomfortable or unable to recive care because of an attribute that the doctor has it's fine.
You said it's not okay to think they are inferior because of X attribute, but it's okay to have a personal issue that makes them uncomfortable with a doctor of X attribute. Is there an end-state for this line of objection outside of personally nitpicking people until they concede some level of prejudice or insensitivity they probably didn't disagree with in the first place? I'm all for making people aware of their prejudices in a safe and healthy way. It just feels like you're digging a bit hard to call people racist (?) which would be ironic given your line "...mourning the loss of a time where we can have polite public discourse without otherizing the other side with terrible names" from the Munk debate post. I don't see what your goal is outside making people face their smallest misconceptions on prejudice. The problem I'm trying to point out is that people are all over the map on these things and it leads to a lot of double standards and hypocrisy. For example, prominent atheists like Christopher Hitchens (RIP), Richard Dawkins and others would criticize many organized religions. They'd often get accused of Islamophobia for criticizing Islam. Nobody accused them of Christianophobia for criticizing Christianity. Notably it's often white liberal SJWs that would be the loudest to accuse them of Islamophobia. The SJWs themselves will comfortably rant about the white evangelicals in America suppressing women's rights or gay rights but feel the need to call anyone who talks about women/LGBT rights in majority muslim countries a racist. It's just ridiculous. This is just one example of how completely irrational and arbitrary people want to draw these boundaries and it's why people are getting sick of identity politics.
Hitchens and Dawkins both singled Islam out as the 'worst one' though.
I mean sure, I saw Dawkins about a month ago criticising Christianity... but then a few sentences later saying well at least it has some positives in that it isn't Islam.
The problem with these kinds of views is not necessarily that they are islamophobic, but that once they get transmitted to the public they amplify and justify islamophobia.
We could argue whether or not that's Dawkins' fault, I'm not sure if it is, but there's a link there between how he expresses his views and a wider islamophobia.
|
On June 23 2024 19:01 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2024 15:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
And in the rest of the post clearly explained racism is not such an issue. You are just trying to misinterpret me and it won't work because I'm just trying to explain facts to you not how I feel personally.
I had a patient with severe PTSD who only wanted to come in during certain quiet hours because they couldn't handle crowds, should I refuse them because they don't fit the mold of everyone else?
Find a similar case with PTSD against a certain skin colour and that wouldn't be discrimination either. But that hasn't happened and it probably never will. Against men however, that's not so uncommon.
As I said as long as you aren't both racist and an idiot it's extremely easy to pick a caregiver you want either way for any number of reasons as long as you don't say the quiet part out loud or you have an emergency when you can't choose.
And healthcare isn't going to change because it's better for everyone if people can visit someone they are comfortable with. The bolded part is still literally discrimination. You might say "oh maybe we should have some empathy because they had this bad experience" or whatever but that doesn't magically not make it discrimination.
The intent is not to avoid black people, but to avoid a trigger for a mental episode. The observation of the PTSD victim is that seeing a certain aspect of people (in this case a certain skin color) triggers an episode, so they are forced to avoid people with that skin color because they literally have no control over their PTSD. If they could turn it off they would, and then they could be around all people without any problems. The PTSD is not in their control.
It only sounds like racist discrimination on the surface because racism against black people has been a hot topic for good reasons. But not every single case of avoidance between individuals is a case of racism. That's why the focus is more on systemic racism, such as for example stop and frisk policies in black neighborhoods.
The example may sound absurd on the surface, but it isn't. It's well known that victims of abuse can be triggered by certain faces, clothing, etc. (also tone, body language and other things). They look at those people with greater suspicion because they have a face that looks similar to that of their abuser.
|
On June 23 2024 18:55 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2024 17:39 Fleetfeet wrote:On June 23 2024 06:04 BlackJack wrote:On June 23 2024 05:30 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 23 2024 02:59 BlackJack wrote:Maybe it's different in the Netherlands/Sweden but it would not be considered even remotely acceptable if a black doctor came in and the patient said "I'm sure you're a fantastic doctor and I have nothing against you but I would feel more comfortable with a white doctor." On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
If the patient have think that the doctor is fine but they themselves have an issue that makes them uncomfortable or unable to recive care because of an attribute that the doctor has it's fine.
"You're a fine doctor but your skin color just makes me uncomfortable." = fine On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's not discrimination because the problem isn't how they view the doctor.
It's not discrimination because you're not rejecting the content of their character, just the color of their skin. This is the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm sorry you misunderstood my entire post. On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
If the patient has problem with their doctor because they think race, sex or sexuality makes them a worse doctor or person that's a problem.
If the patient have think that the doctor is fine but they themselves have an issue that makes them uncomfortable or unable to recive care because of an attribute that the doctor has it's fine.
You said it's not okay to think they are inferior because of X attribute, but it's okay to have a personal issue that makes them uncomfortable with a doctor of X attribute. Is there an end-state for this line of objection outside of personally nitpicking people until they concede some level of prejudice or insensitivity they probably didn't disagree with in the first place? I'm all for making people aware of their prejudices in a safe and healthy way. It just feels like you're digging a bit hard to call people racist (?) which would be ironic given your line "...mourning the loss of a time where we can have polite public discourse without otherizing the other side with terrible names" from the Munk debate post. I don't see what your goal is outside making people face their smallest misconceptions on prejudice. + Show Spoiler +The problem I'm trying to point out is that people are all over the map on these things and it leads to a lot of double standards and hypocrisy. For example, prominent atheists like Christopher Hitchens (RIP), Richard Dawkins and others would criticize many organized religions. They'd often get accused of Islamophobia for criticizing Islam. Nobody accused them of Christianophobia for criticizing Christianity. Notably it's often white liberal SJWs that would be the loudest to accuse them of Islamophobia. The SJWs themselves will comfortably rant about the white evangelicals in America suppressing women's rights or gay rights but feel the need to call anyone who talks about women/LGBT rights in majority muslim countries a racist. It's just ridiculous. This is just one example of how completely irrational and arbitrary people want to draw these boundaries and it's why people are getting sick of identity politics. Would you consider mandating by law that public schools have the 10 commandments displayed in every classroom "identity politics"?
|
On June 23 2024 19:06 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2024 18:55 BlackJack wrote:On June 23 2024 17:39 Fleetfeet wrote:On June 23 2024 06:04 BlackJack wrote:On June 23 2024 05:30 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 23 2024 02:59 BlackJack wrote:Maybe it's different in the Netherlands/Sweden but it would not be considered even remotely acceptable if a black doctor came in and the patient said "I'm sure you're a fantastic doctor and I have nothing against you but I would feel more comfortable with a white doctor." On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
If the patient have think that the doctor is fine but they themselves have an issue that makes them uncomfortable or unable to recive care because of an attribute that the doctor has it's fine.
"You're a fine doctor but your skin color just makes me uncomfortable." = fine On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's not discrimination because the problem isn't how they view the doctor.
It's not discrimination because you're not rejecting the content of their character, just the color of their skin. This is the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm sorry you misunderstood my entire post. On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
If the patient has problem with their doctor because they think race, sex or sexuality makes them a worse doctor or person that's a problem.
If the patient have think that the doctor is fine but they themselves have an issue that makes them uncomfortable or unable to recive care because of an attribute that the doctor has it's fine.
You said it's not okay to think they are inferior because of X attribute, but it's okay to have a personal issue that makes them uncomfortable with a doctor of X attribute. Is there an end-state for this line of objection outside of personally nitpicking people until they concede some level of prejudice or insensitivity they probably didn't disagree with in the first place? I'm all for making people aware of their prejudices in a safe and healthy way. It just feels like you're digging a bit hard to call people racist (?) which would be ironic given your line "...mourning the loss of a time where we can have polite public discourse without otherizing the other side with terrible names" from the Munk debate post. I don't see what your goal is outside making people face their smallest misconceptions on prejudice. The problem I'm trying to point out is that people are all over the map on these things and it leads to a lot of double standards and hypocrisy. For example, prominent atheists like Christopher Hitchens (RIP), Richard Dawkins and others would criticize many organized religions. They'd often get accused of Islamophobia for criticizing Islam. Nobody accused them of Christianophobia for criticizing Christianity. Notably it's often white liberal SJWs that would be the loudest to accuse them of Islamophobia. The SJWs themselves will comfortably rant about the white evangelicals in America suppressing women's rights or gay rights but feel the need to call anyone who talks about women/LGBT rights in majority muslim countries a racist. It's just ridiculous. This is just one example of how completely irrational and arbitrary people want to draw these boundaries and it's why people are getting sick of identity politics. Hitchens and Dawkins both singled Islam out as the 'worst one' though. I mean sure, I saw Dawkins about a month ago criticising Christianity... but then a few sentences later saying well at least it has some positives in that it isn't Islam. The problem with these kinds of views is not necessarily that they are islamophobic, but that once they get transmitted to the public they amplify and justify islamophobia. We could argue whether or not that's Dawkins' fault, I'm not sure if it is, but there's a link there between how he expresses his views and a wider islamophobia.
I can not say this more emphatically: So what? Think about this from the perspective of an atheist. I see all the religions as different man-made works of fiction. That's what they are. I'm not obliged to feel they are all equally good or bad. That makes as much sense to me as saying I can't decide that Cinderella is a better fairy tale than Snow White.
If there's some social / cultural norm that says that I have to pretend that societies banning LGBT books in schools is equally as bad as societies throwing an LGBT person off a roof then that's the best argument I could have asked for. But in fact it goes even beyond that - the former is criticized MORE and the latter is SHIELDED by labeling people anti-muslim bigots. It's about as ass backwards as you can imagine.
People have been quick to point out that "the why" is important when determining if certain discrimination is problematic. "I don't want a black doctor because they are the inferior race." No good. Except nobody talks like that. This isn't the 1950s. These are easy examples that people are lobbing up for themselves so they can spike it down. In practice "the why" is being determined by anybody with an agenda. People have carte blanche to decide that Dawkins and Hitchens criticize Islam because they just don't like those smelly tabouli-eating brown people.
|
On June 23 2024 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2024 18:55 BlackJack wrote:On June 23 2024 17:39 Fleetfeet wrote:On June 23 2024 06:04 BlackJack wrote:On June 23 2024 05:30 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 23 2024 02:59 BlackJack wrote:Maybe it's different in the Netherlands/Sweden but it would not be considered even remotely acceptable if a black doctor came in and the patient said "I'm sure you're a fantastic doctor and I have nothing against you but I would feel more comfortable with a white doctor." On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
If the patient have think that the doctor is fine but they themselves have an issue that makes them uncomfortable or unable to recive care because of an attribute that the doctor has it's fine.
"You're a fine doctor but your skin color just makes me uncomfortable." = fine On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's not discrimination because the problem isn't how they view the doctor.
It's not discrimination because you're not rejecting the content of their character, just the color of their skin. This is the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm sorry you misunderstood my entire post. On June 22 2024 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
If the patient has problem with their doctor because they think race, sex or sexuality makes them a worse doctor or person that's a problem.
If the patient have think that the doctor is fine but they themselves have an issue that makes them uncomfortable or unable to recive care because of an attribute that the doctor has it's fine.
You said it's not okay to think they are inferior because of X attribute, but it's okay to have a personal issue that makes them uncomfortable with a doctor of X attribute. Is there an end-state for this line of objection outside of personally nitpicking people until they concede some level of prejudice or insensitivity they probably didn't disagree with in the first place? I'm all for making people aware of their prejudices in a safe and healthy way. It just feels like you're digging a bit hard to call people racist (?) which would be ironic given your line "...mourning the loss of a time where we can have polite public discourse without otherizing the other side with terrible names" from the Munk debate post. I don't see what your goal is outside making people face their smallest misconceptions on prejudice. + Show Spoiler +The problem I'm trying to point out is that people are all over the map on these things and it leads to a lot of double standards and hypocrisy. For example, prominent atheists like Christopher Hitchens (RIP), Richard Dawkins and others would criticize many organized religions. They'd often get accused of Islamophobia for criticizing Islam. Nobody accused them of Christianophobia for criticizing Christianity. Notably it's often white liberal SJWs that would be the loudest to accuse them of Islamophobia. The SJWs themselves will comfortably rant about the white evangelicals in America suppressing women's rights or gay rights but feel the need to call anyone who talks about women/LGBT rights in majority muslim countries a racist. It's just ridiculous. This is just one example of how completely irrational and arbitrary people want to draw these boundaries and it's why people are getting sick of identity politics. Would you consider mandating by law that public schools have the 10 commandments displayed in every classroom "identity politics"?
You should have said that black people have been tired about Identity politics for so long they want to see a black doctor because of the history of white people being completely irrational and arbitrary about identity politics for so long. He'll never say what the rational and reasoned lines of boundaries he imagines exists with "people" so you need to remember to anchor it to the previous arguments you've posited. Most of his lines of reasoning is to advocate for being ignorant of any context that would help someone like him understand the world around him. Hes already resorting to "racism doesn't exist anymore" to try and delegitimize any identity politics to lessen the effects of racism you were just promoting.
|
On June 24 2024 04:03 Sermokala wrote:Hes already resorting to "racism doesn't exist anymore".
You have by far the worst reading comprehension of anyone on this forum
|
On June 23 2024 20:37 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2024 19:01 BlackJack wrote:On June 23 2024 15:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
And in the rest of the post clearly explained racism is not such an issue. You are just trying to misinterpret me and it won't work because I'm just trying to explain facts to you not how I feel personally.
I had a patient with severe PTSD who only wanted to come in during certain quiet hours because they couldn't handle crowds, should I refuse them because they don't fit the mold of everyone else?
Find a similar case with PTSD against a certain skin colour and that wouldn't be discrimination either. But that hasn't happened and it probably never will. Against men however, that's not so uncommon.
As I said as long as you aren't both racist and an idiot it's extremely easy to pick a caregiver you want either way for any number of reasons as long as you don't say the quiet part out loud or you have an emergency when you can't choose.
And healthcare isn't going to change because it's better for everyone if people can visit someone they are comfortable with. The bolded part is still literally discrimination. You might say "oh maybe we should have some empathy because they had this bad experience" or whatever but that doesn't magically not make it discrimination. The intent is not to avoid black people, but to avoid a trigger for a mental episode. The observation of the PTSD victim is that seeing a certain aspect of people (in this case a certain skin color) triggers an episode, so they are forced to avoid people with that skin color because they literally have no control over their PTSD. If they could turn it off they would, and then they could be around all people without any problems. The PTSD is not in their control. It only sounds like racist discrimination on the surface because racism against black people has been a hot topic for good reasons. But not every single case of avoidance between individuals is a case of racism. That's why the focus is more on systemic racism, such as for example stop and frisk policies in black neighborhoods. The example may sound absurd on the surface, but it isn't. It's well known that victims of abuse can be triggered by certain faces, clothing, etc. (also tone, body language and other things). They look at those people with greater suspicion because they have a face that looks similar to that of their abuser.
Again, this is still literally racial discrimination.
A more reasonable take would be that refusing a black doctor is bad for any reason but forcing someone to have mental anguish because they are triggered by a black doctor is worse, so your ethical barometer has carved out an exception for this sort of racial discrimination.
An unreasonable take would be to determine that this type of racial discrimination is "fine" or "okay" or just not even racial discrimination at all. By doing that you're completely discounting the feelings of the person on the other side of this discrimination. There's no reason for that.
|
On June 24 2024 18:01 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2024 20:37 Magic Powers wrote:On June 23 2024 19:01 BlackJack wrote:On June 23 2024 15:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
And in the rest of the post clearly explained racism is not such an issue. You are just trying to misinterpret me and it won't work because I'm just trying to explain facts to you not how I feel personally.
I had a patient with severe PTSD who only wanted to come in during certain quiet hours because they couldn't handle crowds, should I refuse them because they don't fit the mold of everyone else?
Find a similar case with PTSD against a certain skin colour and that wouldn't be discrimination either. But that hasn't happened and it probably never will. Against men however, that's not so uncommon.
As I said as long as you aren't both racist and an idiot it's extremely easy to pick a caregiver you want either way for any number of reasons as long as you don't say the quiet part out loud or you have an emergency when you can't choose.
And healthcare isn't going to change because it's better for everyone if people can visit someone they are comfortable with. The bolded part is still literally discrimination. You might say "oh maybe we should have some empathy because they had this bad experience" or whatever but that doesn't magically not make it discrimination. The intent is not to avoid black people, but to avoid a trigger for a mental episode. The observation of the PTSD victim is that seeing a certain aspect of people (in this case a certain skin color) triggers an episode, so they are forced to avoid people with that skin color because they literally have no control over their PTSD. If they could turn it off they would, and then they could be around all people without any problems. The PTSD is not in their control. It only sounds like racist discrimination on the surface because racism against black people has been a hot topic for good reasons. But not every single case of avoidance between individuals is a case of racism. That's why the focus is more on systemic racism, such as for example stop and frisk policies in black neighborhoods. The example may sound absurd on the surface, but it isn't. It's well known that victims of abuse can be triggered by certain faces, clothing, etc. (also tone, body language and other things). They look at those people with greater suspicion because they have a face that looks similar to that of their abuser. Again, this is still literally racial discrimination. A more reasonable take would be that refusing a black doctor is bad for any reason but forcing someone to have mental anguish because they are triggered by a black doctor is worse, so your ethical barometer has carved out an exception for this sort of racial discrimination. An unreasonable take would be to determine that this type of racial discrimination is "fine" or "okay" or just not even racial discrimination at all. By doing that you're completely discounting the feelings of the person on the other side of this discrimination. There's no reason for that.
How is avoiding a PTSD trigger a form of discrimination? How are you using the term? Legally? Colloquially? Otherwise? If legally, that is wrong. If colloquially, most people are not calling things "discrimination" that is a necessary precaution from a medical condition or otherwise.
You need to justify your position a lot better than this. You're throwing around the term discrimination like candy.
|
Today is the two-year anniversary of Trump's Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.
This November will likely be our last chance to fix things, as several other SCJs may be chosen by whoever wins (and Project 2025, if Trump wins).
|
It is great that you raise the banning of abortions by SCOTUS. But I don't really see how voting for Biden in November will change that. Biden was president when SCOTUS banned abortion. He said he couldn't do anything about it. Biden appointed just 1 new member of SCOTUS. Sotomayor and Kegan are both are retirement age. Did Biden ask them to retire so he could replace them with younger liberal justices? Either he did not, or he doesn't have the clout to make them. How will that change after November?
In fact, Biden could have appointed 9 new members to SCOTUS. There's no maximum number of members.
SCOTUS has been ruling at the slowest pace since 1947. If they had say a couple of even 5 more members, they would have had ample time to rule on Trump's immunity case. And not take over 6 months to write a simple ruling that basically restates their Nixon ruling. It literally just takes a Friday afternoon to do that. But they have not enough justices on the court to even have one of them write that up. So they need more members.
In fact, it is shocking how overworked the justices are. Because they have all this technology at their hands that no one ever before them had. In fact, all of them have 4 law clerks that work full time and that can use all the modern computer aids to find jurisprudence. Which decades ago had to be done by literally reading every random case by hand from paper.
So why didn't Biden appoint at least 3 new justices to SCOTUS in his last 3 years? Biden could have done 1 new justices every 6 months for the last few years. They have a majority in the senate. Has Biden forgotten that?
In fact, Biden could have appointed conservative independent and member of the Federalist Society, Merrick Garland as his first new SCOTUS pick. Garland was already vetted for that. And then someone else could have taken over the DoJ and appointed Jack Smith 2 years earlier. Because if Biden did that, Garland wouldn't have been able to slow roll all the Trump investigations. And all trials would already have been over right now. And we would have known beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump was completely innocent of stealing and hiding national security documents. And we would have known that Trump was completely innocent of trying to undermine the 2020 election and sabotage the result by starting an insurrection. And that the alternative electors were completely legal. And that having the house elect a new president independent of the American voter or the electoral college, because the electoral college was confused and messed up by alternate electors was a completely appropriate way to deal with losing the vote when you want to stay in power.
Or, Trump would be behind bars today and in November this year we would have an actual real election.
Right now, US voters that really like Trump's policy platform, but have some doubts about Trump's age, personality, competence, or temperament, have no way to even know if Trump is an actual criminal, or if it is al a totally made up conspiracy by the left wing woke media virus. How can those voters decide to vote for Trump without knowing the evidence DoJ gathered against Trump because the trials have been delayed?
In fact, ignore SCOTUS. The Roe v. Wade ruling was in 1973. Which means that the SCOTUS aka the judicial branch semi-legalized abortions independent of the legislative branch. Which means that since 1973, at any time the judicial branch could undo that. During all those decades, when democrats had power, they never did anything in the legislative branch to make abortions legal independent of any SCOTUS ruling. NEVER.
How will that change after November 2024?
In fact, I am so cynical about this at this moment to think that Democrats want abortion banned. Because as long as abortions are banned. And long as woman in the US literally breed to death because they can't get an medical necessitated abortion until it is literally a medical emergency. As long as that is in place, Democrats can campaign on abortion. Only when Democrats allow Republicans to force US woman and girls to bleed to death, or to give birth to the child of a rapist, can Democrats campaign on abortion.
|
On June 24 2024 19:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Today is the two-year anniversary of Trump's Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.
This November will likely be our last chance to fix things, as several other SCJs may be chosen by whoever wins (and Project 2025, if Trump wins).
"fix things" isn't on the ballot in November. Biden winning isn't even going to get potentially pregnant people their rights back, let alone "fix things".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
