hmmmm, I wonder, would such a statement about any group other than SWM’s be seen as prejudiced?
Lissener is demonstrating my point well. SWM’s can be sterotyped, belittled, called “Pink Penises”, but the mere suggestion that gays, blacks, women, etc not be given special protections is outrageous, insulting and proof of a mental defect.
Both MrZ and Scylla have clumsily misconstrued my words. Your logical construction is backwards: I never said that all SWMs guard their slice of the pie with weakly desperate rationalizations. I said that those who do so are overwhelmingly SWMs. Surely you won’t suggest otherwise?
Normally I wouldn’t respond to such transparent spinning of my words, but you seem to be in the process of disingenuously reworking my post into a windmill you can engage with.
Hey lissener, ever know how most(not all) of the people trying to get a piece of the pie without actually working for it are the blacks, hispanics and gays?
Face it bub, you have been outed as the bigot that you are. I suspected as much, but you proved it. You don’t want equality, you want to redistribute the pie.
yours truly,
The Pink Dick.
Your characterization of those who argue for equity as “trying to get a piece of the pie without actually working for it” makes it abundantly clear that you are the bigot. The pie I refer to is power and freedom, not money and property. I’m not suggesting redistribution of property, but a fair distribution of power and freedom. “Not working for it” doesn’t come into the picture. I want the same freedom to “work for it” as you have, Pinky.
And your further characterization of the people who disagree with you as “blacks, hispanics and gays” speaks for itself and says more about you and more eloquently than I could possibly add to.
Lissener:
It’s not worth a fight to me, but your words do seem to fly directly into the face of something that I learned rather painfully (you were there,) and I have cause to respect you because of it.
I don’t hold it against you, but I think it was an unfortunate thing to say. Doubly so to my way of thinking considering the context of this discussion where it adds justification to complaints of reverse discrimination, and double standards.
-If Mr. Z. said It I’d call him on it.
-If I said it I’d apologize, because it’s wrong and mean and unnecessary.
-It only seems right that I point out to you, that in your frustration, you may be taking potshots at SWMs generally.
I understand it, but it’s fuel for the fire. Do as you wish, I’d like to move on.
This is flatly false. The majority of people on public assistance are white.
Oh, my, welcome to Stereotypes-R-Us!!
First, let me observe that a fair number of the people on this board are white, male, involved in intimate heterosexual relations (married or engaged), and in favor of equal rights for all, including gays. So let’s eliminate that one right off the bat. (And lissener, I’m fairly sure you did not mean to tar RT, David B, Satan, pldennison, myself, and a few dozen others.) And I suspect strongly that if a mob of enraged gays goes out straight-bashing, we (and most of the gay contingent on this board) would be equally outspoken, as we would if the West Hollywood or Ann Arbor City Councils enacted local statutes discriminating against heterosexuals.
Second, Scylla himself posted, on Esprix’s pit thread about homophobia being alive and well, some good (if improbable) reasons why SWMs might benefit from gay marriage laws.
Third, I have never been close to any Hispanics. But of the blacks I have known, the vast majority were prideful individuals making their own way in life, not looking for handouts but unwilling to take any more excrement from bigots. I’ve known a few scam artists who tried to get away with whatever they could, and take the world for anything they could – about equally divided black and white. I personally have never encountered a gay who wanted anything but even-up rights, the same ones that straight people have – not to be assaulted or dismissed from a job for his sexual preference, for example, to be able to marry the person he loves, not to be entrapped into a violation of the law by an undercover police person – what am I missing?
Mr. Z., either there is something missing from your account (perhaps something about your company you don’t know) or you’ve run into a string of singularly bad luck. I would, however, attribute the blame only partially to those using their minority status to institute frivolous lawsuits and the other part to the sue-'em-anyway legal culture we’ve ended up in. I’m not saying you’re bigoted, I’m saying that something is seriously wrong with the story you tell. Whether it’s fraud on your part (which I doubt), fraud on the part of your bosses, that string of bad luck in job dismissals, or the legal climate, I don’t know. A quick observation: letting the opposing attorney know up front in such suits that if pursued to court, a countersuit for costs of defending the suit plus reasonable damages, with interest, will be pursued by your company could reduce your expenses immensely. The handful of people who believe they have a valid case will pursue it (as they should), and the ones abusing the system will quickly drop their cases, on attorney’s advice.
Mr. Z:
That doesn’t help.
You can’t parlay one regrettable comment into a justification for bigotry.
Now I’m going to have to apologze to Esprix… …Again.
ARRRRRRRGH!!!
That statement about the pie was a sarcastic re-wording of what lissener said. It was done to show how bigoted lissener sounded.
For crying out loud, I don’t believe that shit one bit. I should have placed a [sarcasm] around the statement.
lissener, if you think what I said was bigoted, tehn you are as good as admiotting that what you said was.
::Note to self::
Stay out of these discussions.
Polycarp: There are two things going on. #1 we are in the restaurant industry which is notoriously bad for EPL suits (employment practices liability.) The second thing is that with turnover and whatnot, we employ about 30,000 people a year. add in about 15 million customers and you can see where 20 suits a year is feasible.
As for defense philosophy, you hit mine on the head. If we feel we are in teh right, I will tell opposing counsel; roughly what you said. I would rather pay my attorney than a fraud. If however, we are in the wrong, we will try to settle.
Scylla,
I am not taking potshots at SWMs generally; I am “taking potshots” at SWMs who try to rationalize the justice of their disproportionate power and freedom. There are many SWMs who are not included in that “subset,” so understand that it’s not their S-ness or their W-ness or their M-ness that I’m attacking, but their selfishness and shortsightedness. (Keep in mind that these are not privileges I am unfamiliar with: after all, I have a pink penis myself, and am usually afforded the benefit of the doubt, as it were, regarding my sexual orientation.)
Well, let’s see. Writing a loan with property as collateral is not “investing” in the property. The creditor has no property interest until and unless the debtor defaults. The collateral is simply a hedge against default. The investment (from the bank’s point of view) is the loan itself and the income it generates. The bank is not investing in the property itself.
For residential property, the future anticipated value of the property does not relate all that closely to the likelihood that the loan will be paid off; factors such as the creditworthiness and employment history of the customer are far more relevant. This is not true of business property, but business loans are not subject to the Fair Housing Act.
I suspect Mr.Z is unable to recognize the fundamental difference between a business loan and a first residential mortgage. Think about where the bank expects the money to come from to pay off the loan in both cases, and the difference becomes obvious.
I find it interesting that Mr.Z defends his right to fire people at will. Most people who do this are the kind of assholes who exploit their workers mercilessly, discarding at a moment’s whim the ones they decide they don’t like. Employers who have a less ruthless attitude toward their employees are not disturbed by “right-to-work” laws.
The only entities that can bring “third-party” suits for employment discrimination are state and federal agencies, and they can only do so on a complaint from the aggreived employee. If Mr.Z’s company is being subjected to such suits, this indicates to me that his company is probably an egregious violator – these agencies are woefully underfunded and only pursue the most heinous of offenders.
I don’t believe Mr.Z when he says that it’ll cost $15,000 to defend a suit against someone who was fired for killing a fellow employee. If it does, he should find lawyers who aren’t padding the bill.
For the record, I do not believe that all or even most straight white males are bigots. There are bigots in all segments of society – there are plenty of black bigots, and I’ve run into a few gay bigots over the years, too. But bigotry in these groups is less problematic because these groups are disempowered – they generally cannot turn their bigotry into law or into common practice. Straight white males, by virtue of holding the bulk of the political and economic country in this power, can put their bigotry into practice, and they do. I would be just as opposed to bigotry by gays and blacks as I am to bigotry by straights and whites, and if I actually run across an example of a gay black bigot I will make a point to make an issue of it. (Unfortunately, the so-called black community is even more virulently antigay than the general community.)
To whoever it was who brought up crimes against transgenders: please note that the hate crime laws which have been the subject of discussion would generally not apply to crimes motivated by transgender status. The courts, in most places where sexual orientation has been given protected status, have determined that “transgender” is not a sexual orientation.
Lissener:
Thank you, and please understand that it wasn’t an accusation. Though we often disagree, I know you better than to believe that you meant anything by it.
**
That kind of stuff happens more often then either your or I would care to know.
**
Nor would I expect you to. However that still doesn’t show me that crimes against minorities are going unpunished. You haven’t shown me that people who assault or murder minorities don’t worry about prosecution.
Sounds like the judge or jury did its job.
Marc
Kelly, I was talking about 3rd party discrimination suits brought by customers. Case like the Denny’s case. Denny’s, by the way was guilty. Unfortunately, they notified the public at large of the possible financial bebfits of such suits, so I get to hear “I gonna beat you like we did Denny’s” pretty frequently from claimants.
Just wondering out loud here, but do you think that maybe the people living in the ghetto might tend to have worse income and credit? I don’t know, but it seems plausible.
And how is a loan not an investment? you give your money to someone and expect them to pay you a rate of return.
AS for “fire at will.” It mainly makes a difference because only protected folks have any protection in such a state. I tend to like it for the sole reason that it reduces law suits and let’s a manager make the decisions, not the politicians or a judge.
The problem with “for cause” law is that many employees need to be terminated not because they are breaking the rules and failing to perform, but because they are just towing the line. They may have a shitty attitude, a bad personality and be a detriment, but if they work their hours and do the bare necesities, it is very hard to build a credible case for termination.
Trust me, my employees have a lot of flexibility and never once have had to work overtime. I am really a pretty laid back guy, though you might not know it from the SDMB.
**
And it is fair to say that those who aren’t SWMs simply want a piece of the pie without earning it.
Marc
What “ghetto” are you specifically referring to?
“Worse” than what.
Can you define “bad attitude” and “detriment?” Maybe some specific examples.
Bad attitude examples: asked to do work, groans, rolls eyes, but then does the job. meets with some employees to make fun of other employees. Repeatedly hints that other employees are dimwitted, but doesn’t say it overtly. Never smiles, refuses to go to any company functions. Have you ever gone to teh DMV and met an employee that is doing the job, but is pissy and moving at about half speed? that is what I am tallking about. Also, lacking motivation and never, ever taking initiative.
Detriment: employee makes other employees uncomfortable. They don’t work together. THere is no communication. People dread having to talk to the trouble employee and choose to just do things themselves. this brings down the department’s morale and people don’t work as well. Absenteeism increases and productivity drops. There are a lot of unmeasurables that occur.
I used ghetto for ease. How about financially depressed and or high crime neighborhoods?
Remember, Ghetto comes from “il getto” which was the area around an italian cannon factory. Apparently no one really wanted to live there and it was pretty crappy. It does not infer any race.
Please read the thread before you post, Marc.