Tolerating discirmination

[jcook922]

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.

I personally think from a business standpoint that Affirmative Action is bullcrap. Race shouldn't matter at all, qualifications however, should. If all the people with experience and qualifications are white, hire white people, if they are all black, hire black people.

 

[keith99]

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.

...
pinqy

Bingo.

And in practice it has come to mean more of a failure to discriminate. Putting all the members of a racial group into one basket instead of making a distinction between the members of that group that are desirable and those that are not.

 

[Chesterton]

Here’s a hypothetical, for the fun of it: I start a business. I refuse to employ anyone with the letter “M” in their first name. Paul and John are welcome to apply, don’t bother if you’re a Timothy or Mark. Do I have a right to do this? Does another group of men (my government) have a right to prohibit my hiring practices?

 

[OdwinOddball]

Affirmative Action was needed during the civil rights movement, without which many companies would never have even considered black applicants, much less actually given them an interview, qualifications or not.

However, in today's world, though there are certainly still companies that need a kick in the rear every now and then, by and large we are past the point of needed enforced diversification.

 

[Verv]

Tolerate discrimination...

I think toleration should not even really be an issue of discussion.

Everyone has legal rights we cannot infringe upon; it is not much the business of others to tell someone they are legally obligated to be tolerant or not.

Let people behave however they want.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Here’s a hypothetical, for the fun of it: I start a business. I refuse to employ anyone with the letter “M” in their first name. Paul and John are welcome to apply, don’t bother if you’re a Timothy or Mark. Do I have a right to do this? Does another group of men (my government) have a right to prohibit my hiring practices?

You don't have the right, per se, but no one has the right to prohibit it. In my opinion, at least.

 

[Chesterton]

You don't have the right...

Why don't I? I value your opinion, but is there something more to your decision, or just opinion?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why don't I? I value your opinion, but is there something more to your decision, or just opinion?

Depends on what you mean by 'right'. There is no law or convention that guarantees your 'right to hire or not hire whomever you do or do not wish', and thus you do not have the right, per se.

 

[Verv]

If you want a free country people should be allowed to do with their businesses and property whatever they please; this would include barring all heterosexuals, all people with the letter 'M' or anything...

And it means the bar should be able to decide whether it will allow smoking.

Though I have found on my trip back to the USA it is almost easier to meet people now because they all have to congregate outside to smoke and thus are more approachable.

 

[wanderingone]

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]

Tolerance ends when your discriminating fist meets my nose. Go ahead and be a bigot in your own little house, host little aryan singalongs, wear a little bowtie and declare "white" people to be the devil" make little voodoo dolls of breeders and stick pins in various places. But when you step outside of your little private space you get to join everyone else in the great salad bowl of life.

Your refusal to allow people equal access to goods, services and opportunities because of your prejudices has a direct impact on that persons ability to function in the community competitively. In this "enlightened" age it may seem hard to think in terms of a single bigoted employer, bank or store as having a huge impact. The way the ism's thrive and succed in larger harm is when multiples of those employers, and providers of goods and services all agree to limit the opportunities and access of particular groups of people.


standard don't take it personal addendum: all yous and yours and mine and my here are "general" and should not be taken personally.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Your refusal to allow people equal access to goods, services and opportunities because of your prejudices has a direct impact on that persons ability to function in the community competitively. In this "enlightened" age it may seem hard to think in terms of a single bigoted employer, bank or store as having a huge impact. The way the ism's thrive and succed in larger harm is when multiples of those employers, and providers of goods and services all agree to limit the opportunities and access of particular groups of people.

Many of the places that provide goods, services, and opportunities are actually only semi-public spaces that masquerade as public spaces.

The supermarket is not, in fact, a public space.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Tolerance ends when your discriminating fist meets my nose. Go ahead and be a bigot in your own little house, host little aryan singalongs, wear a little bowtie and declare "white" people to be the devil" make little voodoo dolls of breeders and stick pins in various places. But when you step outside of your little private space you get to join everyone else in the great salad bowl of life.

Indeed. You have no right to determine who can and cannot go into any place that isn't your own private property.

Your refusal to allow people equal access to goods, services and opportunities because of your prejudices has a direct impact on that persons ability to function in the community competitively. In this "enlightened" age it may seem hard to think in terms of a single bigoted employer, bank or store as having a huge impact. The way the ism's thrive and succed in larger harm is when multiples of those employers, and providers of goods and services all agree to limit the opportunities and access of particular groups of people.

The potential impact is a worthy risk, if it means upholding our principles, values, rights, and liberties. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, c. 1775.

standard don't take it personal addendum: all yous and yours and mine and my here are "general" and should not be taken personally.

I was beginning to wonder...

 

[Verv]

Wiccan Child, you are not an American and you are endorsing an American candidate as well as a Christian candidate...

How do you feel about this?

 

[cantata]

Wiccan Child, you are not an American and you are endorsing an American candidate as well as a Christian candidate...

How do you feel about this?

A lot of British people tend to vote and support political candidates on the basis of their policies rather than their religious inclinations or places of birth. Crazy, I know.

 

[Verv]

A lot of British people tend to vote and support political candidates on the basis of their policies rather than their religious inclinations or places of birth. Crazy, I know.

Haha, I mean, I try not to get WAY IN TOO DEEP into other nations politics ,so far as to totally endorse one of their candidates.

The reason is that I feel I am not as intimately familiar with the issues or the needs of their society and really shouldn't be making those calls...

I know a Canadian who was delightfully offended, as a liberal atheist against George W. Bush, by a punk band from Canada that appeared on an American anti-Bush CD.

IDK...

It is one hting to have thoughts and ideas about other nations politics...

I should make a nice National Front signature.

 

[cantata]

Haha, I mean, I try not to get WAY IN TOO DEEP into other nations politics ,so far as to totally endorse one of their candidates.

The reason is that I feel I am not as intimately familiar with the issues or the needs of their society and really shouldn't be making those calls...

I know a Canadian who was delightfully offended, as a liberal atheist against George W. Bush, by a punk band from Canada that appeared on an American anti-Bush CD.

IDK...

It is one hting to have thoughts and ideas about other nations politics...

I should make a nice National Front signature.

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.

 

[Andreusz]

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.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wiccan Child, you are not an American and you are endorsing an American candidate as well as a Christian candidate...

How do you feel about this?

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.

 

[Chesterton]

His support might appear odd at first glance, but remember that in lots of districts, Democratic candidates traditionally get a lot of votes from non-citizens, prisoners, people who’ve been dead for 10 years, people who don’t exist at all…

 

[wanderingone]

The potential impact is a worthy risk, if it means upholding our principles, values, rights, and liberties. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, c. 1775.

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.