4 ms·

It's okay to be racist and sexist as long as it's in the "right" direction. This is standard-issue morality in California and it applies to absolutely everythin

It's okay to be racist and sexist as long as it's in the "right" direction. This is standard-issue morality in California and it applies to absolutely everything including hiring and the courts.

gremlinunderway 3y ago
[flagged]
- gustavus 3y ago
  That's funny I always thought that prejudice and discrimination was something someone could be regardless of who you are. That is interesting to learn that as long as you are part of certain groups it is impossible for one to be racist, sexist, or homophobic. I love this morality, next thing you'll tell me it is not wrong for one group of people to attempt to perform ethnic cleansing because they were "disadvantaged" so it's okay. I mean if that is the price we have to pay to keep Nazis out of society though clearly it is worth it. I mean how horrible would it be if we had students at prominent ivy League universities chanting things like. "There is only one solution infantada revolution." But I am sure this relative standards of ethic and morality will lead us to a new golden age and not just engender resentment and divide.
  - beachy 3y ago
    Never go full Godwin.
  - moron4hire 3y ago
    I'm not going to try to wade into this discussion and argue one way or another (mostly because I'm too tired to put that kind of effort in), but I do want to point out a case of varying word usage that I think often muddies the waters in these kinds of situations. It's a misclassification of things. Prejudice is a feeling against a group. Racism/Sexism/etc., is an action against individuals based on prejudice. There is an old saying, "racism = prejudice + power". Basically, people can be prejudiced all day long, but if they lack the power structure to be able to do anything about it, then they can't be whatever-ist. It's also where the notion of "systemic racism" comes from. If a law or policy disproportionately impacts a certain group of people, that is prima facia a power structure that enforces a prejudice. In a way, it's almost like a kind of mathematics. There are operands and operators. Depending on the operands, the operations are one-way. Like the issues of zero getting anywhere near division. In the pursuit of a mathematics that is consistent, we discard a mathematics that is complete. This distinction is important because people educated in traditionally liberal institutions have this taught to them, as well as what "counts" as power structures capable of weaponizing prejudice to become an -ism. Just as we accept in STEM fields that "division by 0 is an undefined operation", people in social justice fields accept "traditionally underrepresented groups can't be -ist". Kind of like how lawyers have their own language for things like "reasonable" and all kinds of Latin phrases that don't follow or completely befuddle the intuitive understanding that lay-people have. For example, you'll see people talk about how certain standup comics appear to "get away" with saying things that would cause screaming fits if a person of a different background said similar things. E.g., an African American comic making comments about white people vs. a white comic making comments about African Americans. You're likely to hear apologia like, "it's impossible for a black person to be racist". What they mean is that black people historically lack the power structure to be able to activate prejudice against white people. In other words, Kevin Hart's prejudicial comments about white people aren't "racist comments" because it's unlikely to have any major impact on how white people are perceived or treated. Whereas Michael Richards using the N-word reinforces and normalizes existing systemic problems in American culture. Again, I'm not here to argue that prejudice from one group is OK as long as that group has been historically (and let's be honest, contemporaneously) mistreated. But if you want to understand how people can make such confusing statements as "black people can't be racist" or "women can't be sexist", this is the worldview under which they are operating. NB: I'm a big believer in Sun Tzu's exhortation to "know your enemy and know yourself". To be clear, the enemy here is "people who overly-parse words to post hoc rationalize saying mean things about other people."
- lovich 3y ago
  Nah man, discrimination on immutable characteristics is bad no matter what. If we want equality we need to aim for equality, not just turning the wheel so the next group of people get to be king shit of oppression mountain
  - TylerE 3y ago
    I wouldn’t go quite that far. Are 5’ 5” people going to be able to sue the NBA? Height is h immutable characteristic.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      That's because in sports physical attributes are a bona fide occupational qualification. In the same vein actors can be hired based on their appearance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_quali...
      - TylerE 3y ago
        GP was speaking in no-exception absolutes, though.
        lovich 3y ago
        Nah, I was speaking with that level of nuance. None of those immutable characteristics are important for these positions
        TylerE 3y ago
        If you don't want to be perceived as speaking in absolutes, maybe don't use language like "no matter what", when it turns out it DOES matter what.
        lovich 3y ago
        If someone is referring to terms like institutional racism I'd expect a little bit of nuance on their part /shrug
- richbell 3y ago
  > Sexism and racism refer to institutional bigotry and discrimination, not just discrimination in general. This is a definition that a small, zealous, subset of people try to push. It is not a definition that the vast majority of people believe in or intend to use. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nbnGUUdQTU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nbnGUUdQTU

It's okay to be racist and sexist as long as it's in the "right" direction. This is standard-issue morality in California and it applies to absolutely everything including hiring and the courts.

gremlinunderway 3y ago

[flagged]

gustavus 3y ago
That's funny I always thought that prejudice and discrimination was something someone could be regardless of who you are. That is interesting to learn that as long as you are part of certain groups it is impossible for one to be racist, sexist, or homophobic. I love this morality, next thing you'll tell me it is not wrong for one group of people to attempt to perform ethnic cleansing because they were "disadvantaged" so it's okay. I mean if that is the price we have to pay to keep Nazis out of society though clearly it is worth it. I mean how horrible would it be if we had students at prominent ivy League universities chanting things like. "There is only one solution infantada revolution." But I am sure this relative standards of ethic and morality will lead us to a new golden age and not just engender resentment and divide.
- beachy 3y ago
  Never go full Godwin.
- moron4hire 3y ago
  I'm not going to try to wade into this discussion and argue one way or another (mostly because I'm too tired to put that kind of effort in), but I do want to point out a case of varying word usage that I think often muddies the waters in these kinds of situations. It's a misclassification of things. Prejudice is a feeling against a group. Racism/Sexism/etc., is an action against individuals based on prejudice. There is an old saying, "racism = prejudice + power". Basically, people can be prejudiced all day long, but if they lack the power structure to be able to do anything about it, then they can't be whatever-ist. It's also where the notion of "systemic racism" comes from. If a law or policy disproportionately impacts a certain group of people, that is prima facia a power structure that enforces a prejudice. In a way, it's almost like a kind of mathematics. There are operands and operators. Depending on the operands, the operations are one-way. Like the issues of zero getting anywhere near division. In the pursuit of a mathematics that is consistent, we discard a mathematics that is complete. This distinction is important because people educated in traditionally liberal institutions have this taught to them, as well as what "counts" as power structures capable of weaponizing prejudice to become an -ism. Just as we accept in STEM fields that "division by 0 is an undefined operation", people in social justice fields accept "traditionally underrepresented groups can't be -ist". Kind of like how lawyers have their own language for things like "reasonable" and all kinds of Latin phrases that don't follow or completely befuddle the intuitive understanding that lay-people have. For example, you'll see people talk about how certain standup comics appear to "get away" with saying things that would cause screaming fits if a person of a different background said similar things. E.g., an African American comic making comments about white people vs. a white comic making comments about African Americans. You're likely to hear apologia like, "it's impossible for a black person to be racist". What they mean is that black people historically lack the power structure to be able to activate prejudice against white people. In other words, Kevin Hart's prejudicial comments about white people aren't "racist comments" because it's unlikely to have any major impact on how white people are perceived or treated. Whereas Michael Richards using the N-word reinforces and normalizes existing systemic problems in American culture. Again, I'm not here to argue that prejudice from one group is OK as long as that group has been historically (and let's be honest, contemporaneously) mistreated. But if you want to understand how people can make such confusing statements as "black people can't be racist" or "women can't be sexist", this is the worldview under which they are operating. NB: I'm a big believer in Sun Tzu's exhortation to "know your enemy and know yourself". To be clear, the enemy here is "people who overly-parse words to post hoc rationalize saying mean things about other people."
lovich 3y ago
Nah man, discrimination on immutable characteristics is bad no matter what. If we want equality we need to aim for equality, not just turning the wheel so the next group of people get to be king shit of oppression mountain
- TylerE 3y ago
  I wouldn’t go quite that far. Are 5’ 5” people going to be able to sue the NBA? Height is h immutable characteristic.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    That's because in sports physical attributes are a bona fide occupational qualification. In the same vein actors can be hired based on their appearance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_quali...
    - TylerE 3y ago
      GP was speaking in no-exception absolutes, though.
      - lovich 3y ago
        Nah, I was speaking with that level of nuance. None of those immutable characteristics are important for these positions
        TylerE 3y ago
        If you don't want to be perceived as speaking in absolutes, maybe don't use language like "no matter what", when it turns out it DOES matter what.
        lovich 3y ago
        If someone is referring to terms like institutional racism I'd expect a little bit of nuance on their part /shrug
richbell 3y ago
> Sexism and racism refer to institutional bigotry and discrimination, not just discrimination in general. This is a definition that a small, zealous, subset of people try to push. It is not a definition that the vast majority of people believe in or intend to use. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nbnGUUdQTU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nbnGUUdQTU