White Student Union

[Nanners]

http://www.vice.com/vice-news/white-student-union

Pretty crazy little documentary. The main fat guy looks a little bit like George Zimmerman.

[MavsSuperFan]

http://www.vice.com/vice-news/white-student-union

Pretty crazy little documentary. The main fat guy looks a little bit like George Zimmerman.

1. Guys a racist loser
2. Looks nothing like zimmerman.

[Bucket_Nakedz]

we need more groups like this. i want to white people to show their true selves.

[Higher Meaning]

was just watching this yesterday and there is something wrong with that guy

[Balla_Status]

liberal arts college students lol


ONLY IN TEXAS RIGHT??

[Rasheed1]

:oldlol:

[Bucket_Nakedz]

I think it is funny how the black professor makes it justifiable to have a black group because they are smaller in numbers, what the hell is that?
you know they have white kids on 106 and park?

[Balla_Status]

I think it is funny how the black professor makes it justifiable to have a black group because they are smaller in numbers, what the hell is that?

I agree with this. And I don't believe "diversity" is races having their own section. That doesn't promote diversity at all if you're just hanging out with your "own."

[Reef]

And why is it wrong to be proud of being a white american? or whatever I am sleepy.

Why be proud of your race? It's not like some personal achievement. You had no say in it.

[Rasheed1]

Minority student unions operate to give minority students a community to associate with.. They dont go out looking for crime. Minority student unions arent exclusive either... They don't focus on racial purity and nonsense like that... as was mentioned a few times, Towson is majority white, so what is the special need for a white student union when a regular student union will do?

Its like owning a home as opposed to being a guest in someone else's home... If you are in your own home? you dont need to put your name on the food in the fridge..The Fridge is yours... You dont need to label your couch as "your" couch.. Its redundant.. where as different minority groups are small and they may feel the need to have a black student union, or an Asian student union for those students.. The balck guy with the bandanna in the video made some comments to that effect.. Creating a white student union is a little weird.. I could see if it was at an HBU like Howard or Morgan.. Sure a white student union would make sense there... because the majority population is black, and whites might feel the need to create a union for themselves to get comfortable in that environment..

the other thing is funny is how the white student union seems to exist to combat nonexistent crime.. I went to Morgan and I lived off campus closer to towson than Morgan.. There is 0 crime in that area.. I wonder have they ever encountered any crime? by blacks?

the whole thing is just ridiculous :oldlol: I agree with the white guy who said the Heimbach dude is just doing it for attention..

[Balla_Status]

The guy has a Ron Paul bumper sticker.

[Balla_Status]

It's a culture/community thing, not really a pride thing.
Blacks are the only race that actually needs a racial culture. They can't really trace back to their roots.

Whites, Asians, Hispanics...our culture is actually based on different ethnicity and nationalities, and we can still trace back to our heritage.

Where I live, there are plenty of white community groups. They just call it as Italian American Club, Polish Community Club, Irish American Club, etc.

That's how I see it. I never understood why whites get so upset about black community groups or a channel like the BET.

They should just call it a european-american group then.

[Nanners]

european american males need to start standing up for themselves, the oppression of has gone on for far too long.

welcome to obamas america people

[OldSkoolball#52]

It's a culture/community thing, not really a pride thing.
Blacks are the only race that actually needs a racial culture. They can't really trace back to their roots.

Whites, Asians, Hispanics...our culture is actually based on different ethnicity and nationalities, and we can still trace back to our heritage.

Where I live, there are plenty of white community groups. They just call it as Italian American Club, Polish Community Club, Irish American Club, etc.

That's how I see it. I never understood why whites get so upset about black community groups or a channel like the BET.


Well, Italian, Polish, Irish clubs actually have cultural customs/activiies/etc to do at the meetings. Traditional language, food, games, customs etc its basically just a theme party. And typically anyone can participate.

As you said, blacks just do not have one single common cultural ancestry. Not their fault, but whats the point of black student union? Why not just join regular student union and be a part of the group everyone else is a part of? What possible reason could there be for black student union other than to discuss perceived racial conspiracy theories and corruptions in "the system?"

To me this stuff reeks of feelings of inadequacy, like they dont feel they belong or cant contribute to the universal student union, so they need a special one where they can make dumb/pointless statements and ideas without being judged.

If there was simply an African cultural club meeting for kicks like those German or French or whatever clubs, no big deal. Black student union? Pretty worthless. Would love to be a fly on the wall though.

[Rasheed1]

I am lost here why can't black people trace back their roots?


Once again I am lost here why wouldn't black people be able to trace back their heritage.

Slavery sort of helped to cut off blacks from their roots...




This isn't a race thing more than it is a way for people of same cultural heritage to come and socialize, and this isn't based on a race thing so can't draw a parallel between these two scenarios.

Again, slavery created a problem.. Blacks didnt show up here as immigrants like Italians or Irish people.. they were brought here as slaves


And just to make it clear I have no problem with black people creating their own social groups but then it shouldn't be made in to a documentary when white people do it.

its funny and made into a documentary because all the things a white student union would seek to provide for its students already exists at the school..



I haven't heard a lot about BET but from my understanding it is a channel for black people period. I mean I don't care what their target audience is, it is up to the channel if they want to focus in on 10% instead of 100%,

BUT I can see why it is a problem from a white Americans point of view. Would it really be accepted if someone started a channel named WET.

BET only formed due to lack of blacks on regular TV... its like the beauty pageant thing.. Black women werent even accepted to beauty pageants for a long time so black people created their own beauty pageant.. they created their own TV channel too..

What would they show on WET that wouldnt show on regular TV?

Like I said, you dont have to put your name on your own furniture... its redundant...

[Nanners]

Glad to see starface found his way into this thread.

Now we just need nick young to show up and we will have the top 2 ISH scholars on the oppression of white european americans.

[Rasheed1]

Glad to see starface found his way into this thread.

Now we just need nick young to show up and we will have the top 2 ISH scholars on the oppression of white european americans.


:lol starface... I figured it was him when he had a meltdown the other day in another thread.... lol

[travelingman]

Why be proud of your race? It's not like some personal achievement. You had no say in it.

This exactly. Spot-on.

[Rasheed1]

I am not american so I don't know much about the slavery that took place in US but wasn't slavery banned in the 19th century? why would you care about roots 200 years back? you are American now forget about it. Or that is how I see it.

200 years isnt a long time and it would essentially cut them off from their African roots...Italians and Irish people come to america with roots that go back further than that.. My wife is Italian and she can talk about her roots back to Sicily on her grandmother's side and Northern Italy on her grandfather's side..

Also slaves were sold around and they didnt get to keep track of their roots even when they got here... so that history has been very much interrupted





And that was generations ago.

Roots are about history... and 200 years isnt much history especially if you are trying to see beyond recent slave history..







How about now though? what purpose does the channel serve now?

Channel serves the same purpose as any channel now... to make money.. it isnt even black owned any more






I don't know who you two are referring to but if it is me which meltdown and who is Starface?

Not you.. the Oldskool character

[MMM]

200 years isn't that long
heck just look at eastern europe where people have hatreds going back 1000's of years

Hungarians hate Romanians
Greeks hate Macedonians
Everyone hates Albanians

[OldSkoolball#52]

White American guy of Italian descent. He can celebrate, embrace, Italian culture and tradition with his family, friends, ect.
Asian American person of Korean descent can do the same with their Korean heritage. Same for Hispanics.

Now you go to a black American guy. Where does he go in terms of ancestral culture and traditions?

Why does he have to go anywhere?

Im a white American and I dont celebrate any nationalistic ancestral culture.

Why not just be American?



But this goes back to the whole "Im liberal so I support equality. But not real equality, compensatory inequality, which doesnt sound good, so I falsely brand it 'equality'".

Liberals. Want to police every American, but cry when America polices anyone else. Awkward...

[Rasheed1]

American tradition or religious traditions? 200 years is enough of generations to make you American, why would you need other traditions?

Why would Italians and Irish Asians want to have any culture prior to America then? :confusedshrug:

Many different groups have rich history and people are proud of it. It doesnt make any sense to just begin your history as an American if there is much more to it... There soo much more and 200 years isnt a long time to build much history




REally not trying to be insensitive to black slavery or the horrible stuff that happened during the years of slavery but 200-300 years with your ancestors in the same country you are as American as it gets or is it looked at another way in America?


People are american, but they are also part of wherever they originally came from.. African Americans are no different..

[MMM]

Why does he have to go anywhere?

Im a white American and I dont celebrate any nationalistic ancestral culture.

Why not just be American?



But this goes back to the whole "Im liberal so I support equality. But not real equality, compensatory inequality, which doesnt sound good, so I falsely brand it 'equality'".

Liberals. Want to police every American, but cry when America polices anyone else. Awkward...

Black Nationalism is as north american as First Nations, metis, inuit, etc. it is a group that was created in NA and should be able to preserve their culture.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Be American is fine. But American culture derived from various ancestral cultures. I live in a predominant Irish, Polish and Italian area. A lot of white people here are as proud as their heritage too, not just as Americans. Some still have families in Italy, Ireland, etc that they visit during vacations. They were able to keep that connection from first generation to present.

So my point was...that black people don't have that.


Some do.

Hasheem Thabeet dies a strip of hair to honor the tribe he comes from. He happens to know which one it is. Great.

If you dont know specifically what your cultural heritage is, do you need de facto racial pride? I dont see why you would. Black pride/power is no different than white pride/power. You are celebrating your skin color as if it is something to your credit.

[blablabla]

Some do.

Hasheem Thabeet dies a strip of hair to honor the tribe he comes from. He happens to know which one it is. Great.

If you dont know specifically what your cultural heritage is, do you need de facto racial pride? I dont see why you would. Black pride/power is no different than white pride/power. You are celebrating your skin color as if it is something to your credit.Hasheem Thabeet is not an African American

[MMM]

Some do.

Hasheem Thabeet dies a strip of hair to honor the tribe he comes from. He happens to know which one it is. Great.

If you dont know specifically what your cultural heritage is, do you need de facto racial pride? I dont see why you would. Black pride/power is no different than white pride/power. You are celebrating your skin color as if it is something to your credit.

African american do have a cultural heritage however that culture was created in the Americas

[joe]

If a group of white people want an all white group, who really cares? Let them. If you have a problem with that, at least you know who those people are now. I feel the same about Whites Only restaurants. Let people do that if they want, wouldn't you rather know who those guys are openly?

I think there is merit to having exclusive groups based on race or heritage. Sometimes you just want to be around people who understand where you're coming from. Diversity is cool but very overrated in America, given how much it's shoved down our throats in school.

[Nanners]

If a group of white people want an all white group, who really cares? Let them. If you have a problem with that, at least you know who those people are now. I feel the same about Whites Only restaurants. Let people do that if they want, wouldn't you rather know who those guys are openly?

I think there is merit to having exclusive groups based on race or heritage. Sometimes you just want to be around people who understand where you're coming from. Diversity is cool but very overrated in America, given how much it's shoved down our throats in school.

I want to make a restaurant where bisexual people are not allowed, wouldnt that be totally legit??

[joe]

I want to make a restaurant where bisexual people are not allowed, wouldnt that be totally legit??

Yes, I think so

Edit: Why not? It's your restaurant. You own the property, you own the grills, the stoves, the food, and the building itself. What right do I have to say you have to serve me even if you don't want to?

[Batz]

I want to make a restaurant where bisexual people are not allowed, wouldnt that be totally legit??
Well, honestly, how would you know that each customer is or is not a bisexual?

[kNicKz]

there shouldnt be unions for white or black people. As long as differences are enforced there will be racial tension. Make a a human union

[OldSkoolball#52]

I want to make a restaurant where bisexual people are not allowed, wouldnt that be totally legit??

How will you run your restaurant then?

[Rasheed1]

Yes, I think so

Edit: Why not? It's your restaurant. You own the property, you own the grills, the stoves, the food, and the building itself. What right do I have to say you have to serve me even if you don't want to?


Didnt America already go through this stage? :oldlol:

you start having whole groups of people locked out of parts of society due to things like race or religion or gender..

How about if the NFL or the NBA owners just decided they didnt want Asians in their leagues... Should that be allowed?

[OldSkoolball#52]

Didnt America already go through this stage? :oldlol:

you start having whole groups of people locked out of parts of society due to things like race or religion or gender..

How about if the NFL or the NBA owners just decided they didnt want Asians in their leagues... Should that be allowed?


It should be allowed and the consumers have the choice to support a product like that or not.


I mean thats really what freedom is.

[joe]

Didnt America already go through this stage? :oldlol:

you start having whole groups of people locked out of parts of society due to things like race or religion or gender..

How about if the NFL or the NBA owners just decided they didnt want Asians in their leagues... Should that be allowed?

It should be allowed, but I think it would be a disastrous decision for them. They would catch so much backlash there's no way it would last.

America did just go through that stage, but the solution to that was always cultural. The laws are a result of the cultural shift, not vice versa. And we would be better off without the laws. Not just because of the laws, but what the laws represent- a different cultural shift- an anti-market, anti-private property attitude in America.

If I own my house, and I don't want gay people in my house, that's my decision. Nobody can tell me otherwise. But somehow when I own a restaurant, our society thinks I no longer get to make that decision. I think that's pretty illogical, don't you?

[MMM]

limited freedom acts more in the spirit of freedom than what some of you are proposing.

limited freedom over exclusionary freedoms

[Rasheed1]

It should be allowed and the consumers have the choice to support a product like that or not.


I mean thats really what freedom is.


Thats not freedom, that discrimination based on something arbitrary like race..

Freedom involves actually doing something, not barring someone else from doing something based on how they look or what their religion is..

[joe]

Thats not freedom, that discrimination based on something arbitrary like race..

Freedom involves actually doing something, not barring someone else from doing something based on how they look or what their religion is..

But you're the one barring someone from doing something. You're now allowing someone to freely discriminate against who they don't want to serve.

The homophobic restaurant owner is not impeding the gay mans freedom by having a "straight only" restaurant. Nobody has a right to receive anything from anyone else. The gay man has a right to not be attacked, assaulted, or killed for being gay. He doesn't have a right to force people to serve him in their own private establishment. It's the restaurant owners right to serve who he wants on his property.

[kNicKz]

Wow, I just finished the video. That was disturbing...

[Rasheed1]

It should be allowed, but I think it would be a disastrous decision for them. They would catch so much backlash there's no way it would last.


America did just go through that stage, but the solution to that was always cultural. The laws are a result of the cultural shift, not vice versa. And we would be better off without the laws. Not just because of the laws, but what the laws represent- a different cultural shift- an anti-market, anti-private property attitude in America.



you're pretty naive to believe this nonsense... You ever heard of Brown v the board of Education of topeka kansas?

Do you know what happened in that case?

Segregation in school was ruled unconstitutional, and the guess what? they had to bring in the national guard to protect minorities as they attended schools.. the state government actually tried to defy the federal government.. and enforcement of the law is what made that situation work


not some fantasy invisible hand of the free market...




If I own my house, and I don't want gay people in my house, that's my decision. Nobody can tell me otherwise. But somehow when I own a restaurant, our society thinks I no longer get to make that decision. I think that's pretty illogical, don't you?


No.. I dont think it is illogical because you have a business which serves and thrives in this society, which is supposedly believes all people are equal. There are certain laws that govern this country when it comes to business and equal treatment regardless of race, religion, or gender is a part of the law..

you can invite whoever you want in your own home, but when you do commerce with the rest of society, you have to abide by certain rules

[Rasheed1]

But you're the one barring someone from doing something. You're now allowing someone to freely discriminate against who they don't want to serve.

The homophobic restaurant owner is not impeding the gay mans freedom by having a "straight only" restaurant. Nobody has a right to receive anything from anyone else. The gay man has a right to not be attacked, assaulted, or killed for being gay. He doesn't have a right to force people to serve him in their own private establishment. It's the restaurant owners right to serve who he wants on his property.


you are playing with fire when you start calling discrimination "freedom"... This country is supposedly built on equality of all men to each other. That means you cannot discriminate against other people based on race, gender, or religion..

If you want to have a white's only establishment? you need to make a private club with invitation only through membership like golf clubs and swim clubs do.. that is about the only way you can have white only or black only or whatever it is you want..

I personally dont see the value nor do I understand the need to lock certain people out of your business or establishment based on race or religion or gender

[OldSkoolball#52]

limited freedom acts more in the spirit of freedom than what some of you are proposing.

limited freedom over exclusionary freedoms


Its too bad white culture (the most indisputably successful in history) in America cant just be like "our way or gtfo". Compromising it for others does nothing positive except make loser liberals feel like they helped some handicap child.

There is nothing redeeming about black gang culture or entire regions of the country speaking spanish and being undocumented. Anyone should be able to live here, but as long as theyre on board with European culture. Thats why Asians typically do well, they give their kids white first names and adopt the "when in rome" attitude. Black people name their kids LaSheeqwi and Mexicans come here and dont even learn the language, and then when they dont make money its Republicans faults. Asians are minorities too, never hear them blame Republicans. Blacks and hispanics tho... its always someone elses fault.

[joe]

No.. I dont think it is illogical because you have a business which serves and thrives in this society, which is supposedly believes all people are equal. There are certain laws that govern this country when it comes to business and equal treatment regardless of race, religion, or gender is a part of the law..

you can invite whoever you want in your own home, but when you do commerce with the rest of society, you have to abide by certain rules

In America, all people are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. Not in the eyes of private citizens. In fact, discrimination legislation makes us very unequal in the eyes of the law. You can fire a white employee much easier than a black employee, because the black employee can more easily sue you for discrimination. Sadly this backfired on black people because now employers are hesitant to hire you guys for fear of being sued.


you're pretty naive to believe this nonsense... You ever heard of Brown v the board of Education of topeka kansas?

Do you know what happened in that case?

Segregation in school was ruled unconstitutional, and the guess what? they had to bring in the national guard to protect minorities as they attended schools.. the state government actually tried to defy the federal government.. and enforcement of the law is what made that situation work


not some fantasy invisible hand of the free market...



I do agree that as long as we have government schools/transportation, they should be unsegregated. However, bringing up segregation in school doesn't say anything about the market, considering the segregated schools were public to begin with. I'd argue that if we had strictly private schools from the start a lot of that mess could have been avoided.

[Rasheed1]

In America, all people are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. Not in the eyes of private citizens. In fact, discrimination legislation makes us very unequal in the eyes of the law. You can fire a white employee much easier than a black employee, because the black employee can more easily sue you for discrimination. Sadly this backfired on black people because now employers are hesitant to hire you guys for fear of being sued.

What does firing a white guy versus firing a black guy have to do with anything other than your own personal bigoted ideas..

Is it easier to fire a white guy than it is a white woman too? should they be barred from your restaurant too?

You cant live in a society and get to do whatever you want at all times without regard to the rest of society... It would make for a poor society

being able to discriminate against people based on things like race religion and gender is not freedom...




I do agree that as long as we have government schools/transportation, they should be unsegregated. However, bringing up segregation in school doesn't say anything about the market, considering the segregated schools were public to begin with. I'd argue that if we had strictly private schools from the start a lot of that mess could have been avoided.

please spare me the libertarian fantasy BS... that philosophy is a fantasy, that cant exist in the real world..

you cant live in a society where nobody has any responsibility or commitment to anybody else...

you cant have total freedom to do whatever you want and still reap the benefits of a 1st world society..

individualism to that degree is absurd..there is no invisible hand of free market... in fact there is no free market... Libertarians fail to understand that regulations are needed in order to curtail GREED and COLLUSION...

[joe]

you are playing with fire when you start calling discrimination "freedom"... This country is supposedly built on equality of all men to each other. That means you cannot discriminate against other people based on race, gender, or religion..

If you want to have a white's only establishment? you need to make a private club with invitation only through membership like golf clubs and swim clubs do.. that is about the only way you can have white only or black only or whatever it is you want..

I personally dont see the value nor do I understand the need to lock certain people out of your business or establishment based on race or religion or gender

But discrimination is part of freedom. I recognize the way that comes across to those who disagree with me on this point, but that is my belief. I think they misinterpret where I'm coming from based on the "shock and awe" of seeing someone defend anti-white restaurants.

In truth I'm not defending anti-white restaurants, and I wouldn't go to one if they existed.

But- I defend the right of people to have one if they want. Not only because I believe in freedom, but because I believe in private property. And in fact, I think this is true equality. It's an equality of peoples *rights.* We all have equal rights. What some people choose to do with those rights, we may disagree with at times.

[Nanners]

In America, all people are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. Not in the eyes of private citizens. In fact, discrimination legislation makes us very unequal in the eyes of the law. You can fire a white employee much easier than a black employee, because the black employee can more easily sue you for discrimination. Sadly this backfired on black people because now employers are hesitant to hire you guys for fear of being sued.


this is precisely why i will not be hiring any black people at my no-bisexuals-allowed restaurant.

we all know that the legal system is stacked in favor of black people, it has been for years. the oppressed white european american man doesnt have a chance when forced to follow all of this equality nonsense.

[Rasheed1]

But discrimination is part of freedom. I recognize the way that comes across to those who disagree with me on this point, but that is my belief. I think they misinterpret where I'm coming from based on the "shock and awe" of seeing someone defend anti-white restaurants.

In truth I'm not defending anti-white restaurants, and I wouldn't go to one if they existed.

But- I defend the right of people to have one if they want. Not only because I believe in freedom, but because I believe in private property. And in fact, I think this is true equality. It's an equality of peoples *rights.* We all have equal rights. What some people choose to do with those rights, we may disagree with at times.


America is not about absolute freedom even at the expense of other people...American freedom is about freedom within the concept of the "general welfare" of all americans... Ideas such as property rights do not trump the idea that all people are equal inherently.. The idea that you cannot discriminate against people is an inalienable right... It comes before the idea of property rights...

like I said.. you are spouting libertarian rhetoric right now, and that philosophy is riddled with flaws that show up as soon as you try to implement them in the real world..

[Nanners]

But- I defend the right of people to have one if they want. Not only because I believe in freedom, but because I believe in private property. And in fact, I think this is true equality. It's an equality of peoples *rights.* We all have equal rights. What some people choose to do with those rights, we may disagree with at times.



maybe you arent aware, there is this thing called the federal civil rights act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964) which contains the following:

guarantees all people the right to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin

america has not transformed into ayn rand utopia dreamland just yet. the laws that govern the private property that is your house are different from the laws that govern the private property that is your restaurant.

[Rasheed1]

america has not transformed into ayn rand utopia dreamland just yet. the laws that govern the private property that is your house, are different from the laws that govern the private property that is your restaurant.


exactly... and even when it comes to your private property which is your home, there are limits.. You cant build a nuclear lab on your property... you cant even build a meth lab on your property...

[joe]

Whoa, things took a turn for the venomous there.


What does firing a white guy versus firing a black guy have to do with anything other than your own personal bigoted ideas..


It has nothing to do with bigotry. You are the one who brought the phrase "all men should be treated equally" into the debate. I'm showing you one example (of many) where these anti discrimination laws achieve the opposite effect.


Is it easier to fire a white guy than it is a white woman too? should they be barred from your restaurant too?


I'm not sure, and if I had a restaurant it would be open to everyone.


You cant live in a society and get to do whatever you want at all times without regard to the rest of society... It would make for a poor society

being able to discriminate against people based on things like race religion and gender is not freedom...


So taking away peoples right to serve who they want in their own restaurant is freedom?



please spare me the libertarian fantasy BS... that philosophy is a fantasy, that cant exist in the real world..

you cant live in a society where nobody has any responsibility or commitment to anybody else...


I never said people shouldn't have a responsibility or commitment to anyone else. You are making the common error of conflating society and government. In society we should look out for one another. We should strive to be more tolerant, loving, and respectful. But it's not the governments role to enforce equality. And when it tries, it does a very bad job of it. Do you realize the employment of black people was rising faster before the civil rights act than after?



you cant have total freedom to do whatever you want and still reap the benefits of a 1st world society..

individualism to that degree is absurd..there is no invisible hand of free market... in fact there is no free market... Libertarians fail to understand that regulations are needed in order to curtail GREED and COLLUSION...

You're right, there is no invisible hand.. the "invisible hand" is just a term to describe how the market sets prices and balances supply and demand. Those things do factually exist however and can be proven pretty easily. I think even socialists would agree the so called "invisible hand" is real, they just disagree with the morality and/or effectiveness of it..

[millwad]

This is stupid, first of all, he was talking about a "white" student union and the purpose of their union is to advocate for European-American civil rights.

First of all, in Europe we have ethnic europeans who some have darker skin like gypsies, Italians, Turkish people, Greek, Spanish so would they be banned from the union?

And people in Spain, aren't they considered to be Hispanic in the US so wouldn't that ban them from the group as well?

The term white is so loose, east asians tend to be very white as well so should they be allowed to be in the group?

And last but not least, Heimbach looks Hispanic.

[joe]

this is precisely why i will not be hiring any black people at my no-bisexuals-allowed restaurant.

we all know that the legal system is stacked in favor of black people, it has been for years. the oppressed white european american man doesnt have a chance when forced to follow all of this equality nonsense.

Let's follow the chain of comments that just occurred.

Rasheed mentions that all men should be treated equally, while he defends anti-discriminatory legislation.

Joe mentions an example of anti-discrimination legislation causing certain groups to be favored over others- breaking the rule of "all men should be treated equally."

Nanners sarcastically chides Joe for not accepting discrimination in the legal system, because it's against a race that should be able to handle it.

So do you agree that all men should be treated equally, or not?

And despite you joking about it, black people not being hired for those reasons is a very real thing. And while you laugh at me for telling you the true effects of those laws, black unemployment continues to be worse than white. Maybe it's time for all of us, black people included, to reconsider those laws and if they really are all they're cracked up to be.

[Rasheed1]

Whoa, things took a turn for the venomous there.



It has nothing to do with bigotry. You are the one who brought the phrase "all men should be treated equally" into the debate. I'm showing you one example (of many) where these anti discrimination laws achieve the opposite effect.


Anti-discrimination laws arent the reason some employers dont hire blacks :oldlol: racism is...

thats why I brought up women.... Because anti discrimination laws arent the reason women dont get hired either... sexism is..

the stuff existed before the laws did, so how could you blame it on the laws created to curb the discrimination?




So taking away peoples right to serve who they want in their own restaurant is freedom?

you keep phrasing it like that, but that is dishonest... because it is not about being able to serve who you want... Its really about being able to bar who you want... That is why I keep telling you that it is about discrimination and not about freedom.. You can serve whomever you like.. You just cannot discriminate against the other people




I never said people shouldn't have a responsibility or commitment to anyone else. You are making the common error of conflating society and government. In society we should look out for one another. We should strive to be more tolerant, loving, and respectful. But it's not the governments role to enforce equality. And when it tries, it does a very bad job of it. Do you realize the employment of black people was rising faster before the civil rights act than after?

^this was the reason I mentioned Brown v. the Board of education. You just failed to see the point.. The point is that the law is there to enforce the principles of society..The government plays that role at certain times... The people of topeka Kansas were defiant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zkUpBctt0A






You're right, there is no invisible hand.. the "invisible hand" is just a term to describe how the market sets prices and balances supply and demand. Those things do factually exist however and can be proven pretty easily. I think even socialists would agree the so called "invisible hand" is real, they just disagree with the morality and/or effectiveness of it..


the point is that you cannot simply leave important societal questions up to market forces..

Like I said the market is often manipulated by greed and collusion if left without regulation.. it is simply the nature of the power of money..

These laws are here to protect Americans from the tyranny of other Americans and also the government... these laws serve a purpose and you cannot live in a world where things magically take care of themselves like libertarians seem to think.

[Rasheed1]

And despite you joking about it, black people not being hired for those reasons is a very real thing. And while you laugh at me for telling you the true effects of those laws, black unemployment continues to be worse than white. Maybe it's time for all of us, black people included, to reconsider those laws and if they really are all they're cracked up to be.


stop blaming the laws for racism.. its an absurd argument joe.. the people who hesitate to hire minorities were already hesitating before the laws were passed..

the laws didnt precede the problem... the problem already existed

[joe]

Anti-discrimination laws arent the reason some employers dont hire blacks :oldlol: racism is...

thats why I brought up women.... Because anti discrimination laws arent the reason women dont get hired either... sexism is..

the stuff existed before the laws did, so how could you blame it on the laws created to curb the discrimination?







^this was the reason I mentioned Brown v. the Board of education. You just failed to see the point.. The point is that the law is there to enforce the principles of society..The government plays that role at certain times... The people of topeka Kansas were defiant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zkUpBctt0A








the point is that you cannot simply leave important societal questions up to market forces..

Like I said the market is often manipulated by greed and collusion if left without regulation.. it is simply the nature of the power of money..

These laws are here to protect Americans from the tyranny of other Americans and also the government... these laws serve a purpose and you cannot live in a world where things magically take care of themselves like libertarians seem to think.

I find your post contradictory in this way. On one hand, you state the market is often manipulated by greed. But on the other, you argue that business owners in America eschew their own greed out of racism. They refuse to hire the black guy- even if he's the most qualified applicant- out of racism. These guys are so greedy, but they don't care if their business suffers as long as that black guy doesn't get the job.

(And of course, if their non-racist competitor hires that black guy, they're beaten twice.)

There are racist people, but the bigger problem with black employment is all the (so called) EQUALITY! We've set the precedent that if you fire a black person without clear and repeated infractions, you're leaving yourself open to be sued. Do you know what those kinds of lawsuits cost a company? Mom and Pop businesses couldn't even afford one of those lawsuits in a lot of cases.

This doesn't strictly apply to black people. The same effect can be seen with handicapped people since the new Americans with Disabilities Act was passed.



you keep phrasing it like that, but that is dishonest... because it is not about being able to serve who you want... Its really about being able to bar who you want... That is why I keep telling you that it is about discrimination and not about freedom.. You can serve whomever you like.. You just cannot discriminate against the other people


It is about freedom, but it's just a freedom you don't think people should have- the freedom to discriminate based on race/heritage on their own property. I never get that specific, I just believe in property rights and I see no reason to alter the rules of private property just because someone puts a sign out front that says "Open."

[joe]

stop blaming the laws for racism.. its an absurd argument joe.. the people who hesitate to hire minorities were already hesitating before the laws were passed..

the laws didnt precede the problem... the problem already existed

I think it's two completely separate problems. On one hand you have racism, on the other hand you have the effect of equality laws. I think you'd agree that racism has went down since the 50's- or maybe you wouldn't. But as racism goes down on one hand (IMO), we have these laws on the other, which give business owners an incentive to not hire black people (or handicapped people, or woman but to a lesser degree). To deny that those laws have such an effect, is to say people don't make rational choices based on the situation they're given.

Pretend you are a (non racist) white business owner. You have a black applicant and a white applicant, both equally qualified for the job. The only difference is, if you have to fire this employee one day, you know the black employee will have more outlets for legal recourse- EVEN IF your reason for firing him had nothing to do with racism. Who are you going to hire?

I've spoken to and listened to many business owners on this topic, and they universally say the same thing. They are wary of hiring black people, handicapped people, and to a lesser degree woman, because of these laws. People respond to incentives, and if you create a barrier to hiring or firing a certain group, what do you really expect to happen?



By the way, I watched your video on the LittleRock 9. I think those kids were very brave and it's a shame how racist those townspeople were. My opinion is that the laws did more harm than good, but that doesn't remove the human element of the tragedy and triumph surrounding that era..

[Rasheed1]

I find your post contradictory in this way. On one hand, you state the market is often manipulated by greed. But on the other, you argue that business owners in America eschew their own greed out of racism. They refuse to hire the black guy- even if he's the most qualified applicant- out of racism. These guys are so greedy, but they don't care if their business suffers as long as that black guy doesn't get the job.

(And of course, if their non-racist competitor hires that black guy, they're beaten twice.)

There are racist people, but the bigger problem with black employment is all the (so called) EQUALITY! We've set the precedent that if you fire a black person without clear and repeated infractions, you're leaving yourself open to be sued. Do you know what those kinds of lawsuits cost a company? Mom and Pop businesses couldn't even afford one of those lawsuits in a lot of cases.

This doesn't strictly apply to black people. The same effect can be seen with handicapped people since the new Americans with Disabilities Act was passed.

:facepalm please lets get off this... its a very dumb argument..

people who arent racists dont worry about what will happen when they treat their employees unfairly..

this obsession with getting sued by a certain group of people stinks of racism (or sexism of some kind of ism)

Only racists/sexists worry about such things... the argument is silly. Its just shifting the blame onto the employee for something the employer has done.

Also it is irrelevant to the topic of the thread (and even the sub topic of who you want to "serve" in your establishment)





It is about freedom, but it's just a freedom you don't think people should have- the freedom to discriminate based on race/heritage on their own property. I never get that specific, I just believe in property rights and I see no reason to alter the rules of private property just because someone puts a sign out front that says "Open."

Again I will state that people in the US have the right to "public accommodation" which means you cannot be discriminated against based on your race, religion, or gender.

Property rights do not trump this.. It is just the way it is..

you complain about not being able to "serve who you want" but the truth is you are really interested in discriminating against certain groups of people. its not about serving who you want..

you cannot do that in this country... thats just the bottom line.. Property rights do not trump the rights of people in this country.

[joe]

:facepalm please lets get off this... its a very dumb argument..

Also it is irrelevant to the topic of the thread (and even the sub topic of who you want to "serve" in your establishment)


Fair enough.




[QUOTE]you complain about not being able to "serve who you want" but the truth is you are really interested in discriminating against certain groups of people. its not about serving who you want..

I have no interest in discriminating against anyone. My interest is defending individual freedom. If I lived in a country that allowed "whites only" restaurants, I would never attend one let alone open one myself. And if there was a "No bisexuals allowed" restaurant, I would not be petitioning to have it shut down. I am not arguing out of personal interest, I'm arguing from my principles and beliefs.


Again I will state that people in the US have the right to "public accommodation" which means you cannot be discriminated against based on your race, religion, or gender.

Property rights do not trump this.. It is just the way it is..

you cannot do that in this country... thats just the bottom line.. Property rights do not trump the rights of people in this country.

You are correct that currently, the laws are on your side. If you open a business, your private property becomes open to different rules and regulations than it would otherwise. I don't dispute that, what I dispute is whether or not it should be.

On the topic to the "right" to public accommodation: Let me ask you, what is your theory of "rights?" How would you define a "right" contrary to a privilege or luxury?

To me, "rights" apply to negatives, as opposed to positives. You don't have the right TO things, you have the right FROM things.

You don't have a right TO my products and services. You don't have a right TO rich peoples money. You don't have a right TO free health care.

You do have a right FROM murder, a right FROM unnecessary search and seizure, a right FROM being forced into slavery.

Said another way, if you have a right TO something, it cannot infringe on someones elses right FROM something. For instance, I'd agree if you said you have the right "to" start a business, because you aren't imposing any obligations on others. But someone can't claim they have a right TO murder, because that infringes on someone elses right FROM being murdered.

People have a right to allow who they want on their own property. You don't have the right to be on their property if they don't want you there. Again, you don't have a right TO anything, including the products and services of other free people. And they have the right FROM being forced into allowing you on their property against their will by the government.

[JtotheIzzo]

Lordy LORDY LORD! When the white man gunna be free!!??!! When will the white man be allowed to do what he was destined to do??!!

swing low, swing low, sweet chariot, comin forth to carry me home!

[Bucket_Nakedz]

http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/racist1.jpg

[Jameerthefear]

http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/racist1.jpg
Come on. Does someone really need to explain this to you? :facepalm :rolleyes:

[Nanners]

http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/racist1.jpg

i was thinking earlier that these "proud to be asian" groups are getting completely out of control.

glad other people agree.

[joe]

i was thinking earlier that these "proud to be asian" groups are getting completely out of control.

glad other people agree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-n7aeqMzis

[Balla_Status]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m97x2ccWD61rezftgo1_500.jpg

[360crazy]

It should be allowed, but I think it would be a disastrous decision for them. They would catch so much backlash there's no way it would last.

America did just go through that stage, but the solution to that was always cultural. The laws are a result of the cultural shift, not vice versa. And we would be better off without the laws. Not just because of the laws, but what the laws represent- a different cultural shift- an anti-market, anti-private property attitude in America.

If I own my house, and I don't want gay people in my house, that's my decision. Nobody can tell me otherwise. But somehow when I own a restaurant, our society thinks I no longer get to make that decision. I think that's pretty illogical, don't you?

This attitude is what forced black ppl to ghettos because no one would hire them because they didn't "have" to. That's why we have affirmative action laws in place now because you are underestimating the damage caused by your toxic thinking. NO you should NOT be able to DISCRIMINATE lawfully...wtf is wrong with u?:wtf:

[joe]

Dude your ideas are guaranteed to lead to civil unrest. Talk about regression.

Freeing the slaves was also guaranteed to lead to civil unrest, along with the civil rights movement itself!

[joe]

This attitude is what forced black ppl to ghettos because no one would hire them because they didn't "have" to. That's why we have affirmative action laws in place now because you are underestimating the damage caused by your toxic thinking. NO you should NOT be able to DISCRIMINATE lawfully...wtf is wrong with u?:wtf:

No it's not. Racism is the reason people didn't hire blacks. Racism in 2013 is not the problem it was in the 1940's. If you haven't noticed, all of these laws you like are on the books and black employment is still consistently lower than white.

Black people don't need these laws. I think they should take it as a slap in the face when people say they do. They can get jobs, they can be hired, they can be just as successful as anyone else without needing these laws. In fact, the reason they can't right now is BECAUSE OF the laws, in large part.

Again, hiring a black person is far riskier than hiring a white person because of the laws. But people like you never think of the effect the laws have on business and entrepreneurs, you just want to pass a law to feel good about yourself. Sometimes things are more complicated than just passing a law.

[360crazy]

At the end of the day, we don't live in the America you are describing. The majority of Americans are appreciative of this and we won't be seeing that America anytime soon.

I don't agree with unions or groups based on race either. I think the better grasp you have reality (scientifically) the more and more you will disagree with what you are implying. It's whatever though...I know your kind of talk comes from pure ignorance because an understanding mind would never resort to such twisted logic.

[360crazy]

No it's not. Racism is the reason people didn't hire blacks. Racism in 2013 is not the problem it was in the 1940's. If you haven't noticed, all of these laws you like are on the books and black employment is still consistently lower than white.

Black people don't need these laws. I think they should take it as a slap in the face when people say they do. They can get jobs, they can be hired, they can be just as successful as anyone else without needing these laws. In fact, the reason they can't right now is BECAUSE OF the laws, in large part.

Again, hiring a black person is far riskier than hiring a white person because of the laws. But people like you never think of the effect the laws have on business and entrepreneurs, you just want to pass a law to feel good about yourself. Sometimes things are more complicated than just passing a law.

EXACTLY! Discrimination based on race AKA racism is the reason businesses didn't hire blacks. So now you have a disadvantaged group in America. The government is wrong for not allowing that?

You are seeming very evil right now.

[joe]

EXACTLY! Discrimination based on race AKA racism is the reason businesses didn't hire blacks. So now you have a disadvantaged group in America. The government is wrong for not allowing that?

You are seeming very evil right now.

Well, all I can ask is that you give me the benefit of the doubt because I'm not evil. I don't want black people to be discriminated against- and therefore want to abolish anti-discrimination law. But instead I'm telling you that anti-discrimination law is not helping black people, it's hurting them.

Often times, the name of a government bill/act is very misleading. For instance, are you familiar with the "The Patriot Act?" Judging by the name alone, you'd assume the act must have some pretty good stuff inside. It's called the Patriot Act after all. But as we know it has some of the most un-American provisions ever made into law in our lifetime.

The same can be said about anti-discrimination legislation. Who could possibly be against laws relating to "anti-discrimination?" All of us reasonable, well meaning people are against discrimination.

But the laws themselves are not effective at curtailing discrimination. In fact, they just create an extra barrier to both hiring and firing black people, making it more costly and a greater risk for an employer to hire them.

It's not that I'm FOR discrimination. It's that the government cannot do anything to help this situation- their laws only make things worse. And we don't need them to! Discrimination and racism have been massively improved since the 1940's. A large majority of kids in my generation never even question whether it's okay to date bi-racially, have friends of different colors, etc. That is a massive shift from 60 years ago.

[Rasheed1]

No it's not. Racism is the reason people didn't hire blacks. Racism in 2013 is not the problem it was in the 1940's. If you haven't noticed, all of these laws you like are on the books and black employment is still consistently lower than white.

Black people don't need these laws. I think they should take it as a slap in the face when people say they do. They can get jobs, they can be hired, they can be just as successful as anyone else without needing these laws. In fact, the reason they can't right now is BECAUSE OF the laws, in large part.

Again, hiring a black person is far riskier than hiring a white person because of the laws. But people like you never think of the effect the laws have on business and entrepreneurs, you just want to pass a law to feel good about yourself. Sometimes things are more complicated than just passing a law.


your logic is twisted

its not more risky to hire blacks, unless you are a racist..

you act like everything is great and its those pesky laws that are the problem. :oldlol:

you obviously dont have any real life experience in the area of which you are speaking..

minorities and women do need laws to protect them from discrimination because of people like you who make silly excuses for things that are unacceptable in today's workplace.

treat your employees with respect no matter what race, gender or religion they are and you wont have to worry about being sued by them..

I dont see what is soo "risky" about that.

[Rasheed1]

Well, all I can ask is that you give me the benefit of the doubt because I'm not evil. I don't want black people to be discriminated against- and therefore want to abolish anti-discrimination law. But instead I'm telling you that anti-discrimination law is not helping black people, it's hurting them.

Often times, the name of a government bill/act is very misleading. For instance, are you familiar with the "The Patriot Act?" Judging by the name alone, you'd assume the act must have some pretty good stuff inside. It's called the Patriot Act after all. But as we know it has some of the most un-American provisions ever made into law in our lifetime.

The same can be said about anti-discrimination legislation. Who could possibly be against laws relating to "anti-discrimination?" All of us reasonable, well meaning people are against discrimination.

But the laws themselves are not effective at curtailing discrimination. In fact, they just create an extra barrier to both hiring and firing black people, making it more costly and a greater risk for an employer to hire them.

It's not that I'm FOR discrimination. It's that the government cannot do anything to help this situation- their laws only make things worse. And we don't need them to! Discrimination and racism have been massively improved since the 1940's. A large majority of kids in my generation never even question whether it's okay to date bi-racially, have friends of different colors, etc. That is a massive shift from 60 years ago.


This is more backwards logic... its like you live in a fantasy world joe


you make alot of point that simply are not true and you even jump from job discrimination to interracial dating :oldlol:


what does one have to do with the other?

[joe]

your logic is twisted

its not more risky to hire blacks, unless you are a racist..

you act like everything is great and its those pesky laws that are the problem. :oldlol:

you obviously dont have any real life experience in the area of which you are speaking..

minorities and women do need laws to protect them from discrimination because of people like you who make silly excuses for things that are unacceptable in today's workplace.

treat your employees with respect no matter what race, gender or religion they are and you wont have to worry about being sued by them..

I dont see what is soo "risky" about that.

No, it IS more risky to hire blacks, regardless of whether or not you're racist. Every decision an entrepreneur makes is about risk Vs reward, and profit Vs loss. Having one class of people with greater legal ground to sue you makes them a HUGE risk. Even if you win the lawsuit, you have to expend so much in lawyer fees and time that it's already a loss. Not to mention the potential damage to your reputation for being labeled a racist company.

[joe]

And it's not like employers just need to follow a few easy-to-understand guidelines to avoid discrimination lawsuits. There is no such list- it's a jumbled mess of precedents and court cases that amount to no clear boundaries and definitions. And what boundaries there are can be stretched at any time by a good lawyer winning over a jury. The courts attitude seems to be that they own your business, and anything you do with it must be approved by them. If they decide they don't like your reason for firing a black guy or woman, or handicapped or gay man for that matter, you could be hit with millions of dollars in penalties. It's not as if Bill Gates is paying out 5 dollars in settlement checks. I'm talking about small business owners potentially seeing the end of their livelihood if they don't step right. It's not as simple as, "just treat people right and you have nothing to worry about."

[TheReturn]

Why be proud of your race? It's not like some personal achievement. You had no say in it.
Could say the same about all Americans who 'are proud to be part of the greatest country....' You don't choose where you get born either.

[joe]

In addition, New York state law also prohibits discrimination based on:

Race
Color
National origin
Religion
Sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions)
Disability: physical or mental
Age (18 and older)
Genetic information
Marital status
Sexual orientation (includes perceived sexual orientation)
Lawful use of any product or lawful recreational activities when not at work
Military status or service
Observance of Sabbath
Political activities
Use of service dog
Criminal accusation
Domestic violence victim status


Just look at this list. So imagine I as an individual save some money, start a business, and have some success. I eventually even hire 15 people to work for me, which makes my business legally "eligible" to be regulated for discrimination.

Now let's say I hire my 15th employee, and he seems pretty good.. at first. But then I notice he's not been doing so great a job. He's not fitting in with the culture of my other employees. Not only that, but my nephew seems like a great fit to replace him, and would even work for less money just to get the experience.

But as fate would have it, this 15th employee happens to be gay. Or black. Or a woman. All I want to do is fire this person and hire my nephew, but I can't. If I do, they might turn around and sue me, and my business just isn't that profitable to deal with that right now. So what do I do? I just have to sit back, document every time this 15th employee screws up, and wait until I have enough evidence to suggest that I'm firing this person fairly. And btw, what is "fairly?" I might need to consult a lawyer to find out. I might even need to hire an entire compliance team to manage my risk. Meanwhile, my business is not operating as well as it could if I could just get this guy out of my ranks.



But wait, a lot of times it won't even get that far. Many businesses simply won't hire that 15th employee to avoid the regulations in the first place. Or, they would just try and hire the most vanilla, safe person possible, with the least likely chance to sue them. Like, a straight white guy.

[360crazy]

Just look at this list. So imagine I as an individual save some money, start a business, and have some success. I eventually even hire 15 people to work for me, which makes my business legally "eligible" to be regulated for discrimination.

Now let's say I hire my 15th employee, and he seems pretty good.. at first. But then I notice he's not been doing so great a job. He's not fitting in with the culture of my other employees. Not only that, but my nephew seems like a great fit to replace him, and would even work for less money just to get the experience.

But as fate would have it, this 15th employee happens to be gay. Or black. Or a woman. All I want to do is fire this person and hire my nephew, but I can't. If I do, they might turn around and sue me, and my business just isn't that profitable to deal with that right now. So what do I do? I just have to sit back, document every time this 15th employee screws up, and wait until I have enough evidence to suggest that I'm firing this person fairly. And btw, what is "fairly?" I might need to consult a lawyer to find out. I might even need to hire an entire compliance team to manage my risk. Meanwhile, my business is not operating as well as it could if I could just get this guy out of my ranks.



But wait, a lot of times it won't even get that far. Many businesses simply won't hire that 15th employee to avoid the regulations in the first place. Or, they would just try and hire the most vanilla, safe person possible, with the least likely chance to sue them. Like, a straight white guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_dismissal

Just be fair, consistent and firm and you wouldn't run into any problems. But your fairness meter is running on low judging from ur posts.
Please don't ever own a business. You would fail miserably simply because of your twisted ideology.

[Rasheed1]

Joe makes the most ridiculous arguments sometimes.. You said you wanted to become a comedian in another thread... is this a part of your act? because it is totally absurd..

for a guy who would never discriminate, you sure spend alot of time defending people who want to..

the only thing that remotely interested me about that long list of garbage excuses you just wrote up was this:



Now let's say I hire my 15th employee, and he seems pretty good.. at first. But then I notice he's not been doing so great a job. He's not fitting in with the culture of my other employees.


"Culture" of your other employees? WTF is that?

its sad... Again.. this doesnt have anything to do with a white student union.. This is just an extension of your bogus libertarian belief which is based in Ayn Rand fantasy..

this isnt "Atlas Shrugged".. this is the real world.. Nobody feels sorry for employers because they have to work within some regulations that protect employee rights..

it is nonsensical argument you making joe..

[PHX_Phan]

It's not that I'm FOR discrimination. It's that the government cannot do anything to help this situation- their laws only make things worse. And we don't need them to! Discrimination and racism have been massively improved since the 1940's. A large majority of kids in my generation never even question whether it's okay to date bi-racially, have friends of different colors, etc. That is a massive shift from 60 years ago.

Extreme racism and discrimination is less tolerated by the younger generation. Racism and discrimination is still very much alive in this country. People who lived in the day when lynch mobs and segregation were a regular thing are still very much alive, many of which have not changed their line of thinking they are just less vocal because it is less tolerated. The idea that we have come far enough to abolish anti-discrimination laws is laughable.

[Myth]

Just because the guy is calm, collected, and doesn't use racial slurs, doesn't mean he is not racist. In a sense, he is one of the most scary kind of racists. He speaks well and for those who are not well educated (at least about how oppression really affects people and not just historical events), they will look to him as a leader and follow his ways. The fact that he already has 57 people in his group shows how scary he is. Covert racism (and he isn't really very good about being covert about it) is easier for ignorant white people to follow because it isn't easy for them to point to and say it is bad because it is based in hate and/or violence.

[hookul]

Guys, I have to defend Joe a bit here.
For all you guys who claim he lives in a fantasy world - let me tell you one thing: These kind of considerations are EXACTLY what starting businesses take into account. Yes, it is illegal and yes no one speaks openly about it but I see it first hand all the time that someone being e.g. a young married woman above 25 years is considered a risk for an employer because it is highly likely that she will get pregnant in the next few years and will leave on maternity leave...someone that in his past job was part of a union is considered a risk because he might bring in unwanted attitude problems. Someone who does not fit with the culture of the other employees - yes that exists and IS taken into account - is considered a risk. I am not talking hypotheticals here, these considerations happen at every hiring. I am not from the US but worked in different European companies which actually much better employee protection laws than the US has and this stuff happens and is VERY much taken into account by small to midsized employers. I can only image that if certain laws exists like Joe describes them then indeed it will be a factor that will keep people from being hired. You might not like it but as someone being eitehr diretly or peripherally involved in hiring a lot of people so far across various functional levels let's be real - these things exists

[joe]

Guys, I have to defend Joe a bit here.
For all you guys who claim he lives in a fantasy world - let me tell you one thing: These kind of considerations are EXACTLY what starting businesses take into account. Yes, it is illegal and yes no one speaks openly about it but I see it first hand all the time that someone being e.g. a young married woman above 25 years is considered a risk for an employer because it is highly likely that she will get pregnant in the next few years and will leave on maternity leave...someone that in his past job was part of a union is considered a risk because he might bring in unwanted attitude problems. Someone who does not fit with the culture of the other employees - yes that exists and IS taken into account - is considered a risk. I am not talking hypotheticals here, these considerations happen at every hiring. I am not from the US but worked in different European companies which actually much better employee protection laws than the US has and this stuff happens and is VERY much taken into account by small to midsized employers. I can only image that if certain laws exists like Joe describes them then indeed it will be a factor that will keep people from being hired. You might not like it but as someone being eitehr diretly or peripherally involved in hiring a lot of people so far across various functional levels let's be real - these things exists

Thank you, I was feeling lonely there for a minute. And Europe has it worse than us in some countries, Italy comes to mind, but the US is moving in that direction. Employee rights lawsuits against employers are increasing every year here.

[Rasheed1]

Guys, I have to defend Joe a bit here.
For all you guys who claim he lives in a fantasy world - let me tell you one thing: These kind of considerations are EXACTLY what starting businesses take into account. Yes, it is illegal and yes no one speaks openly about it but I see it first hand all the time that someone being e.g. a young married woman above 25 years is considered a risk for an employer because it is highly likely that she will get pregnant in the next few years and will leave on maternity leave...someone that in his past job was part of a union is considered a risk because he might bring in unwanted attitude problems. Someone who does not fit with the culture of the other employees - yes that exists and IS taken into account - is considered a risk. I am not talking hypotheticals here, these considerations happen at every hiring. I am not from the US but worked in different European companies which actually much better employee protection laws than the US has and this stuff happens and is VERY much taken into account by small to midsized employers. I can only image that if certain laws exists like Joe describes them then indeed it will be a factor that will keep people from being hired. You might not like it but as someone being eitehr diretly or peripherally involved in hiring a lot of people so far across various functional levels let's be real - these things exists


nobody doubts that these things exist..

But Joe seems to think we should change the laws and strip people of their protection from discrimination because these poor employers have it so bad..

he lives on another planet if he thinks that getting rid of these protections will actually help people :oldlol:

like someone said earlier.. that is laughable

leave it up to libertarians and child labor laws and environmental protection would be abolished too.. :facepalm

its totally ridiculous... Unless of course all you care about is making an extra buck no matter what the consequence..

[joe]

nobody doubts that these things exist..

But Joe seems to think we should change the laws and strip people of their protection from discrimination because these poor employers have it so bad..

he lives on another planet if he thinks that getting rid of these protections will actually help people :oldlol:

like someone said earlier.. that is laughable

leave it up to libertarians and child labor laws and environmental protection would be abolished too.. :facepalm

its totally ridiculous... Unless of course all you care about is making an extra buck no matter what the consequence..

The poster above clearly demonstrated that those laws aren't protecting you. lol. They are protecting many people out of a job! You aren't getting the connection buddy. But okay.

[Rasheed1]

The poster above clearly demonstrated that those laws aren't protecting you. lol. They are protecting many people out of a job! You aren't getting the connection buddy. But okay.

like I said numerous times already... you live in a fantasy world and no, I dont have a connection to it...

[Balla_Status]

Joe makes the most ridiculous arguments sometimes.. You said you wanted to become a comedian in another thread... is this a part of your act? because it is totally absurd..

for a guy who would never discriminate, you sure spend alot of time defending people who want to..

the only thing that remotely interested me about that long list of garbage excuses you just wrote up was this:





"Culture" of your other employees? WTF is that?

its sad... Again.. this doesnt have anything to do with a white student union.. This is just an extension of your bogus libertarian belief which is based in Ayn Rand fantasy..

this isnt "Atlas Shrugged".. this is the real world.. Nobody feels sorry for employers because they have to work within some regulations that protect employee rights..

it is nonsensical argument you making joe..

How do you not know what a work culture is? Have you not worked for a business before?

And what Joe and the other dude are talking about does happen. Rasheed, you're acting like there is no opening for these laws to be abused.

Women sues citibank because she believes she was fired for being too hot (http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=8670917)

[Balla_Status]

nobody doubts that these things exist..

But Joe seems to think we should change the laws and strip people of their protection from discrimination because these poor employers have it so bad..

he lives on another planet if he thinks that getting rid of these protections will actually help people :oldlol:

like someone said earlier.. that is laughable

leave it up to libertarians and child labor laws and environmental protection would be abolished too.. :facepalm

its totally ridiculous... Unless of course all you care about is making an extra buck no matter what the consequence..

You're naive to think that employers are all some rich folks who can get by with a lawsuit every now and then and still make high profits. Not everyone is a wall street bank or major corporation.

[Nanners]

How do you not know what a work culture is? Have you not worked for a business before?

And what Joe and the other dude are talking about does happen. Rasheed, you're acting like there is no opening for these laws to be abused.

Women sues citibank because she believes she was fired for being too hot (http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=8670917)

what? sounds like you have been taking classes at the ptiddy college for reading comprehension. please direct me to the place where rasheed is acting like there is no opening for these laws to be abused.

it looks to me like rasheed acknowledges that these laws can be abused. almost all laws get abused in one way or another. the real argument is whether or not the harm casued by potential abuse outweighs the harm caused by the descrimination that could take place without these laws.

[Balla_Status]

what? sounds like you have been taking classes at the "ptiddy college of i have good reading comprehension lol". please direct me to the place where rasheed is acting like there is no opening for these laws to be abused.

it looks to me like rasheed acknowledges that these laws can be abused. the thing that rasheed and joe are really arguing about is whether or not the harm casued by potential abuse outweighs the harm caused by the descrimination that could take place without these laws.


treat your employees with respect no matter what race, gender or religion they are and you wont have to worry about being sued by them..

^This

[Rasheed1]

How do you not know what a work culture is? Have you not worked for a major corporation before?

And what Joe and the other dude are talking about does happen. Rasheed, you're acting like there is no opening for these laws to be abused.

Women sues citibank because she believes she was fired for being too hot (http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=8670917)


Why dont you specify what a "culture of the other employees" is hawker..

All laws have "openings that can be abused" ....

That doesnt mean we get rid of the laws and let anarchy rule the day..

The idea that people should drop their protections against employers and somehow it will help the employee? that is total nonsense..

The other poster even mentioned some of it... Employees who may have some union experience have "attitude problems" :oldlol: Yeah Im sure they do if you are scared of them educating the rest of the staff on f*cked up work conditions and protocols..

Lets be honest...This isnt about helping the employee, its about stripping society of all its regulations so an employer can discriminate and pollute and do everything he wants to save a buck without being responsible for it..

it doesnt help anybody but the employer.. Not the employee or society.. its a fantasy world..

[Nanners]

^This

what rasheed is saying here is absolutely not the same as saying that these laws have no potential to abuse. also the two statements are not mutually exclusive.