 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> It's sad but it's true: Equal Opportunities actually means giving more
> opportunities to people deemed to be undervalued by present or possibly
> past society. Which is rather self-contradictory...
Also certain people get more protection from law than others, based on
ethnicity, both de-facto and in some cases even de-jure. This even in
constitutional countries where the constitution guarantees equal legal
treatment.
(The fact that treating people differently based on ethnicity is the
very definition of racism seems to be completely inconsequential.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/10/09 10:28, Warp wrote:
> (The fact that treating people differently based on ethnicity is the
> very definition of racism seems to be completely inconsequential.)
Nope. That's ethnicism. Don't confuse the two.
--
BASIC isn't; C stands for Confusing...
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> In many places (especially in the US but very much also in Europe) some
> people (such as employers) cannot treat everybody in the same way for the
> fear of being accused of racism.
To be fair, this *does* keep going back and forth. One not rarely reads
articles where some court or other said it was discriminatory to not promote
the white folks who passed the test just because none of the minorities who
took the test passed, or that it's illegal to not admit americans to schools
who did better than the asians, or something like that. Every couple years
there's a ballot in California to switch between "equal opportunity" and "no
discrimination" in the state universities, for example.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 07/10/09 10:28, Warp wrote:
> > (The fact that treating people differently based on ethnicity is the
> > very definition of racism seems to be completely inconsequential.)
> Nope. That's ethnicism. Don't confuse the two.
To multiculturalists racism, ethnicism, xenofobia, islamofobia and
basically everything is "racism". It's an umbrella term for everything
related to how white men behave towards non-white people.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/10/09 12:33, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> On 07/10/09 10:28, Warp wrote:
>>> (The fact that treating people differently based on ethnicity is the
>>> very definition of racism seems to be completely inconsequential.)
>
>> Nope. That's ethnicism. Don't confuse the two.
>
> To multiculturalists racism, ethnicism, xenofobia, islamofobia and
> basically everything is "racism". It's an umbrella term for everything
> related to how white men behave towards non-white people.
I know, but just because they do it wrong doesn't mean you should too. ;-)
--
BASIC isn't; C stands for Confusing...
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/10/09 11:35, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> In many places (especially in the US but very much also in Europe) some
>> people (such as employers) cannot treat everybody in the same way for the
>> fear of being accused of racism.
>
> To be fair, this *does* keep going back and forth. One not rarely reads
> articles where some court or other said it was discriminatory to not
> promote the white folks who passed the test just because none of the
> minorities who took the test passed, or that it's illegal to not admit
Citation for anyone interested:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hzSshxj3_ArctG2PKsP2_rYMV7iA
To be fair, though, the judges who had previously ruled that the city
did the right thing admitted it was silly, but they felt that it was
mandated by the law, and it wasn't their job to argue whether the law
was silly.
> americans to schools who did better than the asians, or something like
This is a new one for me. My Asian colleague keeps pointing out that
they're never the beneficiaries of affirmative action (which he is
against). I keep pointing out to him that they usually do better than
white Americans anyway. ;-)
> that. Every couple years there's a ballot in California to switch
> between "equal opportunity" and "no discrimination" in the state
> universities, for example.
I haven't followed this, but my colleague, who did his undergrad in UC
Berkeley, states that the UC system removed affirmative action in the
90's and have not reinstated it since.
(Which doesn't contradict your statement - I thought I'd just point it
out).
--
BASIC isn't; C stands for Confusing...
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
>
>> I do remember way back in high school physics that we discussed the term
>> jerry-rig. Our teacher reasoned that 'jerry' was a racial slur and
>> shouldn't be used. So he suggested that 'billy-rig' was a better term -
>> referring to West Virginia hill billys. Since we were in Virginia, it
>> was a better term than 'jerry-rig'
>
> I think that your teacher may have been confusing jerry-rigged with jerry-built
> which is a slur against a certain English Jerry. Jerry-rigged is from WW2 and
> applied to Allied equipment repaired using German parts.
yes, you are right - I was referring to what he reasoned.
> To be honest, I have heard one phrase used by American oilmen that was a racial
>
I've heard of that term - and I've never used it myself. Tho, if I see
something really well built I may use it ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> To multiculturalists racism, ethnicism, xenofobia, islamofobia and
> basically everything is "racism". It's an umbrella term for everything
> related to how white men behave towards non-white people.
While many white men feel marginalised by these things, one must
consider the very real notion that, for much of recorded history, males
in general (and white males in the Western societies) *have* abused
their positions of power, causing what is effectively a kneejerk
reaction once that reaction is acknowledged as even slightly valid, and
growing as acceptance of it spreads.
However.
We're pretty much all the same, us humans, all petty and greedy and
otherwise not very nice towards each other, so you get the same sorts of
things happening when you swap who's in any particular power role.
The vast majority of the world was, is, and will never really be 'in
control', so there's no use b'awwwing over someone else calling the
shots if you personally were never in the position to do it anyways.
Feel slighted because of your gender/race/ethnicity/sexual
identity/toothpaste preference? Don't worry, just about everyone else
has things just as bad, and that's just how things are. In time,
someone from 'your group' will rise to power, and...it won't change much
of anything for all the other members of the group. Their close friends
will probably experience some benefits, and there might be spillover
into the law to give your type a break, but big-picture-wise, it's
status quo. Noise will be made by some, and the squeaky wheel will get
its grease, but only until it stops squeaking too loudly compared to the
others.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> While many white men feel marginalised by these things, one must
> consider the very real notion that, for much of recorded history, males
> in general (and white males in the Western societies) *have* abused
> their positions of power, causing what is effectively a kneejerk
> reaction once that reaction is acknowledged as even slightly valid, and
> growing as acceptance of it spreads.
I don't have any problem aknowledging history, and I am the first one
to promote learning from the past in order to avoid repeating the same
mistakes as our ancestors.
However, I do have a problem with this modern idea that white people are
still somehow "responsible" for what their ancestors did, and that they have
to somehow compensate for that, to pay back what they took, especially when
this means discriminating against some people for what their ancestors maybe
have done.
I am not responsible for what some people have done centuries ago. Even
if someone of my own forefathers had done something wrong, I'm still not
responsible for that. Nobody can and should not hold me responsible for
what someone else has done in the past, regardless of common ethnicity, or
even if it was a direct ancestor.
"Equal rights" should be taken literally. "Equal rights" cannot mean that
some people are more protected than others, or that some people are given
better opportunities than others, based on something like ethnicity or
origin.
Discriminating in order to eradicate some perceived "racism" is just
wrong, in a very ironic way. "Two wrongs don't make a right" may sound
like a cliche, but I think in this case it's a valid statement. You can't
eradicate racism by exercising it "in reverse". The only thing you are
going to achieve is frustration and resentment, which can only prolong
any existing animosity.
(Some people suggest that many multiculturalists actually *want* to
maintain animosity and racism, while still keeping a facade of trying
to completely eradicate it. If racism was truely and completely eradicated,
they would be "out of job" (sometimes *literally*, as there are many jobs
which exist for this sole reason).)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hzSshxj3_ArctG2PKsP2_rYMV7iA
I especially like the last paragraph:
"One group of firefighters threatened to sue for discrimination if
promotions were made based on the test results, and others said they
would sue if the city ignored the results and denied promotions to
candidates who did well."
That is wrong in *so* many levels I cannot even count. This is what the
world has become.
> > americans to schools who did better than the asians, or something like
> This is a new one for me. My Asian colleague keeps pointing out that
> they're never the beneficiaries of affirmative action (which he is
> against).
A cynic could say that Asians might not be "colored enough" to get
special treatment...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
