Real life example: Was I racially discriminated against?

[Loren Pechtel]

I was excluded from that board position because of my race, was I not?

If you had been first to volunteer, you would not have been excluded because of your race. Anytime someone expresses a preference for A over B, A is preferred over B. When someone chooses A and does not choose B, B is excluded.

Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was excluded from that board position because of my race, was I not?

not from what you've described, no - at least, not in a way in which the very concept of the idea behind the words "discrimination" or "excluded" or "because of race" has any shred of meaning.

yes, i totally agree that you could make the argument that you were excluded due to race if you wanted to get ridiculous, stupidly pedantic about the precise definition of the word.
however, given that what seems to have happened based on A. your very limited providing of information on the incident and players involved and B. logic is in fact not an incident of exclusion but of preference, i have to continue my disagreement with characterizing as either exclusion or discrimination (in the sense of how those terms are used when discussing race relations).

preferring chocolate ice cream isn't discriminating against vanilla and excluding it from being eaten, at least not by any commonly used vernacular of the words discriminate or exclude.
preferring using screws to using nails for a wood building project isn't discriminating against nails or excluding them for being used, at least not by any commonly used vernacular of the words discriminate or exclude.
preferring sci-fi movies to westerns isn't discriminating against westerns or excluding them from being watched, at least not by any commonly used vernacular of the words discriminate or exclude.
preferring an asian for an open spot in your group because you want their ethnic representation isn't discriminating against white people or excluding white people from being in groups, at least not by any commonly used vernacular of the words discriminate or exclude.

you didn't meet the qualifications and criteria that were set for the position, and you're butt hurt about it - i get that, and i can sympathize.
doesn't mean you're a victim here, at least not that i can see based on the information you've provided.

So there's nothing wrong with a "No blacks need apply" sign??

Because he encountered what amounts to a "No whites need apply".

 

[laughing dog]

If you had been first to volunteer, you would not have been excluded because of your race. Anytime someone expresses a preference for A over B, A is preferred over B. When someone chooses A and does not choose B, B is excluded.

Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Actually, it has everything to do with this thread - not that you would be able to notice.

 

[Toni]

not from what you've described, no - at least, not in a way in which the very concept of the idea behind the words "discrimination" or "excluded" or "because of race" has any shred of meaning.

yes, i totally agree that you could make the argument that you were excluded due to race if you wanted to get ridiculous, stupidly pedantic about the precise definition of the word.
however, given that what seems to have happened based on A. your very limited providing of information on the incident and players involved and B. logic is in fact not an incident of exclusion but of preference, i have to continue my disagreement with characterizing as either exclusion or discrimination (in the sense of how those terms are used when discussing race relations).

preferring chocolate ice cream isn't discriminating against vanilla and excluding it from being eaten, at least not by any commonly used vernacular of the words discriminate or exclude.
preferring using screws to using nails for a wood building project isn't discriminating against nails or excluding them for being used, at least not by any commonly used vernacular of the words discriminate or exclude.
preferring sci-fi movies to westerns isn't discriminating against westerns or excluding them from being watched, at least not by any commonly used vernacular of the words discriminate or exclude.
preferring an asian for an open spot in your group because you want their ethnic representation isn't discriminating against white people or excluding white people from being in groups, at least not by any commonly used vernacular of the words discriminate or exclude.

you didn't meet the qualifications and criteria that were set for the position, and you're butt hurt about it - i get that, and i can sympathize.
doesn't mean you're a victim here, at least not that i can see based on the information you've provided.

So there's nothing wrong with a "No blacks need apply" sign??

Because he encountered what amounts to a "No whites need apply".

Sounded to me more like: we're looking to have a group that more accurately reflects the community and btw, we're full up with people who are less interested in serving and more interested in how being on this board will look on their resume. Even if the number fulfilling the category outlined after the word 'and' is zero it is still a good point.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

what i'm arguing is the concept of you describing it as "exclusionary" and your describing it having to do with your race.
it has nothing to do with you being white, and everything to do with you not being asian.
if you were mexican, you wouldn't have been offered the position.
if you were black, you wouldn't have been offered the position.
if you were an eskimo, you wouldn't have been offered the position.

Wow really? So if they say Whites Only instead of No Blacks then because others are being discriminated against as well as the Blacks that somehow makes it less bad or meaningfully different to you?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Sounded to me more like: we're looking to have a group that more accurately reflects the community and btw, we're full up with people who are less interested in serving and more interested in how being on this board will look on their resume. Even if the number fulfilling the category outlined after the word 'and' is zero it is still a good point.

Why assume based on race that somebody doesn't accurately reflect a community? For all you know the white guy grew up in Hong Kong and the Asian guy grew up in Kansas.

And worse yet, why assume based on race that somebody is more or less interested in serving?

And by this logic, if you are the only black guy in some whitewashed town, should you be forever excluded from such boards because you lack whiteness and so we should assume you cant reflect the community, and you must only be interested in putting this on your resume?

 

[laughing dog]

Sounded to me more like: we're looking to have a group that more accurately reflects the community and btw, we're full up with people who are less interested in serving and more interested in how being on this board will look on their resume. Even if the number fulfilling the category outlined after the word 'and' is zero it is still a good point.

Why assume based on race that somebody doesn't accurately reflect a community? For all you know the white guy grew up in Hong Kong and the Asian guy grew up in Kansas.

It's called cutting corners. It reduces the cost of searching and finding someone. Are you under the illusion that everyone spends days combing over the resumes and interviewing candidates in depth?

What makes you think that you know more about the needs of this particular organization and the characteristics of Auxulus than the person making the decision? Did it even occur to you that there may be more to the story (because there usually is)?

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

Very well, carry on then. I will note, however, that the very nature of this discussion from the outset has been a semantic one. It is about whether a specific word should be used in a certain situation, and thus a discussion about semantics.

 

[thebeave]

Sounded to me more like: we're looking to have a group that more accurately reflects the community and btw, we're full up with people who are less interested in serving and more interested in how being on this board will look on their resume. Even if the number fulfilling the category outlined after the word 'and' is zero it is still a good point.

Why assume based on race that somebody doesn't accurately reflect a community? For all you know the white guy grew up in Hong Kong and the Asian guy grew up in Kansas.

And worse yet, why assume based on race that somebody is more or less interested in serving?

And by this logic, if you are the only black guy in some whitewashed town, should you be forever excluded from such boards because you lack whiteness and so we should assume you cant reflect the community, and you must only be interested in putting this on your resume?

Yup. What's really amusing is that the advocates for diversity are blatantly racially profiling, when giving their reasons for why diversity is needed. Yet, racial profiling is this horrible thing when it comes to screening passengers for plane flights, police pulling over black drivers, saying black people like watermelon or chicken, etc. They embrace racial profiling when it suits their agenda, but dismiss it when it doesn't.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Why assume based on race that somebody doesn't accurately reflect a community? For all you know the white guy grew up in Hong Kong and the Asian guy grew up in Kansas.

And worse yet, why assume based on race that somebody is more or less interested in serving?

And by this logic, if you are the only black guy in some whitewashed town, should you be forever excluded from such boards because you lack whiteness and so we should assume you cant reflect the community, and you must only be interested in putting this on your resume?

Yup. What's really amusing is that the advocates for diversity are blatantly racially profiling, when giving their reasons for why diversity is needed. Yet, racial profiling is this horrible thing when it comes to screening passengers for plane flights, police pulling over black drivers, saying black people like watermelon or chicken, etc. They embrace racial profiling when it suits their agenda, but dismiss it when it doesn't.

"Racial Profiling" refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin.
https://www.aclu.org/racial-profiling-definition

You think this is what happened to Axulus?

 

[thebeave]

Yup. What's really amusing is that the advocates for diversity are blatantly racially profiling, when giving their reasons for why diversity is needed. Yet, racial profiling is this horrible thing when it comes to screening passengers for plane flights, police pulling over black drivers, saying black people like watermelon or chicken, etc. They embrace racial profiling when it suits their agenda, but dismiss it when it doesn't.

"Racial Profiling" refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin.
https://www.aclu.org/racial-profiling-definition

You think this is what happened to Axulus?

Fine. Call it racial stereotyping then. Whatever makes you happy.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

"Racial Profiling" refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin.
https://www.aclu.org/racial-profiling-definition

You think this is what happened to Axulus?

Fine. Call it racial stereotyping then. Whatever makes you happy.

What stereotype was used?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If it is wrong to assume a black guy is too poor to own an expensive car, why is it ok to assume a white guy lives a life of wealth and privilege?

 

[prideandfall]

If it is wrong to assume a black guy is too poor to own an expensive car, why is it ok to assume a white guy lives a life of wealth and privilege?

who ever assumed that? what does this have to do with anything?

- - - Updated - - -

So there's nothing wrong with a "No blacks need apply" sign??

what in the actual literal fuck are you talking about?

Because he encountered what amounts to a "No whites need apply".

no he didn't, he encountered a "we're only looking to bring on an asian into our all volunteer unpaid pothead lobbying group" sign.

your bullshit here is even stronger than usual.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If it is wrong to assume a black guy is too poor to own an expensive car, why is it ok to assume a white guy lives a life of wealth and privilege?

It is not about one assumption, it is the repeated assumptions, daily assumptions, minute-by-minute assumptions usually to the black person's detriment and to the white person's normality that are the problem.

But you already know this.

 

[laughing dog]

I would be more heartened by this usual reaction by white males to "exclusion" or "racial discimination" if it translated into empathy for the real exclusion and real racial discrimination experienced by minorities instead of the usual dismissive "it's your SES or hypersensitivity" reaction.

 

[prideandfall]

Wow really? So if they say Whites Only instead of No Blacks then because others are being discriminated against as well as the Blacks that somehow makes it less bad or meaningfully different to you?

what in the shit are you on about? this is so far out of nowhere in relation to the situation at hand it defies description.

an all volunteer advocacy group had just formed up and the leader decided they wanted an asian on the board so they asked an asian to join and declined to bring on another white guy when one standing nearby butted in.
that isn't "asians only" and it isn't "no whites allowed", and it isn't a job and it isn't a vital economic or social organization - it's a brand new group of volunteer pothead exploiters.
the fantastic and ridiculous lengths some of you people are going to in order to try and and find some way, any way, to turn this into "white male oppression" would be comical if it weren't so pathetic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Actually, it has everything to do with this thread - not that you would be able to notice.

Mind explaining how?? Had he been first it just means someone else would have been the victim.

- - - Updated - - -

So there's nothing wrong with a "No blacks need apply" sign??

Because he encountered what amounts to a "No whites need apply".

Sounded to me more like: we're looking to have a group that more accurately reflects the community and btw, we're full up with people who are less interested in serving and more interested in how being on this board will look on their resume. Even if the number fulfilling the category outlined after the word 'and' is zero it is still a good point.

And what you are saying amounts to politically correct racism.

Politically correct racism is still racism.

I guess the NAACP should hang out that "no blacks need apply" sign to get a better representation of society.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why assume based on race that somebody doesn't accurately reflect a community? For all you know the white guy grew up in Hong Kong and the Asian guy grew up in Kansas.

Yeah--doc with Chinese features, a Chinese last name. At the end I thank her in Chinese--and find out that my abysmal Chinese is better than hers!

- - - Updated - - -

who ever assumed that? what does this have to do with anything?

- - - Updated - - -

So there's nothing wrong with a "No blacks need apply" sign??

what in the actual literal fuck are you talking about?

Because he encountered what amounts to a "No whites need apply".

no he didn't, he encountered a "we're only looking to bring on an asian into our all volunteer unpaid pothead lobbying group" sign.

your bullshit here is even stronger than usual.

The only bullshit I see is your evasion.

It doesn't matter that it's a volunteer group--he was told no whites need apply.

"No whites need apply" is just as offensive as "No blacks need apply". If the former is acceptable then so is the latter.

 

[laughing dog]

Actually, it has everything to do with this thread - not that you would be able to notice.

Mind explaining how?? Had he been first it just means someone else would have been the victim.

No one was a victim. There was one slot in the volunteer organization open for someone of his overall characteristics and he missed it. If he had been "excluded" pr "discriminated against" because they had enough CPAs, would there have a reason to discuss this at all? The underlying issue is whether it is legitimate for this volunteer organization to seek out a diverse group of volunteers in order to fulfill its mission. I don't know that answer to that question. Interestingly, it appears no one in this thread does. Yet the kneejerk reactions from the SJW white males keeps on coming.