Jump to content
Required Reading for any Longhorn ×

Defining Unfair Discrimination Based on Race, Sex or Religion

TahoeHorn

By TahoeHorn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
Posted

If an umpire is deciding whether an act is unfair discrimination based on race, sex or religion the umpire does not need to know the race, gender or sex of the participants.  As an umpire I can decide whether a pitch is a ball or a strike without knowing who the batter or pitcher are.  This crap where people say that a pitch is a ball if the batter is Black and the pitcher is White but a strike otherwise is just plain nutty, and racist.  Now I'm talking only about a prima facie case about the act itself.  If you can prove malicious intent that's another matter.

 

Let's look at some examples.  In all cases I don't need to know anything about race, sex or religion to decide what is fair.

 

Is it sexist to give the 1000th best runner in the nation a spot on the Olympic team while the 999th best runner has no dream?  It's sexist if you say "Well, not if the 1000th best runner is female and she's the best female."  I can look at performance or market value and tell how the athlete should be rewarded.  It's sexist, and ridiculous logic, to argue the the 1000th best soccer player should get paid by special rules that treat her better than a man of equivalent ability.  My ruling:  It's clearly sexist but maybe it's fair, and maybe not.  It's not fair to treat the 1000th best athlete better than the 999th, but if the rules are made by the world you play by their rules.  Or you can play by the rules of the market.  You can't play by rules of the government (including nuttiness like Title IX).

Is it sexist for a business to pay swimsuit models based on market value if it results in the 1000 highest paid models being all female?  My ruling: Of course not.  I don't need to know somebody's sex to know if they are being paid fairly as a swimsuit model.  If you sell swimsuits, you sell swimsuits.

Is it racist to give a government scholarship to a rich person who is a poor student while denying a poor person who is good student because the kid getting the scholarship is Black.  My ruling: Of course.  If I'm granting scholarships I don't want to know anything about the race, sex or religion of the student.  Any factors that should be weighed (e.g. grew up poor in Harlem) need to be cleansed by separate team so that I weigh poor in Appalachias the same way I weigh poor in Harlem.

Is it racist to have an organization like the NAACP?  My ruling: Of course.  Is it racist to have an organization for the advancement of White people?  Obviously.

Is it discrimination to have a student at school be given an opportunity to go to a special room to pray?  My ruling:  The school system needs to have the same rule for all religions.  Don't tell me you have a prayer room for Muslim students but not one for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

Is it racist to write a joke book titled "You might be a Redneck if ..."?  My ruling: Let's test.  :)  Write a joke book with a title "You might be a (Your choice of unflattering name for Black people) ..." and use all the Foxworthy jokes that have been universally used for ethnic jokes (I've heard many of those jokes about Rednecks, Blacks, Poles, Aggies and Aubarners.).

Is it racial discrimination for Trump to tell AOC to go back to where she came from?  My ruling: Maybe.  Maybe not.  The statement is not a prima facie case.  You must prove intent.  In 1982 I must have heard 1000 Houstonian tell various Michiganders to go back home.  But others they wanted to stay.  It wasn't about place of origin or race.  It was about whether you bitched incessantly about how much Houston sucked.  This is a universal reason for telling someone to go back home.  So was Trump's intent because AOC bitches about the US, or because she's Puerto Rican ethnicity? Get serious.

Is it prima facie evidence of discrimination if all the people rewarded are of one race, gender, or religion?  My ruling:  Don't be silly.  If the 128 best cornerbacks are all Black then there is no problem if all NFL cornerbacks are Black.  It's only a problem if a person is not an NFL cornerback because he is White.  

If you want to get rid of unfair discrimination start by making the umpires blind, as much as possible, to the race, sex and religion of the players.  A ball is a ball and a strike is a strike.  If you have to know the race of the batter to make a decision then you are a racist.

  • Like 2
  • Fuck You 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105465

Posted
Posted

I'll take "racist morons who refuse to acknowledge any effect of systemic, institutional, and historical advantages" for $1,000, Alex.

Because we all know that if you give me 100 white kids and 100 black kids who all test similarly for IQ etc. at age 5, which group is going to be more financially successful overall over the course of their lives?  Is it the one that won't have employers subconsciously screen out their black-sounding names?  Is it the one that will have many members get sweet internships/first jobs through a connection that their dad made from HIS college days?  Is it the one that won't have many of its members pulled over by the cops at a higher rate, searched, harassed, and busted for the slightest criminal infraction?  Etc. etc. ad infinifuckingnitum?

In Tahoe Moron's analysis, it is the equivalent of having a foot race to determine who to draft as a CB....except one group (as a whole) starts their 100 yd dash at starting blocks 30 yards closer to the finish line.  Inherent biases and advantages skew the shit out of your desire to focus on the myopic result of "all I care about is who crosses the finish line first."

But he knows that.  Racists don't deny their racism.  They just try to justify or excuse it.  But the rest of us won't play that game.  Fuck your game.  And fuck you.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28814

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

If an umpire is deciding whether an act is unfair discrimination based on race, sex or religion the umpire does not need to know the race, gender or sex of the participants.  As an umpire I can decide whether a pitch is a ball or a strike without knowing who the batter or pitcher are.  This crap where people say that a pitch is a ball if the batter is Black and the pitcher is White but a strike otherwise is just plain nutty, and racist.  Now I'm talking only about a prima facie case about the act itself.  If you can prove malicious intent that's another matter.

 

Let's look at some examples.  In all cases I don't need to know anything about race, sex or religion to decide what is fair.

 

Is it sexist to give the 1000th best runner in the nation a spot on the Olympic team while the 999th best runner has no dream?  It's sexist if you say "Well, not if the 1000th best runner is female and she's the best female."  I can look at performance or market value and tell how the athlete should be rewarded.  It's sexist, and ridiculous logic, to argue the the 1000th best soccer player should get paid by special rules that treat her better than a man of equivalent ability.  My ruling:  It's clearly sexist but maybe it's fair, and maybe not.  It's not fair to treat the 1000th best athlete better than the 999th, but if the rules are made by the world you play by their rules.  Or you can play by the rules of the market.  You can't play by rules of the government (including nuttiness like Title IX).

Is it sexist for a business to pay swimsuit models based on market value if it results in the 1000 highest paid models being all female?  My ruling: Of course not.  I don't need to know somebody's sex to know if they are being paid fairly as a swimsuit model.  If you sell swimsuits, you sell swimsuits.

Is it racist to give a government scholarship to a rich person who is a poor student while denying a poor person who is good student because the kid getting the scholarship is Black.  My ruling: Of course.  If I'm granting scholarships I don't want to know anything about the race, sex or religion of the student.  Any factors that should be weighed (e.g. grew up poor in Harlem) need to be cleansed by separate team so that I weigh poor in Appalachias the same way I weigh poor in Harlem.

Is it racist to have an organization like the NAACP?  My ruling: Of course.  Is it racist to have an organization for the advancement of White people?  Obviously.

Is it discrimination to have a student at school be given an opportunity to go to a special room to pray?  My ruling:  The school system needs to have the same rule for all religions.  Don't tell me you have a prayer room for Muslim students but not one for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

Is it racist to write a joke book titled "You might be a Redneck if ..."?  My ruling: Let's test.  :)  Write a joke book with a title "You might be a (Your choice of unflattering name for Black people) ..." and use all the Foxworthy jokes that have been universally used for ethnic jokes (I've heard many of those jokes about Rednecks, Blacks, Poles, Aggies and Aubarners.).

Is it racial discrimination for Trump to tell AOC to go back to where she came from?  My ruling: Maybe.  Maybe not.  The statement is not a prima facie case.  You must prove intent.  In 1982 I must have heard 1000 Houstonian tell various Michiganders to go back home.  But others they wanted to stay.  It wasn't about place of origin or race.  It was about whether you bitched incessantly about how much Houston sucked.  This is a universal reason for telling someone to go back home.  So was Trump's intent because AOC bitches about the US, or because she's Puerto Rican ethnicity? Get serious.

Is it prima facie evidence of discrimination if all the people rewarded are of one race, gender, or religion?  My ruling:  Don't be silly.  If the 128 best cornerbacks are all Black then there is no problem if all NFL cornerbacks are Black.  It's only a problem if a person is not an NFL cornerback because he is White.  

If you want to get rid of unfair discrimination start by making the umpires blind, as much as possible, to the race, sex and religion of the players.  A ball is a ball and a strike is a strike.  If you have to know the race of the batter to make a decision then you are a racist.

How do you decide when to post under TahoeHorn and when to post under MixtyMotions?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

Although I appreciate Tahoe’s Swam duplication efforts he’s simply just not measuring up. 

For one thing that’s way too many words. While I enjoyed reading swam’s dumbass posts starting threads like this one, they didn’t take nearly as long to read as this one.

Just a tip. Be better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TornACL

TornACL 7733

Posted
Posted

Also

Quote

If an umpire is deciding whether an act is unfair discrimination based on race, sex or religion the umpire does not need to know the race, gender or sex of the participants. 

Exactly how long are you trying to make baseball games, dude?  Replay is already bad enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11395

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, TornACL said:

It's like OP just learned about the term prima facie and efforted to use it as many times as possible as soon as he learned about it. 

 

Oh, I thought he was saying that Trump gives "primo facials"

I thought, finally Trump and I have something in common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I'll take "racist morons who refuse to acknowledge any effect of systemic, institutional, and historical advantages" for $1,000, Alex.

Because we all know that if you give me 100 white kids and 100 black kids who all test similarly for IQ etc. at age 5, which group is going to be more financially successful overall over the course of their lives?  Is it the one that won't have employers subconsciously screen out their black-sounding names?  Is it the one that will have many members get sweet internships/first jobs through a connection that their dad made from HIS college days?  Is it the one that won't have many of its members pulled over by the cops at a higher rate, searched, harassed, and busted for the slightest criminal infraction?  Etc. etc. ad infinifuckingnitum?

In Tahoe Moron's analysis, it is the equivalent of having a foot race to determine who to draft as a CB....except one group (as a whole) starts their 100 yd dash at starting blocks 30 yards closer to the finish line.  Inherent biases and advantages skew the shit out of your desire to focus on the myopic result of "all I care about is who crosses the finish line first."

But he knows that.  Racists don't deny their racism.  They just try to justify or excuse it.  But the rest of us won't play that game.  Fuck your game.  And fuck you.

So it's okay to judge someone based on the color of their skin?  It's okay to assume one race is going to be superior to another race when all other characteristics are the same?  

spacer.png

spacer.png

 

We are not a nation of groups.  We are a nation of individuals.  Every individual should be judged on their character and their behavior.  We have approximately 329 million groups in this country and each one contains exactly one person in it.

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
Just now, EMAWesome said:

So it's okay to judge someone based on the color of their skin?  It's okay to assume one race is going to be superior to another race when all other characteristics are the same?  

spacer.png

spacer.png

 

We are not a nation of groups.  We are a nation of individuals.  Every individual should be judged on their character and their behavior.  We have approximately 329 million groups in this country and each one contains exactly one person in it.

i think it's best you stick to posting pictures, because you are illiterate.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13083

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

So it's okay to judge someone based on the color of their skin?  It's okay to assume one race is going to be superior to another race when all other characteristics are the same?  

spacer.png

spacer.png

 

We are not a nation of groups.  We are a nation of individuals.  Every individual should be judged on their character and their behavior.  We have approximately 329 million groups in this country and each one contains exactly one person in it.

Is that what you think that’s saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105465

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

So it's okay to judge someone based on the color of their skin?  It's okay to assume one race is going to be superior to another race when all other characteristics are the same? 

You're.....not very bright, are you?

Based on our existing history ONLY, with no regard for the merits of any individual or race existing at this time.....which group in the United States is more likely to have "connections" that allow them to get a better internship/first job: 100 randomly selected white kids, or 100 randomly selected black kids?

Even if there was ZERO racism today (which, of course, is a patently false assumption), our historical racism and how that racism has been embedded in our institutions has a LONG tail.

A generic black kid, REGARDLESS of his individual merit (but let's say he has a 105 IQ and a good work ethic, and has a stable home, identical to a white kid just like that) is more likely to have the following DISADVANTAGES:

1 - does not have as big or successful a network in the upper reaches of business/government/etc. that will give him a leg up when it comes time to get a job, hustle more business/accounts, seek a promotion, etc.

2 - is statistically more likely to be pulled over by the cops

3 - is statistically more likely to face criminal penalties for minor offenses (think booze and recreational drugs) than a white kid will

4 - is statistically more likely to have his resume treated poorly if he has a remotely "black" sounding name

That's just for starters.  Those are verifiable realities.  Which folks who are all about "facts" love to ignore.  Face it, son....you're pretty fucking dim.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

In a baseball game some batters have had more advantages over others.  Two people with the same athletic ability don't have the same opportunity to hit the ball.  One may have had:

1. A culture (family or community) which introduced him to baseball later in life

2. Inferior coaching

3. Discriminatory treatment by Little League coaches

4. Unsupportive parents

5. Pressure to play other sports or study instead of practicing baseball.

And many more.

But if I'm the umpire I don't care.  A strike is a strike and a ball is a ball.  I'm not even going to pay attention to who the batter si or who the pitcher is.

If it's a church picnic I'll give 5 year old Susie extra strikes and easy pitches.  And I won't cut 14 year old Billy, who plays high school ball, any slack.  But in MLB a ball is a ball and a strike is a strike.

Edited by TahoeHorn
  • Fuck You 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105465

Posted
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

In a baseball game some batters have had more advantages over others.  Two people with the same athletic ability don't have the same opportunity to hit the ball.  One may have had:

1. A culture (family or community) which introduced him to baseball later in life

2. Inferior coaching

3. Discriminatory treatment by Little League coaches

4. Unsupportive parents

5. Pressure to play other sports or study instead of practicing baseball.

And many more.

But if I'm the umpire I don't care.  A strike is a strike and a ball is a ball.  I'm not even going to pay attention to who the batter si or who the pitcher is.

If it's a church picnic I'll give 5 year old Susie extra strikes and easy pitches.  And I won't cut 14 year old Billy, who plays high school ball, any slack.  But in MLB a ball is a ball and a strike is a strike.

You moronic, racist, donutfucker....when the fucking REASON Batter B has less athletic ability than Batter A is fucking institutional racism that fucked him and his family for 200 years, then I hate to fucking break it to you, race is a fucking difference-maker.  Not 'unsupportive parents."  Not "I chose to play badminton instead."  But centuries of fucking racism.  Which means that Batter A has access to fucking coaches.  Batter A has mentors who help him figure out which position is likely to get him playing time.  Batter A gets a shitload of advantages.

Yeah, when the ump calls strikes that day, he's going to look at the pitch and the swing.  But society doesn't exist in a single fraction of a second of time, with all other times and issues ignored.  I mean, I know that's how your juvenile masturbatory fantasies play out, but that's not reality.

You are the beneficiary of 250 years of systemic advantages.

Black people remain behind the 8-ball of 250 years of systemic disadvantages.

You want to ignore that.  Which is what a racist does.  You are, remain, and always will be a racist piece of shit.  But hey, good news -- your political party is now 100% on board with your worldview.

Also.....

Quote

Didn't read your horseshit.  Just stopped in to say go fuck yourself you donut fetching lickspittle.  

...is a better reply than mine.

Edited by Brisketexan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blotto

Blotto 23585

Posted
Posted

Lulz, here's the definition of a strike...

Quote

The official strike zone is the area over home plate from the midpoint between a batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants -- when the batter is in his stance and prepared to swing at a pitched ball -- and a point just below the kneecap. In order to get a strike call, part of the ball must cross over part of home plate while in the aforementioned area.

http://m.mlb.com/glossary/rules/strike-zone

So by definition, the strike zone differs from batter to batter depending on their physical stature. An umpire must factor in the batter when determining whether a pitch is a strike. So even your shitty nonsensical comparison doesn't work.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gaedel

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18952

Posted
Posted

The idea of a neutral umpire in the context of American history is a perfect illustration of white privilege.

The game has been rigged for centuries, but now that historically disenfranchised groups are starting to catch up, the historically dominant group is suddenly concerned with fairness.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...