Am I Becoming Racist? (rant)

[PzR Slim]

I was recently asked by a repeat client how I felt about working for a certain minority group and without a second thought I responded that I bid their work with the attitude that I don’t want to do their work. Having worked for this group many times I add four or five hundred dollars a day to their bid and call it a pain in the axx charge, although I don’t line item it. I have always taken a strong position against racism and have been in favor of legislation that prevents business from discriminating based on race, sexual orientation, and so on.
So am I a huge hypocrite? , should I stop the up charge? Am I a bit of a racist? Or is it a reasonable up charge considering I assume they will be difficult?

We always add £100 to any quote we do for a certain ethnic minority. We don't do it becasue we are racist we do it because this particular ethnic minority always, and I do mean always, ask for discount and wont accept a quote until they have received some discount. This way they feel they are getting a good deal and we get paid what the job is worth.

 

[Submerged]

Additionally, if you were to work with the group that you've increased the price of the tender to and they suddenly become completely hassle-free, then I assume you would be more than willing to possibly charge a little less next time, in the hope that they will show positive behaviour (ie: not be so difficult).

To me, this is just common business sense as all the customers are going to be different and have varying levels of difficulties attached to it. So the price that the above two posters charges, are related to the difficulties of the contract and the length of time it will take to complete the said contract/tender with the additional, frustrating things that these groups tend to do.

 

[Sureboss]

We always add £100 to any quote we do for a certain ethnic minority. We don't do it becasue we are racist we do it because this particular ethnic minority always, and I do mean always, ask for discount and wont accept a quote until they have received some discount. This way they feel they are getting a good deal and we get paid what the job is worth.

Can't guess which ethnic minority!

 

[Vince_Fiero]

If groups of people regularly and consistantly conform to racial stereotypes, is it wrong to "pre-decide" how to treat them?

I deal with the public, If I may be blunt, I will change my sales tactic based on "percieved" ethnic origin, because in 16 years of experience the majority of people conform to certain stereotypes.

I also decide my sales tactic based on clothing, shoes, accesories, car of arrival..

So am I racist, or a shoe-snob? is there a difference?

I found this an interesting point.

1) I do believe you have to adapt your behavior to the perceived ethnic origin of the other person you interact with. I do not call this racism, but cultural awareness. If you refuse to interact, that is an other story.

2) Same thing to add money to an offer for a certain minority since you in your business see higher "transaction" cost in working with this minority. As long as it is not to avoid this minority without incurring the cost, it does not seem like racism to me. However it might be that you could see why you incur the extra cost, organise to avoid it and use this as competitive advantage going for a niche market (if it is worth it).


Why did I find this interesting, since I have issues with the conflict between the rights you might have on private property and human rights.

Imagine a person running a private club.
A person presents himself at the door.

The person can not openly be refused because of ethnic origin, that would be racist. (some will argue that I have the right to be racist inside of my club since it is private, I argue you can not be racist at the door since it is public).

However the person can be refused on dress code, not fulfilling membership requirements (like reference from member), etc... with a thought in the back of perceived security risks, higher transaction costs, image, etc...

Although the private club has the right to sell or not sell, the reason should not be racist. I'm not convinced racist arguments are used since they are cheaper then organizing an interview and seeing the person you really have in front of you.
The best would be that the person refused can start a "more open" private club next door, but exclusion generally means that you do not have the means to realise this.

BTW ethnic origin; will almost always be perceived ethnic origin, since the cases where you can store this information legally are very limited in Europe.

 

[Famine]

Imagine a person running a private club.
A person presents himself at the door.

The person can not openly be refused because of ethnic origin, that would be racist. (some will argue that I have the right to be racist inside of my club since it is private, I argue you can not be racist at the door since it is public).

However the person can be refused on dress code, not fulfilling membership requirements (like reference from member), etc... with a thought in the back of perceived security risks, higher transaction costs, image, etc...

Although the private club has the right to sell or not sell, the reason should not be racist.

I would argue that it should be allowed to be racist at the door - no private business should be forced to admit entry to any person and should be allowed to bar anyone from entry for any reason they choose including reasons of race.

 

[drivehard]

In my superficial Freudian anaylasis of your first post; you're a bit of a racist. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with noticing shifts in culture and disagreeing with them. The main thing is that you can express them openly to everybody.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I would argue that it should be allowed to be racist at the door - no private business should be forced to admit entry to any person and should be allowed to bar anyone from entry for any reason they choose including reasons of race.

Quickly looking this up, it seems that the general legal recommendation is

The United Nations' International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination is the main international document to address the issues of racism and racial discrimination. It was adopted in 1965 and came into force in 1969. This Convention particularly addresses racial discrimination in employment and education.

So indeed only employment and education.

However Europe is more restrictive (as was planted in my head), 28th of November 2008 they agreed:

The framework decision approved on 28 November foresees between one and three years imprisonment for anyone who publicly incites racial hatred and xenophobia, including through the distribution of texts, photos or other material directed against a group or an individual because of their race, colour, religion, nationality or ethnic origin, or who denies or crudely minimises genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

a right balance between fully respecting freedom of speech and punishing any criminal actions, not ideas

On the basis of "publicly incites racial hatred and xenophobia", I would recommend not to state it at a door.

Again as usual, I'm for the more restrictive in this case.
However you have an argument stating: I do not allow this race in my club is not "inciting" anything, it is just stating a fact.

It remains racist.

 

[Famine]

No, you misunderstand. I don't mean that the current interpretation of the current law means that clubs should be able to reject or admit whomever they wish on any grounds. I mean that there ought to be no law about it at all.

There should not be legislation which says private concerns may not reject any individual on any basis. Public ones, yes. Private ones, no - they ought to be allowed to be as racist, sexist, bigotted and small-minded as they want to be. I wouldn't go there if they banned certain races, genders, hair colours or anything else - but they should be allowed to be so.

 

[Danoff]

I found this an interesting point.

1) I do believe you have to adapt your behavior to the perceived ethnic origin of the other person you interact with. I do not call this racism, but cultural awareness. If you refuse to interact, that is an other story.

I call it racism. We're in such a hurry to demonize racism, but "cultural awareness" is often racism. Preconceived notions about a person's culture based on the color of their skin or the curl in their hair is no different than a preconceived notion about their work ethic or intelligence. In fact, the two can mix really easily.

I'll be the first to admit that I have some racist thoughts toward Asians. I expect asians to be generally smarter, work harder, and be more polite (at least superficially) than any other ethnicity I encounter. I think this because I have a cultural awareness about Asians based my encounters with them. Asians often have (and instill in their children) a strong sense of personal honor and hierarchical respect that is incompatible with laziness or insubordination. This is a deeply rooted social construct that stretches back pretty far.

Cultural awareness or racism? I say both. It's a preconceived notion based on race.

2) Same thing to add money to an offer for a certain minority since you in your business see higher "transaction" cost in working with this minority. As long as it is not to avoid this minority without incurring the cost, it does not seem like racism to me. However it might be that you could see why you incur the extra cost, organise to avoid it and use this as competitive advantage going for a niche market (if it is worth it).

This is definitely racism. Raising the price on a particular ethnicity based on expectation of their behavior? It's practically a textbook example.

In our society racist seems to be about the worst possible thing you can say about a person. We've developed a very strong cultural bias against racism, and, as a result, have tried to re-categorize certain racist behavior that we don't want to eliminate.

But racism is a very natural product of the human brain performing pattern-seeking. The only way to change it is to actually change the behavior of the people being profiled. If Asians don't want people assuming they're smart, hard-working, and respectful - they need to all personally make an effort to be lazier and ruder.

 

[Pupik]

I just thought I'd mention that my daughter just noticed "brown people". Not that she literally hadn't seen people of all races literally since Day One, and nearly everyday; but after Martin Luther King's birthday and the classroom education about it, now she's making a point to ask about them. She doesn't say it rudely, but in a matter-of-fact manner.

It's as if the very barrier that has (somewhat) fallen has brought about another barrier of sorts. Weird how that works out...although at least she's learning things. Talking and thinking about it made me realize that I knew of kids from all sorts of races when I was 4-5, but I never recall anyone stepping forward to be rude or make a point of exclusion until I was 8 years old, living in another state (one that had tensions about a decade prior).

I dunno, just had to get that off my chest.

It's funny we mention pricing; I have only accused of being racist once because they didn't understand why I was giving them a discount. By the fourth/fifth explanation, I...HAD...TO...TALK...AS...IF...you get the idea. They snapped back and told me that "you don't have to talk to be like I'm some dumb slave! I don't need your patronizing, overseer attitude!" Naturally, this got escalated to as far up the company as possible...So much for honoring the mileage warranty on their tires! You try to be nice...

Luckily, this happened in full view of most of my co-workers. They basically stood up for me, saying I was the last to listen/laugh to a racist joke (even in private) and the first to be fair and nice to everyone who walked in the door, no matter what. The warning went no further than an angry phone call from the district, who basically told me I'm sacked if there's even another accusation.

It's funny how a lot of ignorance comes from watching TV...people think that all races are alike and the same, and act a certain "way".

A black Haitian fellow visited my dealership some years ago; he fled his country, and lived in a poor urban neighborhood, with other black people. They told him not to trust white people, because they were all alike. In a few years, he saves some money, and moves out, into a "mixed-race" neighborhood. He told me he then realized that there's Italians, Cubans, Jews, white folks of German, Polish, and English ancestries, et cetera and they don't really act, talk, respond, or even really look alike at all. I think he was driving home a point that not all black people were the same either, but some are just as racist (but I already knew that).

Anyhow, I'll leave with what one comedian said (sorry, can't remember who): "Take away our skin, and we're all the same. We're all going to scream a little differently, though."

 

[Blank_Redge]

How did I end up this way? Affirmative action. When I know that black people sometimes get picked for their skin color and not their qualifications it undermines ALL of their credibility in my mind - because I don't know which ones are the result of discrimination. Affirmative action is undermining the goal of racial equality at an alarming rate - even within my own mind. It's a handicap for all black people, not just the ones who have been the beneficiaries of racial discrimination - because we don't know which ones they are. All we know is their skin color.

Speaking as a beneficiary of affirmative action: I acknowledge that it's a double-edged sword.

Pro: it ensures that folks like me, living in an area where we're an ethnic minority, have an equal shot at schooling and employment.

Con: schools and employers may be losing out on better qualified applicants, because of government mandated quotas they have to meet. (Key word: may. I'd like to believe that schools / employers wouldn't accept someone grossly underqualified, simply because of said quotas.)

It'd be nice if we lived in a truly egalitarian society, where people could be judged by their merits alone. Sadly, we don't.

I'm certainly not saying affirmative action is a flawless mechanism. However, I don't know what a better solution would be.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

I'm certainly not saying affirmative action is a flawless mechanism. However, I don't know what a better solution would be.

Is the goal of affirmative action equality in opportunity or equality in outcome?

Those are 2 very-very different situations. In the latter, special privileges are given to one special interest to the detriment of everyone else. That's reverse discrimination and everyone loses in the long-run. In the former, that's the kind of liberty our founding fathers envisioned.

 

[GT5Junkie]

Kind of tough to get the former when you have overt, state propagated racism in our (i.e. the currently livings) lifetime. Simply taking the laws off the books doesn't magically and immediately eliminate the consequences they've been creating for hundreds of years.

As Blank has said, pros and cons.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

Kind of tough to get the former when you have overt, state propagated racism in our (i.e. the currently livings) lifetime. Simply taking the laws off the books doesn't magically and immediately eliminate the consequences they've been creating for hundreds of years.

As Blank has said, pros and cons.

So the answer to state propagated racism is a different type of state propagated racism?

"Consequences"? That sounds like white guilt to me. There are no 'pros' to that...not even if you're black/yellow/brown.

 

[GT5Junkie]

So the answer to state propagated racism is a different type of state propagated racism?

As was said, pros and cons. And to think that state propagated racism to DENY equal opportunity is the exact same thing (and just as bad) as state propagated "racism" to promote equal opportunity, and to attempt to remedy the hundreds of years of the opposite, seems ridiculous to me.

"Consequences"? That sounds like white guilt to me. There are no 'pros' to that...not even if you're black/yellow/brown.

I don't understand what you're trying to say? Try making an actual argument instead of just using buzz words.

There are negatives to both sides (whether you can see or admit that or not). With AA, some white people are gonna get screwed. Without AA, some black people are gonna get screwed (and even with it, they still are tbh). Personally, since someone has to get screwed, I'm perfectly okay with it being the white people, considering history.

It'd be nice if it wasn't necessary. If minorities weren't discriminated against, and there wasn't any need for AA. But this isn't fantasyland, we don't live in that world. So you've got the choice of just ignoring it, and hoping it gets better, or you've got the choice to actually proactively do something about it. Obviously you are a proponent of the former, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with your race.

Some day we'll probably get there, and it won't be necessary, but to even pretend that that day is today is ridiculous. Maybe after the last person that was directly given the short end of the stick by the US (or state) government, solely because of the color of their skin, dies, then you can think about it being that time (doubtful), but sure as hell not before then.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

There are negatives to both sides (whether you can see or admit that or not). With AA, some white people are gonna get screwed. Without AA, some black people are gonna get screwed (and even with it, they still are tbh). Personally, since someone has to get screwed, I'm perfectly okay with it being the white people, considering history.

That's white guilt.

 

[GT5Junkie]

That's white guilt.

Is there an argument hidden in there somewhere?

 

[Keef]

I was recently asked by a repeat client how I felt about working for a certain minority group and without a second thought I responded that I bid their work with the attitude that I don’t want to do their work. Having worked for this group many times I add four or five hundred dollars a day to their bid and call it a pain in the axx charge, although I don’t line item it. I have always taken a strong position against racism and have been in favor of legislation that prevents business from discriminating based on race, sexual orientation, and so on.

So am I a huge hypocrite? , should I stop the up charge? Am I a bit of a racist? Or is it a reasonable up charge considering I assume they will be difficult?

Discriminating against a customer who is consistently a "pain in the ass" sounds all well and good to me. Doesn't matter what color they are.

Being against racism as you say you are, but being in favor of legislation to stop private-sector racism, is fairly hypocritical, yes. You're supporting legislated racism - racism that benefits minority groups. What would normally be simple discrimination against certain customers, no matter who they are (what you are doing) has now become discrimination against certain customers...unless those customers are of a minority group. Now it's only okay to discriminate against, say, white customers, but you're not allowed to discriminate against black customers. Legislation like this actually promotes racism in the opposite direction.

See how that works? Again, there is nothing wrong with your perfectly natural discriminatory behavior, but when you support legislating against such behavior, in tern promoting racism in the positive direction, you have become hypocritical.

This is why we libertarians are against governmental regulation of such issues and instead believe customers and business owners should be free to make their own decisions concerning discrimination. This philosophy removes all aspects of racism and hypocrisy from the government, making the government legitimately fair to everybody.

Is there an argument hidden in there somewhere?

You support racism against people of your own color. Not only is "white guilt" racist, but it's also hypocritical.

 

[RAZRr1275]

^ Explain to me how a government that lets people do whatever they want concerning race is fair?

 

[GT5Junkie]

Discriminating against a customer who is consistently a "pain in the ass" sounds all well and good to me. Doesn't matter what color they are.

Being against racism as you say you are, but being in favor of legislation to stop private-sector racism, is fairly hypocritical, yes. You're supporting legislated racism - racism that benefits minority groups. What would normally be simple discrimination against certain customers, no matter who they are (what you are doing) has now become discrimination against certain customers...unless those customers are of a minority group. Now it's only okay to discriminate against, say, white customers, but you're not allowed to discriminate against black customers. Legislation like this actually promotes racism in the opposite direction.

See how that works? Again, there is nothing wrong with your perfectly natural discriminatory behavior, but when you support legislating against such behavior, in tern promoting racism in the positive direction, you have become hypocritical.

So there's nothing wrong with McDonald's charging black people an extra 2 dollars per hamburger? Because that's what it sounds to me like this guy is doing. It appears that maybe you interpreted what he is saying differently? He didn't say he is discriminating against a specific customer, he said he discriminates against an entire race of customers.

You support racism against people of your own color. Not only is "white guilt" racist, but it's also hypocritical.

Much better to support racism against people of a different color, like you?

 

[GT5Junkie]

Not only is "white guilt" racist.

Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race, ethnicity, or nationality are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that ethnic differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

By that definition affirmative action doesn't seem racist to me. So I guess I'm not racist.

 

[Keef]

^ Explain to me how a government that lets people do whatever they want concerning race is fair?

It's simple. By letting people make their own decisions freely the government avoids making any reservations toward anybody. Government treats everybody fairly by not treating them at all, except to defend the rights of the people, of course.

So there's nothing wrong with McDonald's charging black people an extra 2 dollars per hamburger? Because that's what it sounds to me like this guy is doing. It appears that maybe you interpreted what he is saying differently? He didn't say he is discriminating against a specific customer, he said he discriminates against an entire race of customers.



Much better to support racism against people of a different color, like you?

If McDonald's chooses to charge black people, or me, extra money because they don't like us, that's fine. But they should expect to lose business from black people and myself. And when business owners are faced with the prospect of losing business they get all fussy. A smart business man might say something like "Well, you're black and I don't like you, but your money is worth just as much as the next guy. In the interest of making myself rich, I suppose I can treat you just like any other customer."

The discriminated-against could always file a lawsuit, too. The burden of proof should be on them to prove they were racially discriminated against, and if they can successfully prove that then they might be in for a heckuva pay day.

By that definition affirmative action doesn't seem racist to me. So I guess I'm not racist.

Affirmative action is designed specifically to benefit a underrepresented/minority group at the expense of a majority group. Affirmative action is legislated discrimination against the majority for benefit of the minority. By "majority" they mean "white folks" and by "minority" they mean "everybody else". It's racism against white people.

And everybody wonders why racism is such a problem in this country.

 

[Blank_Redge]

The discriminated-against could always file a lawsuit, too. The burden of proof should be on them to prove they were racially discriminated against, and if they can successfully prove that then they might be in for a heckuva pay day.

Of course, while I agree with this, in the case of a few earlier posts by gents who I believe to be contractors of some sort or the other, it'd be difficult to prove that they were charging a higher fee for being Phenotype X, Y, or Z.

The setup involved to get a history of estimate patterns over the cost of $500 or £100 most likely wouldn't be worth the payout, in light of the legal and investigative fees that would be incurred.


I will go on record, stating that the gent who gives an intial estimate £100 higher than what they'd normally bid, is doing so with a culture that seems prone to haggling. Provided that, after the "discount", the cost of their labor is now what it would be normally, I see no harm in that. I'd go so far as to call that clever business savvy.

 

[GT5Junkie]

If there's nothing wrong with racism then why is there something wrong with legislated racism?

Racism is such a problem because of people like you. People like you have no problem when the racism favors you, but the second it might favor someone else, you suddenly get all pissed.

 

[Blank_Redge]

Racism is such a problem because of people like you. People like you have no problem when the racism favors you, but the second it might favor someone else, you suddenly get all pissed.

Eh. I'd like to give Keef the benefit of the doubt ('cause I'm cool like dat), and suspect that his problem is not so much with W.A.S.P.-y America getting bit by the other side of AA, but with government intervening at all.

What I get from the gist of his posts is that he supports a marketplace free from government intervention, in any way, shape, or form.

(Keef, if I'm way off base, feel free to correct me.)


I don't necessarily agree with zero government intervention, and again, I certainly don't think AA is flawless, but I don't know of / haven't seen what I'd consider a better solution.

 

[Minty]

Hell, I'm racist.
Everyone's racist to a point even if they don't want to admit it. People seem to like to pretend like racism is something that we can just get rid of, but it won't happen. Having racist thoughts is something everyone does, it's the action you take based on those thoughts that really matters. I've seen people who I believed were hired because of their race all the time. But I wouldn't dare to publicly question their position without making some kind of proof that they were hired purely based on race.

 

[Blank_Redge]

Everyone's racist to a point even if they don't want to admit it.

<-- Thai, Chinese, Asian Indian, Russian Jew, Egyptian, Panamanian.

Sorry; I categorically disagree with you. No offense.

 

[Keef]

If there's nothing wrong with racism then why is there something wrong with legislated racism?

Because the government is doing it. Government is the arbiter of law. Laws are by definition rules that apply to everyone equally, and when government legislates exceptions, such as affirmative action, the law no longer applies to everyone equally.

It's a very simple concept, and it is why the US has a constitution that defines what government can and cannot do. Sadly, it's often ignored and there are many laws these days that are actually unconstitutional.

Eh. I'd like to give Keef the benefit of the doubt ('cause I'm cool like dat), and suspect that his problem is not so much with W.A.S.P.-y America getting bit by the other side of AA, but with government intervening at all.

What I get from the gist of his posts is that he supports a marketplace free from government intervention, in any way, shape, or form.

(Keef, if I'm way off base, feel free to correct me.)


I don't necessarily agree with zero government intervention, and again, I certainly don't think AA is flawless, but I don't know of / haven't seen what I'd consider a better solution.

Government should stay out of the private sector except to protect the rights of the people; to enforce laws. Laws which, of course, do not infringe people's rights in the first place.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Hell, I'm racist.
Everyone's racist to a point even if they don't want to admit it.

There is a point in this, but I do believe you are expressing it in a way people will not understand.

There is a xenophobe reaction in everyone, you will always be careful with something you do not know, that can be a different skin colour, that can be a different way of dressing (punk, suits,... ), that can be a handicap, etc...

To treat people different on this basis is the thing that is wrong and not everyone does it wrong. But you need to fight the first reactions, even the most tolerant person does.

====================

On the different price for different ethnical groups, there would indeed be a problem if you set a different price for the same service just based on ethical (although you should have the freedom to do it).
If you know for example that some people will come back to ask for free services (training, repair, cleaning, ....) and it is better to include the services in the original offer, it is cultural awareness, you offer something different, so the price is different (no matter if it is documented or not).

For example the thread: McDonald's bans tracksuits
They perceive an extra cost with people that are dressed in a certain way and refuse them. Is this the best solution? I don't know, but it is their right to solve their issues.

On cultural awareness: people born in the same culture, going to the same schools, etc... they are not of a different culture. But treating with a service center in India, from Europe we use different communication, since they are different. Our vision is that they do good work, we send them more and more work, but they still work differently. Ignoring that they are different, sounds more politically correct, but just makes your actions ineffective.

On positive discrimination, a business should take the best person for the job, at equivalent capabilities, positive discrimination can help balancing your workforce, but putting people in front for properties (like race) that are not relevant to the job is something you should be very careful with (both ways). Luck egalitarianism is theory only, it does matter where you were born and I believe it always will, positive discrimination will only make this less and less if you promote the capable in the position they deserve.

If I want to sell to any Japanese car manufacturer in Europe, I will recruit a Japanese sales person, because almost no European can treat the client I want to reach correctly. You could call this racist, but it is business wise needed.

 

[mirial]

I find it rather fascinating how so many on the left help do a lot of the dirty work for the capatalists without realising it.