4 ms·

Ok. I don't know which one though.

by drdeca 11y ago

justin66 11y ago
Really? The OP sought to put all those various forms of discrimination on an equal footing for whatever completely bizarre reason (does anyone really believe cabbies are quizzing people on their political affiliation before giving them a ride or serving them a meal?) but the color of one's skin is the only one that commonly causes quick and blatant discrimination in these situations today in the United States. We've got a legacy of racism here, but also: you might have a whole raft of nasty prejudices but there aren't a lot of ways to discriminate against someone you don't know in a first contact situation. Physical appearance is the big one.
- drdeca 11y ago
  ... Somehow I "forgot" that it had to be one that was visually distinguishable I guess? Oh, wait, now I remember. Some religions mandate things about clothing which are visually distinguishable. I think that was something that I thought also could have been it. It's not hard to imagine someone who is not familiar with the practice being unwilling to allow a Sikh to bring their kirpan in the taxi. (Hoping that I'm not misunderstanding something about that) Now, from the context, I suppose I should have concluded which one they meant. But people can be discriminated against based on things which are visibly apparent, and are mandated by a religion.
  - justin66 11y ago
    I think that's hypothetically a legitimate point. I have friends who wear a yarmulke and I've never heard of anything happening, but I can see how there might be cities where that sort of thing goes on. Blatant discrimination against Jews happened in the American south in my father's youth, but not so much anymore. ("soft" discrimination is a different matter) Doubly so for Muslims in these times, or Sikhs, and so on. I'm sure bad things happen. I've got to tell you, though, withholding service is a pretty extreme thing and it's only been described as a common experience to me by one group of people. (and I should say, I've also witnessed it) It's the same dull, discriminatory bullshit we've been dealing with in America forever and I strongly suspect we aren't going to destroy it by taking a "we must also think of the Tories who are suffering from discrimination!" approach. That's very silly, and what it implies is dishonest.
- sridca 11y ago
  > The OP sought to put [...] What the OP sought to put -- via conveying it in written words -- is the notion that it (as in, achieving equity and parity between people) would be far more productive if people looked at these issues as group-based conflicts (instead of race-based ones) ... and the primary reason the OP drew attention to human groups as a whole, instead of the narrower set of groups known as races, is to do with the fact that these conflicts -- be they between a taxi driver and a person of African descent, or between a husband and a wife -- are ultimately sourced in the group-identity of the respected parties. What the OP never put in words (much less sought to put them) are the various forms of discrimination (be it on equal or unequal footing) as the OP was pointing fingers at the deeper root-cause of group-identity and not the superficial facet of discriminations. It is worth bearing in mind that there is far more to human suffering than simply being discriminated at. Speaking personally the OP is only concerned with his own group-identifications -- how it negatively affects himself and everybody who comes in contact with him -- and (since very recently) not the members of whatever group he currently identifies with. Put simply, the OP specifically points to paying attention to one's own group-identities and not the "Tories."

Ok. I don't know which one though.

by drdeca 11y ago

Ok. I don't know which one though.

Really? The OP sought to put all those various forms of discrimination on an equal footing for whatever completely bizarre reason (does anyone really believe cabbies are quizzing people on their political affiliation before giving them a ride or serving them a meal?) but the color of one's skin is the only one that commonly causes quick and blatant discrimination in these situations today in the United States. We've got a legacy of racism here, but also: you might have a whole raft of nasty prejudices but there aren't a lot of ways to discriminate against someone you don't know in a first contact situation. Physical appearance is the big one.

drdeca 11y ago
... Somehow I "forgot" that it had to be one that was visually distinguishable I guess? Oh, wait, now I remember. Some religions mandate things about clothing which are visually distinguishable. I think that was something that I thought also could have been it. It's not hard to imagine someone who is not familiar with the practice being unwilling to allow a Sikh to bring their kirpan in the taxi. (Hoping that I'm not misunderstanding something about that) Now, from the context, I suppose I should have concluded which one they meant. But people can be discriminated against based on things which are visibly apparent, and are mandated by a religion.
- justin66 11y ago
  I think that's hypothetically a legitimate point. I have friends who wear a yarmulke and I've never heard of anything happening, but I can see how there might be cities where that sort of thing goes on. Blatant discrimination against Jews happened in the American south in my father's youth, but not so much anymore. ("soft" discrimination is a different matter) Doubly so for Muslims in these times, or Sikhs, and so on. I'm sure bad things happen. I've got to tell you, though, withholding service is a pretty extreme thing and it's only been described as a common experience to me by one group of people. (and I should say, I've also witnessed it) It's the same dull, discriminatory bullshit we've been dealing with in America forever and I strongly suspect we aren't going to destroy it by taking a "we must also think of the Tories who are suffering from discrimination!" approach. That's very silly, and what it implies is dishonest.
sridca 11y ago
> The OP sought to put [...] What the OP sought to put -- via conveying it in written words -- is the notion that it (as in, achieving equity and parity between people) would be far more productive if people looked at these issues as group-based conflicts (instead of race-based ones) ... and the primary reason the OP drew attention to human groups as a whole, instead of the narrower set of groups known as races, is to do with the fact that these conflicts -- be they between a taxi driver and a person of African descent, or between a husband and a wife -- are ultimately sourced in the group-identity of the respected parties. What the OP never put in words (much less sought to put them) are the various forms of discrimination (be it on equal or unequal footing) as the OP was pointing fingers at the deeper root-cause of group-identity and not the superficial facet of discriminations. It is worth bearing in mind that there is far more to human suffering than simply being discriminated at. Speaking personally the OP is only concerned with his own group-identifications -- how it negatively affects himself and everybody who comes in contact with him -- and (since very recently) not the members of whatever group he currently identifies with. Put simply, the OP specifically points to paying attention to one's own group-identities and not the "Tories."