Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Discrimination: You can't have it both ways

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 10:57:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I just read the headline of an OP-ED today in the paper, and it made my blood boil. The topic? Vote for Hillary Clinton because it's time we had a woman in the White House. (paraphrasing for effect)

To me, this is sexism. You are basing your actions based SOLELY on one aspect, the fact she is a woman. Sure, she is qualified, and you may like her, but that is not attitude of this OP-ED at first glance.
Voting for Obama in the 2008 election because he was black is equally racist.
Now, if the candidate happens to be black or female, but you are voting out of party pride or their platform, that is not racist/sexist. I'm sure you see the difference, and I am sure you can agree that some people will/did vote based on race/gender and nothing more.

But, you can't have it both ways....
You can't have the attitude that it is okay to act on said statuses of a person as above, while rallying against a law/policy that has a disparate effect on a group of people. For example, a law that requires state-wide protected classes only, or a company policy that is likely to affect pregnant women more than others. These laws do not target anyone in particular (on their face), and they have legal merit, but they have a disparate impact, and as such, are labeled discriminatory.

How can some be so blatantly discriminatory when it suits them, and rally so hard against lessor grievances when it doesn't?
You can't have it both ways; pick your poison.
My work here is, finally, done.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 11:39:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 10:57:48 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Now, if the candidate happens to be black or female, but you are voting out of party pride or their platform, that is not racist/sexist.

Is that not just as bad though? Might as well call it partyism.
Simply voting out of pride seems like the real problem.

I don't see why voting for a democrat because they're democrat, is a better reason than voting for a women because their a women.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 12:18:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 11:39:58 AM, Kozu wrote:
At 4/24/2015 10:57:48 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Now, if the candidate happens to be black or female, but you are voting out of party pride or their platform, that is not racist/sexist.

Is that not just as bad though? Might as well call it partyism.
Simply voting out of pride seems like the real problem.

I don't see why voting for a democrat because they're democrat, is a better reason than voting for a women because their a women.

Well, there is the underlined as well. Chances are, you vote Democrat because they are likely to agree with your views, which is something you control. While this, too, is discrimination (what isn't?), the issue of this thread is in discriminating on the basis that are beyond one's control.
My work here is, finally, done.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 1:41:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 12:18:33 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I don't see why voting for a democrat because they're democrat, is a better reason than voting for a women because their a women.

Well, there is the underlined as well. Chances are, you vote Democrat because they are likely to agree with your views, which is something you control. While this, too, is discrimination (what isn't?), the issue of this thread is in discriminating on the basis that are beyond one's control.

I think being a women is beyond ones control. It makes sense for a women to simply believe that a women president would be likely to agree with their views.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 2:01:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 1:41:48 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 4/24/2015 12:18:33 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I don't see why voting for a democrat because they're democrat, is a better reason than voting for a women because their a women.

Well, there is the underlined as well. Chances are, you vote Democrat because they are likely to agree with your views, which is something you control. While this, too, is discrimination (what isn't?), the issue of this thread is in discriminating on the basis that are beyond one's control.

I think being a women is beyond ones control. It makes sense for a women to simply believe that a women president would be likely to agree with their views.

Then that implies that a being a woman has an affect on one's personality, ergo, judging one on said status (i.e. being a woman) has merit. For example, because she is a woman, she likely has X traits and/or views. Again, just as sexist, since it lumps the person into a group and is not viewed as an individual.
My work here is, finally, done.
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 2:41:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's sexist, but so what? Not all sexism is bad. Men can't use the women's restroom or women's dressing rooms. That's a sexist policy, but that doesn't make it a bad policy. Sexism and racist policies are frequently wrong because they're not fair. Fairness in the workplace, in education, and in public accomodations are areas that have a major impact on every American. That is why the rules apply in those situations. All but a handful of Americans will run for POTUS.
Kaynes
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 3:02:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree, though I think this is a really bad example to make a case against positive discrimination.

You should use the supreme court case about accepting more ethnic minority in a university simply because they are am ethnic minority. Now that is really something worth a debate.

I'm on your side though
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 12:50:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 10:57:48 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I just read the headline of an OP-ED today in the paper, and it made my blood boil. The topic? Vote for Hillary Clinton because it's time we had a woman in the White House. (paraphrasing for effect)

To me, this is sexism. You are basing your actions based SOLELY on one aspect, the fact she is a woman. Sure, she is qualified, and you may like her, but that is not attitude of this OP-ED at first glance.
Voting for Obama in the 2008 election because he was black is equally racist.
Now, if the candidate happens to be black or female, but you are voting out of party pride or their platform, that is not racist/sexist. I'm sure you see the difference, and I am sure you can agree that some people will/did vote based on race/gender and nothing more.

But, you can't have it both ways....
You can't have the attitude that it is okay to act on said statuses of a person as above, while rallying against a law/policy that has a disparate effect on a group of people. For example, a law that requires state-wide protected classes only, or a company policy that is likely to affect pregnant women more than others. These laws do not target anyone in particular (on their face), and they have legal merit, but they have a disparate impact, and as such, are labeled discriminatory.

How can some be so blatantly discriminatory when it suits them, and rally so hard against lessor grievances when it doesn't?
You can't have it both ways; pick your poison.

You're right, it is sexism. It also makes me angry because its such a con. Hillary isn't going to be any different because she's a woman, just like Obama wasn't any different because he was black.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 4:03:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 10:57:48 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I just read the headline of an OP-ED today in the paper, and it made my blood boil. The topic? Vote for Hillary Clinton because it's time we had a woman in the White House. (paraphrasing for effect)

To me, this is sexism. You are basing your actions based SOLELY on one aspect, the fact she is a woman. Sure, she is qualified, and you may like her, but that is not attitude of this OP-ED at first glance.
Voting for Obama in the 2008 election because he was black is equally racist.
Now, if the candidate happens to be black or female, but you are voting out of party pride or their platform, that is not racist/sexist. I'm sure you see the difference, and I am sure you can agree that some people will/did vote based on race/gender and nothing more.

But, you can't have it both ways....
You can't have the attitude that it is okay to act on said statuses of a person as above, while rallying against a law/policy that has a disparate effect on a group of people. For example, a law that requires state-wide protected classes only, or a company policy that is likely to affect pregnant women more than others. These laws do not target anyone in particular (on their face), and they have legal merit, but they have a disparate impact, and as such, are labeled discriminatory.

How can some be so blatantly discriminatory when it suits them, and rally so hard against lessor grievances when it doesn't?
You can't have it both ways; pick your poison.

Eh, what can I say? People only endorse things when they benefit them in some way.
You can call me Mark if you like.