[billw55]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-15, 17:25, said:

I've said many times that Trump was my seventeenth choice among the Republican candidates. Did I fail to mention it in this thread?

I must have missed it. Thanks for clarifying.

[Zelandakh]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-15, 19:38, said:

OK, one example.

I was criticized because I said that blacks where hired less often because employers sensibly wanted to avoid the extra possibility of litigation.

While I have no data to back me up, I know that this would be one factor in hiring if I was running a small business.

This small sub-quote sums up what Mike was saying to you perfectly. You take an opinion based on your own racism and then assign to it the status of fact even admitting that there is no evidence supporting it. Did it occur to you that not everyone in society is as racist as you are? Or that most companies, particularly larger companies, would not allow their hiring to be based on racist thinking?

My experience of fear of litigation based on race is the reverse of yours, that given equal candidates many companies would prefer the non-white or female candidate for fear of litigation, aided perhaps by the knowledge that they need to pay such candidates less on average than a white male candidate. But perhaps I do not associate with enough racists to be able to reflect your social group accurately.

As for blacks making more lawsuits for racial discrimination than whites, did it occur to you that perhaps that is because there is simply more discrimination against them? In a similar vein, there is more discrimination against women than men and therefore more sexual discrimination cases brought by women. The number of cases brought does not reflect the litigiousness of the group but the attitudes that they face. It saddens me that these attitudes still seem to be so widespread in a country like America and that many with such attitudes still regard them as completely normal and acceptable.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2016-November-16, 07:07, said:

So what's wrong with using "radical Islamic terrorists" to precisely define the people who perpetrated 9/11, the San Bernadino shootings, the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, the Paris attacks, the Orlando night club massacre, the Brussels airport attack, and countless other terrorist acts? If you simply said terrorist attacks, it would be some inscrutable reference to those who committed those acts. If you said Islamic terrorists, it would be improper because it would impugn millions of people following Islam. "Radical Islamic terrorists" precisely identifies a very specific ideology that is common to the perpetrators of all those heinous acts.


If political correctness were limited to polite references to people, it probably would not be a problem. But political correctness has been usurped and gratuitously expanded to try to stifle free speech, debate, or dissent.

To quote Kirsten - "Most people who reside on the left side of the political spectrum can tolerate difference of opinion without turning into authoritarian speech police. They can engage or ignore those with whom they disagree. ..... The illiberal left, on the other hand, believes that people who express ideological, philosophical, or political views that don't line up with their preferences should be completely silenced. Instead of using persuasion and rhetoric to make a positive case for their causes and views, they work to delegitimize the person through character assassination, demonization, and dehumanizing tactics."

"Closet conservative" is a pejorative in reference to a liberal by illiberals in order to delegitimize them and, thereby, render their opinions as something to be utterly ignored.



No, I bear no personal animus towards liberals. But attacks on the constitutional right of free speech do worry me. Ugly as it can be sometimes, free speech is essential to the ongoing well being of our country. When you limit speech so that there is only one acceptable way of speaking or expressing yourself, you start limiting the discourse that is necessary for ensuring the country doesn't go off in the wrong direction to its ultimate demise.

Answers:
Claim 1: Because "radical Islamist Terrorists" overemphasizes the importance of the religion to the terror. Instead of pinpointing the beliefs that drive the terrorists, saying "radical Islamic terrorists" is like saying "radical Christian terrorists" when what you really mean is church-going, white, KKK membership Southern Baptist terrorists. The Southern Baptist part is not the critical issue.

Claim 2: There are no laws requiring politically correct speech. There may be pressure in the form of a policy or from peers, but free speech is still the law.

Summation: The world is big and complex with big complex problems. The right-wing information bubble shields its listeners and viewers from these harsh facts, creating simplistic answers and scapegoats to demonize. If you stepped outside that bubble you would find that jousting against imaginary windmills created by that bubble does not resolve serious issues.

[nige1]

Freedom of speech has always been under threat -- as much from well-intentioned ordinary people as from those in authority. In the 1970s, in Edinburgh, a student protest prevented Hans Eysenck from talking about IQ and genetics. Another student protest prevented a conference of South African academics taking place in Edinburgh -- although it would have been likely to help fight Apartheid.
IMO, it's right to query "facts" and to quarrel with arguments but we should try to avoid aspersions against those who advance them. We should also be wary of PC fudges blunting language.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall. in 1906 said:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Hans Eysenck, Rebel with a Cause, in 1990 said:

I always felt that a scientist owes the world only one thing, and that is the truth as he sees it. If the truth contradicts deeply held beliefs, that is too bad. Tact and diplomacy are fine in international relations, in politics, perhaps even in business; in science only one thing matters, and that is the facts.

Thomas Charlton, in 1809, said:

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance

[billw55]

nige1, on 2016-November-16, 10:59, said:

Freedom of speech has always been under threat -- as much from well-intentioned ordinary people as from those in authority. In the 1970s, in Edinburgh, a student protest prevented Hans Eysenck from talking about IQ and genetics. Another student protest prevented a conference of South African academics taking place in Edinburgh -- although it would have been likely to help fight Apartheid.
IMO, it's right to query "facts" and to quarrel with arguments but you should try to avoid aspersions against those who advance them. We should also be wary of PC fudges blunting language.

I also strongly support freedom of speech. But with that, I must recognize what freedom of speech is, and what it is not.

Freedom of speech means that you have the right to speak as you choose, publicly or privately. The government cannot prevent the speech, arrest you for it, or charge you with a crime for it.

Freedom of speech does not:
obligate anyone to listen
guarantee any particular venue
prevent an owner of private property from expelling you
guarantee you can keep your job
preclude counter-speech by others
allow criminal threats

... and so on.

[jonottawa]

I admire a guy who loves his family, but I think Trump is making a big mistake by giving his children so much influence, especially his son-in-law. He needs to nip that problem in the bud.

He also needs to pick Corker for State. Bolton? Giuliani? Gingrich? I mean, come on, let's be serious.

[mikeh]

jonottawa, on 2016-November-16, 11:24, said:

I admire a guy who loves his family, but I think Trump is making a big mistake by giving his children so much influence, especially his son-in-law. He needs to nip that problem in the bud.

He also needs to pick Corker for State. Bolton? Giuliani? Gingrich? I mean, come on, let's be serious.

Why do you make a sensible post and then ruin it by inserting such a stupid image?

Nobody that I am aware of has suggested killing Trump even tho his policies, and his apparent intentions in terms of governance, will surely result in many, many deaths that would likely not have occurred with HRC as President.

He and Ryan, who is likely to be the de facto President, since Trump apparently has no attention span and can't comprehend, let alone deal with, detail, are almost surely going to deprive 20 million people of health care. That cannot help but cause an increase in preventable death and disability, as well as plunge more people into poverty as they lose their health insurance.

He seems extremely likely to prevent federal civil rights investigations and prosecutions, thus reversing what seems to have been at least a modest increase in law enforcement perception of the dangers of simply shooting unarmed black people. This suggests, at a minimum, more shootings, more riots, and more resulting injury and death. Ironically, this will probably lead to more shootings of police as tensions increase and poor black communities see that their federal government has become their adversary.

And then there is the world at large. He has fired Christie as head of the transition team, apparently under pressure from his son-in-law, whose father was successfully prosecuted by Christie, before Christie lost his moral centre, for various offences including jury tampering. Nice guy...and it appears that his son has inherited his sense of values. Trump is enshrining a misogynistic, anti-Semite white nationalist as his main counselor, and is apparently considering a climate change denialist as head of his environmental protection agency, which is Orwellian is nothing else....tho I suspect that Trump, who apparently literally doesn't read books, probably never heard of George Orwell. He has promised to 'blow out of the water' any vessel seen as harassing US naval ships, even tho such 'harassment' is not illegal under international law.

He has suggested bringing back torture as a tool of foreign policy, and murdering relatives of terrorists. He openly espouses being at least as vicious to terrorists as they are to the US, which will be a huge propaganda victory for terrorists. His attitude will engender far more terrorism.

In the meantime, he continues, even post election, to claim that he clearly understands war and military matters better than the generals!

This is a man who has openly wondered why, given that the US has a nuclear arsenal, the US hasn't used nukes on ISIS or Iran. And he wants to put into cabinet men who have been open proponents of unprovoked war with Iran.

Despite all of this, and despite the incredible and logical fears that this man engenders, no public figure has spoken out, let alone acted out, to suggest that he is an illegitimate President or that violent opposition is acceptable. Meanwhile, white nationalists have increased the already historic rate of bigoted acts against the minorities he has attacked. He has offered, in the campaign, to pay the legal fees of supporters who physically assault protesters, so just what stance do you think law enforcement will take now?

So...I go back to where I came in....your criticisms of his apparent selection of cabinet members suggests an element of rationality on your part, so why destroy that with those cartoon images?

[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2016-November-16, 09:08, said:

Claim 1: Because "radical Islamist Terrorists" overemphasizes the importance of the religion to the terror. Instead of pinpointing the beliefs that drive the terrorists, saying "radical Islamic terrorists" is like saying "radical Christian terrorists" when what you really mean is church-going, white, KKK membership Southern Baptist terrorists. The Southern Baptist part is not the critical issue.

I have a hard time seeing how the religion is overemphasized when during the attack the terrorist make a point of emphasizing their religious beliefs. I think it's a point that we can disagree on. If "radical Islamic terrorists" is unacceptable to you, then how do you suggest we refer to these perpetrators?

Quote

Claim 2: There are no laws requiring politically correct speech. There may be pressure in the form of a policy or from peers, but free speech is still the law.

Yes, it is the law. But like it or not, there are consequences for free speech no matter what the law says. But over a period of time, with liberals recently ascendant, the policies and peer pressure has mounted to espouse the liberal view as the only legitimate view. I was using Ms. Powers quote to illustrate that this pressure had exceeded acceptable limits. It's as wrong now as it was during the McCarthyite era in the '50s.

As a moderate, I've been subject on many occasions to prejudicial comments by liberals about moderates and conservatives. For the most part, except when engaging with close liberal friends who respect my viewpoint, I've kept silent. I invite to step back and analyze some of these comments with the criteria you use for determining racist, sexist, or anti-religious comments. If you do so, the answers may surprise you.

Quote

Summation: The world is big and complex with big complex problems. The right-wing information bubble shields its listeners and viewers from these harsh facts, creating simplistic answers and scapegoats to demonize. If you stepped outside that bubble you would find that jousting against imaginary windmills created by that bubble does not resolve serious issues.

Substitute "left-wing" into your summation for "right-wing" and what you said is equally true. Both bubbles are equally a problem for the country. When you're in the bubble, you lose touch with the big and complex world with big complex problems. That can lead to bad decisions and results because of how insulated those in the bubble are from reality. The only way we can ensure that doesn't happen is to ensure a fair clash of ideas over all the political spectrum.

One die hard Democratic consultant I know said (I'm paraphrasing) -- "I had to work with the opposition on part of a project. As we discussed the project, I found that although we disagreed on some issues, they had logical and well reasoned viewpoints for their positions." In this type of interplay, there can come up insights, areas of agreement, or better understanding that can lead to overall better results.

I challenge you to step outside your strong viewpoint and try to understand what those who disagree with you are thinking.

Last Tuesday, the American electorate offered strong evidence that liberals were too insulated in their bubble.

[billw55]

rmnka447, on 2016-November-16, 14:13, said:

Last Tuesday, the American electorate offered strong evidence that liberals were too insulated in their bubble.

Did they? The popular vote was won by Clinton, albeit narrowly. Also Ds gained seats in both house and senate. Perhaps we should say that the American electorate offered evidence that conservatives were too insulated in their bubble?

I would say neither. For practical purposes it was just about an even split; Trump won the presidency due to the system used.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2016-November-16, 14:13, said:

I have a hard time seeing how the religion is overemphasized when during the attack the terrorist make a point of emphasizing their religious beliefs. I think it's a point that we can disagree on. If "radical Islamic terrorists" is unacceptable to you, then how do you suggest we refer to these perpetrators?

Quote

Terrorists. Hate-mongers. Whatever. But the only reason ever to include religion in the description is if the religion is a cause of the action. For example, it should be almost impossible to describe the terrorists killings of The Inquisition without using the word Christian because forcing compliance to Christian beliefs was the basis for the torture and killing by the Church; however, we rightfully do not lump all Christians together because to do otherwise is to castigate all for the actions of a minority. We should show at least equal restraint for the vast majority of Muslims who are not terrorists.

Yes, it is the law. But like it or not, there are consequences for free speech no matter what the law says. But over a period of time, with liberals recently ascendant, the policies and peer pressure has mounted to espouse the liberal view as the only legitimate view. I was using Ms. Powers quote to illustrate that this pressure had exceeded acceptable limits. It's as wrong now as it was during the McCarthyite era in the '50s.

Quote

Now you are just whining. Anyone who compares peer pressure for word choices to the very real threat of jail for contempt of Congress and job loss from blackballing during the Joseph McMarthy witch hunt is to be pitied for using retard logic. (Apologies to the mentally challenged)

As a moderate, I've been subject on many occasions to prejudicial comments by liberals about moderates and conservatives. For the most part, except when engaging with close liberal friends who respect my viewpoint, I've kept silent. I invite to step back and analyze some of these comments with the criteria you use for determining racist, sexist, or anti-religious comments. If you do so, the answers may surprise you.

Quote

I understand what you are saying and freely admit I have held views that I later came to detest - but I have never in my life judged another human being based on the color of his or her skin. The only explanation I can find for racist bigotry is ignorance and superstition; it is impossible to hold a racist viewpoint if you are 1)intellectually honest and 2) have a rudimentary understanding of biology. And racism has nothing to do with anyone's politics other than birds of a feather...

Substitute "left-wing" into your summation for "right-wing" and what you said is equally true. Both bubbles are equally a problem for the country. When you're in the bubble, you lose touch with the big and complex world with big complex problems. That can lead to bad decisions and results because of how insulated those in the bubble are from reality. The only way we can ensure that doesn't happen is to ensure a fair clash of ideas over all the political spectrum.

One die hard Democratic consultant I know said (I'm paraphrasing) -- "I had to work with the opposition on part of a project. As we discussed the project, I found that although we disagreed on some issues, they had logical and well reasoned viewpoints for their positions." In this type of interplay, there can come up insights, areas of agreement, or better understanding that can lead to overall better results.

I challenge you to step outside your strong viewpoint and try to understand what those who disagree with you are thinking.

Last Tuesday, the American electorate offered strong evidence that liberals were too insulated in their bubble.

Quote

Perhaps you can enlighten me but I don't know of any "liberal" sources that equate to right-wing sources such as Breitbart or Hannity, and that is because liberals recognize blather and bias and won't bother themselves with it. We crave facts. Like this: Last Tuesday, Clinton received more votes than Trump. I don't know which voters were liberal or conservative, myself, as I wasn't in the booth with them, asking personal questions.

[Kaitlyn S]

hrothgar, on 2016-November-16, 04:25, said:

With this said and done, I think that you are an outright bigot who has (partially) learned to control her language.

Interesting. I looked this morning and I could swear that someone else called my position racist also, but apparently they deleted the post. So I am responding to one of you instead of two of you.

You don't know me. Let me describe a situation I was in and maybe that will give you a better view of my deplorable racist ideas.

I was playing an online game in which several of the players where very high IQ but very low tact college age Asians (living in Asia.) Since many of them are much smarter than I am, I am frequently the target of their abuse, being called a f***tarded cu** or other woman-demeaning phrase. This barely bothers me since I am not a snowflake (and as you can see, Richard is rather tame by comparison.)

However, one day they were calling each other "nigga" - they thought that was cool because they picked it up from some American rap "music". I was outraged. Fortunately, two frequent players who I suspect are black were not on at the time, but I let them have it, letting them know how uncool it was and it would be very hurtful to anyone with dark skin which I thought some of the regulars possessed. Even though for a while they kept it up and called me a prude, it must have done some good because I haven't seen them use the term since, despite still using other fairly vicious but non-racist language.

Another time they had just picked up the term fagg*t and this time they weren't as lucky - a gay person was playing. He started complaining about the use of the term and they just gave him crap for it. I was livid. These ignorant geniuses thought it was like calling someone a stupid jerk and didn't have any idea how hurtful they were being. I tried to explain it but this time they were a little less understanding. It turns out that one of the players used that term as a term of endearment (seems like an odd choice, but what do I know?) and once I could convince him to choose a different term of endearment and the others that this was another really hurtful term, that one stopped too.

However, Winstonm and PassedOut did achieve their mission. I told them that if they said the right thing they would convince me that my position was wrong. And they did in fact say the right thing. They convinced me to do some research on discrimination lawsuits. And while I did not find what I was looking for, I did run across several articles that made me realize that I was wrong about one thing: that in this politically-correctness charged world, few minorities are discriminated against anymore.

My assumption (which I never totally laid out, and if I had, they would have realized the problem and got me to the correct solution much sooner) was that discrimination lawsuits were hurting blacks more by having employers not hire them due to fear of being sued than they were being helped by the suits themselves; in other words, that the number of blacks not hired out of fear of being sued was greater than the number of blacks helped by anti-discrimination lawsuits.

I had thought that at one time, that this was not true; that we lived in a nation with racism running rampant and the blacks really needed the anti-discrimination suits. However, I had (incorrectly) assumed that with all the political correctness going on now, that this wasn't much of a problem, and that the blacks were actually being harmed by the existence of such suits (by employers fearing them.)

However, in trying to do the research to back up my supposition, I found that one of my assumptions was wrong. Racism in hiring and promotions still does run rampant, and perhaps not for the reasons I mentioned, but for really despicable reasons like "black clerks just aren't as attractive so we might get less customers." Now, I don't see that at all; my bank branch usually has exactly zero white tellers on duty (in a mainly white town) and I still choose to go there as well as many other people, so I'm not sure what the problem is. I can't imagine not patronizing a business because its clerks were black. Do people really do that? Sadly, the answer must be yes if blacks aren't being hired for that reason. While I suspect that none of you would be in that group, let me say something to all of the morons who would really not shop somewhere because they had black clerks:

"You are probably the same people who voted for Trump because you want to ship eleven million undocumented workers home tomorrow because they are stealing our jobs. Well those clerks you are trying to avoid, they are Americans with jobs. So stop being f****** hypocrites and support the businesses that are hiring Americans!"

I really had no clue that racism was still as bad as it was. It was really hard for me to see because the liberals were calling me a deplorable racist when I don't see myself that way, so I just assumed that when they claimed there were still millions of racists, that they were calling a whole bunch of people like me racist and they were basically full of s***. But reading about companies not hiring blacks because it would make their businesses less attractive to customers (a totally disgusting thought to me, and TBH I couldn't have imagined this was the case) was an eye-opener.

I'm not convinced that an employer doesn't reduce his economic expectation by hiring a person more likely to be successful in an anti-discrimination lawsuit (blacks, women, etc.), however while I thought that the solution was to abolish anti-discrimination suits, I no longer feel that way. New information has made me think that the number of deplorable people is way higher than I had thought and the anti-discrimination lawsuits are still necessary. I still feel that they could hurt the blacks in hiring situations, but they may help the blacks more because real racism still exists to a great extent.

[jonottawa]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-16, 16:39, said:

Interesting. I looked this morning and I could swear that someone else called my position racist also, but apparently they deleted the post. So I am responding to one of you instead of two of you.

Zelandakh, on 2016-November-16, 08:11, said:

This small sub-quote sums up what Mike was saying to you perfectly. You take an opinion based on your own racism and then assign to it the status of fact even admitting that there is no evidence supporting it. Did it occur to you that not everyone in society is as racist as you are? Or that most companies, particularly larger companies, would not allow their hiring to be based on racist thinking?

This one? It's from post 2882, not deleted.

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-16, 16:39, said:

However, in trying to do the research to back up my supposition, I found that one of my assumptions was wrong. Racism in hiring and promotions still does run rampant, and perhaps not for the reasons I mentioned, but for really despicable reasons like "black clerks just aren't as attractive so we might get less customers." Now, I don't see that at all; my bank branch usually has exactly zero white tellers on duty (in a mainly white town) and I still choose to go there as well as many other people, so I'm not sure what the problem is. I can't imagine not patronizing a business because its clerks were black. Do people really do that? Sadly, the answer must be yes if blacks aren't being hired for that reason.

It's worse than that. I've heard that some bars discriminate against ugly people and try to hire cute people for their waitstaff or as bartenders. Some strip clubs do that TOO, they even discriminate against FAT people! Even news organizations like FoxNews tend to hire women who are considered really attractive. I've even heard rumors that magazines like Vogue won't put you on the cover if you're an average-looking person!

It's unconscionable. It's barbaric. It's medieval. Don't these people know that it's the CURRENT YEAR!?

Thank-you Kaitlyn! You've opened my eyes. I'm walking down to Handsome Boy Modeling School RIGHT NOW!!!

[diana_eva]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-16, 16:39, said:

Interesting. I looked this morning and I could swear that someone else called my position racist also, but apparently they deleted the post. So I am responding to one of you instead of two of you.

You don't know me. Let me describe a situation I was in and maybe that will give you a better view of my deplorable racist ideas.

I was playing an online game in which several of the players where very high IQ but very low tact college age Asians (living in Asia.) Since many of them are much smarter than I am, I am frequently the target of their abuse, being called a f***tarded cu** or other woman-demeaning phrase. This barely bothers me since I am not a snowflake (and as you can see, Richard is rather tame by comparison.)

However, one day they were calling each other "nigga" - they thought that was cool because they picked it up from some American rap "music". I was outraged. Fortunately, two frequent players who I suspect are black were not on at the time, but I let them have it, letting them know how uncool it was and it would be very hurtful to anyone with dark skin which I thought some of the regulars possessed. Even though for a while they kept it up and called me a prude, it must have done some good because I haven't seen them use the term since, despite still using other fairly vicious but non-racist language.

Another time they had just picked up the term fagg*t and this time they weren't as lucky - a gay person was playing. He started complaining about the use of the term and they just gave him crap for it. I was livid. These ignorant geniuses thought it was like calling someone a stupid jerk and didn't have any idea how hurtful they were being. I tried to explain it but this time they were a little less understanding. It turns out that one of the players used that term as a term of endearment (seems like an odd choice, but what do I know?) and once I could convince him to choose a different term of endearment and the others that this was another really hurtful term, that one stopped too.

However, Winstonm and PassedOut did achieve their mission. I told them that if they said the right thing they would convince me that my position was wrong. And they did in fact say the right thing. They convinced me to do some research on discrimination lawsuits. And while I did not find what I was looking for, I did run across several articles that made me realize that I was wrong about one thing: that in this politically-correctness charged world, few minorities are discriminated against anymore.

My assumption (which I never totally laid out, and if I had, they would have realized the problem and got me to the correct solution much sooner) was that discrimination lawsuits were hurting blacks more by having employers not hire them due to fear of being sued than they were being helped by the suits themselves; in other words, that the number of blacks not hired out of fear of being sued was greater than the number of blacks helped by anti-discrimination lawsuits.

I had thought that at one time, that this was not true; that we lived in a nation with racism running rampant and the blacks really needed the anti-discrimination suits. However, I had (incorrectly) assumed that with all the political correctness going on now, that this wasn't much of a problem, and that the blacks were actually being harmed by the existence of such suits (by employers fearing them.)

However, in trying to do the research to back up my supposition, I found that one of my assumptions was wrong. Racism in hiring and promotions still does run rampant, and perhaps not for the reasons I mentioned, but for really despicable reasons like "black clerks just aren't as attractive so we might get less customers." Now, I don't see that at all; my bank branch usually has exactly zero white tellers on duty (in a mainly white town) and I still choose to go there as well as many other people, so I'm not sure what the problem is. I can't imagine not patronizing a business because its clerks were black. Do people really do that? Sadly, the answer must be yes if blacks aren't being hired for that reason. While I suspect that none of you would be in that group, let me say something to all of the morons who would really not shop somewhere because they had black clerks:

"You are probably the same people who voted for Trump because you want to ship eleven million undocumented workers home tomorrow because they are stealing our jobs. Well those clerks you are trying to avoid, they are Americans with jobs. So stop being f****** hypocrites and support the businesses that are hiring Americans!"

I really had no clue that racism was still as bad as it was. It was really hard for me to see because the liberals were calling me a deplorable racist when I don't see myself that way, so I just assumed that when they claimed there were still millions of racists, that they were calling a whole bunch of people like me racist and they were basically full of s***. But reading about companies not hiring blacks because it would make their businesses less attractive to customers (a totally disgusting thought to me, and TBH I couldn't have imagined this was the case) was an eye-opener.

I'm not convinced that an employer doesn't reduce his economic expectation by hiring a person more likely to be successful in an anti-discrimination lawsuit (blacks, women, etc.), however while I thought that the solution was to abolish anti-discrimination suits, I no longer feel that way. New information has made me think that the number of deplorable people is way higher than I had thought and the anti-discrimination lawsuits are still necessary. I still feel that they could hurt the blacks in hiring situations, but they may help the blacks more because real racism still exists to a great extent.

FWIW I also find your posts incredibly racist, and naive too. How can you even think that a small business owner is so afraid of law suit costs that they won't hire someone for fear of law suit, but that the person they may have to fire is NOT afraid of costs and can afford to launch an unbased lawsuit easily? I mean really, who has more money? the owner or the person who got ditched. Especially since your premise is that the lawsuit is not founded. Basically you are saying that it is so likely that someone who wasn't harmed in any way can and will sue (and win) while a business owner will be so harmed that he can't afford the risk. Doesn't even matter who sues, it's ridiculous. If owner is treating his employees fairly, there's no basis for suing.

An anecdote, I was fired when I got pregnant. I didn't even dream to sue. My boss was MUCH better placed to fight than I was, so I didn't even try although I had all the reasons to think I'd win.

[hrothgar]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-16, 16:39, said:

I was playing an online game in which several of the players where very high IQ but very low tact college age Asians (living in Asia.)

I fail to see how the fact that a group of individuals acted like idiots means that you aren't a racist.

I also wonder why you felt obliged to comment about the race of the individuals who were misbehaving? Is this in any way relevant to your story or is this just the way that you naturally feel that you need to describe this aspect of people that you are interacting with?

[mikeh]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-16, 16:39, said:

Interesting. I looked this morning and I could swear that someone else called my position racist also, but apparently they deleted the post. So I am responding to one of you instead of two of you.

You don't know me. Let me describe a situation I was in and maybe that will give you a better view of my deplorable racist ideas.

I was playing an online game in which several of the players where very high IQ but very low tact college age Asians (living in Asia.) Since many of them are much smarter than I am, I am frequently the target of their abuse, being called a f***tarded cu** or other woman-demeaning phrase. This barely bothers me since I am not a snowflake (and as you can see, Richard is rather tame by comparison.)

However, one day they were calling each other "nigga" - they thought that was cool because they picked it up from some American rap "music". I was outraged. Fortunately, two frequent players who I suspect are black were not on at the time, but I let them have it, letting them know how uncool it was and it would be very hurtful to anyone with dark skin which I thought some of the regulars possessed. Even though for a while they kept it up and called me a prude, it must have done some good because I haven't seen them use the term since, despite still using other fairly vicious but non-racist language.

Another time they had just picked up the term fagg*t and this time they weren't as lucky - a gay person was playing. He started complaining about the use of the term and they just gave him crap for it. I was livid. These ignorant geniuses thought it was like calling someone a stupid jerk and didn't have any idea how hurtful they were being. I tried to explain it but this time they were a little less understanding. It turns out that one of the players used that term as a term of endearment (seems like an odd choice, but what do I know?) and once I could convince him to choose a different term of endearment and the others that this was another really hurtful term, that one stopped too.

However, Winstonm and PassedOut did achieve their mission. I told them that if they said the right thing they would convince me that my position was wrong. And they did in fact say the right thing. They convinced me to do some research on discrimination lawsuits. And while I did not find what I was looking for, I did run across several articles that made me realize that I was wrong about one thing: that in this politically-correctness charged world, few minorities are discriminated against anymore.

My assumption (which I never totally laid out, and if I had, they would have realized the problem and got me to the correct solution much sooner) was that discrimination lawsuits were hurting blacks more by having employers not hire them due to fear of being sued than they were being helped by the suits themselves; in other words, that the number of blacks not hired out of fear of being sued was greater than the number of blacks helped by anti-discrimination lawsuits.

I had thought that at one time, that this was not true; that we lived in a nation with racism running rampant and the blacks really needed the anti-discrimination suits. However, I had (incorrectly) assumed that with all the political correctness going on now, that this wasn't much of a problem, and that the blacks were actually being harmed by the existence of such suits (by employers fearing them.)

However, in trying to do the research to back up my supposition, I found that one of my assumptions was wrong. Racism in hiring and promotions still does run rampant, and perhaps not for the reasons I mentioned, but for really despicable reasons like "black clerks just aren't as attractive so we might get less customers." Now, I don't see that at all; my bank branch usually has exactly zero white tellers on duty (in a mainly white town) and I still choose to go there as well as many other people, so I'm not sure what the problem is. I can't imagine not patronizing a business because its clerks were black. Do people really do that? Sadly, the answer must be yes if blacks aren't being hired for that reason. While I suspect that none of you would be in that group, let me say something to all of the morons who would really not shop somewhere because they had black clerks:

"You are probably the same people who voted for Trump because you want to ship eleven million undocumented workers home tomorrow because they are stealing our jobs. Well those clerks you are trying to avoid, they are Americans with jobs. So stop being f****** hypocrites and support the businesses that are hiring Americans!"

I really had no clue that racism was still as bad as it was. It was really hard for me to see because the liberals were calling me a deplorable racist when I don't see myself that way, so I just assumed that when they claimed there were still millions of racists, that they were calling a whole bunch of people like me racist and they were basically full of s***. But reading about companies not hiring blacks because it would make their businesses less attractive to customers (a totally disgusting thought to me, and TBH I couldn't have imagined this was the case) was an eye-opener.

I'm not convinced that an employer doesn't reduce his economic expectation by hiring a person more likely to be successful in an anti-discrimination lawsuit (blacks, women, etc.), however while I thought that the solution was to abolish anti-discrimination suits, I no longer feel that way. New information has made me think that the number of deplorable people is way higher than I had thought and the anti-discrimination lawsuits are still necessary. I still feel that they could hurt the blacks in hiring situations, but they may help the blacks more because real racism still exists to a great extent.

Kaitlyn, I do not doubt for one moment that you genuinely don't see yourself as racist. You share that characteristic with many bigots, who, as do you, claim that racism is a certain set of behaviours and that you don't condone those particular behaviours and that Q.E.D you are not racist.

However, racism is a broad term and not all racists act or think the same way. Imo, and others will no doubt differ, you are a racist if any of your opinions of or behaviours towards people are influenced by the race of such people.

There are multiple examples of this in your postings.

Your belief, shared by at least some of your friends, that blacks encounter hiring difficulties because employers fear that they will get sued for discrimination should the employee not work out is the most recent.

You initially defended this opinion on the grounds that it made sense to you, even tho you had no evidence to support it. You defended your holding to this opinion by claiming that such evidence would be impossible to find.

I will give you credit for eventually doing that which a non-bigot would already have done if inclined to express that belief...you did a little casual research and were able to conclude that your bigoted belief was wrong. But despite that, you seem oblivious to what holding that belief revealed about you.

What was it that made you think, for one moment, that the belief was true?

It was that blacks, because they are blacks, are far more prone to make up false claims of discrimination when fired, and to sue over it.

That requires assuming that most or at least many claims of discrimination by blacks are false. After all, I assume that even you would agree that IF a black person were fired merely for being black, such a person should be able to sue? If so, then the litigation fear of which you speak would only apply to bosses who were discriminating OR those who were victimized by false lawsuits. For the false lawsuit to be a problem, the risk would need to be more than trivial.

It also requires assuming that other protected classes don't advance false, or genuine, claims of discrimination.

The only reason you singled out blacks is because they are black. It simply didn't occur to you to think about other classes, but it did occur to you to make up this fictitious claim about blacks. Not Latinos. Not gays. Not native americans. Not Asians. Not people with disabilities. Blacks.

That is racist. There is NO other way to look at it.

You don't see it as racist because you live in a bubble where all your friends are equally as bigoted and nobody challenges you to look at how you think.

Instead, you praise yourself for saying that you attend a bank where all the tellers are non-white. How noble of you.

The fact that your racism isn't so strong that you would change banks rather than deal with a black teller isn't, believe it or not, evidence that you are not a racist! Heck, even the worst racists are content to deal with the objects of their bigotry so long as those objects are in a subordinate position.

As for not realizing that racism was rampant in the US....one reason is, I suspect, that you don't recognize most racism as racism. To you it simply makes sense. It fits your belief system, in just the same way that you came to believe this litigation fear nonsense, and just the same way you repeat an anecdote about a university professor, and the story about journalists prohibited from criticizing muslims, and so on.

Your thinking, using a generous term, seems to be that: I know I am not a racist. Therefore nothing I do or say or think can be racist.

I suspect this is strengthened by a reluctance to admit that all of your friends, and no doubt much of your family, are racists as well.

From the outside, the thinking would be: that person writes and says racist things: therefore she is a racist.

You do write racist things. You are a racist. Your inability to see that may make you more comfortable, especially as you can now claim to be a victim. Too bad. Reducing racism even by one individual at a time is a good thing, and it would be wonderful if you were to see yourself as we, here, see you.

[hrothgar]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-16, 16:39, said:

And they did in fact say the right thing. They convinced me to do some research on discrimination lawsuits. And while I did not find what I was looking for, I did run across several articles that made me realize that I was wrong about one thing: that in this politically-correctness charged world, few minorities are discriminated against anymore.

If small amounts of basic research is able to convince you that your beliefs are wrong, perhaps you might chose to do said research before you make any future posts

[Kaitlyn S]

I have seen a series of posts that try to portray me and what I have said in the worst possible light, and to assume the worst possible motives in each case. You're right, Diana, people bring their evil twin here.

diana_eva, on 2016-November-16, 16:55, said:

FWIW I also find your posts incredibly racist, and naive too.

Am I being racist because I state what I think a business owner might do? Am I being racist by pointing out that a person has a lower economic expectation by hiring a black person under the current law than a white person, because there is some chance of a disastrous lawsuit due to racial discrimination?

Try a thought exercise. Let's say I could by insurance to cover discrimination lawsuits.

How much would I have to pay for that insurance if I hired a white person?

How much would I have to pay for that insurance if I hired a black person?

Is there an economic difference?

Why am I being a racist for pointing out the obvious? It is because the politically correct people refuse to point out the obvious that some problems will never be solved.

diana_eva, on 2016-November-16, 16:55, said:

How can you even think that a small business owner is so afraid of law suit costs that they won't hire someone for fear of law suit, but that the person they may have to fire is NOT afraid of costs and can afford to launch an unbased lawsuit easily?

I'm not saying he is so afraid, just that there is some negative expectation, and if as a business owner you take a lot of negative expectations, you won't be in business very long. But by all means assume I am thinking the worst.

Plus, a black person who is laid off (even due to seniority) may think the reason he was the one let go is because he is black, even though it might have been a random choice. It is unbased, but to the black it seems like he has a legitimate gripe.

diana_eva, on 2016-November-16, 16:55, said:

I mean really, who has more money? the owner or the person who got ditched. Especially since your premise is that the lawsuit is not founded. Basically you are saying that it is so likely that someone who wasn't harmed in any way can and will sue (and win) while a business owner will be so harmed that he can't afford the risk. Doesn't even matter who sues, it's ridiculous. If owner is treating his employees fairly, there's no basis for suing.

As I pointed out, the employer may be acting fairly but the black might have a right to feel slighted. He doesn't know the employer's motive and might believe it is racist. After all, if I was the employer, every one of you would think I did it for a racist reason. However, I might have used seniority, drawn straws, or used some measure of merit. However, every one of you would think that the black had a valid lawsuit against me because I am so obviously and incredibly racist. So it wouldn't matter if I was fair or not.

Plus, a lot of lawyers will take on the suit for a percentage of damages and it won't cost the person who files suit anything.

hrothgar, on 2016-November-16, 18:16, said:

I fail to see how the fact that a group of individuals acted like idiots means that you aren't a racist.

You were the one who posted that silly "nigg*r nigg*r nigg*r" quote. I was just pointing out that this isn't who I am.

hrothgar, on 2016-November-16, 18:16, said:

I also wonder why you felt obliged to comment about the race of the individuals who were misbehaving? Is this in any way relevant to your story or is this just the way that you naturally feel that you need to describe this aspect of people that you are interacting with?

No, I presented the race of the individuals to show that they were not trying to be racist bigots, but just ignorant jerks who didn't know that they were being hurtful. But of course, you assumed the worst about me. I did have a motive for saying it, but it was not a bad motive.

[Kaitlyn S]

mikeh, on 2016-November-16, 18:18, said:

Kaitlyn, I do not doubt for one moment that you genuinely don't see yourself as racist. You share that characteristic with many bigots, who, as do you, claim that racism is a certain set of behaviours and that you don't condone those particular behaviours and that Q.E.D you are not racist.

Do you think you're a racist? No? Oh, you share that characteristic with many bigots, who, as do you, claim that racism is a certain set of behaviors and that you don't condone those particular behaviors and Q.E.D. you are not racist.

See how that sounds? You could say that to anybody. But for some reason, you said it to me, because you, like the others, assume the worst in all my motives. I could just as easily say the same thing to you. You are racist against female American bridge players. I have proof - look at the way you're treating me. You can give me stories about how well you treat other female American bridge players, and I can, as you did, cast them aside and say "Just because you treated this one female okay doesn't mean you're not racist." And I know full well that my argument makes no damn sense. But your argument is similar.

mikeh, on 2016-November-16, 18:18, said:

However, racism is a broad term and not all racists act or think the same way. Imo, and others will no doubt differ, you are a racist if any of your opinions of or behaviours towards people are influenced by the race of such people.

There are multiple examples of this in your postings.

Your belief, shared by at least some of your friends, that blacks encounter hiring difficulties because employers fear that they will get sued for discrimination should the employee not work out is the most recent.

You initially defended this opinion on the grounds that it made sense to you, even tho you had no evidence to support it. You defended your holding to this opinion by claiming that such evidence would be impossible to find.

Are you saying it would be possible to find, if it existed (which I believe it does) an employer who admits not to hire a black for the economic reason of a potential lawsuit down the road?

mikeh, on 2016-November-16, 18:18, said:

I will give you credit for eventually doing that which a non-bigot would already have done if inclined to express that belief...you did a little casual research and were able to conclude that your bigoted belief was wrong. But despite that, you seem oblivious to what holding that belief revealed about you.

What was it that made you think, for one moment, that the belief was true?

It was that blacks, because they are blacks, are far more prone to make up false claims of discrimination when fired, and to sue over it.

Of course, again, think the worst. I'm not saying blacks are going to evilly be sue-happy to take advantage of the current legal climate. I'm saying that in many times a black would be not promoted or laid off or fired due to a reason that had nothing to do with skin color, but the black thinks that because he was the slighted one, he might believe that it did have to do with skin color. And how would he know? He could be right. But whether he's right or wrong, the suit may happen. And if he's wrong and the employer was fair, the legal costs of the defense exist anyway. Plus, not all court rulings go the same way; the employer could lose seven figures even when he's done nothing wrong. If he's a small business owner, that could mean his retirement and all his kids' college funds are gone.

mikeh, on 2016-November-16, 18:18, said:

That requires assuming that most or at least many claims of discrimination by blacks are false. After all, I assume that even you would agree that IF a black person were fired merely for being black, such a person should be able to sue? If so, then the litigation fear of which you speak would only apply to bosses who were discriminating OR those who were victimized by false lawsuits. For the false lawsuit to be a problem, the risk would need to be more than trivial.

Even if the risk is trivial, it is still present. See the discrimination insurance argument in response to Diana.

mikeh, on 2016-November-16, 18:18, said:

It also requires assuming that other protected classes don't advance false, or genuine, claims of discrimination.

The only reason you singled out blacks is because they are black. It simply didn't occur to you to think about other classes, but it did occur to you to make up this fictitious claim about blacks. Not Latinos. Not gays. Not native americans. Not Asians. Not people with disabilities. Blacks.

That is racist. There is NO other way to look at it.

Yes, this discussion started with this post.

awm, on 2016-November-14, 17:28, said:

Meritocracy: The liberal view on this is complex. One point is that peoples' views of "merit" are often actually discriminatory; if you ask managers to look at resumes of a white candidate and a black candidate with exactly the same qualifications, they will call in the white candidate (only) for an interview.

You'll notice no mention of Latinos, gays, Native Americans, Asians, or people with disabilities in this post.

You will have to take my word for it, but I have been accused of being bigoted against Muslims ten times as often as I have been accused of being bigoted against blacks. I point this out simply because you think the worst of me and think that I have this vendetta against blacks. Not at all. I have been very vocal against radical Islamic terrorism and since I dare to include the word Islamic, many others have also assumed the worst about me and just assume that I hate all Muslims. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have nothing against non-radical Muslims and I have nothing against blacks. However you can assume that I am lying because it is in fashion to assume the worst about Kaitlyn this week.

So you may be thinking that my friends assume the worst about blacks and I am doing the same because that's in fashion in my crowd. Well, I can turn it around and say that you are assuming the worst about Kaitlyn because that's in fashion in your crowd. And of course I know that is absolute bullcrap. Just as much bullcrap as me assuming the worst about blacks.

mikeh, on 2016-November-16, 18:18, said:

You don't see it as racist because you live in a bubble where all your friends are equally as bigoted and nobody challenges you to look at how you think.

Wrong. I've had these discussions before. The exact words are different but the sentiment is the same. Looking for the truth is considered racist if any of the assumptions involve race. For example, recently we were discussing homicides and somebody quoted the statistics for blacks in homicides, both as perp and as victim. Everybody jumped all over him for being racist but all he was doing was quoting the DOJ statistics! He was not saying that blacks were predisposed to violence. He even pointed out that it probably wasn't race itself but single parent homes that was the major factor. But the whole forum wouldn't take anything he said seriously from that point on because he was a racist so his ideas didn't matter anymore. I feel like that was happening here. Kudos to Winstonm and PassedOut for at least trying to be fair.

mikeh, on 2016-November-16, 18:18, said:

Instead, you praise yourself for saying that you attend a bank where all the tellers are non-white. How noble of you.

Are you f****** kidding me? I praised myself? Really? Seriously? I used that statement to show that I couldn't believe that someone would be so bat sh*t crazy as to NOT attend that bank. I certainly didn't point it out to show that I was doing something special.

mikeh, on 2016-November-16, 18:18, said:

The fact that your racism isn't so strong that you would change banks rather than deal with a black teller isn't, believe it or not, evidence that you are not a racist! Heck, even the worst racists are content to deal with the objects of their bigotry so long as those objects are in a subordinate position.

While I agree with what you are saying, assuming I am racist is assuming the worst in my motives. I'm not sure I've given you evidence to make that assumption. But everyone has.

[Kaitlyn S]

mikeh, on 2016-November-16, 18:18, said:

and it would be wonderful if you were to see yourself as we, here, see you.

It would be wonderful if I thought of myself as a despicable human being? No thank you.

I almost got out a couple of days ago but I got sucked back in. For an evening it was a fair discussion. Then back to the normal sh*t where everybody thinks the worst of me, and it matters not what I say, it's all going to be taken in the worst possible light.

I'm not going to change anyone's mind. You will all think of me as a despicable human being. There really seems to be no reason to engage here anymore for the chance of an honest discussion seems somewhat hopeless when it is assumed that everything I say is said with the most evil intent in mind.

[Kaitlyn S]

sorry to be such a buzzkill