Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Discrimination'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Todos son Bienvenidos Aquí.
    • Todos son Bienvenidos Aquí.
  • Restaurants, Tourism, and Hotels - USA
    • New York City Restaurants and Dining
    • Los Angeles Restaurants and Dining
    • San Francisco Restaurants and Dining
    • Houston Restaurants and Dining
    • Philadelphia Restaurants and Dining
    • Washington DC Restaurants and Dining
    • Baltimore and Annapolis Restaurants and Dining
  • Restaurants, Tourism, and Hotels - International
    • London Restaurants and Dining
    • Paris Restaurants and Dining
  • Shopping and News, Cooking and Booze, Parties and Fun, Travel and Sun
    • Shopping and Cooking
    • News and Media
    • Events and Gatherings
    • Beer, Wine, and Cocktails
    • The Intrepid Traveler
    • Fine Arts And Their Variants
  • Marketplace
  • The Portal

Calendars

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Interests


Location

Found 6 results

  1. This is an interesting moment: I just this minute realized that Keith Haring was white - although I haven't thought about this much, I think I always assumed he was black (also, I always assumed he was British). Is this subtle racism? It wasn't malevolent, but it's fascinating to me because I have no clue why. And you know what else? As I'm typing, I think I might have assumed Banksy was black also (I don't think I've ever pondered it until now). Maybe this is all because of Basquiat? Or maybe covert discrimination is so deeply ingrained that it has insidiously flowed into me? Every tagger that I've personally known has been white, so I'm not quite sure why I thought Haring wasn't. Point to ponder, Cool Disco Don PS - If this was truly a surprise, and I'm not convinced Sotheby's didn't know about it, then it's about the best prank I've ever seen:
  2. "Men Disproportioniately Win NIH's Plum Award for Young Scientists" by Meredith Wadman on sciencemag.org
  3. Mar 7, 2018 - "The Challenges of Being a 'Woke Diner' in 2018" by Melissa Musiker on apcoworldwide.com I think both of these sentences in the first paragraph are thought-provoking: "It’s a challenge to reconcile the dissonance between the progressive public personas of the chefs and restaurateurs who promote their fresh, local, organic, sustainable and ethical foods against their offensive — if not illegal — behavior towards employees (frequently women, people of color, LGBTQ and other vulnerable individuals) entrusted with preparing these carefully curated and cared-for foods." "Tipped wage has a long, sordid history, and often workplace protections and leave policies don’t apply to many restaurant workers."
  4. The question is why are people paying $100 for a duck. Even if Duck de Chine opens a branch in DC, do you think people would pay $100 for a duck? I would bet people would still say how can a Chinese restaurant sell a duck for $100. I went to Q much later than you, so maybe they worked out the kinks. But that's beside the point. Peter Chang, a much better Chinese chef than either Drewno or Bruner-Yang, still has to charge less for his food. BTW, I'm not the person who writes to your chat all the time begging you to quit. I'm just not sure that any one person can speak authoritatively on several cuisines unless one's been immersed in those cultures. Food is a part of a culture. Every person can say what tastes better, but is every person's opinion equally valuable? Isn't an informed opinion better than an uninformed opinion? As for the number of people a duck feeds. My point is, it's one duck. Does one duck at the Line feed more people than one duck at a Chinese restaurant?
  5. This is a "listicle" that's interesting and worth a quick click-thru, *if* you understand that it's about the good old U S of A. I want to emphasize that Sports Illustrated is a very American publication (it's owned by Time, Inc., whose "Person of the Year" awards are equally prejudiced), and the awards are prejudiced towards an American audience (they even admit as much), so with that in mind, prepare to see a lot of NBA, NFL, and NBA players who would not merit the award if it were truly based on a worldwide field. To emphasize the prejudice in this award, the last time a non-American was on the cover was the Canadian Wayne Gretzky in 1982, and before that, it was Scottish race-car driver Jackie Stewart in 1973 - in other words, it should be correctly titled "American Sportsperson of the Year" - why they don't just come out and say this just shows how ethnocentrical they are, and how much discrimination they show towards non-American athletes. I guess it's no different than calling the Cubs "World Champions" (even though when it comes to baseball, the best team in the USA probably *is* the best team in the world). More interesting still would be if people could make a case for someone else more deserving of the award in any given year (Leicester City F.C., for example, about whom I *still* don't fully understand the scope of their accomplishment, and would very much appreciate a thread about, hint, hint). Anywhere, here it is: "Every Sportsperson of the Year" on si.com And by the way, accepting the award's jingoism, this year it should have been "The Chicago Cubs" given that LeBron James just won the award in 2012. Yes, James was arguably the most deserving American individual (at least in a major team sport), but come on - 108 years?! And with precedent in 2004 for the Boston Red Sox? This award is stupid.
  6. When I was younger, I felt that Affirmative Action was wrong - that it was just perpetuating the problem of discrimination. Now that I'm older (wiser? kinder? softer?), I see legitimate arguments for both sides. In particular, I see people of color having been financially penalized for centuries, and white people having profited and having accumulated wealth because they had what is essentially free labor. Do we owe black Americans financial compensation for what we, as a society, did to them? Perhaps in the form of Affirmative Action? Even if it means costing a more-qualified white person a job and giving it to a less-qualified black person? (I'm not saying "give it to just anyone," but there are plenty of black people who, even if they aren't *the* most qualified, are still very worthy of placing into a position.) And yes, it sucks that a more-qualified white person has to get the short end of this stick, but their ancestors got the long end of the stick for hundreds of years, resulting in wealth that has passed down through families. I've actually *taken* affirmative action on this website: I wrote the local chapter of the NAACP, and asked them how to increase black membership, which I very much want to do. (I never heard back from them.) I tried, and I'm willing to try again, but I don't know what to do. My views have changed on this subject over the years. I firmly believe that black people (I hope I'm using the correct terminology here - I honestly have no idea) have gotten shafted for so long that it has created a culture of lower-class (I'm talking lower financial class) citizens that would not have been lower-class had their ancestors been given a fair chance. Let's get real: not only weren't they "given a fair chance"; they were *slaves*, for God's sake. Do I feel personally responsible for slavery? Hell no. Do I feel like as a society, white people have reaped financial benefits from oppressing black people? Hell yes. The question is: What to do about it? All intelligent, thoughtful discussion, on both sides of this issue (and yes, there are at least two legitimate sides to this issue, with lots of gray area in between), is welcome and encouraged, and I look forward to reading your thoughts. Issues such as this need to be addressed head-on, without fear of retribution for discussing them. There will be no censorship of thoughtful opinions or viewpoints. Without actually "knowing," I know that this website has a very low percentage of blacks - I hate that fact, and want to change it, but I don't know what to do. I honestly don't see this issue as being political in a "conservative vs. liberal" sense; I see it as being moral. I'm not sure what's right, and I'm not sure what's wrong. I'm not sure what's fair, and I'm not sure what's unfair. All I'm sure of is that I want everyone to have an equal chance in this world, and that hasn't happened in the past.
×
×
  • Create New...