19
   

A quick story about racism.

 
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 07:13 am
@aidan,
I get that aidan, but it still needed to be said. There is no PC mandate. It's a strawman. This isn't about the first amendment. the first amendment is about the government infringing on your speech rights, not individualand small groups interacting with each other.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 07:19 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
This is supposed to be a free country.

It's supposed to be a country free from unreasonable government interference. It supposed to be a country where everyone is afforded the same rights, and were the law is applied equally to everyone.

It is not supposed to be a country where anyone may do whatever he or she pleases.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 07:23 am
The first amendment has no force on private property. Workplaces are private property. Even government work places can restrict your speech--in most states (every state i've ever lived and worked in) you cannot conduct political canvassing in government offices. But private property is immune to first amendment provisions.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 07:25 am
@DrewDad,
Quote:
It is not supposed to be a country where anyone may do whatever he or she pleases.


This is an important distinction which is lost on many right-wingers. Gunnuts like to claim that those who favor gun control legislation are "freedom haters." These are people who cannot or will not distinguish between freedom and license.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 07:38 am
@aidan,

2pac said:
Quote:
Anyway....Respect...that is the key, and in my opinion you did the right thing by speaking up....I do not cuss when I'm working on a church, or working for or around religious folk....even though I poke fun of religion at every given chance...I just don't do it....simply out of respect.



I said:
Quote:
Okay - even though I'm going to ask this question- it does NOT mean I advocate racist speech in the workplace or disrespecting people in general.

How is it respectful, or rather, what good does it really do in the long run - if you put on a false face when you are in someone's presence, you PRETEND that you respect them and their beliefs or whatever or whoever they are - but as soon as you leave their presence- you poke fun at them, or resume your hateful speech, etc?

I repeat the question - in general. When no one has made any sort of hateful remark about anyone - they're just in your presence and you know that you hold them in low esteem for some reason - but you are doing the politically correct thing and wait until they turn their back for you to address someone else with what you think of them in any honest fashion?

I wrote:
Quote:
I think this is the question that I have. It's not a problem for me to be respectful in the workplace whether that be a church or a school, because I don't really have to cover up any innate prejudice or bias in those situations. But I'll tell you - when I was working in the prison and one inmate asked me what I thought of drug dealers - I had to tell him the truth.

Diest asked:
Quote:
That's a solicited request though is it not?

Yes, it was, but actually I risked being fired to bypass the politically correct answer which would have been to understandingly recognize all the mitigating factors in his environment and upbringing to end up saying, 'It's really not my place to judge...' and I said, when he started listing all the mitigating factors and why's and wherefore's of why he did what he did and ended up in prison...'That's bullshit. You had a choice and a responsibility to your children and family and your community and you chose to do something you knew would be harmful to all of them - and here you sit. Don't ask me to understand why you HAD to sell drugs to children. I never will.'

Believe me - I wasn't supposed to say that in my position. But I couldn't live with myself if I'd said anything else.

I said:
Quote:
I understand the need for polite and appropriate behavior in the workplace - most definitely. But I do think that David and Hawkeye have a point about the possible pitfalls or inadvisability or usefulness of putting on these politically correct facades and MANDATING tolerance.
It can be attempted. But it's not really very effective at the end of the day - and sometimes- and I've seen this with my own eyes- it causes more resentment and tension than anything else.


Diest answered:
Quote:
This is a total strawman aidan. Don't fall for it. Ask yourself: What mandate? No mandate exists here. As for resentment and tension, I think the defamation of minority groups creates more tension and I think that resentment is a hell of a lot more justified than some racist with a crybaby attitude who gets pulled aside by his boss. He asked for it.

No it's not. These are my thoughts from my experience Diest - I'm not really the sort of person to fall for what anyone else drums up without a lot of thought first.
I know - from watching an entire school system being FORCED to confront their views on race and MANDATED to re-examine their level of tolerance toward other races through diversity training and mandatory reading groups, that various people who'd started out about as far from what I would describe as racist, ended up becoming so resentful of having their every thought and action called into question in terms of race- that they either just summarily learned how to play the game - or they flat out refused and honestly, their view on the whole subject was poisoned. What wasn't negative and toxic was turned that way by the way it was handled.


I wrote:
Quote:
Because don't you think the people who are being 'tolerated' or tokenly 'respected' know that's the case?
Don't you think the black students in Genoves' school know that they're not welcome - even though all the language is 'appropriate' and the welcome mat has been laid out at the door?


Quote:

First off, I don't believe this genoves yahoo has a school. This is largely based on the fact that in his posting history, he's shown that he has a pattern of falsifying who he is. His credibility is shot.

I do believe he worked in a school. I do. The point is that surface and/or token respect and appropriate language is not enough. These children deserve more. They deserve the real thing.
Diest said:
Quote:
Secondly, those minority children need advocates willing to stand up for them. If we do nothing, then we are a part of the problem.

Truer words have never been spoken. That's pretty much what I've been doing for the last twenty-five years - for other minority children as well as the two I am mother to.

I said:
Quote:
If it were me - I think I'd just say - Jesus, have enough respect for me to just say what you bloody think- and then maybe we can get somewhere with these issues - if we can start from some sort of semblance of position of the truth.


Diest answered:
Quote:
There is no truth in racism aidan. None. It is an inherently illogical and immature world view.

But the truth is that it exists. And when we enforce the use of language that would seem to deny its existence and presents a seemingly wonderful and pristine facade that isn't real - what are we really accomplishing?
Another wonderfully pleasant day for all involved- yeah right.

I'll say it again, these children deserve more - they deserve the real thing.
And it's not happening for them by the means we are currently employing.
We need to try something else.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 07:43 am
What a f*ckin' loon . . .
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 07:55 am
@aidan,
Who here is advocating political correctness aidan?

It's the strawman. To argue that is simply an argument form authority, which is rightfully dismissable. I had not thoughts of political correctness when I talked to the other team leader. I'm not saying kids should be taught in school that calling someone a "nigger" is wrong because I said so (or any other authority).

I'm saying that racism thrives when people do nothing. I think that it has to be an internal conclusion for it to mean anything aidan, and that's why people benefit from having to prioritize their own values. If you're a racist, understanding how your views effect your and others should be a part of your conscious. I can't demand an outcome, but it's been my observation that once people understand that, the choice is quite clear.

For that matter, there is one thing that has not been said in this thread. The team member chose his words. He chose to say "africa-engineer." He (as I would assume) very specifically chose not to say "nigger-rigged." Why choose the former? Is it a matter of words or ideas? I would hypothesize that he knew what he was saying was wrong and it was a matter of cognitive dissonance that he convinced himself that the latter was somehow more acceptable.

T
K
O
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 08:07 am
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
For that matter, there is one thing that has not been said in this thread. The team member chose his words. He chose to say "africa-engineer." He (as I would assume) very specifically chose not to say "nigger-rigged." Why choose the former? Is it a matter of words or ideas? I would hypothesize that he knew what he was saying was wrong and it was a matter of cognitive dissonance that he convinced himself that the latter was somehow more acceptable.

I think he convinced himself that the latter was more clever, what he probably considered witty- and would thus mark him as somehow above your everyday, garden variety working class racist.

The point is Diest - that this asshole is still racist- whether he uses the language or not.

I think it's a mistake to believe that enforcing or mandating appropriate and politically correct language accomplishes anything but that very specific result - workplaces where appropriate and politically correct language is used- which is no small thing, in my mind, by the way.

But it does sometimes muddy and confuse the issue, by making it appear less of an issue than it really is.
I was sincere when I said I thought you handled your situation well- or as well as it could be handled.
Now I'm just responding to what some call 'respect'- in my mind, it involves more than just language.
And if it does just consist of enforced language in some peoples' minds, can we take it to mean anything at all?
Quote:

I think that it has to be an internal conclusion for it to mean anything aidan,

Exactly - so if its enforced - what does it mean?
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 08:17 am
@aidan,
aidan wrote:
Quote:

I think that it has to be an internal conclusion for it to mean anything aidan,

Exactly - so if its enforced - what does it mean?

I disagree. Enforcing these rules in public sends a message about what behaviors are appropriate, and which behaviors will not be tolerated.

It may not change anyone's mind, but it certainly changes their actions.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 08:18 am
@DrewDad,
That's true.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 08:34 am
@aidan,
DrewDad said it first.

Think about it the other way. The opposite is one where we are permissive and what is the product of that?

T
K
O
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 08:54 am
@Diest TKO,
We would see where we really stood with all of it.
We'd be confronted with the truth.
Part of me thinks it wouldn't be so bad as we might initially think it would be - I tend to have a lot of faith in people.
But yeah - it's easy for me to say - let's deal with the real attitudes people have when I'm white and middle-classed- isn't it?

But as I said- these kids are dealing with the real attitudes everyday -despite what comes out of peoples' mouths.

I guess I should just think of it as being well-mannered. And yeah- good manners are important.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 08:59 am
@aidan,
I guess we come full circle.

From my vantage point having experienced and observed firsthand racist attacks, I don't think that this truth would reveal anything we don't already know. Nothing to gain by offering racists a new platform.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 01:52 pm
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

DrewDad said it first.

Think about it the other way.
The opposite is one where we are permissive and what is the product of that?

T
K
O

Yeah; people who don 't share your point of vu
need PERMISSION to have their own thoughts or (much worse) to express them.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 02:05 pm
@DrewDad,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
This is supposed to be a free country.

DrewDad wrote:
Quote:
It's supposed to be a country free from unreasonable government interference.
It supposed to be a country where everyone is afforded the same rights,
and were the law is applied equally to everyone.

It is not supposed to be a country where anyone may do whatever he or she pleases.

Neither government, nor anyone else
has ever been granted authority
to control nor to influence anyone 's freedom of opinion,
nor freedom to express those opinions.

It is "unreasonable government interference" for government
to try to influence what anyone believes or to tell him what to SAY
or not to say. Government was not created to do that.

If it does so anyway, it proceeds ONLY with the same authority as a schoolyard bully.





David
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 02:30 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Not the point David. The point is that doing nothing, and not speaking out against this kind of speech means that we are saying it's okay.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 02:36 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

DrewDad said it first.

Think about it the other way.
The opposite is one where we are permissive and what is the product of that?

T
K
O

Yeah; people who don 't share your point of vu
need PERMISSION to have their own thoughts or (much worse) to express them.


Those who who spout irrational racist terms deserve to be limited in their ability to do so within the workplace. The effects of this are directly harmful to morale.

Cycloptichorn
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 03:01 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

DrewDad said it first.

Think about it the other way.
The opposite is one where we are permissive and what is the product of that?

T
K
O

Yeah; people who don 't share your point of vu
need PERMISSION to have their own thoughts or (much worse) to express them.


Those who who spout irrational racist terms deserve to be limited in their ability to do so within the workplace. The effects of this are directly harmful to morale.

Cycloptichorn

For the sake of argument,
conceive of an Anti-Cycloptichorn -- the direct n exact
mirror-image opposite of yourself. (Yin Yang)
If the political pendulum keeps swinging,
as it always has, to the effect that the democratic process
elevates to power people of the Anti-Cycloptichorn's point of vu
then he will say:
"Those who who spout irrational non-racist terms deserve to be limited
in their ability to do so within the workplace. The effects of this are directly harmful to morale."

In other words, so far as thought police
or speech police are concerned: its only a question WHO 's OX IS GORED.

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 03:09 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

DrewDad said it first.

Think about it the other way.
The opposite is one where we are permissive and what is the product of that?

T
K
O

Yeah; people who don 't share your point of vu
need PERMISSION to have their own thoughts or (much worse) to express them.


Those who who spout irrational racist terms deserve to be limited in their ability to do so within the workplace. The effects of this are directly harmful to morale.

Cycloptichorn

For the sake of argument,
conceive of an Anti-Cycloptichorn -- the direct n exact
mirror-image opposite of yourself. (Yin Yang)
If the political pendulum keeps swinging,
as it always has, to the effect that the democratic process
elevates to power people of the Anti-Cycloptichorn's point of vu
then he will say:
"Those who who spout irrational non-racist terms deserve to be limited
in their ability to do so within the workplace. The effects of this are directly harmful to morale."

In other words, so far as thought police
or speech police are concerned: its only a question WHO 's OX IS GORED.




You are incorrect; that is what is known as a false equivalence.

It isn't about 'thought' police; you are allowed to think whatever you wish. However, there are certain standards of decorum which must be upheld in public, and especially at the workplace: namely, to not engage in speech which causes distress to others for no good reason.

This is why you see sexist, racist, and other forms of discriminatory speech banned: they add nothing to the workplace at all and severely detract from the environment for many.

Why you feel the need to defend racist speech is beyond me; can you provide an explanation which does not revolve around agreement with that speech?

Cycloptichorn
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 03:48 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
"Those who who spout irrational non-racist terms deserve to be limited
in their ability to do so within the workplace. The effects of this are directly harmful to morale."

I'd love to meet one of these people and have that debate.

T
K
O
 

Related Topics

2016 moving to #1 spot - Discussion by gungasnake
Black Lives Matter - Discussion by TheCobbler
Is 'colored people' offensive? - Question by SMickey
Obama, a Joke - Discussion by coldjoint
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
The ECHR and muslims - Discussion by Arend
Atlanta Race Riot 1906 - Discussion by kobereal24
Quote of the Day - Discussion by Tabludama
The Confederacy was About Slavery - Discussion by snood
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 03:10:01