Toluca mall , racists?

[Kenji]

I'm not quite sure what mouse and Prisionic Fairytale are getting at, with the eyesight discrimination example and how it's just as bad as racial discrimination... beyond the "all discrimination is bad, not just the ones everyone talks about" point.

To use the example, the military discriminates against those with poor eyesight when selecting fighter pilots, and it's the right thing to do.

[alone in the town]

Saying some discrimination is worse than others is not even close to saying its more acceptable.

If there is ever a varying degree of acceptability, with some being less acceptable, then others, by definition, are more acceptable. It's an inverse statement and it's also totally true. It is completely portray a black person as being a big-lipped, watermelon munching spear-chucking negro, but entirely acceptable (and very common) to categorize a white person as being a filthy, half-retarded inbred redneck, even though, if you view both of these stereotypes objectively, you should find them both equally repulsive.

I've never heard of huge hate groups attacking people because they have eye problems(sure there are some bullies in school but thats not the same thing) And you never answered my question do you honestly think people with eye problems get discriminated against as much or as cruelly as other races, gender, or sexualities do?

I don't think it, nor did I ever claim it to be so. That doesn't mean that racial discrimination is in any way 'worse' than discrimination based upon physical ailments. You're confusing racial discrimination with hate-crimes.

To use the example, the military discriminates against those with poor eyesight when selecting fighter pilots, and it's the right thing to do.

Why?

[VIVIsect]

Some discrimination IS worse than others.

To bring in some Canadian law here, pre-existing historical disadvantage is the single most important factor in determining discrimination. Groups that have been historically and systematically disadvantaged require strict protection under the law. Gays, women, the mentally disabled, etc. A discriminatory policy can be upheld if its main purpose is to ameliorate the disadvantage of another, more disavantaged group. Ergo, a law that discriminates based on being male can be withheld if its purpose is to extend a benefit to a disadvantaged group such as women.

Thus maternity leave was born.

How exactly do law makers go about "rating" one group's "historical disadvantage" over another group?

Let's say, for example, you have a black business owner. He has two employees: A white male homosexual and a black woman. The business owner doesn't particularly like white people. He especially doesn't like homosexuals. He decides to pass over the gay white male for a promotion and give it to the black woman instead. "This is discrimination" says the gay white male. Would someone actually have to make a decision as to whether or not this particular discriminatory policy can be upheld based on the "historical disadvantage" of these two employees?.... or am I just completely misinterpreting your statement? I'm not attempting to be a smart ass, I'm genuinely curious.

[alone in the town]

I envision there being a pyramid of victimhood, or perhaps a points system, and I imagine that it goes something like this:

GAY WHITE MALE
SEXUAL ORIENTATION = + 1
RACE = - 1
GENDER = - 1

TOTAL VICTIM FACTOR = -1

BLACK FEMALE
SEXUAL ORIENTATION (undisclosed) = 0
RACE = +1
GENDER = +1

TOTAL VICTIM FACTOR = +2

The black woman has more 'victim points', therefore she automatically wins a discrimination suit. Unless the gay man turns out to be Jewish and secretly transgendered, in which case we have sudden death overtime or something.

[Prisonic Fairytale]

Some discrimination IS worse than others.

To bring in some Canadian law here, pre-existing historical disadvantage is the single most important factor in determining discrimination. Groups that have been historically and systematically disadvantaged require strict protection under the law. Gays, women, the mentally disabled, etc. A discriminatory policy can be upheld if its main purpose is to ameliorate the disadvantage of another, more disavantaged group. Ergo, a law that discriminates based on being male can be withheld if its purpose is to extend a benefit to a disadvantaged group such as women.

Thus maternity leave was born.

This is about the worst thing I have ever heard in my life.

[VIVIsect]

I envision there being a pyramid of victimhood, or perhaps a points system, and I imagine that it goes something like this:

GAY WHITE MALE
SEXUAL ORIENTATION = + 1
RACE = - 1
GENDER = - 1

TOTAL VICTIM FACTOR = -1

BLACK FEMALE
SEXUAL ORIENTATION (undisclosed) = 0
RACE = +1
GENDER = +1

TOTAL VICTIM FACTOR = +2

The black woman has more 'victim points', therefore she automatically wins a discrimination suit. Unless the gay man turns out to be Jewish and secretly transgendered, in which case we have sudden death overtime or something.

That's pretty much exactly what I'm envisioning.

[Milquetoast]

To use the example, the military discriminates against those with poor eyesight when selecting fighter pilots, and it's the right thing to do.

Why?

Because eyesight is pretty important in flying airplanes, especially those laden with dangerous weaponry... Glasses and flight helmets don't work well together, and contacts can become a major liability should some sort of problem arise with them mid-flight

[Kenji]

To use the example, the military discriminates against those with poor eyesight when selecting fighter pilots, and it's the right thing to do.

Why?

Do I really have to explain this? It feels like you're playing a joke on me, but I'll bite anyway.

The farther and clearer the eyesight, the further out a pilot can see some unforeseen circumstance. The further out the pilot sees it, the more time the pilot has to react to it. This enhances the survivability of the pilot.

Now, you could argue that all of the instruments in the cockpit do all that work and, therefore, a pilot's eyesight is no longer as important. This is, of course, assuming the pilot can even read the instrument panel: take off my glasses and put me in a fighter and I can't even do that much. Glasses and contacts are untenable: there's a lot of vibration in a cockpit (fighters aren't designed with comfort in mind), so what if the glasses fall off? What if, in the lowered temperature, the lenses pop out? Once, while I was driving in the winter, my goddamn left lens popped out of my glasses... thankfully, I had a spare pair or else I would've been left with a splitting headache at best. Contacts can move out of place and, if they do, can get very painful, compromising the pilot.

Even ignoring that, it remains important for the same reasons why fighters still have transparent canopies instead of just making the canopy out of the same material as the fuselage and attaching some cameras. Sometimes, the electronic equipment just doesn't give enough information. Sometimes, the pilot needs some visual to put everything into context. Sometimes, the equipment malfunctions.

But, you could argue, the equipment's solid and has a very small chance of malfunctioning. Also, we live in an era of push-button warfare, so dogfights will never happen. The entire point of training is to cover those one-in-a-million scenarios, not to mindlessly do everything "in a perfect world." The reason the Navy established Top Gun was because American pilots were getting their asses kicked in dogfights they never thought they'd have to deal with.

Point is, things go wrong, unforeseen circumstances occur, and because the pilot and his equipment both cost a lot of money, they should be given the greatest chance possible to return from any given mission. Being able to see far and clearly is just one part of that.

[alone in the town]

Except, modern aerial combat is almost entirely reliant on instruments. And, flight helmets can easily be retooled to accommodate corrective lenses.

Bad eyesight is, honestly, much more of a liability in an infantry role, where eyesight tends to be far more vital, but there's never been any discrimination there based upon visual acuity.

[Prisonic Fairytale]

Also some discrimination is worse than others

Oooh, I can't wait to hear you explain this!

Heh ok for one i wore glasses i put up with stupid jokes and things like that but it's easier to hide that you have eyesight deficiencies(what with contacts and all) also being black i've heard my fair share of racist jokes and i would say i found that the racist jokes got to me alot more than the little jokes about glasses. Also are you gonna honestly sit here and tell me that people who have eyesight deficiencies get discriminated against as much as different races, genders, or sexualities?
But don't get me wrong its still an asshole move to discriminate against someone just because they have eyesight problems.

And Prisonic Fairytale i really don't see how i proved your point i never said once it was ok to discriminate against anyone i just said that there are some forms that are worse than others so uh...yeah...

Why are the racist jokes more harmful to you? Racism is assumptions about people based on completely arbitrary attributes, therefore being really fucking stupid and usually wrong. I'm not trying to be insensitive, I just have never understood why people think it is the worst thing in the world.

[Kenji]

Except, modern aerial combat is almost entirely reliant on instruments. And, flight helmets can easily be retooled to accommodate corrective lenses.

You completely ignored everything I said...

Okay, then.

tl;dr Redundancy and Simplicity. Redundancy because shit breaks, Simplicity because having more shit increases the likelihood of something breaking. If you want something more nuanced than that, read the long post.

[SPRINGS02]

Have you ever had anything racist said to you? Shit gets really old especially when people seem to think the jokes are so funny when they're just racist. I don't mind some jokes that play on stereotypes and im not the type to get offended extremely easy but when people say jokes like "why are black people afraid to go to sleep? Because we killed the last one that had a dream" i tend to get a little pissed. Can you honestly not see how that's worse than some stupid little remarks about glasses such as "4 eyes" and whatnot? I really don't know how to explain it to ya. Oh and Mouse that's bullshit that whites are commonly portrayed as a filthy, half-retarded inbred rednecks all the time. I'm not sayin it doesn't happen but to say its common is false considering most networks are owned by white people just sayin. And yes I do think that its fucked up to portray white people as retarded rednecks. I don't remember saying that was ok.

[SilentHillSurvivor]

I find it funny when people call me "cracker" and other racist terms for white people, it makes me smile. It's funny

[Prisonic Fairytale]

Have you ever had anything racist said to you? Shit gets really old especially when people seem to think the jokes are so funny when they're just racist. I don't mind some jokes that play on stereotypes and im not the type to get offended extremely easy but when people say jokes like "why are black people afraid to go to sleep? Because we killed the last one that had a dream" i tend to get a little pissed. Can you honestly not see how that's worse than some stupid little remarks about glasses such as "4 eyes" and whatnot? I really don't know how to explain it to ya. Oh and Mouse that's bullshit that whites are commonly portrayed as a filthy, half-retarded inbred rednecks all the time. I'm not sayin it doesn't happen but to say its common is false considering most networks are owned by white people just sayin. And yes I do think that its fucked up to portray white people as retarded rednecks. I don't remember saying that was ok.

I have been discriminated against based on race among many other things. It doesn't bother me if I'm around black people who don't like me because I'm white, I will admit it is uncomfortable and unfair but we can't try to force people to be reasonable.

But I'm going to tell you what should and shouldn't hurt your feelings. Just telling you what I think about racism.

lol@ filthy, half-retarded inbred rednecks

[Milquetoast]

Except, modern aerial combat is almost entirely reliant on instruments. And, flight helmets can easily be retooled to accommodate corrective lenses.

You completely ignored everything I said...

Okay, then.

tl;dr Redundancy and Simplicity. Redundancy because shit breaks, Simplicity because having more shit increases the likelihood of something breaking. If you want something more nuanced than that, read the long post.

Also, our U.S. Air Force (as well as pretty much any Air Force worldwide) wouldn't spend the time and money to design flight helmets to accommodate glasses, when there are plenty of men with good natural vision available.

[Droo]

Some discrimination IS worse than others.

To bring in some Canadian law here, pre-existing historical disadvantage is the single most important factor in determining discrimination. Groups that have been historically and systematically disadvantaged require strict protection under the law. Gays, women, the mentally disabled, etc. A discriminatory policy can be upheld if its main purpose is to ameliorate the disadvantage of another, more disavantaged group. Ergo, a law that discriminates based on being male can be withheld if its purpose is to extend a benefit to a disadvantaged group such as women.

Thus maternity leave was born.

How exactly do law makers go about "rating" one group's "historical disadvantage" over another group?

Let's say, for example, you have a black business owner. He has two employees: A white male homosexual and a black woman. The business owner doesn't particularly like white people. He especially doesn't like homosexuals. He decides to pass over the gay white male for a promotion and give it to the black woman instead. "This is discrimination" says the gay white male. Would someone actually have to make a decision as to whether or not this particular discriminatory policy can be upheld based on the "historical disadvantage" of these two employees?.... or am I just completely misinterpreting your statement? I'm not attempting to be a smart ass, I'm genuinely curious.

Well, I can get into it a little bit more.

The historical disadvantage is merely one of the contextual factors to look at in any given case. Proof of historical disadvantage though will be focused on by the courts to alert them to possible discrimination. A claim that a person is being discriminated against based on membership in a group that does not have historical disadvantage will make the claim more difficult to substantiate.

Next is correspondence with the actual needs, capacities, and circumstances of the complainant. In the eyesight example, it would be asked if discrimination towards people with poor vision corresponds with the actual capacities of those with limited eyesight. For example, if the actual capacities of the inidividual could allow them to fly safely, it would fail this branch.

Next is ameliorative purpose. If the discriminatory policy/law was enacted to ameliorate an already disadvantaged group, this will mitigate against a finding of discrimination. This comes out of R v. Kapp, where white fishermen complained of a special treaty to allow First Nations people to fish without a licence in a particular band of water. The white fishermen claimed discrimination on the basis of ethnicity. However, given that the treaty had an ameliorative purpose towards the more disadvantaged First Nations members, the ameliorative purpose was able to trump Kapp's complaint.

The final contextual factor to consider is the nature and importance of the claimed right. A trivial impact on the overall interests of the claimant can act against the claimant.

These are all contextual factors. No one is determinative. They are considered in their totality against the actual text of the Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I hope this is useful in facilitating your understanding.

[alone in the town]

Except, modern aerial combat is almost entirely reliant on instruments. And, flight helmets can easily be retooled to accommodate corrective lenses.

You completely ignored everything I said...

Okay, then.

tl;dr Redundancy and Simplicity. Redundancy because shit breaks, Simplicity because having more shit increases the likelihood of something breaking. If you want something more nuanced than that, read the long post.

I ignored everything you said on the principle that we made our posts at roughly the same time and I felt no desire to go back and add to what I said. Your points are in-depth and I did read them, however. I still do not agree, though. A military which spends twenty million dollars on the fighter jet can spend an extra three hundred to purchase a modified flight mask--or an extra three-thousand for corrective surgery for prospective pilots who excel in other categories relevant to aerial combat.

Have you ever had anything racist said to you? Shit gets really old especially when people seem to think the jokes are so funny when they're just racist. I don't mind some jokes that play on stereotypes and im not the type to get offended extremely easy but when people say jokes like "why are black people afraid to go to sleep? Because we killed the last one that had a dream" i tend to get a little pissed. Can you honestly not see how that's worse than some stupid little remarks about glasses such as "4 eyes" and whatnot? I really don't know how to explain it to ya. Oh and Mouse that's bullshit that whites are commonly portrayed as a filthy, half-retarded inbred rednecks all the time. I'm not sayin it doesn't happen but to say its common is false considering most networks are owned by white people just sayin. And yes I do think that its fucked up to portray white people as retarded rednecks. I don't remember saying that was ok.

I spent most of my life as a white person living in a city with a majority black population. The neighborhood where I lived longest is around 80% black. Many of the jobs I've had in that area have left me in the physical minority. So, yeah, I've heard my share of racist comments directed to persons of my skin hue. It's not personally been any major bother, because I care more about how I'm perceived as an individual than how other people of my skin hue are perceived as a group. That's why comments about my glasses (and my weight, once upon a time) upset me more--those insults were personal. This was hatred directed at me, rather than an abstract group to which I happened to belong.

And, while white people do run a majority of stations, the redneck remains an acceptable target, but this is because white people like to make fun of everyone, and that includes themselves.

[AuraTwilight]

Has anyone considered that maybe Toluca Mall are just doing this big "equality/diversity" thing, and they have all their other roles/are starting on "caucasian, proper-sighted" auditions first? It happens.

[Prisonic Fairytale]

Has anyone considered that maybe Toluca Mall are just doing this big "equality/diversity" thing, and they have all their other roles/are starting on "caucasian, proper-sighted" auditions first? It happens.

That's pretty much what I thought it might be.

[MapDark]

Has anyone considered that maybe Toluca Mall are just doing this big "equality/diversity" thing, and they have all their other roles/are starting on "caucasian, proper-sighted" auditions first? It happens.

Maybe ^^

And thank you for putting the thread back to where it started..

I didn't mean the thread to turn into a debate over what sort of discrimination is better than the other o_0