|
| Thread: If I hire mostly black women, then I'm trying to improve the lives of the downtrodden |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 10, 2009 03:19 AM |
|
|
If I hire mostly black women, then I'm trying to improve the lives of the downtrodden
If I hire mostly white men, then I'm a racist and a sexist, and am in need of some "equal hiring practices" being enforced upon me.
Think about that. Is there much of a difference between the two actions? If my choice is motivated by neither race nor gender - if the people I hired just happened to be black or white - then I am neither a progressive trying to help "the weak" nor am I racist or sexist. If my choice is motivated by race and/or gender - why is it worse in the second situation than in the first? It's the same - one gender and race benefit at the expense of another. Why does it matter so much which gender/race is benefiting and which is being harmed? It's racist/sexist either way.
Of course, capitalism fights racism. Under a free market, racists suffer because they exclude customers from their shops, or refuse to accept goods/services from members of other races. And often, market transactions are anonymous - a racist buying bread at Wal-Mart has no idea if the wheat was grown by a black or a white.
The situation with sexism is very similar, except in the case of "equal pay". Abhorrent as it may sound to some, paying women less than men may not be motivated by sexism at all, but be quite rational, as women are more likely to quit their jobs to take care of a family. Of course, it varies from individual to individual - some men may want to become stay-at-home dads, and some women may never want children, but statistically speaking, women are more likely to quit - and so all their on-the-job training is more likely to be partially wasted. The solution to this problem would be more equality in gender roles in society - not through the forcible intervention of the state.
To return to the original subject, some would argue that blacks and women should be hired over whites and men "to compensate for past injustices". But why should some private business or individual be compensating someone for some discrimination that may or may not have happened, and was certainly not the fault of the private party, and, most importantly of all, that the applicant was not a victim of. Why reward Indians today for the injustices their great-great-grandparents suffered? Today's Indians have nothing to do with that. Why affirmative action? Why should I lose my university spot to a less qualified black guy? I've never owned any slaves - and he was never a slave, anyway.
We are not members of races or genders - we are individuals. It's time the law started treating it that way more often.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 03:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Today's Indians have nothing to do with that.
You do because you inherited that world. And probably their land as well. See?
You can't just take (inherit) and don't look back. (since you ARE able to, you know... choose the different approach).
Example: Some big tyrant (let us not get into Godwin's Law) abuses his people and steals stuff from them. He gives it to his son via inheritance, and then dies.
Do you seriously think the son is entitled to that stuff? You see, especially if he is aware of it, he is in his POSITION (let's say, rich) BECAUSE OF INHERITANCE.
Therefore, when you decide to ignore the past, you apparently don't ignore the starting position as well. So you are biased.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 04:06 AM |
|
|
But then the issue is inheritance, not the seizure of the land.
Quote:
Do you seriously think the son is entitled to that stuff?
It's a difficult question. But I can't unequivocally say that he isn't - it would be unfair to him. I'm leaning towards that he should give it back to the original owners, but if the original owners are dead, he doesn't have to give it to their heirs.
And, of course, you focused on that specific example. What about the topic in general?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 04:19 AM |
|
|
Ok here's it laid out simple: You want to ignore what happened in the past right? (which isn't bad mind you) Because you have nothing to do with it?
Well I say actually you have, because you were born with it. It doesn't make you guilty, it makes you guilty if you cling to it, to what you were born with (either opportunity or situation).
Say that without that Tyrant dad you would never afford your fifth Ferrari. Does it seem fair to only ignore the part that your dad did and not where you HAVE that money from, or land? You either ignore it all, or none at all, if you want to be fair.
I agree that you are NOT guilty of it, unless again you cling to it as if you are entitled to it and if you know that it "hurts" the others because of this (I assume they came to you asking for that).
I agree about the "not force people they should hire equal number of whites and blacks just because..." btw.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 04:25 AM |
|
|
If I'm born with something, it means I have nothing to do with how it was obtained. I am in no way responsible for actions not committed by me. Obviously, I can't be guilty of doing things before I was born, so I shouldn't be punished for it.
Quote:
Does it seem fair to only ignore the part that your dad did and not where you HAVE that money from
I don't ignore where I got the money. I got it from my dad. Where he got it is none of my business and has nothing to do with me.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 04:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If I'm born with something, it means I have nothing to do with how it was obtained.
Yes you are, not in a guilty way, but simply because WITHOUT being obtained in that way you WOULDN'T HAVE IT. Is it unfair then, that saying "you don't own that thing"? No, it's fair. And of course it doesn't make you guilty, it simply makes that something not entitled fully.
Quote:
I am in no way responsible for actions not committed by me.
No, but the stuff you have is there because of such actions. If you don't want to be responsible, you let go off it 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 04:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes you are, not in a guilty way, but simply because WITHOUT being obtained in that way you WOULDN'T HAVE IT.
So? I'm not the one who committed the wrong - therefore, I shouldn't be punished for it.
Quote:
If you don't want to be responsible, you let go off it
Nope. I'm not responsible for the action in the first place, so I have no reason to let go. I can only be responsible for what I do, not for what others do. Thus, if the wrong actions of others benefit me, I don't have to be apologetic for it - I'm not the one doing the wrong stuff.
Think of the Holocaust, for example. Say the German government deports a Jew to the concentration camps. Then an Aryan (who had nothing to do with the Holocaust!) comes along and buys the Jew's house. Then, after the war, the Jew comes and asks for his house back. Should the Aryan give it back? I don't think so. He's not guilty in any way. (The Jew should get reparations, of course, but from the guilty party - the German government, not from the innocent Aryan.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 06:13 AM |
|
|
These days you're almost at a disadvantage if you're a white male. Affirmative action is a horrible idea and is nothing short of racism by another name.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 06:25 AM |
|
|
Oh brother get over it lol.
This is not the 60's & before that. Sure there are racists but people dont always see an individual as a racist just because of the people they hang out with.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 11:52 AM |
|
|
On Reparations for Slavery
First, there are the monetary reparations.
It is, by nature, extremely difficult to find an accurate estimate of the totals of money when discussing Reparations. People tend to fudge the numbers to create the effect that they want. Some estimate that the total value of labor stolen from slaves, accounting for inflation, is only 1 trillion dollars, others claim that is is nearly 100. The variety of opinions exists primarily due to the manipulation of interest rates.
It is also, by nature, equally difficult to find an accurate estimate of the totals for money already paid to African Americans since 1965. Welfare, housing, affirmative action job opportunities, food stamps, and many more such factors all have to be taken into account. Some estimate that this number is only half a trillion dollars, others claim as much as 40 trillion. The variety of opinions exists primarily due to the manipulation of the range of sources accounted.
It is quite possible that monetary Reparations have already been paid off in full. It is my opinion that this is true.
In addition to monetary reparations, there are moral issues as well.
African-Americans living in America experience lifestyles many times better than their contemporary African counterparts. Wealth is many times higher, and deaths due to hate crimes are many times lower (that's right, Africans like to kill each other in tribal feuds). In addition, there were only 4 million slaves, whereas today there are more than 40 million African Americans. The benefits of the descendants of slaves from being American must at some point cancel the suffering their ancestors felt.
Finally there are the equality reparations.
Much of the problems of African American poverty is their own doing. If they behaved like whites, they would make money like whites. We can prove this by pointing to the British West Indies slave trade. The British used to keep slaves there the same way that they kept slaves in America (America was, after all, a British colony). However, unlike American slaves, when these slaves were emancipated, they assimilated quickly and today have the same distribution of wealth as their former masters. American blacks have received a great deal of excess opportunity since Affirmative Action began in 1965. Yet, they remain fixated on the idea that success is given to the lucky instead of earned. Even Obama has commented on this problem. Blacks hurt themselves far more than Whites hurt them.
Conclusion: Reparations are Not Owed to American Blacks.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 12:35 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 12:38, 10 Jun 2009.
|
The idea came around during the 'old mens club' era. Where not only was the vast majority of companies owned by old money, but that old money was solely in the hands of white men. For a time it was good. These men only wanted to hire other white men. They had all the power and wanted to keep it. The only thing they hired females for were maids, secretaries, and the like.
Even here recently somebody suggested it was ok to pay women less because they MIGHT leave to take care of a child and or family.
Yes, I would rather people get jobs because they are the most qualified then because of some 'quota'. Yes, I think it is getting to the point where such things will be possible. Are we there yet? I don't know. What I do know is that not too long ago IOWA did a survey and females there still make only .78 cents for every dollar a male makes doing the same work.
Now do I think that a female should be expected to do the exact same work for the exact same pay? Yes. In the end though, I do agree with a lot of people here. Quotas and less qualified people getting jobs just because of race, sex, etc is not a good thing.
Edit : Btw Corribus, well said as always..though shorter then your normal insight.
____________
Message received.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 01:06 PM |
|
|
Mvass, this is a practical question.
Say, you lent money to a man with about 5% interest (you're bank for example). Say that halfway during payment, the man has an accident and dies. Should his family pay back this debt or is it just your loss?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 02:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The benefits of the descendants of slaves from being American must at some point cancel the suffering their ancestors felt.
That's what ancient Romans thought, too.
And look where that got them.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 04:13 PM |
|
|
Rarensu:
Quote:
If they behaved like whites, they would make money like whites.
I agree with this sentiment, although I don't think it's expressed very accurately.
Dagoth:
It's a difficult question, of course. But ultimately I think they shouldn't have to pay me back. I took a risk on the guy. He died. My risk didn't pay off.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 07:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If they behaved like whites, they would make money like whites.
I agree with this sentiment, although I don't think it's expressed very accurately.
Since there is also white poverty...
'White trash' as someone would state.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 01:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So? I'm not the one who committed the wrong - therefore, I shouldn't be punished for it.
You don't get it. You aren't guilty of what they did. But you are of USING it. Say some tyrant kills people and takes their ears. Then he dies and you inherit them.
Then some relatives of those people come and ask you for them, because they want to bury the ears or something to make them rest in peace (whatever). Here you would be guilty.
Because without that tyrant dad, you WOULDN'T HAVE THE EARS which you USE.
What is so hard to get?
Again you are not guilty of what daddy did. You are guilty of using the result of his actions (and against the will of the victims or their group/relatives/whatever).
So no, you aren't guilty of killing them, that would be hypocrisy. But you are of refusing to let them go and using them, when they WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN YOURS if daddy didn't do what he did.
Quote:
Think of the Holocaust, for example. Say the German government deports a Jew to the concentration camps. Then an Aryan (who had nothing to do with the Holocaust!) comes along and buys the Jew's house. Then, after the war, the Jew comes and asks for his house back. Should the Aryan give it back? I don't think so. He's not guilty in any way. (The Jew should get reparations, of course, but from the guilty party - the German government, not from the innocent Aryan.)
I don't see what you're saying at all.
He doesn't "BUY" it, because in that case it would be normal. He STEALS it, or the Nazis kill the inhabitans of the house and then HE GOES THERE. If he buys it from a Jew, what is the problem? There is none. But since when is war/killing/stealing fair? That's the problem.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 01:47 AM |
|
|
Death, do you inherit the sins of your father?
Do you inherit the sins of people who you didn't choose to follow or allow?
Why do you pay the price for that? Where does the arian live, now? He paid for the house! He's homeless for paying for a house in those times, does that makes sense?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 01:54 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Death, do you inherit the sins of your father?
Do you inherit the sins of people who you didn't choose to follow or allow?
You know what, only because you're not mvass (with which I already told him the same thing twice), I'll repeat it again.
You don't inherit the sins of your father -- aka the action of what he did. But if you refuse to let go of what those actions led him to give you, then you are guilty not of his actions but of USING THE BYPRODUCT OF THOSE ACTIONS.
You can't say that using the skulls of your dad's enemies is innocent because "you didn't kill those people, daddy gave their skulls to you, so it's ok".
Quote:
Why do you pay the price for that? Where does the arian live, now? He paid for the house! He's homeless for paying for a house in those times, does that makes sense?
He paid it to who? To Jews? Or to a Nazi who kicked the Jews or killed them out of the house?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 02:05 AM |
|
|
Doesn't matter, he paid for it. It's his house for which he worked. He didn't kick out the jews, nor did he have anything to do with the war. He isn't using the skulls of the enemies of one of his politicians. he is using a regular house. He does nothing bad with it, nor is there any evil intent. He doesn't use corpses, it's a house that is his now. You are asking this aryan to bleed when he didn't do anything wrong.
You are asking people to pay for actions they didn't commit. You say that these things weren't earned in a honest way. The Aryan worked for this house fair and square. he had nothing to do with it. There was a chance he knew that it was disowned in a dishonest, but can't change that fact and just settles there because some people like tolive in houses.
Quote:
But if you refuse to let go of what those actions led him to give you, then you are guilty not of his actions but of USING THE BYPRODUCT OF THOSE ACTIONS.
So if something is wrongfully disowned the noone should have it according to you. That is how I understand it. If your parent gave you food that he took from someone else, you should give back that food? You are not responsible for your parent, because you couldn't choose your parent or government, you just functioned in a system designed by them. Anything in this system taken from someone else shouldn't just be taken out when the part when the wronged party appears to ask for it; No, instead the wronged party should demand punishment and recompensation from the party that wronged him. the functioning society should not be punished for this, because it functions the way it is.
No need to destabilise the function, just because it's fair. There are other ways to be fair and not destabilise or trouble innocent parties. or maybe people should learn that life isn't 100% fair and learn from the great injustice and try to prevent this and fight to build things back up. We are speaking of course of cases in which the original culprit is unable to recompensate the wronged party (like, he's dead or demented)
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Mamgaeater
Legendary Hero
Shroud, Flying, Trample, Haste
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 02:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What I do know is that not too long ago IOWA did a survey and females there still make only .78 cents for every dollar a male makes doing the same work.
some would say that is because women choose more benefits.
who knows.
Problem is that both sides have the problem.
individualism vs Society aren't too clear cut for many.
|
| |
|
|
