Discrimination

[Totalitarian]

In many western countries, certain types of discrimination (in business, education and employment) are illegal. These include discrimination on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, sex or sexual orientation.

What do you all think of this? In my opinion, the right to discriminate is what protects ones freedom of association. For people to form communities and societies which reflect their own values and beliefs, they must be able to discriminate in favour of whoever they like.

I think that conflict would be reduced if like-minded people banded together to form their own exclusive communities. Whether this is based on religion (in the case of jewish kibbutzim), race or whatever does not matter to me.

I think this whole "anti-discrimination" stuff is just a load of crap. Any thoughts?

[Unrelenting Steve]

But when you have communities like the ones ur advocating- it breeds utter intolerance, and will eventual cause poeple to totaly disregard the humanity in one another- and then you get the hallocast and aparteid.

As to capitalism breeding rasim, this is true, but only because people generalize, and perhaps in business empathize with what they percieve to be themselves (in other members of their race) and so therefore favour and "stick together" (eg. the jews)
None of this would be an issue if we just dealt with people one on one, and with there ideas and not their apperance; so dont be superficial (that should be illegal) but otherwise be as judgmenttal as you want.
Judge people on their essance. People shouldnt be allowed to discriminate people based on race- this goes with the belief that people are defined or hold some characteristic (in their character) from their race. Wich is just wrong and we all know it unless we are generalizing small minded people

If you are, you do know you get Christian arabs

[Totalitarian]

Unrelenting Steve:

But when you have communities like the ones ur advocating- it breeds utter intolerance, and will eventual cause poeple to totaly disregard the humanity in one another- and then you get the hallocast and aparteid.

Not necessarily. Different groups tend to conflict. There are two ways to deal with this conflict:

1. Try and make people work together in peace.
2. Let them separate

I tend to believe that Option 2 is alot easier. It's like when you have two kiddies fighting each other, you give them both "time out" apart so they don't hurt each other. After all, as a communist/socialist, wouldn't you want to separate from capitalists?

As to capitalism breeding rasim, this is true, but only because people generalize, and perhaps in business empathize with what they percieve to be themselves (in other members of their race) and so therefore favour and "stick together" (eg. the jews)
None of this would be an issue if we just dealt with people one on one, and with there ideas and not their apperance; so dont be superficial (that should be illegal) but otherwise be as judgmenttal as you want.

In a perfect world, but unfortunately people generalise all the time. It can be a survival advantage to do so. If you have had bad experiences with a certain group of people, it's hard not to generalise about the other members of that group.

How would you make it illegal to " be superficial?"

Judge people on their essance. People shouldnt be allowed to discriminate people based on race- this goes with the belief that people are defined or hold some characteristic (in their character) from their race. Wich is just wrong and we all know it unless we are generalizing small minded people

What if some people had what they thought was a valid reason for forming racially exclusive communities? Would you really deny them that right, and for what moral reason?

I presume you think that israeli kibbutzim should be outlawed, because they tend to be restricted to jews. And yet i think many socialists would look to the kibbutz as an example of socialism for others to follow.

I don't see how forcing people together leads to peace.

[Unrelenting Steve]

Not necessarily. Different groups tend to conflict. There are two ways to deal with this conflict:

1. Try and make people work together in peace.
2. Let them separate

I tend to believe that Option 2 is alot easier. It's like when you have two kiddies fighting each other, you give them both "time out" apart so they don't hurt each other. After all, as a communist/socialist, wouldn't you want to separate from capitalists?

You have not dealt with the thing about this causing more intolerance and leading to aparteid and the hollcaust.

In a perfect world, but unfortunately people generalise all the time. It can be a survival advantage to do so. If you have had bad experiences with a certain group of people, it's hard not to generalise about the other members of that group.

How would you make it illegal to " be superficial?"

Just like its illegal to descriminate against people when they apply for jobs; of course this doesnt apply to poeple in a social sense, poeple will always do what they like when not forced to do otherwise, and I do believe that people shouldnt be forced to not be superficial when choosing mates ect. (I am not that conceited and totalanerian). But with laws inplace keeping the workplace free from discrimination (based on superficialites, I agree with discrimination based on wha people belive in) then perhaps this will breed a sociaty that also doesnt consist of such discrimination.

What if some people had what they thought was a valid reason for forming racially exclusive communities? Would you really deny them that right, and for what moral reason?

I presume you think that israeli kibbutzim should be outlawed, because they tend to be restricted to jews. And yet i think many socialists would look to the kibbutz as an example of socialism for others to follow.

I don't see how forcing people together leads to peace.

Im ok with descrimination based on religeon, because religoen defies racial borders, like all concepts worth a anything. but people cannot change their race; and I believe race holds no special significance- which I belive is right, and if someone disagrees with that; I would like the right not to hire and therefore be in the pressence of what I believe to be utter ignorance and unevolved behaviour and thought.

[Just Joe]

Who you associate with is your choice. Its an extension of freedom of speech. If you don't want to speak or associate with blacks or asians or whoever, its up to you.

There are generalisations on both sides of the argument when it comes to racial seperation. Those on the seperatist side say there can be no real racism if we all kept to our own kind. On the other side, advocates of integration say we are intolerant to what we don't know. Both these arguments are really proved wrong by real life. There are racists in all white middle class communities as well as racists in lower class multi-racial communities.

There is no one simply cause of racism or discrimination. I'd say if I was forced to give an answer it would be your personal experiences with others that would form your opinion. Thats sounds stupid but thats how people think. People generalise and if one black guy mugs you people tend to think they all think the same. Integrating people against there will isn't the answer, But neither is seperating them from each other.

[Totalitarian]

Unrelenting Steve:

You have not dealt with the thing about this causing more intolerance and leading to aparteid and the hollcaust.

The intolerance is already there in society; i'm thinking of the best ways to deal with it. Apartheid was an example of white supremacism over blacks, this is not the same as separation in which the blacks would have had self-determination.

Voluntary separation would probably not lead to a holocaust; since the two groups would be separate, it would be harder for them to kill each other. Yet if they are forced together, then naturally they will fight.




Just like its illegal to descriminate against people when they apply for jobs; of course this doesnt apply to poeple in a social sense, poeple will always do what they like when not forced to do otherwise, and I do believe that people shouldnt be forced to not be superficial when choosing mates ect. (I am not that conceited and totalanerian). But with laws inplace keeping the workplace free from discrimination (based on superficialites, I agree with discrimination based on wha people belive in) then perhaps this will breed a sociaty that also doesnt consist of such discrimination.

I think that as long as there is race there will be racial discrimination; if anti-discrimination is enforced on people then eventually it may lead to a society where people are not as inclined to exclude on this basis.

Eventually you would end up with a racially mixed society. Some people will always prefer to preserve races instead of mix them, and would become resentful if this was not allowed. So perhaps in the same society, there could be those who are preserving and others who are mixing.




I presume you think that israeli kibbutzim should be outlawed, because they tend to be restricted to jews. And yet i think many socialists would look to the kibbutz as an example of socialism for others to follow.

I don't see how forcing people together leads to peace.

Im ok with descrimination based on religeon, because religoen defies racial borders, like all concepts worth a anything. but people cannot change their race;

Some people consider jews to be a race; because although anyone can convert to judaism, anyone who has a jewish mother is defined as a jew regardless of their personal belief. This would make judaism semi-racial, would it not?

To carry out a parallel scheme, a group of white separatist (for example) could establish a religion, let's say they called it caucasianism, and could say that it was excluded to those who had a white mother but other people if they really wanted to, could convert if they studied the holy books and suchlike. Would this be ok with you?

The reason i mention this is that one could argue there is a fine line between race and religion, and who should decide when it is crossed?

and I believe race holds no special significance- which I belive is right, and if someone disagrees with that; I would like the right not to hire and therefore be in the pressence of what I believe to be utter ignorance and unevolved behaviour and thought.

So what you are saying is that you agree that people should be able to discriminate based on someone's beliefs, but not on something that is unchangeable.

I understand that. Personally i would not care either way.

[Unrelenting Steve]

The intolerance is already there in society; i'm thinking of the best ways to deal with it. Apartheid was an example of white supremacism over blacks, this is not the same as separation in which the blacks would have had self-determination.

Voluntary separation would probably not lead to a holocaust; since the two groups would be separate, it would be harder for them to kill each other. Yet if they are forced together, then naturally they will fight.

In type of arangment Im sure there would be more horrible consequences down the line; Segregation was a very prominant thing before aparteid, which was what led to the blind belief that black people must be seperated from whites. This is the type of behaviour that segragation leads to, even in the short term which may provide more peace.

I think that as long as there is race there will be racial discrimination; if anti-discrimination is enforced on people then eventually it may lead to a society where people are not as inclined to exclude on this basis.

Eventually you would end up with a racially mixed society. Some people will always prefer to preserve races instead of mix them, and would become resentful if this was not allowed. So perhaps in the same society, there could be those who are preserving and others who are mixing.

There are some types of descrimination that I have no business refuting- I cannot see myself in a mulitracial marrige, I cannot say why this is, but then marrige has never been a union comprised of only thought, I can only ammend and critisize what I am conciously aware of; which include how I choose my friends and how I might asses people who might work for me and how I regard people in general. I still will only make one of these relationship take its lead from the law (the business side) for that is what law does, all law, even communist law; If there were a group of people who believed murder correct, we cannot alow them to inforce such beliefs on others; and we could not tolerate them making little sociaties and practice this docterine. Unless of course you have a differant perspective on law.

Some people consider jews to be a race; because although anyone can convert to judaism, anyone who has a jewish mother is defined as a jew regardless of their personal belief. This would make judaism semi-racial, would it not?

To carry out a parallel scheme, a group of white separatist (for example) could establish a religion, let's say they called it caucasianism, and could say that it was excluded to those who had a white mother but other people if they really wanted to, could convert if they studied the holy books and suchlike. Would this be ok with you?

The reason i mention this is that one could argue there is a fine line between race and religion, and who should decide when it is crossed?

Just because some people would call you a jew if your mother was a jew, does not make you a jew, only in the eyes of that person, and then in that case I would call it a label with no meaning. Surely the real definition of a jew is whether you follow the religeon, or then you coulf get Christian jews, Muslim Jews, rather obscure oxymorons. I Rose by any other name....

I said any belief worth anything, I mean an actualy concept of value, anyone can make up stuff and say they have the right to bielieve it, but yes that would be okay, if everone could join it including black people, but that would never exist. because it would contradict their fubdamentals. So you can derive nothing from this, because then that sociaty would not be a single race, so it doesnt support your argument.

So what you are saying is that you agree that people should be able to discriminate based on someone's beliefs, but not on something that is unchangeable.

I understand that. Personally i would not care either way.

Not something that is not unchangable, something that should have no relevance to amout of value ceded to a person by everyone.

[Hampton]

Some people will always prefer to preserve races instead of mix them, and would become resentful if this was not allowed.

Yea, they're called fascists.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Quote: from Hampton on 5:18 pm on July 5, 2003

Some people will always prefer to preserve races instead of mix them, and would become resentful if this was not allowed.

Yea, they're called fascists.

I believe these "people" like to be referred to as "racialists" these days comrade Hampton.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 8:01 pm on July 5, 2003

Quote: from Hampton on 5:18 pm on July 5, 2003

Some people will always prefer to preserve races instead of mix them, and would become resentful if this was not allowed.

Yea, they're called fascists.

I believe these "people" like to be referred to as "racialists" these days comrade Hampton.


I'd like to clear something up here.

Fascism and racialism are NOT THE SAME THING. There are facists who aren't racialists, and racialists that aren't fascists.

(Edited by Dark Capitalist at 11:13 pm on July 5, 2003)

[Umoja]

Totalitarian,

You seem to advocate a multi-ethnic form of White Nationalism, which doesn't exactly disturb me, but I just find it slightly odd.....

If we had all become Baha'i's we'd all be multi-ethnic mutts by now... but no..... Had to stay with the other crap....