"Queer or Female? Too Bad."

[3278]

Asia is an easy example, most of us think of Asia as being Oriental, but I suspect India has a slightly different view on it's place in Asia when compared to the average American's assessment, or even the average Europeans.

Yeah, Asia's no comparison to anything else, because it includes - depending on how you divide it - Iraq, Taiwan, Russia, and Indonesia. America and Europe have nothing on Asia.

[3278]

You have Laplanders and Basque separatists, Scottish herdsmen and Czech politicians. By the same token, America has Dutch Amish and Washington loggers, texmex oil workers and French Canadian paper mill owners.

And here I demonstrate by example a point I would have preferred to make by rhetoric: ignorance by remove. Because I'm not from Europe, because I don't live there, because I haven't spent more than a few months there, because I haven't traveled there extensively, the weirdest culture I could pull out was "Laplanders." The Sámi aren't any weirder than, say, our Inuit, and they're kind of cheating because of the relative rarity of members of the culture. [There are about half as many Sámi as Amish, for instance.] But because I don't know enough about European cultures, they were the oddest example I could come up with. Similarly, people in Europe almost never talk about Mexican migrant workers or the Amish or Inuit or the large native American population we have, much less all 7,000 Pavee.

My point - I'm getting there - is that none of us knows enough about culture in each other's nations/continents to judge their comparative breadth of diversity. About the best we could come up with is a list of all the different cultures and their differences from each other, and see who gets more, but that seems ridiculous when I'm frankly not even sure why we care which nation/continent has greater cultural diversity.

[jo_alex]

My point - I'm getting there - is that none of us knows enough about culture in each other's nations/continents to judge their comparative breadth of diversity. About the best we could come up with is a list of all the different cultures and their differences from each other, and see who gets more, but that seems ridiculous when I'm frankly not even sure why we care which nation/continent has greater cultural diversity.

Do we really care? It is just where the discussion led us... Since there is no real way of measuring where there is a greater cultural diversity - I don't want to spend the next month disputing this with you.

Just one more thing concerning your Laplanders example. Existence of separate cultural groups like Sami is not an exception for Europe - it is a rule rather. Probably you would find at least one such group which holds to their language (or dialect) and traditions in every European country.

I come from Poland where ca 96% of population declares to be of Polish nationality and where Polish language is the only official one. Without considering immigration and its effects on the Polish culture, within this one country you might find the following ethnic groups - each of them with their own language and traditions: Kashubians, Silesians, Roma and Lemkos. E.g. it is impossible for a regular Polish guy who finds himself in the Kashubian town (northern Poland) to follow a conversation led by the locals. It is difficult enough to try to follow their Polish. They lead a simple, agricultural life and are famous for their handmade products. They have their own old-fashioned world within our world with their own traditional clothes, holidays and rituals.

[3278]

That's one of the things that makes measuring diversity so hard: the groups that aren't making noise. Most people in America think of there being a few different groups here: Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics, or Northerners and Southerners, or Midwest and "people from out thar," when in truth, there are all these groups living here that you never see: Amish, Menonites, Pavee - hell, like 80 kinds of "gypsy," few of them Romani - and that's just the people from Europe. See, the funny thing about America is that all the groups in the world end up here, to some degree or another. We had a situation recently where a Bosnian truck driver couldn't deliver his shipment because the people on the dock were Serbs, and wouldn't unload his truck. All those groups, from all over the world, with all their old tensions and new ones as well, plus for half the history of the country you were allowed to own people. What a mess! Frankly, it's a miracle this nation has lasted at all, much less that it's the oldest federation on the planet.

[TLM]

That's one of the things that makes measuring diversity so hard: the groups that aren't making noise. Most people in America think of there being a few different groups here: Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics, or Northerners and Southerners, or Midwest and "people from out thar," when in truth, there are all these groups living here that you never see: Amish, Menonites, Pavee - hell, like 80 kinds of "gypsy," few of them Romani - and that's just the people from Europe.

Many of whom remain here, also not seen or at least not heard from often. Which is an interesting point in its own right. They get on with whatever it is they get on with, and I, certainly, haven't given them much thought. Though, obviously, there are unique groups to both countries.

Why is it, though, that we never 'see' them, do you think?

See, the funny thing about America is that all the groups in the world end up here, to some degree or another. We had a situation recently where a Bosnian truck driver couldn't deliver his shipment because the people on the dock were Serbs, and wouldn't unload his truck. All those groups, from all over the world, with all their old tensions and new ones as well, plus for half the history of the country you were allowed to own people. What a mess! Frankly, it's a miracle this nation has lasted at all, much less that it's the oldest federation on the planet.

Which makes the achievements of the USA even greater, to my mind*. I know I often come across as bashing your country, 3278, but I'm certainly not blind to the positive effects it's had on the world. And as I'm sure you're aware, all those people bringing their tensions with them come to the US because they think life will be better there than back home, and that they'll be able to live free. Keeping that kind of reputation for over 200 years is, as you said, a miracle. I was brought up to think of the US like that, in fact. And I still do on many levels, which is at least part of why I keep bashing things in the US that I don't like; it breaks with the image or idea of the country that was given to me.

*... The historian in me has to quibble. Germany can concievably claim to be the oldest federation on the planet, since it's been one since the Holy Roman Empire. A federation of monarchies, and certainly no republic, but nonetheless. Quibble ends.

[3278]

Why is it, though, that we never 'see' them, do you think?

Because - and this is important - people of different cultures just don't mix that much. Add in simple statistics, and the fact that smaller [sub]cultures tend to be insular, and it's natural you don't know many Pavee or whatever.

I was brought up to think of the US like that, in fact. And I still do on many levels, which is at least part of why I keep bashing things in the US that I don't like; it breaks with the image or idea of the country that was given to me.

And I think that's true of a lot of us. I know it's true of me. I was raised on this image of America being a beacon of freedom and hope throughout the world, and when I got older and saw what had been done to the dream, I felt betrayed, and nothing hurts worse than that.

*... The historian in me has to quibble. Germany can concievably claim to be the oldest federation on the planet, since it's been one since the Holy Roman Empire. A federation of monarchies, and certainly no republic, but nonetheless. Quibble ends.

Yeah, but those were all different federations, right? America is only the longest-running continuous federation: it's not the nation, in other words, but the government which is the oldest federation.

[Szechuan]

I believe you should have the right to hire or not hire anyone you choose, unless you are the government itself. If I own my own business, I believe I should be allowed to not hire someone on the basis that I don't like their eyes, or their car, or their skin color. My business, my choice. The government should simply not, in my opinion, be involved.

Are you operating under the assumption that people should also be smart enough to know better?

I think it is unreasonable to say that there is no functional difference between not hiring somebody because they are annoying and not hiring them because they are of a different race. The whole point of a job interview is to find out how well the person will mesh with the company. If you find them annoying, it is very possible that they will not work effectively with you and your peers. This is not because their personality accurately reflects their ability, but simply because their personality may not be compatible with the other workers.

To say the same of skin colour is, frankly, silly, because it doesn't speak of the way in which the person interacts with your other workers, excepting cases of racism and prejudice within the ranks. I'm pretty sure that those qualities are exactly what these [impotent] laws are trying to eliminate. If we're trying to progress as a society, then giving weight to these factors - not hiring someone because Jimmy in accounting hates them damn immigrants - is undesirable at best, and destructive at worst.

[3278]

Are you operating under the assumption that people should also be smart enough to know better?

No. I don't think that's ever a safe assumption.

I think it is unreasonable to say that there is no functional difference between not hiring somebody because they are annoying and not hiring them because they are of a different race. The whole point of a job interview is to find out how well the person will mesh with the company....

To say the same of skin colour is, frankly, silly, because it doesn't speak of the way in which the person interacts with your other workers, excepting cases of racism and prejudice within the ranks.

Which is a beautiful thought, but just isn't so. Just as someone possessing personality traits you [and your workers] find irritating will harm productivity, so will someone possessing cultural traits you [and your workers] find irritating. And since there's a strong correlation between culture and race [in this country], it's entirely possible that at your bullshit-white-guy company, that black guy won't "fit." So it's okay to not hire him if he doesn't fit personally, but if he doesn't fit for a cultural reason, and is black, that's verboten.

I'm not saying they're the same, and trying to find perfect equivalence is futile. I'm just giving an indication of the sorts of objections I have to only limiting protection to certain classes [race, weight, age] and not protecting members of other classes [intelligence, appearance, personality]. And, of course, I don't think companies should have to protect any groups at all, but should be free to hire whomever they choose for whatever reasons they choose.

[Anguirel]

PS to Paul - Even as recently as 50 years ago, it would have been very obvious that non-white people were being persecuted for any crime against a white person. Or even looking at one funny. They were lynched for it.

I don't recollect saying it didn't happen that way. Or saying that nonwhites weren't persecuted for crimes against whites. So care to clarify or quantify this statement?

You said this:

One would think but I have certainly (And I'd be willing to admit that I am not the authority here.) never heard of anyone being persecuted for beating a white man because he is white. Or a white woman. Or a white child

Removing parenthticals... "Serious Paul has never heard of anyone being persecuted for beating a white man because he is white." And I'm pointing out that there were beatings of white men because they were white, and there were reprisals against those people (and anyone vaguely near by) as a result of that, including lynchings, which I'd generally classify as persecution.

If you mean recently, it definitely still happens (as other people have shown). If I misunderstood what you said, I apologize.

[Serious Paul]

Removing parenthetical's... "Serious Paul has never heard of anyone being persecuted for beating a white man because he is white." And I'm pointing out that there were beatings of white men because they were white, and there were reprisals against those people (and anyone vaguely near by) as a result of that, including lynchings, which I'd generally classify as persecution.

Okay now that makes more sense. And now that I look at it from that point of view I agree it happens, although (luckily) lynching has seen a dramatic decline in recent decades.

Thanks for clarifying this.

[Szechuan]

Are you operating under the assumption that people should also be smart enough to know better?

No. I don't think that's ever a safe assumption.

I think it is unreasonable to say that there is no functional difference between not hiring somebody because they are annoying and not hiring them because they are of a different race. The whole point of a job interview is to find out how well the person will mesh with the company....

To say the same of skin colour is, frankly, silly, because it doesn't speak of the way in which the person interacts with your other workers, excepting cases of racism and prejudice within the ranks.

Which is a beautiful thought, but just isn't so. Just as someone possessing personality traits you [and your workers] find irritating will harm productivity, so will someone possessing cultural traits you [and your workers] find irritating. And since there's a strong correlation between culture and race [in this country], it's entirely possible that at your bullshit-white-guy company, that black guy won't "fit." So it's okay to not hire him if he doesn't fit personally, but if he doesn't fit for a cultural reason, and is black, that's verboten.

I'm not saying they're the same, and trying to find perfect equivalence is futile. I'm just giving an indication of the sorts of objections I have to only limiting protection to certain classes [race, weight, age] and not protecting members of other classes [intelligence, appearance, personality]. And, of course, I don't think companies should have to protect any groups at all, but should be free to hire whomever they choose for whatever reasons they choose.

I don't think colour or presumed cultural background are necessarily indicative of personality, nor should they be used as a litmus test in the way you're describing. Cultural differences aren't going to cause problems unless they translate into personality traits that you are trying to pick up on in the interview process. The person is trying to get a job, and is [presumably] acting in a professional manner. If they do not continue to do so when they're hired, then you can give them the boot. If these traits end up being related to their culture, so be it; but you will never know whether or not that will be a problem just by looking at them. [Unless they show up to the job interview in a do-rag and FUBU with a joint behind their ear. Then again, plenty of white guys can do that, too.]

[3278]

I don't think colour or presumed cultural background are necessarily indicative of personality, nor should they be used as a litmus test in the way you're describing.

I don't think they should be, but I do think they should be able to be. While culture isn't necessarily a strong indicator of "personality," it is a strong indicator of values and behavior. It is not a guarantee, but it is an indicator.

[Unless they show up to the job interview in a do-rag and FUBU with a joint behind their ear. Then again, plenty of white guys can do that, too.]

But dressing poorly and using drugs isn't "necessarily indicative of personality," right? It's just a strong indicator of the type of person, useful only in statistical abstraction. We shouldn't allow discrimination based on clothing choice, right? After all, badly-dressed people need jobs, too, and they shouldn't have to tolerate people discriminating against them just because their idea of professionalism is different, right?

[Szechuan]

I don't think colour or presumed cultural background are necessarily indicative of personality, nor should they be used as a litmus test in the way you're describing.

I don't think they should be, but I do think they should be able to be. While culture isn't necessarily a strong indicator of "personality," it is a strong indicator of values and behavior. It is not a guarantee, but it is an indicator.

Assumptions about culture based on race are still assumptions, and aren't as reliable as the sort of performance the person gives during the interview [again, presuming they want the job].

[Unless they show up to the job interview in a do-rag and FUBU with a joint behind their ear. Then again, plenty of white guys can do that, too.]

But dressing poorly and using drugs isn't "necessarily indicative of personality," right? It's just a strong indicator of the type of person, useful only in statistical abstraction. We shouldn't allow discrimination based on clothing choice, right? After all, badly-dressed people need jobs, too, and they shouldn't have to tolerate people discriminating against them just because their idea of professionalism is different, right?

You're being facetious here. I specifically indicated a job that requires a level of professionalism, such that qualified candidates would presumably know the score. The issue is not the clothing choice, per se, but what their overall behaviour at the interview indicates about themselves. Clothing is a part of that overall behaviour, while skin colour is not unless they hit the tanning salon.

[3278]

Assumptions about culture based on race are still assumptions, and aren't as reliable as the sort of performance the person gives during the interview [again, presuming they want the job].

It's the second half of that clause - "aren't as reliable as the sort of performance the person gives during the interview" - which I find dubious.

I specifically indicated a job that requires a level of professionalism, such that qualified candidates would presumably know the score.

You don't think there are equivalent cultural challenges? That jobs have certain "requirements" which might not be met by a person with radically differing values and behavior?

Clothing is a part of that overall behaviour, while skin colour is not unless they hit the tanning salon.

This is the happy and tolerant oversimplification we've been told, but it's just not true. Skin color, in the United States, is a strong indicator of culture, which is a strong indicator of overall behavior.

[Szechuan]

Assumptions about culture based on race are still assumptions, and aren't as reliable as the sort of performance the person gives during the interview [again, presuming they want the job].

It's the second half of that clause - "aren't as reliable as the sort of performance the person gives during the interview" - which I find dubious.

The only reason this is dubious is because of your assertion that skin colour provides an accurate prediction of culture, and that culture is an accurate predictor of behaviour.

I specifically indicated a job that requires a level of professionalism, such that qualified candidates would presumably know the score.

You don't think there are equivalent cultural challenges? That jobs have certain "requirements" which might not be met by a person with radically differing values and behavior?

Rooting out the people with radical values and behaviour are generally part of the interview. And again, people can hold radical values and exhibit radical behaviour regardless of their skin colour. Case in point: there is a wide variability between the behaviours and values of the [primarily caucasian and american] Bulldrekkers.

Clothing is a part of that overall behaviour, while skin colour is not unless they hit the tanning salon.

This is the happy and tolerant oversimplification we've been told, but it's just not true. Skin color, in the United States, is a strong indicator of culture, which is a strong indicator of overall behavior.

I simply disagree. Statistically speaking, the smart bet may be that different skin colours can predict different cultures. But there is no guarantee that culture is going to dictate behaviour. Cultural ties can and do vary greatly from person to person. In the absence of compelling evidence for your assertion, my perspective is that defaulting to tolerance is going to be far more useful than writing off a qualified candidate because he's black.

Edit: I may have forgotten to point out that I also think selective protection is ridiculous. I just disagree with your stated reasons for finding it so.

[3278]

Case in point: there is a wide variability between the behaviours and values of the [primarily caucasian and american] Bulldrekkers.

But, but, Crazy Elf says there's a "white culture!"

I simply disagree. Statistically speaking, the smart bet may be that different skin colours can predict different cultures.

And that's all I'm saying. Like, above, you use the words "accurate prediction," and I wouldn't even phrase it that strongly. "Strong indicator" is what I keep saying, and it's certainly a hedged phrase. It's ridiculous to think that all black people in America, or even most of them, act a certain way. However, it's also ridiculous to think that there aren't certain assumptions which are statistically likely to be correct that you can make about black people from your area, provided, of course, that you have some familiarity with black people in your area.

Edit: I may have forgotten to point out that I also think selective protection is ridiculous. I just disagree with your stated reasons for finding it so.

And here's why that doesn't matter: reasons should be free, too, inasmuch as there is subjective room in them. If you don't want to hire a black person because you just don't like black people, whether or not black people are statistically more likely to be something you don't like, I think you should be free to not hire them. Ultimately, that's the important point, and the whole "black people in America are statistically likely to behave in a certain fashion, dependent on their culture" thing is certainly something you're free to disagree with. [But please, come to my town, and I'll show you there's something to "race as culture" after all.]

[Szechuan]

Case in point: there is a wide variability between the behaviours and values of the [primarily caucasian and american] Bulldrekkers.

But, but, Crazy Elf says there's a "white culture!"

I simply disagree. Statistically speaking, the smart bet may be that different skin colours can predict different cultures.

And that's all I'm saying. Like, above, you use the words "accurate prediction," and I wouldn't even phrase it that strongly. "Strong indicator" is what I keep saying, and it's certainly a hedged phrase. It's ridiculous to think that all black people in America, or even most of them, act a certain way. However, it's also ridiculous to think that there aren't certain assumptions which are statistically likely to be correct that you can make about black people from your area, provided, of course, that you have some familiarity with black people in your area.

And most prejudice is maintained by people presuming erroneously that they have familiarity with various cultural and social groups. We both agree that you can't trust people to be smart enough to know the difference.

Edit: I may have forgotten to point out that I also think selective protection is ridiculous. I just disagree with your stated reasons for finding it so.

And here's why that doesn't matter: reasons should be free, too, inasmuch as there is subjective room in them. If you don't want to hire a black person because you just don't like black people, whether or not black people are statistically more likely to be something you don't like, I think you should be free to not hire them.

I agree that people should, ideally, have as much freedom in their choices as possible, when they are able to use reason and accurate critical thinking to choose their behaviours. Nothing good comes of the situation you're describing; it propagates further racism, when evaluating a person's behaviour in the interview and on the job is a much more reasonable path to take. Feeling != Knowing, and just plain disliking black people for the sake of their skin colour is, well, stupid.

Ultimately, that's the important point, and the whole "black people in America are statistically likely to behave in a certain fashion, dependent on their culture" thing is certainly something you're free to disagree with. [But please, come to my town, and I'll show you there's something to "race as culture" after all.]

The black people in your town may ascribe to a certain culture, but do all of them? I'm surprised that you would make such a broad generalization based on a relatively limited [e.g. have you met them all?] and subjective experience.

[3278]

And most prejudice is maintained by people presuming erroneously that they have familiarity with various cultural and social groups. We both agree that you can't trust people to be smart enough to know the difference.

The difference, then, is that I don't care about trusting people? I believe we don't have the right to control people just because we don't like how they make decisions, unless and until doing so presents a clear and present danger to the union. Yeah, I think not-hiring someone because they're black is probably stupid, but I can't imagine the sorts of things I do that other people would like to outlaw.

The price of freedom is that everyone gets it, not just the people we agree with.

I agree that people should, ideally, have as much freedom in their choices as possible, when they are able to use reason and accurate critical thinking to choose their behaviours.

You don't get to pick who is using reason, and how accurate their critical thinking is. Can you imagine a nation where this was the rule? And I was in charge? No, it's best not to leave such decision-making in the hands of the few - I'd outlaw religion, on this basis - but to allow the individual to make their own decisions for their own reasons, unless doing so endangers the nation.

Nothing good comes of the situation you're describing...

"Uh, yeah. Something good comes from it: I don't have to be forced to hire niggers." Maybe you don't like the viewpoint, maybe you think it's irrational, but you don't get to force your choices on the nation. [Where "you" are, in this case, the government acting on your philosophy, of course.]

[But please, come to my town, and I'll show you there's something to "race as culture" after all.]

The black people in your town may ascribe to a certain culture, but do all of them? I'm surprised that you would make such a broad generalization based on a relatively limited [e.g. have you met them all?] and subjective experience.

Not once have I said or implied that all people of a certain race belong to a certain culture. I've gone to great lengths to repeatedly explain that's precisely what I don't mean. I know you're not doing it on purpose - you're not, you know, Cain - but you keep beating up this straw man, while I'm standing over here.

[Szechuan]

*snip*

See, I'm sort of a bastard in that I think there is a right and logical way to run things, and I'd be a complete and utter fascist about it, given the chance. I don't think we're going to have a productive discussion about the merits of total freedom while I dream about putting so many people against the wall.

By the way, how does allowing one person/group to oppress another [in this case, the guy who refuses to hire "them uppity niggers"] not fly in the face of the freedom you're espousing? How does cultural animosity not harm the nation? What is the nation, except for its people, and how does harming your people not harm the nation? How does it benefit the nation? I don't see it as oppressing people [you can't oppress idiocy; it is a dehumanizing factor for me] but rather protecting the forces of reason from the terror of some racist shitheel.

As for burning churches, reason would dictate that if they're not hurting anybody [violent protests, running gays out of town, whatever] then they get the go ahead. I'm talking about preventing people from restricting the freedom of others without good reason.

[But please, come to my town, and I'll show you there's something to "race as culture" after all.]

The black people in your town may ascribe to a certain culture, but do all of them? I'm surprised that you would make such a broad generalization based on a relatively limited [e.g. have you met them all?] and subjective experience.

Not once have I said or implied that all people of a certain race belong to a certain culture. I've gone to great lengths to repeatedly explain that's precisely what I don't mean. I know you're not doing it on purpose - you're not, you know, Cain - but you keep beating up this straw man, while I'm standing over here.

See, I haven't actually read anything that would clarify your actual point, then. Would you be so kind as to sum it up?

[3278]

See, I'm sort of a bastard in that I think there is a right and logical way to run things, and I'd be a complete and utter fascist about it, given the chance. I don't think we're going to have a productive discussion about the merits of total freedom while I dream about putting so many people against the wall.

No, you're probably right about that.

By the way, how does allowing one person/group to oppress another [in this case, the guy who refuses to hire "them uppity niggers"] not fly in the face of the freedom you're espousing?

I don't believe people have the freedom to be hired by anyone. I believe the right to hire or not lies with the guy writing the paycheck. The prospective employee has the right to apply, and to accept or reject an offer, but no implicit right to be hired.

How does cultural animosity not harm the nation?

Well, I'm not saying it doesn't, although it's worth pointing out that forcing people to hire people they don't want to for racial reasons probably results in a great deal of cultural animosity, as well. But I don't think we should make things illegal just because they harm the nation: otherwise, we'd have to outlaw junk food, disposable lighters, and everyone who's poor.

What is the nation, except for its people, and how does harming your people not harm the nation?

Notice I didn't say "harm." I said, "danger." The nation is its people [and land], and when I say "clear and present danger," I mean the kind of danger that means massive instability and lack of safety. Government is the last stop, for me: it's what you do when all else fails. Otherwise, I'm a "power to the people" kind of guy.

I don't see it as oppressing people [you can't oppress idiocy; it is a dehumanizing factor for me] but rather protecting the forces of reason from the terror of some racist shitheel.

The price of freedom is that everyone gets it, including people you think are "racist shitheels," a term which, used in conjunction with the term "idiocy," convinces me you aren't being rational, either. You want - and you're being very clear about this, so that's cool - to outlaw what you don't agree with. I couldn't live in such a nation, because nearly everything I believe would be outlawed, because the mass of people don't agree with me. Would you want to live in such a nation? Of course not. You only want fascism if you're in control.

As for burning churches, reason would dictate that if they're not hurting anybody [violent protests, running gays out of town, whatever] then they get the go ahead.

Dude. Dude. If you want to get into a conversation about the harms of churches, we certainly can, but I think I'll leave it at "Dude."

I'm talking about preventing people from restricting the freedom of others without good reason.

You're talking about restricting the freedom of one group to give more freedom to another group, except that the way you're going about it is to lower overall freedom for the nation. It's not like I'm passing a law that says no one can hire black people: I'm saying people should have the right to hire whomever they choose for whatever reasons they choose, and that employees have the right to work for or not work for anyplace which will hire them. [Absent contracts and so on.]

See, I haven't actually read anything that would clarify your actual point, then. Would you be so kind as to sum it up?

Employers should have the freedom to hire whomever they choose, for whatever reasons they choose. That's my "actual point."

[Szechuan]

I don't believe people have the freedom to be hired by anyone. I believe the right to hire or not lies with the guy writing the paycheck. The prospective employee has the right to apply, and to accept or reject an offer, but no implicit right to be hired.

I think this is where our wires cross. I don't see it as logical that freedom = guaranteed a job. I don't agree with affirmative action laws, and don't feel people should be forced to hire somebody based on their colour. I just disagree with the notion that colour is a meaningful indicator of a person's employability, or is a good reason not to hire somebody.

How does cultural animosity not harm the nation?

Well, I'm not saying it doesn't, although it's worth pointing out that forcing people to hire people they don't want to for racial reasons probably results in a great deal of cultural animosity, as well. But I don't think we should make things illegal just because they harm the nation: otherwise, we'd have to outlaw junk food, disposable lighters, and everyone who's poor.

That's one of the reasons I disagree with the laws. They may be written in the spirit of "equal and fair opportunity for all," but odds are somebody with strong racial prejudice is still going to see it as another reason to hate whichever group the laws benefit.

What is the nation, except for its people, and how does harming your people not harm the nation?

Notice I didn't say "harm." I said, "danger." The nation is its people [and land], and when I say "clear and present danger," I mean the kind of danger that means massive instability and lack of safety. Government is the last stop, for me: it's what you do when all else fails. Otherwise, I'm a "power to the people" kind of guy.

I don't think "the people" can be trusted to hold power over anything more complex than a piece of string.

I don't see it as oppressing people [you can't oppress idiocy; it is a dehumanizing factor for me] but rather protecting the forces of reason from the terror of some racist shitheel.

The price of freedom is that everyone gets it, including people you think are "racist shitheels," a term which, used in conjunction with the term "idiocy," convinces me you aren't being rational, either. You want - and you're being very clear about this, so that's cool - to outlaw what you don't agree with. I couldn't live in such a nation, because nearly everything I believe would be outlawed, because the mass of people don't agree with me. Would you want to live in such a nation? Of course not. You only want fascism if you're in control.

I am being very rational, in that I understand the ramifications of having your nation's people hate one another. Using a descriptor does not mean I am not using my brain. But this is all moot, because I'm not arguing for the outlaw of anything. I am arguing against the assertion that skin colour gives you enough information to determine a person's eligibility for a job.

As for burning churches, reason would dictate that if they're not hurting anybody [violent protests, running gays out of town, whatever] then they get the go ahead.

Dude. Dude. If you want to get into a conversation about the harms of churches, we certainly can, but I think I'll leave it at "Dude."

I'd like to, actually. Because I'm pretty sure anything you bring up will fall under the same umbrella I'm using.

I'm talking about preventing people from restricting the freedom of others without good reason.

You're talking about restricting the freedom of one group to give more freedom to another group, except that the way you're going about it is to lower overall freedom for the nation. It's not like I'm passing a law that says no one can hire black people: I'm saying people should have the right to hire whomever they choose for whatever reasons they choose, and that employees have the right to work for or not work for anyplace which will hire them. [Absent contracts and so on.]

Again, I am not in favour of these laws. I am in favour of promoting the kind of thinking that would make the purpose of these laws unnecessary.

See, I haven't actually read anything that would clarify your actual point, then. Would you be so kind as to sum it up?

Employers should have the freedom to hire whomever they choose, for whatever reasons they choose. That's my "actual point."

Then I'm pretty sure we're in agreement on that. I simply disagree with some of your reasoning for it.

[3278]

I just disagree with the notion that colour is a meaningful indicator of a person's employability, or is a good reason not to hire somebody.

And I think Jesus is a pretty piss-poor reason to hate gays, but I can't justifiably outlaw hating gays. [Beating them up, yes. Hating them, no.] I don't have to like someone's reasons, or agree with their justifications, to believe they deserve the freedom to have those reasons. And since I don't find "not hiring someone" as prosecutable as "beating someone," I can't justifiably outlaw not hiring people based on reasons I think are bullshit.

That's one of the reasons I disagree with the laws. They may be written in the spirit of "equal and fair opportunity for all," but odds are somebody with strong racial prejudice is still going to see it as another reason to hate whichever group the laws benefit.

I'm torn on this issue, although I may not appear to be. I always say, "You can't legislate tolerance," but to some degree, laws can be a long-term method of social engineering; though it might not decrease hatred instantly, look at the long-term social engineering done by existing civil rights laws. The problem for me is that I don't think government should be in the business of social engineering, except in cases of clear and present danger to the nation. Anyway, I'm torn.

I don't think "the people" can be trusted to hold power over anything more complex than a piece of string.

Then those who can't, die. Here's one reason I like power and responsibility being held mostly at the individual level, and decreasing from there: people get more of what they deserve. Yes, overall quality of life for all people will suffer: we could not maintain our current [relative] economic prosperity if we, say, eliminated all one-way income-based federal assistance. We'd have widespread starvation, overwhelming crime, disease. But for those responsible enough to make it through the initial turbulence, they inherit a better, stronger, more self-reliant nation.

Again, I am not in favour of these laws. I am in favour of promoting the kind of thinking that would make the purpose of these laws unnecessary.

Then do it, please, by all means. But don't ask me to pay for it, when I don't agree with it. Start a tolerance charity, whatever, but don't force your agenda on me. [Obviously, you're not actually forcing your agenda on me: I'm speaking hypothetically.]

[Marius]

Lazy post:

A bustling hate-crime industry


Political entrepreneurship involves devising benefits to excite or mollify niche constituencies. Hence HR 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, which has passed the House, trailing clouds of sanctimony — lots of members announced their hatred of hate.

Hate-crime laws — 45 states already have them; Congress does not mind being duplicative — mandate enhanced punishments for crimes committed because of thoughts that government especially disapproves of. That is, crimes committed because of, not merely accompanied by, those thoughts. Mind-reading juries are required to distinguish causation from correlation.

The federal hate-crime law enacted in 1968 enhanced punishments only for crimes against persons engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting. HR 1592 would extend special federal protections to persons who are crime victims because of their race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. But there are many other groups, so there will be other hate-crime bills.

Hate crimes are seven one-hundredths of 1 percent of all crimes, and 60.5 percent of them consist of vandalism (e.g., graffiti) or intimidation (e.g., verbal abuse). Local law enforcement organizations favor HR 1592, which promises money. Among the more than 200 organizations supposedly ardent for the bill are the American Music Therapy Association, the Aplastic Anemia Foundation of America, Catholics for a Free Choice, Easter Seals, Goodwill Industries, the International Dyslexia Association, Rock the Vote, and the Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics & Ritual. Who knew?

Hate-crime laws are indignation gestures. Legislators federalize the criminal law in order to use it as a moral pork barrel to express theatrical empathy. They score points in the sentiment competition by conferring special government concern for more and more particular groups.

Laws hold us responsible for controlling our minds, which should control our conduct. But government increasingly wants to inventory and furnish our minds, removing socially undesirable desires. Law has always had the expressive function of stigmatizing particular kinds of conduct, but hate-crime laws treat certain actions as especially wicked because the actors had odious (although not illegal) frames of mind.

This draws government steadily deeper into stigmatizing certain thoughts and attitudes, which incites more and more groups to clamor for inclusion in the ranks of the especially protected. And Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institute notes that prosecutors of supposed hate crimes must pry into defendants' lives — books and magazines read, Internet sites visited, the nature of his or her friends — to uncover evidence of unsavory thinking.

If the bill makes it to the president's desk, he probably will veto it because it is moral exhibitionism by Congress with no constitutional authorization. HR 1592 justifies itself under Congress's enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce. The bill simply asserts that hate crimes affect such commerce and are committed using articles that have "traveled" in interstate commerce.

The Supreme Court, however, has rejected"the argument that Congress may regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on that conduct's aggregate effect on interstate commerce. The Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local."

By conferring special status — enhanced protection — on certain government-favored groups, HR 1592 traduces the principle of equality before the law. Yet Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it honors "the tradition of our Founders, that every person is created equal." Here is another sample of the House debate, from Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.):

"My granddaughter Julia is 3 years old. She goes to preschool. Even in preschool, they gang up and they bully. The parents at that preschool tell me that my Julia steps in and she stops it. She will not put up with bullying and unfairness. It is our turn. Be as brave as a 3-year-old. Vote for HR 1592."

Plucky Julia aside, questions remain. Are all rapes hate crimes because rapists pick the victims because of their gender? When in 1989, a gang of black and Hispanic youths went "wilding" in Central Park, raping and savagely beating a white jogger, was this considered a hate crime? No, because the youths also assaulted some Hispanics, so their punishment was not enhanced.

When a surveillance camera recently taped a mugger beating and robbing a 101-year-old New York woman, he was charged with a hate crime — presumably hatred of the elderly. His attack on a 51-year-old woman was not a hate crime. Complications multiply, protected categories proliferate. Next? People who wear fur or eat meat? Some writings by the killer at Virginia Tech expressed hatred of the rich, but they are not a category protected in this year's hate-crime legislation. Perhaps in next year's.

[3278]

Amen.

[3278]

Hate crimes are seven one-hundredths of 1 percent of all crimes, and 60.5 percent of them consist of vandalism (e.g., graffiti) or intimidation (e.g., verbal abuse).

This is a fucking astonishing statistic. That means 0.004235 percent of all crimes are hate crimes consisting of vandalism or intimidation, and only 0.002765 percent of all crimes are otherwise, presumably violent. If I were in Congress, I'd have to say, "Are we really spending this much time and effort on 0.007 percent of crimes? Shouldn't we maybe focus our attentions on something more pervasive? Shouldn't this only take up about 0.007 percent of our time, if that?"

Now, these numbers can't be "hard" because they're almost certainly "reported crimes," and not all crimes, and if hate crimes go unreported more often than other types, then the percentage would be different, but I think it's breathtaking that something like 0.002765 percent of all crime is violent hate crime, and people are bothering to pay any attention at all to this issue.

I mean, do we really think increasing the punishments for what someone is thinking is going to change what they're thinking? Someone seems to have forgotten that hate is rarely rational.

[Szechuan]

I was chased off the computer before being able to respond to your earlier post, 32. Short version of my reply: Gotcha.

I'm always curious about what can be reasonably designated as 'harm'. Sure, there are clear and obvious differences between holding stereotypes and beating someone to death. But what if, say, black people are displaced because they can't get a job anywhere in Michigan due to prejudicial attitudes? It is costing them resources [time and money, at the very least] which can translate into actual harm/loss of property. Hell, their children may be held back by delays in schooling.

What happens if people take the only solution given to them by such a society: move somewhere else, be it another region, or another country entirely? Is the right/freedom to run other ethnic groups out of town - which can be done in an entirely nonviolent/non-riotous manner - still permissible in such a nation? Should a nation protect all of its citizens?

[3278]

But what if, say, black people are displaced because they can't get a job anywhere in Michigan due to prejudicial attitudes? It is costing them resources [time and money, at the very least] which can translate into actual harm/loss of property. Hell, their children may be held back by delays in schooling.

What if, say, anyone is displaced because there's a poor economic climate in Michigan? Does the government owe them some kind of special action, a paycheck because their local conditions suck? I don't think the government owes me a job. I don't think the government owes black people jobs just because some people don't like them. The government's job, in my mind, is most definitely not to make life fair for its citizens.

What happens if people take the only solution given to them by such a society: move somewhere else, be it another region, or another country entirely? Is the right/freedom to run other ethnic groups out of town - which can be done in an entirely nonviolent/non-riotous manner - still permissible in such a nation?

Absolutely. The thing to remember is that everyone gets that same right. In other words, if I move to a black neighborhood, and can't get a job there because no one can understand me and I can't understand them and no one likes me because I'm weird, I don't have a problem with that. I definitely do not think that the government needs to step in in such a case to force them to give me a job where I'm not wanted, which is likely to cause as much harm, overall, as me not having that job, anyway.

[Szechuan]

So to you, then, denying somebody a job because they are black is not denying them their freedom?

[Serious Paul]

So to you, then, denying somebody a job because they are black is not denying them their freedom?

Wouldn't that depend on how you went about it? I mean if someone just said no I won't hire you, and they owned their own private business, then why should the government step in?

But now if that scenario was changed to add in use of force, or the threat of force to keep the black person from getting the job, then I think the governments duties and responsibilities change.

[3278]

So to you, then, denying somebody a job because they are black is not denying them their freedom?

No more than denying someone a job for any other reason, no. I don't believe that having a job is a right. I have no right to employment. I have a responsibility to provide for those for whom I am responsible - myself, unless I choose not to provide for myself, and my spouse and children - but no right to employment of any kind under any circumstances, unless I have signed an employment contract which guarantees me employment.

[Szechuan]

If you need to work to live, because that's how things work, and people prevent you from working - and thus buying food, shelter, clothing, whatever - then what do you do?

[3278]

If you need to work to live, because that's how things work, and people prevent you from working - and thus buying food, shelter, clothing, whatever - then what do you do?

If you cannot support yourself, and no one chooses to accept responsibility for you, then you die. If you are incapable of finding a single employment opportunity of any kind, anywhere, and you are not capable, for whatever reason, of living off the land, then you die.

[Serious Paul]

If you need to work to live, because that's how things work, and people prevent you from working - and thus buying food, shelter, clothing, whatever - then what do you do?

Those are not rights though, as I understand it. You're not guaranteed a right to happiness, just it's pursuit.

[Szechuan]

So for all intents and purposes we're talking about going back to frontier days, with better technology? Fuck that noise.

[3278]

So for all intents and purposes we're talking about going back to frontier days, with better technology? Fuck that noise.

"Frontier days?" I don't know that I'd characterize it that way - self-sufficiency was the rule until the Depression, and still is in many parts of the nation - but I can understand people wouldn't want to have to be responsible for themselves, or want other people to have to be responsible for themselves. Still, you must have some objection beyond "fuck," right?