If you were an employer, would you hire a Trump supporter?

Bloodshed · Jul 9, 2018

I hire people all the time. Personal politics have never been brought up in an interview that I have conducted. I probably wouldn't hire anyone who brought up there political views at all during the interview, whether they were pro or anti Trump, because it's not really relevant to the work that I do.

Now if I go on social media and they are spewing hate and rhetoric of any kind, well absolutely I would not hire them.

I would like to think any reasonably intelligent Trump supporter would be wise enough to keep there political views to themselves during a hiring process, and I wouldn't want to hire the people not smart enough to do that.

4859 · Jul 9, 2018

Chadtwo said:
1) You didn't address my question at all, which has to do with the day-to-day interactions of how these people treat nonwhite people, particularly in a workplace environment. Your claim was that their individual treatment was subhuman, which I (rightfully) called you on for being silly and unjustified, not to mention wholly irrelevant to the topic of who I would want performing practical functions at a job. You've failed to justify yourself, because you can't.

2) Not that it really matters, but you should really clarify what you mean by "Trump supporter." To me, one could be a Trump supporter and disagree with the policies/comments you mentioned. Even if that's not the case and "Trump supporter" is synonymous with "someone who agrees with every single thing Trump has said and done," there are still plenty of (entirely publicized!) justifications for the separation policy and, say, travel ban that have nothing to do with race. Now, as a convicted leftist I happen to think most of those justifications are weak or made in bad faith. But there are obviously *some* Trump supporters who buy the explanations they are given. You can call them stupid but the fact is political awareness is more often than not entirely irrelevant to the job at hand. Most surgeons are Republicans! Most Republicans support Trump! Surgeons are very smart at what they do!

1. No. I said they believe, either conciously or sub conciously, they are sub human, or specifically, they nonchalantly have no problem not treating them as human as their own race. Even today the most vile of these shits recognize the need to 'hide their power level'. This is what makes them vastly more problematic than overt or non hiding types.

Might want to do some reading on halo effects. That shit ain't a switch.

2. I explained this point perfectly fucking well and you know it.

It doesn't matter what fucking policy you support, or if you agree with all of trumps policies. If you still support the shitbag because you want your fucking tax break, that tax break means more to you than the lives of people who are not white. You might not be a flag pole bearing prayer patriot peice of racist shit, but you are still a racist peice of shit, and you better believe that will leak out. Yeah that's a great surgeon. But he, he just never seems to bother to save any brown people. It just looks like it's a coincidence though oh well.

Raven117 · Jul 9, 2018

If they showed they were the best fit both in terms of skill and in terms of team cohesion (that's the big one), then yes, I would

Tpallidum · Jul 9, 2018

No. I would require civility and empathy to work in my hospital lab.

Chadtwo · Jul 9, 2018

4859 said:
1. No. I said they believe, either conciously or sub conciously, they are sub human, or specifically, they nonchalantly have no problem not treating them as human as their own race. Even today the most vile of these shits recognize the need to 'hide their power level'. This is what makes them vastly more problematic than overt or non hiding types.

Might want to do some reading on halo effects. That shit ain't a switch.

2. I explained this point perfectly fucking well and you know it.

It doesn't matter what fucking policy you support, or if you agree with all of trumps policies. If you still support the shitbag because you want your fucking tax break, that tax break means more to you than the lives of people who are not white. You might not be a flag pole bearing prayer patriot peice of racist shit, but you are still a racist peice of shit, and you better believe that will leak out. Yeah that's a great surgeon. But he, he just never seems to bother to save any brown people. It just looks like it's a coincidence though oh well.

1) Nope that's false. Your original post read "treating non white people as humans is probably pretty relevant to most jobs." That's fine though, change your argument to them subconsciously believing they are subhuman. That's an even harder claim to prove, because now you're talking about subconscious thought instead of acted out treatment. It's also one that's even more irrelevant to the question of how one would perform at a job, because if they subconsciously believe nonwhites are subhuman but treat them the same as everyone else then it's irrelevant from the employer's perspective. So you changing your argument to try and save face, only to turn to an even weaker one is...lol. Also the only people who use "power level" are on 4chan. It's seeming more and more like your political worldview is shaped by the dynamics of Internet message boards.

2) Oh no I get the point, it's just a bad one. There are plenty of supporters who buy into the whole "yeah the immigration policy is terrible, but it's Obama's fault and we're just enforcing it. Congress should do something right away." I think that argument has been made in bad faith by the certain Republican elites, but there are obviously people who buy it. Or there are a plethora of other reasons they don't see it as racial. Now, obviously many do see it as racial, making them racist, but the question as posed was whether I would hire a Trump supporter period.

Your point about the surgeons is also laughably bad. Are you just talking out of your ass here or do you actually have evidence that surgeons (many of whom are from a sheer demographic perspective Trump supporters) are turning down brown patients? Like the surgeons themselves.

FeistyBoots · Jul 9, 2018

NightMarcher said:
No, fuck your predictable "straight white male" response.

It always inevitably comes down to this, like clockwork. You don't wish to address the argument so you attack the identity and privilege in the attempt to delegitimize. You took the very last line of that paragraph and went on a rambling rant, not even addressing the rest of it. I may have said this to you in the other thread (or perhaps it was someone else), but it begs reiterating: you are not the only one who's faced injustice in this world, or that your injustices are worse than others, stop acting like it, and stop presuming I'm complacent and content with the injustices being done to others. It is very obvious you are desperately looking to make enemies to vent and take your racial frustrations out on, looking for that big, bad white evil man to do so, and in the process, you push people away who wish to be there with you.

Since this bears on this conversation and since you've made this personal, I'll tell you my story of "privilege". A (literal) softball sized tumor was discovered behind my left chest wall a few months before my twenty first birthday. I had to sacrifice all of my twenties all the way to my very late thirties to fight it as it continually pulled me back in for treatment. This was in addition to enduring the nightmare that is Bipolar II. During that time I watched all my peers, all those blessed with their health, moving on with their lives, exploring themselves, falling in love, being in college, partying, getting degrees, furthering their careers, buying beautiful homes, pursuing hobbies and traveling, reaping the rewards from something priceless they were given for free, didn't even appreciate, and yet allowed them to build the foundation of their lives upon. Then they predicated their judgement of me being "lazy" and a "bum" because I wasn't successful by society's standards.

Do you believe severe chronic illness doesn't come with stigma and discrimination? With judgement? With prejudice? It does, and in terms of injustices in life, I believe I'd take being a minority with both my physical and mental health intact in America in a heartbeat over being a straight, white male without them, but that's just me. At least you have people acknowledging and fighting alongside you, and the potential for progress and betterment. I'm simply fighting for something that I had, and that fight has only given me a shred of it back while robbing me of everything else and making it incredibly difficult to even have a modicum of my own life. I'm not even independent.

So don't imply to me I don't have to deal with shit because I'm white, or that I've lived "privileged". People with their health benefit from privilege more than they can possibly understand.

You still have privilege. Someone who isn't white/straight/cisgender in your situation would also have to possibly fear being murdered by police for having dark skin, excluded from job interviews for having a "foreign" name, and any number of the other things minority citizens have to deal with every day of their lives.

Deleted member 23158 · Jul 9, 2018

Bloodshed said:
I hire people all the time. Personal politics have never been brought up in an interview that I have conducted. I probably wouldn't hire anyone who brought up there political views at all during the interview, whether they were pro or anti Trump, because it's not really relevant to the work that I do.

Now if I go on social media and they are spewing hate and rhetoric of any kind, well absolutely I would not hire them.

I would like to think any reasonably intelligent Trump supporter would be wise enough to keep there political views to themselves during a hiring process, and I wouldn't want to hire the people not smart enough to do that.

This is me.

Cyanity · Jul 9, 2018

A lot of Trump supporters are just well-meaning people who completely lack any and all critical thinking skills, so if the job required zero critical thinking, then sure, I might consider them. Maybe. Probably not.

4859 · Jul 9, 2018

Chadtwo said:
1) Nope that's false. Your original post read "treating non white people as humans is probably pretty relevant to most jobs." That's fine though, change your argument to them subconsciously believing they are subhuman. That's an even harder claim to prove, because now you're talking about subconscious thought instead of acted out treatment. It's also one that's even more irrelevant to the question of how one would perform at a job, because if they subconsciously believe nonwhites are subhuman but treat them the same as everyone else then it's irrelevant from the employer's perspective. So you changing your argument to try and save face, only to turn to an even weaker one is...lol. Also the only people who use "power level" are on 4chan. It's seeming more and more like your political worldview is shaped by the dynamics of Internet message boards.

2) Oh no I get the point, it's just a bad one. There are plenty of supporters who buy into the whole "yeah the immigration policy is terrible, but it's Obama's fault and we're just enforcing it. Congress should do something right away." I think that argument has been made in bad faith by the certain Republican elites, but there are obviously people who buy it. Or there are a plethora of other reasons they don't see it as racial. Now, obviously many do see it as racial, making them racist, but the question as posed was whether I would hire a Trump supporter period.

Your point about the surgeons is also laughably bad. Are you just talking out of your ass here or do you actually have evidence that surgeons (many of whom are from a sheer demographic perspective Trump supporters) are turning down brown patients? Like the surgeons themselves.

1. Yeah no. Get out of here with that they must be goose stepping Hitler heiling blatantly obvious in the work place shit.

No, i did not imply that and anyone not trying to be purposefully obtuse, the go to tactic for this bullshit, would have taken it that way.

And no, the they just really are so stupid they are honestly using that bullshit teaching as fuck rationalization in good faith, and totally not smoke screening argument isn't flying with me. Bullshit.

2. Golly gosh gee I wonder.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4194640/

https://health.usnews.com/health-ne...eads-to-worse-care-for-minorities?context=amp

And of course, the reverse is tons of fun. But this won't affect the workplace at all.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/10/26/health/doctors-discrimination-racism/index.html

zoukka · Jul 9, 2018

Tpallidum said:
No. I would require civility and empathy to work in my hospital lab.

Cognitive dissonance (which might be more prevalent among trump supporters) is very common and doesn't mean someone excercising it is incapable of empathy (only a small fraction of humans are sociopaths).

4859 · Jul 9, 2018

zoukka said:
Cognitive dissonance (which might be more prevalent among trump supporters) is very common and doesn't mean someone excercising it is incapable of empathy (only a small fraction of humans are sociopaths).

You don't need to be a sociopath to be a workplace destroying serial bully.

What you would be looking at with the practiced and extreme levels of 'cognitive dissonance' and conditional empathy would be more like a narcisistic personality disorder, which is about at 6% of the general population.

And of course their rallying beacon and poster child, Donald trump.

Chadtwo · Jul 9, 2018

4859 said:
1. Yeah no. Get out of here with that they must be goose stepping Hitler heiling blatantly obvious in the work place shit.

No, i did not imply that and anyone not trying to be purposefully obtuse, the go to tactic for this bullshit, would have taken it that way.

2. Golly gosh gee I wonder.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4194640/

1. Well if it's obvious, then it's manifested...which I guess would make it treatment, huh? Sorta the whole thing about the subconscious is that it's not even obvious to the person who holds those beliefs, that's why implicit bias tests exists. Like jesus this is all so painfully obvious.

I didn't accuse you of implying anything, just of saying things, so I don't know how to respond to that point. Clarify what you think I said you're implying.

2. I ask you for evidence that Trump-supporting surgeons *turn down* black or brown patients because of their political beliefs and you link an article...explaining the obvious disparities in quality of healthcare between black and white people which stem from a variety of intersecting institutional reasons, and then act like it's a checkmate? Ok? To the extent that it talks about individual physicians doing worse with black or brown patients, it clearly identifies failures in communication on both sides as the cause, as well as epistemic barriers created by not sharing the cultural background of those patients -- not political convictions. There are two mentions of racism in that article: one which identifies racism as a consequence of not understanding the culture of a patient (again, nothing to do with politics here), the other in reference to a historical racist policy that existed at a hospital in the 1960s. I'm getting tired of this. Like all of this is so far removed from the discussion of hiring an individual Trump supporter, you have to realize this right?

4859 · Jul 9, 2018

Chadtwo said:
1. Well if it's obvious, then it's manifested...which I guess would make it treatment, huh? Sorta the whole thing about the subconscious is that it's not even obvious to the person who holds those beliefs, that's why implicit bias tests exists. Like jesus this is all so painfully obvious.

I didn't accuse you of implying anything, just of saying things, so I don't know how to respond to that point. Clarify what you think I said you're implying.

2. I ask you for evidence that Trump-supporting surgeons *turn down* black or brown patients because of their political beliefs and you link an article...explaining the obvious disparities in quality of healthcare between black and white people which stem from a variety of intersecting institutional reasons? Ok? To the extent that it talks about individual physicians doing worse with black or brown patients, it clearly identifies failures in communication on both sides as the cause, as well as epistemic barriers created by not sharing the cultural background of those patients -- not political convictions. There are two mentions of racism in that article: one which identifies racism as a consequence of not understanding the culture of a patient (again, nothing to do with politics here), the other in reference to a historical racist policy that existed at a hospital in the 1960s. I'm getting tired of this.

Their beliefs are conscious, they just hide them. They cant completely hide these beliefs in their actions, Which is why they, at best, would subconsciously, or not accurately passive agressively would leak this shit out towards clients or coworkers.

This is not the riddle of the fucking sphynx. I have not had a single Trump supporting coworker or client that did not do this in vastly more obvious ways than I am generously downplaying here, of which you are trying to take advantage of said generosity and extreme benefit of the doubt giving in every way possible. Not a single fucking one. And I'm talking over a hundred people, 2 or 3 a week, and the half dozen or so coworkers over the past few years.

2. Hurr hurr that's just systemic racism built up since the 60's, they aren't wearing clan hoods, doesn't count! Besides it's 2018. Not like people are still marching with torches screaming about Jews anymore! Besides it's not like he has pages of these articles he's planning on drip feeding every time I try to handwave shit away.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57055d56e4b0a506064dfcdb/amp

Ruh roh

And yeah, I have noticed your tendency to try and pull this farther and farther away from the subject at hand the further this goes on.

Chadtwo · Jul 9, 2018

4859 said:
Their beliefs are conscious, they just hide them. They cant completely hide these beliefs in their actions, Which is why they, at best, would subconsciously, or not accurately passive agressively would leak this shit out towards clients or coworkers.

This is not the riddle of the fucking sphynx. I have not had a single Trump supporting coworker or client that did not do this in vastly more obvious ways than I am generously downplaying here, of which you are trying to take advantage of said generosity and extreme benefit of the doubt giving in every way possible. Not a single fucking one. And I'm talking over a hundred people, 2 or 3 a week, and the half dozen or so coworkers over the past few years.

2. Hurr hurr that's just systemic racism built up since the 60's, they aren't wearing clan hoods, doesn't count! Besides it's 2018. Not like people are still marching with torches screaming about Jews anymore! Besides it's not like he has pages of these articles he's planning on drip feeding every time I try to handwave shit away.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57055d56e4b0a506064dfcdb/amp

Ruh roh

1. Ok? I have, so obviously they exist, so obviously that wouldn't be a motivating criterion for hiring/firing someone for me.

2. Lol. It obviously "counts." My point isn't that the issues that article brings up don't matter, it's that they're wholly irrelevant to the discussion of hiring a Trump supporter.

The same is true of the Huffpo article. These disparites are problematic and distressing. But (and admittedly without having full access to the papers) they almost certainly stem from collective biases manifested across a diverse set of actors, and also almost certainly because they're white, not because they're Trump supporters -- the Huffpo article specifically identifies the likely cause as stemming from racial ignorance over Black people having "thicker skin," which is remedied at more racially diverse hospitals. In other words, the problem is not one of political belief, it's one of white people holding unfounded biases. A huge problem! But not one that has anything to do with me hiring an individual Trump supporter. I mean Jesus, if that Trump supporter happened to be black then they obviously wouldn't have erroneous beliefs about thicker skin. That's obviously what the Huffpo article identifies as the source of the problem. The connection you're drawing is tenuous.

4859 · Jul 9, 2018

Chadtwo said:
1. Ok? I have, so I guess we're at a draw there.

2. Lol. It obviously "counts." My point isn't that the issues that article brings up don't matter, it's that they're wholly irrelevant to the discussion of hiring a Trump supporter.

The same is true of the Huffpo article. These disparites are problematic and distressing. But (and admittedly without having full access to the papers) they almost certainly stem from collective biases manifested across a diverse set of actors, and also almost certainly because they're white, not because they're Trump supporters -- the Huffpo article specifically identifies the likely cause as stemming from racial ignorance over Black people having "thicker skin," which is remedied at more racially diverse hospitals. In other words, the problem is not one of political belief, it's one of white people holding unfounded biases. A huge problem! But not one that has anything to do with me hiring an individual Trump supporter. I mean Jesus, if that Trump supporter happened to be black then they obviously wouldn't have erroneous beliefs about thicker skin. That's obviously what the Huffpo article identifies as the source of the problem. The connection you're drawing is tenuous.

Yeah... odds just aren't on your side for that argument bro.

Your Venn diagram is going to have a very strong overlap for racists and Trump voters, and in incredible overlap for those who STILL support Trump now and racists. It's relevant because this is how racists act. They HAVE to get it out in some form or another, overtly, or passive agressively.

I don't like gambling, especially not at those odds. But sure, you might have the one out of 20,000,000 black Trump supporter or 'really not racist person who honestly still supports Trump right now with kids in cages, soldiers being stripped of their citizenship program, and pregnant women miscarrying because of stomachs manacles'.

However.....

You do realize these are just going to get progressively worse as you continue to attempt to handwave them right?

http://abc7.com/amp/usc-reveals-inv...ogist-who-treated-students-for-years/3479705/

Chadtwo · Jul 9, 2018

4859 said:
Yeah... odds just aren't on your side for that argument bro.

Your Venn diagram is going to have a very strong overlap for racists and Trump voters, and in incredible overlap for those who STILL support Trump now and racists. It's relevant because this is how racists act. They HAVE to get it out in some form or another, overtly, or passive agressively.

I don't like gambling, especially not at those odds. But sure, you might have the one out of 20,000,000 black Trump supporter or 'really not racist person who honestly still supports Trump right now with kids in cages, soldiers being stripped of their citizenship program, and pregnant women miscarrying because of stomachs manacles'.

However.....

You do realize these are just going to get progressively worse as you continue to attempt to handwave them right?

http://abc7.com/amp/usc-reveals-inv...ogist-who-treated-students-for-years/3479705/

No they aren't, because my argument isn't that I would hire racist or misogynistic people. It's that, given a list of candidates for a job, if the candidate who seemed the most qualified and well-adjusted happened to be a Trump supporter, that would not bar me from hiring him/her. You could cite cases of racial or gender bias for the rest of eternity and they would be entirely inapposite to my point. I'm not handwaving these issues away, I'm saying that they don't stem from individual Trump employees being hired, they stem from instititional and structural issues of discrimination largely coordinated and encouraged from the top down, and since long before Trump took office. If you're going to hold the position you do, at least be consistent and say you wouldn't hire any Republican supporter, since it's the party as an institutional force that is to blame for many of things I imagine you lament.

If it would brighten your day even a little, I will happily concede that I would not want the people responsible for making administrative decisions at whatever hypothetical company I'm the employer for to all be Trump supporters.

Just saw that edit you made about me trying to push the subject further and further away from what it was about -- I'm sorry but that actually really pisses me off, because it's absolute bullshit. I have in every possible instance referred YOU back to my original point, not vice versa. You picked up my surgeon example and ran with it to make a series of unrelated points and try to muddy the waters. If anything I'm doing you a courtesy by not reminding you that you never actually gave an example to confirm your silly hypothetical of a surgeon using his individual jurisdiction to turn down a black patient because he's a Trump supporter. You just made a bunch of uninsightful, well-understood points about racial bias in general and called it a day.

RetroMG · Jul 9, 2018

I mean, I'm not going to ask. If they leave their politics at the door, I'll do the same.

If they come in to the interview preaching the gospel of Trump, hell no I'm not going to hire them. I don't need that drama.

Chadtwo · Jul 9, 2018

RetroMG said:
I mean, I'm not going to ask. If they leave their politics at the door, I'll do the same.

If they come in to the interview preaching the gospel of Trump, hell no I'm not going to hire them. I don't need that drama.

Pretty much my position.

shintoki · Jul 9, 2018

I feel like if they are stupid enough to put it on blast. They are a liability.

NightMarcher · Jul 9, 2018

Feep said:
I want you to understand this, because it's important.

Recognizing white privilege doesn't mean apologizing. It doesn't mean being ashamed of who you are. It doesn't mean you haven't overcome significant ad meaningful obstacles through grit and intelligence. It simply means that your skin color has *not been an obstacle* in your struggles, whereas for others of color, it is.

That's it.

It's important to recognize that, because if you don't, then you don't recognize that people of color face daily struggles because of systemic racism, and that means you don't view that as a problem, and will take no steps to correct an injustice.

That's all.

It's not a personal thing. It's a system thing.

I want you to understand this, because it's important.

To understand white privilege isn't personal. However, to accuse or question someone's race in the attempt to leverage white privilege in rebuttal of their position in a debate is the definition of personal, and that's been done to me more than once on this site. I'd love to have it explained to me how the usage of the term in this manner is not personal. It doesn't matter if it's a fact and systemic....a fact can be used to guilt trip, to invalidate, and to belittle, and that is precisely what's occurred.

And to simply cite white privilege is an overly simplistic and lazy viewpoint, a blanket generalization that is predicated upon giant assumptions. I grew up and spent about 25 years in Hawaii as a white guy. Perhaps people are unfamiliar with Hawaiian history and the overthrow of the monarchy in the late 19th century, but there remains an incredible amount of resentment and hatred towards "haoles" (white people, foreigners) in the islands to this day. My entire upbringing and as an adult I was a minority surrounded by those of darker skin, many of which who hated me. This included cops, school teachers, locals. I was spit on, beat up, slung racial epithets at, and targeted for nothing but my skin color.

So I find it quite amusing that people here believe that just because I'm white that my skin color has *not been an obstacle* for me as opposed to people of differing skin color. If you and others want to view the world through such a rudimentary lens as 'white=privilege=default easier life than others who aren't white', go right ahead. Not to say that white privilege doesn't exist, just that it's not so simple as you and others make it out to be.

Feep · Jul 9, 2018

NightMarcher said:
I want you to understand this, because it's important.

To understand white privilege isn't personal. However, to accuse or question someone's race in the attempt to leverage white privilege in rebuttal of their position in a debate is the definition of personal, and that's been done to me more than once on this site. I'd love to have it explained to me how the usage of the term in this manner is not personal. It doesn't matter if it's a fact and systemic....a fact can be used to guilt trip, to invalidate, and to belittle, and that is precisely what's occurred.

And to simply cite white privilege is an overly simplistic and lazy viewpoint, a blanket generalization that is predicated upon giant assumptions. I grew up and spent about 25 years in Hawaii as a white guy. Perhaps people are unfamiliar with Hawaiian history and the overthrow of the monarchy in the late 19th century, but there remains an incredible amount of resentment and hatred towards "haoles" (white people, foreigners) in the islands to this day. My entire upbringing and as an adult I was a minority surrounded by those of darker skin, many of which who hated me. This included cops, school teachers, locals. I was spit on, beat up, slung racial epithets at, and targeted for nothing but my skin color.

So I find it quite amusing that people here believe that just because I'm white that my skin color has *not been an obstacle* for me as opposed to people of differing skin color. If you and others want to view the world through such a rudimentary lens as 'white=privilege=default easier life than others who aren't white', go right ahead. Not to say that white privilege doesn't exist, just that it's not so simple as you and others make it out to be.

And even then, there are still advantages to being white. You are statistically more likely to get a job interview, to not be harassed by police, or locked up. You are more likely to be approved for a bank loan, you are vastly over-represented in media, you won't be attacked as quickly or as readily on social media.

You have spent multiple essay-length posts trying to justify that white privilege *doesn't exist for you*, because your life has been *hard*, we get it. But YOU STILL HAVE PRIVILEGE. To deny that is to simply nonsense. I'm Jewish, personally, and I've gotten some hate over that. I still have white privilege.

Saying white privilege exists is literally identical to saying there is systemic racism against non-whites. So if you're saying it doesn't exist, you're saying that people of color don't have it any harder than white people, IN GENERAL, and that's some straight bullshit. Individual cases don't really matter. It's an acknowledgment of the racism that still needs to be fought.

I can't speak for how people "on this site" have been using it, but that's what it is. And your extreme vehemence in just being willing to acknowledge that is weird as fuck.

autumn_orenji · Jul 9, 2018

NightMarcher said:
Is it possible for me to say that I'm proud of who I am (as people of other races are capable of doing) without being seen as a racist or racist enabler by proxy? Without the assumption that in doing so I'm at the same time disregarding horrific atrocities done in my name so many years ago, while in the meantime dismissing privileges I'm taking advantage of simply by virtue of my existence?

So you're real mad at not having white pride month, huh?

If you're a white person, there's a billion cultural events - hell, whole days - that celebrate any heritage you might have. St. Patrick's Day if you're Irish! Oktoberfest if you're German! Running of the Bulls if you're Spanish and hate bulls! Bastille Day if you're French! A whole load of holidays that celebrate independence for pretty much every country in Europe! There are whole degrees based on British literature, culture and history! White people take pride in their heritage all the time. All. The. Time. You are not being denied that.

What you seem to want - white pride - is not okay because 'whiteness' is itself a racist construct. It was only implemented as a fuck you to black people that were descendants of slaves that dared to take a little pride in their own heritage. Unlike the majority of white people, a lot of black people like African-Americans don't know WHERE in Africa they came from (this was obviously before Ancestry.com and DNA tests). To try to address that, pride in simply being black came about, celebrating the identity black people had created for themselves as a diaspora. White people trying to appropriate that with white pride - even if they don't know the history of it - will always be racist, since they're piggybacking off something that was done to put down black people in the first place. White people have the ability to celebrate their heritage anyways through so many established events and holidays already; why did/do they need white pride? They don't.

There's also the fact that 'whiteness', when it was created, was based on exclusionary parameters anyways. Not skin color. Irish weren't white for a long ass time. Slavs weren't white. In some parts of the world, East Asians were considered 'honorary whites'. The whole system of whiteness not only doesn't make sense, but inclusion in that group almost always means you somehow screwed over someone else. Irish people, after initial collusion with blacks over their shitty statuses in society, were 'given' whiteness by selling out black people. The stereotype of the Irish-American cop is based on this: the Irish were later considered trustworthy 'whites' because they would beat up and turn in black people for their now fellow whites. Chinese people in apartheid South Africa kept down the black majority with their power and money along with the ruling whites, so were also given whiteness. Not really a great system to take pride in.

Baked Pigeon · Jul 9, 2018

If someone had the skills and knowledge for the job, and treated customers/coworkers with respect, and had a good work ethic..... yes. I think it is kind of ridiculous that people get all up in arms about a certain type of discrimination but are fine with this type of discrimination.

NightMarcher · Jul 9, 2018

Guys look, I think I'm about done. I have more I'd like to say, but honestly don't feel like writing more....essays, which would be required to respond to other.....essays, not to mention this has derailed this thread far off from its original topic to the point of risking a moderation if we keep this up. But I appreciate the time everyone took to respond.

anamika · Jul 9, 2018

Vincent Grayson said:
You're not wrong about a lot of what you're saying, but the reality is that Sanders wasn't a real option in this last election, because here, 2 parties are basically the only real choices. So yes, at least for me, there's a lot I don't like about the democratic party choices in most elections either...but I will not vote in a way that doesn't minimize the damage, and that's voting for the democrat over the republican. In an ideal scenario, I'd be voting for someone who didn't champion any shitty policies, here or abroad.

I get that. I just find it a bit hypocritical is all. The notion that Trump supporters are the very devil, but people have no issues with Obama and Clinton's racist foreign policy that has killed children and thousands of people, destroyed lives and families.

Racism on here seems important only when it applies to America and Americans. The imperialistic, racist, American foreign policy - which directly contributes to things like Islamophobia - is never addressed.

So in essence, Islamophobia? Bad.
Clinton destroying Libya, loss of stability and security, radicalization, refugees, terrorists targeting westerners, killing westerners - Islamophobia? Clinton is the best!!

Maybe if Americans held all it's governments - democrat and republican alike - accountable for their actions instead of just Trump, we would not be in the position we are in now. After all, the so called liberal democrats elected Hilary Clinton in the primary - ignoring her penchant for killing people in the middle east.

As a Palestinian American once said to me - Clinton or Trump - it makes no difference to the Palestinians.

All American governments are very racist at the end of the day. If people are going to get hired for jobs based on voting for racists, no one would be working in the US of A.

cosmicblizzard · Jul 9, 2018

NightMarcher said:
Guys look, I think I'm about done. I have more I'd like to say, but honestly don't feel like writing more....essays, which would be required to respond to other.....essays, not to mention this has derailed this thread far off from its original topic to the point of risking a moderation if we keep this up. But I appreciate the time everyone took to respond.

Just wanted to throw out that I appreciate your posts and agree with a lot of the underlying sentiment in them. People are too quick to dismiss the individual vs the majority and I think that's why a lot of discussions on white privilege fall apart and is one reason I hate using it in almost any kind of argument. It's useful for statistics, but too many people use it to guilt others into feeling a certain way.

anamika · Jul 9, 2018

DP sorry.

Ryder9 · Jul 9, 2018

anamika said:
I get that. But I just find it a bit hypocritical is all. The notion that Trump supporters are the very devil, but people have no issues with Obama and Clinton's racist foreign policy that has killed children and thousands of people, destroyed lives and families.

Racism on here seems important only when it applies to America and Americans. The imperialistic, racist, American foreign policy - which directly contributes to things like Islamophobia - is never addressed.

So in essence, Islamophobia? Bad.
Clinton destroying Libya, loss of stability and security, radicalization, refugees, terrorists targeting westerners, killing westerners - Islamophobia? Clinton is the best!!

Maybe if Americans held all it's governments - democrat and republican alike - accountable for their actions instead of just Trump, we would not be in the position we are in now. After all, the so called liberal democrats elected Hilary Clinton in the primary - ignoring her penchant for killing people in the middle east.

As a Palestinian American once said to me - Clinton or Trump - it makes no difference to the Palestinians.

All American governments are very racist at the end of the day. If people are going to get hired for jobs based on voting for racists, no one would be working in the US of A.

lol nice strawman you've constructed here for some usual bullshit "muh both sydz" rhetoric

anamika · Jul 9, 2018

Ryder9 said:
lol nice strawman you've constructed here for some usual bullshit "muh both sydz" rhetoric

Right. So do to you have anything to say about all the people killed in the rest of the world by American foreign policy? Or are their lives not important enough for you?

Ryder9 · Jul 9, 2018

anamika said:
Right. So do to you have anything to say about all the people killed in the middle east by American foreign policy? Or are their lives not important enough for you?

Lol, are you trolling now? Or are you really ignorant of history? Or are you purposely trying to gaslight here?

Datajoy · Jul 9, 2018

Yes I would hire them if they were the best qualified person for the job.

anamika · Jul 9, 2018

Ryder9 said:
Lol, are you trolling now? Or are you really ignorant of history? Or are you purposely trying to gaslight here?

Why don't you answer my question? Obama's drone policy burned innocent children alive. Do you think the lack of concern for people being killed in third world countries/the middle east by American foreign policy has anything to do with racism?

NightMarcher · Jul 9, 2018

cosmicblizzard said:
Just wanted to throw out that I appreciate your posts and agree with a lot of the underlying sentiment in them. People are too quick to dismiss the individual vs the majority and I think that's why a lot of discussions on white privilege fall apart and is one reason I hate using it in almost any kind of argument. It's useful for statistics, but too many people use it to guilt others into feeling a certain way.

Thanks.

Roy · Jul 9, 2018

Datajoy said:
Yes I would hire them if they were the best qualified person for the job.

Me too: As in employees I have to exploit!

Datajoy · Jul 9, 2018

Roy said:
Me too: As in employees I have to exploit!

I don't quite understand what you are saying here.

4859 · Jul 9, 2018

anamika said:
I get that. I just find it a bit hypocritical is all. The notion that Trump supporters are the very devil, but people have no issues with Obama and Clinton's racist foreign policy that has killed children and thousands of people, destroyed lives and families.

Racism on here seems important only when it applies to America and Americans. The imperialistic, racist, American foreign policy - which directly contributes to things like Islamophobia - is never addressed.

So in essence, Islamophobia? Bad.
Clinton destroying Libya, loss of stability and security, radicalization, refugees, terrorists targeting westerners, killing westerners - Islamophobia? Clinton is the best!!

Maybe if Americans held all it's governments - democrat and republican alike - accountable for their actions instead of just Trump, we would not be in the position we are in now. After all, the so called liberal democrats elected Hilary Clinton in the primary - ignoring her penchant for killing people in the middle east.

As a Palestinian American once said to me - Clinton or Trump - it makes no difference to the Palestinians.

All American governments are very racist at the end of the day. If people are going to get hired for jobs based on voting for racists, no one would be working in the US of A.

What are you saying here? That nobody condemned those massive horrible mistakes?

You're wrong.

But the main difference here, is those things were fuck ups in responses to things that happened, and they were condemned, like, a lot. But none of them RAN on that shit. Those weren't their campaign promises, they were their worst failures.

Trump RAN on this shit, this is what he said he would do if you voted for him.

These are not equivalent situations.

anamika · Jul 10, 2018

4859 said:
But the main difference here, is those things were fuck ups in responses to things that happened, and they were condemned, like, a lot. But none of them RAN on that shit. Those weren't their campaign promises, they were their worst failures.

Are you saying that when democrats elected Hillary Clinton in the primary they knew nothing about her foreign policy?

Are you saying that democrats who voted for Clinton were unaware of the fact that:

- Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war in which half a million Iraqis died, the region became a hell hole and ISIS was birthed.
- While Secretary of State under Obama, Clinton pushed for intervention in Libya and destroyed that country
- Clinton stood in front of AIPAC and pledged her unwavering support and loyalty towards the state of Israel against 'terrorist' Palestinians.

What does it matter if she did not run on her foreign policy platform? People KNOW this is her foreign policy and they STILL voted for her. Because at the end of the day, it only mattered that she was a 'liberal' in American domestic policies.

Hillary Clinton got the support of Bush administration neocon hawks over Trump. Why do you think they supported her over him? Robert Kagan had fundraisers for Clinton.

As the co-founder of the neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century, Kagan played a leading role in pushing for America's unilateral invasion of Iraq and insisted for years afterward that it had turned out great.

Do you remember Henry Kissinger? Someone who should be indicted for war crimes by the International criminal court. Clinton praised the guy and wanted his support and mentoring.

And Democrats I would assume know these things. And they just do not care. What does it matter if some 500,000 brown people were killed in the middle east as long as we get a liberal judge in the supreme court, right? Is that not racism?

I suppose that the millions of people who voted for Clinton did not hear this exchange about the Gaza slaughter in 2014 between Clinton and Sanders in their primary debate?

SANDERS: I don't think that anybody would suggest that Israel invites and welcomes missiles flying into their country. That is not the issue.

And, you evaded the answer. You evaded the question. The question is not does Israel have a right to respond, nor does Israel have a right to go after terrorists and destroy terrorism. That's not the debate. Was their response disproportionate?

I believe that it was, you have not answered that.

CLINTON: I will certainly be willing to answer it. I think I did answer it by saying that of course there have to be precautions taken but even the most independent analyst will say the way that Hamas places its weapons, the way that it often has its fighters in civilian garb, it is terrible.

I'm not saying it's anything other than terrible. It would be great -- remember, Israel left Gaza. They took out all the Israelis. They turned the keys over to the Palestinian people.

And what happened? Hamas took over Gaza. So instead of having a thriving economy with the kind of opportunities that the children of the Palestinians deserve, we have a terrorist haven that is getting more and more rockets shipped in from Iran and elsewhere.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Secretary. Senator?

SANDERS: I read Secretary Clinton's statement speech before AIPAC. I heard virtually no discussion at all about the needs of the Palestinian people. Almost none in that speech.

So here is the issue: of course Israel has a right to defend itself, but long-term there will never be peace in that region unless the United States plays a role, an even-handed role trying to bring people together and recognizing the serious problems that exist among the Palestinian people.

That is what I believe the world wants to us do and that's the kind of leadership that we have got to exercise.

CLINTON: Well, I want to add, you know, again describing the problem is a lot easier than trying to solve it. And I have been involved, both as first lady with my husband's efforts, as a senator supporting the efforts that even the Bush administration was undertaking, and as secretary of state for President Obama, I'm the person who held the last three meetings between the president of the Palestinian Authority and the prime minister of Israel.

There were only four of us in the room, Netanyahu, Abbas, George Mitchell, and me. Three long meetings. And I was absolutely focused on what was fair and right for the Palestinians.

I was absolutely focused on what we needed to do to make sure that the Palestinian people had the right to self-government. And I believe that as president I will be able to continue to make progress and get an agreement that will be fair both to the Israelis and the Palestinians without ever, ever undermining Israel's security.

SANDERS: There comes a time when if we pursue justice and peace, we are going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time.

CLINTON: You know, I have spoken about and written at some length the very candid conversations I've had with him and other Israeli leaders. Nobody is saying that any individual leader is always right, but it is a difficult position.

If you are from whatever perspective trying to seek peace, trying to create the conditions for peace when there is a terrorist group embedded in Gaza that does not want to see you exist, that is a very difficult challenge.

SANDERS: You gave a major speech to AIPAC, which obviously deals with the Middle East crisis, and you barely mentioned the Palestinians. And I think, again, it is a complicated issue and God knows for decades presidents, including President Clinton and others, Jimmy Carter and others have tried to do the right thing.

All that I am saying is we cannot continue to be one-sided. There are two sides to the issue.

Would you agree with a Palestinian American refusing to hire someone who voted for Hillary Clinton because of her racism against Palestinians and Arabs?

Look, I understand that Trump is bad for America and that he is an openly racist, sexist idiot shitbag. And I am sure that many, many people voted for him for precisely those reasons. But I think there are also many folks who really don't care that he is all these things, if his policies help them get a better life. Are not poor, uneducated whites the majority of the people who voted for him? They are ignorant. They don't care about some black person suffering from racism. They just want a better life for themselves. This is one of the reasons for the rise in anti-immigrant populist nationalism and right wing leaders across the world.

That's why I think it would be important for the next democratic candidate to speak specifically to the issues affecting all Americans. Obama was able to do that - and that's why he won.

I will end here, as this has become a thread derail.

DaveB · Jul 10, 2018

Nope.

And though it may be discrimination and therefore illegal, companies make excuses all the time to get around the real reason they're denying an applicant employment.

Ayato_Kanzaki · Jul 10, 2018

anamika said:
Why don't you answer my question? Obama's drone policy burned innocent children alive. Do you think the lack of concern for people being killed in third world countries/the middle east by American foreign policy has anything to do with racism?

And one of Trump's first moves when he became president was to remove public scrutiny related to drone strikes. Just because you don't hear about it in the news doesn't mean they have stopped. It is very likely that they have intensified, on the contrary, since there is no more backlash at home.

So, if you're really opposed to drone strikes, don't try to divert the discussion with "both sides" rethoric. It is counter-productive.

Killz4Twinkies · Jul 10, 2018

So much for being tolerant and civil.

On topic, as mentioned between all of shit-slinging, I'd hire the person best qualified for the job whether they're a Trump or Hillary supporter. Now if they came in for an interview and persistently talked about MAGA, gonna take a hard pass. But if someone can leave their politics at the door, so can I.

Ryder9 · Jul 10, 2018

anamika said:
Why don't you answer my question? Obama's drone policy burned innocent children alive. Do you think the lack of concern for people being killed in third world countries/the middle east by American foreign policy has anything to do with racism?

keep whataboutism-ing intellectually dishonest gaslighter

Tomasoares · Jul 10, 2018

Why not?

Visanideth · Jul 10, 2018

Ryder9 said:
keep whataboutism-ing intellectually dishonest gaslighter

Which is basically "Look this isn't what I wanted to talk about" for millennials.

As for the question and as an employer, yes. I think not discriminating potential workers for their political beliefs is the only decent behaviour in this case. The moment I force my own views on the people that work for me or discriminate them for having different beliefs I open the floodgates of being an unfair employer.
Next step could be not hiring someone who's a muslim or someone who believes in communism.
As an employer, I care and judge what you do in your job. I don't get to be a censor of your morality or political beliefs. This of course includes kicking you out the moment your beliefs and political ideas lead to being less than excellent to your co-workers. I won't fire someone for voting Trump (or whoever else), but I'll fire someone for being racist. If the two things overlap, it's not my fault.

Deleted member 4034 · Jul 10, 2018

Killz4Twinkies said:
So much for being tolerant and civil.

On topic, as mentioned between all of shit-slinging, I'd hire the person best qualified for the job whether they're a Trump or Hillary supporter. Now if they came in for an interview and persistently talked about MAGA, gonna take a hard pass. But if someone can leave their politics at the door, so can I.

Why should I be tolerant or civil toward potential racists as a minority?

Visanideth · Jul 10, 2018

Shin Bobo Dakes said:
Why should I be tolerant or civil toward potential racists as a minority?

Bloody hell.

Ryder9 · Jul 10, 2018

Visanideth said:
Bloody hell.

Deleted member 4034 · Jul 10, 2018

Visanideth said:
Bloody hell.

People get pissy about "generalizations" here, I wanted to spare myself from that since I already made that thread. Spare me.

Visanideth · Jul 10, 2018

Ryder9 said:

Ryder9 · Jul 10, 2018

Visanideth said:

don't you have to harrass & send death threats to people involved in star wars or something?

TheThreadsThatBindUs · Jul 10, 2018

Depends on the job I'm hiring them for.

If it's to pay them a dollar an hour to shovel shit, then why would I hire anyone else?

If you were an employer, would you hire a Trump supporter?

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

Game Developer

Community Resettler

Lead Designer, Iridium Studios

User requested ban

Alt account

Alt account

use of an alt account

use of an alt account

Alt account

Alt account

Alt account