LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:So sure of yourself on this, huh?
Tell me, were you just as sure of yourself about the "cutting up hijab with scissors" hoax? Or what about the Yasmin Seweid one?
The what?
Advertisement
by Conserative Morality » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:34 pm
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:So sure of yourself on this, huh?
Tell me, were you just as sure of yourself about the "cutting up hijab with scissors" hoax? Or what about the Yasmin Seweid one?
by Ostroeuropa » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:35 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
You're the one who pretended religion isn't more ridiculous. I'm pointing out that factually speaking, you're wrong about that. That's not a prejudice.
"It's not a prejudice, it's a fact!"
You really make the parallels too easy.
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:35 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
At least germs exist and do transfer on occasion, so yes, it's significantly less ridiculous to be afraid of things that actually exist and kill people than to be afraid of the wrath of a non-existent entity.
Thank you for proving my point that this has nothing to do with sexism or suitability for the job, but your anti-theistic prejudices that would not be out of place for a 15-year-old newly deconverted from fundamentalism who thinks that he has found The Secret that has been hidden from the world.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by Kramanica » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:35 pm
Thank you for proving my point. You are being exceptionally helpful today!
Hm.“The easiest way to think of this is to think of people on a spectrum,” says Simon Rego, PsyD, director of psychology training and the cognitive behavioral training program at Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. “On one end are people who don’t have any concern about germs, in the middle are those with appropriate levels of concern, and at the other end would be the mysophobics,” otherwise known as germaphobes.It's actually an imbalance of neurochemicals (particularly dopamine and serotonin) that runs in cycles, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that. That would require more than two clicks to cure your ignorance on the matter, after all!
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:36 pm
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by United Muscovite Nations » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:36 pm
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:Thank you for proving my point that this has nothing to do with sexism or suitability for the job, but your anti-theistic prejudices that would not be out of place for a 15-year-old newly deconverted from fundamentalism who thinks that he has found The Secret that has been hidden from the world.
Still doesn't refute his point.
There is evidence of germs. There is no evidence of a god or gods.
End of story.
by Conserative Morality » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:37 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:Are you disputing that there's less evidence for god than there is for germs killing people?
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:38 pm
Kramanica wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:Then you should have recognized that you were short on information and not pressed the matter instead of making yourself look like a fool.
Ah yes, what would I do without your help?
Yes, I can see it manifesting itself right now. You definitely have chemical imbalance in your brain.
You are bitter, sad, pathetic individual. You get no joy out of your life so instead you LARP as an intelligent person on NSG. And you blame it all on your bi-polar disorder. As if that somehow makes up for you being an utterly shitty individual. Your life is a meaningless shell of anguish and bitterness. And that's most likely how you'll remain for the rest of your life. It's sad, isn't it? To know that this is all there is for you? Unfortunely I'm not here to be your therapist. I'm just here to mock you for being such an utterly pathetic person.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by Camicon » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:38 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:Camicon wrote:Way to completely miss the point.
Correcting an assumption after having been discriminated against/assaulted doesn't change the fact that someone was discriminated against/assaulted.
Doing X does not mean that Y never happened.
And Farah interprets her religion as proscribing physical contact based on the relationship between the men and women in question. Spouses are not proscribed against touching each other, only others of the opposite sex to whom they are not married. This is prudish, not sexist.
It's not an assumption if you communicate a certain stance without being clear about it.
If she had explicitly told the man "I do not shake hands with men because of my religion." would you say he's "Assuming" shit by thinking that's the extent of her position?
Then why not IMPLICITLY communicating that fact?
She views touching men other than her husband as bad in and of itself, and does not view touching women the same way.
Country of glowing hearts, and patrons of the artsThe Trews, Under The Sun
Help me out
Star spangled madness, united sadness
Count me out
No human is more human than any other. - Lieutenant-General Roméo Antonius Dallaire
Don't shine for swine. - Metric, Soft Rock Star
Love is hell. Hell is love. Hell is asking to be loved. - Emily Haines and the Soft Skeleton, Detective Daughter
by Ostroeuropa » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:38 pm
by Kramanica » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:39 pm
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Kramanica wrote:Ah yes, what would I do without your help?
Yes, I can see it manifesting itself right now. You definitely have chemical imbalance in your brain.
You are bitter, sad, pathetic individual. You get no joy out of your life so instead you LARP as an intelligent person on NSG. And you blame it all on your bi-polar disorder. As if that somehow makes up for you being an utterly shitty individual. Your life is a meaningless shell of anguish and bitterness. And that's most likely how you'll remain for the rest of your life. It's sad, isn't it? To know that this is all there is for you? Unfortunely I'm not here to be your therapist. I'm just here to mock you for being such an utterly pathetic person.
...said the person with no evidence.
I don't care where you stand on this debate, there's nothing good that could come out of the worthless brain of someone with such baseless certainty about the personal life of someone they don't know.
by United Muscovite Nations » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:40 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:It proves that it's not about sexism for Ostro, but about preventing people from practicing their faith.
People can have more than one motivation at a time, though simple minded folk who can't grapple with more than one idea at once may not have much experience of that. I'm sure you do though, so why say this?
As for "preventing people from practicing their faith", it's more a matter of not tolerating religion when it causes problems in society and seeking to crack down on it. In this case, sexism.
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:40 pm
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by Camicon » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:40 pm
Gravlen wrote:Camicon wrote:No, the problem was the incorrect assumption of the interviewer that she would be discriminatory in her greetings because of her religion.
Physical contact is not necessary for the work of interpreting. The company in question said that not shaking hands it not a problem.
She could very well have tried to correct the interviewer's incorrect assumption. Maybe she decided that she didn't want to work for a company that had a knob like him conducting their interviews, didn't press the matter because she no longer wanted the job. It doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that she was discriminated against.
If someone punches me in the face because they think I insulted their brother/sister, explaining to them that I did not doesn't change the fact that I was assaulted.
It is also unclear if she got a chance to explain herself, as the interviewer "immediately" ended the interview process.
Country of glowing hearts, and patrons of the artsThe Trews, Under The Sun
Help me out
Star spangled madness, united sadness
Count me out
No human is more human than any other. - Lieutenant-General Roméo Antonius Dallaire
Don't shine for swine. - Metric, Soft Rock Star
Love is hell. Hell is love. Hell is asking to be loved. - Emily Haines and the Soft Skeleton, Detective Daughter
by Conserative Morality » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:41 pm
Kramanica wrote:Ah yes, what would I do without your help?
Yes, I can see it manifesting itself right now. You definitely have chemical imbalance in your brain.
You are bitter, sad, pathetic individual. You get no joy out of your life so instead you LARP as an intelligent person on NSG. And you blame it all on your bi-polar disorder.
As if that somehow makes up for you being an utterly shitty individual. Your life is a meaningless shell of anguish and bitterness.
And that's most likely how you'll remain for the rest of your life. It's sad, isn't it? To know that this is all there is for you?
Unfortunely I'm not here to be your therapist. I'm just here to mock you for being such an utterly pathetic person.
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:42 pm
Kramanica wrote:LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:...said the person with no evidence.
I don't care where you stand on this debate, there's nothing good that could come out of the worthless brain of someone with such baseless certainty about the personal life of someone they don't know.
It isn't baseless certainty. He readily admits to being a bitter invidual.
I'm doing nothing more than pointing it out.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by Ostroeuropa » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:42 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:Are you disputing that there's less evidence for god than there is for germs killing people?
There's less evidence for irrational avoidance of germs being helpful than there is for God, because there is plenty of proof that irrational avoidance of germs is actually unhelpful, while notions of the divine merely suffer from a lack of evidence, not evidence against.
Camicon wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
It's not an assumption if you communicate a certain stance without being clear about it.
If she had explicitly told the man "I do not shake hands with men because of my religion." would you say he's "Assuming" shit by thinking that's the extent of her position?
Then why not IMPLICITLY communicating that fact?
She views touching men other than her husband as bad in and of itself, and does not view touching women the same way.
Farah said she could not shake the interviewer's hand - not "I can't shake mens hands", but "I can't shake your hand" - and the interviewer told her to leave.
Farah made no reference to the interviewer's sex or gender, or to her religion.
The interviewer assumed she wouldn't shake his hand because he was a man. He assumed that she would shake the hands of women. He assumed that she wouldn't greet all of the company's potential customers in an equal manner. He assumed this was because of her religion. He told her to leave, and she did.
And, again, not touching men to whom you are not married is prudish, not sexist. At worst, you could argue that the assumption the religion makes in proscribing physical contact with members of the opposite sex (but not the same sex) as being homosexual erasure. But it certainly isn't sexist.
by United Muscovite Nations » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:44 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:There's less evidence for irrational avoidance of germs being helpful than there is for God, because there is plenty of proof that irrational avoidance of germs is actually unhelpful, while notions of the divine merely suffer from a lack of evidence, not evidence against.
Ah, even sillier, you're denying evidence that religion is detrimental to society in many ways exists.Camicon wrote:Farah said she could not shake the interviewer's hand - not "I can't shake mens hands", but "I can't shake your hand" - and the interviewer told her to leave.
Farah made no reference to the interviewer's sex or gender, or to her religion.
The interviewer assumed she wouldn't shake his hand because he was a man. He assumed that she would shake the hands of women. He assumed that she wouldn't greet all of the company's potential customers in an equal manner. He assumed this was because of her religion. He told her to leave, and she did.
And, again, not touching men to whom you are not married is prudish, not sexist. At worst, you could argue that the assumption the religion makes in proscribing physical contact with members of the opposite sex (but not the same sex) as being homosexual erasure. But it certainly isn't sexist.
He rightly concluded she wouldn't shake his hand because he was a man. He rightly concluded that this was because of her religion. These are the ideas she communicated with him implicitly and took the effort to communicate.
She made no reference or even an attempt to also allude to adherence to principles of egalitarianism. She made no effort to communicate that she would treat potential customers in an equal manner. She made no effort to communicate that she would likewise not shake the hands of women.
You are blaming him for her poor communication. He made an entirely reasonable conclusion.
by The South Falls » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:44 pm
by Conserative Morality » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:45 pm
The South Falls wrote:I think you can interpret without handshakes.
by Reploid Productions » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:46 pm
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
by Reploid Productions » Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:49 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Anything to keep those dirty musselmen out!
Conserative Morality wrote: but I wouldn't expect you to understand that. That would require more than two clicks to cure your ignorance on the matter, after all!
Conserative Morality wrote:poor attempts at projection, didn't even bother to secret police up my post history to make actual founded assertions, instead relying on a single phrase in my sig. See me after class.
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:there's nothing good that could come out of the worthless brain of someone with such baseless certainty about the personal life of someone they don't know.
Kramanica wrote:You are bitter, sad, pathetic individual. You get no joy out of your life so instead you LARP as an intelligent person on NSG. And you blame it all on your bi-polar disorder. As if that somehow makes up for you being an utterly shitty individual. Your life is a meaningless shell of anguish and bitterness. And that's most likely how you'll remain for the rest of your life. It's sad, isn't it? To know that this is all there is for you? Unfortunely I'm not here to be your therapist. I'm just here to mock you for being such an utterly pathetic person.
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
by Camicon » Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:14 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:Camicon wrote:Farah said she could not shake the interviewer's hand - not "I can't shake mens hands", but "I can't shake your hand" - and the interviewer told her to leave.
Farah made no reference to the interviewer's sex or gender, or to her religion.
The interviewer assumed she wouldn't shake his hand because he was a man. He assumed that she would shake the hands of women. He assumed that she wouldn't greet all of the company's potential customers in an equal manner. He assumed this was because of her religion. He told her to leave, and she did.
And, again, not touching men to whom you are not married is prudish, not sexist. At worst, you could argue that the assumption the religion makes in proscribing physical contact with members of the opposite sex (but not the same sex) as being homosexual erasure. But it certainly isn't sexist.
He rightly concluded she wouldn't shake his hand because he was a man. He rightly concluded that this was because of her religion. These are the ideas she communicated with him implicitly and took the effort to communicate.
She made no reference or even an attempt to also allude to adherence to principles of egalitarianism. She made no effort to communicate that she would treat potential customers in an equal manner. She made no effort to communicate that she would likewise not shake the hands of women.
You are blaming him for her poor communication. He made an entirely reasonable conclusion.
Country of glowing hearts, and patrons of the artsThe Trews, Under The Sun
Help me out
Star spangled madness, united sadness
Count me out
No human is more human than any other. - Lieutenant-General Roméo Antonius Dallaire
Don't shine for swine. - Metric, Soft Rock Star
Love is hell. Hell is love. Hell is asking to be loved. - Emily Haines and the Soft Skeleton, Detective Daughter
by Petrasylvania » Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:19 pm
Camicon wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
He rightly concluded she wouldn't shake his hand because he was a man. He rightly concluded that this was because of her religion. These are the ideas she communicated with him implicitly and took the effort to communicate.
She made no reference or even an attempt to also allude to adherence to principles of egalitarianism. She made no effort to communicate that she would treat potential customers in an equal manner. She made no effort to communicate that she would likewise not shake the hands of women.
You are blaming him for her poor communication. He made an entirely reasonable conclusion.
He incorrectly concluded she wouldn't shake his hand because he was a man. In truth, Farah wouldn't shake his hand because she doesn't shake the hands of anyone, man or woman. She doesn't shake the hands of anyone because she believes her religion proscribes physical contact between individuals of the opposite sex that are not married to each other, and she doesn't want to act in a manner that would appear to be discriminatory.
However, whether or not she referenced or alluded to her egalitarian greeting mannerisms is irrelevant, because it doesn't change the fact that she was discriminated against.
I am blaming that knob of an interviewer for not doing his fucking job and asking questions of a prospective employee. Holy shit, you want to talk about what people should have done, how about the interviewer who didn't ask the interviewee any questions? Had I been the interviewer, and she told me she can't shake my hand, I would have immediately asked "Why is that?". And, depending on her response, I might ask some follow up questions to determine if her greeting mannerisms might violate the company's anti-discrimination policies. Even if she told me that she greeted men and women differently, and I thought that would be a violation of the anti-discrimination policies, I would simply inform her that (if hired) the company might require her to use a single form of greeting for all clients. Problem solved, disaster averted, pack it up motherfuckers I just saved the goddamn world! And I wasn't an asshole about it!
Your victim blaming is completely ridiculous.
And where's your outrage about Mike Pence's more overtly prudish beliefs and behaviour?
by Ostroeuropa » Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:34 pm
Camicon wrote:He incorrectly concluded she wouldn't shake his hand because he was a man.
In truth, Farah wouldn't shake his hand because she doesn't shake the hands of anyone, man or woman. She doesn't shake the hands of anyone because she believes her religion proscribes physical contact between individuals of the opposite sex that are not married to each other, and she doesn't want to act in a manner that would appear to be discriminatory.
However, whether or not she referenced or alluded to her egalitarian greeting mannerisms is irrelevant, because it doesn't change the fact that she was discriminated against.
I am blaming that knob of an interviewer for not doing his fucking job and asking questions of a prospective employee. Holy shit, you want to talk about what people should have done, how about the interviewer who didn't ask the interviewee any questions?
Had I been the interviewer, and she told me she can't shake my hand, I would have immediately asked "Why is that?". And, depending on her response, I might ask some follow up questions to determine if her greeting mannerisms might violate the company's anti-discrimination policies.
Even if she told me that she greeted men and women differently, and I thought that would be a violation of the anti-discrimination policies, I would simply inform her that (if hired) the company might require her to use a single form of greeting for all clients. Problem solved, disaster averted, pack it up motherfuckers I just saved the goddamn world! And I wasn't an asshole about it!
Your victim blaming is completely ridiculous.
And where's your outrage about Mike Pence's more overtly prudish beliefs and behaviour?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Camtropia, Corporate Collective Salvation, Cyptopir, Dumb Ideologies, Eahland, El Lazaro, Ifreann, Nu Elysium, Pale Dawn, Sannyamathland, Tarsonis, The Community of Cascadia, Zetaopalatopia, Zurkerx
Advertisement