Discrimination, why not?

[Fragony]

I say nothing wrong with it, who is to say what we should prefer, not the state, next thing is ugly chicks in the playboy because can't we discriminate on apearance. So why aren't we allowed to pick one person over another? Why is that wrong? I think freedom is doing whatever the hell you want to do as long as it doesn't harm anyone. Limiting our right to prefer is a severe breach of our civil rights, even more it's an intrusion of our personal space. If someone wants to hire only black one-legged hybrids what's it to me, completily eludes me, maybe he doesn't like whites, maybe he hates the number two, maybe he played system shock 2, so bloody what, nobody forces me to visit his place no harm done. Quite the contrary, might just be the place where black one legged hybrids feel confortable, who are you to take that from them, you aren't going there in the first place, plenty left for you. Caefanan (where is he?) put it brilliantly, your freedom ends where someone other's begins.

[Strike For The South]

Becuase people should be judged on there charcter not by there skin color or religon or nationality but I live in Texas so this kind of issue comes up all the time. There are allot of ethnic groups with allot of pull. Ive met lazy whites lazy blacks lazy mexicans really no one has a chokehold on the title of lazy race. To put it simply interaction breeds understanding.

All this being said I belive goverment action is the last thing we need. These kind of things should be left to the free market

[Fragony]

All this being said I belive goverment action is the last thing we need. These kind of things should be left to the free market

100% agreed.

Little extra on my point, why would you ever have to justify your choice, you don't need to justify why you want something not their business you want it basta that's all. Maybe you want it for the wrong reasons, but who's right is it to demand to know what that reason is?

[InsaneApache]

We all discriminate. It's prejudice that's the green eyed monster. Ignorance leads to fear, leads to hate, leads to violence.

[Marshal Murat]

The idea of discriminating based on skin color, ethnicity, etc. is essentially looking at a book to judge only it's cover. When you judge them based on character, then you're not discriminating.

People don't like to discriminate because they apply the 'golden rule' about judging people, but they also discriminate because of stereotypes pervaded by the media, etc. Why should you deny an Indian the same apartment you gave to an African-American? It's promoting stereotyping and racial profiling.

While the government shouldn't really be involved, if abuses are taking place (U.S. South, South Africa, Tibet) then the government should step in because the basis for the government in America, and many other nations, is the simple fact that all men are created equal, and to treat anyone unequally would promote tyranny, intolerance, hatred, and violence.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The government should not be allowed to discriminate except on ability (an important point when some standards are forced to be lowered so as not to discriminate against people who simply can't do the job as well), but beyond that I'm not an enthusiastic supporter of anti-discrimination laws.
People who don't hire somebody based on race or gender or whatever are only hurting themselves. Why not let them?

CR

[Ice]

I partially agree with the OP. The government should not discriminate against anyone if they qualified and able to do the job correctly.

However, people should be free to discriminate against anyone they wish, unless it intrudes on another's liberty. If the latter is the case, the government most certainty should step in. After all, that is it's purpose.

Let me add that discriminate is a horrible, ugly mechanism which I have been the target of many times. I've also seen it happen way to many times. Once again though, it is not my right to tell someone how to act if they are exercising their own personal liberty, although I may find them a horrible scumbag.

[CountArach]

All this being said I belive goverment action is the last thing we need. These kind of things should be left to the free market
The problem comes with the fact that it isn't the market deciding to discriminate or not, it is the people running it (ie Business owners) who are discriminating. The Market can't make this person suddenly not be racist (To use one example and for lack of a better word) and it will never be able to - that is well beyond the scope of the market. Government intervention is the only way to be able to make these people choose based on ability alone.

[InsaneApache]

One thing is true. Business is not racist. Business is about making money, race don't come into it. We leave that to the wassocks on the left. :laugh4: :whip:

[Ice]

The problem comes with the fact that it isn't the market deciding to discriminate or not, it is the people running it (ie Business owners) who are discriminating. The Market can't make this person suddenly not be racist (To use one example and for lack of a better word) and it will never be able to - that is well beyond the scope of the market. Government intervention is the only way to be able to make these people choose based on ability alone.

Not exactly.

I understand what strike is saying. For example, Joe has a business. Joe doesn't like minorities and refuses to serve them, so he loses their business. Al down the street has the same business. Al sees he can make a ton of profit serving minorities because they can't go to Joe's. Eventually Joe sees this and although the market doesn't switch Joe's mindset about minorities, he starts serving to take business away from Al.

That, I believe, is what strike is referring to.

[CountArach]

Not exactly.

I understand what strike is saying. For example, Joe has a business. Joe doesn't like minorities and refuses to serve them, so he loses their business. Al down the street has the same business. Al sees he can make a ton of profit serving minorities because they can't go to Joe's. Eventually Joe sees this and although the market doesn't switch Joe's mindset about minorities, he starts serving to take business away from Al.

That, I believe, is what strike is referring to.
That is true, but I believe that discrimination refers to hiring only. Of course there are very few businesses that would restrict their customer base (though they are out there, not just in America). It is much easier to not hire someone and use another excuse than "You are black. I don't like blacks", as opposed to finding another excuse for not serving them.

[Craterus]

That is true, but I believe that discrimination refers to hiring only. Of course there are very few businesses that would restrict their customer base (though they are out there, not just in America). It is much easier to not higher someone and use another excuse than "You are black. I don't like blacks", as opposed to finding another excuse for not serving them.

Really. That is just awful. :brood:

[CountArach]

Stop changing my quotes ye villain!

But seriously - 10am is too early...

[Strike For The South]

The problem comes with the fact that it isn't the market deciding to discriminate or not, it is the people running it (ie Business owners) who are discriminating. The Market can't make this person suddenly not be racist (To use one example and for lack of a better word) and it will never be able to - that is well beyond the scope of the market. Government intervention is the only way to be able to make these people choose based on ability alone.

its not the gpverments job to change the mind of people

[Marshal Murat]

its not the governments job to change the mind of people

I think that sometimes it is, especially in the cases of minorities. When African-Americans were discriminated against in the South, only through government intervention could African-Americans achieve equal voting rights, employment rights, education rights, and the right to equal public services.

While it's easy to say that the 'free-market' will change public opinions, discrimination against those with disabilities wasn't addressed until the 1980s in America. Only through government regulation could those with disabilities be given full and complete access to public and private facilities. Otherwise they weren't provided for. Even if some places were able to accommodate those with disabilities, companies aren't going to initiate renovations because a minority can't access their facilities. Even if they can access other facilities, they aren't that large an impact, monetary wise.

[CountArach]

its not the gpverments job to change the mind of people
When the people are not changing their mind and it is leading to inequality and discrimination, then it is the government's role to fix something. If the people weren't discriminating in the first place, there would be no need for the Government to fix it.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The civil rights movement in the south, during reconstruction and later, had nothing to do with changing people's minds, but ensuring rights like voting and education for minorities.

The government should have nothing to do with changing people's minds. That way madness lies.


That is true, but I believe that discrimination refers to hiring only.

The same thing applies to hiring as serving, as I mentioned earlier. Plus it eliminates frivolous lawsuits.

CR

[Fragony]

When the people are not changing their mind and it is leading to inequality and discrimination, then it is the government's role to fix something. If the people weren't discriminating in the first place, there would be no need for the Government to fix it.

But isn't voluntary segregration preferable over forced integration? Can't force people to hang out together, that is true everywhere, at the office the IT crew are at their own table, so are the accountants, so is the management, now what would you expect when you put them all at the same table? Because at a cultural level the expectations are rather high.

[CountArach]

But isn't voluntary segregration preferable over forced integration? Can't force people to hang out together, that is true everywhere, at the office the IT crew are at their own table, so are the accountants, so is the management, now what would you expect when you put them all at the same table? Because at a cultural level the expectations are rather high.
I don't see what is wrong with having high expectations. If we get people used to doing it, they will do it.

And no, voluntary segregation is still segregation, not that I see what that has to do with what we are talking about.

[Fragony]

I don't see what is wrong with having high expectations. If we get people used to doing it, they will do it.

And no, voluntary segregation is still segregation, not that I see what that has to do with what we are talking about.

Why should it be a goal, if people exclude eachother let them nothing wrong with that. Writers usually don't hang out with construction workers, higher vlass usually don't hang out with lower class, nothing is going to change that.

[CountArach]

Why should it be a goal, if people exclude eachother let them nothing wrong with that. Writers usually don't hang out with construction workers, higher vlass usually don't hang out with lower class, nothing is going to change that.
I have no problem with people excluding each other, I have a problem when this becomes supported, even embraced, by the government. The government is there to break down barriers between people (In my eyes. Clearly you disagree) who share a common bond (nationality). We shouldn't go back to the caste-style system you are proposing - after all isn't that what exclusion will lead to?

[Fragony]

We shouldn't go back to the caste-style system you are proposing - after all isn't that what exclusion will lead to?

Yes but that isn't necesarily a bad thing, not nearly as harmful as fighting it at least. The greatest a society can achieve is people ignoring eachother in peace. A forced common goal is force like all other and people shouldn't be forced to do anything.

[Quirinus]

For example, Joe has a business. Joe doesn't like minorities and refuses to serve them, so he loses their business. Al down the street has the same business. Al sees he can make a ton of profit serving minorities because they can't go to Joe's. Eventually Joe sees this and although the market doesn't switch Joe's mindset about minorities, he starts serving to take business away from Al.
The problem is when both Joe and Al (as well as Tom and George and Harry in the next street) refuse to serve minorities.

[CountArach]

Yes but that isn't necesarily a bad thing, not nearly as harmful as fighting it at least. The greatest a society can achieve is people ignoring eachother in peace. A forced common goal is force like all other and people shouldn't be forced to do anything.
No the greatest thing a society can achieve is to live as equals in spite of their differences. Embracing the differences that you share with any other person is part of what brings a society together. I really think that your view of a society is extremely pessimistic. We are all humans, regardless of our race - why can't we all live as one society of humans, rather than a society of blacks and whites?

Just out of interest Fragony, if a Muslim shop owner turned you away from a job because you are a white Christian, what would you say?

[Fragony]

No the greatest thing a society can achieve is to live as equals in spite of their differences. Embracing the differences that you share with any other person is part of what brings a society together. I really think that your view of a society is extremely pessimistic. We are all humans, regardless of our race - why can't we all live as one society of humans, rather than a society of blacks and whites?

Just out of interest Fragony, if a Muslim shop owner turned you away from a job because you are a white Christian, what would you say?

Wouldn't bother me one bit, his store his rules.

And you are wrong that my view is pessimistic, quite the contrary things would be a lot better if the government backed of.

[CountArach]

Wouldn't bother me one bit, his store his rules.
I have a feeling you would react differently, but whatever.

And you are wrong that my view is pessimistic, quite the contrary things would be a lot better if the government backed of.
No they wouldn't, society would become fractured along more lines than it currently is. It would be like going back to apartheid South Africa, except without the official institutionalised backing.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't see what is wrong with having high expectations.

Except you seem to take that as synonymous with government enforcement.


The problem is when both Joe and Al (as well as Tom and George and Harry in the next street) refuse to serve minorities.

And then a new guy opens up a store to take advantage of that unfilled niche.


It would be like going back to apartheid South Africa, except without the official institutionalised backing.

:rolleyes:

CR

[Fragony]

Apartheid is forced segregration, where one group has power over the other that is something entirily different. Voluntary segregration is chosing to hang out with who you want to hang out with. Forced segregration and forced integration are equally bad because it doesn't respect freedom of choice, in both cases the government is the problem.

^-was directed at countarach

[CountArach]

Call me an idiot, but I think that if there is a problem the Government should fix it, that is the definition of governing afterall. In my eyes this is not the same as choosing who you want to spend time with - this is discriminating in other ways where all the power is on your side and they are not in a position to change your view on it.

In this case it would seem that one group does have power over the other, because they are not able to change the minds of their employers without government intervention.

@ CR - I think that we can expect the government to enforce some things, otherwise the government itself is pointless. This is why I support hate crime legislation - it protects minorities who are not in a position to protect themselves.

And yes I admit the Apartheid connection was a bit hyperbolic... consider it retracted.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think freedom is doing whatever the hell you want to do as long as it doesn't harm anyone.


...where one group has power over the other that is something entirily different.

Excellent rebuttals to your question, Fragony. :bow:

:no:

[Quirinus]

And then a new guy opens up a store to take advantage of that unfilled niche.
:shame: The point I was making is, what if an entire county or state or even country of shopkeepers refuses to serve minorities?

[Tribesman]

Excellent rebuttals to your question, Fragony.
Banquo , do you find that when racists attempt to justify their "thinking" their lack of thinking makes them completely destroy their own arguement ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Banquo , do you find that when racists attempt to justify their "thinking" their lack of thinking makes them completely destroy their own arguement ?

Almost without exception. The only ones that manage to be consistent are the unthinking ones that don't seek a justification, just pour the paraffin onto the crosses as they're told.

[Ironside]

People who don't hire somebody based on race or gender or whatever are only hurting themselves. Why not let them?

CR

Because if enough people is doing just that it will have some minor side-effects like ghettoisation, alienation and welfareisation, that are, and leads to major social problems.

To take our esteemed OP for example, how do you suggest that mr Tariq Aziz (the name simply stolen from the other thread) will get a job there? Qualifications? Merits? Name change plus plastic surgery?

How do you think mr Tariq will feel when he discovers the correct answer to the above question? As he's born with a curse that he can never truly escape, thanks to the enforcers of this curse.

And while I don't remember if Fragony has done it, there's usually some smartasses that will them complain about the Arbs' lazyness, crimiality, alienation etc, and say that they should move thier lazy asses and get a job...

That is the problem when applying prejudges systematically. There's a huge difference between "looking more carefully" and "always in the bin".

[Strike For The South]

The problem is when both Joe and Al (as well as Tom and George and Harry in the next street) refuse to serve minorities.

But thats not true.

[Marshal Murat]

But thats not true.
Segregated South? Nazi Germany?

Those places could afford to discriminate against minorities, without any major financial repercussions.

[Ice]

Segregated South? Nazi Germany?

Those places could afford to discriminate against minorities, without any major financial repercussions.

Not that their wasn't discrimination from the general populace in each, but I'm fairly sure the government wasn't neutral in either of those when it came to race.

[Marshal Murat]

government wasn't neutral in either of those when it came to race.

So when anti-discrimination laws failed to correct the segregation, are we suggesting that we revoke the anti-discrimination laws? I can see some instances (Affirmative action) where it isn't the smartest thing, but other times (public services, transport, etc.) it's the right thing to do. Especially when discrimination is de facto, especially in Chicago, Philadelphia, etc. These areas experienced an influx of African-Americans, and while there weren't any official segregation laws, the ghettos still sprung up because of pre-conceived, and incorrect notions about African-Americans, that resulted in housing and services discrimination, causing the riots in the 1960s and 1970s.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Banquo , do you find that when racists attempt to justify their "thinking" their lack of thinking makes them completely destroy their own arguement ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Oh, come on, give him a break. Treating races and religions in a different manner does not mean you cannot give them equal respect. For example, if a muslim woman is wearing a hijab, and a white woman is not, you can tell they are different, and by saying that, you are discriminating. It does not mean you won't treat them both respectfully.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Call me an idiot, but I think that if there is a problem the Government should fix it, that is the definition of governing afterall.
...
@ CR - I think that we can expect the government to enforce some things, otherwise the government itself is pointless. This is why I support hate crime legislation - it protects minorities who are not in a position to protect themselves.


So government is supposed to 'fix' the opinions of people that it considers incorrect?

And hate crime legislation is stupid. A crime is a crime whether or not you hate or love the person. Punishment should be based on what the criminal did, not what he was thinking.

Marshal - I mentioned earlier the government should not discriminate at all.

CR

[Ice]

So when anti-discrimination laws failed to correct the segregation, are we suggesting that we revoke the anti-discrimination laws?

Yes.


I can see some instances (Affirmative action) where it isn't the smartest thing, but other times (public services, transport, etc.) it's the right thing to do. Especially when discrimination is de facto, especially in Chicago, Philadelphia, etc. These areas experienced an influx of African-Americans, and while there weren't any official segregation laws, the ghettos still sprung up because of pre-conceived, and incorrect notions about African-Americans, that resulted in housing and services discrimination, causing the riots in the 1960s and 1970s.

Most of these examples you just gave are examples of Public (Government) funded projects. Like i said, the government should not discriminate.

[CountArach]

So government is supposed to 'fix' the opinions of people that it considers incorrect?
When the opinions of people are clearly causing harm to another person in ways where the person who is discriminated against can't change anything then yes, the government should step in. They would clearly have a mandate to do so.

[Ice]

When the opinions of people are clearly causing harm to another person in ways where the person who is discriminated against can't change anything then yes, the government should step in. They would clearly have a mandate to do so.

How would you measure this? How much is too much, and how much is too little?

[Fragony]

Oh, come on, give him a break. Treating races and religions in a different manner does not mean you cannot give them equal respect. For example, if a muslim woman is wearing a hijab, and a white woman is not, you can tell they are different, and by saying that, you are discriminating. It does not mean you won't treat them both respectfully.

All the same for an extremist.

BG, you are very quiek to assume that one has power over the other, why is that?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

All the same for an extremist.


:inquisitive:

Huh?

[Craterus]

Frag's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Norton) just upset because he looks a bit like Graham Norton (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1192094&postcount=30).

[Tribesman]

Huh?

Thats a simple one to explain Mars , Frag has this idea that only an extremist could call him a racist bigot . Now I know that doesn't really make sense , but since a racist bigot doesn't make much sense it is only to be expected .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Thats a simple one to explain Mars , Frag has this idea that only an extremist could call him a racist bigot . Now I know that doesn't really make sense , but since a racist bigot doesn't make much sense it is only to be expected .

I was wondering if he was addressing you or me. Anyhow, I stand by my earlier post.

[Tribesman]

Anyhow, I stand by my earlier post.
Yes but your earlier post doesn't cover it .....Treating races and religions in a different manner does not mean you cannot give them equal respect....since this topic originated with an example of someone not giving different people equal respect as it involved denying people the oppertunity of employment based solely on what their name sounded like .

[Fragony]

Frag's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Norton) just upset because he looks a bit like Graham Norton (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1192094&postcount=30).

He should be upset he doesn't look more like me, let's be honest I am one fine specimen.

Anyways, Tribes, I get my groceries at the local turk, good vegies, come in with a smile and leave with a smile, if we were going on a survival trip for a bit of teambuilding I would probably discover he has a hairy butt just like me and I am sure that would create a bond somehow, but I am perfectly fine with my current relationship where I get to buy my aubergine and buy it cheaply. That is really all there is to it, I buy my stuff there what's the point of anything more, he got his life I got mine.

And Thanks emfm