Discrimination -- the reality

[Elixir]

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

No.

I must have missed history class…

Mor likely reading comprehension. I apologize for the hyperbole.

 

[Elixir]

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

No, B2 I’m not still beating my wife.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

….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.

I would assume he's talking about the welfare system.

 

[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.

I would assume he's talking about the welfare system.

Right, and the welfare system, which is a pittance, is not a “gigantic transfer” of wealth from whites to blacks. And, as linked above, most welfare receipients are white.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

1) You're assuming it's their fault without considering that it might predate them.

2) Once again you are taking disparate outcome as proof of discrimination.

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.

The boss' boss might have said it because he feared justice warriors whether or not there was actual discrimination or it simply reflected the qualified applicant pool.

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.

And note that if so it's discrimination. Discrimination applies to individuals, not groups!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

over 90% of government income(taxes) were paid by white people.

Source, please? I suspect you're playing fast and loose with made-up stats.
Here are some that are not made up (source):

• In the second quarter of 2020, white households—who account for 60 percent of the U.S. population—held 84 percent ($94 trillion) of total household wealth in the U.S.
• Comparatively, Black households—who account for 13.4 percent of the U.S. population—held just 4 percent ($4.6 trillion) of total household wealth.

One might think that the wealth of people in a segment that is the recipient of a "gigantic transfer of wealth" would be at least as well-off as the segment from which that wealth was allegedly taken. But no - the vast inequity persists, and shows little signs of abatement.

That's supposed to be a rebuttal??? (Remember, he's talking about a long time frame, things were more skewed in the past. If anything your data makes me suspect his 90% number is low.)

You're basically admitting it, just saying it was justified.

 

[TomC]

You're basically admitting it, just saying it was justified.

Which I also said. I've got no problem with it.
@pood assumed I meant something completely different, opposite, from what I actually posted. It's right there in the post.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

And note that if so it's discrimination. Discrimination applies to individuals, not groups!

Discrimination applies to groups as well as individuals.

 

[Toni]

In the late 1800s gold mining took off in Colorado.
A lot of labor came from China; many Chinese came seeking gold for themselves, but were run out of mining towns and camps, so they found work in the employ of the whites who owned the claims. Of course working conditions were beyond horrible, so with their usual deference to human decency, white lawmakers intervened to soften, if not working conditions, then at least the conscience of those claim owners who were abusing Chinese. For instance, there was a practice of sending a Chinese person to place and light the dynamite that was much used in the mines. Lots of them were dying in the process, and many others were being beaten, starved and otherwise abused to death. So laws were passed to reduce the carnage. For instance, they instituted a 50 cent fine for killing a Chinaman.

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.

Yes, but the Chinese came the right way. And only the best. Not like the enslaved Africans.

 

[Toni]

Here are more inconvenient facts.

The thing that's bugging me here is Tom's strident assertion that he's "not saying it's wrong" that blacks receive more so-called entitlement money than whites. He's not "saying" it, he is just strongly directly and unmistakeably implying it.

Since y'all are now discussing what I must mean, even when it's the opposite of what I post, I'll just leave y'all to it. Enjoy your faux outrage.
Tom

Feel free to correct the impression you've made, if it is only a very strong 'appearance'.
If you are unable to do so, the result is as one would expect; you come across as disingenuous.

I'd hate to spoil your fun.
Bless Your Heart.
Tom

We understand.

Completely.

 

[TomC]

We understand.

Completely.

I'd like to be more honest with you, but I've reasons to avoid that on IIDB.
For more information, start another thread in site feedback.
Tom

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

I know because I grew up and spent most of my life being told that some things ( positions of authority, power and prestige, not to mention wealth) were not suitable for women. Sometimes those words were not even spoken out loud but nonetheless were deafeningly clear.

Unfortunately the consequence of so many thousands of years of preference for white and make is that occasionally an explicit preference is for not white and/or not female.

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 male.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Your virtue signalling is truly impressive but it is based on a slanderous straw man (that the poster does not care about discrimination against whites or men) and it tarnished by its irony (attacking the character of a poster) and hypocrisy.

 

[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.

 

[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.

Your virtue signalling is truly impressive but it is based on a slanderous straw man (that the poster does not care about discrimination against whites or men) and it tarnished by its irony (attacking the character of a poster) and hypocrisy.

Rhea has made her preferences very clear that she does not believe in the existence of ("rare, picayune", "I see no evidence"), nor care about, systemic discrimination against white males. She invented, from whole cloth, a fantasy version of events of what happened to me in my own department. In fact, other people talking about it bothers her, to the point she called it 'grievance porn' (or words to that effect).

 

[Rhea]

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.

On the contrary, I specifically said that they can, and have, but that it is not as long standing, as often or as generational. And this is why …

I have no interest in tilting at your windmill

For your reading comprehension refresher:

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.

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 [throughout] his whole life. That’s your schtick.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Your virtue signalling is truly impressive but it is based on a slanderous straw man (that the poster does not care about discrimination against whites or men) and it tarnished by its irony (attacking the character of a poster) and hypocrisy.

Rhea has made her preferences very clear that she does not believe in the existence of ("rare, picayune", "I see no evidence"), nor care about, systemic discrimination against white males.

This is exactly what Rhea and others are referring to. The evidence of systematic discrimination against white males pales in comparison with the historical record of systematic discrimination against people of color or women. Yet here we have the "Waaah, us white males have it just as bad, if not worse" whining coming from someone who commonly dismisses concerns and complaints about discrimination (systematic or otherwise) against women or minorities.

She invented, from whole cloth, a fantasy version of events of what happened to me in my own department. In fact, other people talking about it bothers her, to the point she called it 'grievance porn' (or words to that effect).

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

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Yes, Rhea, I have no doubt you welcome aboard every white male who has the exact same priority as you for addressing systemic discrimination, as long as it's not addressing systemic discrimination against white males.

 

[Rhea]

When the ship is sinking, you don’t check the fuses.
Everyone acknowledges that the fuses might be blown, but they are not the top priority. Hopefully, the electrician can lend a hand plugging the hull breach, even if he gets wet.