Which is more evil, meat, soy, gluten, or southpaws?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

Many examples of institutionalized racism, sexism and otherism are hiding in plain sight. Sometimes they're not explicitly codified, but they can be clearly seen. Sometimes they don't bother to hide it and only give their policies the tiniest of fig leaves in legalese to make it look like something else.

Any good source for an example of a recent case of institutionalized -ism?

Telling me to open my eyes isn't a convincing argument if I'm saying that my eyes are open, and I don't see it. When presented with compelling evidence, I'm very quick to accept it.

Pretending that a societal injury never happened is a lie, and pretending that it doesn't matter because it wasn't "recent" is a more damaging lie. If some remedies that were belatedly and halfheartedly given in the face of vicious opposition haven't corrected the wrongs, does that mean that we were wrong to try or does it just mean that we have more work to do and could use a little less pushback?

I've never even insinuated that societal injury never happened, or that institutionalized "descrimination" did not exist. What I am saying is that the only institutionalized discrimination remaining is in the form of affirmative action type programs (and realize that I could be wrong).

This isn't to say that individuals are not racist, sexist, etc, or that positions of influence aren't occupied by these individuals, only that I am unaware of any written institutional policy that discriminates, or even of conversations where officials are directing their people to discriminate. Perhaps they exist, but I need to know specifically what to be outraged by, not just generally to be outraged. I can't fight an abstract notion of injustice, only specific injustice.

So far, all I have to be outraged by is that some groups of people who are generations removed from injustice are being told they need increasing amounts of "help" at the expense of other groups of people who had nothing to do with the injustice. It isn't helpful to those being told they can't make it without government assistance, and it isn't helpful to the economic contributors to society.

[Ecky]

I wouldn't say "generations". At this point, many alive experienced, while younger people are only one generation removed, if that.

You're probably right in that institutionalized discrimination is mostly gone, but individual discrimination is still a huge problem. Is an institution-level response to widespread individual discrimination inappropriate? (serious question)

[freebeard]

Any good source for an example of a recent case of institutionalized -ism?

"It's Okay to be white"?

In Current Year we have an ascendant feminism that doesn't know when to stop with the hysterical screeeching and consolidate some gains.

Watching the reconciliation of Islam and Western Feminism is very, very entertaining.

[Xist]

I forgot to mention that grad student that I know has free tutoring. Is that the same as Arizona State giving me a free notetaker when I presented an ADHD diagnosis?

"Roughly 45 countries have introduced electoral gender quotas by law, and political parties in dozens more have adopted voluntary quotas (the United States, which ranks 85th on the IPU’s gender-equity list, is not one of them)." https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...s-work/381320/

I sure hope there are people that vote for who they think is the best person for the job not for the best ears or whatever.

For human resources, recruiting, etc., removing identifiable information sounds like the right thing to do.

I read the Gizmodo article. Perhaps I read it too quickly (at work). What is wrong with it?

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by Xist

I sure hope there are people that vote for who they think is the best person for the job not for the best ears or whatever.

Looking at our history of top elected officials, I'm very skeptical of people's ability to identify eligibility for these positions.

[freebeard]

We have two prior, living Presidents with ears like Alfred E. Neuman, maybe there is something to that.

vox.com: Groundbreaking empirical research shows where innovation really comes from

Rather than cutting taxes on financially successful adults, we ought to think about how to improve what Chetty calls our “capacity to tap into currently underused potential.” He and his colleague calculate that If women, minorities, and children from low- and middle-income families invented at the same rate as white men from high-income (top 20%) families, there would 4 times as many inventors in America as there are today.

Talk about rejecting you own causation/correlation premise.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Ecky

I wouldn't say "generations". At this point, many alive experienced, while younger people are only one generation removed, if that.

You're probably right in that institutionalized discrimination is mostly gone, but individual discrimination is still a huge problem. Is an institution-level response to widespread individual discrimination inappropriate? (serious question)

Agreed. I was specifically thinking of the descendants of Native Americans, which are many generations removed from the injustices of the colonists and early US government.

There are still plenty of people alive today that were harmed by racist practices such as segregation. I imagine most of the people responsible for that are dead.

Your question opens up a whole other can of worms that most people would likely disagree with me on.

A just market is one in which people voluntarily offer their labor, and customers are free to engage in business with whomever they wish. This means a customer can't be forced to purchase goods or services from any particular business, and businesses can't be forced to provide their goods or services to particular people.

If someone walks into a cake shop and demands they make a cake in the shape of buttcheeks (or insert anything that could offend someone here), the shop has the intrinsic right to not serve the customer. They don't need a reason for not serving the customer, just as the customer doesn't need to provide a reason for why they want it.

Forcing the business to make the cake deprives them of their intrinsic right to voluntary labor and reinforces their discriminatory beliefs. The customer is poorly served since they don't know if the cake was spit in, or if it was created with proper attention to the work. They would be much better served by hiring someone who is excited to give them business, and dedicated to their satisfaction.

Similarly, a nightclub has the intrinsic right to charge some customers an entrance fee (men), and not charge other customers (women). The offended customers aren't required to be patrons of the business.

Discrimination can never be fought with discrimination; it simply isn't effective. The proper way to fight injustice and indecency is for society to cast shame on bad individuals, boycott them (don't buy their stuff), and be an example of just and decent behavior.

Fighting discrimination is best accomplished when society affirms that humans have intrinsic rights and worth that are not dependent on popular opinion, consensus, power, influence, or any other criteria that can be abused.

Originally Posted by Xist

"Roughly 45 countries have introduced electoral gender quotas by law, and political parties in dozens more have adopted voluntary quotas (the United States, which ranks 85th on the IPU’s gender-equity list, is not one of them)."

I sure hope there are people that vote for who they think is the best person for the job not for the best ears or whatever.

For human resources, recruiting, etc., removing identifiable information sounds like the right thing to do.

Seems the US is among the remaining sane countries in this matter. People have the right to "vote" however they wish, whether that be by actual votes, purchase of goods and services, with their labor, or in other areas covered by freedom of speech.

Setting mandates for representation undermines the accomplishments of those who have truly earned their position, and potentially promotes those who have not earned their position.

[freebeard]

Your question opens up a whole other can of worms that most people would likely disagree with me on.

Noted.

Your position aligns with Lionel Nation on Youtube:

Jack Phillips Will Win Before SCOTUS in Masterpiece Cakeshop Because It's Not 'Gay Discrimination'
Lionel Nation 2 days ago11,833 views

[Xist]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

a cake in the shape of buttcheeks (or insert anything that could offend someone here)

Like a note?

Secret Time Capsule Found Inside Jesus' Butt

Yev Kassem reserves the right to refuse to serve soup to anyone.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Noted.

Your position aligns with Lionel Nation on Youtube:

Funny, I picked that example having been unaware of current headlines. Perfect example of what I'm talking about though.

It's a waste of time for the SCOTUS to weigh in on a case of one person(s) demanding a particular service from another person. The matter is dead simple and I can already hear Judge Judy asking the questions;

"Did the baker take your money to bake the cake"
"no"
"Did the baker make the cake"
"no"
"So you're even".

While I'm no advocate for racism, sexism, or other -isms that result in unkind behavior, I'm even more against forced labor. Who is to say what supposed voluntary laborers should be required to produce? If the law is applied, it must be applied evenly, without "prejudice".

Allowing a business to charge customers differing amounts based on gender is clearly more egregious than an artist refusing to produce something they find offensive. To rule that one is acceptable while the other is not is a conspicuous display of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy.