- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 4,134
- Reaction score
- 2,932
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Per the wiki, I grew up in a neighborhood that was 95.1% white. I was well into my teens before I actually came to be good friends with someone who was not a white, middle-class Christian person. Even so, I persisted with the thought that discrimination was not a problem. That those who complained were playing the race-card or acting as the victim, or that liberals were just being whiny when they talked about 'privilege'. I was never given the opportunity to understand that I was afforded huge benefit in American society, in that I never had to give thought to my race, religion, gender, etc.On the basis of ANY REASON, actually, and yes, she absolutely does.It's exactly what you're contending. That the photographer has the right to discriminately pick and choose who she provides services to on the basis of the person's character, and that the person has absolutely no recourse.
And that's not true about recourse. Hire another photographer. Buy a camera. Use your smart phone. Use your freedom of speech afforded to you from your natural human right to liberty to post about the photographer on social media. Etc.
Per the wiki, I grew up in a neighborhood that
was 95.1% white. I was well into my teens before I actually came to be good friends with someone who was not a white, middle-class Christian person. Even so, I persisted with the thought that discrimination was not a problem. That those who complained were playing the race-card or acting as the victim, or that liberals were just being whiny when they talked about 'privilege'. I was never given the opportunity to understand that I was afforded huge benefit in American society, in that I never had to give thought to my race, religion, gender, etc.
In addition being the more fringe libertarian back then, I had the very stupid idea that people were entirely empowered to do whatever they wished. That as the quote above contends, offenders have a right to discriminate because people are afforded recourse when they face explicit or implicit discrimination. It was only after I spent time overseas, became good friends with people of different minority groups and had several gay slurs hurled my way that I actually "got it". It's one thing to say, "Christians have the right to refuse service!" than to actually be the one who is hurled out of the restaurant with ill-intent not just once, but multiple times. It's a rude awakening that changes your world view very quickly.
Of course, having once held these beliefs that discrimination is not a problem ... I can very easily recognize it in other people. My frustration now is trying to drag these people into "getting it" as well. How does one do that with a person, who does not have the potential of experience discrimination him/herself?
How is discrimination irrational? If a discriminatory action was perceived to be irrational by the actor, the action wouldn't be taken and we wouldn't have a problem with it. Yet there a many people that have convinced themselves that they are perfectly rational and go about their day oblivious to it all.It's easy to understand discrimination because it isn't rational - and many people who complain about it are also not rational. Just take a situation and ask yourself ,"does this make sense?". If yes, it's not discrimination. If not, then you can begin to understand it and the roots of its irrationality.
Not at all. Rights and respect are given to individuals, not ideologies or beliefs. What's the purpose of having human rights if we consider them to be invalidated by the creeds of others?Is it not also discrimination to chide the opinion of people who are force [by law or otherwise] into accepting something they feel is wrong, criminal or sinful? IOWs the other side of the coin.
How is discrimination irrational? If a discriminatory action was perceived to be irrational by the actor, the action wouldn't be taken and we wouldn't have a problem with it. Yet there a many people that have convinced themselves that they are perfectly rational and go about their day oblivious to it all.
How is discrimination irrational? If a discriminatory action was perceived to
be irrational by the actor, the action wouldn't be taken and we wouldn't have a problem with it. Yet there a many people that have convinced themselves that they are perfectly rational and go about their day oblivious to it all.
Not at all. Rights and respect are given to individuals, not ideologies or beliefs. What's the purpose of having human rights if we consider them to be invalidated by the creeds of others?
Perhaps it has occurred to you that the reason you don't think discrimination is a problem is that you're not discriminated against on a day to day basis?We all discriminate, whether you want to admit it or not, but some people feel the need to perpetuate archaic stereotypes for their own political or economic interest. Is there discrimination ? Sure. Is it a profound issue that affects the very moral fabric of the United States ? Hell No. Should it be an issue in some idiots Politcal or activist motivations ? No. As of 2013 its mention is exclusive to those who depend on its existence to remain relevent, so people like Sharpton or Obama will give you a reminder from time to time even though its not relevent. Its too bad , because it waters down the legitimate charge of discrimination.
Perhaps it has occurred to you that the
reason you don't think discrimination is a problem is that you're not discriminated against on a day to day basis?
Second - the italicized is a self-fulfilling accusation. Imagine if some does you a wrong (carelessly spills a drink on you, fender-bender, etc.) and because you expressed frustrating, the person replies, "Jeezus! Fenton is such an angry, irrational person. What is your problem Fenton? Do you feel the need to complain to remain relevant? What a complete argument-baiter." How is that fair? You've done nothing wrong except voice your frustration, and now that person is accusing you of being the offender when it wasn't even your fault.
And given the "angry black person" stereotype in this country, don't you think that black leaders have a legitimate gripe when white people reply to anything that the black leader has just said with "Oh, he/she is just a race-baiting attention seeker!" You (Fenton) are doing exactly what Sharpton and Obama are accusing you of doing.
Is it not also discrimination to chide the opinion of people who are force [by law or otherwise] into accepting something they feel is wrong, criminal or sinful?
IOWs the other side of the coin.
People are chiding you for thinking there is something wrong with murder or theft, are they?
It's easy to understand discrimination because it isn't rational - and many people who complain about it are also not rational. Just take a situation and ask yourself ,"does this make sense?".
If yes, it's not discrimination. If not, then you can begin to understand it and the roots of its irrationality.
Is it not also discrimination to chide the opinion of people who are force [by law or otherwise] into accepting something they feel is wrong, criminal or sinful?
IOWs the other side of the coin.
Lets use a very simple example. If I have been burned by a stove then I will learn to be wary of stoves. If I have never been burned by a stove, but repeatedly warned of their dangers and told of others that have been burned by stoves, then I am also apt to be wary of stoves. Is being wary of stoves irrational in either case?
People are chiding you for thinking there is something wrong with murder or theft, are they?
lol, if only that were true. Assholes with power are still sucked up to, just look at all the big industry movers and shakers who are also top notch A-holes. Hell, they'll probably make a movie about you...If you want to know what it feels like to be discriminated against, just be an top notch A-hole. Most people won't want anything to do with you!
No. That is simply disagreement and perhaps bullying. Now if they simply looked at you and, based upon that alone, decided what your opinon was disagreeable then that would be discrimination.
Nope. However, if someone told you that "stoves only burn black people", it'd be irrational.
Per the wiki, I grew up in a neighborhood that was 95.1% white. I was well into my teens before I actually came to be good friends with someone who was not a white, middle-class Christian person. Even so, I persisted with the thought that discrimination was not a problem. That those who complained were playing the race-card or acting as the victim, or that liberals were just being whiny when they talked about 'privilege'. I was never given the opportunity to understand that I was afforded huge benefit in American society, in that I never had to give thought to my race, religion, gender, etc.
In addition being the more fringe libertarian back then, I had the very stupid idea that people were entirely empowered to do whatever they wished. That as the quote above contends, offenders have a right to discriminate because people are afforded recourse when they face explicit or implicit discrimination. It was only after I spent time overseas, became good friends with people of different minority groups and had several gay slurs hurled my way that I actually "got it". It's one thing to say, "Christians have the right to refuse service!" than to actually be the one who is hurled out of the restaurant with ill-intent not just once, but multiple times. It's a rude awakening that changes your world view very quickly.
Of course, having once held these beliefs that discrimination is not a problem ... I can very easily recognize it in other people. My frustration now is trying to drag these people into "getting it" as well. How does one do that with a person, who does not have the potential of experience discrimination him/herself?
Per the wiki, I grew up in a neighborhood that was 95.1% white. I was well into my teens before I actually came to be good friends with someone who was not a white, middle-class Christian person. Even so, I persisted with the thought that discrimination was not a problem. That those who complained were playing the race-card or acting as the victim, or that liberals were just being whiny when they talked about 'privilege'. I was never given the opportunity to understand that I was afforded huge benefit in American society, in that I never had to give thought to my race, religion, gender, etc.
In addition being the more fringe libertarian back then, I had the very stupid idea that people were entirely empowered to do whatever they wished. That as the quote above contends, offenders have a right to discriminate because people are afforded recourse when they face explicit or implicit discrimination. It was only after I spent time overseas, became good friends with people of different minority groups and had several gay slurs hurled my way that I actually "got it". It's one thing to say, "Christians have the right to refuse service!" than to actually be the one who is hurled out of the restaurant with ill-intent not just once, but multiple times. It's a rude awakening that changes your world view very quickly.
Of course, having once held these beliefs that discrimination is not a problem ... I can very easily recognize it in other people. My frustration now is trying to drag these people into "getting it" as well.How does one do that with a person, who does not have the potential of experience discrimination him/herself?
I've said before that the ability or unwillingness that one is afforded benefits and privileges is part and parcel of privilege itself. For the most part, those who are privileged can deny their own privilege (and by extension denying someone else's reality) and for the most part they won't be questioned or challenged on that assumption.
Other posters will have noticed that I make a lot of posts when privilege manifests itself or rears its ugly head. On top of that, its existence is backed up by tons of sociological research that illustrates differential treatment in housing, in the hiring process, in media portrayals, in academic life, in the legal/justice system, and elsewhere. What's dangerous about current race relations in America is not that overt racists and the KKK are a big deal. It's that all it takes for racial progress to be obstructed is to have large portions of the privileged majority to deny that their own privilege exists. Denial of the reality of a problem - denying that the problem even exists - is obviously the chief obstacle in getting that problem solved. In essence, what's scary is that racism can persist even in a society where no racists exist.
First off, I've had nothing given to me in my 43 years of existence on this earth, chosing to work hard, make responsible decisions and plan my future carefully.
Second, I don't exist in the mindset that would alllow me to even recognize that I've been discriminated against. If someone starts to tell me that I've been forced into some inferior position by the actions of others I quickly exlplain that I alone am responsible for my actions and my location in life.
I have too much character and confidence to be told I'm intelectually maleable enough to be manipulated.
It must be exhausting to exist in that victim type of mentallity.
And NO, not the " Black Leaders " I pointed out. They do NOT have a" responsibillity" to poison the minds of the people who listen to their lies and their mischaracterizations.
They do NOT have the responsibillity to perpetuate this "you're always the victim, you have no control over your life " corrupted message that enriches them while it demoralizes those who they claim to represent.
It's typical, society is bombarded with this mysogonistic, violent music and culture that celebrates the worst aspects of the inner city but they're also expected to keep their mouths shut and their thoughts objective as those who claim to be discriminated against paint a pretty convincing picture of how they want to be percieved.
Sorry, you cant have both, its a unreasonable request.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?