There are 29 states where it's legal to fire someone for being gay. Yes, it actually happens that a boss has told an employee, "I'm sorry, but your sexual orientation makes other employees uncomfortable and we need to let you go." This was also the case in the military before the Obama administration allowed openly gay and lesbian individuals to serve. I'm sure it's difficult to prove in instances where the employer doesn't specifically say that one was fired for this reason, but at least it prevents employers from such overt discrimination.
I really hope you're exaggerating. You do realize that the Fortune 500 would only have 500 CEO's, right?
I love the people crying for tolerance. Tolerance in this case evidently equals "You believe what I do or you're wrong and intolerant".
Better check the context—I know it's hard for you knee-jerk "conservatives"—of Crowley's post.
Now to your standard wail about tolerance. Yes, tolerant people do speak out when they see others speaking and acting intolerantly. What is the origin of the problem? Who started it? Not the tolerant one. Clear?
Free will is an illusion. Once being gay is considered normal, we will find any number of traits to discriminate societally. That's what human beings and other living organisms do. It's why you love one person vs another... You discriminated. It's why you like one charity vs another, one religion vs another, one chapter of the bible vs another, one caste vs another. The human race has always liked to discriminate en masse like a hive mind. Iphone vs android, mac vs pc, best buy vs circuit city. It is a primary function of the human brain to discriminate (between a mother's face and a stranger's face for example). All you can do is be trained by to reduce you discrimination threshold. I said free will is an illusion but that's not to say external environments (training) cannot condition your subconscious impulses.
Tolerance can only begin to occur when you notice your personal prejudices and if some change in your circumstances cause those prejudices to change.
If however, a chinese man murders my family, odds are that my prejudice against the next chinese guy I see may actually be amplified. A civilization will get the prejudices against it that it deserves generally speaking. I dont have enough space in my brain to catalogue the behaviors of every human being, so my brain lumps groups of people into catergories for expediency.
The human condition is very strange indeed. We are the way we are because it was required to make it to where we are and to handle the circimstances we are in. Don't get to prejudiced against the prejudiced, since you are also prejudiced.
"If, however, a chinese man . . . " —you lost me there. A bit too "me-vs.-them," don't you think? Maybe you've been living in a war zone, or watching too much TV news, or just too much TV?
Anyway, here's the big news, for all you fear-addled me-vs.them people. This is not the normal human condition, as you like to tell yourselves, and as you've been told by generations of white male Darwinian anthropologists, who are really writing as apologists for European colonialism of Africa, Asia and South America. Humans are wired for cooperation, empathy, and yes, tolerance, but the patriarchal war machine that began only in the Bronze Age can reach under those sympathetic mammalian circuits and exploit the fear and authority-imprinting reptilian brain. This is how you run an army and a Ku Klux Klan, but it isn't the best we're capable of. There were thousands of years of relatively peaceful civilization before the warrior age that we haven't been told about, but now we have the goods on the perpetrators of the destruction of Crete, the Indus Valley and the river valley civilizations of Eastern Europe.
Tim Cook is in alignment with the history of the future, even though there's a revival of puritan patriarchal fundamentalism going on, mostly in reaction to the reemergence of the pre-Bronze Age nature-oriented spiritualism, which to the puritan, seems like decadent, feminine sensualism. Sources: Marija Gimbutas, Riane Eisler, Robert Graves's The White Goddess and The Greek Myths, and a new growing literature on the empathic brain.
How do you determine that someone was discriminated against because of their sexual orientation? it's not like when you apply for a job you check a box saying you're gay. I don't know how anyone can prove they weren't hired for a job because they are gay.
That's because they cannot even say that and they know it's meaningless. They know by interviewing you and if you're sounding "gay" to them, they will be much less likely to hire you. That's a fact. Studies show that if you have a resume with references to gay organizations like human rights campaign or any related GLBT causes, your odds of being hired is significantly reduced especially in the South.
Humans are wired for cooperation, empathy, and yes, tolerance... There were thousands of years of relatively peaceful civilization before the warrior age...
Huh... thousands of years of peace... guess you never heard of that little Caine and Abel thing.
Huh... thousands of years of peace... guess you never heard of that little Caine and Abel thing.
Big news for you too. Your bible is part of the patriarchal propaganda package, written in the second millennium, long after the Bronze Age warrior ascendency made it to northern Syria. Abe's god was an Indo-European import from beyond the Caucasus. See Merlin Stone's brilliant work on the subject and you'll be way ahead of the pack of bible nerds.
I really hope you're exaggerating. You do realize that the Fortune 500 would only have 500 CEO's, right?
I love the people crying for tolerance. Tolerance in this case evidently equals "You believe what I do or you're wrong and intolerant".
Tolerance means not being a douchebag because someone was born different or has a different culture.
For example, you, Apple ][, Spam Sandwich, and Rogifan are social conservatives, but we tolerate you here, and want you to feel comfortable with your feeling that white men are victimized whenever some "other" wants a level playing field.
I don't ask to get you guys banned because you think differently, and act like there's no problem with banning you.
Your post neatly sums up the hypocritical intolerance of liberals and others like you.
Free will is an illusion. Once being gay is considered normal, we will find any number of traits to discriminate societally. That's what human beings and other living organisms do. It's why you love one person vs another... You discriminated. It's why you like one charity vs another, one religion vs another, one chapter of the bible vs another, one caste vs another. The human race has always liked to discriminate en masse like a hive mind. Iphone vs android, mac vs pc, best buy vs circuit city. It is a primary function of the human brain to discriminate (between a mother's face and a stranger's face for example). All you can do is be trained by to reduce you discrimination threshold. I said free will is an illusion but that's not to say external environments (training) cannot condition your subconscious impulses.
Tolerance can only begin to occur when you notice your personal prejudices and if some change in your circumstances cause those prejudices to change.
If however, a chinese man murders my family, odds are that my prejudice against the next chinese guy I see may actually be amplified. A civilization will get the prejudices against it that it deserves generally speaking. I dont have enough space in my brain to catalogue the behaviors of every human being, so my brain lumps groups of people into catergories for expediency.
The human condition is very strange indeed. We are the way we are because it was required to make it to where we are and to handle the circimstances we are in. Don't get to prejudiced against the prejudiced, since you are also prejudiced.
You are right that we are all prejudiced and freely exercise discrimination in all walks of life.
How do you determine that someone was discriminated against because of their sexual orientation? it's not like when you apply for a job you check a box saying you're gay. I don't know how anyone can prove they weren't hired for a job because they are gay.
The same way you prove that you weren't hired for being a white dude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost
Your post neatly sums up the hypocritical intolerance of liberals and others like you.
No it doesn't. I'm just saying you can't prove that on an individual basis, but you can look at who's been hired in aggregate and people do speak up about the work culture at places.
You just want to exercise your bigoted judgmental free speech without anyone judging you.
How do you know he/she was not hired because he/she was gay? Did the employer say sorry I'm not hiring you because of your sexual orientation? How would the employer even know what their sexual orientation was?
See, this is why you don’t end an interview with a goodbye french kiss.
How can you put transgender people in this law? To me, that's walking a real fine line. I don't think it's right to force people to accept someone who thinks they are the opposite sex.
That's because they cannot even say that and they know it's meaningless. They know by interviewing you and if you're sounding "gay" to them, they will be much less likely to hire you. That's a fact. Studies show that if you have a resume with references to gay organizations like human rights campaign or any related GLBT causes, your odds of being hired is significantly reduced especially in the South.
And how do you remedy that considering it would be difficult to prove? I think it's something the government should stay out of. especially since there doesn't appear to be some widespread epidemic of people unable to get employment due to their sexual preference. I know the company I work at which is in the top 20 of the Fortune 500 goes out of its way to promote diversity. I would imagine that's the case at most companies these days without the need for government invention.
Be careful about political issues in which you get your name attached... ObamaCare, anyone?
I'd love it if Tim Cook would say no to this stuff because at the end of the day the focus should be on Apple not him and certainly not his sexual preference.
I'd love it if Tim Cook would say no to this stuff because at the end of the day the focus should be on Apple not him and certainly not his sexual preference.
I agree, but being a high-profile billionaire has certainly made him a magnet for opportunists of all kinds.
Comments
Better check the context—I know it's hard for you knee-jerk "conservatives"—of Crowley's post.
Now to your standard wail about tolerance. Yes, tolerant people do speak out when they see others speaking and acting intolerantly. What is the origin of the problem? Who started it? Not the tolerant one. Clear?
"If, however, a chinese man . . . " —you lost me there. A bit too "me-vs.-them," don't you think? Maybe you've been living in a war zone, or watching too much TV news, or just too much TV?
Anyway, here's the big news, for all you fear-addled me-vs.them people. This is not the normal human condition, as you like to tell yourselves, and as you've been told by generations of white male Darwinian anthropologists, who are really writing as apologists for European colonialism of Africa, Asia and South America. Humans are wired for cooperation, empathy, and yes, tolerance, but the patriarchal war machine that began only in the Bronze Age can reach under those sympathetic mammalian circuits and exploit the fear and authority-imprinting reptilian brain. This is how you run an army and a Ku Klux Klan, but it isn't the best we're capable of. There were thousands of years of relatively peaceful civilization before the warrior age that we haven't been told about, but now we have the goods on the perpetrators of the destruction of Crete, the Indus Valley and the river valley civilizations of Eastern Europe.
Tim Cook is in alignment with the history of the future, even though there's a revival of puritan patriarchal fundamentalism going on, mostly in reaction to the reemergence of the pre-Bronze Age nature-oriented spiritualism, which to the puritan, seems like decadent, feminine sensualism. Sources: Marija Gimbutas, Riane Eisler, Robert Graves's The White Goddess and The Greek Myths, and a new growing literature on the empathic brain.
How do you determine that someone was discriminated against because of their sexual orientation? it's not like when you apply for a job you check a box saying you're gay. I don't know how anyone can prove they weren't hired for a job because they are gay.
That's because they cannot even say that and they know it's meaningless. They know by interviewing you and if you're sounding "gay" to them, they will be much less likely to hire you. That's a fact. Studies show that if you have a resume with references to gay organizations like human rights campaign or any related GLBT causes, your odds of being hired is significantly reduced especially in the South.
Humans are wired for cooperation, empathy, and yes, tolerance... There were thousands of years of relatively peaceful civilization before the warrior age...
Huh... thousands of years of peace... guess you never heard of that little Caine and Abel thing.
Big news for you too. Your bible is part of the patriarchal propaganda package, written in the second millennium, long after the Bronze Age warrior ascendency made it to northern Syria. Abe's god was an Indo-European import from beyond the Caucasus. See Merlin Stone's brilliant work on the subject and you'll be way ahead of the pack of bible nerds.
Your post neatly sums up the hypocritical intolerance of liberals and others like you.
You are right that we are all prejudiced and freely exercise discrimination in all walks of life.
You are wrong that we don't have free will.
How do you determine that someone was discriminated against because of their sexual orientation? it's not like when you apply for a job you check a box saying you're gay. I don't know how anyone can prove they weren't hired for a job because they are gay.
The same way you prove that you weren't hired for being a white dude.
Your post neatly sums up the hypocritical intolerance of liberals and others like you.
No it doesn't. I'm just saying you can't prove that on an individual basis, but you can look at who's been hired in aggregate and people do speak up about the work culture at places.
You just want to exercise your bigoted judgmental free speech without anyone judging you.
See, this is why you don’t end an interview with a goodbye french kiss.
The same way you prove that you weren't hired for being a white dude.
Pretty sure Rogifan's a she...but nice assumption on your part.
Yep ... Always has to have the last word ...
(And that's MY snarky, sexist comment for today!
How can you put transgender people in this law? To me, that's walking a real fine line. I don't think it's right to force people to accept someone who thinks they are the opposite sex.
What?! Since when do we define transgenders as being unable to discern which sexual organs they were born?
What?! Since when do we define transgenders as being unable to discern which sexual organs they were born?
That's what a transgender is
And how do you remedy that considering it would be difficult to prove? I think it's something the government should stay out of. especially since there doesn't appear to be some widespread epidemic of people unable to get employment due to their sexual preference. I know the company I work at which is in the top 20 of the Fortune 500 goes out of its way to promote diversity. I would imagine that's the case at most companies these days without the need for government invention.
I'd love it if Tim Cook would say no to this stuff because at the end of the day the focus should be on Apple not him and certainly not his sexual preference.
I agree, but being a high-profile billionaire has certainly made him a magnet for opportunists of all kinds.