It is far easier to bias against a person by how they look than by what internal conceptions they have including nationality and religion. That was the point and you don't get it.
Edit: even in your description you use appearance as the initiator.
(as an aside:
I am notoriously bad at placing a person's appearance with a region let alone a nationality. I make no assumptions and hence your comments appear close minded. I always ask and if I am told that they are from India, I still don't assume that they are hindu. If I want to know their religion I will ask. I don't assume anything about people I meet unless I see them say wearing a cross or a skullcap... and still even then, i am not always sure.
It is always safer to assume nothing.)
I assure you I get it. I fully understand that you don't look for nationality or religion when you look at a person. Even your definition of race is much shallower than some definitions. I'm not trying to get you to change them, or see things differently when you walk down the street. I'm simply saying that others do see these things differently and can act upon them in a negative manner.
As an aside, many would argue that not being able to have an idea about a person and their cultural background, isn't a sign of openmindedness, but of cultural ignorance. I don't know these things because I look for differences. It is because I live with these various folks day in and out. You get a much deeper understanding of people when you live among them. My knowing a Korean would be insulting to be thought of as Cambodian isn't closemindedness. It is because I have hung out and befriended both Koreans and Cambodians (along with Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, etc). Believe it or not, just because someone is from what would be a minority culture in the United States doesn't mean their own culture is tolerant, or open at all. You likely consider say, Cambodians and Filipinos to be the same race. However their definitino of race is more narrow than yours and you could have a fight on your hands if that Filipino happen to be touchy about Cambodians.
I'm not sure how state schools could legally hire based on religion.
I don't think they could hire based on religion. However they could review the process and insure that there is not some part of it that ends up screening out religious applicants to some excessive degree.
For example many LDS students often take time off to go one a mission for their church. If their resume explained a gap in their work and educational history as attending to a mission, someone could be using that to toss them off the qualified pile.
You likely consider say, Cambodians and Filipinos to be the same race. However their definitino of race is more narrow than yours and you could have a fight on your hands if they happen to be touchy about Cambodians.
Nope, I don't. I don't think race is a valid descriptor at all. So while I understand that other people may use race as a description, and may even associate nationality with race, and I am aware of the issues involved, I don't care if I have a fight on my hand as long as i don't make the same stupid judgments (and I never will have a fight because I don't assume anyway).
I am culturally aware, but there is a distinct subtlety that you keep missing and keep missing. how can you tell that a person wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt is cambodian?
I would really like to know.
Edit: I really don't think you realize how much people depend upon their eye sight to make judgments. My definition of race is as functional as you can get when considering quick biases and making assumptions only based upon the sense human's depend upon most.
For the record: I lived in Salt Lake City for 18 months, and it was sheer hell as a non-Mormon. You are distinctly and definitely a second class citizen. They make the Quebecois look sane by comparison.
Two anecdotes:
Two blocks away from my house was the first drive-in espresso stand in all of Utah. I got to know the owner pretty well, it opened the same month I moved there. Mormons aren't supposed to drink coffee, so a SLC police car was parked across the street for the first six weeks of them being open, writing down license plate numbers. Those license plates were run through the DMV to get names and addresses, and those were then compared against the LDS church rolls to see if any members had strayed, so that they could be talked to by church elders.
Think about that for a minute.
A city resource (a police office and squad car) was being used to gather information on public citizens, which was then run through state resources (DMV records) to extract individual information *on the behalf of the church* so that *they* could enforce religious beliefs for their members.
The espresso stand owner called the police department, and was blocked at every turn. "None of your concern." "If you weren't running that place, it wouldn't be happening, it's your fault." etc, etc.
Second anecdote:
One morning I left some papers I needed at home, so I drove back from the office about 9:30. I pulled up in the driveway, and see my then girlfriend in her bathrobe yelling at two Mormon missionaries in the back yard. I ask what's going on. "They were watching me get dressed through the bedroom window!" "Is this true? Were you two looking in the bedroom window?" "Well, yes... we knocked on the front door, didn't get an answer, but heard a noise, so we were going around the house trying to get someone's attention." (It never occurred to them that if no one answers the door for you, maybe it's *on purpose*.)
I go in and get the phone, dial 911, and head back out.
"911, what is the nature of your emergency?"
"I'd like to report two peeping toms."
(Name, address, etc are given)
"Can you give me a description of the two men?"
"Better than that, I can give you their names."
"You know them, sir?"
"No, but they're standing right here, and their names are on their name badges."
"... Sir, are they missionaries?"
"Yes."
"Sir, stop harassing them and let them do their job. *click*"
I had just been hung up on by a 911 operator while trying to report a crime, and she did so simply because the perpetrators were Mormon missionaries.
That was the moment I decided to move.
The newspapers are Mormon run. The government is Mormon run. Every infrastructure is Mormon run. Conflict of interest is everywhere... and no Mormon sees a problem with it. (At least, none that I talked to.)
No wonder the fact that the university isn't Mormon run sticks in their craw.
Nope, I don't. I don't think race is a valid descriptor at all. So while I understand that other people may use race as a description, and may even associate nationality with race, and I am aware of the issues involved, I don't care if I have a fight on my hand as long as i don't make the same stupid judgments (and I never will have a fight because I don't assume anyway).
I am culturally aware, but there is a distinct subtlety that you keep missing and keep missing. how can you tell that a person wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt is cambodian?
I would really like to know.
Edit: I really don't think you realize how much people depend upon their eye sight to make judgments. My definition of race is as functional as you can get when considering quick biases and making assumptions only based upon the sense human's depend upon most.
I can tell somebody is wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt is Cambodian just like you can likely tell someone is Irish instead of Italian. No one is 100% accurate, but that really doesn't matter to someone who is practicing bigotry. They really don't mind tossing out the baby with the bathwater to get to what they consider to be pure.
The thread is about whether someone is able to tell someone is LDS and thus is intentionally not hiring them at the university level. Based off the percentages it would appear this might be so. I never claimed they were 100% accurate in their bigotry. In fact with their mindset, they likely would hate people who are kind of similar to, or associate often with, LDS church members as well.
Actually, depending upon what kind of clothes someone is wearing, you may be able to tell whether an individual is LDS. There is a "holy garment" (a kind of underwear) that is sometimes visible. This is more often the case with women than men.
How are they going to teach biology if they are Creationists? There is a line. And believe me there are lots of #*%@#ing Creationists trying to "teach" "biology" in the South, apparently they aren't allowed to say the word "evolution" in Georgia??
Actually, depending upon what kind of clothes someone is wearing, you may be able to tell whether an individual is LDS. There is a "holy garment" (a kind of underwear) that is sometimes visible. This is more often the case with women than men.
Cheers
Scott
Yes, the 'Mormon smile' or 'garmies'.
It is, as far as I was able to tell, a garment to ward off evil spirits. It is intended to never be taken off, and the hardcore fundamentalist Mormons bathe one side of their body at a time, with the garmie on the other side.
It is a simple cotton garment with mystic runes embroidered on the edges. It is intended to be worn until it essentially scrap, at which point it cannot be simply thrown away. It must be turned over to the church elders who ritualistically trim the symbols off the remainder of the garment, when only then loses it's religious significance, and can be tossed. The trimmed symbols are then again ritualistically burned in the temple.
How are they going to teach biology if they are Creationists? There is a line. And believe me there are lots of #*%@#ing Creationists trying to "teach" "biology" in the South, apparently they aren't allowed to say the word "evolution" in Georgia??
While I take your point, I should note that I teach lots and lots of things I don't agree with.
It is, as far as I was able to tell, a garment to ward off evil spirits. It is intended to never be taken off, and the hardcore fundamentalist Mormons bathe one side of their body at a time, with the garmie on the other side.
It is a simple cotton garment with mystic runes embroidered on the edges. It is intended to be worn until it essentially scrap, at which point it cannot be simply thrown away. It must be turned over to the church elders who ritualistically trim the symbols off the remainder of the garment, when only then loses it's religious significance, and can be tossed. The trimmed symbols are then again ritualistically burned in the temple.
But Wiccans are bad, m'kay?
Actually, it's a kind of white t-shirt like material that they wear. The idea behind it is this, so far as I can tell (and based on conversations with some very good friends who are LDS):
You get it when you're baptized, and are supposed to wear it at all times.
In the past, people didn't take it off, ever. But now they do.
You are expected to care for it as you would your soul.
The garment merely reflects the ways that the soul is tainted through our progress through the world. Just as your soul is stained, so is the garment. And just as you must cleanse your soul, so, too, must you cleanse the garment
I don't know anything about the destruction of the garment, but I can ask, if anyone is interested.
Thanks. I'd like to point out that I made some good Mormon friends while I lived there, have had good friends from childhood on that were Mormon, and it was *never* an issue... until it become entwined with the state such that I was no longer considered an equal citizen in society.
Salt Lake City is a 'special' place... much like I'm sure it would be if I were to move to the Vatican.
(And the scariest part? SLC is the least fundie area of Utah.)
Nope, I don't. I don't think race is a valid descriptor at all. So while I understand that other people may use race as a description, and may even associate nationality with race, and I am aware of the issues involved, I don't care if I have a fight on my hand as long as i don't make the same stupid judgments (and I never will have a fight because I don't assume anyway).
I am culturally aware, but there is a distinct subtlety that you keep missing and keep missing. how can you tell that a person wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt is cambodian?
I would really like to know.
Edit: I really don't think you realize how much people depend upon their eye sight to make judgments. My definition of race is as functional as you can get when considering quick biases and making assumptions only based upon the sense human's depend upon most.
Scientific fact: there is are no sub-races within the human race. There is no black race, white race etc. We all belong to the same race. So there.
Scientific fact: there is are no sub-races within the human race. There is no black race, white race etc. We all belong to the same race. So there.
I always hear people say that, but I don't believe it. What about the visual characteristics that are so apparent, such as skin color, eye shape, hair color and texture, height, etc. Are those figments of my imagination?
I always hear people say that, but I don't believe it. What about the visual characteristics that are so apparent, such as skin color, eye shape, hair color and texture, height, etc. Are those figments of my imagination?
If you want to think of it that way, yes, you could. But the genetic and morphological differences between so-called human "races" is far, far less than the differences seen between "races" of other species in the animal kingdom.
I mean, how do you really define race? Skin colour? Problem is, skin colour is a highly continuous trait; there aren't discrete "types" of skin colour. If you were to see a lineup of twenty dark-skinned individuals odds are you'd see that they're all of varying degrees of skin tone. It's not like you could hold up one of those Pantone colour guides to people's skin and classfy people according to specific skin tone. The same could probably be said for other traits as well.
Edit: I just wanted to say to Kickaha that it's utterly incredible how such an enormous conflict of interest could be allowed to exist in Utah. I have to admit, I'm glad you left. Frankly, I couldn't have survived as long as you did. That jab at the Quebeçois really did make me laugh, though. Heh.
I always hear people say that, but I don't believe it. What about the visual characteristics that are so apparent, such as skin color, eye shape, hair color and texture, height, etc. Are those figments of my imagination?
They're real, but I think they're not enough to differentiate a new race. I'm not really sure, and I don't really care. I seem to like dogs and cats as much as I like people anyway so it's mostly a non-issue for me.
I always hear people say that, but I don't believe it. What about the visual characteristics that are so apparent, such as skin color, eye shape, hair color and texture, height, etc. Are those figments of my imagination?
I present you with part of a text from "UNITED for Intercultural Action" writing about race and racism:
Quote:
Racism is the belief that some people are superior because they belong to a particular race. Racists define a race as a group of people with common ancestry. They distinguish different races from one another by physical characteristics, such as skin colour and hair texture. In fact, there are no clear differences, and especially no significant differences that matter. Recent research shows that race is an imagined entity. "Race" has no biological basis. The word "racism" is also used to describe abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of a so-called "inferior race". Racism takes different forms in different countries, according to history, culture and other social factors. A relatively new form of racism sometimes called "ethnic or cultural differentiation" says that all races or cultures are equal but they should not mix together to keep their originality. There is no scientific proof of the existence of different races. Biology has only determined one race: the human race.
Read everything and pay close attention to the parts I have emphazised.
Comments
Originally posted by billybobsky
again, you just don't get my post.
It is far easier to bias against a person by how they look than by what internal conceptions they have including nationality and religion. That was the point and you don't get it.
Edit: even in your description you use appearance as the initiator.
(as an aside:
I am notoriously bad at placing a person's appearance with a region let alone a nationality. I make no assumptions and hence your comments appear close minded. I always ask and if I am told that they are from India, I still don't assume that they are hindu. If I want to know their religion I will ask. I don't assume anything about people I meet unless I see them say wearing a cross or a skullcap... and still even then, i am not always sure.
It is always safer to assume nothing.)
I assure you I get it. I fully understand that you don't look for nationality or religion when you look at a person. Even your definition of race is much shallower than some definitions. I'm not trying to get you to change them, or see things differently when you walk down the street. I'm simply saying that others do see these things differently and can act upon them in a negative manner.
As an aside,
Nick
Originally posted by BRussell
I'm not sure how state schools could legally hire based on religion.
I don't think they could hire based on religion. However they could review the process and insure that there is not some part of it that ends up screening out religious applicants to some excessive degree.
For example many LDS students often take time off to go one a mission for their church. If their resume explained a gap in their work and educational history as attending to a mission, someone could be using that to toss them off the qualified pile.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You likely consider say, Cambodians and Filipinos to be the same race. However their definitino of race is more narrow than yours and you could have a fight on your hands if they happen to be touchy about Cambodians.
Nope, I don't. I don't think race is a valid descriptor at all. So while I understand that other people may use race as a description, and may even associate nationality with race, and I am aware of the issues involved, I don't care if I have a fight on my hand as long as i don't make the same stupid judgments (and I never will have a fight because I don't assume anyway).
I am culturally aware, but there is a distinct subtlety that you keep missing and keep missing. how can you tell that a person wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt is cambodian?
I would really like to know.
Edit: I really don't think you realize how much people depend upon their eye sight to make judgments. My definition of race is as functional as you can get when considering quick biases and making assumptions only based upon the sense human's depend upon most.
Two anecdotes:
Two blocks away from my house was the first drive-in espresso stand in all of Utah. I got to know the owner pretty well, it opened the same month I moved there. Mormons aren't supposed to drink coffee, so a SLC police car was parked across the street for the first six weeks of them being open, writing down license plate numbers. Those license plates were run through the DMV to get names and addresses, and those were then compared against the LDS church rolls to see if any members had strayed, so that they could be talked to by church elders.
Think about that for a minute.
A city resource (a police office and squad car) was being used to gather information on public citizens, which was then run through state resources (DMV records) to extract individual information *on the behalf of the church* so that *they* could enforce religious beliefs for their members.
The espresso stand owner called the police department, and was blocked at every turn. "None of your concern." "If you weren't running that place, it wouldn't be happening, it's your fault." etc, etc.
Second anecdote:
One morning I left some papers I needed at home, so I drove back from the office about 9:30. I pulled up in the driveway, and see my then girlfriend in her bathrobe yelling at two Mormon missionaries in the back yard. I ask what's going on. "They were watching me get dressed through the bedroom window!" "Is this true? Were you two looking in the bedroom window?" "Well, yes... we knocked on the front door, didn't get an answer, but heard a noise, so we were going around the house trying to get someone's attention." (It never occurred to them that if no one answers the door for you, maybe it's *on purpose*.)
I go in and get the phone, dial 911, and head back out.
"911, what is the nature of your emergency?"
"I'd like to report two peeping toms."
(Name, address, etc are given)
"Can you give me a description of the two men?"
"Better than that, I can give you their names."
"You know them, sir?"
"No, but they're standing right here, and their names are on their name badges."
"... Sir, are they missionaries?"
"Yes."
"Sir, stop harassing them and let them do their job. *click*"
I had just been hung up on by a 911 operator while trying to report a crime, and she did so simply because the perpetrators were Mormon missionaries.
That was the moment I decided to move.
The newspapers are Mormon run. The government is Mormon run. Every infrastructure is Mormon run. Conflict of interest is everywhere... and no Mormon sees a problem with it. (At least, none that I talked to.)
No wonder the fact that the university isn't Mormon run sticks in their craw.
Let them fester over it.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Nope, I don't. I don't think race is a valid descriptor at all. So while I understand that other people may use race as a description, and may even associate nationality with race, and I am aware of the issues involved, I don't care if I have a fight on my hand as long as i don't make the same stupid judgments (and I never will have a fight because I don't assume anyway).
I am culturally aware, but there is a distinct subtlety that you keep missing and keep missing. how can you tell that a person wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt is cambodian?
I would really like to know.
Edit: I really don't think you realize how much people depend upon their eye sight to make judgments. My definition of race is as functional as you can get when considering quick biases and making assumptions only based upon the sense human's depend upon most.
I can tell somebody is wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt is Cambodian just like you can likely tell someone is Irish instead of Italian. No one is 100% accurate, but that really doesn't matter to someone who is practicing bigotry. They really don't mind tossing out the baby with the bathwater to get to what they consider to be pure.
The thread is about whether someone is able to tell someone is LDS and thus is intentionally not hiring them at the university level. Based off the percentages it would appear this might be so. I never claimed they were 100% accurate in their bigotry. In fact with their mindset, they likely would hate people who are kind of similar to, or associate often with, LDS church members as well.
Nick
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Kickaha
You are distinctly and definitely a second class citizen. They make the Quebecois look sane by comparison.
Originally posted by midwinter
Actually, depending upon what kind of clothes someone is wearing, you may be able to tell whether an individual is LDS. There is a "holy garment" (a kind of underwear) that is sometimes visible. This is more often the case with women than men.
Cheers
Scott
Yes, the 'Mormon smile' or 'garmies'.
It is, as far as I was able to tell, a garment to ward off evil spirits. It is intended to never be taken off, and the hardcore fundamentalist Mormons bathe one side of their body at a time, with the garmie on the other side.
It is a simple cotton garment with mystic runes embroidered on the edges. It is intended to be worn until it essentially scrap, at which point it cannot be simply thrown away. It must be turned over to the church elders who ritualistically trim the symbols off the remainder of the garment, when only then loses it's religious significance, and can be tossed. The trimmed symbols are then again ritualistically burned in the temple.
But Wiccans are bad, m'kay?
Originally posted by Aquatic
How are they going to teach biology if they are Creationists? There is a line. And believe me there are lots of #*%@#ing Creationists trying to "teach" "biology" in the South, apparently they aren't allowed to say the word "evolution" in Georgia??
While I take your point, I should note that I teach lots and lots of things I don't agree with.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Yes, the 'Mormon smile' or 'garmies'.
It is, as far as I was able to tell, a garment to ward off evil spirits. It is intended to never be taken off, and the hardcore fundamentalist Mormons bathe one side of their body at a time, with the garmie on the other side.
It is a simple cotton garment with mystic runes embroidered on the edges. It is intended to be worn until it essentially scrap, at which point it cannot be simply thrown away. It must be turned over to the church elders who ritualistically trim the symbols off the remainder of the garment, when only then loses it's religious significance, and can be tossed. The trimmed symbols are then again ritualistically burned in the temple.
But Wiccans are bad, m'kay?
Actually, it's a kind of white t-shirt like material that they wear. The idea behind it is this, so far as I can tell (and based on conversations with some very good friends who are LDS):
I don't know anything about the destruction of the garment, but I can ask, if anyone is interested.
Cheers
Scott
Salt Lake City is a 'special' place... much like I'm sure it would be if I were to move to the Vatican.
(And the scariest part? SLC is the least fundie area of Utah.)
Originally posted by billybobsky
Nope, I don't. I don't think race is a valid descriptor at all. So while I understand that other people may use race as a description, and may even associate nationality with race, and I am aware of the issues involved, I don't care if I have a fight on my hand as long as i don't make the same stupid judgments (and I never will have a fight because I don't assume anyway).
I am culturally aware, but there is a distinct subtlety that you keep missing and keep missing. how can you tell that a person wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt is cambodian?
I would really like to know.
Edit: I really don't think you realize how much people depend upon their eye sight to make judgments. My definition of race is as functional as you can get when considering quick biases and making assumptions only based upon the sense human's depend upon most.
Scientific fact: there is are no sub-races within the human race. There is no black race, white race etc. We all belong to the same race. So there.
Originally posted by KANE
Scientific fact: there is are no sub-races within the human race. There is no black race, white race etc. We all belong to the same race. So there.
I always hear people say that, but I don't believe it. What about the visual characteristics that are so apparent, such as skin color, eye shape, hair color and texture, height, etc. Are those figments of my imagination?
Of course not.
Originally posted by BRussell
I always hear people say that, but I don't believe it. What about the visual characteristics that are so apparent, such as skin color, eye shape, hair color and texture, height, etc. Are those figments of my imagination?
If you want to think of it that way, yes, you could. But the genetic and morphological differences between so-called human "races" is far, far less than the differences seen between "races" of other species in the animal kingdom.
I mean, how do you really define race? Skin colour? Problem is, skin colour is a highly continuous trait; there aren't discrete "types" of skin colour. If you were to see a lineup of twenty dark-skinned individuals odds are you'd see that they're all of varying degrees of skin tone. It's not like you could hold up one of those Pantone colour guides to people's skin and classfy people according to specific skin tone.
Edit: I just wanted to say to Kickaha that it's utterly incredible how such an enormous conflict of interest could be allowed to exist in Utah. I have to admit, I'm glad you left. Frankly, I couldn't have survived as long as you did. That jab at the Quebeçois really did make me laugh, though. Heh.
Originally posted by BRussell
I always hear people say that, but I don't believe it. What about the visual characteristics that are so apparent, such as skin color, eye shape, hair color and texture, height, etc. Are those figments of my imagination?
They're real, but I think they're not enough to differentiate a new race. I'm not really sure, and I don't really care. I seem to like dogs and cats as much as I like people anyway so it's mostly a non-issue for me.
The Lyrics:
Jesus was way cool
Everybody liked Jesus
Everybody wanted to hang out with him
Anything he wanted to do, he did
He turned water into wine
And if he wanted to
He could have turned wheat into marijuana
Or sugar into cocaine
Or vitamin pills into amphetamines
He walked on the water
And swam on the land
He would tell these stories
And people would listen
He was really cool
If you were blind or lame
You just went to Jesus
And he would put his hands on you
And you would be healed
That's so cool
He could've played guitar better than Hendrix
He could've told the future
He could've baked the most delicious cake in the world
He could've scored more goals than Wayne Gretzky
He could've danced better than Barishnikov
Jesus could have been funnier than any comedian you can think of
Jesus was way cool
He told people to eat his body and drink his blood
That's so hard core
Jesus was so cool
But then some people got jealous of how cool he was
So they killed him
But then he rose from the dead
He rose from the dead, danced around
Then went up to heaven
I mean, that's so cool
Jesus was way cool
No wonder there are so many Christians
Originally posted by BRussell
I always hear people say that, but I don't believe it. What about the visual characteristics that are so apparent, such as skin color, eye shape, hair color and texture, height, etc. Are those figments of my imagination?
I present you with part of a text from "UNITED for Intercultural Action" writing about race and racism:
Racism is the belief that some people are superior because they belong to a particular race. Racists define a race as a group of people with common ancestry. They distinguish different races from one another by physical characteristics, such as skin colour and hair texture. In fact, there are no clear differences, and especially no significant differences that matter. Recent research shows that race is an imagined entity. "Race" has no biological basis. The word "racism" is also used to describe abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of a so-called "inferior race". Racism takes different forms in different countries, according to history, culture and other social factors. A relatively new form of racism sometimes called "ethnic or cultural differentiation" says that all races or cultures are equal but they should not mix together to keep their originality. There is no scientific proof of the existence of different races. Biology has only determined one race: the human race.
Read everything and pay close attention to the parts I have emphazised.
http://www.united.non-profit.nl/pages/info13.htm