Think about it. You cant refuse to hire someone or fire someone because they are black but you can if they are fat. When your fat people have the right to point you out and ridicule you in public.
Oprah even said once she felt that being fat was more of a discrimination that being a woman or being black.
I guess they are thinking that once a Nazi is hit with a bottle of urine then magically they will turn into a Hillary democrat.
Thing is to change peoples hearts and minds it happens one by one. For example just talking to that oddball at work or neighbor. I will look around by I read once where a jazz musician got some kkk to burn their robes.
I have no doubt that there are companies that direct their HR departments to attempt to make certain diversity goals, but how does a company require itself to hire certain numbers of minorities?
What companies have policies that discuss their hiring policies and such with failed applicants?
[quote]
I have been turned down for a number of jobs in my life, and I have never had the HR manager (in the very rare case they give an explanation at all) give me a story about how they could hire me if I were a minority.
If I had to guess, the guy was a racist who only found white men to be qualified, and the company told him that he needed to be more diverse in his hiring practices. He was upset about that, and decided to slander his own company. Further speculation would be that he hired unqualified black people just as a further attempt at trying his own hand at social change.
And no, I don’t know that this particular hiring manager did this, but I have known a hiring manager who would specifically hire minorities that were not qualified in order to make it look like there were no qualified minorities to be hire. He explained specifically to me that if he hired minorities that could do the job, then they would stay on the job, but as long as he met his “quota” with unqualified employees, they wouldn’t last long. I never worked for or with this guy, I new him from social circles outside of work.
How do you know that they didn’t give it to the better firm, and that firm happened to be a woman owned or minority owned firm?
It is my belief that a substantial portion of the people showing up to these things, on both sides, don’t actually care about the ideology of anything, they just want to get in some fights. The violence is the reason for them showing up. They want to participate.
That’s why I suggest we just have a large area cordoned off where they can go and have a grand melee, let them all beat each other up while the rest of us get on with our lives.
I thought my example of how public attitudes toward and acceptance of homosexuality has changed over my adult lifetime would be a sufficient example.
Fascism is another, though over a longer period. American fascism was rife during the 1930s. The American Bund operated openly and certainly had more quiet supporters than avowed members, just as one example. How are they considered today? *Not *publicly condemning openly fascist groups is denouncable today in a way that would have utterly surprised people then.
How did we get to these cultural agreements? By violent force? Obviously not. Good people spoke up, marched, protested, and embraced the good. Yes, they talked to people one at a time. They also vilified the groups espousing hatred. One won’t work without the other.
Not every mind has been changed. That would be a wonderful result but not a realistic one. Reality has made the Westboro Baptist Church an evil that can’t be publicly supported. The reality also is that the Republican Party has become the Westboro Baptist Church write large. It supports and quietly aids and abets hated, bigotry, and intolerance. The goal is to expose those attitudes that are core values of the Republican Party to cleansing sunlight and make them as abhorrent as homophobia and white supremacy are - or should be - today.
For all the endless talk about changing minds, I’ve never seen a mind changed here despite all the direct talk. To talk about that as the one and only allowable strategy is nothing better than a postponing tactic to keep current attitudes alive. I’m old enough to remember when integration was something to be put off until everybody agreed on how to do it. As long as we’re asking, how did that work out?
As of 2008, according to wikipedia, there were 30-35,000 members of the Crips.
The number of neo-Nazis (you quoted) out there isn’t very large, comparatively. And of course I have to point out that I in no way condone neo-Nazis, etc., lest I be branded a sympathizer.
You do realize that people who vote Republican aren’t a hivemind, right? Do you believe that all Democrats share the same values and vote exactly the same way, because you’re making a huge and incorrect generalization.
Not denying the mistreatment of Native people for a moment, but that’s a diversion. We’re not having a contest to see which ethnic group sustained the greatest injury from white supremacist policies. Native Americans would probably not want their examples to be used by whites to mute the complaints of black people; they’d probably just rather that their own grievances be taken more seriously.
Again, this is what white Americans do every time they get uncomfortable talking about the realities of the damage that they’ve inflicted upon black Americans. You can add:
“Oh yeah, well Native Americans actually had it worse than black Americans - they were nearly exterminated.”
to the list.
“Oh yeah, well my Irish great grandfather faced discrimination, too.”
“My great grandparents escaped the Holocaust”
“Not all blacks were slaves”
“I even saw this black Republican on Fox News who disagrees with liberals and blacks, so there!”
“the damage that they’ve inflicted upon black Americans” seems gratuitously offensive, so I’d like to give you the opportunity to clarify. Would you like to clarify that line?
I have no doubt that there are companies that direct their HR departments to attempt to make certain diversity goals, but how does a company require itself to hire certain numbers of minorities?
What companies have policies that discuss their hiring policies and such with failed applicants?
Love your last idea about the melee!
About when I was turned down for a job for being a white male.
Ok, they were school districts. The first one was the Blue Springs district. The district had a major diversity problem (mostly white teachers and a growing black student body) and was desperate for black teachers. The man opened up to me and told me this. I told him that in my graduating class of new teachers their was just one black one and he opened up and said what I said about how they could write their own ticket.
The second was the Kansas City Kansas school district where a black vice principal basically said outright they didn’t want anymore white teachers.
The final one was for a computer tech job and the guy took one look at me and said “No, we cant have anymore of you”.
These were all over 20 years ago.
As to my comment about contracts being required to go to minority firms, look up the term MWBE. and how companies have to get this before they can get many government contracts.
Great Caesar’s ghost, dude, is that what you meant by “discussing” them? Are you seriously suggesting that we should carefully sort through the “messages” of this grab bag of racist-turd organizations who all voluntarily agreed to participate in this so-called “Unite the Right” rally for the specified purpose of marching shoulder to shoulder with literal Nazis and Klansmen, in the hope of being able to pick out the “good” ones?!
Fuck that noise, my friend. When it comes to racist-turd organizations voluntarily making common cause with literal Nazis and Klansmen, there aren’t any good ones.
How can you try to normalize this? How can you attempt to present a set of explicitly racist and antidemocratic worldviews with the argument that a commitment to fostering civil discourse requires us to judiciously analyze “their pros and cons”?
That’s ridiculous. Like I said, I don’t support infringing the civil liberties of anybody who isn’t breaking the law, no matter how repugnant, but that doesn’t mean that I owe any truly repugnant ideologues the courtesy of taking their views seriously and trying to explore potential common ground in them.
I don’t do respectful debate with child-molestation advocates, I don’t do respectful debate with violent radical-Islamist terrorists, and I don’t do respectful debate with Klansmen and Nazis. (I’m sure there are lots of other groups who would also qualify as beyond the pale of rational exchange of ideas, but this lot will do to be going on with.)
WTF? You’ve WILDLY misunderstood some things here. To clarify, here are things that I’m NOT trying to do:
“suggest that we should carefully sort through [their messages], in the hope of being able to pick out the “good” ones”
“normalize this”
“present a set of explicitly racist and antidemocratic worldviews”
do so “with the argument that a commitment to fostering civil discourse requires us to judiciously analyze “their pros and cons””
I’m not suggesting or advocating that we do sit down and have a conversation with them. Let’s review the conversation (the following posts are snipped):
Read that last one closely please. It’s an observation, not a complaint, or a suggested change of course. It’s basically restating the post quoted before it. If people don’t want to talk to Klansmen, great, neither do I. I never said that you ought to.
I said, very carefully, that I don’t care what individual Republicans think as long as they put into power candidates from a party whose core value is hatred of the Other. The way to heal wounds in America is to treat voting Republican like smoking. We’ve cut the number of smokers in half during my lifetime. Teens are near or at record lows in the percentage taking up cigarettes. We accomplished that by making smoking seem disgusting. I’m sure that some people thought individual smokers were good, even though they somehow didn’t care about poisoning the air and wishing cancer on others. I want to cut voting Republican in half by using the same techniques. Nobody will *force *you to stop, though.
What are those techniques? Lawsuits? Public service announcements? Getting the Surgeon General to mandate a warning label? On what? Ballots? Raising sin taxes on tobacco probably had an effect. Are we going to have a special Republican sin tax?
Find your place on the victim of oppression hierarchy.
Ridiculous hyperbole.
The radical left needs a boogeyman. The inhabitants of the dangerous neighborhoods of Chicago do more damage to minority lives than the 5-10 Nazis in the US.
You were the one ranking oppression to begin with. It’s in the post of yours that I quoted.:rolleyes:
Some would say your existence.
So attack them with clubs and bike locks?
Good luck with that. Seems that the RNC is stronger than the DNC. And do you really want a war based on party affiliation?
Then that right there’s the explanation of your observation that for some reason people aren’t interested in discussing the “message” of the “peaceful” (i.e., not actually committing violent crimes at the moment) Nazi/KKK/allied protesters. Namely, it’s because those protesters don’t have a message worth discussing, because they’re racist turds.
There’s a substantial difference between focusing the discussion on the violence of a minority of antifa counterprotesters while ignoring the message of the peaceful majority of anti-hate counterprotestors, and focusing on the violence of a subset of hate-right racist turds who have no message worth discussing in the first place. (Besides the fact that the violence-to-peacefulness ratio was substantially higher among the hate-right racist-turd protesters.)
Like I said, if you know of any counterexamples, namely peaceful people who actively disavowed the hate-right nature of the rally but nonetheless felt somehow compelled to march with them in the name of some abstract commitment to freedom of speech, please inform us. Despite the President’s vague assurances, I have not seen any factual evidence establishing that there were in fact non-racist “good people” marching along with the hate-right.
Nope, as I said very clearly, I don’t support infringing the civil liberties of people who are not actually engaged in breaking the law. That includes illegally assaulting them (as opposed to physically defending oneself against their assaults if they do break the law).
Great Caesar’s ghost, dude, is that what you meant by “discussing” them? Are you seriously suggesting that we should carefully sort through the “messages” of this grab bag of racist-turd organizations who all voluntarily agreed to participate in this so-called “Unite the Right” rally for the specified purpose of marching shoulder to shoulder with literal Nazis and Klansmen, in the hope of being able to pick out the “good” ones?!