Discrimination -- the reality

[Metaphor]

This is exactly what Rhea and others are referring to. The evidence of systematic discrimination against white males pales in comparison

Non. We have not agreed to what would be evidence of discrimination, nor have we agreed to other premises.

First we get to hear about your butthurt about some past thread.

Um, no, that was this thread.

Then it is compounded with some butthurt about your workplace claims. Perhaps you are unaware but your version of events is probably viewed with skepticism given your commonplace hyperbole and straw men.

Believe it or not, this thread is not about you, your views or your experiences or your butthurt. Please try to remember that.

Evidently even though it's not 'about me', you've used the thread to use the word butthurt against me as many times in one thread as possible.

 

[laughing dog]

This is exactly what Rhea and others are referring to. The evidence of systematic discrimination against white males pales in comparison

Non. We have not agreed to what would be evidence of discrimination, nor have we agreed to other premises.

"We"? What on earth are you on about? No one needs your permission on what is or is not evidence. Or are you disputing that the record of discrimination against women and minorities is much stronger than the record of discrimination against white males?

First we get to hear about your butthurt about some past thread.

Um, no, that was this thread.

No, you made a reference to male circumcision thread.

Then it is compounded with some butthurt about your workplace claims. Perhaps you are unaware but your version of events is probably viewed with skepticism given your commonplace hyperbole and straw men.

Believe it or not, this thread is not about you, your views or your experiences or your butthurt. Please try to remember that.

Evidently even though it's not 'about me', you've used the thread to use the word butthurt against me as many times in one thread as possible.

Your vaunted imagination fails you. It could reasonably used much more in reference to your posts. For example, the above is an example of even more butthurt on your part.

 

[Metaphor]

"We"? What on earth are you on about? No one needs your permission on what is or is not evidence. Or are you disputing that the record of discrimination against women and minorities is much stronger than the record of discrimination against white males?

I am saying a lot of premises have been assumed and a lot of questions have been begged.

No, you made a reference to male circumcision thread.

I'm sorry that mentioning it caused you momentary discomfort.

Your vaunted imagination fails you. It could reasonably used much more in reference to your posts. For example, the above is an example of even more butthurt on your part.

Keep on keepin' on.

 

[Toni]

We note that those complaining bitterly about the poor male applicant, and this is the pattern every time, will only complain when the discrimination happens to the male (usually white) applicant.

This....accusation needs special addressing.

When anybody talks about systemic discrimination against non-whites and non-males, you do not demand that those people consider the plight of whites or males. You do not demand they take stock. You do not demand they have concerns and sympathies in the exact order and amount that you think victim groups deserve. People are selective in their causes and efforts. And, since there are many, many, many people (I would say: an industry of them) talking about systemic discrimination against women and non-whites in Western countries, what is the problem with discussing discrimination against men and whites?

I understand you do not sympathise with them, and you do not believe they could be systemically discriminated against.

I'm against the mutilation of the genitals of children. Whenever I have started a thread on this board about it, it is usually a thread condemning male infant genital mutilation (also called circumcision).

The amount of absolute, unbridled, frothing-at-the-mouth hate and ridicule I get for that topic is unusual, even for me. And every time I bring it up, I will get some people asking how dare I even talk about the circumcision of boys when female genital mutilation exists, as if talking about one problem means I am denying another.

The fact that you are not sympathetic to discrimination against whites and males (and white males in particular) does not concern me. But that you are so unsympathetic that you deny the existence or even possibility of the problem, and attack the characters of people who are concerned, is a shameful thing for you to do.

I remember some very heated discussions about male circumcision and about female genital mutilation but nothing even close to the terms you describe it. I’m not surprised because we tend to view th in bags so very differently. It is perhaps inevitable that our recollections would differ sharply.

Since you were not the target of the hate and ridicule I expect that, yes, you remember it differently.

No one here has read the memos you’ve referenced saying that there could be no more males hired. I do know that a man I love very deeply was asked to step aside in favor of a well qualified female candidate specifically because in this position at this particular moment it was thought that it was time for a woman to serve in that role. I know that it was painful and upsetting for this good, well qualified man to hear those words.

It was also discrimination by sex.

On an i dividusl basis, of course it’s unfair. On a systemic basis, it’s not only necessary but about bloody time because frankly, the preference for white make is so ingrained into all aspects of society—it’s coded in preferences for certain degrees or schools or clubs, military service! many pretexts that avoid explicitly saying male candidates preferred although it’s very clear that is very true. So now sometimes a more blatant preference for not white male must be stated in order to stop weaseling rules around so they are stacked and no surprise! The best candidate is white and make.

Thank you for making your preference to discriminate against white males open. I prefer honesty in people who decide to discriminate by race and sex.

What I did not say because I assumed it was well known: the same man who was—one time asked to step aside in favor of a woman had never, not once! before been expected to step aside in favor of anybody else. Ever. He always was in the favored category: white and male.

I realize people like you see no reason for that to ever change.

 

[Metaphor]

We note that those complaining bitterly about the poor male applicant, and this is the pattern every time, will only complain when the discrimination happens to the male (usually white) applicant.

This....accusation needs special addressing.

When anybody talks about systemic discrimination against non-whites and non-males, you do not demand that those people consider the plight of whites or males. You do not demand they take stock. You do not demand they have concerns and sympathies in the exact order and amount that you think victim groups deserve. People are selective in their causes and efforts. And, since there are many, many, many people (I would say: an industry of them) talking about systemic discrimination against women and non-whites in Western countries, what is the problem with discussing discrimination against men and whites?

I understand you do not sympathise with them, and you do not believe they could be systemically discriminated against.

I'm against the mutilation of the genitals of children. Whenever I have started a thread on this board about it, it is usually a thread condemning male infant genital mutilation (also called circumcision).

The amount of absolute, unbridled, frothing-at-the-mouth hate and ridicule I get for that topic is unusual, even for me. And every time I bring it up, I will get some people asking how dare I even talk about the circumcision of boys when female genital mutilation exists, as if talking about one problem means I am denying another.

The fact that you are not sympathetic to discrimination against whites and males (and white males in particular) does not concern me. But that you are so unsympathetic that you deny the existence or even possibility of the problem, and attack the characters of people who are concerned, is a shameful thing for you to do.

I remember some very heated discussions about male circumcision and about female genital mutilation but nothing even close to the terms you describe it. I’m not surprised because we tend to view th in bags so very differently. It is perhaps inevitable that our recollections would differ sharply.

Since you were not the target of the hate and ridicule I expect that, yes, you remember it differently.

No one here has read the memos you’ve referenced saying that there could be no more males hired. I do know that a man I love very deeply was asked to step aside in favor of a well qualified female candidate specifically because in this position at this particular moment it was thought that it was time for a woman to serve in that role. I know that it was painful and upsetting for this good, well qualified man to hear those words.

It was also discrimination by sex.

On an i dividusl basis, of course it’s unfair. On a systemic basis, it’s not only necessary but about bloody time because frankly, the preference for white make is so ingrained into all aspects of society—it’s coded in preferences for certain degrees or schools or clubs, military service! many pretexts that avoid explicitly saying male candidates preferred although it’s very clear that is very true. So now sometimes a more blatant preference for not white male must be stated in order to stop weaseling rules around so they are stacked and no surprise! The best candidate is white and make.

Thank you for making your preference to discriminate against white males open. I prefer honesty in people who decide to discriminate by race and sex.

What I did not say because I assumed it was well known: the same man who was—one time asked to step aside in favor of a woman had never, not once! before been expected to step aside in favor of anybody else. Ever. He always was in the favored category: white and male.

I realize people like you see no reason for that to ever change.

No, Toni. You don't realise it. I don't want to be in a favoured category. I just want to be not discriminated against because of my race and sex.

 

[Toni]

We note that those complaining bitterly about the poor male applicant, and this is the pattern every time, will only complain when the discrimination happens to the male (usually white) applicant.

This....accusation needs special addressing.

When anybody talks about systemic discrimination against non-whites and non-males, you do not demand that those people consider the plight of whites or males. You do not demand they take stock. You do not demand they have concerns and sympathies in the exact order and amount that you think victim groups deserve. People are selective in their causes and efforts. And, since there are many, many, many people (I would say: an industry of them) talking about systemic discrimination against women and non-whites in Western countries, what is the problem with discussing discrimination against men and whites?

I understand you do not sympathise with them, and you do not believe they could be systemically discriminated against.

I'm against the mutilation of the genitals of children. Whenever I have started a thread on this board about it, it is usually a thread condemning male infant genital mutilation (also called circumcision).

The amount of absolute, unbridled, frothing-at-the-mouth hate and ridicule I get for that topic is unusual, even for me. And every time I bring it up, I will get some people asking how dare I even talk about the circumcision of boys when female genital mutilation exists, as if talking about one problem means I am denying another.

The fact that you are not sympathetic to discrimination against whites and males (and white males in particular) does not concern me. But that you are so unsympathetic that you deny the existence or even possibility of the problem, and attack the characters of people who are concerned, is a shameful thing for you to do.

I remember some very heated discussions about male circumcision and about female genital mutilation but nothing even close to the terms you describe it. I’m not surprised because we tend to view th in bags so very differently. It is perhaps inevitable that our recollections would differ sharply.

Since you were not the target of the hate and ridicule I expect that, yes, you remember it differently.

No one here has read the memos you’ve referenced saying that there could be no more males hired. I do know that a man I love very deeply was asked to step aside in favor of a well qualified female candidate specifically because in this position at this particular moment it was thought that it was time for a woman to serve in that role. I know that it was painful and upsetting for this good, well qualified man to hear those words.

It was also discrimination by sex.

On an i dividusl basis, of course it’s unfair. On a systemic basis, it’s not only necessary but about bloody time because frankly, the preference for white make is so ingrained into all aspects of society—it’s coded in preferences for certain degrees or schools or clubs, military service! many pretexts that avoid explicitly saying male candidates preferred although it’s very clear that is very true. So now sometimes a more blatant preference for not white male must be stated in order to stop weaseling rules around so they are stacked and no surprise! The best candidate is white and make.

Thank you for making your preference to discriminate against white males open. I prefer honesty in people who decide to discriminate by race and sex.

What I did not say because I assumed it was well known: the same man who was—one time asked to step aside in favor of a woman had never, not once! before been expected to step aside in favor of anybody else. Ever. He always was in the favored category: white and male.

I realize people like you see no reason for that to ever change.

No, Toni. You don't realise it. I don't want to be in a favoured category. I just want to be not discriminated against because of my race and sex.

You’ve been discriminated in favor because of your race and sex. Others have faced discrimination in order to help you. You may not want to face that but it absolutely is true. I understand that now that it stings.you a bit discrimination is a bad thing.

 

[Metaphor]

We note that those complaining bitterly about the poor male applicant, and this is the pattern every time, will only complain when the discrimination happens to the male (usually white) applicant.

This....accusation needs special addressing.

When anybody talks about systemic discrimination against non-whites and non-males, you do not demand that those people consider the plight of whites or males. You do not demand they take stock. You do not demand they have concerns and sympathies in the exact order and amount that you think victim groups deserve. People are selective in their causes and efforts. And, since there are many, many, many people (I would say: an industry of them) talking about systemic discrimination against women and non-whites in Western countries, what is the problem with discussing discrimination against men and whites?

I understand you do not sympathise with them, and you do not believe they could be systemically discriminated against.

I'm against the mutilation of the genitals of children. Whenever I have started a thread on this board about it, it is usually a thread condemning male infant genital mutilation (also called circumcision).

The amount of absolute, unbridled, frothing-at-the-mouth hate and ridicule I get for that topic is unusual, even for me. And every time I bring it up, I will get some people asking how dare I even talk about the circumcision of boys when female genital mutilation exists, as if talking about one problem means I am denying another.

The fact that you are not sympathetic to discrimination against whites and males (and white males in particular) does not concern me. But that you are so unsympathetic that you deny the existence or even possibility of the problem, and attack the characters of people who are concerned, is a shameful thing for you to do.

I remember some very heated discussions about male circumcision and about female genital mutilation but nothing even close to the terms you describe it. I’m not surprised because we tend to view th in bags so very differently. It is perhaps inevitable that our recollections would differ sharply.

Since you were not the target of the hate and ridicule I expect that, yes, you remember it differently.

No one here has read the memos you’ve referenced saying that there could be no more males hired. I do know that a man I love very deeply was asked to step aside in favor of a well qualified female candidate specifically because in this position at this particular moment it was thought that it was time for a woman to serve in that role. I know that it was painful and upsetting for this good, well qualified man to hear those words.

It was also discrimination by sex.

On an i dividusl basis, of course it’s unfair. On a systemic basis, it’s not only necessary but about bloody time because frankly, the preference for white make is so ingrained into all aspects of society—it’s coded in preferences for certain degrees or schools or clubs, military service! many pretexts that avoid explicitly saying male candidates preferred although it’s very clear that is very true. So now sometimes a more blatant preference for not white male must be stated in order to stop weaseling rules around so they are stacked and no surprise! The best candidate is white and make.

Thank you for making your preference to discriminate against white males open. I prefer honesty in people who decide to discriminate by race and sex.

What I did not say because I assumed it was well known: the same man who was—one time asked to step aside in favor of a woman had never, not once! before been expected to step aside in favor of anybody else. Ever. He always was in the favored category: white and male.

I realize people like you see no reason for that to ever change.

No, Toni. You don't realise it. I don't want to be in a favoured category. I just want to be not discriminated against because of my race and sex.

You’ve been discriminated in favor because of your race and sex.

Toni, you do not know that.

Others have faced discrimination in order to help you.

Toni, you do not know that.

You may not want to face that but it absolutely is true. I understand that now that it stings.you a bit discrimination is a bad thing.

Toni, I have always thought discriminating against people by race or sex in employment is a bad thing.

But, even if what you imagine is true, and of course it's not and you are wrong, if it took discrimination against my category of race and sex for me to realise, that doesn't make me bad or evil, and it doesn't mean I approve of discrimination by race and sex in employment.

 

[Toni]

We note that those complaining bitterly about the poor male applicant, and this is the pattern every time, will only complain when the discrimination happens to the male (usually white) applicant.

This....accusation needs special addressing.

When anybody talks about systemic discrimination against non-whites and non-males, you do not demand that those people consider the plight of whites or males. You do not demand they take stock. You do not demand they have concerns and sympathies in the exact order and amount that you think victim groups deserve. People are selective in their causes and efforts. And, since there are many, many, many people (I would say: an industry of them) talking about systemic discrimination against women and non-whites in Western countries, what is the problem with discussing discrimination against men and whites?

I understand you do not sympathise with them, and you do not believe they could be systemically discriminated against.

I'm against the mutilation of the genitals of children. Whenever I have started a thread on this board about it, it is usually a thread condemning male infant genital mutilation (also called circumcision).

The amount of absolute, unbridled, frothing-at-the-mouth hate and ridicule I get for that topic is unusual, even for me. And every time I bring it up, I will get some people asking how dare I even talk about the circumcision of boys when female genital mutilation exists, as if talking about one problem means I am denying another.

The fact that you are not sympathetic to discrimination against whites and males (and white males in particular) does not concern me. But that you are so unsympathetic that you deny the existence or even possibility of the problem, and attack the characters of people who are concerned, is a shameful thing for you to do.

I remember some very heated discussions about male circumcision and about female genital mutilation but nothing even close to the terms you describe it. I’m not surprised because we tend to view th in bags so very differently. It is perhaps inevitable that our recollections would differ sharply.

Since you were not the target of the hate and ridicule I expect that, yes, you remember it differently.

No one here has read the memos you’ve referenced saying that there could be no more males hired. I do know that a man I love very deeply was asked to step aside in favor of a well qualified female candidate specifically because in this position at this particular moment it was thought that it was time for a woman to serve in that role. I know that it was painful and upsetting for this good, well qualified man to hear those words.

It was also discrimination by sex.

On an i dividusl basis, of course it’s unfair. On a systemic basis, it’s not only necessary but about bloody time because frankly, the preference for white make is so ingrained into all aspects of society—it’s coded in preferences for certain degrees or schools or clubs, military service! many pretexts that avoid explicitly saying male candidates preferred although it’s very clear that is very true. So now sometimes a more blatant preference for not white male must be stated in order to stop weaseling rules around so they are stacked and no surprise! The best candidate is white and make.

Thank you for making your preference to discriminate against white males open. I prefer honesty in people who decide to discriminate by race and sex.

What I did not say because I assumed it was well known: the same man who was—one time asked to step aside in favor of a woman had never, not once! before been expected to step aside in favor of anybody else. Ever. He always was in the favored category: white and male.

I realize people like you see no reason for that to ever change.

No, Toni. You don't realise it. I don't want to be in a favoured category. I just want to be not discriminated against because of my race and sex.

You’ve been discriminated in favor because of your race and sex.

Toni, you do not know that.

Others have faced discrimination in order to help you.

Toni, you do not know that.

You may not want to face that but it absolutely is true. I understand that now that it stings.you a bit discrimination is a bad thing.

Toni, I have always thought discriminating against people by race or sex in employment is a bad thing.

But, even if what you imagine is true, and of course it's not and you are wrong, if it took discrimination against my category of race and sex for me to realise, that doesn't make me bad or evil, and it doesn't mean I approve of discrimination by race and sex in employment.

I understand that you are intelligent and most likely well credentialed and well qualified fir your work and I assume you do it quite well. I have zero doubt that you are well qualified to do your job.

But I also know that you got tons of breaks, tons of times you got the benefit of the doubt because you seemed very competent, very confident t, very reasonable got for the position whichever position you tried for.

Maybe there were no female candidates or candidates who were not white applying—which begs the question of why not. Assumptions have been made about you because of how you look. Oh, and statistically speaking, being tall has helped you as well.

I’m not suggesting you asked for favoritism. It was simply given you because you, through no fault and no effort of your own, were born into the more favored group: white male.

You did t do anything wrong. But you really ought to look hard at whether there have been times when you received a position/job offer over someone equally qualified who was female or not white. Possibly you would not know, depending on the type/size of employers. But based on averages, you absolutely have. Because you ‘looked right’ or ‘felt right’ for the job. Because, no offense towards your abilities or qualifications, chances are that there were several candidates for your job who were just as smart, just as well credentialed, experienced, etc.

I write this knowing as an absolute fact that I have been given opportunities that I would not have had if my skin was not white. One, very explicitly so, although at the time I was hired, I did not realize that I would not have gotten the job if I hadn’t been white.

 

[Metaphor]

We note that those complaining bitterly about the poor male applicant, and this is the pattern every time, will only complain when the discrimination happens to the male (usually white) applicant.

This....accusation needs special addressing.

When anybody talks about systemic discrimination against non-whites and non-males, you do not demand that those people consider the plight of whites or males. You do not demand they take stock. You do not demand they have concerns and sympathies in the exact order and amount that you think victim groups deserve. People are selective in their causes and efforts. And, since there are many, many, many people (I would say: an industry of them) talking about systemic discrimination against women and non-whites in Western countries, what is the problem with discussing discrimination against men and whites?

I understand you do not sympathise with them, and you do not believe they could be systemically discriminated against.

I'm against the mutilation of the genitals of children. Whenever I have started a thread on this board about it, it is usually a thread condemning male infant genital mutilation (also called circumcision).

The amount of absolute, unbridled, frothing-at-the-mouth hate and ridicule I get for that topic is unusual, even for me. And every time I bring it up, I will get some people asking how dare I even talk about the circumcision of boys when female genital mutilation exists, as if talking about one problem means I am denying another.

The fact that you are not sympathetic to discrimination against whites and males (and white males in particular) does not concern me. But that you are so unsympathetic that you deny the existence or even possibility of the problem, and attack the characters of people who are concerned, is a shameful thing for you to do.

I remember some very heated discussions about male circumcision and about female genital mutilation but nothing even close to the terms you describe it. I’m not surprised because we tend to view th in bags so very differently. It is perhaps inevitable that our recollections would differ sharply.

Since you were not the target of the hate and ridicule I expect that, yes, you remember it differently.

No one here has read the memos you’ve referenced saying that there could be no more males hired. I do know that a man I love very deeply was asked to step aside in favor of a well qualified female candidate specifically because in this position at this particular moment it was thought that it was time for a woman to serve in that role. I know that it was painful and upsetting for this good, well qualified man to hear those words.

It was also discrimination by sex.

On an i dividusl basis, of course it’s unfair. On a systemic basis, it’s not only necessary but about bloody time because frankly, the preference for white make is so ingrained into all aspects of society—it’s coded in preferences for certain degrees or schools or clubs, military service! many pretexts that avoid explicitly saying male candidates preferred although it’s very clear that is very true. So now sometimes a more blatant preference for not white male must be stated in order to stop weaseling rules around so they are stacked and no surprise! The best candidate is white and make.

Thank you for making your preference to discriminate against white males open. I prefer honesty in people who decide to discriminate by race and sex.

What I did not say because I assumed it was well known: the same man who was—one time asked to step aside in favor of a woman had never, not once! before been expected to step aside in favor of anybody else. Ever. He always was in the favored category: white and male.

I realize people like you see no reason for that to ever change.

No, Toni. You don't realise it. I don't want to be in a favoured category. I just want to be not discriminated against because of my race and sex.

You’ve been discriminated in favor because of your race and sex.

Toni, you do not know that.

Others have faced discrimination in order to help you.

Toni, you do not know that.

You may not want to face that but it absolutely is true. I understand that now that it stings.you a bit discrimination is a bad thing.

Toni, I have always thought discriminating against people by race or sex in employment is a bad thing.

But, even if what you imagine is true, and of course it's not and you are wrong, if it took discrimination against my category of race and sex for me to realise, that doesn't make me bad or evil, and it doesn't mean I approve of discrimination by race and sex in employment.

I understand that you are intelligent and most likely well credentialed and well qualified fir your work and I assume you do it quite well. I have zero doubt that you are well qualified to do your job.

But I also know that you got tons of breaks, tons of times you got the benefit of the doubt because you seemed very competent, very confident t, very reasonable got for the position whichever position you tried for.

You don't know what 'breaks' I got or didn't. And if you think you know, based solely on knowing my sex and apparent race, show your work.

Maybe there were no female candidates or candidates who were not white applying—which begs the question of why not.

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

Assumptions have been made about you because of how you look. Oh, and statistically speaking, being tall has helped you as well.

Toni, you don't know that. I am not simply tall. I am toddlers stare at me in the street tall. Now, whilst I am certain a 6'2" man benefits from his height in a way a 5"7' does not, that does not mean more height is always 'better', in terms of perceptions.

But, in any case, I should not be favoured or discriminated against for my height.

I’m not suggesting you asked for favoritism. It was simply given you because you, through no fault and no effort of your own, were born into the more favored group: white male.

Toni, you do not know what 'favouritism' I have enjoyed. You don't know who my job interviewers have been, or what their biases were. My first full time job was in the public service, and the public service is biased against white males, as I have already shown.

You did t do anything wrong. But you really ought to look hard at whether there have been times when you received a position/job offer over someone equally qualified who was female or not white.

I do know that I, and a number of males, applied for a promotion in a department a few years ago, and, of the people I know who were successful, all were women, and no men were. I think it is possible that the women who applied and were successful were just better than all the men who applied. But I also know my department has a gender equity policy, and that I work, and continue to work, in a field that has more males than females, and the department is constantly looking to get more women in male-dominated areas.

Possibly you would not know, depending on the type/size of employers. But based on averages, you absolutely have. Because you ‘looked right’ or ‘felt right’ for the job. Because, no offense towards your abilities or qualifications, chances are that there were several candidates for your job who were just as smart, just as well credentialed, experienced, etc.

Toni, you do not know my experiences, and whatever you think you know about them, it is certainly less than I know about them.

But, it's also all irrelevant. If I have been given opportunities, as you are certain I have, unfairly due to my sex and/or race, that does not mean the remedy is to discriminate against whites and/or men now. That's not the remedy. The remedy is to stop discriminating by race and sex.

 

[Toni]

We note that those complaining bitterly about the poor male applicant, and this is the pattern every time, will only complain when the discrimination happens to the male (usually white) applicant.

This....accusation needs special addressing.

When anybody talks about systemic discrimination against non-whites and non-males, you do not demand that those people consider the plight of whites or males. You do not demand they take stock. You do not demand they have concerns and sympathies in the exact order and amount that you think victim groups deserve. People are selective in their causes and efforts. And, since there are many, many, many people (I would say: an industry of them) talking about systemic discrimination against women and non-whites in Western countries, what is the problem with discussing discrimination against men and whites?

I understand you do not sympathise with them, and you do not believe they could be systemically discriminated against.

I'm against the mutilation of the genitals of children. Whenever I have started a thread on this board about it, it is usually a thread condemning male infant genital mutilation (also called circumcision).

The amount of absolute, unbridled, frothing-at-the-mouth hate and ridicule I get for that topic is unusual, even for me. And every time I bring it up, I will get some people asking how dare I even talk about the circumcision of boys when female genital mutilation exists, as if talking about one problem means I am denying another.

The fact that you are not sympathetic to discrimination against whites and males (and white males in particular) does not concern me. But that you are so unsympathetic that you deny the existence or even possibility of the problem, and attack the characters of people who are concerned, is a shameful thing for you to do.

I remember some very heated discussions about male circumcision and about female genital mutilation but nothing even close to the terms you describe it. I’m not surprised because we tend to view th in bags so very differently. It is perhaps inevitable that our recollections would differ sharply.

Since you were not the target of the hate and ridicule I expect that, yes, you remember it differently.

No one here has read the memos you’ve referenced saying that there could be no more males hired. I do know that a man I love very deeply was asked to step aside in favor of a well qualified female candidate specifically because in this position at this particular moment it was thought that it was time for a woman to serve in that role. I know that it was painful and upsetting for this good, well qualified man to hear those words.

It was also discrimination by sex.

On an i dividusl basis, of course it’s unfair. On a systemic basis, it’s not only necessary but about bloody time because frankly, the preference for white make is so ingrained into all aspects of society—it’s coded in preferences for certain degrees or schools or clubs, military service! many pretexts that avoid explicitly saying male candidates preferred although it’s very clear that is very true. So now sometimes a more blatant preference for not white male must be stated in order to stop weaseling rules around so they are stacked and no surprise! The best candidate is white and make.

Thank you for making your preference to discriminate against white males open. I prefer honesty in people who decide to discriminate by race and sex.

What I did not say because I assumed it was well known: the same man who was—one time asked to step aside in favor of a woman had never, not once! before been expected to step aside in favor of anybody else. Ever. He always was in the favored category: white and male.

I realize people like you see no reason for that to ever change.

No, Toni. You don't realise it. I don't want to be in a favoured category. I just want to be not discriminated against because of my race and sex.

You’ve been discriminated in favor because of your race and sex.

Toni, you do not know that.

Others have faced discrimination in order to help you.

Toni, you do not know that.

You may not want to face that but it absolutely is true. I understand that now that it stings.you a bit discrimination is a bad thing.

Toni, I have always thought discriminating against people by race or sex in employment is a bad thing.

But, even if what you imagine is true, and of course it's not and you are wrong, if it took discrimination against my category of race and sex for me to realise, that doesn't make me bad or evil, and it doesn't mean I approve of discrimination by race and sex in employment.

I understand that you are intelligent and most likely well credentialed and well qualified fir your work and I assume you do it quite well. I have zero doubt that you are well qualified to do your job.

But I also know that you got tons of breaks, tons of times you got the benefit of the doubt because you seemed very competent, very confident t, very reasonable got for the position whichever position you tried for.

You don't know what 'breaks' I got or didn't. And if you think you know, based solely on knowing my sex and apparent race, show your work.

Maybe there were no female candidates or candidates who were not white applying—which begs the question of why not.

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

Assumptions have been made about you because of how you look. Oh, and statistically speaking, being tall has helped you as well.

Toni, you don't know that. I am not simply tall. I am toddlers stare at me in the street tall. Now, whilst I am certain a 6'2" man benefits from his height in a way a 5"7' does not, that does not mean more height is always 'better', in terms of perceptions.

But, in any case, I should not be favoured or discriminated against for my height.

I’m not suggesting you asked for favoritism. It was simply given you because you, through no fault and no effort of your own, were born into the more favored group: white male.

Toni, you do not know what 'favouritism' I have enjoyed. You don't know who my job interviewers have been, or what their biases were. My first full time job was in the public service, and the public service is biased against white males, as I have already shown.

You did t do anything wrong. But you really ought to look hard at whether there have been times when you received a position/job offer over someone equally qualified who was female or not white.

I do know that I, and a number of males, applied for a promotion in a department a few years ago, and, of the people I know who were successful, all were women, and no men were. I think it is possible that the women who applied and were successful were just better than all the men who applied. But I also know my department has a gender equity policy, and that I work, and continue to work, in a field that has more males than females, and the department is constantly looking to get more women in male-dominated areas.

Possibly you would not know, depending on the type/size of employers. But based on averages, you absolutely have. Because you ‘looked right’ or ‘felt right’ for the job. Because, no offense towards your abilities or qualifications, chances are that there were several candidates for your job who were just as smart, just as well credentialed, experienced, etc.

Toni, you do not know my experiences, and whatever you think you know about them, it is certainly less than I know about them.

But, it's also all irrelevant. If I have been given opportunities, as you are certain I have, unfairly due to my sex and/or race, that does not mean the remedy is to discriminate against whites and/or men now. That's not the remedy. The remedy is to stop discriminating by race and sex.

Yes, I realize that you would prefer to stop favoritism while you are already on 3rd base.

 

[Metaphor]

We note that those complaining bitterly about the poor male applicant, and this is the pattern every time, will only complain when the discrimination happens to the male (usually white) applicant.

This....accusation needs special addressing.

When anybody talks about systemic discrimination against non-whites and non-males, you do not demand that those people consider the plight of whites or males. You do not demand they take stock. You do not demand they have concerns and sympathies in the exact order and amount that you think victim groups deserve. People are selective in their causes and efforts. And, since there are many, many, many people (I would say: an industry of them) talking about systemic discrimination against women and non-whites in Western countries, what is the problem with discussing discrimination against men and whites?

I understand you do not sympathise with them, and you do not believe they could be systemically discriminated against.

I'm against the mutilation of the genitals of children. Whenever I have started a thread on this board about it, it is usually a thread condemning male infant genital mutilation (also called circumcision).

The amount of absolute, unbridled, frothing-at-the-mouth hate and ridicule I get for that topic is unusual, even for me. And every time I bring it up, I will get some people asking how dare I even talk about the circumcision of boys when female genital mutilation exists, as if talking about one problem means I am denying another.

The fact that you are not sympathetic to discrimination against whites and males (and white males in particular) does not concern me. But that you are so unsympathetic that you deny the existence or even possibility of the problem, and attack the characters of people who are concerned, is a shameful thing for you to do.

I remember some very heated discussions about male circumcision and about female genital mutilation but nothing even close to the terms you describe it. I’m not surprised because we tend to view th in bags so very differently. It is perhaps inevitable that our recollections would differ sharply.

Since you were not the target of the hate and ridicule I expect that, yes, you remember it differently.

No one here has read the memos you’ve referenced saying that there could be no more males hired. I do know that a man I love very deeply was asked to step aside in favor of a well qualified female candidate specifically because in this position at this particular moment it was thought that it was time for a woman to serve in that role. I know that it was painful and upsetting for this good, well qualified man to hear those words.

It was also discrimination by sex.

On an i dividusl basis, of course it’s unfair. On a systemic basis, it’s not only necessary but about bloody time because frankly, the preference for white make is so ingrained into all aspects of society—it’s coded in preferences for certain degrees or schools or clubs, military service! many pretexts that avoid explicitly saying male candidates preferred although it’s very clear that is very true. So now sometimes a more blatant preference for not white male must be stated in order to stop weaseling rules around so they are stacked and no surprise! The best candidate is white and make.

Thank you for making your preference to discriminate against white males open. I prefer honesty in people who decide to discriminate by race and sex.

What I did not say because I assumed it was well known: the same man who was—one time asked to step aside in favor of a woman had never, not once! before been expected to step aside in favor of anybody else. Ever. He always was in the favored category: white and male.

I realize people like you see no reason for that to ever change.

No, Toni. You don't realise it. I don't want to be in a favoured category. I just want to be not discriminated against because of my race and sex.

You’ve been discriminated in favor because of your race and sex.

Toni, you do not know that.

Others have faced discrimination in order to help you.

Toni, you do not know that.

You may not want to face that but it absolutely is true. I understand that now that it stings.you a bit discrimination is a bad thing.

Toni, I have always thought discriminating against people by race or sex in employment is a bad thing.

But, even if what you imagine is true, and of course it's not and you are wrong, if it took discrimination against my category of race and sex for me to realise, that doesn't make me bad or evil, and it doesn't mean I approve of discrimination by race and sex in employment.

I understand that you are intelligent and most likely well credentialed and well qualified fir your work and I assume you do it quite well. I have zero doubt that you are well qualified to do your job.

But I also know that you got tons of breaks, tons of times you got the benefit of the doubt because you seemed very competent, very confident t, very reasonable got for the position whichever position you tried for.

You don't know what 'breaks' I got or didn't. And if you think you know, based solely on knowing my sex and apparent race, show your work.

Maybe there were no female candidates or candidates who were not white applying—which begs the question of why not.

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

Assumptions have been made about you because of how you look. Oh, and statistically speaking, being tall has helped you as well.

Toni, you don't know that. I am not simply tall. I am toddlers stare at me in the street tall. Now, whilst I am certain a 6'2" man benefits from his height in a way a 5"7' does not, that does not mean more height is always 'better', in terms of perceptions.

But, in any case, I should not be favoured or discriminated against for my height.

I’m not suggesting you asked for favoritism. It was simply given you because you, through no fault and no effort of your own, were born into the more favored group: white male.

Toni, you do not know what 'favouritism' I have enjoyed. You don't know who my job interviewers have been, or what their biases were. My first full time job was in the public service, and the public service is biased against white males, as I have already shown.

You did t do anything wrong. But you really ought to look hard at whether there have been times when you received a position/job offer over someone equally qualified who was female or not white.

I do know that I, and a number of males, applied for a promotion in a department a few years ago, and, of the people I know who were successful, all were women, and no men were. I think it is possible that the women who applied and were successful were just better than all the men who applied. But I also know my department has a gender equity policy, and that I work, and continue to work, in a field that has more males than females, and the department is constantly looking to get more women in male-dominated areas.

Possibly you would not know, depending on the type/size of employers. But based on averages, you absolutely have. Because you ‘looked right’ or ‘felt right’ for the job. Because, no offense towards your abilities or qualifications, chances are that there were several candidates for your job who were just as smart, just as well credentialed, experienced, etc.

Toni, you do not know my experiences, and whatever you think you know about them, it is certainly less than I know about them.

But, it's also all irrelevant. If I have been given opportunities, as you are certain I have, unfairly due to my sex and/or race, that does not mean the remedy is to discriminate against whites and/or men now. That's not the remedy. The remedy is to stop discriminating by race and sex.

Yes, I realize that you would prefer to stop favoritism while you are already on 3rd base.

No, you don't realise that Toni.

In the jobs market, because of the places I have applied and their gender equity policies, the roles I am in, and the timing of my labour market experience, I believe my sex has worked against me. I want that to stop happening, and I do not believe I am wrong for wanting it to stop.

 

[Toni]

You are correct: I have no idea of the horrors that too tall white men face in the labor market (I believe IT? Apologies if that is not correct ) in Australia.

I was able to find this statistical report, however. I know this may not reflect your reality:

Gender equality workplace statistics at a glance 2022 | WGEA

www.wgea.gov.au

 

[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?

 

[Bomb#20]

Are you suggesting that in the last 160 years American black people did not produce any wealth?

No.

I.e., when you wrote 'Well, you could start by adding up 100% of all wealth owned by American black people. That is truly a gigantic amount by most measures, and every penny of it was “transferred” over the last ~160 years.' you didn't give two seconds of thought to what it implied. You just took it for granted that wealth is a zero-sum game.

Whom are you accusing of racism, and what's your evidence against them?

No, B2 I’m not still beating my wife.

Sure Jan.

Since that time, so much wealth has been 'taken' from white men and 'given' to Chinese people, that the second wealthiest ethnicity in America is Taiwanese, and Chinese overall rank 15th, ahead of Swiss, Swedish and many other more deserving whiter types.
This "transfer of wealth" dwarfs what has happened to/for black people over the same time frame, but for some reason bigotry against Asians has only recently raised its ugly head again to the extent that anyone pays attention to it. And I still don't hear white people broadly complaining about how the Chinese are taking their hard earned cash. Just black people.
It's almost as if Asians aren't as scary to white people as black people are.
Go figure.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because when we went down that road in the early 20th Century, it led us to some pretty fucking dark grounds. Besides, look at the fucking Trump family and tell me that wealth is because of fucking genetics. Inheritance isn't a genetic trait.

You are simply presuming way too damn much based on what is effectively zero information. "They want to immigrant to another country" isn't a data point indicating anything about genetics. It is more indicating that the place they are isn't viewed as good for them as some other place.

Poland. Basically everything that you blame for passing between generations was wiped out by the Russians when they occupied the place. Yet we see basically the same pattern of "inheritance" despite there being nothing to inherit.

That doesn't remotely respond to what I said.

There must be a major component that is either genetic or from parenting.

Citation to be added at some point... presumably.

We also see that when looking at adoption vs genetic parentage that genetics plays a substantial role.

Says the guy with no kids.

The fact that some people decreed that certain races were inferior doesn't make genetic differences not exist.

Nor does it stop people from merely asserting that they do exist. The trouble with your position is you are making a biological reasoning for a disparate outcome... without any actual biological data. Genetics matter, but they aren't a fait accompli. If it was, anthropology wouldn't exist.

 

[Bomb#20]

How did you get “mocking and disdainful” out of “valuable to the team?”
What are you talking about?

He didn't get it out of “valuable to the team”; he got it out of "Help! I'm being oppressed!1!".

Ha ha, that was the objection? That I made a joke about a poster here at IIDB, in the most highly employed racial group, bitterly complaining about the oppression?

Keep in mind that to an unemployed person who's unemployed because he was discriminated against, his personal unemployment rate is 100%, not whatever the average rate is for whichever demographic you consider him a faceless representative of. Pointing at 96 other people and saying they all have jobs is not a justification; it's merely adding insult to injury. I think TB's point was that belittling people for reacting negatively to having been denied jobs because of the color of their skin is unbecoming in a hiring manager.

 

[laughing dog]

How did you get “mocking and disdainful” out of “valuable to the team?”
What are you talking about?

He didn't get it out of “valuable to the team”; he got it out of "Help! I'm being oppressed!1!".

Ha ha, that was the objection? That I made a joke about a poster here at IIDB, in the most highly employed racial group, bitterly complaining about the oppression?

Keep in mind that to an unemployed person who's unemployed because he was discriminated against, his personal unemployment rate is 100%, not whatever the average rate is for whichever demographic you consider him a faceless representative of. Pointing at 96 other people and saying they all have jobs is not a justification; it's merely adding insult to injury. I think TB's point was that belittling people for reacting negatively to having been denied jobs because of the color of their skin is unbecoming in a hiring manager.

Except as Rhea has pointed out, that is not what she was doing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How did you get “mocking and disdainful” out of “valuable to the team?”
What are you talking about?

He didn't get it out of “valuable to the team”; he got it out of "Help! I'm being oppressed!1!".

Ha ha, that was the objection? That I made a joke about a poster here at IIDB, in the most highly employed racial group, bitterly complaining about the oppression?

Keep in mind that to an unemployed person who's unemployed because he was discriminated against, his personal unemployment rate is 100%, not whatever the average rate is for whichever demographic you consider him a faceless representative of. Pointing at 96 other people and saying they all have jobs is not a justification; it's merely adding insult to injury. I think TB's point was that belittling people for reacting negatively to having been denied jobs because of the color of their skin is unbecoming in a hiring manager.

So strawman then. Got it.

Personally, I can't wait till we get to the data portion of this discussion, where we delve into the unemployment numbers of whites caused by affirmative action. Right now, it seems stuck in the accusatory phase... and the 1 case is too many paradox.

 

[Gospel]

How did you get “mocking and disdainful” out of “valuable to the team?”
What are you talking about?

He didn't get it out of “valuable to the team”; he got it out of "Help! I'm being oppressed!1!".

Ha ha, that was the objection? That I made a joke about a poster here at IIDB, in the most highly employed racial group, bitterly complaining about the oppression?

Keep in mind that to an unemployed person who's unemployed because he was discriminated against, his personal unemployment rate is 100%, not whatever the average rate is for whichever demographic you consider him a faceless representative of. Pointing at 96 other people and saying they all have jobs is not a justification; it's merely adding insult to injury. I think TB's point was that belittling people for reacting negatively to having been denied jobs because of the color of their skin is unbecoming in a hiring manager.

You tell em homie!! Next time someone says that blacks aren't being discriminated against because "LOoK aT tHoSe SuCcESsFuL BlAcK pEoPlE!" I'll count this post of yours as support towards the contrary. This is not Whataboutism (though it can reasonably be described as such), I seriously agree with your argument.

 

[Bomb#20]

How did you get “mocking and disdainful” out of “valuable to the team?”
What are you talking about?

He didn't get it out of “valuable to the team”; he got it out of "Help! I'm being oppressed!1!".

Ha ha, that was the objection? That I made a joke about a poster here at IIDB, in the most highly employed racial group, bitterly complaining about the oppression?

Keep in mind that to an unemployed person who's unemployed because he was discriminated against, his personal unemployment rate is 100%, not whatever the average rate is for whichever demographic you consider him a faceless representative of. Pointing at 96 other people and saying they all have jobs is not a justification; it's merely adding insult to injury. I think TB's point was that belittling people for reacting negatively to having been denied jobs because of the color of their skin is unbecoming in a hiring manager.

Except as Rhea has pointed out, that is not what she was doing.

So strawman then. Got it.

It's not as though you can get away with it, so why do you guys even bother trying to gaslight us? That is exactly what she was doing. She can claim until she's blue in the face that it was only "a joke about a poster here at IIDB", but it wasn't a poster here at IIDB that she put those words in the mouth of. She put those words in the mouths of the 4.7% of white Americans who are unemployed.

Personally, I can't wait till we get to the data portion of this discussion, where we delve into the unemployment numbers of whites caused by affirmative action. Right now, it seems stuck in the accusatory phase... and the 1 case is too many paradox.

You seem to have missed the point. TB wasn't talking about the merits of AA but about the merits of mocking and disdaining the people it hurts. "The unemployment numbers of whites caused by affirmative action" You might as well argue it's okay to ridicule somebody's cleft palate because the condition is so rare.