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
31-07-2013, 01:16 PM
RE: Pulling the "race card" card (now with a poll)
(31-07-2013 12:24 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Both a strawman and non-sequitur.

Yeah, I don't get that at all.

I never made an argument; nor did I view any thing you said as being an argument.

I only had somewhat of a suggestion. I just don't think that using racist, racism, etc., is a good strategy for even attempting to enter an important, social conversation, without even considering a chance of getting to solutions.

I also mentioned, previously, a conversation about racism, but that is a completely separate conversation. If you think having that conversation about racism, first, would help, that wouldn't be my strategy, but you can do it, if that is what you think is good strategy.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2013, 01:19 PM
RE: Pulling the "race card" card (now with a poll)
(31-07-2013 12:19 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(31-07-2013 11:49 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I'm not sure where else the conversation can go from here. If you feel that racism implies only to the ideological position of those who employ it, we don't really have much else to discuss.

Actions, comments, etc., can be of or related to the ideological position that is racism.

But yeah, it's not happening in empty space. There has to be a human with some sort of thoughts or sentiments, explicitly expressed and accepted or not, consistent with the ideology, for something to be considered racism/racist.

I'm not saying that it has to be planned out, intentional or explicit, just to make that clear, but it has to be related to the viewpoint/ideology. As would a countries polices to consider that country communist or the system communism.

We're going around in circles. No one is arguing that actions, comments, etc, are unrelated to a person's ideological position. But, as you imply by saying "can be", they may not necessarily be tied to the person's ideological position.

Let's put it this way, by expounding upon the question at hand.
Is it racist to NOT hire someone specifically because of their race and to only hire people of the same race?

Let's say that the person doing the hiring, is ideologically NOT a racist. The employee who is doing the hiring, is following instructions from their boss, who gives no reason for the policy. Is this person who is hiring only members of his own race, while excluding from the beginning someone of another race, committing a racist action?

Of course they are. The action is racist. It does not make the person by default a racist. But the action need not be based on ideology.

“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
31-07-2013, 01:22 PM
RE: Pulling the "race card" card (now with a poll)
(31-07-2013 01:16 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(31-07-2013 12:24 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Both a strawman and non-sequitur.

Yeah, I don't get that at all.

I never made an argument; nor did I view any thing you said as being an argument.

I only had somewhat of a suggestion. I just don't think that using racist, racism, etc., is a good strategy for even attempting to enter an important, social conversation, without even considering a chance of getting to solutions.

I also mentioned, previously, a conversation about racism, but that is a completely separate conversation. If you think having that conversation about racism, first, would help, that wouldn't be my strategy, but you can do it, if that is what you think is good strategy.

I have simply provided some statistics to show that much of the inequality in the United States has a racial element. You appeared to be arguing that racism is not an issue with the statistics that I presented.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2013, 01:23 PM
RE: Pulling the "race card" card (now with a poll)
(31-07-2013 01:22 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(31-07-2013 01:16 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Yeah, I don't get that at all.

I never made an argument; nor did I view any thing you said as being an argument.

I only had somewhat of a suggestion. I just don't think that using racist, racism, etc., is a good strategy for even attempting to enter an important, social conversation, without even considering a chance of getting to solutions.

I also mentioned, previously, a conversation about racism, but that is a completely separate conversation. If you think having that conversation about racism, first, would help, that wouldn't be my strategy, but you can do it, if that is what you think is good strategy.

I have simply provided some statistics to show that much of the inequality in the United States has a racial element.

Correlated with race. With the most logical explanation being that the correlation is causally connected to segregation.

“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
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
31-07-2013, 02:04 PM
RE: Pulling the "race card" card (now with a poll)
(31-07-2013 01:19 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  We're going around in circles. No one is arguing that actions, comments, etc, are unrelated to a person's ideological position. But, as you imply by saying "can be", they may not necessarily be tied to the person's ideological position.

Let's put it this way, by expounding upon the question at hand.
Is it racist to NOT hire someone specifically because of their race and to only hire people of the same race?

Let's say that the person doing the hiring, is ideologically NOT a racist. The employee who is doing the hiring, is following instructions from their boss, who gives no reason for the policy. Is this person who is hiring only members of his own race, while excluding from the beginning someone of another race, committing a racist action?

Of course they are. The action is racist. It does not make the person by default a racist. But the action need not be based on ideology.

By using "can be", I meant that it is possible for actions, etc., to be related racist ideology and thus "can be" considered racist. In turn, if there isn't racist ideology, or at least something consistent with it, there isn't racism.

The ideology would have to come from somewhere, e.g., the instructions for the hiring staff, which could come from the person in charge of that, like the boss, HR, etc. The hiring would be racist if the system of hiring was based on and/or consistent with racist ideology, in some way.

What you can do is take an outside definition of race and apply it to the scenario, so the people involved, if they had no concept of race and/or racism and used other arbitrary criteria, can reach the conclusion by a means that wasn't racist.

That is obviously not what you were trying to imply with the question by using "specifically", but I felt like being an asshole.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2013, 02:09 PM
RE: Pulling the "race card" card (now with a poll)
(31-07-2013 02:04 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(31-07-2013 01:19 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  We're going around in circles. No one is arguing that actions, comments, etc, are unrelated to a person's ideological position. But, as you imply by saying "can be", they may not necessarily be tied to the person's ideological position.

Let's put it this way, by expounding upon the question at hand.
Is it racist to NOT hire someone specifically because of their race and to only hire people of the same race?

Let's say that the person doing the hiring, is ideologically NOT a racist. The employee who is doing the hiring, is following instructions from their boss, who gives no reason for the policy. Is this person who is hiring only members of his own race, while excluding from the beginning someone of another race, committing a racist action?

Of course they are. The action is racist. It does not make the person by default a racist. But the action need not be based on ideology.

By using "can be", I meant that it is possible for actions, etc., to be related racist ideology and thus "can be" considered racist. In turn, if there isn't racist ideology, or at least something consistent with it, there isn't racism.

The ideology would have to come from somewhere, e.g., the instructions for the hiring staff, which could come from the person in charge of that, like the boss, HR, etc. The hiring would be racist if the system of hiring was based on and/or consistent with racist ideology, in some way.

What you can do is take an outside definition of race and apply it to the scenario, so the people involved, if they had no concept of race and/or racism and used other arbitrary criteria, can reach the conclusion by a means that wasn't racist.

That is obviously not what you were trying to imply with the question by using "specifically", but I felt like being an asshole.

Then you are implying that one can never know if something is racist unless it is admitted to be so by the person doing the action.

Meaning, segregation in the US during the 50's and 60's wasn't racist as it was done under the ideology of "separate but equal."

“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
31-07-2013, 02:29 PM
RE: Pulling the "race card" card (now with a poll)
It would also mean that a member of the KKK would not be a racist unless self-admitted. These people consider themselves something other than racists. As did the Nazis.

“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
31-07-2013, 02:31 PM
RE: Pulling the "race card" card (now with a poll)
(31-07-2013 02:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Then you are implying that one can never know if something is racist unless it is admitted to be so by the person doing the action.

Meaning, segregation in the US during the 50's and 60's wasn't racist as it was done under the ideology of "separate but equal."
Quote:It would also mean that a member of the KKK would not be a racist unless self-admitted. These people consider themselves something other than racists. As did the Nazis.

Well, god either exist or doesn't exist, regardless of what you can or cannot substantiate and/or prove.

If you wanted to get too overly philosophical about it, yes, you would never know, but with regard to epistemology, you could do that with pretty much everything.

However, if a politician, for example, was asked about our current situation in America and responded with something that basically amounted to them calling blacks inherently inferior, it would be reasonable to call that a racist comment, and you can reasonably assume that the politician was a racist.

That is, the same standard of being reasonable applies as apples everywhere else.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2013, 02:33 PM
RE: Pulling the "race card" card (now with a poll)
(31-07-2013 02:31 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(31-07-2013 02:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Then you are implying that one can never know if something is racist unless it is admitted to be so by the person doing the action.

Meaning, segregation in the US during the 50's and 60's wasn't racist as it was done under the ideology of "separate but equal."
Quote:It would also mean that a member of the KKK would not be a racist unless self-admitted. These people consider themselves something other than racists. As did the Nazis.

Well, god either exist or doesn't exist, regardless of what you can or cannot substantiate and/or prove.

If you wanted to get too overly philosophical about it, yes, you would never know, but with regard to epistemology, you could do that with pretty much everything.

However, if a politician, for example, was asked about our current situation in America and responded with something that basically amounted to them calling blacks inherently inferior, it would be reasonable to call that a racist comment, and you can reasonably assume that the politician was a racist.

That is, the same standard of being reasonable applies as apples everywhere else.

There you go. You can look at the actions alone and discern if the action is or isn't racist, just like you could with the comments. And does not necessarily mean the actor or speaker is racist.

“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
31-07-2013, 03:36 PM
RE: Pulling the "race card" card (now with a poll)
(31-07-2013 02:33 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  There you go. You can look at the actions alone and discern if the action is or isn't racist, just like you could with the comments. And does not necessarily mean the actor or speaker is racist.

In instances of mimicking, dramatization, explaining, etc., yes, it would not follow that the person was/is racist.

In something like my hypothetical, if you were to make an assumption, it would likely follow necessarily. I don't know how you would talk yourself out of a situation where you called an expression of someone's feelings, sentiments and/or beliefs racist, without seeming as if you were implying they were racist for having those feelings.

A situation that didn't correspond across the board would indicate one of the above situations or someone unreasonably jumping to a conclusion about a person's expressions.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: