Well one reason is because of how subjective language can be. I mean you only have to look at what words were considered offensive a year ago and now are completely fine. Words like 'queer' etc. Where I come from people are more concerned with what you meant than what you write. And as long as...
Yeah I mean there are definitely instances of individual racism, but there are always going to be bad people everywhere you go. Just need to make sure it doesn't distract you from your end game
I also did mention that I'm not responsible for how other people feel. Again, if other people don't understand me or need to clarify all they need to do is ask. As you mentioned, you never thought I meant to cause offence and if that's how the lay man sees it I don't see what I need to police my...
This is literally what you are implying when you call someone uneducated or ignorant for not agreeing with your view. You are essentially gatekeeping on what ideas can be questioned. I never claimed that I know everything about racism and I still don't understand why you keep spewing personal...
I can be empathetic to people but that does not equate to allowing them to make negative inferences about what I say or my character, and it certainly does not mean I have to agree with all their points. I haven't made any personal attacks on anyone on this thread, although the same cannot be...
You are literally engaging in viewpoint discrimination that is antithetical to the most basic of free speech principles. Just because you personally think an idea is untouchable does not mean that is the reality. Every idea is up for debate. If it is so iron-clad then you should be able to...
regardless, this isn't a legal situation. It's a debate held in good faith and I think a more prudent way to settle things would literally just be to ask what I meant instead of demanding I change the language I use
I mean I never said disabled candidates weren't smart or worthy or whatever of their TCs or VSes or whatever. I'm merely asking about a policy that I find questionable
yes, because I assume that if people are offended by something the first thing they would do is come to me and ask me to clarify what I meant instead of straight jumping to the conclusion that I'm trying to cause offence.
I think it's quite telling that you resort to ad hominems when I've been perfectly willing to play this out with you. But yeah good luck and all that jazz I guess
The difference is that we are having, or I assume we are having an argument in good faith here so I didn't think there was a need to be pedantic about the language. By 'normal' you obviously know given the context of the issue that I am referring to candidates without disabilities.
Where have these protests been discredited? And please don't tell me that challenging your opinions on things that you say is discrediting. And just because there happen to be some people out there who are actually racist does not give you the right to blanket-judge an entire society.
Again...
No, intention matters. Any layperson out there will tell you that the general perception of disabled candidates and candidates with disabilities is the same. There is no need to be offended when nobody is trying to cause offence
Well, do you have anything to suggest otherwise? I mean you guys are making the claim that discrimination is rampant and pervasive so the burden of proof is on you to show that the current candidates in the positions are not as qualified
I think the right comparison, in this case, is keeping the hypothetical disability constant and you still have a 95, but instead of other people having a 99, they also have a 95, and you get the interview solely based on your disability while not all of the other non disabled 95 score candidates...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.