Is This Hypthetical Man A Racist?

[JakeStarkey]

Every day of every every month of every year is White History moment.

What a stupid OP.

 

[DriftingSand]

Hypothetical Scenario:

A man owns a Home Healthcare company. His company delivers oxygen and medical supplies to folks who live at home but require these supplies as a matter of life and death or at least for a healthier, better quality of life. The man's company is centered in a part of town that borders a really rough, high-crime neighborhood but he needs to deliver medical supplies to anyone and everyone who needs them regardless of the neighborhood in which they reside. The high-crime neighborhood happens to be mostly black.

The man employs 8 delivery technicians. 4 of them are black and 4 of them are white. Whenever he sends one of his white drivers into the black neighborhood they are either harassed or assaulted. As a result and for safety's sake the company owner enacts a new company policy: "Only black drivers shall deliver medical supplies to that black neighborhood."

Is the company owner a racist for only sending drivers of a particular race to a particular neighborhood?

The owner of the company is only a racist if he believes in the superiority or inferiority of one race over another.

What he is practicing is racial discrimination. Whether that's legal, or justified, is up to employment and anti discrimination laws that apply to that town.

The poorest judges of whether or not the company owner is a racist, would include Fox and MSNBC, people with preexisting racial resentments, and most of the people on this site.

Wrong. He os protecting the health and well being of his employees.

Wrong. He is doing both.

So would you knowingly send your white (or black) employees into harm's way knowing that you could help avoid said harm?

 

[DriftingSand]

Hypothetical Scenario:

A man owns a Home Healthcare company. His company delivers oxygen and medical supplies to folks who live at home but require these supplies as a matter of life and death or at least for a healthier, better quality of life. The man's company is centered in a part of town that borders a really rough, high-crime neighborhood but he needs to deliver medical supplies to anyone and everyone who needs them regardless of the neighborhood in which they reside. The high-crime neighborhood happens to be mostly black.

The man employs 8 delivery technicians. 4 of them are black and 4 of them are white. Whenever he sends one of his white drivers into the black neighborhood they are either harassed or assaulted. As a result and for safety's sake the company owner enacts a new company policy: "Only black drivers shall deliver medical supplies to that black neighborhood."

Is the company owner a racist for only sending drivers of a particular race to a particular neighborhood?

The owner of the company is only a racist if he believes in the superiority or inferiority of one race over another.

What he is practicing is racial discrimination. Whether that's legal, or justified, is up to employment and anti discrimination laws that apply to that town.

The poorest judges of whether or not the company owner is a racist, would include Fox and MSNBC, people with preexisting racial resentments, and most of the people on this site.

So if you owned the company and your white employees were routinely harassed or beaten would you continue to send them into harm's way?

You presume too much, for he said nothing of the sort.

Please put your glasses on and re-read the post. I asked a simple question which caused him/her to disappear from the conversation. I "presumed" nothing.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Pineapple

It would be racist to assume the business owner is not an African-American to start with.

.

I purposely left that detail out.

So ...

a) would he be racist if he was a white business owner?
b) would he be racist if he was a black business owner?

America lives by a double standard where race is concerned. Some races enjoy a "history month" while other races do not.

Thoughts?

I think you need to start with what the term racist means and go from there.

That's a great place to start!!! It's "racist" to hire anyone, anywhere to fill a quota! Your turn.

No, its not...For example: Women are hired to fill quotas. Racism has nothing to do with hiring

 

[DriftingSand]

Every day of every every month of every year is White History moment.

What a stupid OP.

Another side-stepper!! White history month isn't the topic.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

The owner of the company is only a racist if he believes in the superiority or inferiority of one race over another.

What he is practicing is racial discrimination. Whether that's legal, or justified, is up to employment and anti discrimination laws that apply to that town.

The poorest judges of whether or not the company owner is a racist, would include Fox and MSNBC, people with preexisting racial resentments, and most of the people on this site.

So if you owned the company and your white employees were routinely harassed or beaten would you continue to send them into harm's way?

No, I would fire the white employees and hire all black people...since they are better qualified.

Definitely the politically correct thing to do.

Maybe from your POV, but I think it's the practical thing to do, PC regardless.

But all the other neighborhoods are mostly white. What if the black drivers are being assaulted in the white neighborhoods? Would you not want to keep your black drivers safe?

Of course. I would want to ensure the safety of all my employees. If racial tensions were as bad as that, I would hire based on route: white drivers for white neighborhoods and vice versa.

 

[DriftingSand]

Pineapple

It would be racist to assume the business owner is not an African-American to start with.

.

I purposely left that detail out.

So ...

a) would he be racist if he was a white business owner?
b) would he be racist if he was a black business owner?

America lives by a double standard where race is concerned. Some races enjoy a "history month" while other races do not.

Thoughts?

I think you need to start with what the term racist means and go from there.

That's a great place to start!!! It's "racist" to hire anyone, anywhere to fill a quota! Your turn.

No, its not...For example: Women are hired to fill quotas. Racism has nothing to do with hiring

Filling quotas based on race OR gender is wrong. One should be hired based on experience; know-how; talent; and general qualifications.

 

[DriftingSand]

So if you owned the company and your white employees were routinely harassed or beaten would you continue to send them into harm's way?

No, I would fire the white employees and hire all black people...since they are better qualified.

Definitely the politically correct thing to do.

Maybe from your POV, but I think it's the practical thing to do, PC regardless.

But all the other neighborhoods are mostly white. What if the black drivers are being assaulted in the white neighborhoods? Would you not want to keep your black drivers safe?

Of course. I would want to ensure the safety of all my employees. If racial tensions were as bad as that, I would hire based on route: white drivers for white neighborhood and vice versa.

I would even take it a step further. If I had no qualified, black applicants and was not able to hire any black drivers then I would simply stop servicing any area that would place my remaining employees in harm's way. That would be true if I only had black drivers who were routinely harassed if/when they entered dangerous, white neighborhoods.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Pineapple

It would be racist to assume the business owner is not an African-American to start with.

.

I purposely left that detail out.

So ...

a) would he be racist if he was a white business owner?
b) would he be racist if he was a black business owner?

America lives by a double standard where race is concerned. Some races enjoy a "history month" while other races do not.

Thoughts?

I think you need to start with what the term racist means and go from there.

That's a great place to start!!! It's "racist" to hire anyone, anywhere to fill a quota! Your turn.

No, its not...For example: Women are hired to fill quotas. Racism has nothing to do with hiring

Filling quotas based on race OR gender is wrong. One should be hired based on experience; know-how; talent; and general qualifications.

Exactly why you calling it racist doesnt make sense

 

[ClosedCaption]

I would even take it a step further. If I had no qualified, black applicants and was not able to hire any black drivers then I would simply stop servicing any area that would place my remaining employees in harm's way. That would be true if I only had black drivers who were routinely harassed if/when they entered dangerous, white neighborhoods.

Oh I get it now.

This is another hypothetical victim thread about how hard it is to be a white guy and how scared you are of blacks and their "evilness"

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Pineapple

It would be racist to assume the business owner is not an African-American to start with.

.

I purposely left that detail out.

So ...

a) would he be racist if he was a white business owner?
b) would he be racist if he was a black business owner?

America lives by a double standard where race is concerned. Some races enjoy a "history month" while other races do not.

Thoughts?

I think you need to start with what the term racist means and go from there.

That's a great place to start!!! It's "racist" to hire anyone, anywhere to fill a quota! Your turn.

No, its not...For example: Women are hired to fill quotas. Racism has nothing to do with hiring

Filling quotas based on race OR gender is wrong. One should be hired based on experience; know-how; talent; and general qualifications.

Let's say you have a position that you need to fill. The two best applicants are equally qualified: one white, one black. Affirmative Action, in this hypothetical case, incentivizes that you hire the black applicant because of the greater good the job does for the black community as a whole (even if insignificant in the bigger picture). That's how Affirmative Action works. It doesn't force you to hire less qualified applicants based on race.

I am, as you know, a liberal. Affirmative Action, in my opinion, based on studies, doesn't help minorities, or, I should say, doesn't help them very well, at least, in the context of higher education. It helps some, few individuals but they are the outliers. For the most part it hasn't helped and has actually done some harm.

There are other, better ways to help level the playing field for minorities, but that's another topic.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I am, as you know, a liberal. Affirmative Action, in my opinion, based on studies, doesn't help minorities, or, I should say, doesn't help them very well, at least, in the context of higher education. It helps some, few individuals but they are the outliers. For the most part it hasn't helped and has actually done some harm.

What tha....LMAO

 

[Coloradomtnman]

No, I would fire the white employees and hire all black people...since they are better qualified.

Definitely the politically correct thing to do.

Maybe from your POV, but I think it's the practical thing to do, PC regardless.

But all the other neighborhoods are mostly white. What if the black drivers are being assaulted in the white neighborhoods? Would you not want to keep your black drivers safe?

Of course. I would want to ensure the safety of all my employees. If racial tensions were as bad as that, I would hire based on route: white drivers for white neighborhood and vice versa.

I would even take it a step further. If I had no qualified, black applicants and was not able to hire any black drivers then I would simply stop servicing any area that would place my remaining employees in harm's way. That would be true if I only had black drivers who were routinely harassed if/when they entered dangerous, white neighborhoods.

I think that is a nice way to do it, but what if that loss of revenue threatens the survival of your business? And threatens the service your company provides to those who need it to live or in order to maintain a decent quality of life?

I'd increase wages as a sort of "hazard pay" or hire security for those drivers.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I am, as you know, a liberal. Affirmative Action, in my opinion, based on studies, doesn't help minorities, or, I should say, doesn't help them very well, at least, in the context of higher education. It helps some, few individuals but they are the outliers. For the most part it hasn't helped and has actually done some harm.

What tha....LMAO

I know. I used to think the same thing, but I listened to a show where a very liberal person said the same thing, and after feeling reflexively incredulous and doing more research, realized that Affirmative Action, when it comes to higher education, isn't the best use of resources or political will when it comes to minorities (I leave out white women as they have benefited the most and significantly from AA).

 

[ClosedCaption]

I am, as you know, a liberal. Affirmative Action, in my opinion, based on studies, doesn't help minorities, or, I should say, doesn't help them very well, at least, in the context of higher education. It helps some, few individuals but they are the outliers. For the most part it hasn't helped and has actually done some harm.

What tha....LMAO

I know. I used to think the same thing, but I listened to a show where a very liberal person said the same thing, and after feeling reflexively incredulous and doing more research, realized that Affirmative Action, when it comes to higher education, isn't the best use of resources or political will when it comes to minorities (I leave out white women as they have benefited the most and significantly from AA).

Yeah but thats the common broad brush rebuttal to any and everything: "Isnt the best use of resources" but when those people are asked what the "best use" is everyone has a different answer.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I am, as you know, a liberal. Affirmative Action, in my opinion, based on studies, doesn't help minorities, or, I should say, doesn't help them very well, at least, in the context of higher education. It helps some, few individuals but they are the outliers. For the most part it hasn't helped and has actually done some harm.

What tha....LMAO

I know. I used to think the same thing, but I listened to a show where a very liberal person said the same thing, and after feeling reflexively incredulous and doing more research, realized that Affirmative Action, when it comes to higher education, isn't the best use of resources or political will when it comes to minorities (I leave out white women as they have benefited the most and significantly from AA).

Yeah but thats the common broad brush rebuttal to any and everything: "Isnt the best use of resources" but when those people are asked what the "best use" is everyone has a different answer.

I meant specifically when it comes to higher education and Affirmative Action, as I stated in my first post in this thread on the subject. I don't have enough information about hiring practices and Affirmative Action other than white women seemed to have benefited the most because of the policy.

I can't remember off the top of my head what some policy proposals were that would work better to level the playing field for minorities, but I remember some of them seeming very logical and practical, and would probably have no chance of passing in any conservative committee or governing body.

Affirmative Action might be the best that we can get for now, but I recognized in me an immediate incredulity when hearing the program criticized, almost like a feeling of moral offense. So instead of recoiling from that feeling, I attempted to understand why I had it.

The liberal criticizing the policy seemed extremely knowledgeable and level-headed, so I researched the efficacy of AA among minority students (the context in which the discussion was taking place), and found some real issues with how it addressed opportunity and minority students. The idea behind the program is ethical and moral, the reality didn't live up to that ideal.

That was the issue for me. I don't criticize the morality of leveling the playing field, I just want to improve the outcomes for those who are at a disadvantage on the playing field. A better program is what I would like to see.

I wish I could be more specific with links to the studies I looked at and the alternative programs I heard or read about, but I did the research a while ago and don't remember the details. Hardly a convincing basis to write this, I know, but hopefully, although I don't seem knowledgeable perhaps I seem level-headed (not a perceived-oppression victim).