The Essence of "hate" crimes...

[jacee]

Do you believe that all cultures are exactly the same? That no culture does anything better than any other culture? For example do you reject the stereotype that native cultures are more in tune with the environment? Because if you don't show the same indignation when it comes to positive stereotypes then you have no business complaining about negative stereotypes.

Oh good grief ...

[betsy]

The point is the other 40% born in Canada are having trouble getting hired too.

Good grief Argus.

You don't want to admit that racial discrimination in hiring exists ... while you're racially stereotyping and discriminating.

Mind boggling. :/

If you've ever had responsibility for hiring, you just may be part of the problem. Lol

.

Well, your response is mind boggling, unless I'm reading you wrong.

To explain about a realistic situation like what Argus had said,

Even those born in Canada were likely born to foreign-born parents, and are raised with the same cultural issues, and in some communities, particularly the black community, there exists a lack of family support and structure and a lack of respect for education which will inevitably contribute to low success at job finding.

.....you say that's racial stereotyping, and therefore it's discrimination?

Diabetes is 60% more common in African Americans than in white.

You see that as racial-profiling? If so, then to say that should be another sample of "hate?"

That's the problem today - DISTORTION. Anyone can just about distort anything to suit what they want to think!

Just like the Black Lives Matter founder seem to promote - it's racist to say that "ALL lives matter."

I suppose to her, only Black lives matter! Talk about nonsense, if not a bloated sense of self-entitlement.

You bet, a lot of people buy that too....and they don't even see the dismal contradiction when they're claiming

to fight for equality! Oh boy......

If anything, we're seeing political-correctness run amuck, and it's made a looney bin of this world!

And the loonies are running the show!

Edited June 23, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Oh good grief ...

Well? That's what you seem to suggest with your posts. You seem to think all cultures and races are the same.

Edited June 23, 2016 by betsy

[eyeball]

Well? That's what you seem to suggest with your posts. You seem to think all cultures and races are the same.

We're all Earthlings.

[Argus]

This certainly puts your contention to rest that it is because they are immigrants.

I've already dealt with this position.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

The stats are about employment.

Yes, simple minded stats that say if there are X % of Blacks in a population then every job should have X % of Blacks in them, and Blacks should make the same as Whites. And if not it's racism.

This leaves off the low level of respect for education and family support in the Black community, the higher incidence of criminal records among (in particular) younger Black men, and the likelihood that the majority of Blacks are immigrants.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

This thread has devolved into racist commentary and completely off topic.

Name the racist commentary.

[Argus]

You don't want to admit that racial discrimination in hiring exists ... while you're racially stereotyping and discriminating.

I get the feeling you don't actually know what words like 'stereotyping' mean. You can't stereotype a group, which is what we're discussing. And the problems with Black families being more often than not led by single females, and the issues of high Black high school suspension and dropout rates are well-documented.

[Argus]

Oh good grief....

Thank you for your insightful commentary. It's well down there with your usual.

[betsy]

We're all Earthlings.

So are canines, and felines, and reptiles, and insects!

Are we all the same?

Edited June 23, 2016 by betsy

[jacee]

I get the feeling you don't actually know what words like 'stereotyping' mean. You can't stereotype a group, which is what we're discussing.

Stereotyping involves generalizing negative characteristics to all members of a group based on a perception that may itself be in error.

EG: Argus sometimes makes racist comments.

Argus is a white man.

"White men are racist."

And the problems with Black families being more often than not led by single females, and the issues of high Black high school suspension and dropout rates are well-documented.

Do you think racial discrimination and racial stereotyping in education and employment may be a factor?

.

[eyeball]

So are canines, and felines, and reptiles, and insects!

Are we all the same?

We're all stardust.

Assuming we're still mostly talking about human beings, what is so untoward or unsettling about people identifying as an Earthling?

Edited June 23, 2016 by eyeball

[Argus]

Stereotyping involves generalizing negative characteristics to all members of a group based on a perception that may itself be in error.

We're not talking abut individuals. We're talking about the group. It's utterly brainless to argue you can't talk about generalities when referring to a group.

Do you think racial discrimination and racial stereotyping in education and employment may be a factor?

If you can't demonstrate it, then it doesn't exist.

Blacks are more racist than Whites anyway. Asians and Arabs are racist, too. So I'd say the lack of education is more likely to be the chief factor.

[betsy]

We're all stardust.

Assuming we're still mostly talking about human beings, what is so untoward or unsettling about people identifying as an Earthling?

Who says there's anything unsettling about that? I'm merely stating a fact that not only humans, are earthlings.

You're disregarding - and therefore, excluding, other earthlings!

You're supposed to be all-inclusive!

Furthermore, you seem to be erasing everyone's identity here, by lumping everyone.

What makes you think anyone proud of their identity as a people would welcome that?

What makes you think all minority groups see your race as "superior?" And want to be lumped along with you?

With no distinction? That's quite presumptive. And......that's condescending!

To think that minority groups see themselves as inferior without your approval - and thereby you pat them on the head assuring - with an air of superiority - "hey, don't worry - we accept you as you are..."

.....that's a very racist attitude, you know.

Edited June 24, 2016 by betsy

[eyeball]

Who says there's anything unsettling about that? I'm merely stating a fact that not only humans, are earthlings.

You're disregarding - and therefore, excluding, other earthlings!

You're supposed to be all-inclusive!

Hey, I'm all for doing unto other Earthlings as I'd have them do unto me.

Furthermore, you seem to be erasing everyone's identity here, by lumping everyone.

What makes you think anyone proud of their identity as a people would welcome that?

Ah so you do find it unsettling after all. I was pretty sure you would.

To think that minority groups see themselves as inferior without your approval - and thereby you pat them on the head assuring - with an air of superiority - "hey, don't worry - we accept you as you are..."

.....that's a very racist attitude, you know.

That would be a very racist attitude indeed and it's the farthest thing from my mind. I suspect people who have or desire to have entrenched race-based rights in addition to their human rights will feel most threatened.

I'm pretty sure I'm the one in the minority.

[Scott Mayers]

Do you believe that all cultures are exactly the same? That no culture does anything better than any other culture? For example do you reject the stereotype that native cultures are more in tune with the environment? Because if you don't show the same indignation when it comes to positive stereotypes then you have no business complaining about negative stereotypes.

I ask this often yet many don't seem to recognize that there is clarity to the question. They think that what is defaulted as "good" is unquestionable but what is "bad" is all that is necessary to challenge. Then you point out how relative these assigned qualities are by showing how what one considers 'good' can necessarily BE 'bad' to another without distinction UNLESS one or the other is somehow 'Superior' by nature itself.

If one asserts some virtuous right to some 'favorable' stereotype with exclusion of only those that are 'unfavorable', then it follows that one might find it 'favorable' as a stereotype to BE hateful for themselves if even just for their own self-serving preferences. Then not even racism is 'wrong' because you'd be offending their supposed "nature" to BE racist as a cultural trait they inherited!

So your assertion is completely sensible. If anyone asserts we need to preserve some 'culture' for the sake of it being there by some ancestor's characteristic behaviors, then it doesn't matter WHAT their particular 'culture' is, ...even if it is hateful of others, should be equally preserved. It is not possible, therefore, to think that ALL cultures are 'equal' to some WHOLE, in 'value'.

But inversely, it wouldn't be fair either then to assume ANY specific culture is even better than any other nor worse. Thus, I say we have to remove ALL political laws that either favor OR disfavor people based on some specific culture other than to the absolute individual OR to the collective whole. Governments should embrace the stance of the American's First Amendment asserting that no laws should be made to be of, for, nor against "religion"....(one component of 'culture'). We should then extend this idea politically to "Culture" in general.

This is why I don't like our Canadian Constitution. It 'favors' specific groups and 'disfavors' by default, the individual as well as the whole. Groups in between these extremes can still voluntarily exist but those who command forceful compliance to their own in-group upon the whole have to be sacrificed their own biased preference to impose their beliefs upon others in law. All that we have to consider politically are those particular factors that distinguish REAL differences. A "Women's issue" politically can be limited to literal biological factors related to them that they are unable to change regardless. But to think, for instance, that we might make a law that 'favors' women to something arbitrarily cultural, like having some intrinsic special right to wear high heels, for instance, should either not be promoted in law OR at least not to specifically dismiss all others (like men) to have anything limiting their own right to the same thing.

Many 'feminists' would appear to agree to my last sentence by asserting that it IS alright for men to opt to wear high heels, right? But if we had some law that specifically says that it is a "hate crime" to dismiss WOMEN for wearing high heels if they chose to wear them, this specific law is not something needed to protect women as a class but to be extended to ALL people in general.

I use this example in thinking about those cases where one might argue that someone is being 'hateful' or discriminatory against a women should she be wearing highly revealing clothing in the context of some environment where another presumes she is intentionally dressing to express some intent that causes unwelcome behavior. If a women should be allowed to 'dress as she wishes' in public, with exceptional privilege to bias, what distinguishes this behavior from anyone else to 'dress as he wishes' with equal expectations. Can I as a male opt to walk around without clothes (dress as I wish)? Not even all women would expect this behavior of other women. So such a law of 'etiquette' is arbitrary and more about 'culture'. If we admit a law that no one should be allowed to go naked in public, while 'cultural' in this sense, it would have to be one created universally for everyone, not simply just for one sub-group over another.

So we have to be cautious of commanding special acceptance of some particular group based on some 'culture' whether 'favorable' or not as irrelevant to politics OR that political body IS being sufficiently biased to warrant others to disagree openly. "Hate crimes" would then themselves be equally "hateful" without sincere distinction.