Is racism acceptable if it is against "whites"?

Post Reply New Topic

out of curiosity, what do you people think of affirmative-action or quota-style hiring practices for persons with disabilities? because it's the same thing... though i guess we'd call it a disablist hiring policy.

Look at it as a line, where the baseline is normality. Race should not raise you above that line, nor push you below it, and if it does then the problem goes deeper than just employment in the area, and needs "treating" without creating an even greater aura of dislike. Effectively race should be invisible, not even noticed, as likely to affect your abilities as having green eyes.

Disability effectively starts below that line. Action to put disabled people on a level playing field is perfectly acceptable. Its moving them (us?) UP to the line.

Disability will always be debilitating by its very nature. Race is only debilitating because of incorrect and inaccurate prejudice.

Not true. Many disabilities have little or no impact on a person's ability to perform many jobs. Disabled people often have difficulty getting hired because of prejudice.

do you see my point? people want to level the playing field regarding their own disadvantages, but not for anybody else's disadvantages...

it's the same thing, in my opinion - people wrongly disadvantaged because of prejudice. leveling the playing for all groups who don't have opportunities due to prejudicial treatrment is a good idea.

i.e.
me = have AS = have a BEd = am highly competent = won't be hired due based on my lack of social skills (prejudice)
other person = is female = has an LLB = is highly competent = won't be promoted due to her appearance (prejudice)
other person = is african american = has BSc = is highly competent = won't be hired because of his skin colour (prejudice)

these groups (and others) have been pushed down by society for so long that it is extremely difficult for them to become successful without programs like affirmative action. you can expect that in less than 100 years from fully receiving all rights, that any group will be able to compete fairly in the job marketplace.

nobody is suggesting that disadvantaged people get jobs they are not qualified for. and i looked and could not find any studies to show that it ever happens, or that hiring quotas lead to less competence in any way. i saw lots of opinions about it, but that's it.

one important point that i discovered is that very few industries or workplaces actually have legal quotas - the majority of places have targets only. if an industry or workplace has court-imposed quotas, it is because there was racism or sexism preventing fair hiring in the first place. so in those cases, the quota is a good idea.

Missing what I mean. If you have a DISABILITY you are DISABLED. Doesn't matter if your personal problem is relevant to the job or not. A disability IS disabling in one way or another. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be a disability. Race is not disabling. Race should have no effect on your ability to perform any task or job AT ALL or in day to day living. The reason it does affect those things is because of ass-tarded prejudices, and only because of those prejudices. Dealing with that prejudice is NOT helped by preferential treatment. That only encourages the belief that "black people can only get jobs because we are forced to give them jobs" and so on. Maybe black guy A can do the job as well or even better than white guy b, but he is STILL going to be "that n****r that got the job because he's black." There are immigrants here who are substantially better at jobs than the nearest indigenous local, and they get jobs based on that ability, and STILL get the whole "Coming Here Stealing Our Jobs" line.

Its the wrong place to try and deal with prejudice.

If anything Disabled people are dealing with two problems: prejudice towards them simply because they ARE disabled (which is more akin to racism) AND the fact that they have disabilities which may well actually affect their working ability one way or another. It would be equally as wrong to give them a job simply because they are disabled, and much more beneficial to everyone involved if they were to end up with a job that they are capable of performing well.

a disability is not necessarily any more of an actual impediment to employment than race is. i am making a comparison only with those disabilities that do not affect job performance, but may affect hiring selection. a disability doesn't necessarily prevent a person from doing a job really well, therefore the disability itself would not always impede success at a job. however, it is discriminatory hiring practices that prevent disabled people, minorities, etc. from fair selection.

obviously, none of this applies if a person is not qualified or not capable of a job.

this is the same situation as with race and gender. people in these groups have been unfairly NOT selected throughout history and even currently in some sectors. the only way to level the palying field is to lift these people up.

My point was about there not being enough female programmers to begin with.

I'm not saying we should just shrug and twiddle our fingers, I'm saying that adding discrimination in the opposite direction won't really solve the problem, and that there are other ways to make things better.

can you show where there are actual quotas in place in the computer programming industry, or is your point only conjecture?

There are no formal quotas that I am aware of. There might be some personal bias among the males who do the hiring thought. If programmers are hired on the basis of capability, females and males should do equally well.

ruveyn

Imagine there are two similar jobs. One at a government department one at a very small business. There are two applicants. One disabled, one able bodied. They both apply for both jobs, both are good candidates perfectly able to do the job.

The small business does not select the disabled applicant. maybe because prejudice, maybe the cost of a ramp, upgrading the toilet facilities etc. If the govt dept also selects the able bodied applicant then the disabled person has no job and we all end up playing for their benefits instead of them paying taxes like everyone else.

It sure isn't 'fair' but the economy as a whole is better off for it.

And there is still a slave trade by and using Asians as well. In fact it looks like everyone is still at it. The only difference is that its no longer sanctioned government policy, but a crime. Or at least it is in the West. I have no idea if that holds true elsewhere.

Actually it goes like this more often,

AS + male + "majority" = won't be hired because social skills, possibility of accusation of being against women, possibility of being accused of being racist.

NT + male + "majority" = might be hired based upon social skills, but possibilities of accusations are still prohibitive.

AS + male + "minority" = won't be hired because of social skills, still a possibility of accusation of misogyny, might be hired due to "minority" status.

NT + male + "minority" = might be hired based upon social skills, still a possibility of misogyny accusation, might be hired due to "minority" status.

AS + female + "majority" = won't be hired based upon social skills, might be hired due to appearance, won't be hired due to possibility of racism accusation.

NT + female + "majority" = might be hired based upon social skills, might be hired due to appearance, won't be hired due to possibility of racism accusation.

AS + female + "minority" = won't be hired based upon social skills, might be hired due to appearance, might be hired due to "minority" status.

NT + female + "minority" = might be hired based upon social skills, might be hired due to appearance, might be hired due to "minority" status.

I was expecting this from your post, but I couldn't find it.

NT + female + "majority" = might be hired based upon social skills, might be hired due to appearance, won't be hired due to possible accusation against the bussiness of sexual harassment and misogyny.

Did you know that, according to my introduction to business textbook (Contemporary business, 8th edition 2009 or something like that) that approximately 8 out of 10 of "sexual harassment" claims are filed by women? Meaning that only 2 out of 10 are filed by men. Why are there 4 times as many claims made by women than by men? The textbook never said anything, but I think it's because it's more socially acceptable to consider women as victims and as such they know they'll have more appeal by emotion with judges than a guy would if he were to say something like "this person committed sexual harassment against me! They smiled when they said "hello" and it creeped me out and I want them fired and I want their job!! ! *sob* *sob* *wail* *bemoan* *k'vetch*."

I think that may be related with traditional ideas towards gender roles, I mean, men are supposedly to be stronger, thus if women are weaker then they are to be defended mostly, now, that idea is supposedly to be obsolete now, right? but given legal issues related with harassment and domestic violence, these legal aspects seem to support that traditional idea. How many men that have been raped by women can make an accusation succesfuly (bearing in mind that the victim is an adult who is able to give informed consent, but didn't consent), how are the odds of that?


Yes, sometimes women treat guys in a way that if it was the other way around it would be considered sexual harassment. So for an autistic guy, that can be confusing, as well as being accused of harassment without having a clue of why.


That is very very scary, I think that is possible that women can get away with this, if so, that is sad and scary. which in this case, karma does discriminate against men

I tend to trust no one nowadays, specially in situations of the possibility of being accused of harassment, that I prefer to stay away! given that I have been there, that likely may fall in the lines of being labeled as mysogynist possibly, depending on the criteria of the female coworker, but I think that is better than an accusation of harassment I suppose.

As a U.S. liberal, I'll tell you the answer you've been longing to hear: yes. Liberals love to devise policies that take from hardworking white people only to give it to racial minorities; it's just what we do. We liberals do get a kick out of getting back at the white colonialist oppressor for all the sh*t they've done over the years. As a white liberal, I'm not worried about being called a "race traitor" because I can just retort that my accuser is a member of the KKK. Your deepest prejudices are confirmed.

No, really, what do you think? Racism against white people is no more acceptable than racism against black people, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, Arabs, and whoever else. Your disagreement with liberal policies does not make them racist.