3 ms·

"Except my special bugbear is special and should be exempt from basic social norms. Everyone should have to agree with me". The issue is that any and everythin

• NoGravitas 4y ago
  Apart from the morality of the situation, the fact is that racial discrimination in the workplace is illegal in the US (and rightly so, in my opinion). Whether caste discrimination is a form of racial discrimination is the subject of current litigation in California. Given that there are legal requirements the company needs to stay in compliance with, this is squarely outside of "politics at work".
  • A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    This is likely the only reasonable counter to my opinion so far. That said, is caste of a racial nature? To my understanding it really more of a social construct more tied to ethnicity.
    • NoGravitas 4y ago
      To be clear, race is also socially constructed; they're different cultures' ways of stratifying social categories. That said, all that matters for the law in this case is what the courts say.
      • A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
        Eh, I hate this conversation. Maybe? If we follow that thread, everything is a social construct. It gets silly fast. Now, if were to look for a biological definition from Webster(1), race would be defined as: a group within a species that is distinguishable (as morphologically, genetically, or behaviorally) from others of the same species How is skin color not a distinguishable trait? Now.. it might not be politically polite thing to say, but it does not change the outcome here. 1:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race
        • NoGravitas 4y ago
          It's okay to just admit you don't know something. Here's the American Anthropological Association's public outreach site on the subject, so you can catch up on the relevant science. https://understandingrace.org/ https://understandingrace.org/
          • A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
            This may be where the disconnect is. The definition I provided was from a biology domain and not from humanities domain ( not that there no attempts to do the same in biology ). This is not discredit anthropology as it is a fascinating study. I just do not think it is relevant here. I do happen to think that, where there are clear physical differences ( gasp ) between white and black people, it may be a good idea not to try to cover it with yet another social construct. Unless, naturally there is a disagreement that there are real physical differences ( for example, if we wanted to move from skin pigment, there are documented issues that affect black people more than whites ). Are those issues racist? That said, it is somewhat interesting that the main quote on the website provided does not come from a renowned representative of the group, but relatively unknown historian ("[Racism] is not about how you look, it is about how people assign meaning to how you look"). Quite frankly, that is not racism. That is otherism and it goes back to the previous comment about how the waters and definitions are muddied further to pigeonhole something for one reason or another. To be blunt, there is a good reason for a society ( and its members ) to not be focused on race, but pretending race does not exist is a disservice to that society as it is hiding the reality from its members. Maybe I am approaching it the wrong way. Maybe I should try Socratic method here. Are there black people?
            • NoGravitas 4y ago
              All of your concerns and questions are addressed in the website, which I recommend that you explore more in depth. The site is not purely from a cultural anthropology point of view, but physical anthropology, as well. As such, it addresses genetics and health issues.
              • 4y ago