This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Racism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
Sure, they can specify light-skinned African Americans. Then as soon as they refuse to hire someone because they're not a light-skinned African American ("color"), they can apply to the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission as Acura will be in breach
of the law
.
And a judge/lawyer would laugh the person out of court/their office for trying something that is doomed to fail.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
Sure, they can specify light-skinned African Americans. Then as soon as they refuse to hire someone because they're not a light-skinned African American ("color"), they can apply to the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission as Acura will be in breach
of the law
.
1) I've read it a few times, but I'm not seeing "skin color" on the list. Hang on..... nope... still not seeing skin tone.
2) The law != morality
3) Wanna watch society double standards lol at me? Hang on while I go apply to be a bikini model for an Oprah syndicate show on BET.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Well, it says color, does not specify if it is skin color though....
It's sad when we'd have to hire a lawyer to figure out if we can pick people for our visual ads based on how they visually look, or if that is lawsuit material.
so very sad.
Post by
gamerunknown
This title shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, or society of its religious activities or to an educational institution with respect to the employment of individuals to perform work connected with the educational activities of such institution.
Those are the exemptions. Says nothing about acting (there are exemptions for the entertainment industry in UK legislation though).
MyTie, you've argued before that "positive discrimination" is wrong even if it is legal. Why should we hold that it is moral even if illegal that a car company should specifically seek an African American now?
Post by
MyTie
MyTie, you've argued before that "positive discrimination" is wrong even if it is legal. Why should we hold that it is moral even if illegal that a car company should specifically seek an African American now?
There is a difference between positive discrimination, as mandated by the government, and that race being selected for an ad. The reason I don't like positive discrimination isn't because it is somehow less moral, but that it automatically views the race being discriminated against as somehow inferior, and needing extra "help", and it also means that someone who is more qualified for the job may not get it simply because of their skin color, and not being a minority. In this case, an African American IS what is needed for the job, so it isn't some sort of positive discrimination, it is just discrimination, but done so in a manner that is acceptable. If they had needed a white person for the job, then I'd see that as acceptable as well. It's an ad company. The appearance of the people they select is important. That is pretty much the only "qualifier".
Post by
Asylu
...
You do realize that the profession of acting is entirely based on discrimination. That the industry would not exist if they hired just anyone. The why of it is simple. Because it is based on an intellectual property, and only the creator of said property can say what it should look like....because all forms of acting are based in the fine arts (even acting in car commercials).
Oh, and we as a people won't buy something being sold by someone that could be unattractive. So, they pick an actor with the most broad range of appeal that offsets the celebrity they bought...I mean brought in.
Post by
MyTie
...
You do realize that the profession of acting is entirely based on discrimination. That the industry would not exist if they hired just anyone. The why of it is simple. Because it is based on an intellectual property, and only the creator of said property can say what it should look like....because all forms of acting are based in the fine arts (even acting in car commercials).
Oh, and we as a people won't buy something being sold by someone that could be unattractive. So, they pick an actor with the most broad range of appeal that offsets the celebrity they bought...I mean brought in.
Who is "you"? I'm pretty much in agreement with what you are saying.
Post by
gamerunknown
More
vicious racism
for MyTie.
Why should the entertainment industry not be permitted to discriminate for attractiveness using race as a qualifier? Clark and Clark (!947) may be why. It found that black children preferred to play with white dolls when given a choice between white or black dolls to play with. The idea of the majority group being the archetype is socialised into children from an early age. Without a corrective system in place, such concepts will probably be reinforced by all forms of media.
Post by
MyTie
More
vicious racism
for MyTie.
I don't get how this is racism. He doesn't want to perform a certain type of procedure?
Post by
Asylu
...
You do realize that the profession of acting is entirely based on discrimination. That the industry would not exist if they hired just anyone. The why of it is simple. Because it is based on an intellectual property, and only the creator of said property can say what it should look like....because all forms of acting are based in the fine arts (even acting in car commercials).
Oh, and we as a people won't buy something being sold by someone that could be unattractive. So, they pick an actor with the most broad range of appeal that offsets the celebrity they bought...I mean brought in.
Who is "you"? I'm pretty much in agreement with what you are saying.
I was using "you" as a general statement to the forum at large, not you personally MyTie. Sorry that I didn't make that clearer. I tend to forget the essential fact that we are not standing in a room together but rather separated. It seems that I tend to abuse common usages whist on the Internet at large. Thanks for the heads up I will correct my grammar for later posts. ^_^
More
vicious racism
for MyTie.
I don't get how this is racism. He doesn't want to perform a certain type of procedure?
MyTie, read the excerpt from his book at the bottom of the article. That doctor has realized the greatest form of bigotry that occurs in America today is that of the Rich vs. Poor. The fact that a woman died because she had breast cancer and
her breast fell off because she would face being fired for taking sick leave.
I don't know where you stand on the economic scale here in America, but I do know where I am, and I have known people like that woman, Edna Riggs, in some very real ways I am just like her. I am poor and unable to afford the co-pays on health insurance to attend regular doctor appointments, not because I do not work, but because
I do work.
I work the only job that can be found and I am profoundly grateful for it, because with out it my family would starve. I can't afford the amount that the meager health insurance plan at work costs, $30 a week is too much to spend when that can feed me for a week.
But most Americans would say that working such a poor job is my fault, that if I had a college degree I wouldn't been in this situation. Are they right?
I have one though. And I am still working for 25 cents above minimum wage. Because at least I have a job.
Post by
MyTie
But most Americans would say that working such a poor job is my fault, that if I had a college degree I wouldn't been in this situation. Are they right?
I have one though. And I am still working for 25 cents above minimum wage. Because at least I have a job.
What does this have to do with racism?
I think this is off-topic. To address what you are saying, you are identifying a problem, but not a solution. I think we agree on the problem. Nearly every political ideology agrees on problems. None of them agree on solutions. For instance, both Obama and I think the economy is a problem. Obama will address it with more government programs, higher taxes, and more spending. That's pretty much the opposite solution I would offer. You see how that works? Now we both agree that a woman dieing of cancer unnecessarily is a problem. But, what is the solution? I don't think government involvement in health care will do anything but increase prices, and lower quality. So, the 30 a week you spend on health insurance, I believe is due to government involvement in healthcare in the first place.
Post by
Patty
I don't think government involvement in health care will do anything but increase prices, and lower quality.
I'm just wondering, why do you think this would be the case? In many cases of nationalised healthcare, your prices and costs of running the system are absorbed from taxes and the quality of care is generally good.
Post by
Azazel
And even if isn't very good quality, surely some help will be better than none?
Post by
MyTie
I'm just wondering, why do you think this would be the case? In many cases of nationalised healthcare, your prices and costs of running the system are absorbed from taxes and the quality of care is generally good.
Absorbed from taxes. I love that part.
Patty... why don't we just nationalize EVERYTHING, and let taxes just absorb everything so everything will be free and we won't have to work. We could have everything we need provided by government! Am I right?
Post by
Lombax
I'm just wondering, why do you think this would be the case? In many cases of nationalised healthcare, your prices and costs of running the system are absorbed from taxes and the quality of care is generally good.
Absorbed from taxes. I love that part.
Patty... why don't we just nationalize EVERYTHING, and let taxes just absorb everything so everything will be free and we won't have to work. We could have everything we need provided by government! Am I right?
Because Americas health care is so succesful and good, right?
Post by
Patty
I'm just wondering, why do you think this would be the case? In many cases of nationalised healthcare, your prices and costs of running the system are absorbed from taxes and the quality of care is generally good.
Absorbed from taxes. I love that part.
Patty... why don't we just nationalize EVERYTHING, and let taxes just absorb everything so everything will be free and we won't have to work. We could have everything we need provided by government! Am I right?
Yeah, because I forgot that the UK, Canada, almost the entire EU, Australia, New Zealand etc. were all Communists. My bad.
Post by
MyTie
Yeah, because I forgot that the UK, Canada, almost the entire EU, Australia, New Zealand etc. were all Communists. My bad.
Communists? Who said anything about communists. By the way I heard the UK is going back into another recession. How's that going for ya? OH, and Canadian politicans/rich people come to US for healthcare....
Oh, and the "EU".... That's funny.
Now let's get back on topic.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.