Real life example: Was I racially discriminated against?

[Loren Pechtel]

Most of the reported discrimination against black people involves things that people assume are discriminatory but for which there is no evidence. This is a case where he was told point blank that he was being discriminated against for racial reasons.

You are taking his experience as fact. You are not questioning his experience. You have no evidence is his experience is factual or that there are not other factors involved (like his SES) - unlike any situation in which a black person's experience of racial discrimination is brought up. Thank you for validating my observation.

You're simply denying that what he experienced is real because it doesn't fit your notions of the world.

- - - Updated - - -

To those who are skeptical, what exactly is so unbelievable about my experience? The claim is not an extraordinary one requiring some sort of extraordinary evidence. Nor is your belief that my experience happened as I described it a requirement to participate in the interesting discussion that came about on what exactly is racial discrimination and even when is racial discrimination ok or even a "moral good"?

People don't discriminate against white males, thus your experience can't have happened. You must be lying. What's so hard to understand about this??

- - - Updated - - -

It wasn't a formal interview - my business partner and I had meet the founder of the organization from other meetings in the past. I was essentially inquiring about the board position and about the organization (I said I was available and might be interested, but wanted to know more about what it entailed and what the goals/mission of the organization was). She said that they were actually looking for a minority to fill the position, and that was that.

Were you denied the the position on the board because you were not the race they were looking for?

Yes.

Does an informal inquiry into the requirements of a position leading to the petitioner being told he did not meet the requirements of said position rise to an action of discrimination? Depends on the definition of the word you use. I am a discriminating if I chose a tender filet mignon at Ruth's Chris Steak House over a piece of burnt leather at Golden Corral, I could be correctly called a discriminating diner. If I hire only women to be ladies room attendants in my night club, I am refusing to hire men for that position but it is not considered discrimination as the job in its description and duties calls for a particular gender.

Your "rebuttal" is pure misdirection.

 

[laughing dog]

You are taking his experience as fact. You are not questioning his experience. You have no evidence is his experience is factual or that there are not other factors involved (like his SES) - unlike any situation in which a black person's experience of racial discrimination is brought up. Thank you for validating my observation.

You're simply denying that what he experienced is real because it doesn't fit your notions of the world.

Reading comprehension and logic fail. Nowhere did I deny his experience. I said you accepted his experience without question unlike the perceived experiences of discrimination of people of color. And I implied you refrained from offering excuses or alternative explanations unlike the situations with the perceived experiences of discrimination of people of color.

 

[ronburgundy]

Then the same argument applies to a private organization whose vision is an all white company.

yes, it does - you think anyone's only issue with the KKK is that they're not racially inclusive?

also, since some of you dunderheads don't seem to be grasping this, "wanting to include a variety of racial groups on your board" does not equal "unfairly oppressing the white man in order to further a sense of ethnic minority racial superiority."

You are correct that those are not equal, but what you describe is just one form of racism and racial discrimination, while this is another, because the features you list are only one type of manifestation of racism and not definitional requirements (see thread of re-defining racism). The type of racism and discrimination in the OP can be just as harmful to the actual individuals against whom it is directed. Racist and discriminatory acts are against individuals and they are whom suffer the harm, regardless of motive behind the actions. Whether that harm qualifies as group-level oppression is largely a byproduct of statistical aggregation, but you only care about those group-level byproducts and not what happens to actual individual people. That is something you have in common with the KKK and white supremacists.

this type of attitude comes back to what i was saying to axulus a few pages ago: only the inherent assumption within the confines of white privilege that being a white guy means you're automatically entitled to be present at everything could ever possibly make one see this as discrimination.

No, honest application of concepts and logic requires this to be categorized as racial discrimination, whereas racist beliefs and motives, along with intellectual dishonesty are is required to deny that it is. You endorse and support racial discrimination, but you are inconsistent about it depending on the race of the victim. You have political ends that you care about more than any moral principles of people being treated equally and not based upon what racial group they belong to. You just don't have the will to admit this, so you make absurd, intellectually indefensible arguments that pervert language and undermine the core meaning of concepts.

 

[prideandfall]

No, honest application of concepts and logic requires this to be categorized as racial discrimination

only if you expand "discrimination" to cover basically every interaction that exists, to the point that it becomes meaningless as a term.
the underpinning to the argument that it's racial discrimination is the assumption that a particular need for thing X is discriminatory against thing Y.
discrimination (and racism) necessarily means excluding thing Y regardless of whether or not one has a particular need for it - this is a necessary logical component to the very notion of racism or discrimination, because otherwise everything ever done by anyone, every decision ever made about anything, is discrimination against everything and everybody and this would make the distinction both impossible and irrelevant.

if the board leader was looking for an asian to join the board, then being asian was a necessary qualification for the position, and axulus failed to meet the qualifications desired for the position - thus, you don't need "discrimination" to explain the incident.
this entire incident completely out of context lacks sufficient information to make a categorical determination as to whether or not "being asian" is a logically sound criteria or truly necessary for the position, but given the information available just in the OP there is sufficient contextual clues present to provide a pretty easy guesstimation that discrimination is not a factor.

whereas racist beliefs and motives, along with intellectual dishonesty are is required to deny that it is.

that is utterly absurd on every possible level.

You endorse and support racial discrimination, but you are inconsistent about it depending on the race of the victim.

oh do i now? well thank you for that insight, i was unaware that you were a practicing psychic.

You have political ends that you care about more than any moral principles of people being treated equally and not based upon what racial group they belong to. You just don't have the will to admit this, so you make absurd, intellectually indefensible arguments that pervert language and undermine the core meaning of concepts.

you should probably get a hold of time magazine or something to demonstrate your supernatural abilities - we have x-man here people!

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You are taking his experience as fact. You are not questioning his experience. You have no evidence is his experience is factual or that there are not other factors involved (like his SES) - unlike any situation in which a black person's experience of racial discrimination is brought up. Thank you for validating my observation.

You're simply denying that what he experienced is real because it doesn't fit your notions of the world.

- - - Updated - - -

To those who are skeptical, what exactly is so unbelievable about my experience? The claim is not an extraordinary one requiring some sort of extraordinary evidence. Nor is your belief that my experience happened as I described it a requirement to participate in the interesting discussion that came about on what exactly is racial discrimination and even when is racial discrimination ok or even a "moral good"?

People don't discriminate against white males, thus your experience can't have happened. You must be lying. What's so hard to understand about this??

- - - Updated - - -

It wasn't a formal interview - my business partner and I had meet the founder of the organization from other meetings in the past. I was essentially inquiring about the board position and about the organization (I said I was available and might be interested, but wanted to know more about what it entailed and what the goals/mission of the organization was). She said that they were actually looking for a minority to fill the position, and that was that.

Were you denied the the position on the board because you were not the race they were looking for?

Yes.

Does an informal inquiry into the requirements of a position leading to the petitioner being told he did not meet the requirements of said position rise to an action of discrimination? Depends on the definition of the word you use. I am a discriminating if I chose a tender filet mignon at Ruth's Chris Steak House over a piece of burnt leather at Golden Corral, I could be correctly called a discriminating diner. If I hire only women to be ladies room attendants in my night club, I am refusing to hire men for that position but it is not considered discrimination as the job in its description and duties calls for a particular gender.

Your "rebuttal" is pure misdirection.

Which is Loren speak for "I can't find anything to pick in my ass about but I can't just stfu"

 

[ronburgundy]

only if you expand "discrimination" to cover basically every interaction that exists, to the point that it becomes meaningless as a term.

No. All you need is the standard definition, such as that used by the EEOC: "Race discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because he/she is of a certain race"

His sole attribute that got him rejected was his race. Had his race been different, but all his other qualifications been the same, he would have been hired onto the board. That fits the definition perfectly. There is no room in the definition for your excuses as to why treating a person unfavorably because of their race might be "okay". The fact that they used his race as the deciding factor because of their goals for which they were hiring the person is irrelevant to the definition of whether it is racial discrimination. There is always some "reason" for it, and you might find some of those reasons more politically acceptable than others, but the motive doesn't change the fact that the act is discrimination.

So, wrong as usual, that definition applies here but does not apply to the majority of human interactions.

if the board leader was looking for an asian to join the board, then being asian was a necessary qualification for the position, and axulus failed to meet the qualifications desired for the position.

Correct, but making race a requirement is an act of racial discrimination by the very definition used by the EEOC, and no different than Wallmart making being white a requirement for all of their management positions, or than a cop making being black a requirement for getting arrested. It is stunning how you cannot see this just because the required race is non-white.

whereas racist beliefs and motives, along with intellectual dishonesty are is required to deny that it is.

that is utterly absurd on every possible level.

No, racist bias is the only plausible explanation for why someone who had repeatedly shown concern for racial discrimination against blacks would refuse to recognize an act of racial discrimination when the victim is white, despite the fact that it perfectly fits the standard definition of the concept.

You endorse and support racial discrimination, but you are inconsistent about it depending on the race of the victim.

oh do i now? well thank you for that insight, i was unaware that you were a practicing psychic.

Not psychic, just capable of rational thought and recognizing that the actions you view as non-problematic meet the definition of racial discrimination as well as any actions ever could. Thus, you support racial discrimination whether you are honest enough to admit or not.

You have political ends that you care about more than any moral principles of people being treated equally and not based upon what racial group they belong to. You just don't have the will to admit this, so you make absurd, intellectually indefensible arguments that pervert language and undermine the core meaning of concepts.

you should probably get a hold of time magazine or something to demonstrate your supernatural abilities - we have x-man here people!

Time Magazine isn't interested that a person is capable of rational thought and evidence-based inference, which is all I have done. It may seem like magic to you, due to being so unfamiliar with it.

 

[prideandfall]

No. All you need is the standard definition, such as that used by the EEOC: "Race discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because he/she is of a certain race"

and by that definition, there was not discrimination here - he wasn't treated unfavorably because of his race, he was not offered the position because of his lack of race.
there's a difference between exclusion due to a factor and lack of inclusion due to lack of a factor, especially when there can be a reasonably and rationally divulged reason for the need for the given factor.
(several such reasons have been given in this thread, though of course they're all supposition)

His sole attribute that got him rejected was his race.

this is incorrect.
the attribute that was desired that he was missing was a racial one, but he was not rejected due to his race.
"we are looking to fill this particular position with an asian, and only offering the position to asians" is not the same as "we refuse to give you this position because you're white", there is absolutely a tangible and quantifiable difference between the two scenarios, and it seems to me only a mantra of "white christian male oppression" would lead one to not see it.

Had his race been different, but all his other qualifications been the same, he would have been hired onto the board.

this is also incorrect.
by the information provided in the OP, if he had been mexican or spanish or indian or an eskimo, he would have also been declined for the position - so his race couldn't have simply been "different", which i think is a term which tries to make it sound broad and like "anything but white" is the main point, when it absolutely isn't.

That fits the definition perfectly.

no it doesn't, not unless you expand out "discrimination" to be include "preference", in which case we're back to every decision and every action taken by every person every second of every day is nothing but a nonstop chain of discrimination, and the word no longer means anything.

There is no room in the definition for your excuses as to why treating a person unfavorably because of their race might be "okay".

who exactly was treated unfavorably?
explain to me how axulus (or anyone) has any inherent right to be invited to be on the board of an advocacy group?

The fact that they used his race as the deciding factor because of their goals for which they were hiring the person is irrelevant to the definition of whether it is racial discrimination.

except that they didn't use his race as a deciding factor, and you have to be intentionally and malevolently twisting the situation to fit your own perverted ends to see it that way.
it wasn't his race that was a problem, it was his lack of being the race they wanted that was the problem.

the rest of your idiotic tripe of a post i won't bother to respond to, because apparently you don't understand the difference between a federal law about employment and offers being made for a seat on an advocacy board.

 

[whichphilosophy]

and by that definition, there was not discrimination here - he wasn't treated unfavorably because of his race, he was not offered the position because of his lack of race.
there's a difference between exclusion due to a factor and lack of inclusion due to lack of a factor, especially when there can be a reasonably and rationally divulged reason for the need for the given factor.
(several such reasons have been given in this thread, though of course they're all supposition)

His sole attribute that got him rejected was his race.

this is incorrect.
the attribute that was desired that he was missing was a racial one, but he was not rejected due to his race.
"we are looking to fill this particular position with an asian, and only offering the position to asians" is not the same as "we refuse to give you this position because you're white", there is absolutely a tangible and quantifiable difference between the two scenarios, and it's only a blind and willfully desire to perpetuate the ignorant mantra of "white christian male oppression" that would lead you to not see it.

Had his race been different, but all his other qualifications been the same, he would have been hired onto the board.

this is also incorrect.
by the information provided in the OP, if he had been mexican or spanish or indian or an eskimo, he would have also been declined for the position - so his race couldn't have simply been "different", which is a wording you choose specifically to try and make it sound worse and to obfuscate the fact that this is about preference and not discrimination, but i guess when one is grasping at straws as desperately as you are, you have to expect this sort of idiocy.

That fits the definition perfectly.

no it doesn't, not unless you expand out "discrimination" to be include "preference", in which case we're back to every decision and every action taken by every person every second of every day is nothing but a nonstop chain of discrimination, and the word no longer means anything.

There is no room in the definition for your excuses as to why treating a person unfavorably because of their race might be "okay".

who exactly was treated unfavorably?
explain to me how axulus (or anyone) has any inherent right to be invited to be on the board of an advocacy group?

The fact that they used his race as the deciding factor because of their goals for which they were hiring the person is irrelevant to the definition of whether it is racial discrimination.

except that they didn't use his race as a deciding factor, and you have to be intentionally and malevolently twisting the situation to fit your own perverted ends to see it that way.
it wasn't his race that was a problem, it was his lack of being the race they wanted that was the problem.

the rest of your idiotic tripe of a post i won't bother to respond to, because apparently you don't understand the difference between a federal law about employment and offers being made for a seat on an advocacy board.

He was told he was excluded because he was not Asian thus leaving no room for ambiguity. In other words he was racially discriminated against as another person favoured on the basis of their race. Trust this clarifies.

 

[whichphilosophy]

only if you expand "discrimination" to cover basically every interaction that exists, to the point that it becomes meaningless as a term.
the underpinning to the argument that it's racial discrimination is the assumption that a particular need for thing X is discriminatory against thing Y.
discrimination (and racism) necessarily means excluding thing Y regardless of whether or not one has a particular need for it - this is a necessary logical component to the very notion of racism or discrimination, because otherwise everything ever done by anyone, every decision ever made about anything, is discrimination against everything and everybody and this would make the distinction both impossible and irrelevant.

if the board leader was looking for an asian to join the board, then being asian was a necessary qualification for the position, and axulus failed to meet the qualifications desired for the position - thus, you don't need "discrimination" to explain the incident.
this entire incident completely out of context lacks sufficient information to make a categorical determination as to whether or not "being asian" is a logically sound criteria or truly necessary for the position, but given the information available just in the OP there is sufficient contextual clues present to provide a pretty easy guesstimation that discrimination is not a factor.

whereas racist beliefs and motives, along with intellectual dishonesty are is required to deny that it is.

that is utterly absurd on every possible level.

You endorse and support racial discrimination, but you are inconsistent about it depending on the race of the victim.

oh do i now? well thank you for that insight, i was unaware that you were a practicing psychic.

You have political ends that you care about more than any moral principles of people being treated equally and not based upon what racial group they belong to. You just don't have the will to admit this, so you make absurd, intellectually indefensible arguments that pervert language and undermine the core meaning of concepts.

you should probably get a hold of time magazine or something to demonstrate your supernatural abilities - we have x-man here people!

Do you understand the meaning of racism?

 

[fromderinside]

Just now read the above.

Its not your vision with which they are concerned. Its their vision. Clearly they're vision sees a clear benefit in diversity. You have no right to inflict yourself on them for consideration for a position in a private organization.

Then the same argument applies to a private organization whose vision is an all white company.

You have at least two problems with your argument. You have an 'all- none' problem. Diversity doesn't include no diversity. Second the potential interviewee's view isn't relevant to any argument presented by the private company.

 

[ronburgundy]

Then the same argument applies to a private organization whose vision is an all white company.

You have at least two problems with your argument. You have an 'all- none' problem. Diversity doesn't include no diversity. Second the potential interviewee's view isn't relevant to any argument presented by the private company.

Those aren't problems for my argument. As you said "It is their vision." and "you have no right to inflict yourself on them". That means you have no right to inflict your vision in favor of diversity on them. They can have a vision of no diversity, or they can have a vision that ideal diversity means 10,000 white employees and one black employee at the lowest position. You have no right to impose your ideal of diversity on them.
IOW, my argument follows from yours, unless you want to claim that one's right to impose on a private companies vision about diversity depends on whether you personally agree with that companies vision. That's a bit like saying, you have the right to do whatever I let you do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're simply denying that what he experienced is real because it doesn't fit your notions of the world.

Reading comprehension and logic fail. Nowhere did I deny his experience. I said you accepted his experience without question unlike the perceived experiences of discrimination of people of color. And I implied you refrained from offering excuses or alternative explanations unlike the situations with the perceived experiences of discrimination of people of color.

There's a big difference between a perception of discrimination and an overt statement of discrimination.

All too often people perceive discrimination because they don't know all the factors that went into the decision--they simply see something that went more favorably for someone else than for them. Sometimes the additional factors could have been seen, sometimes it requires secret information to understand.

- - - Updated - - -

You're simply denying that what he experienced is real because it doesn't fit your notions of the world.

- - - Updated - - -

To those who are skeptical, what exactly is so unbelievable about my experience? The claim is not an extraordinary one requiring some sort of extraordinary evidence. Nor is your belief that my experience happened as I described it a requirement to participate in the interesting discussion that came about on what exactly is racial discrimination and even when is racial discrimination ok or even a "moral good"?

People don't discriminate against white males, thus your experience can't have happened. You must be lying. What's so hard to understand about this??

- - - Updated - - -

It wasn't a formal interview - my business partner and I had meet the founder of the organization from other meetings in the past. I was essentially inquiring about the board position and about the organization (I said I was available and might be interested, but wanted to know more about what it entailed and what the goals/mission of the organization was). She said that they were actually looking for a minority to fill the position, and that was that.

Were you denied the the position on the board because you were not the race they were looking for?

Yes.

Does an informal inquiry into the requirements of a position leading to the petitioner being told he did not meet the requirements of said position rise to an action of discrimination? Depends on the definition of the word you use. I am a discriminating if I chose a tender filet mignon at Ruth's Chris Steak House over a piece of burnt leather at Golden Corral, I could be correctly called a discriminating diner. If I hire only women to be ladies room attendants in my night club, I am refusing to hire men for that position but it is not considered discrimination as the job in its description and duties calls for a particular gender.

Your "rebuttal" is pure misdirection.

Which is Loren speak for "I can't find anything to pick in my ass about but I can't just stfu"

You're still not rebutting anything.

 

[laughing dog]

There's a big difference between a perception of discrimination and an overt statement of discrimination.

All too often people perceive discrimination because they don't know all the factors that went into the decision--they simply see something that went more favorably for someone else than for them. Sometimes the additional factors could have been seen, sometimes it requires secret information to understand.

Of course. For instance, There may be other factors not mentioned or seen by the reporter in this OP, but you are not advancing them. You are taking the reporter's perception as the complete truth. Something you and some others refuse to do whenever perceived discrimination by people of color is mentioned.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's a big difference between a perception of discrimination and an overt statement of discrimination.

All too often people perceive discrimination because they don't know all the factors that went into the decision--they simply see something that went more favorably for someone else than for them. Sometimes the additional factors could have been seen, sometimes it requires secret information to understand.

Of course. For instance, There may be other factors not mentioned or seen by the reporter in this OP, but you are not advancing them. You are taking the reporter's perception as the complete truth. Something you and some others refuse to do whenever perceived discrimination by people of color is mentioned.

I'm taking the reported words are true. That's very different than taking perceptions as true.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course. For instance, There may be other factors not mentioned or seen by the reporter in this OP, but you are not advancing them. You are taking the reporter's perception as the complete truth. Something you and some others refuse to do whenever perceived discrimination by people of color is mentioned.

I'm taking the reported words are true. That's very different than taking perceptions as true.

Not if you really think about it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Reading comprehension and logic fail. Nowhere did I deny his experience. I said you accepted his experience without question unlike the perceived experiences of discrimination of people of color. And I implied you refrained from offering excuses or alternative explanations unlike the situations with the perceived experiences of discrimination of people of color.

There's a big difference between a perception of discrimination and an overt statement of discrimination.

All too often people perceive discrimination because they don't know all the factors that went into the decision--they simply see something that went more favorably for someone else than for them. Sometimes the additional factors could have been seen, sometimes it requires secret information to understand.

- - - Updated - - -

You're simply denying that what he experienced is real because it doesn't fit your notions of the world.

- - - Updated - - -

To those who are skeptical, what exactly is so unbelievable about my experience? The claim is not an extraordinary one requiring some sort of extraordinary evidence. Nor is your belief that my experience happened as I described it a requirement to participate in the interesting discussion that came about on what exactly is racial discrimination and even when is racial discrimination ok or even a "moral good"?

People don't discriminate against white males, thus your experience can't have happened. You must be lying. What's so hard to understand about this??

- - - Updated - - -

It wasn't a formal interview - my business partner and I had meet the founder of the organization from other meetings in the past. I was essentially inquiring about the board position and about the organization (I said I was available and might be interested, but wanted to know more about what it entailed and what the goals/mission of the organization was). She said that they were actually looking for a minority to fill the position, and that was that.

Were you denied the the position on the board because you were not the race they were looking for?

Yes.

Does an informal inquiry into the requirements of a position leading to the petitioner being told he did not meet the requirements of said position rise to an action of discrimination? Depends on the definition of the word you use. I am a discriminating if I chose a tender filet mignon at Ruth's Chris Steak House over a piece of burnt leather at Golden Corral, I could be correctly called a discriminating diner. If I hire only women to be ladies room attendants in my night club, I am refusing to hire men for that position but it is not considered discrimination as the job in its description and duties calls for a particular gender.

Your "rebuttal" is pure misdirection.

Which is Loren speak for "I can't find anything to pick in my ass about but I can't just stfu"

You're still not rebutting anything.

Loren, you are the only one saying that was my intention. MIND READING FAIL!!!

 

[KeepTalking]

and by that definition, there was not discrimination here - he wasn't treated unfavorably because of his race, he was not offered the position because of his lack of race.
there's a difference between exclusion due to a factor and lack of inclusion due to lack of a factor, especially when there can be a reasonably and rationally divulged reason for the need for the given factor.
(several such reasons have been given in this thread, though of course they're all supposition)

His sole attribute that got him rejected was his race.

this is incorrect.
the attribute that was desired that he was missing was a racial one, but he was not rejected due to his race.
"we are looking to fill this particular position with an asian, and only offering the position to asians" is not the same as "we refuse to give you this position because you're white", there is absolutely a tangible and quantifiable difference between the two scenarios, and it seems to me only a mantra of "white christian male oppression" would lead one to not see it.

Had his race been different, but all his other qualifications been the same, he would have been hired onto the board.

this is also incorrect.
by the information provided in the OP, if he had been mexican or spanish or indian or an eskimo, he would have also been declined for the position - so his race couldn't have simply been "different", which i think is a term which tries to make it sound broad and like "anything but white" is the main point, when it absolutely isn't.

That fits the definition perfectly.

no it doesn't, not unless you expand out "discrimination" to be include "preference", in which case we're back to every decision and every action taken by every person every second of every day is nothing but a nonstop chain of discrimination, and the word no longer means anything.

There is no room in the definition for your excuses as to why treating a person unfavorably because of their race might be "okay".

who exactly was treated unfavorably?
explain to me how axulus (or anyone) has any inherent right to be invited to be on the board of an advocacy group?

The fact that they used his race as the deciding factor because of their goals for which they were hiring the person is irrelevant to the definition of whether it is racial discrimination.

except that they didn't use his race as a deciding factor, and you have to be intentionally and malevolently twisting the situation to fit your own perverted ends to see it that way.
it wasn't his race that was a problem, it was his lack of being the race they wanted that was the problem.

the rest of your idiotic tripe of a post i won't bother to respond to, because apparently you don't understand the difference between a federal law about employment and offers being made for a seat on an advocacy board.

So, if you refuse a black person service because they lack being white, as opposed to denying them service because they are black, you are not discriminating against them? That simply boggles the mind. What an epic fail in logical argumentation.

 

[prideandfall]

So, if you refuse a black person service because they lack being white, as opposed to denying them service because they are black, you are not discriminating against them?

that's absolutely ridiculous and in no way follows from my statement.
there is a difference between preference and exclusion - the only possible way you can try and pretend this difference doesn't exist is if you're trying to warp the conversation to find white-oppression boogeymen where none exist.
excluding someone because you hate their race is absolutely not the same as looking for someone of a specific race and declining inclusion to a random cracker who thinks he's entitled to deserve to automatically be included in everything.

racism is absolutely a thing, yes, one that is a major problem and one that must be addressed. but EVERYTHING having to do with people of different races interacting with each other isn't racism, and race DOES have social and cultural factors attached to it that make diversity and variance viable qualifications in the right context.

i continue to find it utterly hilarious that it's like some kind of "who's who" of FRDB racists in this thread, chiming in about how awful the racial discrimination is.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

the attribute that was desired that he was missing was a racial one, but he was not rejected due to his race.
"we are looking to fill this particular position with an asian, and only offering the position to asians" is not the same as "we refuse to give you this position because you're white", there is absolutely a tangible and quantifiable difference between the two scenarios, and it seems to me only a mantra of "white christian male oppression" would lead one to not see it.

This is the same as the difference between saying "Whites Only" and "No Blacks Allowed". Your post does seem to be arguing to excuse the former, but the former is worse than the latter, isn't it? It is excluding all other races.

I can only see any justification for a "Whites Only" or "Asians Only" policy if the job very clearly requires it - such as an actor playing a role of a historical person who was that race. But a board member?

 

[prideandfall]

This is the same as the difference between saying "Whites Only" and "No Blacks Allowed". Your post does seem to be arguing to excuse the former, but the former is worse than the latter, isn't it? It is excluding all other races.

no it isn't, that's an utterly absurd and logically indefensible position to state.

I can only see any justification for a "Whites Only" or "Asians Only" policy if the job very clearly requires it - such as an actor playing a role of a historical person who was that race. But a board member?

two things:
1. it wasn't "whites only" or "asians only", it was (as the OP itself states): we want to have a diverse ethnic representation on this board and need an asian to fill out our demographics, so are looking for an asian in order to do that.
2. we're not talking about a job, we're talking being on the board of pot seller's advocacy group.

related to point 2, here's some facts:
http://cob.org/documents/planning/Census2010/Bellingham2010DemographicProfile2pages.pdf

for bellingham, axulus' listed city location:
RACE:
White: 68,652 - 84.9%
Asian: 4,135 - 5.1% (this is the highest population non-white racial group in the city)

are you going to try and seriously argue that an advocacy group composed of growers and sellers for a newly legal product that has a long history of illegality and social disapproval wouldn't have a vested interest in one of their members representing the second highest racial demographic in the city?