Quote: (11-19-2014 06:23 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:
What I'm defending is the right to do as you please so long as it doesn't interfere with others' ability to do as they please.
I'd say that definitely interfered with the black guy's ability to do as he pleased, i.e. teach English.
Now suppose you wanted to teach in an American school and a liberal school board rejected you on the grounds that female teachers are supposedly more trustworthy around children. Would you say that's their right and it's defensible, or would you be firing off an article on RoKs about anti-male discrimination?
Quote:Quote:
You're looking at the micro perspective of what defines rationality, i.e. it is rational to hire the most qualified candidates irrespective of race. Which I personally agree with.
However, if you zoom out, it is certainly rational to allow business owners to hire whomever they please, even if their hiring process itself isn't logically defensible.
I'm assuming you're making this as a general statement and not limited to Korea. Understand that you are talking to a black American who has 400 years of discriminatory history behind me. Don't be surprised if I cannot relate to your libertarian philosophy on these matters. If your ancestors faced 4 centuries of racial discrimination and were hurt by it, your perspective might be different. I'm by no means saying businesses should be forced to hire people using quotas. But I also don't think it should be legal to actively bar people from employment based on their ancestry. To me that would be taking a major leap back in time to an era I'd love to forget about.
Quote:Quote:
People want to work not only with competent folks, but people want to work with people they want to work with. There is no strict rationality in the way we determine who we like and who we don't like.
You're not telling me anything here that I don't know. But we do have a constitution and supreme court and we've decided as a society that barring people from employment on account of race is unjust.
Quote:Quote:
In a free market, businesses should be free to operate as they see fit, so long as it doesn't violate the fundamental right of non-infringement upon others' right to do as they see fit. i.e. don't tread on me and we won't have any beef.
You're violating people's ability to make a living and support themselves.
Quote:Quote:
It seems to me that xenophobia is, in fact, a method of preserving your culture.
Preserving one's culture is an outcome of xenophobia. It's ultimately a dislike of people that aren't like you. Brazil is not a xenophobic culture and I don't see it being under any threat of disappearing because of that fact. Want to have a culture that survives? Have a culture that has a wide appeal. Look at American culture, for better or for worse, so much of the music, food, fashion, technology, movies, TV etc has been adopted across the globe. I've met Thais is Thailand who've never left the country but speak fluent English because they grew up watching American movies.
Quote:Quote:
The question is, is it an effective means of keeping foreign elements out of your cultural tapestry?
You're giving xenophobia too much credit. Xenophobia isn't a method, it's a state of mind.
Quote:Quote:
The right to do whatsoever you please, so long as it doesn't infringe on others' right to the same, regardless of its sensibility (as judged by whom?) must be defended.
That only works when everyone yields equal power. If everything is fundamentally unequal, the weaker get fucked as the powerless have no ability to discriminate against the powerful.
Quote:Quote:
If one followed the argument you're making to its logical conclusion, it would mean that you right to eat a box of cookies for no other reason than because you felt like it would be null and void, because eating cookies is injurious to health, and thus not logically defensible. Then, taking it even further, if you were to institute this policy systemically via the government, well...just look at the history of prohibition.
Injuring my health would only hurt me. Barring someone from employment due to their race hurts someone else. So I don't understand your point.
Quote:Quote:
Are you saying that because you find it distasteful not to, that everybody should be forced to stop what they're doing, and help anybody whom they perceive to be in distress, at any time, all the time, lest they be punished by law?
Most people already lend a helping hand when they feel it's reasonable to do so. Are you saying we should be compelled to do so? That would make me not want to help a soul. But because I'm free to walk away, I feel no obligation. And out of my freedom I can choose to help somebody.
I didn't say everyone should be forced to help. You're missing my point. I'm saying that because you have a legal right to not help an injured person laying on the road doesn't mean it's morally or logically defensible. We all know that this black guy doesn't have rights in Korea. Rights are social constructs granted by law. Logic and morality exist independently of law. Often they intersect with rights, sometimes they do not. I have the right to say all types of fucked up shit about someone in public and it's a protected right under the constitution. That however doesn't make it morally or logically justifiable to behave in such a way. Let's not talk about rights and morality like they are one and the same.
Quote:Quote:
I say that I would have hired the best teacher. But then again, if I were running a school in Korea, and the market demanded white teachers, I'd fill that demand or I'd be out on my ass.
There actually are black teachers who have successfully found work in Korea. I've seen their youtube channels. It's not as if all Koreans will universally discriminate against blacks. Many will however. This also goes on routinely in China. I'd ultimately like to see people act logically and for reason to prevail. If this teacher had been hired, maybe the students and parents would be uncomfortable for a week, but eventually they'd figure out that he's ultimately doing the same thing that white teachers do, their children aren't being harmed and the whole fear was much ado over nothing.