"Korean" is not a race. Nationalist bias, perhaps.
(I'm not suggesting she has this bias.)
It really depends on the definition. In fact, it's a fairly homogeneous group with relatively little recent blending with other groups. They claim that it's a race, although I don't believe it meets the strict definition.: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071101214052AAb1f0G
Either way, though, it's possible to exhibit biases base on national origin - whether you call it racism or not. I'm not saying that Koh did that, but you can't discard the possibility simply by arguing that it doesn't meet the strict definition of racism.
Right. And one remedy would be to delete the stupid app and get one with one's life.
That's the most bizarre thing about this. The app is free, it's installed voluntarily by the user, and it can easily be deleted without taking away from the functionality that Apple delivered in the phone. I don't see how anyone can show any damages.
That's one of the really bizarre thing about the court system. You have a case like this where Koh is letting a case proceed against Apple when it's hard to imagine how anyone can prove damages. At the same time, you have Posner getting ready to dismiss an Apple case against Samsung on the basis that while it appears that Samsung has violated Apple's design patents and is selling lots of phones (some of which presumably would have been Apple's sales otherwise) but Posner wants to dismiss it because damages haven't been proven.
Either way, though, it's possible to exhibit biases base on national origin - whether you call it racism or not. I'm not saying that Koh did that, but you can't discard the possibility simply by arguing that it doesn't meet the strict definition of racism.
Anthropologically speaking there are four: Australoid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. The term 'race' is related to anthropology, right? - I don't believe it should be applied to current winds blowing through common parlance. I feel it leads to incorrect overuse of the term racism.
I didn't mean to imply that I had discarded the possibility of a particular bias on the part of the judge. I meant to imply that I am severely uninformed about this particular judge and her record.
Anthropologically speaking there are four: Australoid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. The term 'race' is related to anthropology, right? - I don't believe it should be applied to current winds blowing through common parlance. I feel it leads to incorrect overuse of the term racism.
I didn't mean to imply that I had discarded the possibility of a particular bias on the part of the judge. I meant to imply that I am severely uninformed about this particular judge and her record.
I agree, but the generic use of 'racism' doesn't change the point. Someone argued that Koh might be biased in favor of a Korean country because of her heritage. If that is true, it doesn't matter if you call it 'racism' or 'bias' or 'just plain stupid'.
Personally, I haven't seen any sign of racism. There have, however, been some pretty obvious signs in her decisions that she has a strong bias against Apple. Even having her most recent decision overturned by the appeals court doesn't seem to have changed that.
It was more the quote from her past that bothers me over her being a Korean American. So what information did you get that changed your perception? I am happy to be open minded that maybe there is no bias and hope that is the case.
Again, you are missing the point and trying to make this a racist argument. I could not care less, if she was Japanese, Chinese, Mexican, German, African or what have you. But this is a case between a US Based company and a Korean company. This is a Korean American Judge who earlier in her law career wrote that one should mask their true opinions so their own judgments would not be questioned. Do not be ignorant to the fact that there may be an underlying bias and to remove that completely, put an African American, or Chinese American, or Canadian American, or what have you in her place to rule on the case.
You obviously do since you mentioned it in the first place...bigot.
This is a very strange discussion. Am I a racist/bigot if I bring up the fact that O.J. Simpson was acquitted by an all or mostly black jury, and suggest that racial identification may have played a part in the decision? How about if I also mention that the white killers of Emmitt Till were acquitted by an all-white jury? Am I being racist in one case but not in the other? If I'm white and question the O.J. decision, am I racist? What if I'm black? If I'm black and question the Emmitt Till decision am I being a racist?
Because of the racial history of this country, there are stereotypes of all kinds that we accept as a matter of fact - including the very question of who is being a racist in what situation.
Comments
It really depends on the definition. In fact, it's a fairly homogeneous group with relatively little recent blending with other groups. They claim that it's a race, although I don't believe it meets the strict definition.:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071101214052AAb1f0G
More accurately, though, it's not a race, but rather an ethnic group:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreans
Either way, though, it's possible to exhibit biases base on national origin - whether you call it racism or not. I'm not saying that Koh did that, but you can't discard the possibility simply by arguing that it doesn't meet the strict definition of racism.
That's the most bizarre thing about this. The app is free, it's installed voluntarily by the user, and it can easily be deleted without taking away from the functionality that Apple delivered in the phone. I don't see how anyone can show any damages.
That's one of the really bizarre thing about the court system. You have a case like this where Koh is letting a case proceed against Apple when it's hard to imagine how anyone can prove damages. At the same time, you have Posner getting ready to dismiss an Apple case against Samsung on the basis that while it appears that Samsung has violated Apple's design patents and is selling lots of phones (some of which presumably would have been Apple's sales otherwise) but Posner wants to dismiss it because damages haven't been proven.
Amazing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
It really depends on the definition...
Either way, though, it's possible to exhibit biases base on national origin - whether you call it racism or not. I'm not saying that Koh did that, but you can't discard the possibility simply by arguing that it doesn't meet the strict definition of racism.
Anthropologically speaking there are four: Australoid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. The term 'race' is related to anthropology, right? - I don't believe it should be applied to current winds blowing through common parlance. I feel it leads to incorrect overuse of the term racism.
I didn't mean to imply that I had discarded the possibility of a particular bias on the part of the judge. I meant to imply that I am severely uninformed about this particular judge and her record.
I agree, but the generic use of 'racism' doesn't change the point. Someone argued that Koh might be biased in favor of a Korean country because of her heritage. If that is true, it doesn't matter if you call it 'racism' or 'bias' or 'just plain stupid'.
Personally, I haven't seen any sign of racism. There have, however, been some pretty obvious signs in her decisions that she has a strong bias against Apple. Even having her most recent decision overturned by the appeals court doesn't seem to have changed that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple Fanboy
It was more the quote from her past that bothers me over her being a Korean American. So what information did you get that changed your perception? I am happy to be open minded that maybe there is no bias and hope that is the case.
Why mention it then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907
Only if you're racist.
He is actually a bigot, not a racist in this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple Fanboy
Again, you are missing the point and trying to make this a racist argument. I could not care less, if she was Japanese, Chinese, Mexican, German, African or what have you. But this is a case between a US Based company and a Korean company. This is a Korean American Judge who earlier in her law career wrote that one should mask their true opinions so their own judgments would not be questioned. Do not be ignorant to the fact that there may be an underlying bias and to remove that completely, put an African American, or Chinese American, or Canadian American, or what have you in her place to rule on the case.
You obviously do since you mentioned it in the first place...bigot.
This is a very strange discussion. Am I a racist/bigot if I bring up the fact that O.J. Simpson was acquitted by an all or mostly black jury, and suggest that racial identification may have played a part in the decision? How about if I also mention that the white killers of Emmitt Till were acquitted by an all-white jury? Am I being racist in one case but not in the other? If I'm white and question the O.J. decision, am I racist? What if I'm black? If I'm black and question the Emmitt Till decision am I being a racist?
Because of the racial history of this country, there are stereotypes of all kinds that we accept as a matter of fact - including the very question of who is being a racist in what situation.