Real life example: Was I racially discriminated against?

[Tom Sawyer]

1. it wasn't "whites only" or "asians only", it was (as the OP itself states): we want to have a diverse ethnic representation on this board and need an asian to fill out our demographics, so are looking for an asian in order to do that.

So what? Just because they had what they felt was a decent reason to discriminate by race doesn't mean that it's suddenly not racial discrimination. The term doesn't necessarily equate to evil and there may be good and valid reasons to engage in it - such as this one, which is actually a pretty decent rationale.

2. we're not talking about a job, we're talking being on the board of pot seller's advocacy group.

That doesn't seem to be the kind of thing that would make a relevant difference to anyone's position.

 

[prideandfall]

So what? Just because they had what they felt was a decent reason to discriminate by race doesn't mean that it's suddenly not racial discrimination.

yes it does.
not every instance of selection or preference using racial criteria is racism or discrimination, that's like saying every sex act is rape.

The term doesn't necessarily equate to evil and there may be good and valid reasons to engage in it - such as this one, which is actually a pretty decent rationale.

the term itself doesn't maybe, but the usage in western english does, especially in the US. and also, it's only used with regards to racial politics, which is highly suspect since it carries a lot of contextual baggage with it.
if you see a hot girl with dark hair on the street do you immediately think of it as hair color discrimination? if you see a red car you like do you instantly refer to it as color discrimination? if you go out to eat and get a steak do you order the porkchop discrimination?

preference for a thing that meets a set of criteria is not called "discrimination" in any context in the english language except for when denoting ever choosing anyone of any race that isn't white.

That doesn't seem to be the kind of thing that would make a relevant difference to anyone's position.

it makes a huge difference because some people desperate to invoke the "white male oppression" boogeyman are trying to frame this in the same context as "no blacks allowed" hiring practices, comparing it to say equal opportunity law - which is completely bullshit because this is a totally different situation.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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

Yes. Yes I am. Why do you need a particular race of person or racial composition of people to advocate for pot growers? Explain that to me. If the board of pot growers was all black, all white, all asian, etc... this would be a serious problem justifying racial discrimination to avoid it?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

yes it does.
not every instance of selection or preference using racial criteria is racism or discrimination, that's like saying every sex act is rape.

Discrimination:

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

They are making the distinction of who they want to appoint to the board based on their belonging to the group called asians, as opposed to basing it solely on individual merit. That means that they are discriminating on the basis of race. It doesn't require a negative connotation. While it's mostly used in that context, that doesn't mean that additional uses of that context don't have the term apply equally well.

If you only want to date redheads, you are discriminating upon who you have in your dating pool. If you only want to eat certain types of food, you are discriminating in your meal choices. Neither of those are bad, but they are cases of you using discrimination.

 

[prideandfall]

Yes. Yes I am. Why do you need a particular race of person or racial composition of people to advocate for pot growers? Explain that to me.

sure:
the NW area of washington has one of the highest concentrations of asian immigrants and their descendents in the continental US - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/AA_Alone_or_in_Combination.jpg
so, there is a higher than normal number of asians living in the area, as i linked a few posts ago about 5% of the population of the city axulus is from is asian, which is the 2nd highest percent of any non-white ethnic group.
given that newer immigrants (within a couple generations) often hold on to traditions and values from their native culture, logically it makes sense that you're looking at a market that could contain a high percent of people with values and social views outside the understanding of a white christian male, or a mexican, or a black guy.
if i was a grower/seller that had created an advocacy board (and btw since axulus never bothered to explain what the group does or give the name so we can look it up i'm making some assumptions here: that some goals of the body will lobbying as well as education, outreach, and advertising) in an area where the 2nd highest ethnic group by population density was asians, you can be damn sure i'd want an asian on the board in order to help consult on how to best address the asian community.

If the board of pot growers was all black, all white, all asian, etc... this would be a serious problem justifying racial discrimination to avoid it?

i don't give a shit what the board is composed of, i'm disinterested in some kind of nannyism forced racial diversity, and i couldn't be bribed into giving less fucks about whether a group of people wishes to to herd up by race or have all the colors of the rainbow.
but if you're in an area with notable racial demographics that could have a not-insubstantial impact on the thing that your group exists to advocate, that creates a viable and logical reason to justify selection criteria based on tangible factors.

i'm not on some hippie train for racial harmony, i just specifically am calling bullshit on this idiotic example in the OP and the brainless attempts to call this racial discrimination - not because i'm on the racial politics band wagon, just because it's a stupid argument and poor, sloppy thinking.

 

[prideandfall]

They are making the distinction of who they want to appoint to the board based on their belonging to the group called asians, as opposed to basing it solely on individual merit.

this statement assumes that being asian isn't a merit that is important to the board or to the position - you're automatically assuming that there's no possible way that being asian could constitute a qualifying factor.
from what axulus said in the OP they are in fact appointing purely on individual merit and part of that merit includes the individual being asian, which i have presented a completely reasonable explanation for why that would be a viable preference.

That means that they are discriminating on the basis of race.

if you want to use a purely contextually deaf use of the word "discrimination", yes they are - but that use of the word "discrimination" isn't used in any other equal context in any situation in the whole of western english vernacular except when talking about ever picking anyone for anything that isn't the white guy.
your utter refusal to acknowledge the linguistic context around it makes your usage of the word as erroneous as simply incorrectly defining the word in its entirety.

It doesn't require a negative connotation. While it's mostly used in that context, that doesn't mean that additional uses of that context don't have the term apply equally well.

but it's not "mostly" used in that context, it's exclusively used in the context of whining about white males not getting EVERYTHING.

If you only want to date redheads, you are discriminating upon who you have in your dating pool. If you only want to eat certain types of food, you are discriminating in your meal choices. Neither of those are bad, but they are cases of you using discrimination.

right... and nobody ever calls it blonde discrimination or pork discrimination. nobody called it a gluten discrimination diet. nobody calls vegetarians meat discriminators.
i'm not arguing the dictionary definition of the word, but its usage here in the sense of a colloquialism has a very distinct meaning and i can only image that arguing against this from a point of being pedantic is trying to distract from the fact that it comes down to "waaaaaahhhh the white man didn't get EVERYTHING"

 

[Tom Sawyer]

this statement assumes that being asian isn't a merit that is important to the board or to the position - you're automatically assuming that there's no possible way that being asian could constitute a qualifying factor.
from what axulus said in the OP they are in fact appointing purely on individual merit and part of that merit includes the individual being asian, which i have presented a completely reasonable explanation for why that would be a viable preference.

Actually, no. The statement assumes that being asian is a merit to the board or to the position. That's why they're using it as a discriminatory criteria. I imagine that there are zero cases of racial discrimination where the discriminators don't feel that there's a merit to selecting for or against a certain race. Discriminating by race simply means that you are using race as a qualifying criteria. It's the rationale as to why you're using that as a qualifying criteria which makes it a valid or invalid reason to discriminate.

 

[KeepTalking]

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

that's absolutely ridiculous and in no way follows from my statement.

It exactly follows from your statement. I'm sorry to see that you are blind to your own logical mistake, but that is the case. Any white supremacist can say "I'm not treating this man unfavorably because of his race, I am treating him unfavorably because of his lack of race", and that person has made the exact same statement as you made above. It only means that he is bigoted against all races that are not white, instead of just being bigoted against the one race he is treating unfavorably at the time.

there is a difference between preference and exclusion

There certainly is, however, both can be used as a point from which to discriminate. This thread is about discrimination, and not about preference or exclusion.

the only possible way you can try and pretend this difference doesn't exist is if you're trying to warp the conversation to find white-oppression boogeymen where none exist.

Please reread my posts in this thread. I am in no way trying to say that Axulus was a victim of oppression. I have stated very clearly that although this is a case of racial discrimination, it is not illegal, unethical, or even immoral in this case.

excluding someone because you hate their race is absolutely not the same as looking for someone of a specific race and declining inclusion to a random cracker who thinks he's entitled to deserve to automatically be included in everything.

I get the feeling you are arguing against someone else. I made the statement earlier in this thread that I did not think the person discriminating against Axulus was even a racist, so how can I think that he was being excluded as a result of hatred of his race? On the other hand, the statement you just made, "random cracker", makes me think that there might be some racism inherent in your participation in this thread, and I have no idea what race you are.

racism is absolutely a thing, yes, one that is a major problem and one that must be addressed.

Undoubtedly.

but EVERYTHING having to do with people of different races interacting with each other isn't racism, and race DOES have social and cultural factors attached to it that make diversity and variance viable qualifications in the right context.

And it is my contention that discrimination, even racial discrimination, does not always mean racism.

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

Laugh it up, but the joke's on you if you are trying to include me in the "who's who" of FRDB racists.

 

[KeepTalking]

this statement assumes that being asian isn't a merit that is important to the board or to the position - you're automatically assuming that there's no possible way that being asian could constitute a qualifying factor.
from what axulus said in the OP they are in fact appointing purely on individual merit and part of that merit includes the individual being asian, which i have presented a completely reasonable explanation for why that would be a viable preference.

That means that they are discriminating on the basis of race.

if you want to use a purely contextually deaf use of the word "discrimination", yes they are - but that use of the word "discrimination" isn't used in any other equal context in any situation in the whole of western english vernacular except when talking about ever picking anyone for anything that isn't the white guy.
your utter refusal to acknowledge the linguistic context around it makes your usage of the word as erroneous as simply incorrectly defining the word in its entirety.

It doesn't require a negative connotation. While it's mostly used in that context, that doesn't mean that additional uses of that context don't have the term apply equally well.

but it's not "mostly" used in that context, it's exclusively used in the context of whining about white males not getting EVERYTHING.

If you only want to date redheads, you are discriminating upon who you have in your dating pool. If you only want to eat certain types of food, you are discriminating in your meal choices. Neither of those are bad, but they are cases of you using discrimination.

right... and nobody ever calls it blonde discrimination or pork discrimination. nobody called it a gluten discrimination diet. nobody calls vegetarians meat discriminators.
i'm not arguing the dictionary definition of the word, but its usage here in the sense of a colloquialism has a very distinct meaning and i can only image that arguing against this from a point of being pedantic is trying to distract from the fact that it comes down to "waaaaaahhhh the white man didn't get EVERYTHING"

So, I guess this add never happened, then:

 

[prideandfall]

So, I guess this add never happened, then:

ad.

and if you think one example of the word being used in a clinical way is in any way a rebuttal to my assertion that the word used in the context of racial politics only means one thing, you are delusional on a level that there is no point in engaging with.

 

[KeepTalking]

So, I guess this add never happened, then:

ad.

Thanks! I'm glad the poster with constant punctuation and capitalization issues is able to point out my typos with no sense of irony.

and if you think one example of the word being used in a clinical way is in any way a rebuttal to my assertion that the word used in the context of racial politics only means one thing, you are delusional on a level that there is no point in engaging with.

If you think that is the only ad that has used the term ever in the history of the world, you are the one who is delusional. Face it, the word we are discussing has more definitions in use than the only one you care to acknowledge.

 

[Metaphor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funnily enough, in my current job, I was asked to 'represent' my racial demographic. I don't have any duties or tasks, actually, other than to continue 'representing' Whiteness for all the world to see.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Just take the Indian guy's desk.

 

[prideandfall]

Thanks! I'm glad the poster with constant punctuation and capitalization issues is able to point out my typos with no sense of irony.

it was with a complete sense of irony, actually.

the rest of this back-and-forth has turned into a semantics arguments and thus has no point, so i'm not running from it but i'm also not going to continue to sit here and argue about subjective interpretation of a word.

 

[Axulus]

There seems to be this tenancy of many of the "it was not discrimination" crowd to claim that all Asians are an authority on Asian culture (which, as the poster who cited the City of Bellingham link shows, includes Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese and Korean, among others) and/or have extensive connections with other Asians in the community, and that whites can not have any of these.

I agree that such connections and/or insights into the culture is an item of merit. What I don't understand is using race to automatically assume that the person has these merits or lacks these merits.

I'm half German. Shouldn't the board also be seeking diversity to include Italian Americans, German Americans, Irish Americans, French Americans, etc. who would presumably have unique insights into these cultures and have extensive connections to people from these communities, based on the assumptions such posters have been using?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There seems to be this tenancy of many of the "it was not discrimination" crowd to claim that all Asians are an authority on Asian culture (which, as the poster who cited the City of Bellingham link shows, includes Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese and Korean, among others) and/or have extensive connections with other Asians in the community, and that whites can not have any of these.

I agree that such connections and/or insights into the culture is an item of merit. What I don't understand is using race to automatically assume that the person has these merits or lacks these merits.

I'm half German. Shouldn't the board also be seeking diversity to include Italian Americans, German Americans, Irish Americans, French Americans, etc. who would presumably have unique insights into these cultures and have extensive connections to people from these communities, based on the assumptions such posters have been using?

Naw. If you think any of this has to do with anything other than looking the part, you are totally mistaken.

 

[laughing dog]

There seems to be this tenancy of many of the "it was not discrimination" crowd to claim that all Asians are an authority on Asian culture (which, as the poster who cited the City of Bellingham link shows, includes Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese and Korean, among others) and/or have extensive connections with other Asians in the community, and that whites can not have any of these.

I agree that such connections and/or insights into the culture is an item of merit. What I don't understand is using race to automatically assume that the person has these merits or lacks these merits.

I don't know that it is automatically assumed that the person has these merits because they are the same race. Did this person say they would take any person of Asian heritage?

I'm half German. Shouldn't the board also be seeking diversity to include Italian Americans, German Americans, Irish Americans, French Americans, etc. who would presumably have unique insights into these cultures and have extensive connections to people from these communities, based on the assumptions such posters have been using?

If the board thought those "cultures" were significant in the community and important, then yes.

 

[prideandfall]

There seems to be this tenancy of many of the "it was not discrimination" crowd to claim that all Asians are an authority on Asian culture (which, as the poster who cited the City of Bellingham link shows, includes Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese and Korean, among others) and/or have extensive connections with other Asians in the community, and that whites can not have any of these.

well since i'm the one that kind of brought it up, and linked the city's racial distribution, let me first to disabuse you of this notion you have.
i'm positing that there is a perfectly logical explanation for specifically wanting an asian on the board of the group, and that's all i'm positing.
for all i know, you were told to get fucked because you're a honkey ass cracker and nobody wants that shit around, and the entire group is nothing but a cabal of racists plotting with the jews to bring down the white man.
however, nothing in your story pointed towards that, and i just mentioned the most logical reason i could think of for why the board could wish to have an asian member.

I'm half German. Shouldn't the board also be seeking diversity to include Italian Americans, German Americans, Irish Americans, French Americans, etc. who would presumably have unique insights into these cultures and have extensive connections to people from these communities, based on the assumptions such posters have been using?

that is just about one of the dumbest fucking things i have ever seen somebody post on these forums and i hope to god you're being intentionally sarcastic.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There seems to be this tenancy of many of the "it was not discrimination" crowd to claim that all Asians are an authority on Asian culture (which, as the poster who cited the City of Bellingham link shows, includes Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese and Korean, among others) and/or have extensive connections with other Asians in the community, and that whites can not have any of these.

I agree that such connections and/or insights into the culture is an item of merit. What I don't understand is using race to automatically assume that the person has these merits or lacks these merits.

I'm half German. Shouldn't the board also be seeking diversity to include Italian Americans, German Americans, Irish Americans, French Americans, etc. who would presumably have unique insights into these cultures and have extensive connections to people from these communities, based on the assumptions such posters have been using?

Naw. If you think any of this has to do with anything other than looking the part, you are totally mistaken.

Ya, it's a PR thing. A Japanese guy doesn't actually have any more of an in with the Koreans than an English guy has with the Italians. They want to be able to demonstrate to the asian communities that they're diverse and increase their connections with those businesses due to that, not because having someone of that race means that guy will personally be able to make these new connections.

 

[Axulus]

well since i'm the one that kind of brought it up, and linked the city's racial distribution, let me first to disabuse you of this notion you have.
i'm positing that there is a perfectly logical explanation for specifically wanting an asian on the board of the group, and that's all i'm positing.
for all i know, you were told to get fucked because you're a honkey ass cracker and nobody wants that shit around, and the entire group is nothing but a cabal of racists plotting with the jews to bring down the white man.
however, nothing in your story pointed towards that, and i just mentioned the most logical reason i could think of for why the board could wish to have an asian member.

I never thought nor implied that anyone in this organization is racist, so I don't understand what you are getting at. The most logical reason is from the social pressure and education that "diversity" is a good thing and if we must have people on the board that look the part they'll also obtain the benefit of "different perspectives" and insights into different cultures.

I'm challenging the notion in part. I would think it would be offensive to go up to a black person, for example, and say "can you provide us the 'black perspective' on this topic?"

that is just about one of the dumbest fucking things i have ever seen somebody post on these forums and i hope to god you're being intentionally sarcastic.

So you believe that those who think that Asians have some sort of unique insight into Asian culture and have extensive Asian connections, and that is why an organization should get an Asian board member in a community with a significant number of Asians, is fucking dumb? Why didn't you just say so in the first place?