Discrimination -- the reality

[Rhea]

Exactly what I was saying about discrimination being against the individual. It makes no difference to you what the unemployment rate is of those like you.

Well that’s immensely selfish, innit.

A lot of us actually care about people besides ouselves.

So, interestingly, several of the people in this thread that you are hammering for not understanding the selfish “but what about me?” argument that you are making, have actually been denied jobs because of their race or gender. It has happened to me three times that were expressed to my face. Who knows how many times that were not blatantly expressed. And I amcertain if you asked some of the other posters who care about the systemic discrimination, you will find that they, too, have experienced it more than once.

And so, I (and possibly these others posting) care about the systemic part of this. And want to undo its today effects. I still care that the system is in place and the same people are likely to suffer it multiple times. I know that it is ongoing and detrimental, and a large number of people have accumulated harm from it. And I am not ashamed to put my energy into advocating for the people with the most accumulated harm first. And if it means I lose out on a job to aqualified black person, then I feel society benefits from decreased accumulated harm. There’s a lot to fix here, sometimes it’s hard work. I can rail against the generation before me who didn’t do the work and just rode the privilege, rather than whinging at the other people suffering from it today. And as it turns out, some white people are suffering - alongside me - due to that historic problem. Welcome aboard. You know who you should be mad at.

And as for the graphic, yes, 4% is supposed to be full employment, right? So there are statistically a lot of other jobs available?

 

[laughing dog]

Rhea, your argument cannot really be comprehended by libertarians and their ideological sympathizers. If it isn't about me, then it is unfair or wrong.

 

[Bomb#20]

Exactly what I was saying about discrimination being against the individual. It makes no difference to you what the unemployment rate is of those like you.

Oh, that's not true. There are actually people who care about others and who care when they see others who are not them harmed by unfair labor practices.

Hey, I get that that probably wasn't a serious argument and you're probably just sneering at LP because he's an infidel; but your second sentence does not actually contradict LP's statement. Where the heck do you see him indicating he doesn't care when he sees others who are not him harmed by unfair labor practices? Quite the reverse -- his post was expressing that he does care. He cares about every individual who is discriminated against. It's unfair for a person in a demographic with a 4.7% unemployment rate to be discriminated against; it's unfair for a person in a demographic with an 8.6% unemployment rate to be discriminated against. Whether we're talking about the rate of those "like you" or the rate of those not "like you" has no impact on whether it's fair.

Exactly what I was saying about discrimination being against the individual. It makes no difference to you what the unemployment rate is of those like you.

Well that’s immensely selfish, innit.

A lot of us actually care about people besides ouselves.

And another person with a reading comprehension problem. Pay attention to context. He means the unemployment rate of others in your demographic doesn't make a difference to you with respect to whether you've been harmed and treated unfairly by someone who discriminated against you.

 

[bilby]

The remedy is to stop discriminating by race and sex.

I'm curious. How do you propose we stop folks that discriminate by race and sex from doing so when shaking our fingers at them disapprovingly doesn't work?

There have been laws against discriminating by race and sex since the 1970s in Australia. These are actionable in our state and territory human rights boards and commissions.

What kind of action does AUS law take? I'm not asking for "we have laws". What does the law do about it when someone is found guilty of discrimination?

It varies somewhat in the details from state to state, but here in Queensland:

The process for resolving discrimination, sexual harassment, vilification and victimisation matters focuses on conciliation. At a conciliation conference an independent conciliator will help you, and those you are complaining about, discuss your concerns and try to reach an agreement to resolve the complaint.

If the matter is not resolved through conciliation, under Queensland law it can be referred for a formal hearing in:

• he Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC)—for work-related complaints
• the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT)—for all other complaints.

These bodies can make a legally binding decision on the matter.

If QIRC or QCAT find that you’ve suffered discrimination, sexual harassment, vilification and victimisation you may receive financial compensation.

https://www.qld.gov.au/law/your-rights/discrimination-and-equality/discrimination-and-your-rights

More information about discrimination and its redress can be found at the Queensland Human Rights Commission website.

 

[Metaphor]

Exactly what I was saying about discrimination being against the individual. It makes no difference to you what the unemployment rate is of those like you.

Well that’s immensely selfish, innit.

A lot of us actually care about people besides ouselves.

So, interestingly, several of the people in this thread that you are hammering for not understanding the selfish “but what about me?” argument that you are making, have actually been denied jobs because of their race or gender. It has happened to me three times that were expressed to my face. Who knows how many times that were not blatantly expressed. And I amcertain if you asked some of the other posters who care about the systemic discrimination, you will find that they, too, have experienced it more than once.

It seems to me you are admitting to what you yourself called others selfish for. You don't want to be discriminated against as a woman, and others who've experienced discrimination--that's why you and they care.

I know in the Australian public service, their are biases favouring women and minority ethnics (but in particular, indigenous Australians). I've linked to it upthread. So, given this systemic discrimination against white men, why is my concern about it selfish, but your concern for discrimination against woman is not?

And so, I (and possibly these others posting) care about the systemic part of this. And want to undo its today effects. I still care that the system is in place and the same people are likely to suffer it multiple times. I know that it is ongoing and detrimental, and a large number of people have accumulated harm from it. And I am not ashamed to put my energy into advocating for the people with the most accumulated harm first. And if it means I lose out on a job to aqualified black person, then I feel society benefits from decreased accumulated harm. There’s a lot to fix here, sometimes it’s hard work. I can rail against the generation before me who didn’t do the work and just rode the privilege, rather than whinging at the other people suffering from it today. And as it turns out, some white people are suffering - alongside me - due to that historic problem. Welcome aboard. You know who you should be mad at.

I'm mad at the people in power who discriminate against me for my race and sex. That's you, Rhea.

 

[Gospel]

The remedy is to stop discriminating by race and sex.

I'm curious. How do you propose we stop folks that discriminate by race and sex from doing so when shaking our fingers at them disapprovingly doesn't work?

There have been laws against discriminating by race and sex since the 1970s in Australia. These are actionable in our state and territory human rights boards and commissions.

What kind of action does AUS law take? I'm not asking for "we have laws". What does the law do about it when someone is found guilty of discrimination?

There is a wide variety of options available: fines, specific action, etc

So just like the USA they pay a fee (sometimes with discounts) to use the discrimination lane.

 

[Gospel]

The remedy is to stop discriminating by race and sex.

I'm curious. How do you propose we stop folks that discriminate by race and sex from doing so when shaking our fingers at them disapprovingly doesn't work?

There have been laws against discriminating by race and sex since the 1970s in Australia. These are actionable in our state and territory human rights boards and commissions.

What kind of action does AUS law take? I'm not asking for "we have laws". What does the law do about it when someone is found guilty of discrimination?

It varies somewhat in the details from state to state, but here in Queensland:

The process for resolving discrimination, sexual harassment, vilification and victimisation matters focuses on conciliation. At a conciliation conference an independent conciliator will help you, and those you are complaining about, discuss your concerns and try to reach an agreement to resolve the complaint.

If the matter is not resolved through conciliation, under Queensland law it can be referred for a formal hearing in:

• he Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC)—for work-related complaints
• the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT)—for all other complaints.

These bodies can make a legally binding decision on the matter.

If QIRC or QCAT find that you’ve suffered discrimination, sexual harassment, vilification and victimisation you may receive financial compensation.

https://www.qld.gov.au/law/your-rights/discrimination-and-equality/discrimination-and-your-rights

More information about discrimination and its redress can be found at the Queensland Human Rights Commission website.

Yup, just as I thought. There is a discrimination expressway that for a nominal fee you can continue to discriminate. The state may as well make money off murder and rape too by just charging a fee and letting you go.

 

[Gospel]

Another example of discrimination is simply asking yourself what did the All Lives Matter movement do for the black lives that allegedly matter? Let me guess, nothing but offer a counter argument.

 

[Bronzeage]

Telling a white man who only hires other white men, that he has to look closer at applicants of other races and he is expected to find a few suitable non white non male employees is not a disease. It's actually an accommodation for an employee with an obvious impairment.

It would be simpler for everyone to fire the guy and replace him with someone better equipped for the job.

It is quite common for me to hear from managers and department heads that have non-diverse departments that it’s not their fault. That being “forced” to hire diverse candidates is “discrimination against males/whites,” while they genuinely remain oblivious to the fact that the reason they are being asked to do it is because of their history of discriminating against non-white males, as shown unequivocally in their staff make up.

One looks at them having this denial, and one observes that their department is 99% male or 99% white male, and one observes that other departments having a nearly identical function are 60% white male. And so when they are told to get with the 90s and stop putting barriers in front of diverse candidates, they cry out, “wut?!? I never!!”

<snip>

Be careful with qualifiers such as "quite common" or we will be undone by equivocation.

Mr. Wutinever faces a very human dilemma, beyond the human resources dilemma. As a social animal, he recognizes it's good to be liked by others in his group, but what is critical is to be considered "useful" to the group. We are a cooperative and social species and the worst judgment possible is "useless". Somewhere between useful and useless lies the hazy designation of "impaired".

Mr. Wutinever chooses men who are similar to himself because in his eyes, it makes him more useful to the group. A problem arises whenever a group expands. What is acceptable in the small group may not be useful in the larger group. As a group, we have decided racism and the resulting discrimination is detrimental to the group. Some still harbor a small group mentality, but at the same time understand that racists are less useful to the larger group. There are a few who will cling to their small group and act with subterfuge, fully aware they are working against the welfare of the larger group.

Most in this situation opt for the most human of reactions, self deception. They don't see themselves as a racist. Racists are bad people and nobody likes them. They may take actions which appear to be racist, but that's just a misunderstanding. He will claim he has many non racist reasons and say you are the racist for bringing this to the attention of the larger group.

 

[Bomb#20]

WHAAAT???? White people who are unemployed due to discrimination are now just white noise!!!! How insensitive!!! Don't you realize that the burdens of white people, no matter how small or insignificant in the grand scheme of things, are more important and pressing than the burdens of anyone else? Don't you realize that the instant you do not genuflect at the altar of white people, that it is grave insult? Really, why do you hate white people so much??

The finding that White liberals are the *only* group with an out-group preference is fascinating. No other group has such distain and disgust for their own. The question is why?

Thank you for proving my point.

And you prove mine. Whenever there is discussion of a disadvantaged person who happens to be White, White lefties have nothing but scorn. Would you say the same derogatory things if that person happened to be a different race? What's with that?

Curious, isn't it. If they took their logic of "4.7% unemployment" seriously, they'd have the same scorn for Asians who criticize anti-Asian discrimination. After all, as the chart shows, Asians have below-average unemployment too. But of course even a white lefty can figure out it would be unconscionably racist to claim an Asian who thinks it's unfair to discriminate against Asians must just hate non-Asians. So you're right, what's with that? It calls out for explanation.

But I think your "out-group preference" hypothesis isn't quite right. The people they have scorn for aren't in-group. They're out-group. The important part of "white lefty" is "lefty", not "white". It's a religious group, and that it's okay to discriminate against white people is one of the tenets of their religion. So when a white guy thinks like a normal human being -- when he thinks "It's not okay to discriminate against me", the same as any normal person of any other ethnic group thinks -- he's revealing himself to be an unbeliever in the lefties' religion. And since they're a bunch of religious chauvinists, they shower their scorn on him, for being in their religion's out-group.

 

[TomC]

It's a religious group, and that it's okay to discriminate against white people is one of the tenets of their religion.

I find it somewhat annoying when people use the word "religious" this way. But you've got a strong point.
Here in the USA, being born white and male is a great deal like Original Sin. My supposed ancestors did something bad, so therefore I'm guilty. Doesn't matter what I actually do myself, I will always be white, male, and guilty as sin. My only hope for acceptance from my betters is to recognize that and behave myself as I am told.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

The system that causes systemic discrimination against white, mostly european men is not the same system that causes systemic discrimination against minorities and women. Call the one system the e-system (the european male discrimination system), and call the other the mw-system (the minority/women discrimination system) for the sake of this point.



The mw-system has been in place for a very long time. It afffects a very large number of people of all ages and abilities. There is harm that affects people immediately and repeatedly, and also an accumulated harm over a lifetime and even generationally, leaving them to a less favorable starting point. The mw-system includes overt and covert discrimination; it includes discriminatory systems in supporting areas like housing, food and healthcare that exacerbate and magnify the additional systems that affect things like hiring and promotions. It includes systems of ongoing discrimination even after a succesful hiring, like muting and silencing voices in meetings, design and publications.



The e-system is relatively new. Extremely new. It affects far fewer people, and it affects them far fewer times. The mechanisms are not baked into covert magnifiers or proxies that are used for additional discrimination. Moreover, it’s intent is to enable equity, so it has a built-in sunset, and a significant percent of social spaces loudly and proudly do not use it at all.





We watch a group of people argue that fixing the e-system must receive top billing over fixing the mw-system. Indeed, we watch them deny that the mw-system even exists, but that the e-system is widespread and inescapeable. We watch them try to change the discussion at every poosible opportunity to the e-system, and present isolated incidents as widespread issues.



Groups of people have been doing this to maintain unequal power for a very long time, and we can expect them to continue to fight against equity.

 

[Metaphor]

The remedy is to stop discriminating by race and sex.

I'm curious. How do you propose we stop folks that discriminate by race and sex from doing so when shaking our fingers at them disapprovingly doesn't work?

There have been laws against discriminating by race and sex since the 1970s in Australia. These are actionable in our state and territory human rights boards and commissions.

What kind of action does AUS law take? I'm not asking for "we have laws". What does the law do about it when someone is found guilty of discrimination?

There is a wide variety of options available: fines, specific action, etc

So just like the USA they pay a fee (sometimes with discounts) to use the discrimination lane.

No. Fines are one penalty but there are others, and somebody who repeatedly comes up before the board for a similar offense is likely to be more severely reprimanded.

 

[Gospel]

The remedy is to stop discriminating by race and sex.

I'm curious. How do you propose we stop folks that discriminate by race and sex from doing so when shaking our fingers at them disapprovingly doesn't work?

There have been laws against discriminating by race and sex since the 1970s in Australia. These are actionable in our state and territory human rights boards and commissions.

What kind of action does AUS law take? I'm not asking for "we have laws". What does the law do about it when someone is found guilty of discrimination?

There is a wide variety of options available: fines, specific action, etc

So just like the USA they pay a fee (sometimes with discounts) to use the discrimination lane.

No. Fines are one penalty but there are others, and somebody who repeatedly comes up before the board for a similar offense is likely to be more severely reprimanded.

What's an example of a severe reprimand?

 

[Metaphor]

The e-system is relatively new. Extremely new. It affects far fewer people, and it affects them far fewer times.

I don't know how you've been able to ascertain how many times an individual has been affected.

The mechanisms are not baked into covert magnifiers or proxies that are used for additional discrimination.

Indeed, the discrimination is open and defended.

Moreover, it’s intent is to enable equity, so it has a built-in sunset,

It has a sunset clause that will never be reached. Never. In 2003:

In her opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor concluded that affirmative action in college admissions is justifiable, but not in perpetuity: “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest [in student body diversity] approved today.”

We watch a group of people argue that fixing the e-system must receive top billing over fixing the mw-system.

No, you see people saying: stop discriminating by race.

Indeed, we watch them deny that the mw-system even exists, but that the e-system is widespread and inescapeable. We watch them try to change the discussion at every poosible opportunity to the e-system, and present isolated incidents as widespread issues.

You do not know how isolated your alleged 'isolated' incidents are. You simply believe them so.

 

[Metaphor]

The remedy is to stop discriminating by race and sex.

I'm curious. How do you propose we stop folks that discriminate by race and sex from doing so when shaking our fingers at them disapprovingly doesn't work?

There have been laws against discriminating by race and sex since the 1970s in Australia. These are actionable in our state and territory human rights boards and commissions.

What kind of action does AUS law take? I'm not asking for "we have laws". What does the law do about it when someone is found guilty of discrimination?

There is a wide variety of options available: fines, specific action, etc

So just like the USA they pay a fee (sometimes with discounts) to use the discrimination lane.

No. Fines are one penalty but there are others, and somebody who repeatedly comes up before the board for a similar offense is likely to be more severely reprimanded.

What's an example of a severe reprimand?

States will have their own, but under the federal Fair Work Act

https://www.fairwork.gov.au/tools-and-resources/fact-sheets/rights-and-obligations/workplace-discrimination#what%20are%20the%20remedies%20or%20penalties

The maximum penalty for contravention of the unlawful discrimination protections is $66,600 per contravention for a corporation, and $13,320 per contravention for an individual.

Where the Federal Court or Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia determines that a person has contravened the discrimination protections under the FW Act, the court may make any order that it considers appropriate, including orders for injunctions, reinstatement and/or compensation.

 

[Metaphor]

It's a religious group, and that it's okay to discriminate against white people is one of the tenets of their religion.

I find it somewhat annoying when people use the word "religious" this way. But you've got a strong point.
Here in the USA, being born white and male is a great deal like Original Sin. My supposed ancestors did something bad, so therefore I'm guilty. Doesn't matter what I actually do myself, I will always be white, male, and guilty as sin. My only hope for acceptance from my betters is to recognize that and behave myself as I am told.
Tom

That downplays the original sin of whiteness.

In Roman Catholicism, the stain of original sin on your soul is expunged on baptism.

In Woke catechism, just as in Catholicism, white people are not guilty of personal sin with the stain of whiteness, but there is no baptism to expunge you. Atoning for the sin of whiteness means actively dismantling privilege and personal sacrifice until the day of your death. The penance is forever, or at least all the forever you'll ever have.

 

[TomC]

What's an example of a severe reprimand?

I suppose a black Tesla owner probably keeps a race card in the front pocket of their Italian dress shirt.

Of course you'd need an example.
Tom

 

[Worldtraveller]

The system that causes systemic discrimination against white, mostly european men is not the same system that causes systemic discrimination against minorities and women. Call the one system the e-system (the european male discrimination system), and call the other the mw-system (the minority/women discrimination system) for the sake of this point.



The mw-system has been in place for a very long time. It afffects a very large number of people of all ages and abilities. There is harm that affects people immediately and repeatedly, and also an accumulated harm over a lifetime and even generationally, leaving them to a less favorable starting point. The mw-system includes overt and covert discrimination; it includes discriminatory systems in supporting areas like housing, food and healthcare that exacerbate and magnify the additional systems that affect things like hiring and promotions. It includes systems of ongoing discrimination even after a succesful hiring, like muting and silencing voices in meetings, design and publications.



The e-system is relatively new. Extremely new. It affects far fewer people, and it affects them far fewer times. The mechanisms are not baked into covert magnifiers or proxies that are used for additional discrimination. Moreover, it’s intent is to enable equity, so it has a built-in sunset, and a significant percent of social spaces loudly and proudly do not use it at all.





We watch a group of people argue that fixing the e-system must receive top billing over fixing the mw-system. Indeed, we watch them deny that the mw-system even exists, but that the e-system is widespread and inescapeable. We watch them try to change the discussion at every poosible opportunity to the e-system, and present isolated incidents as widespread issues.



Groups of people have been doing this to maintain unequal power for a very long time, and we can expect them to continue to fight against equity.

But tomc is still going too whine about it.

 

[ZiprHead]

I tend not to know the race or sex of other people applying for roles I have applied for.

Then how can you declare you've never experienced a benefit from being a white male.

Because I've been on the other side of the hiring process, in the same institutions I applied at.

But you weren't there when you were first hired.

No, and therefore equally I might have experienced disadvantage due to my whiteness and maleness.

You got hired. Someone else didn't. You've admitted you know nothing about other applicants. Yet you continue to make hard proclamations about what you cannot possibly know.