Tolerating discirmination

[Wiccan_Child]

Discrimination is prejudice based on some trait, be it sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, disability, age, etc (e.g., not giving someone a job as a cashier because they're of African descent is discrimination). By and large, people are opposed to it.

But I think it should be tolerated, in certain circumstances.

Casting directors frequently discriminate when they cast actors of a particular sex or race (Grey's Anatomy is a pleasant exception to this), yet no one bats an eyelid.

In general, I think that discriminating against someone because of an irrelevant trait is always wrong. But if, say, a potential employee's sexual orientation would be detrimental to their performance at work, then not giving them the job is, in my eyes, fair. And no, I don't know of any job where one's sexual orientation would interfere with one's performance .

Oh, and I am also against the idea of "Affirmative Action", to the extent that I support an employer's right to not employ someone for whatever reason.

How can we claim to be 'tolerant' if we won't even tolerate ideas of the intolerant?

[/ramble]

 

[Chesterton]

And no, I don't know of any job where one's sexual orientation would interfere with one's performance.

Prostitute?

 

[pinqy]

Discrimination is prejudice based on some trait, be it sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, disability, age, etc (e.g., not giving someone a job as a cashier because they're of African descent is discrimination). By and large, people are opposed to it.

Not quite. "To discriminate" simply means to make a clear distinction or to note differences. In the last few decades the word has been used more and more often to refer to making irrlevant distinctions, especially based on perceived group qualities. Really, I think that should be called "prejudicial discrimination" but I doubt I'll ever be able to start that trend.

Casting directors frequently discriminate when they cast actors of a particular sex or race (Grey's Anatomy is a pleasant exception to this), yet no one bats an eyelid.

Because the issue sensible people have is with prejudicial discrimination, where the discrimination is based on irrelevant factors. For the arts, race and sex are often relevant factors. Hiring a secretary the race/sex etc are not relevent factors on doing the job. To portray Shaft, a white woman would not be particularly effective for the story as written (all the references to "him" and being Black would just feel odd).

In general, I think that discriminating against someone because of an irrelevant trait is always wrong. But if, say, a potential employee's sexual orientation would be detrimental to their performance at work, then not giving them the job is, in my eyes, fair. And no, I don't know of any job where one's sexual orientation would interfere with one's performance .

Then you're right in line with everyone else. I'm not aware of anyone who thinks discrimination based on relevant factors is wrong.

Oh, and I am also against the idea of "Affirmative Action", to the extent that I support an employer's right to not employ someone for whatever reason.

Wait, your'e saying that discrimination against someone for irrelevant factors is wrong, but should be allowed? Then which wrong things should not be allowed, which ones should, and how do you discriminate between the two?

pinqy

 

[Chesterton]

Oh, and I am also against the idea of "Affirmative Action", to the extent that I support an employer's right to not employ someone for whatever reason.

Sorry for the dumb, obvious joke above, but seriously: Glad to hear such red-blooded conservatism from you. I agree with you, and would say your statement is a sub-set of a larger idea that people should be as free as possible, period. And here’s the thing; bigotry is wrong in itself, but also unwise for the economic, amoral reason that, an employer who decreases his pool of potential employees based upon anything other than merit will only hurt himself in the long run. Take two companies, same type and size, company A run by a bigot of any type, and company B run by a non-bigot, company B will be the better company, other things being equal.

 

[Washington]

Sorry for the dumb, obvious joke above, but seriously: Glad to hear such red-blooded conservatism from you. I agree with you, and would say your statement is a sub-set of a larger idea that people should be as free as possible, period. And here’s the thing; bigotry is wrong in itself, but also unwise for the economic, amoral reason that, an employer who decreases his pool of potential employees based upon anything other than merit will only hurt himself in the long run. Take two companies, same type and size, company A run by a bigot of any type, and company B run by a non-bigot, company B will be the better company, other things being equal.

The trouble is, the possible harm incurred by the bigoted employer may be minuscule, and well worth the discrimination. Meanwhile, those discriminated may have lost out on a great deal more. The loss of a $25,000 job may mean another year or two of hand to mouth existence, where as the employment of a less qualified person, which perhaps results in a $2,000 loss in productivity to the bigoted employer, is a drop in the bucket in his $1,000,000 in profit.

So, while bigotry may not be best in the long run, for some it simply doesn't matter. "Better to have _______ working for me and loose a few bucks than have to give _______ jobs in order to make those bucks." Of course, this all assumes the bigot is bright enough to recognize the better skills of the person he is discriminating against. I lived in the south for awhile and saw how some whites honestly didn't believe that blacks were capable of doing as good a job as whites. Period!

 

[cantata]

Prostitute?

Not really.

I sometimes think it'd be easier to be a prostitute if one were not actually attracted to any of the sex one was servicing. Given the number of lesbian porn videos featuring obviously heterosexual women, it doesn't seem to be too much of a hindrance.

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

Not really.

I sometimes think it'd be easier to be a prostitute if one were not actually attracted to any of the sex one was servicing. Given the number of lesbian porn videos featuring obviously heterosexual women, it doesn't seem to be too much of a hindrance.

*SIGH*
Really just saddens me.

 

[cantata]

*SIGH*
Really just saddens me.

I know, me too.

Heterosexual women really have no idea of how to kiss each other convincingly.

 

[Washington]

Heterosexual women really have no idea of how to kiss each other convincingly.

As a heterosexual woman you've had heterosexual women try to kiss you convincingly? I'm impressed. (Got any pictures?)

 

[Bombila]

I know, me too.

Heterosexual women really have no idea of how to kiss each other convincingly.

No, heterosexual women in porn movies have directors who have no idea how two women would kiss each other convincingly. Or maybe I'm more bisexual than I've previously thought. Or perhaps I'm right in thinking that more women are able to respond physically to anybody who knows how to make them feel good, regardless of self-specified orientation.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Prostitute?

Hmm, not necessarily. Straight men selling their bodies to other men are not unknown.

Besides, prostitution is all about please the customer, not oneself.

Sorry for the dumb, obvious joke above, but seriously: Glad to hear such red-blooded conservatism from you.

I agree with you, and would say your statement is a sub-set of a larger idea that people should be as free as possible, period. And here’s the thing; bigotry is wrong in itself, but also unwise for the economic, amoral reason that, an employer who decreases his pool of potential employees based upon anything other than merit will only hurt himself in the long run. Take two companies, same type and size, company A run by a bigot of any type, and company B run by a non-bigot, company B will be the better company, other things being equal.

Agreed. But if a businesswoman chooses to run herself into the ground, that's her business (so to speak).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not quite. "To discriminate" simply means to make a clear distinction or to note differences. In the last few decades the word has been used more and more often to refer to making irrlevant distinctions, especially based on perceived group qualities. Really, I think that should be called "prejudicial discrimination" but I doubt I'll ever be able to start that trend.

Hmm, maybe. But semantics isn't really the direction I wanted this to head in .

Because the issue sensible people have is with prejudicial discrimination, where the discrimination is based on irrelevant factors. For the arts, race and sex are often relevant factors. Hiring a secretary the race/sex etc are not relevent factors on doing the job. To portray Shaft, a white woman would not be particularly effective for the story as written (all the references to "him" and being Black would just feel odd).

My point exactly. We live in an era where tolerance is adorned on a gilded pedestal, and discrimination is shunned as an abominable sin (OK, maybe I exaggerated a little), but this should not be the case: there may be instances where tolerance is not as good as discrimination.

Then you're right in line with everyone else. I'm not aware of anyone who thinks discrimination based on relevant factors is wrong.

You'd be surprised.

Wait, your'e saying that discrimination against someone for irrelevant factors is wrong, but should be allowed?

Yes. It's immoral, in my view, but I don't see any way to illegalise it without infringing on civil rights.

Then which wrong things should not be allowed, which ones should, and how do you discriminate between the two?

It's to do with the law, our rights, and our freedoms. We should under no circumstances curtail our rights and freedoms, even if it means legalising moral wrongs.

 

[cantata]

As a heterosexual woman you've had heterosexual women try to kiss you convincingly? I'm impressed. (Got any pictures?)

*grin*

They seem unable to kiss each other in such a way that they are able to convince their audience that they are attracted to one another, I should say.

No, heterosexual women in porn movies have directors who have no idea how two women would kiss each other convincingly. Or maybe I'm more bisexual than I've previously thought. Or perhaps I'm right in thinking that more women are able to respond physically to anybody who knows how to make them feel good, regardless of self-specified orientation.

You're right, of course. It often seems to me that the people directing these films are basically making a heterosexual film where the male role is filled by a woman, rather than a lesbian film. I was, you'll realise, being slightly facetious.

Perhaps there's also a difference between women who are kissing each other because they like kissing, and women who are kissing each other because they're attracted to one another?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Prostitute?

*ahem* Legal job?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Wait! Why are we talking about the porn industry now?

 

[Bombila]

*grin*

They seem unable to kiss each other in such a way that they are able to convince their audience that they are attracted to one another, I should say.



You're right, of course. It often seems to me that the people directing these films are basically making a heterosexual film where the male role is filled by a woman, rather than a lesbian film. I was, you'll realise, being slightly facetious.

Perhaps there's also a difference between women who are kissing each other because they like kissing, and women who are kissing each other because they're attracted to one another?

Yeah, I knew you were joking about it. It's true though, and for the very reason you mention. I'm actually bored by most porn, so haven't seen all that much, but pretty much all I've seen is directed towards het men's fantasies.

I doubt there would be much visual difference, but undoubtedly there might be a qualitative difference.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Wait! Why are we talking about the porn industry now?

It is a legal job, at least.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I don't know about the whole Affirmative Action hiring restrictions issue. On the one hand, people should never be discriminated against based on race, gender, sexual orientation, nation of origin, or religion. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to work for a racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted company, nor would I want to purchase anything from one. I think that the market might take care of the issue itself, given the amount of bad press a company could get if they were found to be discriminating.

But I guess I do think that discrimination in hiring practices should be illegal. And it is even a case where a Federal Law passed using the "Interstate Commerce" clause is being used to regulate interstate commerce (mostly - except that these laws probably also apply to businesses that don't do business across state lines). I like it when laws are actually Constitutional. *grin*

 

[cantata]

*ahem* Legal job?

It's legal in some places, you know.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

*ahem* Legal job?

Prostitution is legal, in some places. But the legality of the job is irrelevant.