Comment

Comment by unholyroller on October 9, 2009 at 10:17pm

No......no it wouldn't.

Comment by Atheist Exile on October 9, 2009 at 8:26pm

Hi Steve,

It seems to me that the group-mixing situations you reference would be more common in Europe (where multiculturalism prevails) than in the U.S. (where pluralism gives us our "melting-pot" reputation). I think that public schools and the job market in the U.S. compels us to mingle more. But you're right that venturing outside one's comfort zone does not come easily to many of us.

The emphasis of immigrations should be integration, not isolation. That should be made clear up-front. If potential immigrants understand the social forces at work in a melting-pot nation, those who don't like the idea can change their minds before actually immigrating. Hell, let them go to Canada, or Europe.

Now, everybody, let's not run to the races with comments on cultural diversity. Yes, I want a pluralistic society, a melting-pot nation. Cultural diversity can still be preserved, despite social integration. It's admittedly more difficult but the effort can be made as long as culture remains strong. Will immigrant culture eventually be diluted? Of course. Irish, African, Italian, Greek, Chinese, Native American, etc. They all retain cultural influence despite the dilution of their cultural identities. This is a natural process that adds flavor to our character without erecting barriers between groups.

As the world keeps getting smaller, homogeneity will get stronger. Think about it. Would it be healthier for humanity if, as the world keeps getting smaller, our differences get stronger?

Comment by Atheist Exile on October 9, 2009 at 8:05pm

@Nerd,

Yes, I wonder if a preference for one's own race is the same as prejudice against another. They're obviously very similar but it appears to me that, perhaps, the greatest difference between them is intent.

I was in management for the last 5 years before retiring, in June 2006, at the age of 52. My employer had right around 100,000 employees. My boss was black but hired a low percentage of black people (lower than any other manager). On the other hand, another manager was Chinese and hired a high percentage of orientals (more than any other manager). Such trends were not supposed to develop because the vetting process excludes the hiring manager until the finalists were presented for final interviews. The candidates screened and presented to the hiring manager should be the most qualified according to objective standards (education, experience, achievements) and subjective interviews. However, good bullshitters would sometimes make the final list. But the fact was, we could (discretely) let it be known who we wanted, from the beginning, and usually end up with that person in the finalists list. This was management's worst-kept secret.

When I interviewed finalists for positions in my section, they were almost always similarly qualified. The difference was usually their personalities: who would mesh better? On one occasion, I wanted a particular Korean guy (from another section) who was exceptionally skilled and intelligent but who was being kept under thumb and was extremely unhappy where he was. I let my fellow managers know the guy's story and he was eventually presented to me in the finalist list. I hired him and he turned out to be, by far, our best employee. Interestingly, over the course of 5 years, there were only 2 females ever presented in my finalist lists and neither one was as in the top 3 (from which I always chose). So I never chose a female . . . this might look like bias but it is not. I insist on hiring only the best. By choosing from the top 3 finalists, I minimize the chance of having my choices challenged: which happens from time to time but never happened to me.

Comment by Atheist Exile on October 8, 2009 at 8:21pm

By the way, everybody, my blog post had a narrow focus. As I reread it, it occurred to me that it mentions competition a lot but doesn't mention cooperation as well. Please rest assured that I'm not an ogre and do believe in fair play and humane work environments, social security, unemployment checks, food stamps, Medicare, charity and the kindness of strangers. It's just that my focus was narrow. It wasn't my intention to write a treatise or book, just a blog post with a specific, narrow topic.

Comment by Atheist Exile on October 8, 2009 at 8:00pm

I agree with the need for greater education and awareness, Nerd.

We should always do what we can to promote understanding.

My old employer held mandatory sexual harassment classes. There were thousands of employees, so it took time for everybody to get trained. When it came my day to attend, my boss asked me, "Are you going to the sexual harassment class?" I replied with, "No thanks, I already know how."

LoL . . . I was kidding of course! Actually, the class was boring and I didn't learn a single thing I didn't already know. But at least my employer was sending the right message to everybody.

Comment by Atheist Exile on October 8, 2009 at 7:53pm

Hi Nerd,

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 seems fair enough. I don't see anything objectionable about it. Why do you ask?

Comment by Atheist Exile on October 8, 2009 at 7:48pm

I agree, Steve,

Of course there's prejudice and bigotry out there. People and companies can evade or confound anti-discrimination laws until they establish a pattern of discrimination. Even then, a lawsuit might not end in justice. There's no way to ensure absolute conformance to law or that violators will be caught and successfuly brought to justice. That's just a sad fact of life.

Also, some prejudice is normal. For instance, would you allow an ex-convict -- who has done his time and paid for his crime -- to manage your store or date your daughter? I wouldn't. If I had the means to prevent it, I would.

And not all prejudices are covered by law. Many people are biased against obese or physically unattractive people. Absolute justice is a pipe dream and precisely as (un)likely as absolute goodness across humanity. People are basically good . . . but there will always be exceptions and the good ones aren't perfect.

We can't legislate humanity.

Comment by Atheist Exile on October 8, 2009 at 2:44am

Hi unholyroller,

Yes!! Affirmative Action was wrong after all . . . who'd a-thunk it?

Comment by unholyroller on October 7, 2009 at 11:23pm

I couldn't agree with more. I was very nearly run out of a classroom when I was at University back in the '70's when I said RIGHT OUT LOUD that afferative Action was a dumbass idea and would likely result in America sinking into a morass of mediocrity. Skill, education and talent would no longer be valued and whoever whined the loudest would be be rewarded the most. I'm soooo glad I lived long enough to see myself proved wrong.

Comment by Atheist Exile on October 7, 2009 at 8:48pm

Hi Steve,

I've come to expect great insights from you. And once again, you've highlighted very salients points in your comments and described many of the problems with multiculturalism (which shares similarities with WMP).

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page