Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is (race, sex, etc.)-ism really that bad?

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 3:20:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
No, this is not a troll topic.
Please do rationalize before you attack me.
I really hope I expressed myself adequetely...

Intellectually/Logically any -ism is bad in the sense that is follows the generalization fallacy. That aside, why are some discriminations looked down upon and others accepted?

For example, using hiring an applicant:
Not hiring a woman is frowned upon.
So is a white man not hiring a black man.

However, not hiring a convicted felon is okay.
So is someone without work experience.
Or formal education.

What is the difference that warrants acceptability in some cases of discrimination and not others?

In all honesty, I think it is the merits of the generalization.
For example, saying all black people are lazy is blatently false; however, saying a convicted felon is an unnecessary risk. While both may be true, it is still a fallacy to claim that one generalization is better than another, isn't it?

After all, any individual ought to be judged as an individual, but it is human nature to lump people into categories.
My work here is, finally, done.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 3:24:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think it generally comes down to whether the thing to be generalized upon is a fault of their own or not. Being black, female or gay is different than being uneducated or a felon.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 3:52:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 3:24:30 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I think it generally comes down to whether the thing to be generalized upon is a fault of their own or not. Being black, female or gay is different than being uneducated or a felon.

But, we don't look down upon those groups devoted to these groups? It is okay for the United Negro College Fund to discriminate against all but black folks, and okay for various women groups (I don't know of any off-hand) to support women in sciences. This is a double standard, and a logical hypocrisy.

It's not what is being discriminated upon that is the issue, though. In the case of UNCF, it is believed that blacks need help to get into college, but I as a business owner am vilified if I think a black man can't do the job. It is a double standard, both based on race.
My work here is, finally, done.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 9:07:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
We are a discriminating species. I see cooked peas, my brain knows not to eat those, because I don't like those. I see an open fire, I know that's hot and I shouldn't stick my hand in there.

I have discriminating tastes. I discriminate between choices all the time.

What I don't do is prejudge something based on a thing which is meaningless.

Now, I know that when I see a big, black dude in gangsta clothes, I tense up and my brain does the same stupid sh!t it does when I see a Muslim man on an airplane that I happen to be using that day. In the end, it's stupid. People are people and most of 'em are just trying to get through the day.

Women in science, and encouraging that, is massively beneficial, though, because of how women's brains work and the process of discovery. Women have, unfortunately, not been encouraged in science nearly as much when little girls as little boys have, so programs like these, to change our group stupidity, are generally to everyone's benefit.

Keep on -isming, but don't shoot yourself in the foot over it and try to kill a program which may just find the cure for what ails ya, when you're really aillin'.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 11:20:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 3:24:30 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I think it generally comes down to whether the thing to be generalized upon is a fault of their own or not. Being black, female or gay is different than being uneducated or a felon.

What if the person didn't have the opportunity to be educated?

What if the person had been born & raised in a gang?
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 11:22:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 7:10:33 AM, drafterman wrote:
Yes.

"Please do rationalize..."

If you aren't going to read the op, you shouldn't answer just after reading the topic title.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 11:36:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 11:22:21 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 1/22/2013 7:10:33 AM, drafterman wrote:
Yes.

"Please do rationalize..."

If you aren't going to read the op, you shouldn't answer just after reading the topic title.

"...before you attack me."

If and when I decide to attack him, I'll rationalize.

Now, lecture me again about not reading the OP.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 11:39:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 3:20:39 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
No, this is not a troll topic.
Please do rationalize before you attack me.
I really hope I expressed myself adequetely...

Intellectually/Logically any -ism is bad in the sense that is follows the generalization fallacy. That aside, why are some discriminations looked down upon and others accepted?

For example, using hiring an applicant:
Not hiring a woman is frowned upon.
So is a white man not hiring a black man.

However, not hiring a convicted felon is okay.
So is someone without work experience.
Or formal education.

What is the difference that warrants acceptability in some cases of discrimination and not others?

In all honesty, I think it is the merits of the generalization.
For example, saying all black people are lazy is blatently false; however, saying a convicted felon is an unnecessary risk. While both may be true, it is still a fallacy to claim that one generalization is better than another, isn't it?

After all, any individual ought to be judged as an individual, but it is human nature to lump people into categories.

The fact that it's human nature doesn't make it right.
& while racism is definitely wrong, & definitely a problem, some people take it too far.

I support racial profiling, TO AN EXTENT.

If statistically speaking people with property "a" are more likely to do action "b".
& you want to avoid action "b".
It makes sense to take those #'s into account, & be more cautious with type a people.

The FBI should not have to base themselves on political correctness, their main guide should be what works.

I think people go over board with Affirmative action.

Stereotype has become a bad word, because it's often over used to an extreme. Many have gone to the other extreme, but I think that the correct path is in the middle.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 2:39:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 3:20:39 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
No, this is not a troll topic.
Please do rationalize before you attack me.
I really hope I expressed myself adequetely...

Intellectually/Logically any -ism is bad in the sense that is follows the generalization fallacy. That aside, why are some discriminations looked down upon and others accepted?

For example, using hiring an applicant:
Not hiring a woman is frowned upon.
So is a white man not hiring a black man.

However, not hiring a convicted felon is okay.
So is someone without work experience.
Or formal education.

What is the difference that warrants acceptability in some cases of discrimination and not others?

In all honesty, I think it is the merits of the generalization.
For example, saying all black people are lazy is blatently false; however, saying a convicted felon is an unnecessary risk. While both may be true, it is still a fallacy to claim that one generalization is better than another, isn't it?

After all, any individual ought to be judged as an individual, but it is human nature to lump people into categories.

Education and criminal backgrounds are relevant to the ability to be trusted or do a job, whereas a cultural designation or gender is not.

Which should be blatantly obvious, and I think you know that, or you wouldn't have begun the OP with repudiation.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 4:40:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yeah, it is that bad. Honestly, I'm not even sure if I'm understanding the question correctly but, as I understand the question now, the fact that a straight, white male is the one who has to ask it doesn't really surprise me for some reason....
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 6:27:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's only bad to the mentally and emotionally insecure. A mentally and emotionally strong person brushes it off with not even a shred of resentment but only makes a note to use strategic social sense when in the same room as that said "ism" person. In other words walk over or around them as if they didn't exist.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 7:06:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 4:40:34 PM, Oryus wrote:
Yeah, it is that bad. Honestly, I'm not even sure if I'm understanding the question correctly but, as I understand the question now, the fact that a straight, white male is the one who has to ask it doesn't really surprise me for some reason....


I know, right?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 7:24:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Gender is real, race is not.

Men and women serve different reproductive purposes. Both are of equal value.

There is only one race, the human race. Scientific fact.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 8:15:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 2:39:59 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/22/2013 3:20:39 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
No, this is not a troll topic.
Please do rationalize before you attack me.
I really hope I expressed myself adequetely...

Intellectually/Logically any -ism is bad in the sense that is follows the generalization fallacy. That aside, why are some discriminations looked down upon and others accepted?

For example, using hiring an applicant:
Not hiring a woman is frowned upon.
So is a white man not hiring a black man.

However, not hiring a convicted felon is okay.
So is someone without work experience.
Or formal education.

What is the difference that warrants acceptability in some cases of discrimination and not others?

In all honesty, I think it is the merits of the generalization.
For example, saying all black people are lazy is blatently false; however, saying a convicted felon is an unnecessary risk. While both may be true, it is still a fallacy to claim that one generalization is better than another, isn't it?

After all, any individual ought to be judged as an individual, but it is human nature to lump people into categories.

Education and criminal backgrounds are relevant to the ability to be trusted or do a job, whereas a cultural designation or gender is not.

Which should be blatantly obvious, and I think you know that, or you wouldn't have begun the OP with repudiation.

This is my point.
Criminal backgrounds are considered an acceptable indicator upon which one generalizes. If they wontonly broke the law, why should I trust them?

However, is the logic not the exact same if a bigot were to generalize, and subsequently not hire/interview, a black man because "black people are lazy and violent"?

In either case, assuming the premise is true, neither should be hired.

We would agree that one generalization has far more merit, but both are generalizing and discriminating based on said generalization. Why is one considered more wrong, when they have the same logic?

We can take issue with premises, but that is not the issue people take. They say discrimination is bad, not the reasons for it.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 8:19:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 4:40:34 PM, Oryus wrote:
Yeah, it is that bad. Honestly, I'm not even sure if I'm understanding the question correctly but, as I understand the question now, the fact that a straight, white male is the one who has to ask it doesn't really surprise me for some reason....

Really...

So, if I were an owner of a strip club, would you have a problem if I refused to hire a man? A 60-year-old? A disabled woman?

If not, why not? Is this not discrimination based on sex, age, and handicap?
My work here is, finally, done.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 8:33:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 8:19:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/22/2013 4:40:34 PM, Oryus wrote:
Yeah, it is that bad. Honestly, I'm not even sure if I'm understanding the question correctly but, as I understand the question now, the fact that a straight, white male is the one who has to ask it doesn't really surprise me for some reason....

Really...

So, if I were an owner of a strip club, would you have a problem if I refused to hire a man? A 60-year-old? A disabled woman?

If not, why not? Is this not discrimination based on sex, age, and handicap?

Gender-based discrimination is not always sexism. Sexism is a fundamental opinion about gender, and a perceived essence of a gender when compared to another. It certainly leads to gender-based discrimination based on that fundamental opinion, but it is in stark contrast to discrimination that happens to be gender-based not because of some subjective opinion, but of some indisputable objective fact.

Refusing to hire a male stripper at a female strip club has nothing to do with any perceptions of the superiority/inferiority of one gender vs. another, but rather the fact that one has tits and the other does not, as a simple matter of biology.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 8:53:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 8:19:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/22/2013 4:40:34 PM, Oryus wrote:
Yeah, it is that bad. Honestly, I'm not even sure if I'm understanding the question correctly but, as I understand the question now, the fact that a straight, white male is the one who has to ask it doesn't really surprise me for some reason....

Really...

So, if I were an owner of a strip club, would you have a problem if I refused to hire a man? A 60-year-old? A disabled woman?

If not, why not? Is this not discrimination based on sex, age, and handicap?

Is sex, age, and handicap relevant to the task at hand? Can a strip club which caters to heterosexual men stay in business while hiring people that customers don't want to see? Sex is relevant to the job. Are the customers coming to see old women or would they prefer to lust after young ones? Age is also relevant to the job. Is the disability stopping the person from being physically capable of doing the job? If it is, then handicap is relevant to the job. Sex, age, and handicap are all relevant to that job in a BIG way.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 9:08:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 8:15:19 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/22/2013 2:39:59 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/22/2013 3:20:39 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
No, this is not a troll topic.
Please do rationalize before you attack me.
I really hope I expressed myself adequetely...

Intellectually/Logically any -ism is bad in the sense that is follows the generalization fallacy. That aside, why are some discriminations looked down upon and others accepted?

For example, using hiring an applicant:
Not hiring a woman is frowned upon.
So is a white man not hiring a black man.

However, not hiring a convicted felon is okay.
So is someone without work experience.
Or formal education.

What is the difference that warrants acceptability in some cases of discrimination and not others?

In all honesty, I think it is the merits of the generalization.
For example, saying all black people are lazy is blatently false; however, saying a convicted felon is an unnecessary risk. While both may be true, it is still a fallacy to claim that one generalization is better than another, isn't it?

After all, any individual ought to be judged as an individual, but it is human nature to lump people into categories.

Education and criminal backgrounds are relevant to the ability to be trusted or do a job, whereas a cultural designation or gender is not.

Which should be blatantly obvious, and I think you know that, or you wouldn't have begun the OP with repudiation.

This is my point.
Criminal backgrounds are considered an acceptable indicator upon which one generalizes. If they wontonly broke the law, why should I trust them?

However, is the logic not the exact same if a bigot were to generalize, and subsequently not hire/interview, a black man because "black people are lazy and violent"?

In either case, assuming the premise is true, neither should be hired.

We would agree that one generalization has far more merit, but both are generalizing and discriminating based on said generalization. Why is one considered more wrong, when they have the same logic?

We can take issue with premises, but that is not the issue people take. They say discrimination is bad, not the reasons for it.

Because breaking the law is a breach of trust. Stealing, for example. However, surely you realize that it's more contingent on the nature of the crime, rather than simply the existence of crime itself.

The point is, though, that criminal behavior isn't a generalization. It is a literal truth. Being "black," on the other hand, is not an indicator of any given characteristic. It is simply a social designation based on appearance alone.

Accordingly, it make sense to forego hiring someone to work at a bank who was convicted of robbery or theft, but it doesn't make sense to forego hiring someone because of their appearance.

Or, are you literally asserting that "black people" are lazy and violent, inherently?

If so, fuckoff, you douchebag bigot.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 9:32:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 8:53:18 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 1/22/2013 8:19:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/22/2013 4:40:34 PM, Oryus wrote:
Yeah, it is that bad. Honestly, I'm not even sure if I'm understanding the question correctly but, as I understand the question now, the fact that a straight, white male is the one who has to ask it doesn't really surprise me for some reason....

Really...

So, if I were an owner of a strip club, would you have a problem if I refused to hire a man? A 60-year-old? A disabled woman?

If not, why not? Is this not discrimination based on sex, age, and handicap?

Is sex, age, and handicap relevant to the task at hand? Can a strip club which caters to heterosexual men stay in business while hiring people that customers don't want to see? Sex is relevant to the job. Are the customers coming to see old women or would they prefer to lust after young ones? Age is also relevant to the job. Is the disability stopping the person from being physically capable of doing the job? If it is, then handicap is relevant to the job. Sex, age, and handicap are all relevant to that job in a BIG way.

I think worker organizations that are gender segregated, age-segragated and/or even race segregated would possibly increase worker productivity due to stronger social cohesion. Would it be so wrong to discriminate based on race, gender or age for those reasons?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 9:56:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 9:32:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/22/2013 8:53:18 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 1/22/2013 8:19:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/22/2013 4:40:34 PM, Oryus wrote:
Yeah, it is that bad. Honestly, I'm not even sure if I'm understanding the question correctly but, as I understand the question now, the fact that a straight, white male is the one who has to ask it doesn't really surprise me for some reason....

Really...

So, if I were an owner of a strip club, would you have a problem if I refused to hire a man? A 60-year-old? A disabled woman?

If not, why not? Is this not discrimination based on sex, age, and handicap?

Is sex, age, and handicap relevant to the task at hand? Can a strip club which caters to heterosexual men stay in business while hiring people that customers don't want to see? Sex is relevant to the job. Are the customers coming to see old women or would they prefer to lust after young ones? Age is also relevant to the job. Is the disability stopping the person from being physically capable of doing the job? If it is, then handicap is relevant to the job. Sex, age, and handicap are all relevant to that job in a BIG way.

I think worker organizations that are gender segregated, age-segragated and/or even race segregated would possibly increase worker productivity due to stronger social cohesion. Would it be so wrong to discriminate based on race, gender or age for those reasons?

I think that they tried that in schools and the results were not so great.

Can you show that this claim about productivity is even true? Also, do you think that this would not open up a pandora's separate-but-equal box? Given that this claim about productivity is true, and given that white men still hold most of the powerful positions in businesses and politics, don't you think this situation would further set minorities and women back? If you aren't able to network with the high status group, you're going to get nowhere fast. Creating a special environment where the status quo can remain un-tampered with would pretty much set us back about 60 years.

I'd say that you'd have to determine your priorities there- how much more productivity does this plan offer? And is that amount of productivity worth selling out women and minorities to achieve?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 10:09:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 8:15:19 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/22/2013 2:39:59 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/22/2013 3:20:39 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
No, this is not a troll topic.

Education and criminal backgrounds are relevant to the ability to be trusted or do a job, whereas a cultural designation or gender is not.

Which should be blatantly obvious, and I think you know that, or you wouldn't have begun the OP with repudiation.

This is my point.
Criminal backgrounds are considered an acceptable indicator upon which one generalizes. If they wontonly broke the law, why should I trust them?

However, is the logic not the exact same if a bigot were to generalize, and subsequently not hire/interview, a black man because "black people are lazy and violent"?

This comes pretty close to trolling IMHO.

They are not the same. On the one hand, you have demonstrable proof that someone is capable of breaking the law. On the other hand, you have zero proof whatsoever that "black people are lazy and violent".

A criminal background check is not a stereotyping. A criminal background check demonstrates what crimes one has broken, and to what extent, and whether or not they point to a trend. They are very specific to an individual.

Your comment about black people is NOT specific to the individual. It is stereotyping and thus viewed in a negative light. What if this "lazy and violent" black person happened to be a Harvard grad, out of law school, after being editor of the schools prestigious law journal? Are you still saying that Barack Obama is "lazy and violent" and thus not deserving of employment?

In either case, assuming the premise is true, neither should be hired.

People do not "generalize" with criminal background checks, so I would say your conclusion is not true.

IF black people were ALL "lazy and violent" then yes, it would be less desirable to hire them, and if so, for lower pay. However, such a generalization is easily proven false. If one discriminates based on this false generalization, it leads to problems with efficiency, along with all the social ills that come from a disgruntled, discriminated segment of the populace.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 10:11:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 9:32:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/22/2013 8:53:18 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 1/22/2013 8:19:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/22/2013 4:40:34 PM, Oryus wrote:
Yeah, it is that bad. Honestly, I'm not even sure if I'm understanding the question correctly but, as I understand the question now, the fact that a straight, white male is the one who has to ask it doesn't really surprise me for some reason....

Really...

So, if I were an owner of a strip club, would you have a problem if I refused to hire a man? A 60-year-old? A disabled woman?

If not, why not? Is this not discrimination based on sex, age, and handicap?

Is sex, age, and handicap relevant to the task at hand? Can a strip club which caters to heterosexual men stay in business while hiring people that customers don't want to see? Sex is relevant to the job. Are the customers coming to see old women or would they prefer to lust after young ones? Age is also relevant to the job. Is the disability stopping the person from being physically capable of doing the job? If it is, then handicap is relevant to the job. Sex, age, and handicap are all relevant to that job in a BIG way.

I think worker organizations that are gender segregated, age-segragated and/or even race segregated would possibly increase worker productivity due to stronger social cohesion. Would it be so wrong to discriminate based on race, gender or age for those reasons?

The problem with such discrimination is the risk of marginalization.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 10:54:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 9:56:56 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 1/22/2013 9:32:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/22/2013 8:53:18 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 1/22/2013 8:19:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/22/2013 4:40:34 PM, Oryus wrote:
Yeah, it is that bad. Honestly, I'm not even sure if I'm understanding the question correctly but, as I understand the question now, the fact that a straight, white male is the one who has to ask it doesn't really surprise me for some reason....

Really...

So, if I were an owner of a strip club, would you have a problem if I refused to hire a man? A 60-year-old? A disabled woman?

If not, why not? Is this not discrimination based on sex, age, and handicap?

Is sex, age, and handicap relevant to the task at hand? Can a strip club which caters to heterosexual men stay in business while hiring people that customers don't want to see? Sex is relevant to the job. Are the customers coming to see old women or would they prefer to lust after young ones? Age is also relevant to the job. Is the disability stopping the person from being physically capable of doing the job? If it is, then handicap is relevant to the job. Sex, age, and handicap are all relevant to that job in a BIG way.

I think worker organizations that are gender segregated, age-segragated and/or even race segregated would possibly increase worker productivity due to stronger social cohesion. Would it be so wrong to discriminate based on race, gender or age for those reasons?

I think that they tried that in schools and the results were not so great.

Can you show that this claim about productivity is even true?

Not sure about the emperical evidence of it, but the logic behinds it makes sense. Studies have shown the advantages of single-sex schools:

http://www.eric.ed.gov...

Also, do you think that this would not open up a pandora's separate-but-equal box? Given that this claim about productivity is true, and given that white men still hold most of the powerful positions in businesses and politics, don't you think this situation would further set minorities and women back?

If you aren't able to network with the high status group, you're going to get nowhere fast. Creating a special environment where the status quo can remain un-tampered with would pretty much set us back about 60 years.

No, because if some races are being systemetically discriminated against, then this creates profit opportunities for undervalued labor.

I'd say that you'd have to determine your priorities there- how much more productivity does this plan offer? And is that amount of productivity worth selling out women and minorities to achieve?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 10:58:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 10:54:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/22/2013 9:56:56 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 1/22/2013 9:32:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/22/2013 8:53:18 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 1/22/2013 8:19:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/22/2013 4:40:34 PM, Oryus wrote:

No, because if some races are being systemetically discriminated against, then this creates profit opportunities for undervalued labor.

No. This creates an environment for race revolts. You are completely discounting the risks of marginalization.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Budlightyear
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 11:35:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1. People are prejudicial in nature. This is a psychological fact- look at "Availability bias" and "Heuristics" in general. We take shortcuts.

2. Sometimes, people who know that we are prejudicial expose that fact for what is is. This often happens in comedy... and it's often perceived as racist/sexist/anti-ginger or, if not, at least walking a fine line. Think of the South Park episode on "gingers".

If you accept the above as true, then racism/sexism/etc is bad when it reinforces our tendency to stereotype and generalize, but and good when it brings to light how stupid these heuristics are.

That's my 2 cents.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 11:49:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Out of curiousity, why do people assume I am white?
There is nothing on my profile that denotes race when I last checked.

For the record:
I am not suggesting, nor implying, that the government should be making these discriminations; its role is to treat all equally. The OP was regarding private individuals involved in voluntary dealings with others.

Also, I am not suggesting that people ought to be racists, sexists, etc., I am merely commenting on, in my view, the inconsistency of outrage regarding discrimination among private citizens/businesses.

As I said, this is not a troll post; at least, not to my understanding of what that means.
My work here is, finally, done.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 12:11:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 11:49:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Out of curiousity, why do people assume I am white?
There is nothing on my profile that denotes race when I last checked.

haha You should check again- it says "Ethnicity: White"
For the record:
I am not suggesting, nor implying, that the government should be making these discriminations; its role is to treat all equally. The OP was regarding private individuals involved in voluntary dealings with others.

Also, I am not suggesting that people ought to be racists, sexists, etc., I am merely commenting on, in my view, the inconsistency of outrage regarding discrimination among private citizens/businesses.

As I said, this is not a troll post; at least, not to my understanding of what that means.

Yeah, I get all that. I see what you're trying to figure out.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Discrimination is an ambiguous word though. In the former definition, you'd simply A) be treating two what-have-you's in a different way. Not really a negative or positive connotation. But in the latter definition of discrimination, you'd A.) be treating two what-have-you's in a different way, which is B.) harmful and C.) based on unfounded facts about the two groups of what-have-you's.

It's difficult to tell which connotation someone implies when they are using this word. Clearly, cases for which the discrimination is harmful and based on unfounded facts about a group or groups are the times people generally object to it.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 12:15:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 12:11:57 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 1/22/2013 11:49:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Out of curiousity, why do people assume I am white?
There is nothing on my profile that denotes race when I last checked.

haha You should check again- it says "Ethnicity: White"
For the record:
I am not suggesting, nor implying, that the government should be making these discriminations; its role is to treat all equally. The OP was regarding private individuals involved in voluntary dealings with others.

Also, I am not suggesting that people ought to be racists, sexists, etc., I am merely commenting on, in my view, the inconsistency of outrage regarding discrimination among private citizens/businesses.

As I said, this is not a troll post; at least, not to my understanding of what that means.

Yeah, I get all that. I see what you're trying to figure out.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Discrimination is an ambiguous word though. In the former definition, you'd simply A) be treating two what-have-you's in a different way. Not really a negative or positive connotation. But in the latter definition of discrimination, you'd A.) be treating two what-have-you's in a different way, which is B.) harmful and C.) based on unfounded facts about the two groups of what-have-you's.

It's difficult to tell which connotation someone implies when they are using this word. Clearly, cases for which the discrimination is harmful and based on unfounded facts about a group or groups are the times people generally object to it.

In other words, when you use the word discrimination with the former definition and describe an event which can be described by the former definition, you cannot really say that it is racist, sexist, etc. Although, the only job I can think of which could justifiably discriminate based on race is an acting job...
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 12:16:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 9:08:43 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/22/2013 8:15:19 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/22/2013 2:39:59 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/22/2013 3:20:39 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
No, this is not a troll topic.
Please do rationalize before you attack me.
I really hope I expressed myself adequetely...

Intellectually/Logically any -ism is bad in the sense that is follows the generalization fallacy. That aside, why are some discriminations looked down upon and others accepted?

For example, using hiring an applicant:
Not hiring a woman is frowned upon.
So is a white man not hiring a black man.

However, not hiring a convicted felon is okay.
So is someone without work experience.
Or formal education.

What is the difference that warrants acceptability in some cases of discrimination and not others?

In all honesty, I think it is the merits of the generalization.
For example, saying all black people are lazy is blatently false; however, saying a convicted felon is an unnecessary risk. While both may be true, it is still a fallacy to claim that one generalization is better than another, isn't it?

After all, any individual ought to be judged as an individual, but it is human nature to lump people into categories.

Education and criminal backgrounds are relevant to the ability to be trusted or do a job, whereas a cultural designation or gender is not.

Which should be blatantly obvious, and I think you know that, or you wouldn't have begun the OP with repudiation.

This is my point.
Criminal backgrounds are considered an acceptable indicator upon which one generalizes. If they wontonly broke the law, why should I trust them?

However, is the logic not the exact same if a bigot were to generalize, and subsequently not hire/interview, a black man because "black people are lazy and violent"?

In either case, assuming the premise is true, neither should be hired.

We would agree that one generalization has far more merit, but both are generalizing and discriminating based on said generalization. Why is one considered more wrong, when they have the same logic?

We can take issue with premises, but that is not the issue people take. They say discrimination is bad, not the reasons for it.

Because breaking the law is a breach of trust. Stealing, for example. However, surely you realize that it's more contingent on the nature of the crime, rather than simply the existence of crime itself.
Does it?
I am a convitcted criminal, and I know that any time I have put on the application my crime, I have never once (at least 100 over 13 years) EVER been called in for an interview. I have disclosed my crime during interviews, only to have it end abruptly. It does not seem to matter that my crime was 12 years ago, nor that it is my only transgression (except traffic offenses), and that I have had years of uninterrupted work history.

Jobs that denied me:
McDonalds, Burger King (with an employed relative pushing for my hire), machinist at a glass manufacturer, grocery stores, and even the U.S. Army and Air Force.

The point is, though, that criminal behavior isn't a generalization. It is a literal truth. Being "black," on the other hand, is not an indicator of any given characteristic. It is simply a social designation based on appearance alone.
The literal truths are the existence of a criminal act and being black. Neither speak to the individual directly, and neither are necessarily indicators of future behavior.

But, if the bigot believes the connection between race and performance, why is he vilified for acting on it, but not for believing the connection between a prior bad act and a potential future one? The bigot can be vilified for believing what he believes, but what is wrong with his logic?

We both disagree with his premise that all black people are lazy and violent, but if he believes it, and acts accordingly, why is that bad (besides the fact that he believes it)?

Accordingly, it make sense to forego hiring someone to work at a bank who was convicted of robbery or theft, but it doesn't make sense to forego hiring someone because of their appearance.

Why does it make sense? Because of the possibility that this individual acts in the way his group (criminals) are be expected to, even though this person isn't seen as an individual. Replace group with race, and I don't see a difference in LOGIC, but for some magical reason, it is wrong.

Or, are you literally asserting that "black people" are lazy and violent, inherently?
I am not. That is why I specifically used the term bigot (as opposed to the usual "I") and put his rationale in quotes, to suggest his thoughts, not mine.

If so, fuckoff, you douchebag bigot.
My work here is, finally, done.