Discrimination Poll

[leftofthedial]

Poll question: Discrimination Poll

by discriminate, I mean to penalize someone in hiring, housing, civil liberties, public services, etc. and/or to make them the butt of jokes and insults because their supposed "group" characteristics distinguish them.





edited to add the final phrase about "group characteristics"

second edit to clarify disabilities and to add nationality.

[Karenina]

1. :SIGH: Here we go again...

:eyes:























Watch for it...

[ComerPerro]

2. what is your motivation here?

[leftofthedial]

10. I'd like to see how many DUers really believe this

stated unambiguously.

Because I don't see it in practice here.

[BlooInBloo]

49. A poll is 100% worthless for that. White folks know DAMN well what they're supposed to say.

[leftofthedial]

69. why do you hate white people

why is that kind of midless, blanket hatred any different from hatred of people of color?

do you truly believe that all white people are racists?

[BlooInBloo]

79. I don't. Among other things, that would imply hating myself (which I don't)...

... Please feel free to continue repeating false attributions to me, which I never said, however.

[leftofthedial]

you said "100% worthless"

and that white people know what they're supposed to say

implying that you believe 100% of white people are bigots and would lie about it.

you called out white people specifically.

[BlooInBloo]

84. Um, it's a *discrimination* poll, and we're in America. Duh...

... And the only place where an implication such as you specify exists could be in the swampland of one's mercury-induced feverish imaginings.

[leftofthedial]

87. Oh.

I understand now.

Where is that bottle of mercury? My fever is dropping to a dangerous low.

[leftofthedial]

82. double post

for some reason


:shrug:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

78. So Obviously You Believe In Discriminating Against White People Then? That's Pretty Sad.

[BlooInBloo]

80. Yah - *obviously* I believe in discriminating against myself...

You guys slay me.

:rofl:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

83. Doesn't Matter What Race You Are. Your Statement Was Bigoted And Inflammatory Towards Whites

regardless. It was also an extremely ignorant broad brush generalized sentiment as well.

[BlooInBloo]

85. Yes it does - it has probative value re your claim that I support discrimination against white folks

[bryant69]

67. You migh as well ask "Do you believe in being Good and Truthful"

The results would be just as meaningful.

Or how about "Do you try to think critically?" There's another good question that would provide one answer.

Bryant

[Donnachaidh]

3. I find this poll ironic

everything listed EXCEPT GENDER.

I guess that women being women alone don't count. Exactly when did we get put in the back of the bus -- AGAIN? :sarcasm:

[leftofthedial]

5. umm, gender is listed

[Donnachaidh]

7. where? You've listed sexual preference -- that's not gender

Sorry to nitpick. But it's not :shrug:

[leftofthedial]

8. right between ethnic background and sexual preference

right there where is says "gender"

[terrya]

9. Please read it again

From the OP's poll. Read the second sentence.

It is NOT OKAY to discriminate against someone based on their skin color, religion, ethnic background, gender, sexual preference and/or physical characteristics.

[Donnachaidh]

11. nice edit

and thanks -- really. :toast:

[leftofthedial]

15. the word "gender" was always there

all I added with the edit was the last phrase about "group characteristics" in the text.

:toast:

[terrya]

4. Do the words "no brainer" mean anything?

There is never, ever, ever a situation where it's ok to discriminate against anyone based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, physical characteristics. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever.

[leftofthedial]

6. I agree.

[mentalsolstice]

12. Uhhh, what about disability?

I guess we can just push them down a steep hill in their wheelchairs? :sarcasm:

[leftofthedial]

14. I said physical characteristics

I should have included all disabilities. My apologies.

I guess I'm a disabled-phobe.

[mentalsolstice]

18. Just pointing out

The disabled community has really had to work hard to get their issues out there, because they have tended to be so isolated from the rest of society. And obviously physical characteristics doesn't cover mental disabilities.

[leftofthedial]

19. I re-edited the post to add disabilities

(and nationality BTW)

[mentalsolstice]

21. Thank you! n/t

[TahitiNut]

13. It's all about treating human beings as commodities.

"Objectification" is synonymous with "commoditization" where human beings are treated as a means to an end and not an end in themselves. It's this thinking that underlies the 'type' distinctions of bigotry and discrimination and this thinking that underlies crimes like rape. This is the corruption underlying the exploitation of human labor and the obscene "guest worker" programs and their ilk.

The corruption is a plague, even infecting a human being's way of regarding themselves - not as an individual like any human being but as a 'representative' of some subgroup - a type or class of commodity.

[leftofthedial]

23. well said

[BlooInBloo]

52. You may wish to refresh your familiarity with the concept of 'commodity'...

... As a business concept, it's exactly the OPPOSITE of "'type' distinctions".

I'm sure there's a bad business concept that does model what you're talking about; it just isn't 'commodity'.

[TahitiNut]

54. The narrow business definition is not the sole meaning. Indeed ...

... the virtue of the use of the term in the sense I'm attempting to convey is the very idea that the sole value lies in the use to which the item is put. The very fact that it's so easy to unconsciously accept the the commercial context betrays the fact that we're indoctrinated into thinking that human being's value is solely to whomever uses that human being.

com·mod·i·ty (kə-mŏd'ĭ-tē) pronunciation
n., pl. -ties.

1. Something useful that can be turned to commercial or other advantage: “Left-handed, power-hitting third basemen are a rare commodity in the big leagues” (Steve Guiremand).
2. An article of trade or commerce, especially an agricultural or mining product that can be processed and resold.
3. Advantage; benefit.
4. Obsolete. A quantity of goods.

(You might pay particular attention to the first item in the definition.)

Even within the narrow business definition where the value (commercial, and always based on utility) is supposedly undifferentiated, we find differentiation. For example, oil is a commodity that's differentiated by source. West Texas crude is differentiated from Brent crude. Pima cotton is differentiated from Egyptian cotton. In the same sense, we hear "white male," "black female," "American" (as in lives lost in Iraq = 3193), or even "colored." We have a federal law that specifically prohibits treatment of human labor as a commodity ... yet it's a treatment that pervades our thinking.

In fact, it's so pervasive that when we run across a news story dealing with specific deaths in Iraq, it's treated as "human interest" ... something of implicitly lesser news value than the "hard news" of deaths in Iraq.

I realize that nearly everyone else in the world is an idiot except you ... but every once in a while us idiots actually use words in a proper manner that's actually designed to convey a meaning, even if you have to lower yourself to understand it.

Again ... the moral issue is the treatment of human beings as a means to an end rather than an end in and of themselves. That's commoditization.


Lastly, the manner in which I use the term is consistent with its usage in political economics, and in particular its use by Karl marx, Adam Smith, and others.

In classical political economy and especially Karl Marx's critique of political economy, a commodity is simply any good or service offered as a product for sale on the market. Some items are also seen as being treated as if they were commodities, e.g. human labour or labor power, works of art and natural resources, even though they may not be produced specifically for the market, or be non-reproducible goods.

Marx's analysis of the commodity is intended to help solve the problem of what establishes the economic value of goods, using the labor theory of value. This problem was extensively debated by Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Karl Rodbertus-Jagetzow among others. Value and price are not equivalent terms in economics, and theorising the specific relationship of value to market price has been a challenge for both liberal and Marxist economists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity#Commodities_and_Marxism

[BlooInBloo]

57. Without getting into a dead-end debate about the "true" meaning of "commodity"....

... I suspect you would at a minimum agree that the present-day technical business concept is sufficiently ubiquitous that your unqualified initial use of the word invited misunderstanding.

(The following is a lot longer on paper than it felt in my head. Sorry. I totally understand if you don't feel like reading it.)

Detailed reply:

"... the virtue of the use of the term in the sense I'm attempting to convey is the very idea that the sole value lies in the use to which the item is put. The very fact that it's so easy to unconsciously accept the the commercial context betrays the fact that we're indoctrinated into thinking that human being's value is solely to whomever uses that human being."

This is a criticism of certain concepts of 'value' - no matter how much I agree with it, in many contexts, its relevance to a discussion of whether or not your use of "commodity" was correct isn't at all obvious. No matter which notion of 'commodity' one has in mind, the notion of 'value' is gonna be related to it in some interesting way or another. If you, or Marx, or I, want to criticize the inhumanity of certain notions of value, fine - the present-day technical business usage doesn't inhibit *that* goal in the least. In short, and with your closing wiki reference in mind: just use "good" or "product" or something - there is no dearth of aliases for 'commodity'-a-la-Marx. (Indeed, *if* wiki is right, one is left wondering why Marx needed yet another term to refer to that which already had plenty of names. I.e., one suspects that wiki is simplistic on this.)


Regarding your (apparently) general-purpose dictionary usage citation. I have paid suggested attention, and conclude that the piece you point to, and the usage it describes as a whole, is not inconsistent with the technical usage - it's merely unspecific. (It commoditizes the concept 'commodity', as it were - LOL! Cmon - it's funny.) Note also that every example they provide - even the baseball one - JUST SO HAPPENS to satisfy the stricter concept. That doesn't *prove* anything, true. One may, without logical contradiction, maintain that this is PURE coincidence, and suggests nothing. I doubt many without a dog in the fight would agree, however. In any case, looking in a lay/general purpose dictionary for an explication of a technical concept (which both the present business AND the Marxist ones are) doesn't seem appropriate.

(Possibly I'm mistaken in my commitment to the dictionary you reference being general-purpose. You didn't cite, so I'm not in a position to tell. I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm mistaken.)


"Even within the narrow business definition where the value (commercial, and always based on utility) is supposedly undifferentiated, we find differentiation. For example, oil is a commodity that's differentiated by source. West Texas crude is differentiated from Brent crude. Pima cotton is differentiated from Egyptian cotton."

(shrug) To the extent that a product-type is acknowledged as having economically-relevant sub-types, to that extent it is not being treated as a commodity. Whether a product IS a commodity or not is essentially and inextricably linked to people's TREATING as a commodity. Whether or not it's appropriate to treat a product as a commodity or not varies with the nature of the people (among other variables). To more-enviro-than-thou people, produce is not a commodity - and they're trying like gangbusters to get the world at large to "see the light". More importantly, more-enviro-than-thou folks don't TREAT produce as a commodity, while most finance folks do. To Google's server-farm Director, PCs are a commodity - and would be treated as such by him. To a gamer, PCs are most definitely NOT, and she/he will likely be pissed off when his parents get him the WRONG one for Christmas. The important difference in all cases, is not someone SUPER AUTHORITY christening a product with commodity-status, but rather the practices of people TREATING said product in commodity-like-ways. The concept 'commodity' is just shorthand for "a product that is/should be treated in such-and-such a way".

It's interesting, I suppose (to me, mostly as an application of a line of thought that started with Hegel, and is most well-known from Wittgenstein), but I fail to see the significance of this in our current context. Lots/most of our concepts are context-sensitive (to varying degrees, and in different ways, certainly; but few, if any, of our concepts are *completely* insensitive to ALL variation in context.)

[Gormy Cuss]

16. Your definition of discrimination is too inclusive.

to penalize someone in hiring, housing, civil liberties, public services, etc.-- on that there is general agreement that discrimination in those forms is never tolerated.

to make them the butt of jokes and insults because their supposed "group" characteristics distinguish them. -- here there seems to be two camps of DUers. One camp believes it's intolerant speech and should be avoided. The other group believes that if the jokes and insults are directed at stereotypes of groups who aren't oppressed by it (penalized in hiring, housing, civil liberties, public services, etc) then they should get over themselves and lighten up.

[leftofthedial]

22. re: your final point

there are shades of gray within the two groups as well. For example, there are those who recognize that gay jokes or ethnic jokes or whatever do cause pain to the target group, but do not believe that making them is as bad as, say, refusing to allow an African American to rent an apartment because of his or her color.

[Gormy Cuss]

24. I think most who recognize that the joke causes pain don't tell the joke.

I think there is agreement that causing pain or simple annoyance doesn't rise to the level of hiding behind humor when denying someone's civil rights. What I find interesting is that some can dismiss another's discomfort with a stereotype solely because it isn't legally discriminatory.

The problem as I see it isn't that the poster made a stereotyping comment or joke. The issue that I have is with posters who dig in their heels after being informed that it is offensive to others. Consider the trailer trash threads that appear every month or so. Trailer trash is code for low income, poorly educated, rural white people. White people aren't as a race an oppressed group, therefore joking about trailer trash doesn't rise to the seriousness of stereotypes about African Americans. Every single time someone tosses out a generic derogatory comment about people who live in trailers, fellow DUers who live in or who have lived in mobile homes try to point out the offensiveness, then the OP gets defensive and posts about people being too sensitive or having no sense of humor. The justification is generally that there are some people who live in trailers who are trashy, so where's the beef? That just strikes me as incivility.

[MADem]

26. Was it on Bill Maher that the discussion about free speech took place?

It may have been on the OVERTIME show on the internet...it was Barney Frank talking, IIRC. He distinguished carefully between the right of speech, however rude, mean or nasty, that is free, and threats directed at individuals. He noted that free speech protects, in essence, ASSHOLES.

So, if I were to answer this poll, and I cannot, I would say NO to the first part, because those things are prohibited already by law, and YES, offensive though it may be, to the second.

Because Barney is right--free speech does protect assholes, but it's important enough to merit protecting.

[Gormy Cuss]

33. I think it was Barney, but my point was not about banning the speech, just about its appropriateness

or assholishness. It's only actionable when it has a high probability, based on the current state of the group's oppression, to lead to discrimination. For example, we don't know each other. Unless you have been tracking me around DU you wouldn't know that I lived happily in your state and laughed at a caustic nickname used to describe us. If out of the blue I called you a typical Masshole, you would either find that funny or be offended at the characterization. Either way, you haven't been discriminated against but you are the butt of a joke directed at you solely based on your group (MA residents.) If you find it offensive and tell me so, is it intolerant of me to tell you to grow a thicker skin, to get over yourself, or to lighten up?

Now ratchet it up to an ethnic stereotype that in the past caused discriminatory practices, say that all your people are stupid or drunks or crooks. There may not be a current practice to deny you something based on those tired old slurs, but it may sting because you heard your parents or grandparents talk about how those stereotypes limited them. Do you have the right to object to the slur being used in reference to your ancestry or not? You don't have the right to expect legal remedy, but are you required to remain silent and pretend it's funny because it doesn't meet that test?

[MADem]

41. If it is legal, it IS appropriate--for assholes. That's the pain and glory of living in a free

society.

You have every right to call me a Masshole, but not here. Unless, of course, you are doing it in a sporting and amused manner (as we tease Mainers, calling them Maniacs). Context IS key. If it's accompanied by rude, denigrating invective, then there's a problem. That's because this forum has rules about personal insults. But let's assume you are in my presence and you call me that with hate in your heart. I have a choice--I can get pissed (and act or not act on that anger) or I can pity you for your childishly hateful attitude. I think I'd go for the latter.

As for your "grow a thicker skin" argument, well, that certainly is a suggestion. But I can't understand why do you feel that you must be controlled by it? If you don't agree with it, use your own free speech rights to respond, if it's that important. Look at the Coulter example--she used her free speech rights, and her own crowd, the conservative bloggers, used theirs to say she's a bigmouthed hag who has jumped the shark.

Look, free speech means that you CAN be intolerant. You can be personally offensive, you can utilize ethnic slurs, like Carlos Mencia does, in your daily language. You cannot say "Come on, let's go kill that dirty (fill in slur of your choice)."

That's inciting violence, and it is a different kettle of fish entirely, that protects the person to whom the slur is directed.

Just because people use their free speech to be mean, it doesn't mean that others have to put up with that shit. If you use your free speech to be a shithead, those around you could shun you, insult you back, or even take it up to an assault consummated by a battery. There's a legal remedy for that last one, but the other ones, no. You can yell back, tell everyone you know what a jerk the guy is, take out an ad in the paper saying "So and so said these hateful things on such and such a date" but if you slug him, you go before the judge. The judge might agree you were provoked and lighten your sentence, but you're still at fault if you do the hitting.

It's not that complicated, really.

[Gormy Cuss]

58. Ah, but there's the rub. I am talking about such behavior here.

Did you see the California Pizza Kitchen thread? The douchebag thread?
In the pizza thread the OP was derided for objecting to an ad implying that Sicilians were all in the mob. The OP did not call for banning of the ad and did not say that the ad was oppressive, just that it was a tired old stereotype that he had heard all his life and he was sick of it. At least one poster used it as an opportunity to relate an old joke with a punchline involving two slang terms for Italians(subthread deleted.) Many other replies were in the vein of telling him to lighten up, get over it, etc.

The douchebag thread from a month or two ago was similar. Some posters who didn't find the term offensive made fun of those who did. If I thought about it long enough, I could probably cite more recent threads with similar patterns.

In both threads I was surprised at the amount of hostility directed at the OPs, and that's my point. It's not an issue of whether anyone has a right to express an opinion. It's part of normal discussion to reply that you don't find a term offensive. The issue is whether here at DU it is appropriate (as in civil, and tolerable) to deride the poster or to use slurs or stereotypes against poster especially after a poster has stated that s/he finds the term offensive.

BTW, Mainiacs gave that name to themselves many years ago and it never had a derogatory implication. It was only in the 1960s-1970s that the reference started to fade away and be replaced by 'Mainer.' Any attempt by Massachusettans to use it as an insult is a later event, and I would hazard a guess it came after people in Northern New England started using Masshole as an insult rather than older, vaguer insults like 'summer complaint.'

[MADem]

62. "Here" is not "The United States of America" -- Here is DU. Here there ARE rules.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Here they are, in all their glory. I make it a habit to reread them every few months, because they are revised every so often. They're detailed, some might call them onerous, but they're plain. You can't make fun of Sicilians--here. You cannot use words that refer to certain portions of anatomy, some descriptions of bodily functions and certain naughty words (b, c, and a few others) that offend some. You can do it in other places, but not here. There are limits on your behavior and your freedom to express yourself--here.

The OP could, in the first place, avoid the hostility entirely by reading the rules before hitting that little 'post' pencil. And no one should respond to slurs with more slurs, at least not here. That's also in the rules. There's a mechanism to respond to insults, and involves letting others who serve as moderators handle it. The tactic of escalation doesn't usually work. You end up with a pissing contest and everyone ends up .... dehydrated, I guess!

I don't disagree that the rules are skewed to accomodate the easily offended and thin-skinned, and no doubt whiners hit alert way more than the supposedly offensive posts are in fact, removed, but then, OTOH, there are some people who just like to bully people and will use any vicious word or concept or opportunity to do it. These Master Baiters have issues of their own, but why should they be allowed to ruin it for everyone else in the name of 'freedom?' On a members-only website?

And most importantly, this is NOT 'my' website. It isn't government-owned or operated, either. It's a private enterprise. I had to go through a process to become a member, but I don't bear responsibility for its maintenance or management. If the outfit is sued, my name won't be on the lawsuit. The ones who own it have the right to make the rules. If I get irritated and find these rules too onerous, I can always follow this DU rule:

Your Freedom to Leave

All visitors to the Democratic Underground website are here voluntarily. Nobody is forcing you to post on this message board. The administrators try their best to be fair, and to make Democratic Underground a welcoming place for progressives who like Democratic Underground and who want to be here. If you do not like Democratic Underground, or the members of Democratic Underground, or the way we run Democratic Underground, then we strongly suggest that you exercise your right to leave. If we decide that you do not like this place very much, then we reserve the right to show you the door ourselves.

[Gormy Cuss]

64. "Here" meaning DU is exactly what I stated in the previous reply.

I'm referring solely to modes of engagement on DU. I'm well aware of the rules. I hit the alert button as soon as a thread starts to degrade into name-calling or when someone posts something that is flat out against the rules. I think the mods do a tremendous job trying to strike the right balance when addressing those alerts too. I don't think the overly sensitive or whiny people are accommodated more readily even if they alert on everything. That said, there are reply posts that don't violate the rules but show a clear disdain for the poster who is more sensitive on an issue -- that to me is not an attempt to engage in discussion or debate, but rather a way of shutting it down.


I agree with you that the baiters shouldn't be allowed to ruin it for everyone else, and that is why I do sometimes participate in threads when I perceive baiting or bullying behavior directed at others. When it's directed at me I try to walk away from the thread before I post something uncivil because quite frankly I don't suffer fools gladly. Note that I said I try to walk away. I'm not always successful.

As for Freedom to Leave, my least favorite threads are the "I'm leaving DU because I'm unhappy about X " ones. Staying and arguing it out may change some perceptions. Once one is so exasperated that s/he feels the need to leave, it's admitting either that an opinion isn't worth defending in this forum, or that the person has exhausted his/her arguments and leaves it to others to defend. If I got to that point I would just exercise my freedom to leave in silence.

on edit: I'm also not fond of replies like "I'm alerting" or "Welcome to my ignore list." In both cases, I think it's better to just do it without waving your hands in the air.

[MADem]

65. Sometimes, in instances that you cite in your first paragraph, above, the best bet is to

put the cards on the table--call the person out. Ask them: "Say, are you using a cheesy 'I'm offended' tactic to shut down debate, or are you really offended? It sure seems like you are trying to cut discussion off at the knees, and if I am wrong, do accept my apologies in advance." That serves to deflect any "You're MEAN to ME!" whines. Then go on: "Explain your level of offense in detail, please, as, in my humble opinion, my opinion is that you are being hypersensitive over this issue and misinterpreting the intent of the post, and your claim of hypersensitivity is put forth solely to shut down the discussion, not to enlighten anyone on this issue." And then, if they still whine, put this out there "Tell me then, in what context we can discuss the issue of (title of your area of discussion) without offending you. Must we use code words, and talk about, say 'bunnies' or 'bluebirds' instead of (fill in the offensive bit) or (fill in other offensive bit)?"

Call 'em out. Make them explain themselves. They'll reveal their true colors, they can't help it.

I don't go for Dramatic Farewell posts either. They rarely make people do the "Oh, boo hoo, STAY!!!" post in response--usually, it's more like "Fine, don't let the door hitcha..." And those Ignore List drama-posts are a hoot, especially when the Welcome to Ignore message is answered by a "Good, it will be so nice not having to deal with you" and then it's followed up by some other snarky comment (I'm doing it NOOOOOW....I MEEEEAAAN it!!!!).

But for all the third graders, there are plenty of grad students here as well. It's the internets, after all. And there will always be some people who just like to pick fights.

[leftofthedial]

34. I consistently get in trouble here at DU for two reasons:

1. I believe that discrimination is discrimination (whether legal, illegal, or just "assholiness"). One variety is equivalent to another when applied to a group of people solely based on a superficial physical characteristic (color of skin, etc.), an artifact of their background (religion, ethnicity, nationality), their gender, their sexual preference, transgenderism, (insert whole list here-I'm tired of typing :-) )

(Exceptions have been noted above--affirmative action, preferential hiring by Native American tribes, religious zealots whose beliefs are the basis for their own hateful actions open their beliefs to ridicule, etc.)

It doesn't matter WHICH gender or WHAT color of skin or WHICH sexual preference, etc. When I stand up and insist on this, I am attacked. Sickening at a place like DU, but it happens repeatedly.

2. I believe that free speech trumps anyone's assertion that they have a right not to be offended. No one has a right not to be offended. If there was such a right, civilization would collapse overnight. If one finds a joke, a TV commercial, a song, a speech, a movie or any other form of human expression to be offensive, one has every right to say they are offended. They have every right to articulate why such speech is hurtful personally or how it is possibly universally wrong. They don't have the right to force the speaker to be silent. If you are offended, I encourage you to make your arguments plain. If you wish, turn off the TV, put the poster on Ignore, drag the file to the Trash--whatever. But don't call for restrictions on free speech. The species needs all the ideas it can muster. It is inevitable we will get more bad ones than good ones. But if we start shutting off lines of communication, the good ones will never get through.

[MADem]

42. Discrimination is NOT discrimination, though. And it appears you are a bit confused.

Discrimination in speech is aBSOLUTELY protected. Refusing to let that apartment to someone because their skin is a color you don't like is not protected. They aren't 'equivalent.' The courts have so ruled. This is the law of the land.

However, I think you are confusing your free speech rights with the FORUM RULES here.

Look, if I own a building, and I make it into a PRIVATE club, I can make the rules for that club. DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND is a club on these here internets. You have to apply to get in, and if you don't follow the rules, they take down your posts or give you a stone avatar. The rules here have been arrived at after what, some seven years of tweaking. They work pretty well, they keep things civil, and those other remedies you mention, the ignore and so forth, are still there for the ultra-sensitive.

Here's what you can do if you don't like these rules--you can get a few servers, spend the better part of your free time setting them up, managing them, updating and improving them, and start your own discussion site without those onerous rules. Alternatively, you can take your discussions to unmoderated forums where your language is not constrained.

See, by joining the discussion here, you AGREE TO THE FORUM RULES. You are told that at the outset. It's a bit presumptuous to come in to a club that someone else owns and manages, and try to dictate changes. I doubt the owners of this website are inclined to change the rules, either, because they work pretty well for the vast majority of members here.

[leftofthedial]

66. I've made it abundantly clear--repeatedly--

that I agree with, endorse and comply with to the best of my ability, the rules of this forum.

You apparently have me confused with someone else.

My problem here is not that I break DU rules. I don't. My problem is repeatedly being attacked for pointing out the hypocrisy of some here who cry "discrimination" when one group is discriminated against, but remaining silent or even joyfully joining in when another group is discriminated against.

[MADem]

76. Well, like I said upthread, to another poster, call them out on it.

And don't be coy, or use strawmen examples (like you did in this thread) that don't fit your actual complaint.

If you have a gripe, state it clearly.

Reading your OP, I can't tell that your problem is that you take issue with "selective discriminators." How the hell is anyone supposed to read that into your oblique query?

For all intents and purposes, your OP looks like a civil rights vs. free speech question. There's nothing in there about complaints about the practices of some posters on this forum. What, we're supposed to read minds, here?

You'd be better off starting a thread on the broad issue of selective discrimination IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS FORUM, providing examples of the practice, and asking for input. Are you correct? Are YOU being too sensitive? It's entirely possible that you are seeing more than is actually there. I've no way of knowing, because this is the first point in this entire thread that you've said anything close to what you mean. I'm not following you around the forum and taking notes about your views on every issue, you see.

Or better still, if someone attacks you, address them in plain language with a clear response as to why you find the attack unfair. And if you see someone discriminating against another group, point out the discrimination. Either do it directly, hit alert, or send a note to a moderator and get a policy clarification. Don't start a new thread with vague complaints disguised as questions. That's not the way to get any meaningful discussion, or resolution, going on.

I approached this thread as a stand-alone discussion, not a continuation of grievances from elsewhere. You may have "made it abundantly clear" on other threads that you follow the rules, but not in this thread--in this thread, you seem to have forgotten the rules about not starting new threads to gripe about old issues or people who aren't present. And nowhere in your original post did I get a clue that you were griping about DU members' alleged discrimination. It wasn't plain at all.

Silly me, I thought the subject was civil rights v. free speech!

[leftofthedial]

77. my bad for mingling the two

I'm for civil rights AND for free speech.

In my opinion, the two collide extremely rarely.

[Nicole]

17. It is okay in some cases.

Here in Oklahoma we have lots of Indian Casinos. They hire Native Americans first. Individual tribes give hiring preferences to their tribal members over other tribes.

They are sovereign nations & I don't see anything wrong with them hiring who they want.

[leftofthedial]

20. there also is affirmative action

which I suppose technically meets my definition of discrimination

I think we can agree that there are occasional needed legal exceptions to the rule . . .

[Karenina]

29. And then there's the "legal" exception

of "affirmative action" that installed the idiot son of an asshole. :evilgrin:

[leftofthedial]

32. that's an oligarchy for you

or, to be more accurate in this capitalist cesspool, a plutocracy.

[cgrindley]

25. What a stupid poll

HUURRR DURRR

[MADem]

27. The first part is already illegal, the second part protected by free speech.

It's unanswerable in its present form....

[leftofthedial]

30. I also agree with you.

Do you assert then that anything that is strictly legal is okay with you?

[cgrindley]

36. Ummm okay with him to do or okay with him to tolerate?

two really different questions...

[MADem]

43. No one is forced to 'tolerate' anything in terms of speech. They can speak back.

But that is in our greater society, not in private organizations.

DU is a private club. There are rules here, that people agree to follow when they join this club. Those rules trump free speech rights--no personal insults, and so forth.

People who don't go for following those rules get counselled, or get the boot. Or they can start their own private club with no rules about speech.

[MADem]

40. I have to go with Barney Frank's take

He says that free speech is for assholes, basically. That it is protected to protect rude, crude, meanspirited ASSHOLES. Not nice, polite, thinking and kind people.

But here's the thing--by their 'free speech' we shall know them.

Coulter has the free speech right to call John Edwards a faggot. And seven newspapers, and counting, have the right to fire her. Dozens of rightwing columnists have shunned her.

There are some laws that are stupid. Drug laws, for example. They lock up nonviolent people needlessly.

But when it comes to free speech, I have to side with the rights all to speak their mind--including assholes.

You really shouldn't try to take a discussion about two basic, essential, foundational American laws (civil/human rights and free speech) and try to extrapolate it to "ANYTHING that is strictly legal." Hell, some jaywalking laws are silly. It's legal to behead people or chop off their hands in Saudi Arabia. The death penalty is legal in many states.

That kind of out-of-the-blue demand that is unrelated to the topic at hand weakens your argument to the point where you cannot recover.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. Not OK - but there's one caveat amongst the various permutations

It is OK to make jokes about, or insult, someone on the basis of their religious beliefs, if those beliefs are themselves discriminatory, or against reason and evidence.

[leftofthedial]

31. so we can belittle fundies

and it's okay?

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. Yes, because it's their opinions

They, after all, think they're belittling people who believe in evolution when they say "you think you're descended from a monkey!" We may not think it's funny, but they have a right to find it so.

My basic point is that criticism of beliefs and opinions is acceptable, whether they're political, social or religious - and sometimes, criticism by ridicule and insult is justified. It may not be the wisest thing to do (because you're making a claim that you're more sensible, intelligent, or whatever than your target - and so you may lose sympathy, or become a likely target yourself), but it is not 'wrong' in itself.

[MedleyMisty]

38. I agree

I would qualify it and try my best to make it clear that I was attacking the belief/opinion, not the person or their group.

Like I think that saying creationism is stupid and ignorant is fine, but the blanket statement "Christians are stupid and ignorant" isn't fine. Ideas and beliefs are free game but you always have to remember that humans are individuals, not a Borg collective.

[Madspirit]

81. Being a fundie is a choice

...and we can absolutely criticize people for their choices. Being a woman or a black or a gay, etc., is not a choice.
Lee

[leftofthedial]

90. can we criticize women, blacks, gays, etc.

for the choices they do make?

that is, not for being who they are, but for what they do as people irrespective of their demographic category?

[sniffa]

37. yes, if they're straight white maLes

but, isn't that aLways the case?

[TroglodyteScholar]

39. The fact is...

...regardless of how you answer this poll, you WILL at some point discriminate against another person in some way. The best you can hope to do is recognize it immediately and do your best to make amends.

And anyone who claims they've never engaged in any kind of discrimination is a self-righteous liar.

[Jamastiene]

44. If you have to ask, maybe you took a wrong turn somewhere.

Part of the rules here state that being here means you believe is NOT OKAY to discriminate.

[leftofthedial]

89. and yet I see repeated examples of blatant discrimination here at DU

even within this thread

[LWolf]

45. Wow.

I wonder who the 3 people who think discrimination is ok are?

While most people claim to be non-discriminatory, look at the number of responses defending the right to discriminate.

Why the passionate defense of bigotry? I'd guess it's because U.S. culture is saturated with put-downs, ridicule, verbal bullying, and other less than savory methods to excuse, "cover up," or "dress up" bigotry, and some just can't let go of it.

[Jamastiene]

47. Thank you.

Best post on this subject yet. You addressed something that I believe is the real cause for the continued bigotry in America. "some just can't let go of it." summs it up precisely.

[The Straight Story]

48. As pointed out elsewhere in the thread - it is ok sometimes, surprised more on DU DIDN'T vote for it

Like when Indian Casinos (noted above) hire Indians first. Or we have rules that give minorities more leeway into employment (ala, local police - ours here has advertised several times asking for women and racial minorities to apply and they get a 'preference').

It ALL discrimination bad? That I think was the real question - and if so....

[geardaddy]

50. So does that also apply to selling

homes in Wales to Welsh speakers first?

[The Straight Story]

53. Hell if I know, I don't make the rules

I just complain about em :)

[geardaddy]

63. Fair 'nuff

;)

[Sapphocrat]

59. So, you're anti-affirmative action?

Do you believe affirmative action is "reverse discrimination"?

[LostinVA]

60. That's certainly what the post sounds like, eh?

Hmmm..... I have relatives who also feel this way, including some who live in a little town where NO non-white person has EVER lived. If they buy a house in the area, it mysteriously burns down before they can move in.

[leftofthedial]

70. there are three constituencies here at DU

who consistently engage in overt, unabashed discrimination and hate speech against another minority group.

I doubt any of them answered that they think discrimination is okay (unless just to be a smartass). But if you challenge their bigotry, you will be attacked by a rabid pack of them and accused of bigotry yourself.

[michreject]

46. No. Never

No one has a choice in the way they look or where they're from.

[FreeState]

51. sexual preference DOES NOT equal sexual orientation

Umm why are your using the term "sexual preference"? Are you aware if your are referring to GLBT person the correct term is Sexual Orientation. It is not a preference - that would be what you do during sex, what acts you prefer. Being gay is not a preference its how one is oriented.


Sorry this is a huge pet peeve of mine, seeing that all the anti-gay folk refuse to use orientation and insist it is a preference.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

55. He's doing it for the obvious reason.

[LostinVA]

61. THANK YOU

And, I suspect the incorrect term was used on purpose.

[leftofthedial]

72. you would suspect wrong

[leftofthedial]

71. my sincere apology for using the wrong term

It's too late to edit the post.

Sexual orientation.

[slackmaster]

73. I thought the latest PC term was "gender identity"

:shrug:

[leftofthedial]

74. okay

gender identity


I intended no insult

[NMMNG]

92. Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity are two completely different things

Sexual orientation has to do with who a person feels romantically and sexually attracted to. Gender identity has to do with what gender a person identifies as (regardless of their physical/biological gender).

[Bluebear]

56. Sexual "preference"? You PREFER Ritz crackers over saltines. nt

[Dora]

68. Not a very well-thought out poll.

Some jobs necessitate discriminating on the basis of an applicant's physical ability to perform the job.

[leftofthedial]

75. there are "legal" exceptions

as noted in several posts above.

[jannyk]

86. Why do we get these endless 'flamebait' polls? nt

[leftofthedial]

91. how is this question flamebait?

that's assinine, unless you have some reason for not wanting to answer the question truthfully . . .

[marmar]

88. So eight people favor discrimination?

I guess I should appreciate their candor, but that's sad.