Racism, Sexism, Ageism, Weightism?
- Thread starter Danoff
- 51 comments
- 2,093 views
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Umm, I disagree. Given the huge number of individuals, with their corollary individual reasons for doing any particular thing, it's impossible to draw any conclusions or make any predictions based on why someone would want to do something. They should be free to try it if they wish, no matter how bizarre, provided that it does not endanger anyone else who is not a willing participant.
That doesn't mean that it should be guaranteed to succeed; just that it should be permitted to try. I should be 100% within my rights to walk into Hooters and fill out a job application for any reason or no reason whatsoever. The manager should be 100% within his rights to say "I'm sorry, sir, but we're not hiring male wait staff at this point." Neither of us should be questioned on our motives.
In the case of something less easily defensible, like a racist basis for hiring policies, I'm still in favor of permitting them to private businesses. However, I'd also support the spread of information (by any party) that exposed such racist policy. I'd also support any legitimate campaign to deny business to racist organizations (I certainly wouldn't give them any of my money, or take any of theirs), but I wouldn't tolerate physical interference.
That doesn't mean that it should be guaranteed to succeed; just that it should be permitted to try. I should be 100% within my rights to walk into Hooters and fill out a job application for any reason or no reason whatsoever. The manager should be 100% within his rights to say "I'm sorry, sir, but we're not hiring male wait staff at this point." Neither of us should be questioned on our motives.
In the case of something less easily defensible, like a racist basis for hiring policies, I'm still in favor of permitting them to private businesses. However, I'd also support the spread of information (by any party) that exposed such racist policy. I'd also support any legitimate campaign to deny business to racist organizations (I certainly wouldn't give them any of my money, or take any of theirs), but I wouldn't tolerate physical interference.
Oh, please. Calling someone's thoughts "garbage" is not "describing a perspective." It's insulting a perspective by giving it a demeaning name. It's name-calling.
I agree with duke that the motives aren't as important here as the freedom to act on them. Why a fat girl wants to work at Hooter's isn't the question--it's whether Hooter's has the right to turn her away. Which pretty much everyone here has agreed they do.
As for the racism, I also agree it should be allowed in private business, although not encouraged. The constitution says everyone of every race should be given "equal protection under the law." I interpret this as meaning that in court and in government programs/offices/jobs/universities funded by tax dollars, racism is not allowed. There should be a very strict distinction made between private business and government.
- 10,832
But this just means you're not interested in understanding something from a particular perspective, which is your prerogative. It does not say anything about the perspective itself, though. I find it useful to understand why certain things happen; behavior is no exception.
I have been aware for a long time that more people are probably not interested in asking those questions. Of course there's nothing wrong with this. But to generally dismiss it out of hand merely because you don't care is arrogant and cavlier. It even contradicts the individualism argumemts that can be used to arrive at it's alleged unimportance. It boils down to many individuals seeing one thing in different ways. Some of these individuals may find a similarity in how they see something; they become a "group". They notice the similarity, document it, look deeper into it, make theories and test them, and hope to use the knowledge they accumulate in a beneficial way.
Is this for everybody? Clearly, no. In fact it is probably a good thing that many people see things in a two dimensional, black and white way.
Has this history of soft-science been beneficial to society? Mostly no. But there is no reason why this should be the case. An autoritarian backlash against what can be seen as soft, liberal permissiveness and entitlement will be ineffective to change anything and will probably just start unnecessary resentment between groups.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
It doesn't mean I'm not interested in it, at all. I certainly attempt to understand things so that I can choose my course based on knowledge rather than ignorance. I've been an atheist since I was 10, and an agnostic before that, but that doesn't mean I haven't read the Bible in an attempt to understand a "particular perspective".
I'm dismissing it out of hand not because I'm "arrogant and cavalier", but because the motive behind doing some seemingly arbitrary or bizarre action is irrelevant, at least in the case of civil disputes such as this.
It may be interesting, and it may be worthy of study in pursuit of understanding, but it's irrelevant to the strictly legalistic question of permissibility.
I'm dismissing it out of hand not because I'm "arrogant and cavalier", but because the motive behind doing some seemingly arbitrary or bizarre action is irrelevant, at least in the case of civil disputes such as this.
It may be interesting, and it may be worthy of study in pursuit of understanding, but it's irrelevant to the strictly legalistic question of permissibility.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
This is frustrating mile.
You claim that understanding motives is good. Sure. That's great. Easy to argue. Pull up historical examples if you feel like it. No problem. I can't argue with that.
But it's not the point. It's beside the point in this case. It's not even really instructive in this case because the motives can be so obscure and random.
Give me an example when a persons reasoning for wanting to work at hooters even though they are male makes any impact on this discussion please.
You claim that understanding motives is good. Sure. That's great. Easy to argue. Pull up historical examples if you feel like it. No problem. I can't argue with that.
But it's not the point. It's beside the point in this case. It's not even really instructive in this case because the motives can be so obscure and random.
Give me an example when a persons reasoning for wanting to work at hooters even though they are male makes any impact on this discussion please.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Dictionary.com defines authoritarian as:
Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom
I'm confused about how my statements were not only authoritarian by hard assed as authoritarians go. And where's the =garbage part?
Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom
I'm confused about how my statements were not only authoritarian by hard assed as authoritarians go. And where's the =garbage part?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Give me an example of a potential reason a guy could have for working at hooters that would broaden the perspective some.
Ah, forget it. I'll give you one.
There exists a guy who really likes to wear orange short shorts. He likes to wear them because he once saw a cartoon at an impressionable age where the hero wore orange shorts. He decides that since most of his jobs require him to not wear orange shorts, he should find a job that encourages it. The result is that he applys to hooters as a server.
How does an understanding of one persons odd background contribute to the conversation?
- 10,832
I'm obviously speaking more generally than you, and not limiting my comments to "this case", but rather, the "isms" this thread is named aftrer.
And I'm not so sure their motives are as random as you claim they are. I think there are detectable patterns in the unreasonable demands of certain, shall we say, trouble makers, who always try to test the technicality of the constitution by abusing the justice system to achieve nonsensical ends. I think it is something worth looking into, but something that hasn't been investigated enough, yet.
Danoff, your statements were not authoritarian or hard ass. You stated that the motives behind the guy applying at Hooter's were not important. You said:
Then milefile responded directly with:
You asked milefile to elaborate or refute your point. His "elaboration" was the one line:
Which to me doesn't look like an elaboration or a rebuttal.
Danoff, your point that motives in this case are irrelevant was not "against individual freedom" and therefore authoritarian. No one was arguing that individual motives are never relevant. The whole point was that anyone should have the freedom to walk into Hooter's and apply, for whatever, reason, and any Hooter's should have the freedom to say no. I think this perspective qualifies as anti-authoritarian, according to the dictionary.com definition.
Then milefile responded directly with:
You asked milefile to elaborate or refute your point. His "elaboration" was the one line:
Which to me doesn't look like an elaboration or a rebuttal.
Danoff, your point that motives in this case are irrelevant was not "against individual freedom" and therefore authoritarian. No one was arguing that individual motives are never relevant. The whole point was that anyone should have the freedom to walk into Hooter's and apply, for whatever, reason, and any Hooter's should have the freedom to say no. I think this perspective qualifies as anti-authoritarian, according to the dictionary.com definition.
- 10,832
It looks like you made this absurd to be sarcastic. But it's not really what I was going for.
There are a lot of people who have internalized liberal politics to such a huge extent that they can no longer separate themselves from various causes, the Hooters example being one among many (but the Hooters example is only a particular instance of something more pervading). Their idiosyncratic backgrounds are not what I think needs to be interpreted, but rather, why they feel entitled to accomodation by everything and every one, when so many other individuals with equally idiosyncratic backgrounds, do not.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Ok,
You say you want to talk about motives, but it sounds like you want to talk about a behavioral trend now... which I think is pertinent - so I won't jump on you about that.
I agree, there is a behavioral trend here. People are testing the limitations of government policy. A lawsuit to McDonalds claiming that they should have warned people that fat was bad is just one such test. A person trying to apply for hooters who obviously shouldn't work there is another example. The behvioral trend (not motives) is fascination because it seems to be saying, how long are we going to put up with this kind of nonsense?
The acceptance of that litigation is the result of years of governmental decisions against the rights of buisness owners in favor of the rights of patrons. A break point is coming where people will realize that with enough restrictions on business, there will be not business (ie: atlas shrugged).
You say you want to talk about motives, but it sounds like you want to talk about a behavioral trend now... which I think is pertinent - so I won't jump on you about that.
I agree, there is a behavioral trend here. People are testing the limitations of government policy. A lawsuit to McDonalds claiming that they should have warned people that fat was bad is just one such test. A person trying to apply for hooters who obviously shouldn't work there is another example. The behvioral trend (not motives) is fascination because it seems to be saying, how long are we going to put up with this kind of nonsense?
The acceptance of that litigation is the result of years of governmental decisions against the rights of buisness owners in favor of the rights of patrons. A break point is coming where people will realize that with enough restrictions on business, there will be not business (ie: atlas shrugged).
Wow, I'm an Atlas Shrugged fan too. I'm glad to see others have made it through the 1,000+ pages.
I guess you could say this behavioral trend of testing out the government's limits is a sort of motive. The fat kids suing McDonald's are curious and greedy. The motive is get rich because the government may buy our ridiculous claim that our obesity is McD's fault. Others have gotten away with similar things, so we'll try it too.
Milefile, you asked:
It's a good question. I think you're saying that some individual, random motives don't matter (as danoff was pointing out with the orange shirt example), and I agree. But I think you're suggesting there's a larger group of people who feel a huge sense of entitlement, and that motivates them to apply to Hooter's or sue McD's, and that motive is worth looking into.
I think entitlement is a huge problem. People really confuse what rights they have in this country. They think they have the right to a job anywhere they want, for example, and that's partly why we're having such trouble with allowing private companies like Hooter's to discriminate on the basis of age, weight, and race if they want to.
I guess you could say this behavioral trend of testing out the government's limits is a sort of motive. The fat kids suing McDonald's are curious and greedy. The motive is get rich because the government may buy our ridiculous claim that our obesity is McD's fault. Others have gotten away with similar things, so we'll try it too.
Milefile, you asked:
It's a good question. I think you're saying that some individual, random motives don't matter (as danoff was pointing out with the orange shirt example), and I agree. But I think you're suggesting there's a larger group of people who feel a huge sense of entitlement, and that motivates them to apply to Hooter's or sue McD's, and that motive is worth looking into.
I think entitlement is a huge problem. People really confuse what rights they have in this country. They think they have the right to a job anywhere they want, for example, and that's partly why we're having such trouble with allowing private companies like Hooter's to discriminate on the basis of age, weight, and race if they want to.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
OK, now we're getting to the crux of the biscuit, and it looks like a different biscuit entirely than the one suggested by the "authortiatrian garbage" line.
Someone started a thread - it may even have been you, Eric - about the status quo and people who rebel against it simply becuase it is the status quo. I think it was centered around war protesters (it might have been danoff, I fergit).
There are people on both sides of the equation, liberal and conservative, who feel the need to make test cases so they can feel they are fighting something. Fred Phelps is one on the conservative side, so was David Koresh before he learned the dangers of what happens when you test a case too far.
Maybe it's just that I don't like people very much in general, but I'm very distrustful of protest-ism and demonstration-ism. It strikes me that if your cause is that important and that just, you should be able to point it out wiuthout resorting to a staged, contrived scene to bring attention to it.
Someone started a thread - it may even have been you, Eric - about the status quo and people who rebel against it simply becuase it is the status quo. I think it was centered around war protesters (it might have been danoff, I fergit).
There are people on both sides of the equation, liberal and conservative, who feel the need to make test cases so they can feel they are fighting something. Fred Phelps is one on the conservative side, so was David Koresh before he learned the dangers of what happens when you test a case too far.
Maybe it's just that I don't like people very much in general, but I'm very distrustful of protest-ism and demonstration-ism. It strikes me that if your cause is that important and that just, you should be able to point it out wiuthout resorting to a staged, contrived scene to bring attention to it.
