Ethnicity & Reporting

uscitizen said:
Not sure I fully understand that LadyT.
I think Bush is scummy slime, but still try to impartially analyze his speeches and such....
If there is a He** I am sure Bush will wind up there.
Click to expand...

I was implying that if bush gave a good speech it must have been a cold day in hel
 
So do you think we should take race checkboxes off official employment and education paperwork?

That should be a goal for where ever it makes sense. I would not say do it tomorrow wholesale though.
 
Race reporting is racialist not racially discriminating.

Race reporting is done to see if companies are complying with equal opportunity laws.

That isn't discrimination it is racialist but given the history of this country it is somewhat unavoidable. A color blind society cannot exist today but we should incrementally work to make that a reality. Perhaps my grandchildren will see such things as a silly anachronism.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Race reporting is racialist not racially discriminating.

Race reporting is done to see if companies are complying with equal opportunity laws.

That isn't discrimination it is racialist but given the history of this country it is somewhat unavoidable. A color blind society cannot exist today but we should incrementally work to make that a reality. Perhaps my grandchildren will see such things as a silly anachronism.
Click to expand...

But the information is used to discriminate in favor of "racially disadvantaged" groups and to the detriment of "the oppressor group". The checkbox has consequences. The consequences are discrimination.

We will never be colorblind until we remove checkboxes and stop making policy based on racial revenge.
 
It isn't quite racial revenge AHZ thats a bit much.

If you are referring to Affirmitive action that's one thing. However collecting information about hiring practices is not tied to affirmitive action.

Private companies do not have to have affirmitive action programs. However they must comply with equal opportunity hiring practices. When you apply for a job it is for the latter reason they want the info not the former.
 
We need to be colorblind, but I doubt if it will ever truely happen because of the problems with human behaviour.

Is there a truely colorblind society in the entire world ?
Also is religious bias often used in the place of racism ?
ie Muslims typically being non white, etc....
 
I don't know of any.

It is theorized that it is hard wired into our instinct to be xenophobic. From an evolutionary standpoint it makes sense.
 
uscitizen said:
We need to be colorblind, but I doubt if it will ever truely happen because of the problems with human behaviour.

Is there a truely colorblind society in the entire world ?
Also is religious bias often used in the place of racism ?
ie Muslims typically being non white, etc....
Click to expand...


I've never liked that word "color blind". I think it's kind of lame, frankly.

I'm not, and never will be, color blind. I can see skin color, just as easily as I can see hair color.

We have to strive to be unbiased, and fair to all human beings. To judge the character of a person. Not their appearance.
 
We have to strive to be unbiased, and fair to all human beings. To judge the character of a person. Not their appearance.
//

Same, thing shorter term.
 
IHateGovernment said:
It isn't quite racial revenge AHZ thats a bit much.

If you are referring to Affirmitive action that's one thing. However collecting information about hiring practices is not tied to affirmitive action.

Private companies do not have to have affirmitive action programs. However they must comply with equal opportunity hiring practices. When you apply for a job it is for the latter reason they want the info not the former.
Click to expand...

It's not a bit much. It is discrimination.

And what does the equal opportunity hiring practice law say exactly?
 
You called it racial revenge. If you wanted to say discrimination just say that. You could make a good argument it is discrimination. Arguing it is revenge not so much so.

From what I understand equal opportunity mandates that race, ethnicity or sex not be a consideration for a position and that their merits alone should be considered.

Now in a racially diverse area a company that has 100 employees and is 100% white may be suspected of not complying with EEO.
 
IHateGovernment said:
You called it racial revenge. If you wanted to say discrimination just say that. You could make a good argument it is discrimination. Arguing it is revenge not so much so.

From what I understand equal opportunity mandates that race, ethnicity or sex not be a consideration for a position and that their merits alone should be considered.

Now in a racially diverse area a company that has 100 employees and is 100% white may be suspected of not complying with EEO.
Click to expand...

It's discrimination based on revenge as a motivation.


Taking all racial information OFF of paperwork would go further to achieving the overtly stated goal.

See you still believe colorblindess is making sure all colors are represented equally. That's not colorblind, it's color-fixated.
 
See you still believe colorblindess is making sure all colors are represented equally. That's not colorblind, it's color-fixated.
//

This is true....
 
It's discrimination based on revenge as a motivation.

Such a statement is going to need some backup. You can't just say that is so and expect me to accept it. Convince me.

See you still believe colorblindess is making sure all colors are represented equally. That's not colorblind, it's color-fixated.

That is strawman AHZ. EEO doesn't say everyone has to be represented eqully for that matter even AA doesn't do that. What EEO is supposed to do is make sure that people are being fair and not purposefully creating raced based hiring methods. This is supposedly what you are against no?
 
IHateGovernment said:
It's discrimination based on revenge as a motivation.

Such a statement is going to need some backup. You can't just say that is so and expect me to accept it. Convince me.

See you still believe colorblindess is making sure all colors are represented equally. That's not colorblind, it's color-fixated.

That is strawman AHZ. EEO doesn't say everyone has to be represented eqully for that matter even AA doesn't do that. What EEO is supposed to do is make sure that people are being fair and not purposefully creating raced based hiring methods. This is supposedly what you are against no?
Click to expand...


LOL, back up? You have a better chance at finding middle earth faeries than you do getting back up from MyBitch.

I think we can all conclude that the moment you ask him to provide back up for his assinine assertions you've pretty much won the debate.

Good job Ih8
 
IHateGovernment said:
It's discrimination based on revenge as a motivation.

Such a statement is going to need some backup. You can't just say that is so and expect me to accept it. Convince me.

See you still believe colorblindess is making sure all colors are represented equally. That's not colorblind, it's color-fixated.

That is strawman AHZ. EEO doesn't say everyone has to be represented eqully for that matter even AA doesn't do that. What EEO is supposed to do is make sure that people are being fair and not purposefully creating raced based hiring methods. This is supposedly what you are against no?
Click to expand...

No, that's not what he is against. I think we both agree IHG, that men will generally feel more free to expouse sexist thoughts than racist ones. Now, AHZ believes that men should be hired before women, because women have husbands that will support them. He feels free to state this idiotic opinion because one, he doesn't know it's idiotic and two, it's just about women.

He can't come out and tell you that white men should be hired before black men because white men won't blow their whole paychecks on crack or something, now can he? but this guy is not looking for a level playing field, so don't kid yourself about that.

He wants it tilted; all towards him.
 
Darla said:
No, that's not what he is against. I think we both agree IHG, that men will generally feel more free to expouse sexist thoughts than racist ones. Now, AHZ believes that men should be hired before women, because women have husbands that will support them. He feels free to state this idiotic opinion because one, he doesn't know it's idiotic and two, it's just about women.

He can't come out and tell you that white men should be hired before black men because white men won't blow their whole paychecks on crack or something, now can he? but this guy is not looking for a level playing field, so don't kid yourself about that.

He wants it tilted; all towards him.
Click to expand...

No. I want it based on personal merit.

And jobs are more important in the identity of a man. A woman can get by on other things. That's just the truth of the world. Like it or not. What's so great about working anyway? What's so REPRESSIVE about being cared for by someone else? I think your brain may be in upside down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top