CatBus

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

I assume the meaning is that even Michelle Obama, descendant of slaves, was benefiting from racism insofar as the house she was living in was built by slaves.

Maybe, but what you want to do? Knock down a perfectly usable White House and waste money building a new one, just so we can say the President no longer lives in a house built by slaves? The White House was built by slaves. It was wrong, it was racist, it was a crime. But it is too late to reverse it. The While House is already built. Nothing can undo the fact that it was built by slaves. The slaves that built it are long dead, there is no way to help them, there is nothing to do that will do any of them any good. Make sure it is remembered how the White House was built, build a monument to the slave that built there. Put up a plaque to remember it. But it is done and can’t be undone unless someone invents a time machine.

The literal level isn’t where the useful discussion is. It’s not about a physical structure per se, it’s about a nation. It’s not about living in a house per se, it’s about benefiting from past injustice. So – to refrain from the original post, what is she (and what are we) going to do about that?

I don’t know that anything can be done. Unless you have a time machine, you can’t change the past(even if you did have one, there are a whole slew of problems with trying to alter history).

You’re still looking at it very literally. The slavery happened and can’t be undone. The lynching and redlining happened and can’t be undone. But the current injustices that are derived from these things? Those can be undone. The trouble is that the current injustices are much more subtle, institutional things, and perpetuated by largely well-meaning people with no overt racial animus. Nevertheless that’s our responsibility, to wipe out the legacy of slavery, since the slavery itself was already wiped out by previous generations.

EDIT: Your questions about job interviews are actually a great example of how we do this today.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

I assume the meaning is that even Michelle Obama, descendant of slaves, was benefiting from racism insofar as the house she was living in was built by slaves.

Maybe, but what you want to do? Knock down a perfectly usable White House and waste money building a new one, just so we can say the President no longer lives in a house built by slaves? The White House was built by slaves. It was wrong, it was racist, it was a crime. But it is too late to reverse it. The While House is already built. Nothing can undo the fact that it was built by slaves. The slaves that built it are long dead, there is no way to help them, there is nothing to do that will do any of them any good. Make sure it is remembered how the White House was built, build a monument to the slave that built there. Put up a plaque to remember it. But it is done and can’t be undone unless someone invents a time machine.

The literal level isn’t where the useful discussion is. It’s not about a physical structure per se, it’s about a nation. It’s not about living in a house per se, it’s about benefiting from past injustice. So – to refrain from the original post, what is she (and what are we) going to do about that?

yhwx said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

So I shouldn’t be concerned at all that if I hire this person, she is going to need a leave of absence soon?

You should show the same amount of concern as you do with your other candidates may need to do this. Husbands with eight-month-pregnant wives, lesbian moms with eight-month-pregnant wives. Dive right on in to those deeply personal questions. Er, maybe no.

This isn’t really a helpful answer. I applaud Warbler’s effort to learn on this topic, but this answer doesn’t really help to give him a better understanding of the situation. What should Warbler do? Ideally, the answer should be more specific than “Er, maybe no.”

The post is also weird on a writing-organizational level. Going straight from “Dive right on in to those deeply personal questions,” to “Er, maybe no.” is unclear and hard to understand. Those two are not great sentences.

Just as a (late) follow-up, I was getting too wrapped up in the larger conversation, trying to get people to think about exactly why they’re asking what they’re asking, instead of just simply answering it. Not my finest, no.

This is more useful info: http://employment.findlaw.com/hiring-process/illegal-interview-questions-and-female-applicants.html

Although this is being reported semi-decently, there was a non-lethal white supremacist attack at another location in Charlottesville today, not just at the big rally. IMO this really is a matter of testing to see exactly how much they can get away with. Unless the perps are all found, tried, and convicted in short order, I expect they’ll see this weekend as a green light for more of the same, nationally.

Jeebus said:

yhwx said:

This is insanity.

http://www.dailyprogress.com/gallery/graphic-pedestrians-struck-by-car-after-unite-the-right-rally/collection_9ad95178-7f81-11e7-ba2b-5f75148f6c79.html

So, the big question is; was this terrorism? A hate crime? Just standard vehicular homicide?

Likely fits the standard definition of terrorism (violence targeting civilians to advance a political cause), but there’s that Dylann Roof pigmentation problem, so I’m saying the charge will be murder, a bump up from vehicular homicide.

DominicCobb said:

I assume the meaning is that even Michelle Obama, descendant of slaves, was benefiting from racism insofar as the house she was living in was built by slaves.

Ding. House as a metaphor for nation and all that, as well. i.e. we all grew up in a house built by slaves, and we’re raising our children in it too, get it? We’re not responsible for the slavery and racism, and we don’t approve of it, but we nevertheless benefit unequally from the fruits of it. That’s the deal with institutional racism. You don’t need any intentional, conscious racism at all to keep it going indefinitely.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

You mean put together a team that is half black, half white, half male, half female?

No, identity doesn’t predict bias.

It doesn’t would think it would be less likely that a black man would be biased against black people than a white man.

You’d think so. But there are plenty of cases where women can be the harshest judges of women, and so on. Throw identity politics out on the garbage heap where it belongs.

maybe but what about this:

It is wrong to think it more likely that the people in the background are biased toward black people than the cop?

Honestly depends on how many are undercover agents and informants. I always hope there’s a lot.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

darthrush said:

CatBus said:

CatBus said:

I think I’ve said this before but I think it bears repeating: the word racism means different things to different people. When discussing this topic, it’s pretty normal for some white people to recoil the second the word starts to touch them personally. Because racism, to them, is overt acts, conscious choices, hateful feelings, much more personal. But to others, racism is woven into the fabric of America, much more institutional. If you were born and raised here, you’ve already got some on you. The only question is: what are you going to do about it?

When Michelle Obama said she raised her daughters in a house built by slaves, that was a much more poignant way of saying she got some on her. The more important question is what is she doing about it?

This post probably much more tactfully says the same thing I just said, but in a way people seem to have appreciated at the time, if not now.

I think we may have a big misunderstanding about what we each thought of racism and I apoglozie. I subscribe to the definition that racism is when you discriminate against someone and think they are less of a person than you in any way because of their skin color. And when I heard you say that “All of Americans should check their racism”, I associated it instantly with what I think of racism and an accusation like that can rile me up really fast and I apologize for not taking the time to understand your persceptive.

Thank you, and I’ll apologize to you, Warb, and the thread for whipping out the “R” word without enough of the context that I indicated myself I think is very necessary for civil discussions. Lesson learned.

Its alright, I wasn’t nearly as angry as others were in this thread. I was just trying to ask questions and learn.

Hey, we all learned something today: Arguing on the Internet – it worked!

I think that’s actually happened twice now. Third time is a sign of the apocalypse.

yhwx said:

I don’t want to go full-on Frevious here but…

It’s accurate to say the same mechanic is at work. It’s full-on Frevious to say it will reach the same conclusion. That’s not to say full-on Frevious is wrong, but probably wrong.

darthrush said:

CatBus said:

CatBus said:

I think I’ve said this before but I think it bears repeating: the word racism means different things to different people. When discussing this topic, it’s pretty normal for some white people to recoil the second the word starts to touch them personally. Because racism, to them, is overt acts, conscious choices, hateful feelings, much more personal. But to others, racism is woven into the fabric of America, much more institutional. If you were born and raised here, you’ve already got some on you. The only question is: what are you going to do about it?

When Michelle Obama said she raised her daughters in a house built by slaves, that was a much more poignant way of saying she got some on her. The more important question is what is she doing about it?

This post probably much more tactfully says the same thing I just said, but in a way people seem to have appreciated at the time, if not now.

I think we may have a big misunderstanding about what we each thought of racism and I apoglozie. I subscribe to the definition that racism is when you discriminate against someone and think they are less of a person than you in any way because of their skin color. And when I heard you say that “All of Americans should check their racism”, I associated it instantly with what I think of racism and an accusation like that can rile me up really fast and I apologize for not taking the time to understand your persceptive.

Thank you, and I’ll apologize to you, Warb, and the thread for whipping out the “R” word without enough of the context that I indicated myself I think is very necessary for civil discussions. Lesson learned.

darthrush said:

CatBus said:

darthrush said:

CatBus said:

darthrush said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

darthrush said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

Meaning you’ve got biases that have been installed into you by decades of exposure to racist media, housing policies, schools, family, friends, etc. It’s a nice way of saying you’re racist, but using the broad definition that includes pretty much all Americans, and doesn’t mean you’re actively trying to perpetuate these things.

*sigh* 😐

Relevant.

For Christ’s sake.

Warbler has shown nothing that would make you think he is racist and to assume that someone is racist without any evidence is just awful. Half of this race talk is just virtue signaling from the left and does nothing to help solve issues in America.

Umm, I think the link was intended to criticize CatBus for calling Warbler racist. The video points out that we are all capable of occasionally doing a racist act, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we are a racist person.

Thanks for the clear up. Catbus, my last message was directed at you and every other self righteous asshole from the left.

I called pretty much all Americans racists in the sense that they are all tainted by growing up with racism, and should that into consideration when making decisions, and I included myself (and women, and minorities) in that. Self-righteous refers to someone who thinks they’re better than other people, not someone who thinks they’re equally culpable. Nevertheless, through this discussion, we have successfully identified a self-righteous asshole.

Never said I was better than you Mr. All Americans are Racist.

Ah, so when you said I was a self-righteous asshole, you meant we are ALL self-righteous assholes, and you are just as bad of one as me. You were being just as humble and circumspect as I was in my observations on race in America – it just wasn’t apparent at first. Thanks for the clarification yourself. I can kinda get behind that sentiment.

Either that or you’re not backpedaling fast enough, Mr. Self-Righteous.

Sorry that I think it’s self righteous to call all Americans racist and then say that “im just trying to fix the problem” by admitting your “racism” and that there are so many other people who aren’t humble enough to admit it themselves.

Ahh, so that’s it. Introspection is the exclusive domain of leftist blowhards, is it? I’ll just call it a day then.

CatBus said:

I think I’ve said this before but I think it bears repeating: the word racism means different things to different people. When discussing this topic, it’s pretty normal for some white people to recoil the second the word starts to touch them personally. Because racism, to them, is overt acts, conscious choices, hateful feelings, much more personal. But to others, racism is woven into the fabric of America, much more institutional. If you were born and raised here, you’ve already got some on you. The only question is: what are you going to do about it?

When Michelle Obama said she raised her daughters in a house built by slaves, that was a much more poignant way of saying she got some on her. The more important question is what is she doing about it?

This post probably much more tactfully says the same thing I just said, but in a way people seem to have appreciated at the time, if not now.

darthrush said:

CatBus said:

darthrush said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

darthrush said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

Meaning you’ve got biases that have been installed into you by decades of exposure to racist media, housing policies, schools, family, friends, etc. It’s a nice way of saying you’re racist, but using the broad definition that includes pretty much all Americans, and doesn’t mean you’re actively trying to perpetuate these things.

*sigh* 😐

Relevant.

For Christ’s sake.

Warbler has shown nothing that would make you think he is racist and to assume that someone is racist without any evidence is just awful. Half of this race talk is just virtue signaling from the left and does nothing to help solve issues in America.

Umm, I think the link was intended to criticize CatBus for calling Warbler racist. The video points out that we are all capable of occasionally doing a racist act, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we are a racist person.

Thanks for the clear up. Catbus, my last message was directed at you and every other self righteous asshole from the left.

I called pretty much all Americans racists in the sense that they are all tainted by growing up with racism, and should that into consideration when making decisions, and I included myself (and women, and minorities) in that. Self-righteous refers to someone who thinks they’re better than other people, not someone who thinks they’re equally culpable. Nevertheless, through this discussion, we have successfully identified a self-righteous asshole.

Never said I was better than you Mr. All Americans are Racist.

Ah, so when you said I was a self-righteous asshole, you meant we are ALL self-righteous assholes, and you are just as bad of one as me. You were being just as humble and circumspect as I was in my observations on race in America – it just wasn’t apparent at first. Thanks for the clarification yourself. I can kinda get behind that sentiment.

Either that or you’re not backpedaling fast enough, Mr. Self-Righteous.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

You mean put together a team that is half black, half white, half male, half female?

No, identity doesn’t predict bias.

It doesn’t would think it would be less likely that a black man would be biased against black people than a white man.

You’d think so. But there are plenty of cases where women can be the harshest judges of women, and so on. Throw identity politics out on the garbage heap where it belongs.

darthrush said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

darthrush said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

Meaning you’ve got biases that have been installed into you by decades of exposure to racist media, housing policies, schools, family, friends, etc. It’s a nice way of saying you’re racist, but using the broad definition that includes pretty much all Americans, and doesn’t mean you’re actively trying to perpetuate these things.

*sigh* 😐

Relevant.

For Christ’s sake.

Warbler has shown nothing that would make you think he is racist and to assume that someone is racist without any evidence is just awful. Half of this race talk is just virtue signaling from the left and does nothing to help solve issues in America.

Umm, I think the link was intended to criticize CatBus for calling Warbler racist. The video points out that we are all capable of occasionally doing a racist act, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we are a racist person.

Thanks for the clear up. Catbus, my last message was directed at you and every other self righteous asshole from the left.

I called pretty much all Americans racists in the sense that they are all tainted by growing up with racism, and should that into consideration when making decisions, and I included myself (and women, and minorities) in that. Self-righteous refers to someone who thinks they’re better than other people, not someone who thinks they’re equally culpable. Nevertheless, through this discussion, we have successfully identified a self-righteous asshole.

Warbler said:

You mean put together a team that is half black, half white, half male, half female?

No, identity doesn’t predict bias. If you’ve got an acknowledged anti-Latino bias, include someone who definitely doesn’t, Latino or not. If the team ends up being all white men, that’s a pretty good warning sign you didn’t do a very good job, but it’s technically possible.

What do you mean by touched by racism?

Meaning you’ve got biases that have been installed into you by decades of exposure to racist media, housing policies, schools, family, friends, etc. It’s a nice way of saying you’re racist, but using the broad definition that includes pretty much all Americans, and doesn’t mean you’re actively trying to perpetuate these things.

Warbler said:

So I shouldn’t be concerned at all that if I hire this person, she is going to need a leave of absence soon?

You should show the same amount of concern as you do with your other candidates may need to do this. Husbands with eight-month-pregnant wives, lesbian moms with eight-month-pregnant wives. Dive right on in to those deeply personal questions. Er, maybe no.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

darthrush said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

For those that don’t like the term colorblind:

If I were the boss of a company looking to hire an accountant, what would be wrong in being colorblind in my choice?

Nothing, it would be great. But how exactly are you going to achieve that?

By not being racist? Deciding to analyze them based upon their merit?

And this is verified how?

what do you mean?

I said I’d bail out of this discussion, but I’ll reiterate my point just this one time…

The whole “I’m color-blind” thing is supposedly an answer to charges of racism. But it’s circular logic. Being “not racist” and being “color-blind” is the same thing. I can say that I’m not racist, or I can say that I’m color-blind, but why should someone who has been oppressed believe me – just because I say so? I might not even know, because a lot of such things are subconscious. Do you think the Google guy who wrote the manifesto is color-blind? I bet he thinks he is.

Also, if I’m the CEO of some giant company, I may have to delegate the hiring process to senior employees below me. Even if I honestly want the hiring process to be “color-blind”, how am I going to guarantee that happens? How can I verify that my employees acted in a color-blind way? By accepting that it’s true if they say so? There generally need to be processes in place to ensure it is systemic and verifiable. Otherwise nobody would have any reason to believe it - it’s just words. It also wouldn’t hold up in court.

Being color-blind is an awesome goal, but again, just claiming that it’s so, isn’t compelling at all.

The claim of being color-blind is nearly always paired with the reality of being bias-blind.

you mean being blind to your own bias? Well, again I ask what the heck should you do? The best I can do is try to ignore skin color as much as possible and hire based on merit, and skills and qualifications. The best accountant gets the job.

Well, the first step is to be as aware as possible of all of your biases. Including the ones you didn’t think you had at first. The very first baby-step is to stop pretending you’re color-blind. Then there’s a matter of engaging with people who specialize in this sort of thing, attend training seminars, talk to people, listen to people, and so on. Yes, sensitivity training may often be an overscripted feel-good exercise even most of the time, but there’s often some nuggets of useful information if you pay attention. Such is any corporate seminar.

The next thing is to do what you can to counteract your biases. Have your hiring decisions done by a team that might be able to balance out each others’ biases. The team’s only consideration is to choose the best accountant – skills merit, qualifications – just like you said, but you may be surprised how often you disagree on such a straightforward thing. Also, teams are helpful in interviews, such as if there’s the bias I’ve seen a million times where every woman is asked to back up her claims of technical expertise, while men are assumed to have been honest on their resumes. All it takes is one interviewer who asks the right questions when the others forget to, and the whole team hears the answer. On top of that, use tiebreakers that counterbalance your acknowledged biases, that sort of thing.

Admitting you’ve been touched by racism is basically admitting you’re an American. People have survived worse.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

darthrush said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

For those that don’t like the term colorblind:

If I were the boss of a company looking to hire an accountant, what would be wrong in being colorblind in my choice?

Nothing, it would be great. But how exactly are you going to achieve that?

By not being racist? Deciding to analyze them based upon their merit?

And this is verified how?

what do you mean?

I said I’d bail out of this discussion, but I’ll reiterate my point just this one time…

The whole “I’m color-blind” thing is supposedly an answer to charges of racism. But it’s circular logic. Being “not racist” and being “color-blind” is the same thing. I can say that I’m not racist, or I can say that I’m color-blind, but why should someone who has been oppressed believe me – just because I say so? I might not even know, because a lot of such things are subconscious. Do you think the Google guy who wrote the manifesto is color-blind? I bet he thinks he is.

Also, if I’m the CEO of some giant company, I may have to delegate the hiring process to senior employees below me. Even if I honestly want the hiring process to be “color-blind”, how am I going to guarantee that happens? How can I verify that my employees acted in a color-blind way? By accepting that it’s true if they say so? There generally need to be processes in place to ensure it is systemic and verifiable. Otherwise nobody would have any reason to believe it - it’s just words. It also wouldn’t hold up in court.

Being color-blind is an awesome goal, but again, just claiming that it’s so, isn’t compelling at all.

The claim of being color-blind is nearly always paired with the reality of being bias-blind.

DuracellEnergizer said:

So Trump has taken to referring to himself in the third person now?

He was in a transporter accident with Bob Dole. He’s now BrundleTrump. The only way he can become human is to merge with enough humans that the Trump disappears.

SilverWook said:

Bad idea to do it on the company dime.

I dunno. Seems like he’s on the fast track for a cabinet post or ambassadorship.

Warbler said:

All I know is the overwhelming majority of Conservatives/Republicans are against the US Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage.

Yeah, small government conservatism is definitely falling out of favor, I don’t think you’ll get any argument from anyone about that. After all, there were five conservative justices on the court, and only the oldest sided with the Goldwater conservative argument. The four newer appointees all sided with the position of the newer, more dominant conservative ideology. Reagan is revered among conservatives as a matter of tradition, but few conservatives would touch his policies with a ten foot pole these days.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

and may soon have the majority of the US Supreme Court

Soon? The Supreme Court has been a reliably Republican institution for generations!

The Warren Court has left the building, modern conservative Republicans have had at least a slim majority ever since. And Warren was a Republican too, just from the era when liberal Republicans existed. The problem for the Republicans is that as the Republican party races to more-and-more conservative positions, these lifetime Republican appointees on the court seem more liberal just by keeping to the same positions that got them nominated.

The court’s current swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, is a diehard Reagan Republican. Republicans own this thing already. The trick is that by today’s Republican standards, Reagan was a Communist Kenyan Muslim.

Was it conservative when it said gays have a Constitutional right to marry?

My understanding is that 1) conservatism values limited federal government; and 2) family law is traditionally left to the individual states. And therefore, if a state were to grant someone that right, the federal government would let them. What would be a federal issue is whether someone who is gay got married in one state but another state didn’t recognize it as legally legitimate.

I think what the Supreme Court said was states had to allow gay marriages. I think they said a state couldn’t ban gay marriage. I am pretty sure that is not Conservative. I also pretty sure Ferris would agree with me.

The father of the modern American conservative movement disagrees with you, so I guess conservatism is a pretty big tent after all.

Barry Goldwater is the father of modern American Conservative movement? What about Reagan?

Reagan was the first president elected under that mantle, Goldwater was the person who more or less created the mantle. It’s like the difference between Obama being the guy who helped pass the ACA, and the people at the Heritage Foundation who more or less created the ACA.

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

and may soon have the majority of the US Supreme Court

Soon? The Supreme Court has been a reliably Republican institution for generations!

The Warren Court has left the building, modern conservative Republicans have had at least a slim majority ever since. And Warren was a Republican too, just from the era when liberal Republicans existed. The problem for the Republicans is that as the Republican party races to more-and-more conservative positions, these lifetime Republican appointees on the court seem more liberal just by keeping to the same positions that got them nominated.

The court’s current swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, is a diehard Reagan Republican. Republicans own this thing already. The trick is that by today’s Republican standards, Reagan was a Communist Kenyan Muslim.

Was it conservative when it said gays have a Constitutional right to marry?

My understanding is that 1) conservatism values limited federal government; and 2) family law is traditionally left to the individual states. And therefore, if a state were to grant someone that right, the federal government would let them. What would be a federal issue is whether someone who is gay got married in one state but another state didn’t recognize it as legally legitimate.

I think what the Supreme Court said was states had to allow gay marriages. I think they said a state couldn’t ban gay marriage. I am pretty sure that is not Conservative. I also pretty sure Ferris would agree with me.

The father of the modern American conservative movement disagrees with you, so I guess conservatism is a pretty big tent after all.

Stinky-Dinkins said:

SilverWook said:

Stinky-Dinkins said:

In practical terms, this is an unsolvable problem. If there’s money to be had, someone will be there to have it… The world is full of assholes. Reporting this one piece of shit will do absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things as even if he gets shut down another will simply pop up in the vacuum of his absence. It’s frustrating, and obnoxious, but there’s really nothing you can do to stop it.

I would, however, be all for exposing who this person is (especially if he’s a member of this site, and I think that’s likely). If he sells on eBay, or accepts Paypal, nabbing his personal details shouldn’t be difficult. I’m always game for a good public shaming. We can strip him naked and march him through the streets - really ring the shame bell the whole time just like Game of Thrones. Everyone will see his beaver, his full wonderful beaver.

That sounds a lot like doxxing, and I’m not cool with that. And it opens a whole can of potential legal worms I’m sure Jay doesn’t need or want. It wouldn’t help identifying if they were a member here to begin with.

YOU CAN’T HAVE A WHOLE CAN OF POTENTIAL WORMS SILVERWOOK THAT’S JUST AN EMPTY CAN.

A CAN CAN OF THAT’S JUST WORMS CAN’T HAVE AN WHOLE POTENTIAL YOU EMPTY SILVERWOOK.