Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
43 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Bigotry towards bigots still bigotry? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Stew
United Kingdom
Co. Durham
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think it is.

Many dont.

Do you?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stew
United Kingdom
Co. Durham
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Its something that has been increasingly getting on my nerves, that if someone says an opinion that could be seen as racist for example, suddenly its open season to say what ever insulting thing you want about them.

But it does come down to hating haters, who does this help, its just fighting fire with fire.

What gets on my nerves the most about it is that it normally comes from the self proclaimed liberals.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gary Page
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I think bigotry is a word that is misused often.

I think it should be used to describe an irrational dislike of all people in a certain group for attributes that don't matter. For example, if someone thinks that all people from, say, Manchester are thieves then this is bigotry as it is demonstrably false.

Diliking a group of people for something that is actually true about them seems fair game for me. For example I don't want anyhing to do with any members of a pro-pedophile group and if that makes me a bigot then I will proudly wear that label.

The classic example of racism is bigotry. If I refuse to hire someone of a certain ethnic group because I think that all those people are lazy then I am a bigot as it is not true that there is any ethnic group that consists or lazy people.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Husted
United States
East Hartford
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GazPAge wrote:

The classic example of racism is bigotry. If I refuse to hire someone of a certain ethnic group because I think that all those people are lazy then I am a bigot as it is not true that there is any ethnic group that consists or lazy people.


What if 50% of the people in prison come from a certain ethnic group? Is an employer right to question hiring from that group?

What if about 70% from that group have out-of-wedlock births? Is it wrong for an employer to consider the costs and hardships on his other workers that hiring someone in that age, gender, and ethnic category would likely cause? Is it wrong to consider the effects on the profits of the company due to the likelihood that that employee would have a harder time focusing on the job?

What if a large percentage of a certain ethnic group are here illegally? Is it wrong to avoid employing or even associating with members of that group (unless you know them to be legally in the country)?

Are any of these examples bigotry, or are they just recognition of facts and planning accordingly?

If roughly half of all males between the ages of 16 and 40 that are from a particular ethnicity have been or will be convicted of criminal offenses, is it bigotry to avoid areas where that group congregates? To avoid social contact with that group?

Is reacting to factual statistics and living accordingly bigotry?

These are things that make me go "hmmm".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael
Germany
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Coldwarrior1984 wrote:

Are any of these examples bigotry, or are they just recognition of facts and planning accordingly?


Yes, I´d say they all are. Actually, they are very good examples of bigotry and of its usual origin: fear, leading to so-called caution and over-generalization. Extra points scored for badly understood statistics.

Even if correct statistics (whatever that may be) would be used to justify certain bigot behaviour, and even if this actually resulted in, for example, less costs and hardships for coworkers, it would still be bigotry. The result may be worth the means for some, but it doesn´t change the nature of the means.

11 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Coldwarrior1984 wrote:
GazPAge wrote:

The classic example of racism is bigotry. If I refuse to hire someone of a certain ethnic group because I think that all those people are lazy then I am a bigot as it is not true that there is any ethnic group that consists or lazy people.


What if 50% of the people in prison come from a certain ethnic group? Is an employer right to question hiring from that group?

What if about 70% from that group have out-of-wedlock births? Is it wrong for an employer to consider the costs and hardships on his other workers that hiring someone in that age, gender, and ethnic category would likely cause? Is it wrong to consider the effects on the profits of the company due to the likelihood that that employee would have a harder time focusing on the job?

What if a large percentage of a certain ethnic group are here illegally? Is it wrong to avoid employing or even associating with members of that group (unless you know them to be legally in the country)?

Are any of these examples bigotry, or are they just recognition of facts and planning accordingly?

If roughly half of all males between the ages of 16 and 40 that are from a particular ethnicity have been or will be convicted of criminal offenses, is it bigotry to avoid areas where that group congregates? To avoid social contact with that group?

Is reacting to factual statistics and living accordingly bigotry?

These are things that make me go "hmmm".


Yes, most of what you just said is bigotry. If you're making decisions based on race as one of the primary determining factors, you're racist and therefore bigoted against one or more races.

For the sake of argument, let's say your facts are correct and in the proper context (which I highly doubt), it's still bigotry to assume that any given person from race X or group Y is going to be trouble based on their race or group. A non-bigoted person would look at, for hiring purposes for instance, their education level, skill set, job experience, background, etc. There is no need to take race into consideration as race does not determine the worth, intelligence, integrity, or any other redeeming or damning characteristic of a person.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
They call me....
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Games? People still play games??
badge
Specious arguments are not proof of trollish intent.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
colleens wrote:
I'd like to extend this concept to most of the political discussions in RSP. Instead of looking at an issue for what it's worth, it's classified as either conservative or liberal and then bashed or defended in the bigoted camps without merit.


Though I agree with you, I think it's only to be expected in this forum, buried as it is deep within a site devoted primarily to the discussion and dissemination of information about board games. Can the participants at BGG, in the main, really be expected to form learned and thoughtful opinions about the compelling political conundrums of the day, when there are so many pictures of Agnes to look at? So many reviews of Dominion expansion XLII to read? So many variants of Android to design so that that game is even remotely interesting to play? I maintain that this is an unreasonable expectation on the part of anybody who promotes it.

There are plenty of highly capable, thinking human beings that participate in RSP. You yourself being foremost amongst them. Sadly, for so many of the rest of us, time is limited, and it's far more important to work on the form of what we say, in the tiny amount of time that we have allotted to say it (in between all the aforementioned distracting activities), rather than give the substance any real thought. In conclusion, I roll a:Save against Reason 1d20 = (18) = 18
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
  • [+]
  • 5852. MisterCranky
  • 1d20 =
  • (18) =
  • 18
  • Save against Reason
  • Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:44 pm
VETRHUS of Rogaland
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
An ash I know, Yggdrasil its name. With water white is the great tree wet; thence come the dews that fall in the dales. Green by Urth's well does it ever grow.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The bigot assumes a couple of things. They believe that their perspective on race is educated by sufficient experience or narrative that it is worthy of being espoused as some level of truth.

Additionally, they assume that what they see presently as a characteristic or social trait of a group is inherent to that group from birth. This lends itself to wide-sweeping generalizations based upon perceptions and loosely understood "facts."

The nexus of these two errors in thinking is a truncated view of the humanity of any individual they'll encounter of a particular group. This means that they can write off any member of a group, or at least expect them to prove themselves as unlike the perceptions held of that group.

But, like much of what makes contemporary political discourse fraught with ignorance, the bigot fails to understand what factors precipitated what they can see today in any racial group. They also tend to stop short of doing the hard work of interacting with diverse people, who challenge the beliefs they hold simply by existing in the same world as them.

Being "bigoted" toward bigots is not helpful or instructive. Then again, one can question whether that is actually possible. By definition, bigots are not a definable group in any way which is logically comparable to a racial, ethnic, or religious group. Besides, pointing out bigotry is not bigoted, it's more clinical than that.

However, talking about someone behind their back, although not bigoted, is pointless. If one writes off the person with bigoted ideas then it is essentially like cutting that person off from the same opportunity to grow and learn as we lend to those people we respect. So I can see how it might look like bigotry, even if it's more like shunning.

This makes me think about how intentions matter. There's a place for discernment, but there ought to be no place for discrimination. What separates them? Mostly just the intent of the individual.

Bigots will never grow and change if they're not treated like humans. Any person who espouses some dislike for flaws in other humans in a way that dehumanizes another human being is essentially becoming that which they despise.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Husted
United States
East Hartford
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
If you're making decisions based on race as one of the primary determining factors, you're racist and therefore bigoted against one or more races.


So...you are in favor of an immediate end to Affirmative Action, the Congressional Black Caucus, The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and The Congressional Hispanic Caucus...since these are all very obviously racist groups, as race is THE primary determinining factor for each of these groups?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Husted
United States
East Hartford
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
...you are actively part of the problem.


How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Is it because I asked questions or because I think about these things and wonder what the truth of the matter is?

Really, you sort did exactly what the original poster said people do. You assumed that I am a bigot and then gave a nasty (or at least that is how I perceived it) response. I made no assertions or allegations of any kind. I asked questions and expressed the idea that I think about and wonder about these things. What is true? What is the way to conduct oneself?

When I was in the military, we were taught that we were all green. That worked fine for me. My fellow soldiers and I were green. We were all "Joe". We were one.

So, when I read statistics and see how people treat each other, I wonder why that is. I wonder if folks are reacting to other folks based on ethnicity or based on culture. We folks in the military had a shared and common culture. The wider citizenry seems very balkanized; each pushing their own agenda. Is it racist to assume that all "white" people are racists? Is it racist to think that only "white" people can be racist?

What defines bigotry and where is the line between bigotry and astute cultural analysis?

When did it become racist or bigoted to ask questions and ponder about how and why people treat each other the way they do? When did that become "part of the problem"?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff
United States
Linden
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Social Justice Wargamer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No, forming a negative opinion of a single person based on observable evidence (e.g., they say racist things) is not bigotry. Not even close.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Coldwarrior1984 wrote:
Quote:
If you're making decisions based on race as one of the primary determining factors, you're racist and therefore bigoted against one or more races.


So...you are in favor of an immediate end to Affirmative Action,


100% yes

Quote:
the Congressional Black Caucus,


no

Quote:
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,


no

Quote:
and The Congressional Hispanic Caucus


no

Quote:
...since these are all very obviously racist groups, as race is THE primary determining factor for each of these groups?


I'm against government instituting racist policies, such as affirmative action. However, being a racist group, or a group that is prone to racism, or a group that attracts some racists is not illegal. Provided they follow and work within the law, and the law is color-blind, I have no legal problem with a group that is dedicated to the well-being of only one particular group of people, even if that group is defined by race or caters specifically to racists. I think it should be their legal right to assemble, speak, and publish their thoughts, however wrong they are or however much I detest their ideology.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
They call me....
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Games? People still play games??
badge
Specious arguments are not proof of trollish intent.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Coldwarrior1984 wrote:

When did it become racist or bigoted to ask questions and ponder about how and why people treat each other the way they do? When did that become "part of the problem"?


It never did. The appearance of impropriety, however, has long been feared as the equal of actual impropriety, and that's why, in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety, one frequently has to take pains to express oneself very carefully. Though impropriety is likely in the eye of the beholder, there are certain polarizing factors that affect a great many eyes in precisely the same negative way.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
They call me....
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Games? People still play games??
badge
Specious arguments are not proof of trollish intent.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hoonuff wrote:

What gets on my nerves the most about it is that it normally comes from the self proclaimed liberals.


What gets on my nerves are people who generalize in the fashion quoted above. So, thanks for making me bigoted against you.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Coldwarrior1984 wrote:
Quote:
If you're making decisions based on race as one of the primary determining factors, you're racist and therefore bigoted against one or more races.


So...you are in favor of an immediate end to Affirmative Action, the Congressional Black Caucus, The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and The Congressional Hispanic Caucus...since these are all very obviously racist groups, as race is THE primary determinining factor for each of these groups?


Actually THE primary determining factor of these groups is the unified opposition and redress for institutionalized racism. Given the history of European colonial powers in Asia, India, Africa, and the Americas which brutalized and marginalized people of non white non European ancestry, it is hardly surprising that such groups found voice.

However, I guess if you silence the dissenters, the problem goes away. Right?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Husted
United States
East Hartford
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ejmowrer wrote:
Coldwarrior1984 wrote:
Quote:
If you're making decisions based on race as one of the primary determining factors, you're racist and therefore bigoted against one or more races.


So...you are in favor of an immediate end to Affirmative Action,


100% yes

Quote:
the Congressional Black Caucus,


no

Quote:
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,


no

Quote:
and The Congressional Hispanic Caucus


no

Quote:
...since these are all very obviously racist groups, as race is THE primary determining factor for each of these groups?


I'm against government instituting racist policies, such as affirmative action. However, being a racist group, or a group that is prone to racism, or a group that attracts some racists is not illegal. Provided they follow and work within the law, and the law is color-blind, I have no legal problem with a group that is dedicated to the well-being of only one particular group of people, even if that group is defined by race or caters specifically to racists. I think it should be their legal right to assemble, speak, and publish their thoughts, however wrong they are or however much I detest their ideology.


The Congressional Black Caucus appears to be a racist organization of government employees (congressmen/women) operating openly as a racist organization within the US Congress, to influence legislative activities to the benefit of one race exclusively. That is not a private organization or private actions of individuals, but rather government sponsored activity.


Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2389.html

So, are they bigots? Are they racists? Are you still in favor of them?

How should a Caucasian view a Congressional Caucus that refuses membership to anyone not of that group's ethnicity? I will tell you that to me it appears to be a deeply racist organization that acts within the halls of Congress to benefit one ethnicity to the exclusion of all others. I am deeply distrustful of anyone that belongs to such an organization.

It seems very odd that anyone would support such apparently blatant racism by members of our government. I certainly would not support a White Supremacist or even a White Separatist Caucus in the US Congress. I think that would be absolutely repugnant. Yet, this type of activity seems not only to be tolerated but to be enthusiastically supported by the same folks that immediately label one a bigot merely for asking questions about some deeply troubling statistics and how to incorporate the facts available into a world view that is fair, just, yet pragmatic as well.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stew
United Kingdom
Co. Durham
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
diehard4life wrote:
Bigots will never grow and change if they're not treated like humans. Any person who espouses some dislike for flaws in other humans in a way that dehumanizes another human being is essentially becoming that which they despise.


Thankyou, this is what I was thinking but unable to put into words.

MisterCranky wrote:
Hoonuff wrote:

What gets on my nerves the most about it is that it normally comes from the self proclaimed liberals.


What gets on my nerves are people who generalize in the fashion quoted above. So, thanks for making me bigoted against you.


You got me there.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Husted
United States
East Hartford
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tscook wrote:
Will no one think of the poor white Anglo-Saxon Protestants and their desire to avoid congregations of blacks and hispanics and their right to avoid hiring them!?
Will no one think of the government sponsored racist group(s) in the US Congress and their desire to move legislation that advances only their own ethnic interests? I find that as repugnant as I do the idea of a White Supremacist group in the US Congress. Both are racist and both are vile. Both types of groups serve to further divide us as a people. The ideals of equality that I valued as a soldier, when we were all "green", are undone by this sort of balkanization.

Instead of an Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month campaign, that serves to further enforce the notion that we are disparate groups of "us" and "them", why not integrate the valiant story of the 442nd Infantry into our American History classes?

Instead of a Black History Month, why not INCORPORATE into EVERYONE'S history classes the story of the Amistad and the story of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment, and Garrett Morgan inventing the traffic light, and George Washington Carver's contributions to agriculture?

Instead of Hispanic Heritage Month, why not integrate the narrative of Bernardo de Galvez's (the Governor of Louisiana) and the Hispanic's role in the American Revolution? There were something like 4,000 Spanish soldiers that died as prisoners of war on English prison ships in New York Harbor, in the American War of Independence. So, why isn't their role part of the basic narrative?

Etc. Etc.

Why the balkanization? Why these disparate campaigns that reinforce the notion that we are not ONE PEOPLE? E Pluribus Unum is right. What is wrong is "Our Diversity is our Strength". That is exactly contrary to what this country is all about! Our country isn't about "diversity". Our country is about people from all over coming together to join as ONE, not to continue some hyphenated mockery of Americans and the American ideal. So, when I see balkanized formal caucuses in the US Congress, I cannot help but think that they are a very racist crowd, that they are anti-American, and that they are not serving the whole of the American people, just the part that shares their ethnicity. That is institutional racism.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why the balkanization? Because your history classes before college are pitiful. The level of detail required to achieve a semi-decent understanding of just American history is impossible to achieve with the level of effort children will put in regular history classes. Add European history, and you have to give up quite a few subjects just to make space for all the material.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Karl Thomasson
msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Coldwarrior1984 wrote:
tscook wrote:
Will no one think of the poor white Anglo-Saxon Protestants and their desire to avoid congregations of blacks and hispanics and their right to avoid hiring them!?
Will no one think of the government sponsored racist group(s) in the US Congress and their desire to move legislation that advances only their own ethnic interests? I find that as repugnant as I do the idea of a White Supremacist group in the US Congress. Both are racist and both are vile. Both types of groups serve to further divide us as a people. The ideals of equality that I valued as a soldier, when we were all "green", are undone by this sort of balkanization.

Instead of an Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month campaign, that serves to further enforce the notion that we are disparate groups of "us" and "them", why not integrate the valiant story of the 442nd Infantry into our American History classes?

Instead of a Black History Month, why not INCORPORATE into EVERYONE'S history classes the story of the Amistad and the story of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment, and Garrett Morgan inventing the traffic light, and George Washington Carver's contributions to agriculture?

Instead of Hispanic Heritage Month, why not integrate the narrative of Bernardo de Galvez's (the Governor of Louisiana) and the Hispanic's role in the American Revolution? There were something like 4,000 Spanish soldiers that died as prisoners of war on English prison ships in New York Harbor, in the American War of Independence. So, why isn't their role part of the basic narrative?

Etc. Etc.

Why the balkanization? Why these disparate campaigns that reinforce the notion that we are not ONE PEOPLE? E Pluribus Unum is right. What is wrong is "Our Diversity is our Strength". That is exactly contrary to what this country is all about! Our country isn't about "diversity". Our country is about people from all over coming together to join as ONE, not to continue some hyphenated mockery of Americans and the American ideal. So, when I see balkanized formal caucuses in the US Congress, I cannot help but think that they are a very racist crowd, that they are anti-American, and that they are not serving the whole of the American people, just the part that shares their ethnicity. That is institutional racism.


Sounds like the debate over multiculturalism contra integration (-alism?). One problem is that joining a larger group must always mean abandoning some of the things that makes your group different. For a smaller or weaker group to be asked to unite with a larger and more powerful group could easily be seen as a threat to its very existence, as the stronger would probably dominate any combined group and simply subsume the weaker.

EDIT: A very common problem with forming coalitions in parliamentary democracies, for instance.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Coldwarrior1984 wrote:
ejmowrer wrote:
Coldwarrior1984 wrote:
Quote:
If you're making decisions based on race as one of the primary determining factors, you're racist and therefore bigoted against one or more races.


So...you are in favor of an immediate end to Affirmative Action,


100% yes

Quote:
the Congressional Black Caucus,


no

Quote:
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,


no

Quote:
and The Congressional Hispanic Caucus


no

Quote:
...since these are all very obviously racist groups, as race is THE primary determining factor for each of these groups?


I'm against government instituting racist policies, such as affirmative action. However, being a racist group, or a group that is prone to racism, or a group that attracts some racists is not illegal. Provided they follow and work within the law, and the law is color-blind, I have no legal problem with a group that is dedicated to the well-being of only one particular group of people, even if that group is defined by race or caters specifically to racists. I think it should be their legal right to assemble, speak, and publish their thoughts, however wrong they are or however much I detest their ideology.


The Congressional Black Caucus appears to be a racist organization of government employees (congressmen/women) operating openly as a racist organization within the US Congress, to influence legislative activities to the benefit of one race exclusively. That is not a private organization or private actions of individuals, but rather government sponsored activity.


Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2389.html

So, are they bigots? Are they racists? Are you still in favor of them?

How should a Caucasian view a Congressional Caucus that refuses membership to anyone not of that group's ethnicity? I will tell you that to me it appears to be a deeply racist organization that acts within the halls of Congress to benefit one ethnicity to the exclusion of all others. I am deeply distrustful of anyone that belongs to such an organization.

It seems very odd that anyone would support such apparently blatant racism by members of our government. I certainly would not support a White Supremacist or even a White Separatist Caucus in the US Congress. I think that would be absolutely repugnant. Yet, this type of activity seems not only to be tolerated but to be enthusiastically supported by the same folks that immediately label one a bigot merely for asking questions about some deeply troubling statistics and how to incorporate the facts available into a world view that is fair, just, yet pragmatic as well.


Just because they have the word "congressional" in their org title, doesn't necessarily mean they are officially sanctioned or supported by the US government. Do you have documentation that shows that they receive any special money, recognition, or treatment from the government? I'm simply not familiar with their group and assume that it's extra curricular to the government, which I assume is not prohibited as congressmen serve on the boards of many companies and organizations. However, if they're getting money or official status from the government, then yes, I think they should either be shut down or pushed outside of official government status (such as the NAACP).

Also, I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not 'in favor of' racist groups. I acknowledged their legal right to exist. I made it very clear before that it wasn't to be taken as an endorsement of their ideology.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Husted
United States
East Hartford
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Also, I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not 'in favor of' racist groups. I acknowledged their legal right to exist. I made it very clear before that it wasn't to be taken as an endorsement of their ideology.


Sorry.

As for the Congressional Black Caucus funding...yep, taxpayer money.

They are funded as a "legislative service organization" and occupy offices in the Capitol.

Here is a quote from one of their leaders:

Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr., D-Mo., the son of Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, is quoted as saying, "Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He's white and the Caucus is black. It's time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It's an unwritten rule. It's understood. Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept - there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives." [Emphasis added]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus

So, it's all about skin color with them. They are a taxpayer funded group of Federal employees that are part of the US Congress and they are absolutly racists! I find them abhorrent and repugnant and vile.yuk
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Coldwarrior1984 wrote:
GazPAge wrote:

The classic example of racism is bigotry. If I refuse to hire someone of a certain ethnic group because I think that all those people are lazy then I am a bigot as it is not true that there is any ethnic group that consists or lazy people.


What if 50% of the people in prison come from a certain ethnic group? Is an employer right to question hiring from that group?

What if about 70% from that group have out-of-wedlock births? Is it wrong for an employer to consider the costs and hardships on his other workers that hiring someone in that age, gender, and ethnic category would likely cause? Is it wrong to consider the effects on the profits of the company due to the likelihood that that employee would have a harder time focusing on the job?

What if a large percentage of a certain ethnic group are here illegally? Is it wrong to avoid employing or even associating with members of that group (unless you know them to be legally in the country)?

Are any of these examples bigotry, or are they just recognition of facts and planning accordingly?

If roughly half of all males between the ages of 16 and 40 that are from a particular ethnicity have been or will be convicted of criminal offenses, is it bigotry to avoid areas where that group congregates? To avoid social contact with that group?

Is reacting to factual statistics and living accordingly bigotry?

These are things that make me go "hmmm".


What SHOULD make you go hmmmm is irresponsible creation and use of statistics.

If a "certain" ethnic group were overrepresented in prison you should consider first whether factors outside the control of members of that group contributed to the statistic. Are members of that group targeted for arrest and prosecution due to prejudice? Are members of that group given access to the same quality of legal representation as other groups? Are the members of that group given disproportionately higher sentances for similar behavior (crack use versus cocaine use)? Have members of that group been specifically targeted for the introduction of drugs because they have been viewed as "less than". If you deny jobs to someone merely because they are in the ethnic group, you merely compound the problem. Also, what about mixed ethnicity? What about diferrent mixes of ethnic/national backgrounds?

As far as legal status goes, I think it is correct to require legal residency. However, refusing to associate with members of that ethnic group seems simply unconscionable. Illegal border crossing isn't a crime of moral turpitude.Frankly turning away from a fellow human being merely due to the circumstances of their birth seems to me both non christian and non American.

I would spend as much time examining how and why the "statistical" evidence was generated as to why the statistics show what data is claimed.
4 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dwayne Hendrickson
United States
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GazPAge wrote:
I think bigotry is a word that is misused often.

I think it should be used to describe an irrational dislike of all people in a certain group for attributes that don't matter. For example, if someone thinks that all people from, say, Manchester are thieves then this is bigotry as it is demonstrably false.

Diliking a group of people for something that is actually true about them seems fair game for me. For example I don't want anyhing to do with any members of a pro-pedophile group and if that makes me a bigot then I will proudly wear that label.

The classic example of racism is bigotry. If I refuse to hire someone of a certain ethnic group because I think that all those people are lazy then I am a bigot as it is not true that there is any ethnic group that consists or lazy people.


big·ot·ry
   /ˈbɪgətri/ Show Spelled[big-uh-tree] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Origin:
1665–75; bigot + -ry, formation parallel to F bigoterie

—Synonyms
1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Husted
United States
East Hartford
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rulesjd wrote:
Coldwarrior1984 wrote:
GazPAge wrote:

The classic example of racism is bigotry. If I refuse to hire someone of a certain ethnic group because I think that all those people are lazy then I am a bigot as it is not true that there is any ethnic group that consists or lazy people.


What if 50% of the people in prison come from a certain ethnic group? Is an employer right to question hiring from that group?

What if about 70% from that group have out-of-wedlock births? Is it wrong for an employer to consider the costs and hardships on his other workers that hiring someone in that age, gender, and ethnic category would likely cause? Is it wrong to consider the effects on the profits of the company due to the likelihood that that employee would have a harder time focusing on the job?

What if a large percentage of a certain ethnic group are here illegally? Is it wrong to avoid employing or even associating with members of that group (unless you know them to be legally in the country)?

Are any of these examples bigotry, or are they just recognition of facts and planning accordingly?

If roughly half of all males between the ages of 16 and 40 that are from a particular ethnicity have been or will be convicted of criminal offenses, is it bigotry to avoid areas where that group congregates? To avoid social contact with that group?

Is reacting to factual statistics and living accordingly bigotry?

These are things that make me go "hmmm".


What SHOULD make you go hmmmm is irresponsible creation and use of statistics.

If a "certain" ethnic group were overrepresented in prison you should consider first whether factors outside the control of members of that group contributed to the statistic. Are members of that group targeted for arrest and prosecution due to prejudice? Are members of that group given access to the same quality of legal representation as other groups? Are the members of that group given disproportionately higher sentances for similar behavior (crack use versus cocaine use)? Have members of that group been specifically targeted for the introduction of drugs because they have been viewed as "less than". If you deny jobs to someone merely because they are in the ethnic group, you merely compound the problem. Also, what about mixed ethnicity? What about diferrent mixes of ethnic/national backgrounds?

As far as legal status goes, I think it is correct to require legal residency. However, refusing to associate with members of that ethnic group seems simply unconscionable. Illegal border crossing isn't a crime of moral turpitude.Frankly turning away from a fellow human being merely due to the circumstances of their birth seems to me both non christian and non American.

I would spend as much time examining how and why the "statistical" evidence was generated as to why the statistics show what data is claimed.


So what is your opinion about the Congressional Black Caucus?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.