Teaching gay history becomes law in California

[Rinualdo]

Page 1, paragraph 1: Marginalize anyone who disagrees with you by calling them a socialist/communist/welfare recipient.

Don't forget unamerican, not supporting the troops, etc...

[Parkbandit]

Don't forget unamerican, not supporting the troops, etc...

LOL.. that sounded like Obama's speech last night. I love his "balanced approach".. makes raising taxes sound better.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

LOL.. that sounded like Obama's speech last night. I love his "balanced approach".. makes raising taxes sound better.



PB... PB... PB... it's not raising taxes. It's generating revenue!

Should check out the word clouds from both of their speeches last night.

[Rinualdo]

LOL.. that sounded like Obama's speech last night. I love his "balanced approach".. makes raising taxes sound better.

Riiiiiight. Because the Republican party has no history at all of attacking those that disagree with them as anti-american?

[Parkbandit]

Riiiiiight. Because the Republican party has no history at all of attacking those that disagree with them as anti-american?

You are mistaken if you believe one party has a monopoly on calling someone anti-american if they don't do "X"

[Stanley Burrell]

Riiiiiight. Because the Republican party has no history at all of attacking those that disagree with them as anti-american?

Anti-patriotic. And the dems just follow suit by having their speakers, C.E.O. included, constantly throw in a "Also, this is patriot because..." fold to reciprocate that caveman mentality crap.

A certain voting sector is going to think all Democrats = anti-patriotic/American/whatever/terrorist/socialist/etc. no matter what. Our C.E.O.'s PSAs have been so ideal (too ideal for a politician) I don't get why he can break shit down, real simple (still too ideal) yet have to insert all of this drunken U.S.A. chant in his rhetoric.

Speaking of gays, people's uncles.

[Rinualdo]

You are mistaken if you believe one party has a monopoly on calling someone anti-american if they don't do "X"

I never claimed otherwise. I was simply providing balance to the equation.

Both sides are equally slimy at ad hominem attacks.

[Parkbandit]

It was only a matter of time........



BEING good-looking is useful in so many ways.

In addition to whatever personal pleasure it gives you, being attractive also helps you earn more money, find a higher-earning spouse (and one who looks better, too!) and get better deals on mortgages. Each of these facts has been demonstrated over the past 20 years by many economists and other researchers. The effects are not small: one study showed that an American worker who was among the bottom one-seventh in looks, as assessed by randomly chosen observers, earned 10 to 15 percent less per year than a similar worker whose looks were assessed in the top one-third — a lifetime difference, in a typical case, of about $230,000.

Beauty is as much an issue for men as for women. While extensive research shows that women’s looks have bigger impacts in the market for mates, another large group of studies demonstrates that men’s looks have bigger impacts on the job.

Why this disparate treatment of looks in so many areas of life? It’s a matter of simple prejudice. Most of us, regardless of our professed attitudes, prefer as customers to buy from better-looking salespeople, as jurors to listen to better-looking attorneys, as voters to be led by better-looking politicians, as students to learn from better-looking professors. This is not a matter of evil employers’ refusing to hire the ugly: in our roles as workers, customers and potential lovers we are all responsible for these effects.

How could we remedy this injustice? With all the gains to being good-looking, you would think that more people would get plastic surgery or makeovers to improve their looks. Many of us do all those things, but as studies have shown, such refinements make only small differences in our beauty. All that spending may make us feel better, but it doesn’t help us much in getting a better job or a more desirable mate.

A more radical solution may be needed: why not offer legal protections to the ugly, as we do with racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women and handicapped individuals?

We actually already do offer such protections in a few places, including in some jurisdictions in California, and in the District of Columbia, where discriminatory treatment based on looks in hiring, promotions, housing and other areas is prohibited. Ugliness could be protected generally in the United States by small extensions of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Ugly people could be allowed to seek help from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other agencies in overcoming the effects of discrimination. We could even have affirmative-action programs for the ugly.

The mechanics of legislating this kind of protection are not as difficult as you might think. You might argue that people can’t be classified by their looks — that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That aphorism is correct in one sense: if asked who is the most beautiful person in a group of beautiful people, you and I might well have different answers. But when it comes to differentiating classes of attractiveness, we all view beauty similarly: someone whom you consider good-looking will be viewed similarly by most others; someone you consider ugly will be viewed as ugly by most others. In one study, more than half of a group of people were assessed identically by each of two observers using a five-point scale; and very few assessments differed by more than one point.

For purposes of administering a law, we surely could agree on who is truly ugly, perhaps the worst-looking 1 or 2 percent of the population. The difficulties in classification are little greater than those faced in deciding who qualifies for protection on grounds of disabilities that limit the activities of daily life, as shown by conflicting decisions in numerous legal cases involving obesity.

There are other possible objections. “Ugliness” is not a personal trait that many people choose to embrace; those whom we classify as protected might not be willing to admit that they are ugly. But with the chance of obtaining extra pay and promotions amounting to $230,000 in lost lifetime earnings, there’s a large enough incentive to do so. Bringing anti-discrimination lawsuits is also costly, and few potential plaintiffs could afford to do so. But many attorneys would be willing to organize classes of plaintiffs to overcome these costs, just as they now do in racial-discrimination and other lawsuits.

Economic arguments for protecting the ugly are as strong as those for protecting some groups currently covered by legislation. So why not go ahead and expand protection to the looks-challenged? There’s one legitimate concern. With increasingly tight limits on government resources, expanding rights to yet another protected group would reduce protection for groups that have commanded our legislative and other attention for over 50 years.

We face a trade-off: ignore a deserving group of citizens, or help them but limit help available for other groups. Even though I myself have demonstrated the disadvantages of ugliness in 20 years of research, I nonetheless would hate to see anything that might reduce assistance to groups now aided by protective legislation.

You might reasonably disagree and argue for protecting all deserving groups. Either way, you shouldn’t be surprised to see the United States heading toward this new legal frontier.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/opinion/sunday/ugly-you-may-have-a-case.html?_r=1

Too fucking funny.

[BriarFox]

For fuck's sake. I think Vonnegut is appropriate here: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

[Warriorbird]

When "Law and Economics" goes wrong.

[Parkbandit]

I see no difference between this type of employment protection and other types of employment protection.

[Warriorbird]

I see no difference between this type of employment protection and other types of employment protection.

I know it's never been a barrier for you but I admire you sticking up for everybody else in similar situations.

http://i2.listal.com/image/243692/600full-john-c.-reilly.jpg

[Parkbandit]

I know it's never been a barrier for you but I admire you sticking up for everybody else in similar situations.


I would have thought someone like you would be overjoyed by this news. Finally, you will have your own special class.. besides just being "special".

[Warriorbird]

I would have thought someone like you would be overjoyed by this news. Finally, you will have your own special class.. besides just being "special".

Eerily enough, I do think his silly article brings some exposure to the research studies that show the actual economic benefits of being a privileged white male. Like both of us. Which totally gives us room to expound on what all the other minorities should be doing and how easy it really is for them.

[Parkbandit]

Eerily enough, I do think his silly article brings some exposure to the research studies that show the actual economic benefits of being a privileged white male. Like both of us. Which totally gives us room to expound on what all the other minorities should be doing and how easy it really is for them.

But, if this plan goes into action, you will be viewed as a victim and not just another "privileged white male".

[ClydeR]

A more radical solution may be needed: why not offer legal protections to the ugly, as we do with racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women and handicapped individuals?


Who would want to live in a world like that?

[TheEschaton]

The problem is, being a "protected class" is an immutable thing. Not only can the person who is considered "ugly" become NOT ugly, but the very definition of "ugly" can move and shift. Retarded argument all around.

[Tgo01]

The problem is, being a "protected class" is an immutable thing. Not only can the person who is considered "ugly" become NOT ugly, but the very definition of "ugly" can move and shift. Retarded argument all around.

Can't the discriminated Christian become not Christian?

[Liagala]

The problem is, being a "protected class" is an immutable thing. Not only can the person who is considered "ugly" become NOT ugly, but the very definition of "ugly" can move and shift. Retarded argument all around.
Sexual orientation is a protected class, but a lesbian can have a sex change and become a straight male.

[TheEschaton]

Can't the discriminated Christian become not Christian?

In this country, faith is considered unchangeable. I'd personally say it's not a protected class, but hey, I'm a godless liberal and I don't know how deep the waters run in the American religious.

And don't be dumb about sexual orientation. Sex change operations are major surgery and require extensive psychological tests to see if you even qualify for it. Hint: to qualify for it has nothing to do with your sexual orientation, but your sexual expression. Even if that wasn't the case and sex changes were tossed around willy nilly, though you can physically change your sex, your sexual orientation and the gender you express are considered immutable parts of who you are. A gay man wouldn't feel the need to change into a woman so he could still go about loving men. A transgendered man would, but that's because his sexual identity is female.

-TheE-

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

If a protected minority class becomes the majority, do they lose their minority status and rights, and the new minority inherits their special treatment?

[Parkbandit]

In this country, faith is considered unchangeable.


Source?

[TheEschaton]

A protected minority is a class of people who need protection from discrimination. It hasn't arisen in this country, but if they were the majority, the threat of discrimination exists. For example, after apartheid ended, and Mandela vowed Reconciliation, the black population could be considered a protected class, even though they were the vast majority, because all the businesses were owned by whites, and they often had this weird history of discriminating against black people.

That's why I say "protected class", not protected minority.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Are there any protected classes that have lost that status?

[TheEschaton]

Source?

Oh, I dunno, the decades of religious discrimination cases? Of course, I'm only referring to this in the legal sense. The idea is that when you commit to a religion, it becomes a part of yourself that you can't help be, and thus you can't be discriminated against because of it.

[Parkbandit]

Oh, I dunno, the decades of religious discrimination cases? Of course, I'm only referring to this in the legal sense. The idea is that when you commit to a religion, it becomes a part of yourself that you can't help be, and thus you can't be discriminated against because of it.

So, you can't change your religion in this country?

Weird.. I used to be a Methodist.. now I'm atheist.

So, in your fantasy world, I'm still a practicing Methodist?

[TheEschaton]

Are there any protected classes that have lost that status?

Errr, good question. Don't know off the top of my head, but I don't think so. This is still a relatively young country, sociologically speaking, and it's only in the last 50-75 years that protected classes have arisen, thus I'd be surprised if protected class status had been rescinded on anyone yet because they don't need protection any more.

[TheEschaton]

So, you can't change your religion in this country?

Weird.. I used to be a Methodist.. now I'm atheist.

So, in your fantasy world, I'm still a practicing Methodist?

Did you literally ignore what I said in the post you quoted? I quite plainly said that, for legal purposes, your religion is considered immutable and thus unable to be discriminated against, even if you eventually "see the light" and change your mind at a later date. The law takes you as you are, with the assumption that your faith is part of the bedrock foundation of who you are.

For that matter, did you ignore my first post where I said religion really shouldn't be a protected class, but a conservative jurisprudence protecting Christianity in conjunction with a liberal strain of jurisprudence protecting other religions made it one?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Errr, good question. Don't know off the top of my head, but I don't think so. This is still a relatively young country, sociologically speaking, and it's only in the last 50-75 years that protected classes have arisen, thus I'd be surprised if protected class status had been rescinded on anyone yet because they don't need protection any more.

I'm genuinely interested in that. I think it'll be a nightmare to try and remove protections, likely just as difficult it was to implement them.

In my old job we (not so much me, but the legal and comp departments) had to be really careful with contracts in the Philippines, because once a position received a benefit, you legally could not ever remove it (for US companies who outsourced there). So, if you gave them Friday the 27th off because it was some local holiday, they got that day off forever. If you paid them two bowls of rice and a chicken, they get two bowls of rice and a chicken, forever. Was a really interesting environment.

[Parkbandit]

Did you literally ignore what I said in the post you quoted? I quite plainly said that, for legal purposes, your religion is considered immutable and thus unable to be discriminated against, even if you eventually "see the light" and change your mind at a later date. The law takes you as you are, with the assumption that your faith is part of the bedrock foundation of who you are.

I literally read all of your post... that doesn't mean it makes any sense. You claim that "in this country, faith is considered unchangeable".. I simply asked for a source, which you were unable to provide. I then gave you a specific instance where faith did change... something that happens every day in the world.



For that matter, did you ignore my first post where I said religion really shouldn't be a protected class, but a conservative jurisprudence protecting Christianity in conjunction with a liberal strain of jurisprudence protecting other religions made it one?

So, what was all this talk about Muslims being discriminated against after 9-11.. was that just bullshit? Do you, as a crazy nut job liberal, tell those victims to just fuck off... because you don't believe in any organized religion?

[Tsa`ah]

I'm genuinely interested in that. I think it'll be a nightmare to try and remove protections, likely just as difficult it was to implement them.

In my old job we (not so much me, but the legal and comp departments) had to be really careful with contracts in the Philippines, because once a position received a benefit, you legally could not ever remove it (for US companies who outsourced there). So, if you gave them Friday the 27th off because it was some local holiday, they got that day off forever. If you paid them two bowls of rice and a chicken, they get two bowls of rice and a chicken, forever. Was a really interesting environment.

White is as protected as not white. Christian is as protected as Hindu. Male is as protected as female.

People have some screwed up notions over "protected" classes.

[~Rocktar~]

White is as protected as not white. Christian is as protected as Hindu. Male is as protected as female.

Bullshit.


I have some screwed up notions over "protected" classes.

There, fixed it for you.

[CrystalTears]

Bullshit.Not really.

You can't be discriminated against based on your sex, whatever that may be.

You can't be discriminated against based on your religion, whatever that may be.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

White is as protected as not white. Christian is as protected as Hindu. Male is as protected as female.

People have some screwed up notions over "protected" classes.

Not white is as protected as white. Female is as protected as male.

By your logic, we don't need ANY protected classes, since we are all protected equally.

[AnticorRifling]

Not really.

You can't be discriminated against based on your sex, whatever that may be.


Unless there's an EEO quota to fill. Bam roasted.

[AnticorRifling]

we don't need ANY protected classes

Correct.

[CrystalTears]

Unless there's an EEO quota to fill. Bam roasted.
Yeah but you'll have a hard time proving that you weren't hired based on the protected classes.

[Parkbandit]

By your logic, we don't need ANY protected classes, since we are all protected equally.

That would be nice.. but then people couldn't feel special, so that would be bad :(

[TheEschaton]

So, what was all this talk about Muslims being discriminated against after 9-11.. was that just bullshit? Do you, as a crazy nut job liberal, tell those victims to just fuck off... because you don't believe in any organized religion?

You're not differentiating between real life and the legal world. If today you went into court and said "I'm being discriminated against because I'm an atheist, and this is why," the court would consider your atheism as an immutable belief of yours in considering whether you deserved relief. They don't care if you might someday believe in God or if you once were a Hare Krishna.

Likewise, if in 10 years, you became a Muslim, and then were discriminated against for being a Muslim, in your discrimination claim, your Islam would be considered an immutable belief. Even though you'd just come to it. Your atheism in the past would be irrelevant. So stop being deliberately obtuse.

Also, in the above quoted bit, my problem was with people being treated like criminals, based on their religion. The issue wasn't that "people discriminated against Muslims" but that "people discriminated against people they thought were terrorists solely because they were Muslim." Faith is not dispositive in re: terrorism.

I recognize asking you to stop being obtuse is retarded, but I again reiterate: stop being obtuse.

[Tsa`ah]

Not white is as protected as white. Female is as protected as male.

By your logic, we don't need ANY protected classes, since we are all protected equally.

This isn't my logic, this is law.

You, as a white male, are just as protected as a black female.

YOU can't be discriminated against based on your gender, race, religion, age, ethnic or national origin, disability ... and in many cases ... political affiliation.

I find your logic flawed. We just don't make up laws out of the blue. Civil rights are enforced because people were discriminated against based on these criteria. The notion that if we repeal civil rights that such discrimination just won't happen is complete fantasy.

[Warriorbird]

There's a number of noteworthy cases where white people have won for being discriminated against.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

This isn't my logic, this is law.

You, as a white male, are just as protected as a black female.

YOU can't be discriminated against based on your gender, race, religion, age, ethnic or national origin, disability ... and in many cases ... political affiliation.

I find your logic flawed. We just don't make up laws out of the blue. Civil rights are enforced because people were discriminated against based on these criteria. The notion that if we repeal civil rights that such discrimination just won't happen is complete fantasy.

My logic isn't flawed. I very simply repeated what you said, transposing the subjects. We all have civil rights by law, as you stated, which is a good thing. I've never stated otherwise.

There are other laws which grant very specific groups of people additional rights because of their minority status, which is what I was discussing earlier. Specifically discussing at what point does the need for those additional rights go away and that group or groups get treated like the rest of the population. Then you jumped in with your wonderful contribution.

[TheEschaton]

There's a further burden than "being white" to prove you were discriminated against, just like "being black" isn't enough to prove you were discriminated against based on race. Thus, the subsets of people who fall under these protections aren't the sets of the whole race itself, rendering the protection useless.

Stop being an idiot and think on it for just two seconds.

[DeV]

If a half black man from a broken home can become President, a black man from the ghetto can become Secretary of State, a black woman on welfare can become a world famous Actress/Comedian (though I don't like her) and they are just a few of the examples of those that rose above their circumstances, then there are no more excuses. Stop making them.A half black man from a broken home is going to need more than a brown face, sob story, and a degree from Harvard Law to get him elected into the oval office.

"Barack Obama has a prolific presidential lineage that features Democrats and Republicans. His distant cousins include President George W. Bush and his father, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry S. Truman and James Madison. Other Obama cousins include Vice President Dick Cheney, British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill and Civil War General Robert E. Lee."

It's safe to say that at least one half of Obama's family tree has always been among the ruling elite.

In entirely related news, the British empire is still going strong.

I take no issue with any of your other viewpoints.