Poll: Is it racist to NOT hire someone specifically because of their race and to only hire people of the same race?
Yes
No
No opinion
[Show Results]
 
Pulling the "race card" card (now with a poll)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-07-2013, 11:10 AM
RE: Pulling the "race card" card
But let's take your assertion that since the reasons given are not racist then it is not racist at face value.

3 guys come in for an interview for a job they are all qualified for. One is white, one is Indian, one is black. The person doing the hiring is (let's mix it up) is Hispanic.

They all have the appropriate qualifications to do the job (let's say, retail management) and all speak English (Hiring for a job in the US). The person doing the hiring decides that since the area the store is in has racist tendencies towards Indians and blacks, that the White person should be hired because the other 2 candidates are of an ethnicity that is deemed undesirable for the store and its sales.

That, is racist. No matter what the justification nor who is doing the hiring.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2013, 11:21 AM
RE: Pulling the "race card" card
(24-07-2013 11:04 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And no, it doesn't matter what the rationalization is either. You can say it is because people can't understand them, and someone who opposes gay marriage will say it is because gays can't procreate or that marriage is a biblical term and therefore means gays can't get married. It can be given a rationalization that isn't based on hate or fear of the person in question, and still be a BS prejudiced decision and stance.

Doesn't make it racist.
You can be against gay marriage and be perfectly neutral towards gay people.
I used to flat with a Christian that had this exact belief. He was anti gay marriage but was absolutely fine with gay people.

AGAIN, reason makes an action racist.

Him being anti gay marriage didn't make him a homophobic piece of shit...

However, if he hated gay people and was anti gay marriage because he hated gay people simply because they were gay, then that would be sexual-orientationism (yes I know that's not a word).


And yes, he can rationalize why he is anti gay marriage. He for example believed marriage was only between a man and a women because the bible said so (obviously had never read it).
And yes we can call that stupid and criticize.
Just like if someone justifies that they would prefer a white guy behind the counter compared to an Indian behind the counter because they can understand the white guy, we can criticize that. It would be futile because he either can or can't understand and you throwing your arms around in the air saying that's stupid is stupid considering it's a fact that he either can or can't.

Ultimately if the reason is racist, the action is racist. If the reason is not racist, the action is not racist.
It's that simple.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2013, 11:25 AM
RE: Pulling the "race card" card
(24-07-2013 11:21 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(24-07-2013 11:04 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And no, it doesn't matter what the rationalization is either. You can say it is because people can't understand them, and someone who opposes gay marriage will say it is because gays can't procreate or that marriage is a biblical term and therefore means gays can't get married. It can be given a rationalization that isn't based on hate or fear of the person in question, and still be a BS prejudiced decision and stance.

Doesn't make it racist.
You can be against gay marriage and be perfectly neutral towards gay people.
I used to flat with a Christian that had this exact belief. He was anti gay marriage but was absolutely fine with gay people.

AGAIN, reason makes an action racist.

Him being anti gay marriage didn't make him a homophobic piece of shit...

However, if he hated gay people and was anti gay marriage because he hated gay people simply because they were gay, then that would be sexual-orientationism (yes I know that's not a word).


And yes, he can rationalize why he is anti gay marriage. He for example believed marriage was only between a man and a women because the bible said so (obviously had never read it).
And yes we can call that stupid and criticize.
Just like if someone justifies that they would prefer a white guy behind the counter compared to an Indian behind the counter because they can understand the white guy, we can criticize that. It would be futile because he either can or can't understand and you throwing your arms around in the air saying that's stupid is stupid considering it's a fact that he either can or can't.

Ultimately if the reason is racist, the action is racist. If the reason is not racist, the action is not racist.
It's that simple.

If the action is racist, it need not matter what the rationalization or equivocation is.

Was slavery racist in the US in the 1800's? Nobody thought twice about it (most at least) and didn't consider it racist. It was in the bible after all. They were taken from a place that was not as advanced and were brought to America for crying out loud. How could that be racist?

Of course it was racist. They rationalized it and used their belief systems to justify it without needing to consider their slaves "not human."

The action and the words make it racist. Society puts up with it and defends it when they consider it to their benefit.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2013, 11:25 AM
RE: Pulling the "race card" card
(24-07-2013 11:10 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But let's take your assertion that since the reasons given are not racist then it is not racist at face value.

3 guys come in for an interview for a job they are all qualified for. One is white, one is Indian, one is black. The person doing the hiring is (let's mix it up) is Hispanic.

They all have the appropriate qualifications to do the job (let's say, retail management) and all speak English (Hiring for a job in the US). The person doing the hiring decides that since the area the store is in has racist tendencies towards Indians and blacks, that the White person should be hired because the other 2 candidates are of an ethnicity that is deemed undesirable for the store and its sales.

That, is racist. No matter what the justification nor who is doing the hiring.

No it's not.

It's as racist as my example about the fat old guy and fit young guy going for the construction job.
Your example, like mine, is about best fit for the job. Race is one of the factors (ie: your skin is black, mine is white, I'm a male you're a female etc...) like many other factors (male/female, fit/fat etc..), that doesn't make it racist.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2013, 11:27 AM
RE: Pulling the "race card" card
(24-07-2013 11:25 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(24-07-2013 11:10 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But let's take your assertion that since the reasons given are not racist then it is not racist at face value.

3 guys come in for an interview for a job they are all qualified for. One is white, one is Indian, one is black. The person doing the hiring is (let's mix it up) is Hispanic.

They all have the appropriate qualifications to do the job (let's say, retail management) and all speak English (Hiring for a job in the US). The person doing the hiring decides that since the area the store is in has racist tendencies towards Indians and blacks, that the White person should be hired because the other 2 candidates are of an ethnicity that is deemed undesirable for the store and its sales.

That, is racist. No matter what the justification nor who is doing the hiring.

No it's not.

It's as racist as my example about the fat old guy and fit young guy going for the construction job.
Your example, like mine, is about best fit for the job. Race is one of the factors (ie: your skin is black, mine is white, I'm a male you're a female etc...) like many other factors (male/female, fit/fat etc..), that doesn't make it racist.

The difference there is very simple. They are not equally qualified for a job that requires manual labor. They do NOT have the same credentials. You are reaching my friend.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2013, 11:28 AM
RE: Pulling the "race card" card
(24-07-2013 11:25 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(24-07-2013 11:21 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Doesn't make it racist.
You can be against gay marriage and be perfectly neutral towards gay people.
I used to flat with a Christian that had this exact belief. He was anti gay marriage but was absolutely fine with gay people.

AGAIN, reason makes an action racist.

Him being anti gay marriage didn't make him a homophobic piece of shit...

However, if he hated gay people and was anti gay marriage because he hated gay people simply because they were gay, then that would be sexual-orientationism (yes I know that's not a word).


And yes, he can rationalize why he is anti gay marriage. He for example believed marriage was only between a man and a women because the bible said so (obviously had never read it).
And yes we can call that stupid and criticize.
Just like if someone justifies that they would prefer a white guy behind the counter compared to an Indian behind the counter because they can understand the white guy, we can criticize that. It would be futile because he either can or can't understand and you throwing your arms around in the air saying that's stupid is stupid considering it's a fact that he either can or can't.

Ultimately if the reason is racist, the action is racist. If the reason is not racist, the action is not racist.
It's that simple.

If the action is racist, it need not matter what the rationalization or equivocation is.

Was slavery racist in the US in the 1800's? Nobody thought twice about it (most at least) and didn't consider it racist. It was in the bible after all. They were taken from a place that was not as advanced and were brought to America for crying out loud. How could that be racist?

Of course it was racist. They rationalized it and used their belief systems to justify it without needing to consider their slaves "not human."

The action and the words make it racist. Society puts up with it and defends it when they consider it to their benefit.

No, there are no racist actions.
Actions in themselves are not racist.

Slavery is NOT a racist action. Slavery of black people due to the belief that white people are superior to black people IS a racist action.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2013, 11:30 AM
RE: Pulling the "race card" card
Here, I'll take your example and show why it is not being prejudiced by altering it.

Two smart people apply for a position at a university to teach a class. Each has a BS and each has an MS. But only one has a PhD. Meaning that while each may know the material (are capable of manual labor), one has the training and experience needed (a PhD) to handle more of the work than the other can. The person with an MS only (the fat guy) isn't hired because he is not as qualified.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2013, 11:31 AM
RE: Pulling the "race card" card
(24-07-2013 11:27 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(24-07-2013 11:25 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  No it's not.

It's as racist as my example about the fat old guy and fit young guy going for the construction job.
Your example, like mine, is about best fit for the job. Race is one of the factors (ie: your skin is black, mine is white, I'm a male you're a female etc...) like many other factors (male/female, fit/fat etc..), that doesn't make it racist.

The difference there is very simple. They are not equally qualified for a job that requires manual labor. They do NOT have the same credentials. You are reaching my friend.

They do have the same qualifications.
They both speak english and they both have high school education (for argument sake).
The decision to hire them is based of their characteristics.
Just like my boss.

You can say that being young and fit is part of the qualifications for the job.
I would counter that with being what your customer wants is part of a customer service qualification.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2013, 11:32 AM
RE: Pulling the "race card" card
(24-07-2013 11:28 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(24-07-2013 11:25 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If the action is racist, it need not matter what the rationalization or equivocation is.

Was slavery racist in the US in the 1800's? Nobody thought twice about it (most at least) and didn't consider it racist. It was in the bible after all. They were taken from a place that was not as advanced and were brought to America for crying out loud. How could that be racist?

Of course it was racist. They rationalized it and used their belief systems to justify it without needing to consider their slaves "not human."

The action and the words make it racist. Society puts up with it and defends it when they consider it to their benefit.

No, there are no racist actions.
Actions in themselves are not racist.

Slavery is NOT a racist action. Slavery of black people due to the belief that white people are superior to black people IS a racist action.

There are no racist actions? Segregating water fountains for the rationalization that it is separate but equal, isn't racist then? The justification behind it is to make it fair. Is it actually fair to do that?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
24-07-2013, 11:33 AM
RE: Pulling the "race card" card
(24-07-2013 11:31 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(24-07-2013 11:27 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The difference there is very simple. They are not equally qualified for a job that requires manual labor. They do NOT have the same credentials. You are reaching my friend.

They do have the same qualifications.
They both speak english and they both have high school education (for argument sake).
The decision to hire them is based of their characteristics.
Just like my boss.

You can say that being young and fit is part of the qualifications for the job.
I would counter that with being what your customer wants is part of a customer service qualification.

If you lived in an area that was heavily anti-gay (for whatever reason), would it be okay to not hire a gay person who is otherwise qualified just because you think your clientele would claim they are not capable of providing the same service as a straight person?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: