It is indeed 
racist... to whites.
racist... to whites.Racist is racist.
They'll never get it though. They believe what they call "reverse racism" is not racism.
Topic: GOT SYSTEMIC RACISM? THEN YOU SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED (Read 154 times)
Racist is racist.
They'll never get it though. They believe what they call "reverse racism" is not racism.
Anti-racists are hypocrites. Everybody has at least a tad of animosity or jealousy against some class of other people. To say that a class of people is different than a race of people is simply being a bit picky.
In other words, all you are doing when you pick on racists is, you are showing us the racism that you have in your heart.
In other words, all you are doing when you pick on racists is, you are showing us the racism that you have in your heart.
....
Theres plenty of articles siting racism sexism and discrimination amongst the Uber board of directors. Was that not enough for you to stop using uber before? ....
Theres plenty of articles siting racism sexism and discrimination amongst the Uber board of directors. Was that not enough for you to stop using uber before? ....
I don't care whether someone does or does not use uber.
But if there's been repeated claims of racism, sexism and discrimination then that's illegal.
They should be investigated and charges filed as appropriate.
I mean, the 'best person for the job' have been overlooked in the past for their colour. It's widely acknowledged in psychology that other peoples unintentional biases are a barrier for people of colour. No matter how qualified a black person is, if the person hiring them has any sort of bias against them, they're at a disadvantage. This is racist, yes. But can't be tackled by anyone other than the individual.
Theres plenty of articles siting racism sexism and discrimination amongst the Uber board of directors. Was that not enough for you to stop using uber before? Or is it white people being perceived as being denied opportunities thats the last straw for you? If you think that's injustice, you should see what POC have to deal with
I've stopped taking Uber.
Recently they said they have too many white people on the board of directors, and they want to even it out.
So they are no longer hiring the best person for the job. They are hiring the best person for the job who is not white.
No one seems able to see that is racist!
Recently they said they have too many white people on the board of directors, and they want to even it out.
So they are no longer hiring the best person for the job. They are hiring the best person for the job who is not white.
No one seems able to see that is racist!
Theres plenty of articles siting racism sexism and discrimination amongst the Uber board of directors. Was that not enough for you to stop using uber before? Or is it white people being perceived as being denied opportunities thats the last straw for you? If you think that's injustice, you should see what POC have to deal with
It is indeed racist... to whites.
racist... to whites.Racist is racist.
It is indeed racist... to whites.
racist... to whites. I've stopped taking Uber.
Recently they said they have too many white people on the board of directors, and they want to even it out.
So they are no longer hiring the best person for the job. They are hiring the best person for the job who is not white.
No one seems able to see that is racist!
Recently they said they have too many white people on the board of directors, and they want to even it out.
So they are no longer hiring the best person for the job. They are hiring the best person for the job who is not white.
No one seems able to see that is racist!
But was someone to vocalize that as being racist, and particularly if the company itself admitted it? Then various existing laws and regulatory agencies kick in. Or at least in the Princeton case cited above, that is happening.
I've stopped taking Uber.
Recently they said they have too many white people on the board of directors, and they want to even it out.
So they are no longer hiring the best person for the job. They are hiring the best person for the job who is not white.
No one seems able to see that is racist!
Recently they said they have too many white people on the board of directors, and they want to even it out.
So they are no longer hiring the best person for the job. They are hiring the best person for the job who is not white.
No one seems able to see that is racist!
All these events remind me of 1917 Russia way too much
Admitting your innate racism because of white guilt? Might think twice about that.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/09/princeton-squirms.php
How will Princeton, having admitted that damaging, systemic racism is embedded at the university, explain to the Department of Education that it was being truthful when it said Princeton does not discriminate on the basis of race? We can see the shape of a possible response in the statement Princeton issued upon receiving the Education Department’s demand for an explanation.
Princeton seems to be saying that the “systemic racism” at Princeton is the “continued effect[]” of “racial injustice and race-based inequities that persist throughout American society.” In this account, Princeton’s letter acknowledging racism and discussing ways to combat it is an attempt at “grappling honestly with the nation’s history and the current effects of systemic racism,” not an admission of discrimination by Princeton itself.
Is this a satisfactory defense? I don’t think so.
Suppose a manufacturer admitted that damaging systemic racism is embedded at its plant. It would not be much of a defense to say that the racism of the plant is a byproduct of racism that persists throughout society. An institution cannot duck responsibility that easily.
The same would be true of a manufacturer that admitted its factory is a hostile work environment for female employees. It would not be sufficient to blame the hostile treatment of women — in other words, the sexual harassment — on societal sexism in general or the long history of treating women as sex objects in particular.
This line of defense would be even less persuasive if, like Princeton’s president, the management team at the factory had been in place for years and had only now confessed to racism or sexism and implemented new measures to combat it.
If racism at Princeton consisted only of some students and professors holding racist views they kept to themselves, this would not mean that Princeton violated its duty under federal law not to discriminate. But Princeton confessed to much more than this. It admitted that the racism at Princeton does “damage” to “people of color” at the university.
When systemic, embedded racism does damage to members of a minority group, the damaged individuals are discriminated against. Princeton’s black students have the right to attend college without suffering damage due to their race — damage not inflicted on white students.
In reality, Princeton’s black students aren’t at a disadvantage compared to white students. In fact, they enjoy important advantages, including significantly lower admissions standards and a president who panders to many of their demands.
But that’s not how Princeton’s president seems to view the situation, and it’s not what he told the Princeton community. He’s committed to the proposition that black students are suffering due to embedded racism at the university he’s run for seven years.
I don’t think that view can be squared with the non-discrimination representations Princeton has made to the Department of Education or to others. ....
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/09/princeton-squirms.php
How will Princeton, having admitted that damaging, systemic racism is embedded at the university, explain to the Department of Education that it was being truthful when it said Princeton does not discriminate on the basis of race? We can see the shape of a possible response in the statement Princeton issued upon receiving the Education Department’s demand for an explanation.
Princeton seems to be saying that the “systemic racism” at Princeton is the “continued effect[]” of “racial injustice and race-based inequities that persist throughout American society.” In this account, Princeton’s letter acknowledging racism and discussing ways to combat it is an attempt at “grappling honestly with the nation’s history and the current effects of systemic racism,” not an admission of discrimination by Princeton itself.
Is this a satisfactory defense? I don’t think so.
Suppose a manufacturer admitted that damaging systemic racism is embedded at its plant. It would not be much of a defense to say that the racism of the plant is a byproduct of racism that persists throughout society. An institution cannot duck responsibility that easily.
The same would be true of a manufacturer that admitted its factory is a hostile work environment for female employees. It would not be sufficient to blame the hostile treatment of women — in other words, the sexual harassment — on societal sexism in general or the long history of treating women as sex objects in particular.
This line of defense would be even less persuasive if, like Princeton’s president, the management team at the factory had been in place for years and had only now confessed to racism or sexism and implemented new measures to combat it.
If racism at Princeton consisted only of some students and professors holding racist views they kept to themselves, this would not mean that Princeton violated its duty under federal law not to discriminate. But Princeton confessed to much more than this. It admitted that the racism at Princeton does “damage” to “people of color” at the university.
When systemic, embedded racism does damage to members of a minority group, the damaged individuals are discriminated against. Princeton’s black students have the right to attend college without suffering damage due to their race — damage not inflicted on white students.
In reality, Princeton’s black students aren’t at a disadvantage compared to white students. In fact, they enjoy important advantages, including significantly lower admissions standards and a president who panders to many of their demands.
But that’s not how Princeton’s president seems to view the situation, and it’s not what he told the Princeton community. He’s committed to the proposition that black students are suffering due to embedded racism at the university he’s run for seven years.
I don’t think that view can be squared with the non-discrimination representations Princeton has made to the Department of Education or to others. ....
Jump to: