In article <ti4eut$15lkg$1@dont-email.me>, ahk@chinet.com wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

>>The government forms I have to fill out, under race, they have two separate
>>boxes, for Hispanics and for Hispanics (non-white)
>
>>I have no idea what the hell the distinction is
>
>That doesn't make any sense but maybe it got changed. It used to be
>White Non-Hispanic and Black Non-Hispanic, and Hispanic.
>
>Black Hispanics are the black or mixed-race descendents of slaves brought
>to the Spanish-colonized Carribean islands. White Hispanics are descended
>of Spanish and Portugese. I have no idea how Mestizos were supposed to
>count themselves, or any handful of indigenous peoples.
>
>Also, I don't recall broad census demographic categories making it easy
>to categorize blacks from Carribean island colonized by the English and
>French. I guess that was just black, then look for the national origin
>question.
>
>Hispanic was never supposed to be a racial category but a super category
>of a very large number of ethnic and national groups.

Hispanic is an ethnicity.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 15:15:31 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

>lcraver@home.ca wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> lcraver@home.ca wrote:
>
>>>> That may be the "woke" definition but racism is when one says or
>>>> does things where one's race and the other person's is a factor
>>>> in your decision making.
>>>
>>> Racism is defined as the belief that one race is inherently superior or
>>> inferior to another.
>>
>>That's fine but incomplete. If you do not have a belief in racial
>>supremacy (how you would "prove" that is beyond me!) but believe in
>>racial separation, and carried out that belief in hiring, admission to
>>public events etc. most people would agree that that was racist.
>
>No, you're describing discrimination.

So you are clearly arguing there is justifiable discrimination and
un-justifiable discrimination and that the latter may be caused by
racism (or some other cause) and that the former isn't.

Whereas I'm arguing that both are despicable and should be "named and
shamed" by all right thinking people.

Sounds like we are unlikely to agree on a common definition since you
are clearly in the "only white people can be racist" camp which would
be funny if the effects on society at large were not so toxic.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 04:30:43 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

>>Also, I don't recall broad census demographic categories making it easy
>>to categorize blacks from Carribean island colonized by the English and
>>French. I guess that was just black, then look for the national origin
>>question.

And of course ethnicity does not equal nationality.

The famous example of that was when Steve Nash went into his NBA
dressing room and told his team mates that HE was the only African in
the room (Nash was born in Johannesburg and his family emigrated to
Canada when he was three)

Obviously the reaction in the dressing room showed his team mates had
a different view but allegedly he kept using that line on new team
mates who didn't know his background and were mystified when the rest
of the team laughed hysterically.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 15:15:31 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>lcraver@home.ca wrote:
>>>Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>lcraver@home.ca wrote:

>>>>>That may be the "woke" definition but racism is when one says or
>>>>>does things where one's race and the other person's is a factor
>>>>>in your decision making.

>>>>Racism is defined as the belief that one race is inherently superior or
>>>>inferior to another.

>>>That's fine but incomplete. If you do not have a belief in racial
>>>supremacy (how you would "prove" that is beyond me!) but believe in
>>>racial separation, and carried out that belief in hiring, admission to
>>>public events etc. most people would agree that that was racist.

>>No, you're describing discrimination.

>So you are clearly arguing there is justifiable discrimination and
>un-justifiable discrimination and that the latter may be caused by
>racism (or some other cause) and that the former isn't.

That straw man is bullshit and I expect better of you. What's
justifiable or not is separate and distinct from what's legal or not.

>Whereas I'm arguing that both are despicable and should be "named and
>shamed" by all right thinking people.

Why?

If John Smith states that he wouldn't hire someone of a particular
ethnic group, or someone who was a fan of a rival hockey team, but isn't
an employer in actual fact, who gives a damn what he says? Just ignore
him.

>Sounds like we are unlikely to agree on a common definition since you
>are clearly in the "only white people can be racist" camp which would
>be funny if the effects on society at large were not so toxic.

That's a second straw man. I made no such comment.

> suzeeq
>
> Right that's what I meant. The descendants of the Spanish and indegenous
> peoples are Mestizo. Hispanic non-white woud be descendants of Spanish
> and black peoples, chiefly in the Caribbean. S America doesn't have this
> mix, Brazil is primarily descended from the Portugeuse and black.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_America

On 10/12/2022 1:48 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> suzeeq
>>
>> Right that's what I meant. The descendants of the Spanish and indegenous
>> peoples are Mestizo. Hispanic non-white woud be descendants of Spanish
>> and black peoples, chiefly in the Caribbean. S America doesn't have this
>> mix, Brazil is primarily descended from the Portugeuse and black.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_America

Yes, Brazil has the most mulatto population, but the european part is
primarily of Portuguese not Spanish descent. Surname's the next largest
mulatto but its euro population is descended from the Dutch.

lcraver@home.ca wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> lcraver@home.ca wrote:
>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> lcraver@home.ca wrote:

>>>>> That may be the "woke" definition but racism is when one says or
>>>>> does things where one's race and the other person's is a factor
>>>>> in your decision making.
>>>>
>>>> Racism is defined as the belief that one race is inherently superior or
>>>> inferior to another.
>>>
>>>That's fine but incomplete. If you do not have a belief in racial
>>>supremacy (how you would "prove" that is beyond me!) but believe in
>>>racial separation, and carried out that belief in hiring, admission to
>>>public events etc. most people would agree that that was racist.
>>
>> No, you're describing discrimination.
>
>So you are clearly arguing there is justifiable discrimination and
>un-justifiable discrimination and that the latter may be caused by
>racism (or some other cause) and that the former isn't.

Having discriminating taste has nthing to do with race.

>Whereas I'm arguing that both are despicable and should be "named and
>shamed" by all right thinking people.

That's just silly.

>Sounds like we are unlikely to agree on a common definition since you
>are clearly in the "only white people can be racist" camp which would
>be funny if the effects on society at large were not so toxic.

I have said no such thing; In fact, I've consistantly mocked that CRT
nonsense, which is itself racist.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On 10/13/2022 3:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> lcraver@home.ca wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> lcraver@home.ca wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>> lcraver@home.ca wrote:
>
>>>>>> That may be the "woke" definition but racism is when one says or
>>>>>> does things where one's race and the other person's is a factor
>>>>>> in your decision making.
>>>>>
>>>>> Racism is defined as the belief that one race is inherently superior or
>>>>> inferior to another.
>>>>
>>>> That's fine but incomplete. If you do not have a belief in racial
>>>> supremacy (how you would "prove" that is beyond me!) but believe in
>>>> racial separation, and carried out that belief in hiring, admission to
>>>> public events etc. most people would agree that that was racist.
>>>
>>> No, you're describing discrimination.
>>
>> So you are clearly arguing there is justifiable discrimination and
>> un-justifiable discrimination and that the latter may be caused by
>> racism (or some other cause) and that the former isn't.
>
> Having discriminating taste has nthing to do with race.
>
>> Whereas I'm arguing that both are despicable and should be "named and
>> shamed" by all right thinking people.
>
> That's just silly.
>
>> Sounds like we are unlikely to agree on a common definition since you
>> are clearly in the "only white people can be racist" camp which would
>> be funny if the effects on society at large were not so toxic.
>
> I have said no such thing; In fact, I've consistantly mocked that CRT
> nonsense, which is itself racist.

Eunuch Derp just whined about it and I didn't see you say anything.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 19:17:29 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>So you are clearly arguing there is justifiable discrimination and
>>un-justifiable discrimination and that the latter may be caused by
>>racism (or some other cause) and that the former isn't.
>
>That straw man is bullshit and I expect better of you. What's
>justifiable or not is separate and distinct from what's legal or not.

I think most adults understand there's a difference between right and
wrong and what's legal and what's not. It's not even in terms of
"what's good for society"

>>Whereas I'm arguing that both are despicable and should be "named and
>>shamed" by all right thinking people.
>
>Why?

I don't go around finger pointing but I do feel strongly that
suggesting "only white people can be racist" is one of the more
outrageous mis-statements made in our society. It's even more
outrageous when government officials believe and act on that premise.

>If John Smith states that he wouldn't hire someone of a particular
>ethnic group, or someone who was a fan of a rival hockey team, but isn't
>an employer in actual fact, who gives a damn what he says? Just ignore
>him.

I do. 'Fan of a rival hockey team' is a reasonable grounds for
exclusion if you're managing a hockey team but not otherwise as you
can't have somebody whose loyalty is known to be elsewhere. But an
ethnic group is what you are from birth and part of our social
contract is that we expect you to get along with your neighbors.

(Again "you" is aimed at society generally - not you in particular)

(While I'm recently retired I did in my career hire people from all
sorts of backgrounds - most of them worked out extremely well)

Vancouver has had a problem with various ethnic groups who are rivals
in their homelands who think it's ok to continue their battles here.

Nope. Through the years I've directed 100+ chess tournaments and as
you probably know, chess is popular in quite a few countries some of
which don't like each other. I've had players tell me "please don't
pair me against Mr X" which isn't according to the rules. I've told
them that overseas issues aren't my concern and that if he has such
concerns fight it out over the board and may the best man win - and
realize you are likely to face him again so even if you don't win you
can get your revenge later.

>>Sounds like we are unlikely to agree on a common definition since you
>>are clearly in the "only white people can be racist" camp which would
>>be funny if the effects on society at large were not so toxic.
>
>That's a second straw man. I made no such comment.

OK I'll take that back then - but no question that mentality >IS<
toxic to society at large. So is the mentality of the guy I read about
in the paper yesterday (his ethnicity is immaterial to his point which
is pure bollocks) that the problem in a particular neighbourhood was
the toxic drug supply (mostly fentanyl - most of which is manufactured
in China - but other things too) and that the solution was for the
state to supply free (clean) drugs.

No - the problem is that drugs ARE a problem and that they CAN be
weaned off of but doing so is difficult and you're (i.e. him) not
willing to do the work to do so. It's not as if heroin is a drug like
insulin - i.e. something required for a diabetic to live a normal life
- lots of people have gone through withdrawal and gotten "clean" but
this fellow would prefer to go injecting until the music stops and
wants the rest of us to pay for it. Because if you're addicted to
heroin, 'having a normal life" isn't one of the options for you
particularly if you think the rest of society owes it to you either
through their taxes or your criminality against them.

And yes I >am< quoting him more or less exactly.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 04:30:45 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

>lcraver@home.ca wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> lcraver@home.ca wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>> lcraver@home.ca wrote:
>
>>So you are clearly arguing there is justifiable discrimination and
>>un-justifiable discrimination and that the latter may be caused by
>>racism (or some other cause) and that the former isn't.
>
>Having discriminating taste has nthing to do with race.

True - but we were talking with respect to other people particularly
in hiring.

>>Whereas I'm arguing that both are despicable and should be "named and
>>shamed" by all right thinking people.
>
>That's just silly.

I'll agree to the extent that "naming and shaming" isn't always called
for but when it's against people then it's something that simply
shouldn't be happening. Decent people shouldn't have to be told.

Incidentally we're talking equality not that noxious gospel called
"equity" which in my view is discriminatory in and of itself. For one
thing there is no societal consensus on what might constitute 'equity'
especially when it comes to past sins which are decidedly NOT all my
"mainstream society" (whatever that is).

I get massively annoyed when I hear aboriginal activists talking about
"settler society" since my parts family has been in North America for
400+ years (and no part less than 75) - at what point should they be
expected to respect me? - not for my lineage but because of who I am
apart from my ethnicity? Mentioning my ethnicity (which is by no means
"pure") is only one part of me and I've done a lot in life beyond
what's dictated by the DNA my parents gave me.

>>Sounds like we are unlikely to agree on a common definition since you
>>are clearly in the "only white people can be racist" camp which would
>>be funny if the effects on society at large were not so toxic.
>
>I have said no such thing; In fact, I've consistantly mocked that CRT
>nonsense, which is itself racist.

I absolutely agree with you on that point. And I do strongly believe
that "only white people can be racist" is a core tenet of the CRT
belief.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Wed, 12 Oct 2022 19:17:29 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>So you are clearly arguing there is justifiable discrimination and
>>>un-justifiable discrimination and that the latter may be caused by
>>>racism (or some other cause) and that the former isn't.

>>That straw man is bullshit and I expect better of you. What's
>>justifiable or not is separate and distinct from what's legal or not.

>I think most adults understand there's a difference between right and
>wrong and what's legal and what's not. It's not even in terms of
>"what's good for society"

I think one shouldn't make straw man arguments on Usenet, H.G., and what
you did was wrong. I never said what you accused me of saying.

>>>Whereas I'm arguing that both are despicable and should be "named and
>>>shamed" by all right thinking people.

>>Why?

>I don't go around finger pointing but I do feel strongly that
>suggesting "only white people can be racist" is one of the more
>outrageous mis-statements made in our society. It's even more
>outrageous when government officials believe and act on that premise.

Ok. It's outrageous. It was meant to upset you. If you call out some
black celebrity for hypocrisy and racism, he'll only laugh at you for
biting the troll meant to upset white people.

>>If John Smith states that he wouldn't hire someone of a particular
>>ethnic group, or someone who was a fan of a rival hockey team, but isn't
>>an employer in actual fact, who gives a damn what he says? Just ignore
>>him.

>I do. 'Fan of a rival hockey team' is a reasonable grounds for
>exclusion if you're managing a hockey team but not otherwise as you
>can't have somebody whose loyalty is known to be elsewhere.

I said fan of a rival hocky team as an example of potential discrimination
if it happened in real life. It's discrimination but violates no labor
laws. But the idiot just running his mouth who isn't in any position to
hire anybody at his own job is just someone to be ignored. He's not
discriminating, even though he may have demonstrated racism.

>But an ethnic group is what you are from birth and part of our social
>contract is that we expect you to get along with your neighbors.

But nothing. Unless he's in a position to discriminate, he hasn't
discriminated even if he's made a racist comment.

You aren't acknowledging the difference.

>. . .

>Vancouver has had a problem with various ethnic groups who are rivals
>in their homelands who think it's ok to continue their battles here.

Ok.

Here in Chicago, Indian and Pakistani immigrants live in the same
neighborhood without interethnic crime. I've pointed this out before.

>. . .

On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 18:47:40 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>I don't go around finger pointing but I do feel strongly that
>>suggesting "only white people can be racist" is one of the more
>>outrageous mis-statements made in our society. It's even more
>>outrageous when government officials believe and act on that premise.
>
>Ok. It's outrageous. It was meant to upset you. If you call out some
>black celebrity for hypocrisy and racism, he'll only laugh at you for
>biting the troll meant to upset white people.

I tend to regard such people as lower forms of life than Trotsky and
his stable of cut-outs.

In other words lower than scum of the earth and regretting anybody
listens to them at all. I'm not a big fan of bigots of any color.

>>>If John Smith states that he wouldn't hire someone of a particular
>>>ethnic group, or someone who was a fan of a rival hockey team, but isn't
>>>an employer in actual fact, who gives a damn what he says? Just ignore
>>>him.

I figured you were demi-trolling on the 'hockey team' part but again,
in sports when a team hires somebody they do expect their support at
least in public. I have heard Brian Burke (GM for several NHL hockey
teams through the years) and despite the fact a lot of people
including me disagree with what he says he's 100% both loyal to his
team and a great source of quotable quotes about other teams.

I suspect over the last 20 years his quotes have ended up on
opposition bulletin boards to motivate opposing teams....obviously
there are others but Burke is one of the most flamboyant.

>>I do. 'Fan of a rival hockey team' is a reasonable grounds for
>>exclusion if you're managing a hockey team but not otherwise as you
>>can't have somebody whose loyalty is known to be elsewhere.
>
>I said fan of a rival hocky team as an example of potential discrimination
>if it happened in real life. It's discrimination but violates no labor
>laws. But the idiot just running his mouth who isn't in any position to
>hire anybody at his own job is just someone to be ignored. He's not
>discriminating, even though he may have demonstrated racism.

OK fans can do whatever they want.

I personally think Colin Kapernick was completely in the wrong but has
paid far more of a personal price than is just and its time to move
on.

>>But an ethnic group is what you are from birth and part of our social
>>contract is that we expect you to get along with your neighbors.
>
>But nothing. Unless he's in a position to discriminate, he hasn't
>discriminated even if he's made a racist comment.

>You aren't acknowledging the difference.

Sure I am - "racist comments" are wrong no matter who says them and
whether the speaker has the power to act on his toxic attitudes.

And recognizing that there are those outside our countries who really
ARE out to get us - for instance China who has quoted BLM rhetoric in
their propaganda against the United States.

>>Vancouver has had a problem with various ethnic groups who are rivals
>>in their homelands who think it's ok to continue their battles here.
>
>Ok.
>
>Here in Chicago, Indian and Pakistani immigrants live in the same
>neighborhood without interethnic crime. I've pointed this out before.

That's how it's SUPPOSED to be with immigrant communities. It's one
thing for there to be linked arms in "Little Italy" when Italy wins
the World Cup - it's not ok to damage the cars of people who have put
their opponents' national flag on their cars (as has happened in our
town on World Cup final day previously)

Nor is it OK to dump manure on the lawn of somebody like the guy 2
blocks from my home who flies a Ukrainian flag. Or hires a hitman to
do an "honor killing" on their daughter who married somebody mom and
dad didn't approve of. (All these things have happened in Canada over
the last 10 years and are small potatoes next to discrimination in
employment and other matters)