Racial Sensitivity Gone Too Far

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]phaethon wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
phaethon wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Moving even further along the spectrum, from anecdotal to entirely subjective, one thing that makes me think white privilege is a reality is that while I feel advantaged to be female, I sometimes wish I could be male, see what their advantages feel like (physical power, rewarded aggression, stuff like that). I don’t feel that way about being black. Maybe I would be interested in trying out “black male” for a short while, but I wouldn’t want to be a black female.

Couldn’t this mean you think black people are not significantly different to white people? In which case it actually places doubt on the whole idea of white privilege.

I don’t want to try out being black because I don’t think it would be much of a difference. What a waste of a switch. I would like to switch bodies with a lot of people in far worse situations than me just to see what it’s like (knowing that I can change back whenever I want of course :)) and yet I don’t want to try being black.

I don’t want to switch because if all of my other traits stayed the same (intelligence, level of attractiveness) I think it would be worse. Not terrible, perhaps, but worse. I would have to have an increase in other traits to make up for it, I think. If I were a brilliant black woman, for instance, or a beautiful one, then maybe.

Why would it be worse and just how do your feelings signify white advantage?

I don’t think your feelings are related to any sort of white advantage. No offense intended though as they are YOUR feelings.

Does Professor X secretly want to be white? I don’t think he does. Does this mean there is a black advantage?[/quote]

My feelings are entirely subjective, as I stated very clearly. By subjective I meant that they are just my feelings, not proof of anything. But they are feelings based on what I understand to be measured differences (research, though again the problem is that things are changing so rapidly it may be outdated). I’ve enjoyed a much larger dating pool, for example, because smart, educated men are my target group and in America the vast majority of them happen to be white and looking for a similarly white partner.

I also believe that there is continued subtle racism and that I would encounter it at work if I were black. Not from my superiors, necessarily, but from clients/patients. It’s just really easy to be white, I think. But that, too, is a subjective impression.

I have no idea what Professor X might secretly want. It’s an interesting question! As would be differences in the rate at which black children vs. white children wish to be the other.

Professor X, are you still here? Have you ever secretly wished to be white?

Have you men ever wished to be female?

222

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I’ve enjoyed a much larger dating pool, for example, because smart, educated men are my target group and in America the vast majority of them happen to be white and looking for a similarly white partner.
[/quote]

Completely off topic: I think if you only go for smart, educated men then you actually have a small dating pool (percentage wise).

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I also believe that there is continued subtle racism and that I would encounter it at work if I were black. Not from my superiors, necessarily, but from clients/patients. It’s just really easy to be white, I think. But that, too, is a subjective impression.
[/quote]

Yeah there is some racism at my workplace but honestly I cannot blame the ‘racist’ people. E.g. my old boss threw away the resumes of all the candidates with asian names if they had only just graduated (Queensland, Australia). His reasoning was that most of them had a poor grasp of English, which is correct but still racist.

So in a sense it probably is easier to be a white person in some cases. Policies like affirmative action only helps increase this racism. However I still don’t think it is anywhere near the level everybody suggests.

I bet he does :stuck_out_tongue:

I would love to be female for a few days but not for ever. The biggest advantage I can see is that you can rip off men really easily. I don’t really feel the need to rip off other people as I am doing quite well by myself. So I can’t see any significant advantage but there are plenty of disadvantages.

Edit: I suppose there are other advantages like not having to spend time looking for partners. Men usually put in all the effort (at the start anyway). Then again I enjoy being the one in charge. I do know that many men don’t though.

223

[quote]phaethon wrote:
So in a sense it probably is easier to be a white person in some cases. Policies like affirmative action only helps increase this racism. However I still don’t think it is anywhere near the level everybody suggests.
[/quote]

Just thought I’d point out, it’s not that there is necessarily overwhelming racism in one domain these days, it’s that there is a bit sprinkled everywhere. So while the effects of each expression of racism might be small, the overall effect can be quite profound.

224

[quote]phaethon wrote:
my old boss threw away the resumes of all the candidates with asian names if they had only just graduated (Queensland, Australia). His reasoning was that most of them had a poor grasp of English, which is correct but still racist.

[/quote]

The above is lost on me. Why is it racist if his assumptions are correct? If being able to communicate properly in English is in furtherance of the position, why then is it racist if his reasoning is correct?

You might have 100 or more resumes for a given position. You cannot interview them all. You must cull resumes on some basis. If culling resumes based on a correct assumption about speaking english and speaking / communicating in English is in furtherance of the organization or job, then I say he used a reasonable means to cull certain resumes.

You didn’t say he culled ALL asian applicants - only those that graduated recently and, you further stated that his reasoning was CORRECT (never mind that he does not have to be 100% correct). It’s only racists if he culls any asian resume, period.

The above practice you describe is certainly no more racist than resumes that get culled based on what college the applicant attended, or any other filters that may initially be used by the screener.

What am I missing? Should your boss interview all the Asians anyway, to avoid being “racist”? Such an approach in and of itself is “racist”.

225

[quote]Rattler wrote:
You guys missed the thing in Canada where some politician said the word oriental. Then a whole bunch of asian people protested the word oriental and accused him of being a racist.

I dunno about you, but I remember when I was younger that was the proper term for them. Oriental, it’s been that word for hundreds of years. Hell, asia is still called the Orient everywhere.

Wtf is up with that[/quote]

Where do you think the “N” word came from? It’s a location in Africa. So it was originally used to indicate that the person was from Africa. Kinda like African-American. Go figure!

226

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
phaethon wrote:
my old boss threw away the resumes of all the candidates with asian names if they had only just graduated (Queensland, Australia). His reasoning was that most of them had a poor grasp of English, which is correct but still racist.

The above is lost on me. Why is it racist if his assumptions are correct? If being able to communicate properly in English is in furtherance of the position, why then is it racist if his reasoning is correct?

You might have 100 or more resumes for a given position. You cannot interview them all. You must cull resumes on some basis. If culling resumes based on a correct assumption about speaking english and speaking / communicating in English is in furtherance of the organization or job, then I say he used a reasonable means to cull certain resumes.

You didn’t say he culled ALL asian applicants - only those that graduated recently and, you further stated that his reasoning was CORRECT (never mind that he does not have to be 100% correct). It’s only racists if he culls any asian resume, period.

The above practice you describe is certainly no more racist than resumes that get culled based on what college the applicant attended, or any other filters that may initially be used by the screener.

What am I missing? Should your boss interview all the Asians anyway, to avoid being “racist”? Such an approach in and of itself is “racist”.[/quote]

Are you serious?

Culling applicants based on their surname is fucked up.

For the record, I couldn’t care less if something is “racist” or not. If an action is clearly unjust, I don’t need to consider whether or not it’s “racist” when deciding how I feel about that particular action.

227

[quote]jawara wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Doug Adams wrote:
Shedding those old labels can be seen as another step towards equal rights.

Or as a way to exercise political control by controlling the vocabulary and keeping innocent people constantly on the defensive.

I agree neph. But I still think we should kill whitey.Even whitey should kill whitey. I’m gonna start killing al the white soldiers in know. Then I’ll start killing the Iraqi’s with red or blonde hair. When I get home I’ll kill my wife too cuz she’s white. As a matter of fact she’s a racist too. I know she married me and all but if I really think about it I’m sure I’ll find some way to prove she’s a racist too. White mutha fuckas!!![/quote]

No offence dude, but don’t quit your dayjob.

228

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
phaethon wrote:
my old boss threw away the resumes of all the candidates with asian names if they had only just graduated (Queensland, Australia). His reasoning was that most of them had a poor grasp of English, which is correct but still racist.

The above is lost on me. Why is it racist if his assumptions are correct? If being able to communicate properly in English is in furtherance of the position, why then is it racist if his reasoning is correct?

You might have 100 or more resumes for a given position. You cannot interview them all. You must cull resumes on some basis. If culling resumes based on a correct assumption about speaking english and speaking / communicating in English is in furtherance of the organization or job, then I say he used a reasonable means to cull certain resumes.

You didn’t say he culled ALL asian applicants - only those that graduated recently and, you further stated that his reasoning was CORRECT (never mind that he does not have to be 100% correct). It’s only racists if he culls any asian resume, period.

The above practice you describe is certainly no more racist than resumes that get culled based on what college the applicant attended, or any other filters that may initially be used by the screener.

What am I missing? Should your boss interview all the Asians anyway, to avoid being “racist”? Such an approach in and of itself is “racist”.[/quote]

What you’re missing is that making hiring decisions based on presumed attributes is not acceptable, and potentially illegal.

No, there is no need to interview every asian applicant (or, more precisely, applicants with asian names, as it’s entirely possible for a non-asian person to have an asian name).

He could have interviewed those applicants who were well qualified, without relying on assumptions. I know this is shocking, but sometimes, people with Asian names actually speak english as their native language. Being denied access to jobs when they are recent graduates pretty much guarantees that their careers will be disadvantages relative to equally competent people with english names.

On top of this, the organization is losing the opportunity to select the most talented applicants, not to mention the effect it is likely to have on employee morale, job satisfaction, and turnover.

So it’s racist, illegal, unfair to applicants, and detrimental to the organization. Yeah, I don’t see any problems with this practice, either…

229

[quote]jawara wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Doug Adams wrote:
Shedding those old labels can be seen as another step towards equal rights.

Or as a way to exercise political control by controlling the vocabulary and keeping innocent people constantly on the defensive.

I agree neph. But I still think we should kill whitey.Even whitey should kill whitey. I’m gonna start killing al the white soldiers in know. Then I’ll start killing the Iraqi’s with red or blonde hair. When I get home I’ll kill my wife too cuz she’s white. As a matter of fact she’s a racist too. I know she married me and all but if I really think about it I’m sure I’ll find some way to prove she’s a racist too. White mutha fuckas!!![/quote]

I agree. Kill the White Devil.

230

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:

He could have interviewed those applicants who were well qualified, without relying on assumptions. I know this is shocking, but sometimes, people with Asian names actually speak english as their native language. Being denied access to jobs when they are recent graduates pretty much guarantees that their careers will be disadvantages relative to equally competent people with english names.

On top of this, the organization is losing the opportunity to select the most talented applicants, not to mention the effect it is likely to have on employee morale, job satisfaction, and turnover.

So it’s racist, illegal, unfair to applicants, and detrimental to the organization. Yeah, I don’t see any problems with this practice, either…[/quote]

Well, obviously you haven’t been in charge of hiring or reviewing resumes. Resumes are rejected wholly on assumptions all the time. Although to admit the practice of eliminating applicants based on an asian surname may be illegal, the reasoning behind his decision is not. Culling thru dozens or even hundreds of resumes means culling on assumptions.

Some fair, some unfair. It’s how the world works. And it’s no more racist than when a white guy gets denied the opportunity because in the eyes of the reviewer, he went to an inferior college. I UNDERSTAND what you’re saying, but in the final analysis, YOU say you boss’ assumptions are largely correct. And based on the result, I’d say he’s doing nothing unethical. Maybe letter of the law illegal, but not unethical and certainly not racist.

231

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
phaethon wrote:
my old boss threw away the resumes of all the candidates with asian names if they had only just graduated (Queensland, Australia). His reasoning was that most of them had a poor grasp of English, which is correct but still racist.

The above is lost on me. Why is it racist if his assumptions are correct? If being able to communicate properly in English is in furtherance of the position, why then is it racist if his reasoning is correct?

You might have 100 or more resumes for a given position. You cannot interview them all. You must cull resumes on some basis. If culling resumes based on a correct assumption about speaking english and speaking / communicating in English is in furtherance of the organization or job, then I say he used a reasonable means to cull certain resumes.

You didn’t say he culled ALL asian applicants - only those that graduated recently and, you further stated that his reasoning was CORRECT (never mind that he does not have to be 100% correct). It’s only racists if he culls any asian resume, period.

The above practice you describe is certainly no more racist than resumes that get culled based on what college the applicant attended, or any other filters that may initially be used by the screener.

What am I missing? Should your boss interview all the Asians anyway, to avoid being “racist”? Such an approach in and of itself is “racist”.

What you’re missing is that making hiring decisions based on presumed attributes is not acceptable, and potentially illegal.

No, there is no need to interview every asian applicant (or, more precisely, applicants with asian names, as it’s entirely possible for a non-asian person to have an asian name).

He could have interviewed those applicants who were well qualified, without relying on assumptions. I know this is shocking, but sometimes, people with Asian names actually speak english as their native language. Being denied access to jobs when they are recent graduates pretty much guarantees that their careers will be disadvantages relative to equally competent people with english names.

On top of this, the organization is losing the opportunity to select the most talented applicants, not to mention the effect it is likely to have on employee morale, job satisfaction, and turnover.

So it’s racist, illegal, unfair to applicants, and detrimental to the organization. Yeah, I don’t see any problems with this practice, either…[/quote]

What you are missing is that this idea of yours that some forms of discrimination are less acceptable than others is not only a form of hypocrisy but also is yet another way of telling private businesses how to do business.

You may like every step along the way, I promise you, you won´t like the end result.

Then, the same thing happens in Austria, where everyone is white. You have the wrong adress, you go to the wrong school, you have a problem. Not exactly a case of racism.

Finally, the free market punishes discrimination automatically. If you hire less qualified people based on whatever, the difference in productivity comes directly out of your own pocket. If your whole company suffers, your bottom line suffers, perfectly in sync with the amount of your stupidity.

This is a problem the market is obviously able to correct itself, there is no need for yet another government intervention.

232

[quote]nephorm wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
The other thing that occurred to me was that your talents and aspirations are very different from mine. All other traits remaining static, you probably would be advantaged by being black in today’s world.

I’m not quite sure what this means.[/quote]

I’m agreeing with your earlier point that you were probably disadvantaged by being white during your college application process. Was it last year I read that top-tier universities were turning away applicants with perfect SAT scores? I doubt any of the applicants refused admittance were considered “underrepresented minorities.” Given what I perceive to be your interest set and your aptitude, I would think those universities would be falling all over themselves to attract you if you were black. Whereas exceptionally intelligent white people are a dime a dozen at MIT, Columbia, etc.

I suspect a career in academia is similarly weighted in favor of the underrepresented minority. So for someone like you (v. smart) it might be an advantage to be black. Which is not so say that you aspire to a career in academia, just that being as v. smart as you are you could have one at a top school I should think. So that’s what I mean by your talents offering you advantage if you were black.

I don’t know what your aspirations are, just that they’re not alike to mine. Doing what I do there is no advantage to being black. Probably the opposite. For you, who may wish to play on a larger, more public field than I do, there may be. Academia is an environment in which it is probably an advantage to be black. Politics is another.

233

[quote]

rsg wrote:
Ha I remember that.

Is “porch monkey” actually a racist term in the states? I’ve never heard it before this.

Doug Adams wrote:
Yeah, unfortunately. I must say I’m quite annoyed at the white people of past generations in this country. We have several words that would be awesome to use as insults for all people, regardless of color, but are now stuck with the stigma of being racist terms.

Fuckin’ whitey ruins everything.

rsg wrote:
True.

I can’t picture terms like this being racist since I was never brought up with them, they almost lose their meaning - which I sure as generations pass and mix, they will.

Same as “kaffir” probably isn’t recognised around the world as much as it is in SA - yet it’s the equivalent of the “n” word there.[/quote]

I read the term “kaffir” for the first time a month ago in a British book I was reading - figured from the context it was derogatory but didn’t know it rose to the “n” word level.

Also, w/r/t “porch monkey,” I had never heard that term growing up in California - I heard it for the first time in law school and thought it was just a funny insult (I find anything with monkeys to be hilarious) until my Southern friend educated me.

234

I thought it was from a lazy pronunciation of “negro” - but negro may have come from Niger in the original Latin - I can’t quite tell from Dictionary.com:

235

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I thought it was from a lazy pronunciation of “negro” - but negro may have come from Niger in the original Latin - I can’t quite tell from Dictionary.com:

Negro Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com [/quote]

That’s correct. It went from nee-grow to ni-gra to nigger.

I wish society was smart enough to know the difference in usage of a word based on usage. I could insult you with any word in any language if I used it in that type of context.

236

wow, I’m a fucking genius. I edited that post so it wouldn’t contain the word ‘context’ twice , and ended up using ‘usage’ twice in the same damn sentence.

237

[quote]orion wrote:
What you are missing is that this idea of yours that some forms of discrimination are less acceptable than others is not only a form of hypocrisy but also is yet another way of telling private businesses how to do business.

You may like every step along the way, I promise you, you won´t like the end result.

Then, the same thing happens in Austria, where everyone is white. You have the wrong adress, you go to the wrong school, you have a problem. Not exactly a case of racism.

Finally, the free market punishes discrimination automatically. If you hire less qualified people based on whatever, the difference in productivity comes directly out of your own pocket. If your whole company suffers, your bottom line suffers, perfectly in sync with the amount of your stupidity.

This is a problem the market is obviously able to correct itself, there is no need for yet another government intervention.

[/quote]

I’m not sure who you are addressing, what exactly you are debating and what exactly your point is. I’d cull your resume based on your “cover letter” right there. Is that racist?

Anway, not being sure you’re addressing your comments to me, I agree the market corrects these issues. And I stand by my comments that I see no ethical problem with what his employer does based upon his qualifying comments that his employers assumptions are correct and assuming, speaking decent english is a requirement in furtherance of the business.

What he is missing, and perhaps you - I’m not sure because I cannot discern what point you’re attemptint to make, is that he is culling APPLICANTS/RESUMES, he is not interviewing an otherwise qualified Asian and refusing to hire someone who is otherwise qualified. He likewise is not refusing to interview ALL Asians, only those that recently graduated upon the logic (confirmed as often correct) that they do not speak English well enough).

When culling thru dozens or even hundreds of resumes, assumptions are the rule of the day. The poster said his employers assumptions are CORRECT. Therefore, he is culling a resume not based upon an ethnicity, but instead upon an informed presumption (again one that has proven to be correct) that said group of applicants do not usually speak english good enough for the workplace. He has no affirmative obligation to interview everyone - qualified or not. And certainly he has no obligation to interview an applicant that based on his experience will not speak english well enough.

Now, mind you I understand you legally cannot say I culled these resumes because they were Asian, but given his correct underlying assumption about English, his practice is no more unethical than culling for any other reason, such as address, college etc, all of which occur all the time. In fact, to say his practice of culling applicants based on their being Asian is somewhat incorrect and misleading. He is culling resumes based on their being Asian and recent graduates, which, I take it, in his country strongly implies recent emigre and limited english skills. The assumption need not be 100% correct, only fair and accurate, which again, I reiterate, according to the poster, it IS.

Furthermore, as a business owner, it is hardly productive to interview 20 Asians to find maybe 1 of the 20 that speak English well enough to function in the intended capacity forgetting for a moment that said applicant might not even be the best qualified for the job! It goes back to the original point that you cannot interview everyone!

And again, I reiterate, he does not exclude Asians per se, he excludes recent Asian graduates. I hardly think such a practice would affect his bottom line. We’re talking someone with no experience by the way. I just don’t see the “racism” unless you’re searching for it. In the final analysis, it’s no different than culling resumes from XYZU because you have the opinion that a certain grad program is not to your standards and regardless of the applicant, you cull those from consideration. He is culling not on race, but on the informed opinion that largely, such group will not be able to speak appropriate english.

Anyway, I could give a rat’s butt about some of these inane arguments offered as proof of racism. I just had to sit thru yet another comment last night by a black friend about how white motorists are treated better. WRONG. Just as in real estate, it’s location location location. If you’re in the city, 5-0 is equally abusive, unprofessional to both whites and blacks. I’ve been pulled over enough to know. Am I suddenly guilty of “driving while white”? NO. I, and every other white, along with all the blacks/minorities are guilty of “not being a fellow cop”. I get pulled over in Camden NJ and I get the same abuse, searches, etc.

Pulled over by a State Trooper on the highway and I get professionalism. Not everything is driven by race. Got your car searched? Well, you likely had something as evidenced by the high search to seizure ratios. If you’re guilty, you can’t hardly cry race now can you?

And as much as I DO hate racism, and as much as I hate to agree with the person that posted the comments previously, there is no arguing that some folks just don’t help themselves by not finishing high school, teen pregnancy, etc. The comments were pointed yes, but the result is undeniable. It aint the white man making young black teens pregnant and he aint kicking them out of school either. Fact is, you become a teenage mother and not finish high school, you basically effed yourself. Who do you blame when you don’t finish high school when you have peers in the same school system that do?

And another thought for discussion or, another can of worms. No employer cares for you to bring your race, culture, personal life, etc. to work. This means CONFORMITY is the generally the rule of most business cultures. Whether you’re black or white, CONFORMITY WITH BUSINESS NORMS ARE THE RULE. Black guy shows up with DREDS, doesn’t get hired and he might cry racism. Well guess what? White guys shows up with TATS all up and down his arms, unkempt hair and a bone thru his nose and he aint getting hired either. Same with the chick with the PINK hair.

If you’re white and choose to adopt fringe appearances, etc., you’re “discriminated” against and it’s just the facts of life. And sorry, but CONFORMITY in the black community is akin to pretending to be white. Well then, there are a bunch of white people pretending to be “white” too. I go to work, I wear the uniform of that business culture. It aint my time to be an individual - to express my whiteness, my fondness for pitbulls, hunting, weightlifting, my ethnic background or any other god damn thing that is unrelated to the business at hand. If I grow my hair long into a poneytail my career is likely to suffer. It has nothing to do with my being white. Business culture prizes conformity.

I’m not making an argument for CONFORMITY. I don’t champion the loss of individuality; I’m merely pointing out some examples where so called racism has been claimed by the aggrieved only to be a lack of conformity. I’m reciting the facts of life and pointing out how everything is not racism. If you refuse to fit in, at least during the workday, you will suffer.

238

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

rsg wrote:
Ha I remember that.

Is “porch monkey” actually a racist term in the states? I’ve never heard it before this.

Doug Adams wrote:
Yeah, unfortunately. I must say I’m quite annoyed at the white people of past generations in this country. We have several words that would be awesome to use as insults for all people, regardless of color, but are now stuck with the stigma of being racist terms.

Fuckin’ whitey ruins everything.

rsg wrote:
True.

I can’t picture terms like this being racist since I was never brought up with them, they almost lose their meaning - which I sure as generations pass and mix, they will.

Same as “kaffir” probably isn’t recognised around the world as much as it is in SA - yet it’s the equivalent of the “n” word there.

I read the term “kaffir” for the first time a month ago in a British book I was reading - figured from the context it was derogatory but didn’t know it rose to the “n” word level.

Also, w/r/t “porch monkey,” I had never heard that term growing up in California - I heard it for the first time in law school and thought it was just a funny insult (I find anything with monkeys to be hilarious) until my Southern friend educated me.
[/quote]

I remember when the SA cricket team was touring Australia they had a quota system where they had to have a certain number of black players in the team.

Pissed off white South African expats were calling the white players kaffir boetie.

239

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
phaethon wrote:
my old boss threw away the resumes of all the candidates with asian names if they had only just graduated (Queensland, Australia). His reasoning was that most of them had a poor grasp of English, which is correct but still racist.

The above is lost on me. Why is it racist if his assumptions are correct? If being able to communicate properly in English is in furtherance of the position, why then is it racist if his reasoning is correct?
[/quote]

Like I said I didn’t think he was doing anything wrong. According to the law though he is being racist. According to most people I know he should have read their resume before discarding their application.

240

[quote]phaethon wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
I’ve enjoyed a much larger dating pool, for example, because smart, educated men are my target group and in America the vast majority of them happen to be white and looking for a similarly white partner.

Completely off topic: I think if you only go for smart, educated men then you actually have a small dating pool (percentage wise). [/quote]

Not off topic at all, and you’re absolutely right. It’s already a small pool of men. That was exactly my point. Black women report intense frustration because there’s pressure to date and marry within one’s own culture, but their dating pool is even smaller, proportionately, than mine. So compared to them, I’m very lucky.

[quote] I also believe that there is continued subtle racism and that I would encounter it at work if I were black. Not from my superiors, necessarily, but from clients/patients. It’s just really easy to be white, I think. But that, too, is a subjective impression.

Yeah there is some racism at my workplace but honestly I cannot blame the ‘racist’ people. E.g. my old boss threw away the resumes of all the candidates with asian names if they had only just graduated (Queensland, Australia). His reasoning was that most of them had a poor grasp of English, which is correct but still racist.

So in a sense it probably is easier to be a white person in some cases. Policies like affirmative action only helps increase this racism. However I still don’t think it is anywhere near the level everybody suggests.[/quote]

What you seem to be saying is that you really don’t much care. And that’s fine, I suppose. But that doesn’t make it any easier for the people to whom it does matter. Although your boss sounds like a mindless bigot, I do understand the need for clear english in many businesses. I get annoyed when I have telephone communication with someone I have difficulty understanding. But skin color is different. Speaking only for myself, it would wear on me to deal with people who didn’t like me or think I’m bright or hardworking for no reason at all. [quote]

Professor X, are you still here? Have you ever secretly wished to be white?

Have you men ever wished to be female?

I bet he does :stuck_out_tongue: [/quote]

What, wish to be female? I would think so. I imagine everyone would like to try for a bit to be what they’re not, assuming there will be advantages to enjoy in the new incarnation. . Male or female, or living in the past or the future.

[quote]I would love to be female for a few days but not for ever. The biggest advantage I can see is that you can rip off men really easily. I don’t really feel the need to rip off other people as I am doing quite well by myself. So I can’t see any significant advantage but there are plenty of disadvantages.

Edit: I suppose there are other advantages like not having to spend time looking for partners. Men usually put in all the effort (at the start anyway). Then again I enjoy being the one in charge. I do know that many men don’t though.[/quote]

So, phaethon, would you like to try being black?