Discrimination -- the reality

[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!".

 

[Rhea]

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?

Well, I’ll run over and confess to my son, and ask if he can bear to hang out with me ever again.

 

[Rhea]

And what would your job seeking white son think and say about this?

I just asked him. He thought it was funny. Especially the bit about hand-writing in the “1” to riff on the mouth-frothing fascio-racists.

 

[Bomb#20]

And no trouble ever came of those...

But it's a red herring anyway. Tu quoque arguments are a <blah blah blah> in Hanover less than a century after annexation, I don't think anyone is looking at 19th century Prussian political history and going "oh boy, let's copy THOSE guys, what a perfect standard for every to follow for all time!"

I think Gospel can answer that one for me.

Simply put, I'm not a fan of people that refute arguments on this board that no one in particular made.

Big words, coming from someone whose artless attempts at strawman construction resulted in both Gospel's post and mine.

That is a groundless accusation. You are libeling me. I did not construct any strawman and you do not have a substantive reason to think I did. You made that up with reckless disregard for the truth. You accuse me of that with respect to your own post because you have a gross reading comprehension deficit; you accuse me of that with respect to Gospel's post because, apparently, you are so completely tribal that you think of everyone in your outgroup as interchangeable parts and won't waste your mental energy keeping track of which of us said what. (Not that what Metaphor wrote was a strawman; it's called "hyperbole".)

Seriously, where did I say anything about <expletive deleted> Prussia?

Seriously, why on earth would you imagine that when you say something nutty, my choice of evidence against your nutty contention should be limited to sources you already brought up?

But instead of complaining about your obvious quote-stuffing

I have no idea what my alleged "obvious quote-stuffing" is supposed to refer to.

and leaving it at that, I made an earnest attempt to address the content, not just the form, of your posting.

You made no attempt whatsoever to address the content of my posting. You made an earnest attempt to address the content of a villainous viewpoint of a villainous cartoon character created by your own stereotypes of what you make believe your villainous opponents are.

Can you say the same?

If I've misinterpreted your intended point, please explain how, and the conversation can continue. On what grounds was the annexation of Hanover relevant to... whatever point you were trying to make about the term "indigenous"? I know what I thought you were saying, but clearly I did not, so I am now inviting you to fill in your own logical gaps. How does your post relate to the main topic of discrimination?

Why does your brain take these arbitrary segues? Why would you suddenly in the middle of a conversation decide that what I just said in direct response to what you just said wasn't targeted at what you just said, but was actually making some larger overall statement "about the term indigenous" or about "the main topic of discrimination". What the heck is wrong with you?

You claimed that if indigenous peoples were treated as the political equals of European nations then as most of California was never ceded by mutually recognized treaty the majority of California would now be under indigenous jurisdiction. That struck me as a nutty claim. So I disputed it and I introduced evidence against it. As my examples of Prussian, Russian and Austrian high-handedness show, being the political equal of a European nation and not signing a treaty does not cause more powerful nations not to annex your territory. So even if the U.S. had treated the indigenous people of California as the political equals of European nations, California would probably not be under indigenous jurisdiction. Nation-states pursue their own national interests and the personal interests of their rulers, regardless of whatever lip-service they pay to international law and the equal sovereignty of nations. This isn't rocket science.

For the explanation for why you would choose to interpret a straightforward description of realpolitik as a "Tu quoque" -- as some kind of attempt at justification that deserved a "oh boy, let's copy THOSE guys, what a perfect standard for every to follow for all time!" -- we need to look for a problem with how you think, not for a problem with what I wrote.

And speaking of rude forum habits, don't think I failed to notice that you elided the main argument of my post as "<blah blah blah>" so you could complain about the supposed etiquette failure of the damn footnote.

Did you fail to notice that I stopped quoting you and replaced it with "<blah blah blah>" at the exact point where you started cussing at me? The "main argument" I elided was more of the same, more baseless misrepresentation of my post. "no one is asking for indigenous land tenure to be adopted in Europe"?!? "if atrocities have happened in Europe's past, that's sad but does not require the entire rest of the world to accept similar atrocities without question"?!? Seriously? Those negative insinuations about my intentions had exactly as much intellectual depth as the scatology that preceded them. If you want the conversation to continue, you could start by making at least a token effort to understand what was already said. This is not about "etiquette failure". This is about you misrepresenting me through carelessness and/or malice.

 

[Politesse]

Why does your brain take these arbitrary segues? Why would you suddenly in the middle of a conversation decide that what I just said in direct response to what you just said wasn't targeted at what you just said, but was actually making some larger overall statement "about the term indigenous" or about "the main topic of discrimination". What the heck is wrong with you?

If as you claim your post wasn't about the topic of the post you were responding to (the legal and political context of indigeneity), nor the topic of the thread (the reality of discrimination), then it's not on topic at all. So what's the point of engaging with it all?

I continue to feel that the situation you cite is, in almost every significant respect, non-analogous to those under discussion, even if (as indeed you are not) you were accurately representing those off-topic historical circumstances. If you'd like some more details about my perspective, I recommend buying a post-it note so you can cover up the naughty words part, and read the rest of the post to which you were responding.

Did you fail to notice that I stopped quoting you and replaced it with "<blah blah blah>" at the exact point where you started cussing at me? The "main argument" I elided was more of the same, more baseless misrepresentation of my po

Thank god you recovered emotionally in time to catch the end of the post, at least. I will be sure to substitute with "bless my buttons", or "darn tootin'" or something, in the future. I apologize for exposing you to grown-up words, and please convey my apologies to your parents/legal guardians as well.

 

[Metaphor]

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?

Why do you think that belonging to the most highly employed racial group means you haven't been discriminated against?

And if you don't think that, why would you bring up group statistics?

 

[Toni]

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?

Why do you think that belonging to the most highly employed racial group means you haven't been discriminated against?

And if you don't think that, why would you bring up group statistics?

Everyone has experienced some sort of discrimination.

The thing is: none of us really knows for certain if that is why we didn’t get something. Sometimes gender or race is an easy place to hang blame. Easier than hearing you don’t have the same level of credentials or skills that are being sought or that you come across as being a bit difficult. Much easier to be able to believe that it’s because the other person is gender/race/demographic.

 

[Rhea]

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?

Why do you think that belonging to the most highly employed racial group means you haven't been discriminated against?

And if you don't think that, why would you bring up group statistics?

Everyone has experienced some sort of discrimination.

The thing is: none of us really know for certain if that is why we didn’t get something. Sometimes gender or race is an easy place to gang blame. Easier than hearing you don’t have the credentials or skills that are being sought or that you come across as being a bit diffucukt. Much easier to be able to believe that it’s because the other person is gender/race/demographic.

Indeed, and the point that Metaphor did not catch is that many people in the least-discriminated-against-group have enough awareness to realize it’s not systemic discrimination that is the cause their current issue. That we all face possibility of a pre-judgment, and that does not rise to oppression or discrimination, especially when the odds against it for individuals in that group are low.

Ironically, my son knows this better than many, as he grew up in a small town where you are nearly certain to be prejudged based on what side of town you live, who your parents are, who your siblings are, whether your parent works “the floors” or “the rugs” (blue collar / white collar) and whether you played in the band. Perhaps that is why he is well aware of the discrimination that his minority friends face, and what it must feel like, and that he cares a lot about disrupting it, not whining to perpetuate it.

 

[Metaphor]

Everyone has experienced some sort of discrimination.

The thing is: none of us really knows for certain if that is why we didn’t get something.

I know, for certain, that the candidate my team selected to join our team this year was discriminated against because of his sex.

I know because when we selected him, my boss checked with his boss, and his boss said "you cannot have another male on your team barring extraordinary circumstances". It wasn't subtle, either, like something that was verbal only and not in so many words. It was those exact words and he put it in email.

So that candidate did not get a position he otherwise would have, because of my department's gender equity policy. He was discriminated against because of his sex.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why does your brain take these arbitrary segues? Why would you suddenly in the middle of a conversation decide that what I just said in direct response to what you just said wasn't targeted at what you just said, but was actually making some larger overall statement "about the term indigenous" or about "the main topic of discrimination". What the heck is wrong with you?

If as you claim your post wasn't about the topic of the post you were responding to (the legal and political context of indigeneity),

And you go right on misrepresenting me through carelessness and/or malice. I didn't claim my post wasn't about the topic of the post I was responding to. Quite the reverse -- my post was precisely about whether what you said in your post was true. If you are now implying your claim was not about your post's topic, that's your problem, not mine. Of course I assumed your claim had some relevance to your post topic; why else would you have claimed it? And I wasn't about to let you introduce an incorrect lemma you could later rely on as support for any overall contention about the topic in your mind.

If it was the "but was actually making some larger overall statement 'about the term indigenous'" that you took to be a claim that my post wasn't about the topic of the post I was responding to, um, exactly which part of "larger" and "overall" don't you understand? I was making a narrow point about your narrow claim. I don't know where you're going with your commentary on "indigenous" -- as far as I can tell, you and I are in agreement that it's a Eurocentric term. But having had run-ins with you before, I expect your comments are probably ultimately in support of some stereotype about your outgroup, so I have little reason to let you get away with anything fast and loose.

I continue to feel that the situation you cite is, in almost every significant respect, non-analogous to those under discussion, even if (as indeed you are not) you were accurately representing those off-topic historical circumstances.

You evidently feel Europe is a digression, so skip this if you like; but if you feel the urge to share, in what way did I inaccurately represent what great powers did to their weak neighbors?

If you'd like some more details about my perspective, I recommend buying a post-it note so you can cover up the naughty words part, and read the rest of the post to which you were responding.

Did you fail to notice that I stopped quoting you and replaced it with "<blah blah blah>" at the exact point where you started cussing at me? The "main argument" I elided was more of the same, more baseless misrepresentation of my po

[sic]

As you can see from the part of my post you snipped out from quoting back to me, I did read those parts, so you are continuing to misrepresent me now. And as I said, you continued to misrepresent me in the <blah blah blah> part of your post -- you continued to press your fiction that I had been offering a justification for the way the U.S. treated indigenous people. It's tiresome. Just stop.

Thank god you recovered emotionally in time to catch the end of the post, at least. I will be sure to substitute with "bless my buttons", or "darn tootin'" or something, in the future. I apologize for exposing you to grown-up words, and please convey my apologies to your parents/legal guardians as well.

Thank you for your concern for my emotional well-being, but there's really no need. Your diction doesn't bother me in the least and you have my blessing to use the foulest language you can think of. But if you sincerely believe there's something "grown-up" about those words then you have an adolescent notion of what growing up is. All they do is put the laziness of your thought processes on full display. If you can't think of anything more substantive to say about my arguments than to call them excrement, I have no objection to you letting our readers know you can't. But just because it's quite all right for you to sputter inarticulately to your heart's content doesn't really give me a reason to serve as your personal Xerox machine.

 

[laughing dog]

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?

Why do you think that belonging to the most highly employed racial group means you haven't been discriminated against?

There is no basis for that straw man. Bitterly complaining about the oppression does not even imply that someone was not or could not be discriminated against.

And if you don't think that, why would you bring up group statistics?

If you bothered to actually read the thread, you'd know Rhea did not bring up the group statistics.

 

[Metaphor]

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?

Why do you think that belonging to the most highly employed racial group means you haven't been discriminated against?

There is no basis for that straw man. Bitterly complaining about the oppression does not even imply that someone was not or could not be discriminated against.

Rhea can answer for herself. If she meant something different, she can say so.

And if you don't think that, why would you bring up group statistics?

If you bothered to actually read the thread, you'd know Rhea did not bring up the group statistics.

Rhea brought up 'the most highly employed racial group' in her post. It is right there. She thinks there is something about belonging to the most highly employed racial group that either means
i) You can't be discriminated against
ii) You could be discriminated against but I do not give a fuck you whining piece of shit
iii) Something else.

You can't answer for her.

 

[Rhea]

There is a difference between systemic, persistant, ongoing and even generational discrimination - and possible, once or twice prejudgment.

I know you know the difference. I also know from your comments that you deny the difference exists.

I generally don’t bother to engage with your rants because you use picayune pedantry to create argument and blow up a single instance of a mild case of a thing to distract from the larger picture of systemic problems and avoid addressing them. I believe that you genuinely emotionally believe this is the Biggest Crime Evah and that fixing this and solving this Egregious Effrontery against White Men should be the very first thing fixed before anyone even Looks Sideways at the long term systemic systems that have trapped generations into poverty with no holdings, savings or estate to pass on to offspring.

I get that you see it that way. I have no interest in tilting at your windmill. You go right on thinking that your one case of a manager noticing that your department has been cutting out women and minorities for years should not be addressed because it might make life harder for a white man and instead should continue to make it harder for everyone else so you can protect him. You go ahead and believe the solution is to perpetuate your all male or mostly male department so that no white male ever has to “join the club” or be affected by the long term discriminatory system. You go right ahead telling everyone who will listen that you’ve assumed your white male is better qualified than any possible diversity candidate. We hear you. We know what you’re saying.

I’ve heard you say it often enough. You don’t think discrimination happens to women and people of color, you don’t think discrimination harms anyone but white men. Hearing you say it again and again is not engaging or entertaining. And that’s why I usually choose to not answer your “Just Asking Questions” pedantic posts, and why I prefer to not open any thread you start - it’s all the same grievance porn.

I write for engaging with people who are not you - other contrbutors or lurkers on this board. Systemic discrimination against women and people of color exists and is ongoing and has been cumulative. The few white men who end up experiencing for the first time what we have been facing all our lives leave me with a reaction based on their reactIon. If they say, “holy shit this sucks harder than I ever imagined, let’s fix this systemic mess, starting with people who have been harmed the most!” Then I say welcome aboard, yeah, let’s fix this. If they say, “wanh wanh, I don’t care that you’ve been harmed, I’ve never cared about the issue until it hit me and now *I* want to be First In Line to be Fixed!” Then I say, “sorry son, I’m still working on helping the people who have been harmed the most and for the longest. Get in line.”

I will not be promising him a magic white male unicorn that everything will get fixed in a way that guarantees he will never experience a scintilla of harm that all those around him have been shouldering his whole life. That’s your schtick.

 

[Metaphor]

There is a difference between systemic, persistant, ongoing and even generational discrimination - and possible, once or twice prejudgment.

I know you know the difference. I also know from your comments that you deny the difference exists.

No. I'm saying there exists systemic discrimination against white men.

I generally don’t bother to engage with your rants because you use picayune pedantry to create argument and blow up a single instance of a mild case of a thing to distract from the larger picture of systemic problems and avoid addressing them. I believe that you genuinely emotionally believe this is the Biggest Crime Evah and that fixing this and solving this Egregious Effrontery against White Men should be the very first thing fixed before anyone even Looks Sideways at the long term systemic systems that have trapped generations into poverty with no holdings, savings or estate to pass on to offspring.

I get that you see it that way. I have no interest in tilting at your windmill. You go right on thinking that your one case of a manager noticing that your department has been cutting out women and minorities for years

My department hasn't been doing anything of the kind. That is a baseless assertion.

should not be addressed because it might make life harder for a white man

The man that was discriminated against was not white.

and instead should continue to make it harder for everyone else so you can protect him. You go ahead and believe the solution is to perpetuate your all male or mostly male department

My department is neither male nor mostly male.

so that no white male ever has to “join the club” or be affected by the long term discriminatory system.

I’ve heard you say it often enough. You don’t think discrimination happens to women and people of color,

What? When have I ever made such a claim?

you don’t think discrimination harms anyone but white men.

When have I ever made such a claim?

Hearing you say it again and again is not engaging or entertaining. And that’s why I usually choose to not answer your “Just Asking Questions” pedantic posts, and why I prefer to not open any thread you start - it’s all the same grievance porn.

I write for engaging with people who are not you - other contrbutors or lurkers on this board. Systemic discrimination against women and people of color exists and is ongoing and has been cumulative. The few white men who end up experiencing for the first time what we have been facing all our lives leave me with a reaction based on their reactIon. If they say, “holy shit this sucks harder than I ever imagined, let’s fix this systemic mess, starting with people who have been harmed the most!” Then I say welcome aboard, yeah, let’s fix this. If they say, “wanh wanh, I don’t care that you’ve been harmed, I’ve never cared about the issue until it hit me and now *I* want to be First In Line to be Fixed!” Then I say, “sorry son, I’m still working on helping the people who have been harmed the most and for the longest. Get in line.”

I will not promising him a magic white male unicorn that everything will get fixed in a way tha guarantees he will never experience a scintilla of harm that all those around him have been shouldering his whole life. That’s your schtick.

Rhea, when you deny that men or white people can and do experience systemic discrimination, despite institutions openly practising it, I can see your attitude and value system. You don't need to explain yourself.

 

[laughing dog]

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?

Why do you think that belonging to the most highly employed racial group means you haven't been discriminated against?

There is no basis for that straw man. Bitterly complaining about the oppression does not even imply that someone was not or could not be discriminated against.

Rhea can answer for herself. If she meant something different, she can say so.

And if you don't think that, why would you bring up group statistics?

If you bothered to actually read the thread, you'd know Rhea did not bring up the group statistics.

Rhea brought up 'the most highly employed racial group' in her post. It is right there. She thinks there is something about belonging to the most highly employed racial group that either means
i) You can't be discriminated against
ii) You could be discriminated against but I do not give a fuck you whining piece of shit
iii) Something else.

You can't answer for her.

Of course I have the ability to answer for anyone - everyone in this forum has that capability. Answers may not be correct, but your assertion is stupid.

More importantly, I didn't answer for Rhea. I pointed out the obvious to any literate person that your question was as straw man. I neglected to add
that if you had actually bothered to read this thread with comprehension, you'd have seen she had answered your question in post 360.






Third,

 

[pood]

….the gigantic transfer of wealth from white people to black people called "government entitlement" …

Could you document this alleged ”gigantic transfer” with raw data and actual numbers, please?

Thanks.

 

[Elixir]

….the gigantic transfer of wealth from white people to black people called "government entitlement" …

Could you document this alleged ”gigantic transfer” with raw data and actual numbers, please?

Thanks.

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. Prior to that, black people didn’t own stuff.
Of course their current holdings are no more “government entitlement” than are the holdings of white Europeans, whose theft of property from indigenous Americans holds because of government enforcement.
So yeah - government entitlements for sure. But only white people really deserve them, right, Tom?

 

[pood]

….the gigantic transfer of wealth from white people to black people called "government entitlement" …

Could you document this alleged ”gigantic transfer” with raw data and actual numbers, please?

Thanks.

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. Prior to that, black people didn’t own stuff.
Of course their current holdings are no more “government entitlement” than are the holdings of white Europeans, whose theft of property from indigenous Americans holds because of government enforcement.
So yeah - government entitlements for sure. But only white people really deserve them, right, Tom?

True enough. The ending of slavery necessitated *some* minor transfer of wealth from white to blacks, almost all of it, to what tiny degree it happened, from the antebellum plantation aristocracy and not from poor white people in the south. Later with the abolition of Recostruction and the institution of Jim Crow most of that piddling wealth transfer was reversed. Nevertheless, it must have been awfully inconveniencing to white men to see a tiny portion of their wealth transferred to freed blacks. Heaven forefend that we should offend the fee fees of white males. Under the cirumstances, perhaps it would have been best not to end slavery at all.

But TomC’s claiim is more recent, that there has been a “gigantic” tranfers of wealth from whites to blacks since the Civil Rights era in the 60s. I await his substantiation of this claim, Meanwhile, here are some inconvenient facts for TomC.

 

[Rhea]

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

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

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

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

Kind of like this example:

(acknowledging that I assumed the candidate was white male, but he was apparently non-white male, so we are talking about M/F descrimination, not racial)…

I know, for certain, that the candidate my team selected to join our team this year was discriminated against because of his sex.

I know because when we selected him, my boss checked with his boss, and his boss said "you cannot have another male on your team barring extraordinary circumstances".

And I picture the boss’ boss, looking at a deparment of 29 women and one man and saying, “you cannot have another male….”

Oh wait, no. The boss’ boss would not have said that if the department were already gender diverse. So there must have been a problem that caused it to be said. A problem of the hiring history favoring men.

This is denied, of course. It always is. “Oh we never discriminate! It’s just random chance that we never hire women!”

Metaphor states that the department in question is less than 50% male. And implies that there is no reason of any kind that the boss’ boss has a reason to seek to increase gender diversity. It’s possible that the boss’s boss is trying to correct for another, even worse department and help the compan as a whole overcome its discrimination problem.

Now in this case, the boss’ boss even said that if extraordinary circumstances presented, they could override the corrective directive. But the team still claims, “nothing extraordinary, just whatever caused the boss’ boss to need a correction should not be corrected. We need a male candidate, and you’ve discriminated against him. You’re terrible.“


It’s always excuses about the current candidate, not balancing with the ones last week and the week before. “I only have too complain about today, and then I never had to address my hiring biases.”

 

[TomC]

….the gigantic transfer of wealth from white people to black people called "government entitlement" …

Could you document this alleged ”gigantic transfer” with raw data and actual numbers, please?

Thanks.

Not with any precision, but the fundamental concept is easy to grasp.
Income disparities.

I read a broad strokes report on government spending once. I believe it was in the NAACP magazine, The Crisis. This was so long ago I still had dead tree magazine subscriptions.
Roughly, over 90% of government income(taxes) were paid by white people. About 50% of "means tested income support"*,(welfare) was paid out to black people. This was over the course of 40-50 years. Many many trillions of dollars.

I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong or unfair about it. But the transfer of wealth from white taxpayers to black recipients is trillions of dollars. It's simply a function of income disparities.
Tom