political correctness

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Well, the last time I applied for a job, when I was interviewed the first thing the guy did when I entered his office was give me a gun and a holster, which he told me to attach to one of my belt loops. After I did so he asked me to pose like I was guarding something, and to rest my right hand on the gun, which I did. After like thirty seconds of that he told me I had the job.

DOES THAT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT?!

lol!

I was applying for a security guard position on the outskirts of a junkyard, yeah. The only reason the recruiter hired me was becaise I'm a big black dude who looks good in a suit. I guess that can be considered a time where discrimination is a good thing lol.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Well, the last time I applied for a job, when I was interviewed the first thing the guy did when I entered his office was give me a gun and a holster, which he told me to attach to one of my belt loops. After I did so he asked me to pose like I was guarding something, and to rest my right hand on the gun, which I did. After like thirty seconds of that he told me I had the job.

DOES THAT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT?!

Originally posted by dadudemon
]No, hating racists is prejucdiced.

"unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group."

That definition is exactly the same as what I described as prejudice in my post and like I said back then: It's not unreasonable to hate racists. Quite the contrary.

If you hate a racist, that's prejudice.

No it's not. It's not a preconceived notion with no basis in reality, it's a judgmente of character based on a person's actual character not on their skin colour. It's not irrational, logically unjustifiable or unreasonable like racial hate is. It is not based on generalizations of the behavior of an individual as behavior of a race. It is disgust by unnacceptable behavior.

If you discriminate against a racist at work when that racist person does not, at all, bring their racism into work, then you have done something illegal.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Well, the last time I applied for a job, when I was interviewed the first thing the guy did when I entered his office was give me a gun and a holster, which he told me to attach to one of my belt loops. After I did so he asked me to pose like I was guarding something, and to rest my right hand on the gun, which I did. After like thirty seconds of that he told me I had the job.

DOES THAT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT?!

liar

Originally posted by 753
That definition is exactly the same as what I described as prejudice in my post and like I said back then: [B] It's not unreasonable to hate racists. Quite the contrary.[/B]

That's your opinion, not fact. And, hating anyone is considered unreasonable for some. Most Christian religions preach that (but hypocritically follow after others ideals, too), lots of Buddhists sects, bla bla bla bla.

As a manger, I say it's unreasonable to hate anyone based on their political, religious, sexual, bla bla bla.

If my KKK employee does nothing racist at work, and people harass him, who do you think I'll discipline?: the guy that did nothing wrong or the people that did something wrong?

Originally posted by 753
No it's not. It's not a preconceived notion with no basis in reality, it's a judgmente of character based on a person's actual character not on their skin colour. It's not irrational, logically unjustifiable or unreasonable like racial hate is. It is not based on generalizations of the behavior of an individual as behavior of a race. It is disgust by unnacceptable behavior.

What would be the law violated in your jurisdiction?

You have your own specific definition of what qualifies as prejudice. That's fine. Just stop pretending it's the only one.

firing a person due to their own personal beliefs that could and sometimes is rooted in their own warped "religion"...

also jobs usually have firing procedures from verbal warnings a set number of written right ups and then firing..

Originally posted by REXXXX
Not the same thing at all. Hiring a KKK member and labeling a ticking time bomb is not a good hiring practice. If you think he is a ticking time bomb, don't hire him. You establish that at hiring.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You should never hire them in the first place if they're a KKK member. If you hired them then oops, you screwed up, and you should rectify it.

That seems awfully harsh. Why not ust let them go about their business if they do their job well. It's not a companies place to morally educate their workers, is it?

if they took you to court what reason would you give when on the stand for why you choose not to hire them?

Originally posted by King Castle
if they took you to court what reason would you give when on the stand for why you choose not to hire them?

They were qualified and were doing nothing illegal.

It'd be like not hiring a Mormon because we believe our super powers are better than yours.

If they're not exhibiting bigotry and racist tendencies towards coworkers then let them work where they will, so long as they stay that way. If it changes and they do something that breaks office conduct, they get the boot.

You can't discriminate there if they aren't (openly).

Originally posted by REXXXX
If they're not exhibiting bigotry and racist tendencies towards coworkers then let them work where they will, so long as they stay that way. If it changes and they do something that breaks office conduct, they get the boot.

You can't discriminate there if they aren't (openly).

This.

Because if you DID discriminate against a person that was doing nothing illegal, you could end up in a lawsuit.

I could have sworn I said that shit already.

Originally posted by dadudemon
They were qualified and were doing nothing illegal.

It'd be like not hiring a Mormon because we believe our super powers are better than yours.

Yeah, but you guys are just outright creepy...

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's your opinion, not fact. And, hating anyone is considered unreasonable for some. Most Christian religions preach that (but hypocritically follow after others ideals, too), lots of Buddhists sects, bla bla bla bla.

As a manger, I say it's unreasonable to hate anyone based on their political, religious, sexual, bla bla bla.

If my KKK employee does nothing racist at work, and people harass him, who do you think I'll discipline?: the guy that did nothing wrong or the people that did something wrong?

No, what I said is correct.

You have your own specific definition of what qualifies as prejudice. That's fine. Just stop pretending it's the only one.

Yeah silly me, going by the actual meaning of the word and dictionary definitions. Prejudice simply isn't the same as dislike or even hate as you seem to believe.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That seems awfully harsh. Why not ust let them go about their business if they do their job well. It's not a companies place to morally educate their workers, is it?

a lot of companies wont hire convicted criminals period which i think is also wrong depending on the job.

Originally posted by King Kandy
If you hire them into a primarily black company, it's going to cause problems. I would not hire a repeat sex offender into rape counciling either.

I don't see why it needs to cause problems.

Originally posted by King Castle
a lot of companies wont hire convicted criminals period which i think is also wrong depending on the job.

Not just wrong, very problematic.

Originally posted by 753
Yeah silly me, going by the actual meaning of the word and dictionary definitions. Prejudice simply isn't the same as dislike or even hate as you seem to believe.

Nah, you're not going by the definitions: you're going by your own interpretation and anything else is wrong.

Please tell me that you understand that "unreasonable" is in the eye of the beholder?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but you guys are just outright creepy...

You're just Jealous because or midichlorian count is way higher than any other groups.