Diversifying in 2012 = racism

[CycloWizard]

Without knowing what that person's motives are, I'd call that person by his or her name. You're right that it's still discrimination whether it's white or black. Where you and Lithium are wrong is in labeling it racist by definition. Discrimination is racist when it is motivated by animus toward the group being discriminated against. In the absence of animus, it isn't racism. It may still be wrong on principle because merit should be the only thing that matter in a perfect world, but that is another issue. To put it simply: when Obama and each of the past 5 POTUSES who preceded him have hired and/appointed based on race, gender etc. they have done so to gain votes, not because they hate one group or another.

Oh, and btw, I await your allegation of GWHB being "racist" for appointing Clarence Thomas to the SCOTUS in part because he was black. Everyone knows this. Even conservatives didn't deny it at the time.

- wolf

This is absolute rubbish.

racism
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
: racial prejudice or discrimination

If you're discriminating based on skin color, your actions are racist by definition. I'm sick of all this wishy washy crap where the meaning of words is flexible when convenient. If I had five black employees and decided the next five people I hired had to be white, that's absolutely racist. I can ascribe whatever intention I want to my actions, but if I'm using race as a criterion for selection, my selection is racist.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Discrimination is racist when it is motivated by animus toward the group being discriminated against. In the absence of animus, it isn't racism.

I think even many dictionaries don't have the requirement of animus.

You can be a racists simply by holding the belief your race is superior, or the other inferior. That requires no animus.

I think you definition is a little too narrow.

It may still be wrong on principle because merit should be the only thing that matter in a perfect world, but that is another issue. To put it simply: when Obama and each of the past 5 POTUSES who preceded him have hired and/appointed based on race, gender etc. they have done so to gain votes, not because they hate one group or another.

Oh, and btw, I await your allegation of GWHB being "racist" for appointing Clarence Thomas to the SCOTUS in part because he was black. Everyone knows this. Even conservatives didn't deny it at the time.

- wolf

Depends what kind of votes you mean. Sounds like you're referring to election votes. If so, I disagree.

I think Bush nominated Clarence Thomas not get votes in an election, but to apply pressure to Democratically control Senate to confirm Thomas. Yes, his skin color/minority status was that pressure.

At that time Bush was having a very difficult time because the Dems were trying to paint him as a usurper to office (stole the election etc.). Anybody who thinks Obama faces unprecedented opposition need only recall that period.

Fern

 

[Zebo]

No, you didn't miss them. They're all above.

OK, so you want to define racist as not necessarily involving animus based on race? Fine. You will then agree that when previous administrations have done similar things, that these administrations are also "racist," right?

What does animus have to do with anything. One could just love blonds with big tits and that's all they will hire to work. Is that not racist?

 

[werepossum]

This is one of those humorous things that sometimes happens in politics, our first black President figuring out he has next to no blacks in his re-election campaign. If anything, Obama is to be commended for not hiring per quotas before this. There is no deeper meaning to fight over; we should all just chuckle and move on. Don't mean nothin'.

 

[werepossum]

What does animus have to do with anything. One could just love blonds with big tits and that's all they will hire to work. Is that not racist?

That's not racist, that's just good business practices.

 

[Zebo]

That's not racist, that's just good business practices.

Well yeah that's why it's good to keep less than 50 employees so eeoc wont sweat you over policy. Obama has more though.

 

[woolfe9999]

What does animus have to do with anything. One could just love blonds with big tits and that's all they will hire to work. Is that not racist?

Er, what does racism have to do with "blonds with big tits?"

What I'm saying is that you can have discrimination that isn't racist because it isn't motivated by racial animus. Or, if we really want to define racism broadly enough so that it includes all discrimination regardless of animus, then I can accept that definition. Trouble is, then every administration past and present is racist and calling this one "racist" for doing the same thing is kind of irrelevant and is missing the point. The real problem is with our political culture and electoral system that encourages this, but the label "racist" - which is inflammatory - seems to be putting the blame on the pols which isn't really accurate.

 

[thraashman]

What does animus have to do with anything. One could just love blonds with big tits and that's all they will hire to work. Is that not racist?

That's not racist, that's just good business practices.

That's a company I wish to work for! Then again, I guess I'd get discriminated from working there because I'm not blonde nor do I have large boobs.

 

[woolfe9999]

I think even many dictionaries don't have the requirement of animus.

You can be a racists simply by holding the belief your race is superior, or the other inferior. That requires no animus.

I think you definition is a little too narrow.

Yes, I know that some dictionaries will list "discrimination" as one definition. And I think that's fine, but when the word is used in common parlance, it is highly inflammatory and it generally does imply racial animus. So if you want to use the broadest possible definition, then go ahead and do so, but make sure that people know what definition you are using first, and above all, be consistent about it. Don't call it racism if it's one administration doing it and not when it's another.

Depends what kind of votes you mean. Sounds like you're referring to election votes. If so, I disagree.

I think Bush nominated Clarence Thomas not get votes in an election, but to apply pressure to Democratically control Senate to confirm Thomas. Yes, his skin color/minority status was that pressure.

At that time Bush was having a very difficult time because the Dems were trying to paint him as a usurper to office (stole the election etc.). Anybody who thinks Obama faces unprecedented opposition need only recall that period.

Fern

You're splitting hairs. Thomas' skin color was a factor in Bush's decision to appoint him so it wasn't based entirely on merit, but skin color was considered for political reasons rather than because Bush hated white people. On that we can both agree. And that is analogous to what is going on here. So either both are "racist" or neither is. Pick your definition and stick to it. I personally think the broader definition is problematic because it doesn't match the inflammatory connotation where the term is generally used, so it is misleading unless pre-defined for purposes of discussion. However, YMMV so long as we're consistent.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

This is absolute rubbish.

If you're discriminating based on skin color, your actions are racist by definition. I'm sick of all this wishy washy crap where the meaning of words is flexible when convenient. If I had five black employees and decided the next five people I hired had to be white, that's absolutely racist. I can ascribe whatever intention I want to my actions, but if I'm using race as a criterion for selection, my selection is racist.

Dictionaries offer alternative definitions, which you have just demonstrated, and you act if it has a single, fixed definition? Like I've said several times here, I know there are narrower and broader definitions to be found in dictionaries, and if you want to define racism in the broadest possible way, fine. Just make sure you are ready to call every past administration "racist" as well. Use the broadest possible definition of any term, be it "racist," "terrorist" or whatever, but be careful what you wish for because people you like might all the sudden fit your own definition.

 

[sandorski]

Fail thread.

 

[Zebo]

That's not racist, that's just good business practices.

There is this bar in the middle of nowhere by hays kansas where I go phesant hunting and it's always packed to the gills. They got this girl in there behind bar built like a brick shit house, I'm talking out of a magazine or something. Yeah.

 

[Throckmorton]

Irrelevant.

What would you call someone who hires people based on the color of their skin? (other than for specific needs, such as in a movie - Mandela obviously needs to be played by a black actor)

If you're trying to sell fast food to black people during reruns of Girlfriends, you hire black actors for your commercial. If you're trying to sell Nascar tickets, you use blondes with big hair. A campaign is nothing but a giant commercial. If you need to appear diverse, that's what you do.

Why did the GOP make Michael Steele its chairman? Because he was black... They wanted to appear just as modern and with it as Obama. Is that somehow racist?

 

[Throckmorton]

This is absolute rubbish.

If you're discriminating based on skin color, your actions are racist by definition. I'm sick of all this wishy washy crap where the meaning of words is flexible when convenient. If I had five black employees and decided the next five people I hired had to be white, that's absolutely racist. I can ascribe whatever intention I want to my actions, but if I'm using race as a criterion for selection, my selection is racist.

Obama doesn't believe blacks are superior... otherwise he would have hired only blacks in the first place. He's hiring more blacks because people complained about the lack of diversity.

 

[woolfe9999]

If you're trying to sell fast food to black people during reruns of Girlfriends, you hire black actors for your commercial. If you're trying to sell Nascar tickets, you use blondes with big hair. A campaign is nothing but a giant commercial. If you need to appear diverse, that's what you do.

Yes, that is another example of discrimination based on race that isn't motivated by racial animus - hiring black actors for an advertisement because you want to sell the product to the black demographic. It's still "racism" according to some dictionary definitions, but all forms of "racism" are obviously not created equal. I suspect we will discover that under this definition, all sorts of people and practices are suddenly "racist." Funny that, from conservatives who generally think the term "racist" is over-used.

 

[bfdd]

Yes, that is another example of discrimination based on race that isn't motivated by racial animus - hiring black actors for an advertisement because you want to sell the product to the black demographic. It's still "racism" according to some dictionary definitions, but all forms of "racism" are obviously not created equal. I suspect we will discover that under this definition, all sorts of people and practices are suddenly "racist." Funny that, from conservatives who generally think the term "racist" is over-used.

No the problem is people have completely demonized the word even though not all of it is "evil". So now you're trying to find loopholes out of it because it has been overly demonized by those same people who preach tolerance. This is why the PC and tolerance movement is a bunch of bologna. You can't preach tolerance while being intolerant, it doesn't really fucking work.

 

[woolfe9999]

No the problem is people have completely demonized the word even though not all of it is "evil". So now you're trying to find loopholes out of it because it has been overly demonized by those same people who preach tolerance. This is why the PC and tolerance movement is a bunch of bologna. You can't preach tolerance while being intolerant, it doesn't really fucking work.

I'm arguing for consistency in the definition. I'm arguing against employing one definition for people you like and another for people you don't like. It's the people who are inconsistent and hypocritical who are playing semantic games with words, using dictionaries to justify calling one person a racist and forgetting all about said dictionary when it's a different person. I don't give a rip how you want to define the word. Just be consistent about it. How is that as "loophole?" You have this totally backwards.

OK, so I've counted, and I've now made this point 10 times in this thread - that past administrations are not being labeled "racist" by the same people who label this one "racist." Still, no reply. I think I'm entitled to infer from this that there IS no logical reply.

 

[Darwin333]

LOL. Obama responds to accusation that his campaign is too white by promising to hire more blacks, and he gets called a racist. He really can't win with you assholes can he?

To answer your last question first, of course he can't but you already knew that.

As far as the first part, regardless of what he is responding to isn't it illegal and wrong to use race as a basis of hiring or firing someone? Don't get me wrong, I don't think he is racist and I don't think that is his intent or he would have obviously done it from the start but that doesn't make it right.

 

[woolfe9999]

To answer your last question first, of course he can't but you already knew that.

As far as the first part, regardless of what he is responding to isn't it illegal and wrong to use race as a basis of hiring or firing someone? Don't get me wrong, I don't think he is racist and I don't think that is his intent or he would have obviously done it from the start but that doesn't make it right.

Yes, it IS illegal to do that, but what is giving you the impression that the administration is doing that here? Read the OP article. What the administration is doing is trying to hire more black people by reaching out to the black community and sending a message that they are hiring and that they should apply. In particular, they are going through the Congressional Black Caucus. The intent is to create a hiring pool with more qualified black applicants than they have seen in previous applicant pools. This isn't illegal. You can advertise for employees however you want. You can advertise in publications that cater to a specific demographic if you want. It's done all the time. It's still "discrimination" though, in a sense. Just not the sense of what you describe.

As to whether it is "wrong," that's for you to decide.

- wolf

 

[Throckmorton]

Vanderbilt University built a Jewish center to appeal to Jewish students. Is that racist?

 

[fskimospy]

I love how the same people who constantly complain about being unfairly labeled racist... are unfairly labeling the Obama administration racist.

No irony here.

 

[Lithium381]

Obama doesn't believe blacks are superior... otherwise he would have hired only blacks in the first place. He's hiring more blacks because people complained about the lack of diversity.

and if he hired based on merit alone and ended up with just white people . ... isn't that a signal?

but the quota system is built around the fact that blacks/other minorities are inferior to whites and need a leg-up just to get a job . . . you MUST have a black person* in your fire department


*even if he fails the tests


before you guys get started "the tests are rigged against black people because it's written in plain english!!!!" blah blah blah. we've got standards, lets keep to them. and before you accuse me of being racist myself, i'm happy to be rescued by a black fireman, but i'd be pissed because my house burned down because they sent someone inept who got the job based on his race and the quotas

 

[bfdd]

I love how the same people who constantly complain about being unfairly labeled racist... are unfairly labeling the Obama administration racist.

No irony here.

I don't think his administration is racist, I think they pander to much and are ran by a bunch of fools. That doesn't make this action not racist or race driven.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I understand what Obama did and why. It isn't racism, but it is a discriminatory act. I'm not having a fit because I know how it goes. Thomas was probably selected in part because he is black. Now would it be considered racist if someone was hired in part because he was white?

 

[Lithium381]

I understand what Obama did and why. It isn't racism, but it is a discriminatory act. I'm not having a fit because I know how it goes. Thomas was probably selected in part because he is black. Now would it be considered racist if someone was hired in part because he was white?

I suppose I'll agree with you on the note of the semantic differences between racism and discrimination. . .