The soft left summed up in under four minutes.

[mect]

What?! Now you're in full stretch mode. I never said that, have not insinuated it, and it is not something I believe. I don't believe any race is superior. Holding back one demographic and forcing that demographic to play be different rules than the rest is racism, that is what the left pushes for. You are saying tings that are wildly incorrect because I've demonstrated your full blown leftist hypocrisy. All you have left is to scream "racist!" and shut down, typical.

Then explain how you rationalize the belief that whites experience the greatest barriers to obtaining employment and yet experience the greatest success at doing so. If I give someone a head start in a race and still win, what else is to be concluded but that I am the superior runner. This also explains your unwillingness to accept the basic definition of racism.

 

[zinfamous]

No again.

Objective parties can observe, but any judgement is subjective. In my original question, I asked would it be sexual harassment if one person felt the action of another was harassment but the other party did not. The Objective observer is objective in the sense that they do not come into the situation with any individual bias against the people (hopefully, things like racism exist so not always) that would cloud their judgement. What is observed must be interpreted and that can only be done subjectively. That is why two people can watch the same thing and think two different things.

So, a man tells a woman he does not know "your outfit looks great on you". She takes it to mean that he is making a comment on how sexually attractive she is. He is actually saying that the clothes seem to fit her as if it were made for her. He may not have had any intent to make her feel uncomfortable and yet she ended up feeling sexually harassed.

The question is given that hypothetical, could there be objective sexual harassment, or is sexual harassment subjective?

Sexual harassment is always "unwanted sexual advances against the offended party." That would be the objective definition of what sexual harassment is. Obviously, in a vacuum, this would differ from person to person, so the application of the charge would be somewhat subjective.

However, society lives and functions by rules. Rules are generally subjective in nature but are often applied as objectively as possible. Of course this isn't always perfect, but that is the nature of the beast. We all obey the same speed limit on the same road, even if it doesn't make perfect sense all the time, but traffic patterns are generally set for the greater benefit of safety and efficiency. That's how the democratic application of rules works. You have to apply the same democratic rule system to workplace harassment. This is why we have HR (ostensibly) and why training is in place. There is an objective definition and set of rules for such offenses and, rationally, all are subject to the same understood levels of offense. It doesn't and shouldn't matter if person A is un-offended by the same advances subjected upon person B: they are bound by the same rules because this is how teams work best in these settings, and such overarching general application of rules is the only way to really govern the whole of a corporation. In my experience, HR training related to sexual harassment actually employs the very scenarios that you suggest, because it explains the differences between certain comments and how and when it is appropriate to compliment someone...for all of these reasons. So, basically, these situations are covered, you just have to do the training. It's required, isn't it?

Arguing hypotheticals from the perspective of a human world ungoverned by human rules designed for general human function is really quite pointless, because this world doesn't exist (outside of lawless libertopian fever fantasies, anyway--that isn't an accusation, btw).

 

[SlowSpyder]

Then explain how you rationalize the belief that whites experience the greatest barriers to obtaining employment and yet experience the greatest success at doing so. If I give someone a head start in a race and still win, what else is to be concluded but that I am the superior runner. This also explains your unwillingness to accept the basic definition of racism.

I don't believe white people have the greatest success, they are not the highest achieving demographic in regards to employment. Asian income is generally higher, and unemployment rates lower with that particular demographic, as an example.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Getting you to buy into the "whites are the real victims here" narrative is how Republicans and their media outlets control you. Otherwise you wouldn't support their terrible policies which are contrary to your interests.

"Liberals and minorities are enslaving you, and only WE can set you free!!"

Sad.

I never once said white people are the victims, I said the reality of how it is, that the left supports and pushed to implement systematic racism against white's in an order to try and combat the problem of racism against other demographics. Using a wrong to try and correct a wrong.

 

[mect]

I don't believe white people have the greatest success, they are not the highest achieving demographic in regards to employment. Asian income is generally higher, and unemployment rates lower with that particular demographic, as an example.

Sorry, you just believe that whites are superior to blacks and Hispanics.

 

[J.Wilkins]

I never once said white people are the victims, I said the reality of how it is, that the left supports and pushed to implement systematic racism against white's in an order to try and combat the problem of racism against other demographics. Using a wrong to try and correct a wrong.

'tis a good thing that racism isn't on the rise in the US...

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't believe white people have the greatest success, they are not the highest achieving demographic in regards to employment. Asian income is generally higher, and unemployment rates lower with that particular demographic, as an example.

That's largely due to geographical location-

They really don't do any better than white people in their locations.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Sorry, you just believe that whites are superior to blacks and Hispanics.

Again, this is the typical leftist no-think response, just what this thread is about. How can problems ever be addressed if some areas are too PC to even discuss? I NEVER said or insinuated what you posted, and I do not believe that. Anytime this kind of discussion comes up leftists like you just scream racism and shut down. Like playing chess with a pigeon.

 

[Jhhnn]

I never once said white people are the victims, I said the reality of how it is, that the left supports and pushed to implement systematic racism against white's in an order to try and combat the problem of racism against other demographics. Using a wrong to try and correct a wrong.

Racism isn't racism w/o victims.

 

[realibrad]

Sexual harassment is always "unwanted sexual advances against the offended party." That would be the objective definition of what sexual harassment is. Obviously, in a vacuum, this would differ from person to person, so the application of the charge would be somewhat subjective.

So in my hypothetical, what is the sexual advance? Are you saying that telling someone you like an outfit is a sexual advance? Personally I have found many people's outfits appealing and not wanted to engage in sexual acts because of it. The same way I can like a new hairstyle. Are you saying that you believe my hypothetical would fall under sexual harassment if the woman felt it was sexual harassment?

However, society lives and functions by rules. Rules are generally subjective in nature but are often applied as objectively as possible. Of course this isn't always perfect, but that is the nature of the beast. We all obey the same speed limit on the same road, even if it doesn't make perfect sense all the time, but traffic patterns are generally set for the greater benefit of safety and efficiency. That's how the democratic application of rules works. You have to apply the same democratic rule system to workplace harassment. This is why we have HR (ostensibly) and why training is in place. There is an objective definition and set of rules for such offenses and, rationally, all are subject to the same understood levels of offense. It doesn't and shouldn't matter if person A is un-offended by the same advances subjected upon person B: they are bound by the same rules because this is how teams work best in these settings, and such overarching general application of rules is the only way to really govern the whole of a corporation. In my experience, HR training related to sexual harassment actually employs the very scenarios that you suggest, because it explains the differences between certain comments and how and when it is appropriate to compliment someone...for all of these reasons. So, basically, these situations are covered, you just have to do the training. It's required, isn't it?

You are arguing that if someone is offended, it should be considered an infraction. Would you mind fleshing out this idea? If person B is offended by a comment that has no sexual intent, are you saying that it does not matter and that person B established the infraction by its feelings? If so, that falls greatly outside of objective and falls right into subjective.

Arguing hypotheticals from the perspective of a human world ungoverned by human rules designed for general human function is really quite pointless, because this world doesn't exist (outside of lawless libertopian fever fantasies, anyway--that isn't an accusation, btw).

I guess we agree, that anarchy would be bad. That said, I think its also a bad idea to establish fault based on person B's feelings. Just because someone feels like there was an injustice does not and should not qualify fault. I know many people that feel that two men kissing in public should be a crime because of how it makes them feel. Just because they feel its wrong does not mean it is or should be wrong.

Also, thanks for actually responding and not posting word vomit. It is honestly appreciated.

 

[mect]

Again, this is the typical leftist no-think response, just what this thread is about. How can problems ever be addressed if some areas are too PC to even discuss? I NEVER said or insinuated what you posted, and I do not believe that. Anytime this kind of discussion comes up leftists like you just scream racism and shut down. Like playing chess with a pigeon.

Are you serious? That is what this entire thread is about. You still can't process that if you believe that whites are disadvantaged when it comes to obtaining employment relative to blacks and Hispanics (two of the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action and equal employment policies) and yet have better employment outcomes, you are stating that whites are superior to these other groups. So which is it? Do you believe whites are superior, or do you agree that blacks and Hispanics (among other minority populations) face much greater challenges overall when it comes to obtaining employment. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Are you serious? That is what this entire thread is about. You still can't process that if you believe that whites are disadvantaged when it comes to obtaining employment relative to blacks and Hispanics (two of the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action and equal employment policies) and yet have better employment outcomes, you are stating that whites are superior to these other groups. So which is it? Do you believe whites are superior, or do you agree that blacks and Hispanics (among other minority populations) face much greater challenges overall when it comes to obtaining employment. You can't have it both ways.

He's falling back on the "who, me?" defense. It was obvious this would be his tact from his implicit ways of talking about racism. He's a troll.

 

[pmv]

I don't believe white people have the greatest success, they are not the highest achieving demographic in regards to employment. Asian income is generally higher, and unemployment rates lower with that particular demographic, as an example.

Define 'Asians'. I don't see that Asian-Americans are one homogeneous group, economically, culturally, or historically. They came to be in the US for different reasons, arrived at different times, and I believe tend to have different class profiles. Post Pol-Pot Cambodian migrants are not the same group as descendents of Chinese labourers, or Vietnamese 'boat people', etc...they all have different histories. I suspect you'd find the ones with background stories closer to African-Americans have closer economic outcomes, and that's leaving aside the whole issue of ongoing racism (which is not undifferentiated and equal in its attitude to every group).

 

[Jaskalas]

I never once said white people are the victims, I said the reality of how it is, that the left supports and pushed to implement systematic racism against white's in an order to try and combat the problem of racism against other demographics. Using a wrong to try and correct a wrong.

Racism isn't racism w/o victims.

In this very thread, Democrats have pointed to overall stats in a bid to ignore the victims of discrimination. Victims have already been described as "the bias of selective memories and experiences" meant to bow before "the aggregate" stats. What, do most people in a group have to be discriminated against before you recognize it? To lose the Presidency, all you had to do was harm 70,000 people. I'm willing to bet you've achieved that rate of "success".

That you would actively discriminate against one for the benefit of another is not going to endear you to the former. And if it's the majority you're set towards harming, how does that help you?

Have you considered that Democrats would lose a lot of votes if they decided to no longer...

Maybe find a solution and a narrative that does not devolve into base tribalism pitting you against a majority. A solution that does not choose who to help based on the color of their skin. Campaigning on destructive policy is a benefit to no one if the Republicans gain support from it.

 

[SlowSpyder]

That's largely due to geographical location-

They really don't do any better than white people in their locations.

Other demographics are also concentrated in cities and urban areas.

 

[brycejones]

Other demographics are also concentrated in cities and urban areas.

Like victims of falling in the shower, why don't you care?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Define 'Asians'. I don't see that Asian-Americans are one homogeneous group, economically, culturally, or historically. They came to be in the US for different reasons, arrived at different times, and I believe tend to have different class profiles. Post Pol-Pot Cambodian migrants are not the same group as descendents of Chinese labourers, or Vietnamese 'boat people', etc...they all have different histories. I suspect you'd find the ones with background stories closer to African-Americans have closer economic outcomes, and that's leaving aside the whole issue of ongoing racism (which is not undifferentiated and equal in its attitude to every group).

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-median-income-in-the-us-by-race-2013-9

Excellent stats here, middle of page: http://www.asian-nation.org/employment.shtml#sthash.hOCFYLoS.dpbs

 

[shortylickens]

Schrodinger's Leftist:

A thought experiment invented by conservatives in which people on the political left are simultaneously a group of cowardly, weak snowflakes AND terrifying, violent thugs.


https://i.redditmedia.com/w73hoilZc....png?w=654&s=1cd16509103af265568cd677c8b1efb7

 

[zinfamous]

So in my hypothetical, what is the sexual advance? Are you saying that telling someone you like an outfit is a sexual advance? Personally I have found many people's outfits appealing and not wanted to engage in sexual acts because of it. The same way I can like a new hairstyle. Are you saying that you believe my hypothetical would fall under sexual harassment if the woman felt it was sexual harassment?

Well, I think that it depends on what "the rulebook says." If the little scenario that you have to click on through HR training calls it sexual harassment, then it is. That's the rule. It doesn't have to make sense to you or me because the only way to apply a general rule is to make a general rule. And obviously for this situation, there needs to be a rule. It isn't going to be a perfect fit everywhere, but that isn't the point. I asked my mom about this other day and her comment was that "Those shoes look nice!" or "look nice on you!" is fine. But "Those shoes really make your legs look great!" is harassment. The explanation is that the second statement is directly objectifying the person. (i.e.: she--hell, or he--is a pair of legs more than they are a person). Again, it's better to take this up with HR.

You are arguing that if someone is offended, it should be considered an infraction. Would you mind fleshing out this idea? If person B is offended by a comment that has no sexual intent, are you saying that it does not matter and that person B established the infraction by its feelings? If so, that falls greatly outside of objective and falls right into subjective.

Not exactly; I'm arguing that while the person who is offended has the greater stake and say over what they consider offensive, what ultimately matters is what the rules dictate in the environment where the offense occurs. This means that even if the person isn't offended, the comment/advance could certainly be construed as harassment because the rules establish it as such, and this is by necessity. I actually believe it is reasonable for other people to bring the incident to light, even if the the individual does not want to accuse the offender. Rules really only work when they are equally enforced. I know this sounds unfair, but while it does make me uncomfortable, I think it is the only way to properly enforce these boundaries.

I guess we agree, that anarchy would be bad. That said, I think its also a bad idea to establish fault based on person B's feelings. Just because someone feels like there was an injustice does not and should not qualify fault. I know many people that feel that two men kissing in public should be a crime because of how it makes them feel. Just because they feel its wrong does not mean it is or should be wrong.

Also, thanks for actually responding and not posting word vomit. It is honestly appreciated.

I don't think fault should be entirely dependent upon the offendee's feelings, but obviously this would be where the greatest weight is placed. I think it only fair to weigh the specifics of the situation, at the time, and how it was handled then and later. Honestly, I don't want to begin to establish where the ultimate burden of proof lies, because this does make it difficult for the accused in a situation where a consensual situation can ultimately be turned around against them, and indefensible due to lack of evidence. Likewise, it is not circumstantially the accuser's responsibility to report harassment or assault at the instance that it occurs due to established and well-documented power dynamics that are often at play in these situations. ...responsibility may be the wrong word. What I mean is that it is perfectly understandable that someone wouldn't immediately report and this should never be held against them. And of course, we already know that in many of these cases, these women aren't really waiting to come out well after the fact. Their complaints have simply fallen on deaf ears for a very long time. Accusing them of doing such, in light of the known history of their abuse is rather shameful, imo. (likewise the repugnant slut shaming that I've seen here, particularly from the left, wrg to Franken's initial accuser)

 

[SlowSpyder]

Are you serious? That is what this entire thread is about. You still can't process that if you believe that whites are disadvantaged when it comes to obtaining employment relative to blacks and Hispanics (two of the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action and equal employment policies) and yet have better employment outcomes, you are stating that whites are superior to these other groups. So which is it? Do you believe whites are superior, or do you agree that blacks and Hispanics (among other minority populations) face much greater challenges overall when it comes to obtaining employment. You can't have it both ways.

You aren't creating the binary situation you think you are, there are other factors at play. Let me be clear, one more time, so you will hopefully stop putting words in my mouth. I do NOT BELIEVE WHITES ARE SUPERIOR TO ANY RACE. I do not believe any race is "superior". If you continue saying this, you are a lying troll. I don't know how much more clear I can be.

And yes, whites ARE disadvantaged when it comes to affirmative action. Whites males are systematically put at a disadvantage to help create diversity. How can you argue that affirmative action does not do exactly that, disadvantage white males in an effort to better the odds for other groups?

 

[fskimospy]

You aren't creating the binary situation you think you are, there are other factors at play. Let me be clear, one more time, so you will hopefully stop putting words in my mouth. I do NOT BELIEVE WHITES ARE SUPERIOR TO ANY RACE. I do not believe any race is "superior". If you continue saying this, you are a lying troll. I don't know how much more clear I can be.

And yes, whites ARE disadvantaged when it comes to affirmative action. Whites males are systematically put at a disadvantage to help create diversity. How can you argue that affirmative action does not do exactly that, disadvantage white males in an effort to better the odds for other groups?

You keep saying you don't believe whites are superior to any race and then you say things where the only logical conclusion is that you think whites are superior to other races. If whites are systematically put at a disadvantage as compared to blacks and hispanics then if they have superior outcomes they are superior. There's no escaping this conclusion.

People rarely believe they are racist even while they're saying racist things, probably because it has such a negative connotation. I mean the surest sign you're about to hear someone say something racist is for them to say "I'm not a racist, but,"

 

[SlowSpyder]

You keep saying you don't believe whites are superior to any race and then you say things where the only logical conclusion is that you think whites are superior to other races. If whites are systematically put at a disadvantage as compared to blacks and hispanics then if they have superior outcomes they are superior. There's no escaping this conclusion.

People rarely believe they are racist even while they're saying racist things, probably because it has such a negative connotation. I mean the surest sign you're about to hear someone say something racist is for them to say "I'm not a racist, but,"

That is not the only conclusion. This is your leftist fantasy world coming into play again. What if African Americans have been duped by the left into believing relying on the government is the way forward when in fact it isn't, and that the left is actually handicapping them? That does not make them inferior, and in no way do I believe they are.




You ignored my earlier post to you:

Hypothetically, if you went up to 10 random minorities and told them that you truly believe that neither of you are superior because of your race, but, there is this job opening you both want and you are both equally qualified for. Thing is, you will get the job because you're white and they will not get the job because they're black, Latino, Native American, etc. etc., do you honestly believe those people wouldn't think that is racist? That is affirmative action. You can cling to a dictionary definition like a Christian to marriage all you want, but you are wrong, plainly wrong.

Can you say with a straight face that those minorities would not see that as racism? Affirmative action, while it's intent may have been good, is in fact institutionalized racism. And you shouldn't be so surprised that using racism to try and combat racism isn't working.

 

[fskimospy]

That is not the only conclusion. This is your leftist fantasy world coming into play again. What if African Americans have been duped by the left into believing relying on the government is the way forward when in fact it isn't, and that the left is actually handicapping them? That does not make them inferior, and in no way do I believe they are.

So you DO believe they are inferior, now we're only discussing why they are inferior. Thank you.

 

[hal2kilo]

Schrodinger's Leftist:

A thought experiment invented by conservatives in which people on the political left are simultaneously a group of cowardly, weak snowflakes AND terrifying, violent thugs.


https://i.redditmedia.com/w73hoilZc....png?w=654&s=1cd16509103af265568cd677c8b1efb7

And criminals who constantly get away with their crimes. Because.

 

[mect]

That is not the only conclusion. This is your leftist fantasy world coming into play again. What if African Americans have been duped by the left into believing relying on the government is the way forward when in fact it isn't, and that the left is actually handicapping them? That does not make them inferior, and in no way do I believe they are.




You ignored my earlier post to you:



Can you say with a straight face that those minorities would not see that as racism? Affirmative action, while it's intent may have been good, is in fact institutionalized racism. And you shouldn't be so surprised that using racism to try and combat racism isn't working.

So now you are saying affirmative action and such programs actually give whites an advantage, contrary to your previous thesis that whites are at a disadvantage because of these programs. That is a totally different argument. You need to make up your mind. Are whites at a disadvantage when it comes to obtaining jobs or not.