A quick story about racism.

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

You know what David? In regards to "holier than thou" when it comes to people promoting negative stereotypes to groups of people on the basis of gender, orientation, age, or as in this case race, I am. Absolutely. I shy not from claiming the moral high ground on a topic like this. I'm more than comfortable in having that discussion. Are you volunteering to be the opposition on this? Do you want to tell me the high merits of this kind of speech? Trying to pretend that all speech is on level ground is stupid David. Certainly people have the right to say hateful things, but it does not make it appropriate for a work environment/classroom/lab.

Your example is pointless. Of course they had a right to address anything me or my team did that offended them. Of course they have that right. This wasn't about rights, it was about poor taste. They made me and members of my team uncomfortable/offended. It was unprofessional on their behalf, and their team leader agreed.

T
K
O

OK, Engineer:
go ahead and PROVE that YOUR sense of good taste
is better than that of someone of the exact opposite sense of good taste
who is equally offended as u r. Show us the structure of your argument, Engineer.
I wanna SEE this.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Indeed, David! And a poster named Snood was sniveling about the fact that he was not allowed inside a cab driven by a lady. I am sure that Snood viewed that as RACISM even though the cab company explained that she had been raped by a black man and was leery of letting them get into her cab. Perhaps, after her experience, she did not belong in the business.

However, according to Dinesh D'Sousa, in his marvelous book--The End of Racism--a Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights discovered in 1993 that one third of taxidrivers routinely refuse to stop for black customers. ( I am sure that if Diest TKO was a cab driver he would stop for all people--black, white, and even Martians--He has the moral high ground understand)

But, if Diest TKO was to become a cab driver he would soon discover that many cab drivers do not always pick up black passengers. And, Diest TKO would discover that some of these drivers who do not pick up black passengers are (gulp) BLACK themselves.

Note: D"Sousa writes:

"This racism stuff is all bullshit,one African student who was driving to put himself through school told me. I'm not going to pass up a fare, which is money in my pocke. But I don't want to get robbed. Do you want me to risk a gun to my head, man?"

and

"A white driver in Chicago told me. I pick up older blacks all the time. I have no trouble giving black women a ride . My black buddies won't pick up no one who looks like a gang-banger."

and

An older black driver bluntly told the Washington Post he would not pick up young black males because "I'd rather be fined than have my wife a widow"

**************************************************************

RACISM?

I have the solution, David. The powers that be should hire someone who is on the MORAL HIGH GROUND like Diest TKO, who announced that he is indeed on the MORAL HIGH GROUND. Diest TKO should be sent to lecture those cab drivers about racism and thier responsibility to treat all prospective fares the same. He may do some good-----until he is dared to take the night shift for a week picking up any and all prospective passengers.

I suggest he begin his work in Washington, DC.

0 Replies

David wrote:

Re: Diest TKO (Post 3676584)
Diest TKO wrote:

You know what David? In regards to "holier than thou" when it comes to people promoting negative stereotypes to groups of people on the basis of gender, orientation, age, or as in this case race, I am. Absolutely. I shy not from claiming the moral high ground on a topic like this. I'm more than comfortable in having that discussion. Are you volunteering to be the opposition on this? Do you want to tell me the high merits of this kind of speech? Trying to pretend that all speech is on level ground is stupid David. Certainly people have the right to say hateful things, but it does not make it appropriate for a work environment/classroom/lab.

Your example is pointless. Of course they had a right to address anything me or my team did that offended them. Of course they have that right. This wasn't about rights, it was about poor taste. They made me and members of my team uncomfortable/offended. It was unprofessional on their behalf, and their team leader agreed.

T
K
O
DAVID RESPONDED----
OK, Engineer:
go ahead and PROVE that YOUR sense of good taste
is better than that of someone of the exact opposite sense of good taste
who is equally offended as u r. Show us the structure of your argument, Engineer.
I wanna SEE this.
*****************************************************************
SO do I, David. He prates about having the moral high ground. Most of the people I have known who said they had the moral high ground were not cowards afraid to defend thier positions.

He won't respond to you in a logical way. He will merely tell us what a superior human being he is!!!

I think the proper word is SUPERCILIOUS!

1 Reply

@genoves,

The 2006 SAT Reasoning Test was the first to have three sections: Critical Reading (formerly “Verbal”), Mathematics, and Writing.

Self-Identified as Reading Math Writing
American Indian or Alaskan Native 487 494 474
Asian, Asian-American,
or Pacific Islander 510 578 512
Black or African-American 434 429 428
Mexican or Mexican-American 454 465 452
Puerto Rican 459 456 448
Other Hispanic, Latino,
or Latin American 458 463 450
White 527 536 519
Other 494 513 493
No Response 487 506 482
Total 503 518 497
Male 505 536 491
Female 502 502 502
I have two questions about your statistics Genoves. How can an average be arrived at for people who have given, 'no response'?

Secondly, how could average scores for females be the same in reading, math and critical thinking when the individual score for each racial sub-category varied? I guess it could average out that way- but I'd be surprised to find that to be true - most females have traditionally scored higher in verbal than math. Has this changed with this new test? I'm gonna have to look that up.

But anyway, as far as the subject goes:
Diest said:

Quote:

Just two days ago, I was posting here with Bi-polar Bear, and we were discussing the presence of racism in the younger generations. Bear seemed to think that the presence was real, but isolated to a more insular less educated group.

I think insular is the key word- with less importance than you might think given to education level.
It's been my experience that when black and white kids grow up around each other in the same economic or community circumstances, there seems to be less intentionally racist thought - although to hear the language they speak to each other, you might think they were being racist toward each other - in actuality their use of certain words that other people would never consider using, is almost a sign of- 'brotherhood'- and I'm not talking black/black communication. I'm talking black/white communication. It's almost like - 'We're all in the same boat - might as well try to get along.'
I've seen that over and over again.

Quote:

These were agroup of 6 Aerospace Engineers... Rocket Scientists. They weren't from small towns. I know these guys, they were all from St. Louis, and most attended nice private highschools.

There you go - no exposure to 'reality'.

Quote:

The discussion that Bear and I had was pompted by Asherman's statement about how in white communities, whites aren't used to hearing language like this. He specifically used the phrase "politically incorrect language."

That depends. I used to hear all sorts of stuff I would never have believed or said or repeated in all white environments. In fact it used to amaze me how language and attitudes would change as soon as the environment was 'integrated' for one reason or another.

I don't know - I think David and Hawkeye have a point. I agree with you that this was not in good taste. But, what difference does it really make if you only censor the language and the attitude is still there?
I think that just creates a false sense of 'good taste' and/or tolerance that doesn't really even exist while at the same time maybe intensifying the resentment of the people who have these racist ideas toward the people who won't let them speak their mind, and the minority they now see as once again, being paternalistically protected.

I think I would have just called over the cubicle -' You can say whatever you want when I'm not around, but do me a favor and keep that racist **** out of my work environment'.
That would have at least made them think and realize that although they're well-to-do, privately educated and really, really smart - they haven't outgrown their belief in their own superiority - even racially.

1 Reply

Poor Aidan--Those statistictis are NOT my statistics. You can find them on the internet if you try.

You wrote:

I'm gonna have to look that up.
*****************************
Please do so. You may educate yourself that way!

******************************************

Aidan wrote:

I think I would have just called over the cubicle -' You can say whatever you want when I'm not around, but do me a favor and keep that racist **** out of my work environment'.
That would have at least made them think and realize that although they're well-to-do, privately educated and really, really smart - they haven't outgrown their belief in their own superiority - even racially.
**************************************************************

You have a point, Aidan. Similarly, when some MORALLY SUPERIOR FIGURE OPERATING FROM THE MORAL HIGH GROUND LIKE DIEST TKO OPENS HIS MOUTH ABOUT HIS MORAL SUPERIORITY, I would just call over the cubicle--You can say what you want about your MORAL SUPERIORITY when I am not around, but do me a favor and keep that Holier than thou carp out of my work environment.

That would make him think that altough he thinks he is holier and more progressive than anyone else, he hasn't really outgrown his Superciliousness.

*************************************************************

You really need to think things over, Aidan.

You speak about outgrowing thier belief in one's superiority.

You have never thought that through, have you?

Diest TKO asserts his MORAL SUPERIORITY but gives no evidence for it except his own assessment.

That is unacceptable.

Now, a basketball player like Michael Jordan might say he was one of the greatest--superior to most other players.

On what basis would he say this? On the basis of the OBJECTIVE RECORD OF COURSE.

You see, Aidan, there is a difference between an objective record which shows superiority in one field or another and a CLAIM , backed by no evidence like the one claimed by Diest TKO.

When I say that the Jews in the USA have won a great many Nobel Prizes which is out of proportion to their numbers demographically-- I am speaking of an objectively verifiable fact!

When I say that Afro-Americans have not done will on SAT tests or ACT tests when compared to other groups, I am speaking of an objectively verifiable fact.

When I say that Afro-Americans inhabit American jails in a far higher proportion than would be expected according to their demograhpics, I am speaking of an objectively verifiable fact.

When I say that Afro-Americans are most often in the bottom half of their Law or Medical School classes, I am speaking of an objectively verifiable fact.

I think you have a great deal to learn, Aidan. Try to take a statistics course. It may benefit you.

2 Replies

@genoves,

Well you presented them as being true - back them up.

1 Reply

@aidan,

nevermind - I figured it out.

1 Reply

@aidan,

Let's start with one at a time, Aidan. Pick one out and I will give you evidence and documentation that it is correct.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

In response to David's typical "wrap me in the flag" holier-than-thou rant--at no time did i state or imply that anyone's right to be a loud-mouthed, racist asshole should or could be interfered with.

I have simply pointed out that there are perfectly comprehensible and vivid descriptions of this phenomenon in our language which do not require the use of racist stereotypes. So, when you hear someone using them, it is pretty clear that the speaker is either a racist, or insufficiently decent to avoid racist expressions.

0 Replies

It is quite clear that the writers on one side of this discussion haven't ever had to lead a workplace team.

Clueless.

Joe(bet they haven't been on any side of a soccer pitch, baseball diamond or football field either.)Nation

1 Reply

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

I don't know - I think David and Hawkeye have a point. I agree with you that this was not in good taste. But, what difference does it really make if you only censor the language and the attitude is still there?
I think that just creates a false sense of 'good taste' and/or tolerance that doesn't really even exist while at the same time maybe intensifying the resentment of the people who have these racist ideas toward the people who won't let them speak their mind, and the minority they now see as once again, being paternalistically protected.

Who said anything about censorship? People can freely think and say their mind.

A discussion on rights is incomplete without talking about talking about responsibilities. They continue to have the right, even if they speak irresponsibly, but in my case, I had a duty to my team, and myself to speak my mind.

aidan wrote:

I think I would have just called over the cubicle -' You can say whatever you want when I'm not around, but do me a favor and keep that racist **** out of my work environment'.
That would have at least made them think and realize that although they're well-to-do, privately educated and really, really smart - they haven't outgrown their belief in their own superiority - even racially.

But aidan, those people, weren't my team. I was not their leadership. It was more appropriate for me to talk to their lead and let him sort it out. the end message is the same, but where it comes from, and how it's conveyed is important.

Shouting over a cubicle (in this case no cubicles, we were in a lab) and making a statement like this would have potentially created a worse situation in my opinion. I think the message was better coming from their team lead.

He agreed, but I repeat myself.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I asked you first David. I'm not going to waste my time if you aren't going to meet the same burden. You first. You tell me how these other individuals have the moral high ground in their unnecessary racist statements.

You do that first, or don't expect anything.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest - I don't think what you did was wrong. I'm just saying that now the impression that the people who used the terminology they used may have is, 'Wow - we use this harmless little term then someone talks to someone else about it and then our team leader comes and talks to us about it, and we get the message that we shouldn't have used the term.'

Which is GOOD - if they are open and accepting of the fact that the term could be interpreted as being offensive and racist and they sincerely do not want to be offensive and racist.

Bu if they really are racist and don't want to have to watch their language or tone at work, the fact that the instruction comes down from the top seems that it would imply a sort of censoring of their thoughts and language while at work.

As Joe said - I've never led a team- and I don't work where you work, so I'm not aware of the dynamics. But I can only compare it to any of my own jobs that I've had where if I had said something offensive - that I might not have meant to be particularly offensive -but not within earshot of the principal, but then he came up to me and said, 'So and so told me that you said such and such,' my first thought would be, 'What the hell is this? Why didn't so and so just say to me, 'I wish you wouldn't say such and such in my presence- I find it offensive.'
Thus giving me the opportunity to rethink what I said, and maybe come to the conclusion that I'd misspoken- instead of making it a more formalized and larger issue than it might have needed to be.

But again, I've always felt on pretty equal terms with all of my colleagues and able to address things with them directly. Maybe the team leader role is one that I'm not really familiar with.

(I also admit it's probably wasn't appropriate to advise calling out - except that if they were talking loudly enough for everyone to hear anyway - I don't really know that it didn't make sense to keep it on a casual conversational level until it happened more than once and it became obvious that this was going to be an ongoing issue that needed to be addressed formally).

But yeah - I wasn't there.

But I have been at games where people have yelled really innappropriate things, and I have said, 'Can you please watch your language - I find that really offensive,' and they either say, 'Oh sorry - okay' and stop or they've said, 'I don't care what you find offensive,' and continue.
At that point - what can you do about it?

2 Replies

@genoves,

Quote:

but do me a favor and keep that Holier than thou carp out of my work environment.

Yeah, those holier than thou fish are so annoying, especially in the workplace... Laughing

(sorry couldn't resist - and besides you deserve it - all you ever do is give me homework....now I have to take a frigging statistics course to read your posts- Genovese I'm DONE with school - no more homework - ever again....sorry, but no deal).

0 Replies

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

Diest - I don't think what you did was wrong. I'm just saying that now the impression that the people who used the terminology they used may have is, 'Wow - we use this harmless little term then someone talks to someone else about it and then our team leader comes and talks to us about it, and we get the message that we shouldn't have used the term.'

Which is GOOD - if they are open and accepting of the fact that the term could be interpreted as being offensive and racist and they sincerely do not want to be offensive and racist.

Bu if they really are racist and don't want to have to watch their language or tone at work, the fact that the instruction comes down from the top seems that it would imply a sort of censoring of their thoughts and language while at work.

But it's not censorship. If they want to incorrectly view it as such, I can't be responsible for that. In this case, we were not on a equal ground. I was a team leader.

Their team leader thanked me for bringing this to HIM. He wanted to address this with his team members. He agreed it was better for him to address it than for me.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

then you did the right thing.

0 Replies

TKO or rather
T
K
O

At the beginning of this thread you asked for thoughts. In amongst the usual wastes of time and bandwidth, you got some. If it means anything, I think you did the right thing in the right way and so did the other team leader.

Joe(well done.)Nation

2 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Quote:

At the beginning of this thread you asked for thoughts. In amongst the usual wastes of time and bandwidth, you got some. If it means anything, I think you did the right thing in the right way and so did the other team leader.

Ya, you are another one who is consistently dismissive of those you don't agree with (read: part of the problem).

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Re: OmSigDAVID (Post 3676491)
In response to David's typical "wrap me in the flag" holier-than-thou rant--at no time did i state or imply that anyone's right to be a loud-mouthed, racist asshole should or could be interfered with.

I have simply pointed out that there are perfectly comprehensible and vivid descriptions of this phenomenon in our language which do not require the use of racist stereotypes. So, when you hear someone using them, it is pretty clear that the speaker is either a racist, or insufficiently decent to avoid racist expressions.

*****************************************************************
How about a subdued Communist traitors rant? At no time would I ever state or imply that senile old bastards like Setanta could not piss all over themselves in fright when Genoves totally destroyed his error filled screed on Nazis and the right wing/left wing.

Of course there is a comprehensible and vivid description of the phenomenon which do not require the use of racist sterotypes. They are easy to find. Gather up statistics to show that, despite Diest's protestations, there are very very few African-Americans who have the background and the intellect to be good Engineers.

Setanta, the holy one, speakes about being "insufficiently decent to avoid racist expressions. Yet, he thinks nothing about calling other people names because he is afraid to interact with them>

WHAT A HYPOCRITE!!!

And, he still hasn't and won't( since he is unable to call up enough intellectual power to do so) rebut the definition of racism. The poor man thinks that cab drivers who do not pick up three black gang bangers at 3:00 in the AM are racists. Setanta has most probably been no where near an inner city in his life and if he dared to walk there in the evening without police escort, there is a good chance he would not emerge without several bad wounds.

Setanta and others like him are clueless. They rant about Racism. They do not have the courage to comment about the GREAT African-American leader,Jesse Jackson, who once opined that he worried when he heard footsteps behind him when he was walking and then was relieved to find out it was someone who was white.

No, they won't charge Jesse with being a racist. He cannot be a racist. He is on the side of the angels. But anyone on the right is a racist because it is easy to call names without giving evidence.

Racism is a mind set which says that INHERENT differences among the races determine cultural and or individual achievement.

Setanta would claim that it is racist for someone to quote the facts--the truth--that Afro-Americans do not do well in academics--that there are an enormous number of them in jails--that they are highly involved in crime. But he does not know that when someone quotes and praises intelligent Afro-Americans like Dr. Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele and Bill Cosby, that puts them, BY DEFINITION, outside of the meaning of Racism.

Of course, Setanta is too stupid to understand this. He cannot comprehend that it is NOT RACE that is at issue, it is the BEHAVIOR of most AFRO-AMERICANS--THIER POLITICAL AND PERSONAL PHILOSOPHIES>

But Setanta, unable to debate because he is so frightened, takes the easy way out and name calls.

0 Replies

Hawkeye wrote:

Ya, you are another one who is consistently dismissive of those you don't agree with (read: part of the problem).

*****************************************************************

Joe Nation is another one I cleaned the floor with a few years ago. He is also afraid to confront my ideas.

What a timorous bunch of sissies on the left.

0 Replies

A quick story about racism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know