Tolerating discirmination

[Wiccan_Child]

Having spent almost a year trying to find an apartment with my husband back when we were first married and finding all the decent ones rented out suddenly moments before we arrived I'd say we'll have to disagree on "essential liberty" The landlords "right" not to rent to an "interracial" couple doesn't strike me as an essential liberty.

Why not? It's their flat, after all. Indeed, should they grant you preferential treatment over same-race couples?

 

[wanderingone]

Why not? It's their flat, after all. Indeed, should they grant you preferential treatment over same-race couples?

Why would it be preferential treatment to rent me an apartment? These people refused to rent to us because we were an "interracial" couple. where did you get the idea that I felt we should have gotten preferential treatment we just wanted to be treated the same as everyone else. The applications were approved we were taken to see the apartments and then it was "we can't rent to you, we've just rented the apartment"

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Every choice we make is, in reality, discrimination.

If I choose for something, it means I'm choosing against something else. I'm discriminating against that which I choose against.

Taken to extremes, obviously, any and everything can be cited as discrimination.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why would it be preferential treatment to rent me an apartment? These people refused to rent to us because we were an "interracial" couple. where did you get the idea that I felt we should have gotten preferential treatment we just wanted to be treated the same as everyone else. The applications were approved we were taken to see the apartments and then it was "we can't rent to you, we've just rented the apartment"

Nevertheless, asking them to rent you the apartment merely because you're an interracial couple is preferential treatment. Moreover, who are you to demand potential landlords compromise their views and beliefs so that you might have somewhere to rent? If you advocate tolerance, should you not tolerate intolerant beliefs?

I don't say this to cause argument or strife, I'm just curious about your views.

 

[jcook922]

Why would it be preferential treatment to rent me an apartment? These people refused to rent to us because we were an "interracial" couple. where did you get the idea that I felt we should have gotten preferential treatment we just wanted to be treated the same as everyone else. The applications were approved we were taken to see the apartments and then it was "we can't rent to you, we've just rented the apartment"

That comes as strange to me, where did you live at that time? I've lived in California my whole life, and for the most part race is not an issue. After my father died, my mother, who is white, married a black man and there's never been a word of criticism for it. California doesn't really have that much racism, just a bit of culture clash between gangland trash and regular people.

 

[wanderingone]

That comes as strange to me, where did you live at that time? I've lived in California my whole life, and for the most part race is not an issue. After my father died, my mother, who is white, married a black man and there's never been a word of criticism for it. California doesn't really have that much racism, just a bit of culture clash between gangland trash and regular people.

I'm sorry it comes as strange to you. I hope you're not implying it didn't happen because you haven't experienced racism.

I'm a little older than you (if that is your age up there next to your avatar) 20 years ago several boroughs of NYC were still experiencing quite a bit of turmoil every time someone decided to date "outside" their "race" and my husband and I faced quite a bit of idiotic antics from people (both "black" and "white") 3 landlords flat out told me they just didn't want "any trouble" I did feel like it was something out of a corny after school special about racism, except we were ending up not being able to rent in any of the areas we needed to live in despite having passed their credit checks and having cash in hand for rent and security.

From the time my oldest daughter was born (almost 24 years ago) to when my youngest was born (15 years ago) there was a big difference in how people reacted to our family.

We left NYC about 7 years ago (job opportunity for me) and were glad to discover that only a few hours up the Hudson people seem to be a lot less tense about "race" the kids here don't feel the need to harass my kids about "choosing a side, you can't be both" maybe because more than 1/3 of the kids in my daughters classes everywhere are "biracial" and likely not to "choose sides" finding it quite acceptable to be "biracial"

 

[mpok1519]

What about ugly people?

 

[jcook922]

I'm sorry it comes as strange to you. I hope you're not implying it didn't happen because you haven't experienced racism.

I'm a little older than you (if that is your age up there next to your avatar) 20 years ago several boroughs of NYC were still experiencing quite a bit of turmoil every time someone decided to date "outside" their "race" and my husband and I faced quite a bit of idiotic antics from people (both "black" and "white") 3 landlords flat out told me they just didn't want "any trouble" I did feel like it was something out of a corny after school special about racism, except we were ending up not being able to rent in any of the areas we needed to live in despite having passed their credit checks and having cash in hand for rent and security.

From the time my oldest daughter was born (almost 24 years ago) to when my youngest was born (15 years ago) there was a big difference in how people reacted to our family.

We left NYC about 7 years ago (job opportunity for me) and were glad to discover that only a few hours up the Hudson people seem to be a lot less tense about "race" the kids here don't feel the need to harass my kids about "choosing a side, you can't be both" maybe because more than 1/3 of the kids in my daughters classes everywhere are "biracial" and likely not to "choose sides" finding it quite acceptable to be "biracial"

Ahh no, I wasn't implying it didn't happen. It's just I very rarely see actual racism, and when I do I just find it hilarious because of the ignorance of those involved. The Military also has very small quantities of racism, because it's such a melting pot.

 

[gwenmead]

Moreover, who are you to demand potential landlords compromise their views and beliefs so that you might have somewhere to rent?

Safe shelter is a basic human need. Do you really not see anything wrong with a landlord denying such to a potential renter based on skin color?

If you advocate tolerance, should you not tolerate intolerant beliefs?

No. I don't think one should tolerate intolerance, where said intolerance works to deprive other human beings of basic needs or endanger their livelihood.

A bigot's intolerance can threaten the very survival of their favorite scapegoated group by depriving said scapegoat of housing, employment, promotions, medical care, or the like (as illustrated by wanderingone's situation). I see nothing compassionate or noble in allowing such to occur. If some bigot somewhere wants to whine about how that supposedly makes me intolerant too, so be it. I'll take it.

 

[Chesterton]

Safe shelter is a basic human need. Do you really not see anything wrong with a landlord denying such to a potential renter based on skin color?

Whether he sees something wrong with it isn’t the point here. We probably all agree that situation is wrong, but does someone have the right to be wrong? Shelter may be a basic human need, but should one be obligated by law to provide other’s basic needs? As a Christian, I’d answer yes we are obligated, but obligated by God’s moral law, and perhaps should not be by government.

People being free means that people can be free to do wrong things. I guess it depends on how much you value freedom.

 

[Verv]

The difference is that what happens in American politics has a far-reaching effect on the whole of the rest of the world. They're our polar ice caps too, you know. And if you go to war with Iran, it's not just Americans who are going to suffer the consequences.

So, yeah, we care what happens in your country. That's what happens when you're a superpower. Deal with it.

All right.

Do you follow Russian or Chinese politics as closely as ours?

Or perhaps the politics of nuclear arsenal aspirants like Iran?

The USA is the most powerful nation in the world, so those of us who live in other countries care very deeply about who you put in power. I have no idea about political issues in the Ukraine, for instance, but that's because those political issues are extremely unlikely to affect me. Ideally, the rest of the world should get to vote in the US presidential elections too.

Should we also all get the right to vote in Russian and Chinese elections?

Perhaps you should concentrate on doing what you guys usually do -- build silly alliances with one another and complain when we do things to secure the world from nutcases like Hussein. That seems to fit you guys well.

I feel I am supporting the superior candidate. That candidate's nationality and religion are unimportant to me; unfortunately, this does not hold true for some people.

Would you elect a Christian fundamentalist? Or an Old Rites Catholic?

 

[cantata]

All right.

Do you follow Russian or Chinese politics as closely as ours?

Or perhaps the politics of nuclear arsenal aspirants like Iran?

I do take an interest in world politics, yes. Thank you for asking.

However, American politics in many senses is of more direct importance in my country because for better or worse, our government takes its lead from you guys in various matters. Last time I looked, Russia wasn't asking us to help them invade Georgia.

Would you elect a Christian fundamentalist? Or an Old Rites Catholic?

Absolutely, if I liked their policies.

Of course, it's unlikely that I would like their policies, statistically speaking, but if I did like them, that would be, believe it or not, my criterion for voting - not the religion, sexual preference, race, taste in music, or number of nipples of the candidate.

I have noticed that some Americans find this whole "picking a candidate based on what they actually intend to do" concept challenging. I assume it's a cultural thing.

 

[Verv]

I do take an interest in world politics, yes. Thank you for asking.

However, American politics in many senses is of more direct importance in my country because for better or worse, our government takes its lead from you guys in various matters. Last time I looked, Russia wasn't asking us to help them invade Georgia.

Fair enough. I understand.

I just thought it was funny to see a British wiccan who is likely also white supporting a black, American Christian candidate even down to their signature. It gave me a little laugh.

Absolutely, if I liked their policies.

Of course, it's unlikely that I would like their policies, statistically speaking, but if I did like them, that would be, believe it or not, my criterion for voting - not the religion, sexual preference, race, taste in music, or number of nipples of the candidate.

I have noticed that some Americans find this whole "picking a candidate based on what they actually intend to do" concept challenging. I assume it's a cultural thing.

Well, 'Republican' and 'Democrat' pretty much sum up the majority of views on most candidates; further descriptions like 'moderate Republican' or 'moderate Democrat' clarify.

Another issue we face as Americans is the lack of substance that candidates present.

Most of the candidates focus on saying "How can I look as moderate as possible, while making the other guy look as extreme as possible."

We do look simply to the party affiliations and we also want to see decent Christians by and large; 83% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. It makes an amount of sense that they would like their President to share their religion.

Objectively, you are right, it doesn't have much bearing on their political stance. Some of my favorite political thinkers are Jewish like David Horowitz and Ben Stein.

 

[cantata]

Fair enough. I understand.

I just thought it was funny to see a British wiccan who is likely also white supporting a black, American Christian candidate even down to their signature. It gave me a little laugh.

That's fair enough, I suppose; but I, a queer white non-Christian woman, am also "supporting" Obama, in the sense that I want him to be elected. I don't think it's that weird, really. I don't know what the religious inclinations are of most of the leading politicians in the UK. It doesn't even occur to me to find out.

Incidentally: I have family who live in Chicago. They recently told me that they notice that Republican voters who become ex-pats frequently also become Democrats after they've been looking at the US from the outside for a few years.

Well, 'Republican' and 'Democrat' pretty much sum up the majority of views on most candidates; further descriptions like 'moderate Republican' or 'moderate Democrat' clarify.

Another issue we face as Americans is the lack of substance that candidates present.

Most of the candidates focus on saying "How can I look as moderate as possible, while making the other guy look as extreme as possible."

We do look simply to the party affiliations and we also want to see decent Christians by and large; 83% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. It makes an amount of sense that they would like their President to share their religion.

I still find it weird! The focus seems to be on the personal lives of politicians rather than what they want to do in government. The bits that I saw of the two party conferences amounted to little more than hoorah-words and "Yay, America!"

Objectively, you are right, it doesn't have much bearing on their political stance. Some of my favorite political thinkers are Jewish like David Horowitz and Ben Stein.

It may have a bearing on someone's politics, but the important point, I think, is that if you know what their policies are, it doesn't matter what in their personal life made them choose those policies.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Safe shelter is a basic human need. Do you really not see anything wrong with a landlord denying such to a potential renter based on skin color?

Ah, but that's different: one does not have the right to deny someone else their basic human rights. That said, one does have the right to refuse service to anyone you so wish.

The way I see it, one's rights are curtailed in circumstances where they would curtail other rights. Consider two circles expanding out; where they meet, neither overlaps the other. Take a gander at my excuse for a drawing:

No. I don't think one should tolerate intolerance, where said intolerance works to deprive other human beings of basic needs or endanger their livelihood.

Indeed: it's one thing to be tolerant, but quite another to deny someone basic rights.

If some bigot somewhere wants to whine about how that supposedly makes me intolerant too, so be it. I'll take it.

I'd say it's we non-bigots who should whine: if we are so quick to give up our principles, why have them at all?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

All right.

Do you follow Russian or Chinese politics as closely as ours?

Or perhaps the politics of nuclear arsenal aspirants like Iran?

Yes. I am fascinated by international affairs in general.

Should we also all get the right to vote in Russian and Chinese elections?

Only if we were Russian/Chinese.

Perhaps you should concentrate on doing what you guys usually do -- build silly alliances with one another and complain when we do things to secure the world from nutcases like Hussein. That seems to fit you guys well.

Wow, someone's got issues. When did my thread derail into a politics thread? More to the point, why does it resemble an "Amerifag v Eurofag" thread from /b/?

Would you elect a Christian fundamentalist? Or an Old Rites Catholic?

Unlikely, but not because of their religious faith, not directly. The fundamentalist Christian is likely to hold political beliefs that I would not deem suitable for my country (nor any country, for that matter).

 

[KarateCowboy]

Actually discrimination is just telling the difference between things. Its synonym is discernment

FAIL

 

[WatersMoon110]

No. I don't think one should tolerate intolerance, where said intolerance works to deprive other human beings of basic needs or endanger their livelihood.

A bigot's intolerance can threaten the very survival of their favorite scapegoated group by depriving said scapegoat of housing, employment, promotions, medical care, or the like (as illustrated by wanderingone's situation). I see nothing compassionate or noble in allowing such to occur. If some bigot somewhere wants to whine about how that supposedly makes me intolerant too, so be it. I'll take it.

I think we should tolerate that the intolerant have the same rights (freedom of speech and freedom of assembly), and we should allow them to have their say (not that we shouldn't disagree with them). But we should not tolerate the illegal or unconstitutional acts committed by intolerant people.

I try to tolerate the intolerant, while still opposing many of their views. Of course, I often fail, but I do try...

 

[cantata]

Actually discrimination is just telling the difference between things. Its synonym is discernment

FAIL

Discrimination:

1. The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
2. Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
​

Both definitions are correct (and the one which is the focus of this thread is the first one in my dictionary), despite your cute little attempt to pretend otherwise. Care to add something constructive to the discussion?

 

[Garyzenuf]

Whether he sees something wrong with it isn’t the point here. We probably all agree that situation is wrong, but does someone have the right to be wrong?

Not according to the Supreme Court.

Shelter may be a basic human need, but should one be obligated by law to provide other’s basic needs?

Actually yes, for fair compensation.

As a Christian, I’d answer yes we are obligated, but obligated by God’s moral law, and perhaps should not be by government.

People being free means that people can be free to do wrong things. I guess it depends on how much you value freedom.

Freedom to be a bigot?