Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[ralphjohn69]

First topic message reminder :

It's not logic. Most pot 4 teams are no worse than Rangers. If Rangers were the worst ever pot 4 team last year, what makes them any better now?

Because instead of playing another Pot 3 team they will be playing a Pot 4 team, who will probably be worse than a Pot 3 team so they have a better chance of getting 3rd, although it's obviously not guaranteed. You really don't help yourself when you post about football....

[super_realist]

Possibly as obsessed as you are.

Let me rephrase, They are obsessed with CERTAIN races, religion and colour to the detriment of others.
The antithesis of inclusion.

[the-goon]

JAS, McClean, Marx's argument is simple. Discrimination existed in favour of white men in the past, therefore, to "re-balance" the sins of the past, discrimination must now exist against white men.

Rather than ending discrimination, and trying to move towards meritocracy, you just want it to continue.

Nevermind the fact the white men today who will be discriminated, never gained from the past. And the beneficiaries of today's discrimination never suffered in the past. But you don't care about individual rights, just group rights. I.E. Identity politics.

[JuliusHMarx]

You don't move towards a fairer, more inclusive society by flipping the see saw up and doing it the other way around.

True, but you've given isolated examples. Overall, there is no way that any current discrimination in favour of minorities is anything like the scale of discrimination against them over the years. It's just that the former is probably more overt and visible. The see saw has not been flipped up.
I would also suggest that for many people the real upset is that they were sitting at the top of the see saw and they now see a future where the see saw is level and they don't want that.

That isn't a reason to do it this way.
How can I give anything but isolated examples? I gave examples of work, sport, society, TV etc. I can't give every single example.
You don't solve bad behaviour by doing it to someone else instead.

Some people want to keep the see saw the way it has been historically. Other people want to tip it the other way completely. The majority of people and companies have seen the historical inequality and are seeking to level the see saw and reach equality, not tip it the other way. Occasionally they may get it wrong, as per your examples, but I see no reason to obsess about the few outliers, especially as equality has not yet even been reached.

[JuliusHMarx]

JAS, McClean, Marx's argument is simple. Discrimination existed in favour of white men in the past, therefore, to "re-balance" the sins of the past, discrimination must now exist against white men.

Completely wrong. But not surprising you think that.

[JuliusHMarx]

The main discriminating issue in our society is class, not race (not to say race discrimination isn't an issue). But there's been very little to redress that balance over the years.

This is certainly also an issue. Do you remember the John Cleese, Ronnie Barker, Ronnie Corbett sketch?
I'm not sure very little has been done - tenement slums are mostly a thing of the past, workers have more rights, kids get free schooling up to the age of 16 (or 18 if they choose). Perhaps efforts have tailed off in more recent years, but I seem to recall e.g. efforts in education to address this - more University places for the underprivileged etc. But as always, and as with race, those with the advantage are very reluctant to give up that advantage, even if if means a more just society. And of course, positive discrimination for the underprivileged will no doubt be interpreted by some as discrimination against another group.

[super_realist]

You don't move towards a fairer, more inclusive society by flipping the see saw up and doing it the other way around.

True, but you've given isolated examples. Overall, there is no way that any current discrimination in favour of minorities is anything like the scale of discrimination against them over the years. It's just that the former is probably more overt and visible. The see saw has not been flipped up.
I would also suggest that for many people the real upset is that they were sitting at the top of the see saw and they now see a future where the see saw is level and they don't want that.

That isn't a reason to do it this way.
How can I give anything but isolated examples? I gave examples of work, sport, society, TV etc. I can't give every single example.
You don't solve bad behaviour by doing it to someone else instead.

Some people want to keep the see saw the way it has been historically. Other people want to tip it the other way completely. The majority of people and companies have seen the historical inequality and are seeking to level the see saw and reach equality, not tip it the other way. Occasionally they may get it wrong, as per your examples, but I see no reason to obsess about the few outliers, especially as equality has not yet even been reached.

Id be more concerned about age discrimination or the representation of women in management roles or pay disparity, yet strangely those aren't the positions where people are employed and given preferential treatment for being so. Seems they only care about certain characteristics markers when it comes to diversity and inclusion.

[Duty281]

The main discriminating issue in our society is class, not race (not to say race discrimination isn't an issue). But there's been very little to redress that balance over the years.

This is certainly also an issue. Do you remember the John Cleese, Ronnie Barker, Ronnie Corbett sketch?
I'm not sure very little has been done - tenement slums are mostly a thing of the past, workers have more rights, kids get free schooling up to the age of 16 (or 18 if they choose). Perhaps efforts have tailed off in more recent years, but I seem to recall e.g. efforts in education to address this - more University places for the underprivileged etc. But as always, and as with race, those with the advantage are very reluctant to give up that advantage, even if if means a more just society. And of course, positive discrimination for the underprivileged will no doubt be interpreted by some as discrimination against another group.

That's because it is. You do not solve discrimination by discriminating. You only increase animosity and division through this. The root causes need to be addressed so the issue can be solved.

[JuliusHMarx]

The main discriminating issue in our society is class, not race (not to say race discrimination isn't an issue). But there's been very little to redress that balance over the years.

This is certainly also an issue. Do you remember the John Cleese, Ronnie Barker, Ronnie Corbett sketch?
I'm not sure very little has been done - tenement slums are mostly a thing of the past, workers have more rights, kids get free schooling up to the age of 16 (or 18 if they choose). Perhaps efforts have tailed off in more recent years, but I seem to recall e.g. efforts in education to address this - more University places for the underprivileged etc. But as always, and as with race, those with the advantage are very reluctant to give up that advantage, even if if means a more just society. And of course, positive discrimination for the underprivileged will no doubt be interpreted by some as discrimination against another group.

That's because it is. You do not solve discrimination by discriminating. You only increase animosity and division through this. The root causes need to be addressed so the issue can be solved.

Part of the issue is the mis-use of the phrase 'positive discrimination'. More often in reality, it is simply a case of not negatively discriminating against, rather than positively discriminating for, but a) going from negative to neutral is actually a move in a positive direction, so that leads to confusion and b) some people try to whip up outage by using the term 'positive discrimination' for their own agenda, when in fact it is usually not actually positive discrimination.
Ultimately it is just a phrase, and probably not a good one to reflect reality.

To put in another way "And of course, not negatively discriminating against the underprivileged will no doubt be interpreted by some as discrimination against another group."

[super_realist]

Don't think people would have a problem with that, but doesn't seem to work out that way.

[JuliusHMarx]

Don't think people would have a problem with that, but doesn't seem to work out that way.

Many people would have a problem with it. For example, one of the big factors leading to the US Civil War was slavery. You would have thought people would not have had a problem with abolishing slavery (or, later, segregation) but apparently not.

[Duty281]

The main discriminating issue in our society is class, not race (not to say race discrimination isn't an issue). But there's been very little to redress that balance over the years.

This is certainly also an issue. Do you remember the John Cleese, Ronnie Barker, Ronnie Corbett sketch?
I'm not sure very little has been done - tenement slums are mostly a thing of the past, workers have more rights, kids get free schooling up to the age of 16 (or 18 if they choose). Perhaps efforts have tailed off in more recent years, but I seem to recall e.g. efforts in education to address this - more University places for the underprivileged etc. But as always, and as with race, those with the advantage are very reluctant to give up that advantage, even if if means a more just society. And of course, positive discrimination for the underprivileged will no doubt be interpreted by some as discrimination against another group.

That's because it is. You do not solve discrimination by discriminating. You only increase animosity and division through this. The root causes need to be addressed so the issue can be solved.

Part of the issue is the mis-use of the phrase 'positive discrimination'. More often in reality, it is simply a case of not negatively discriminating against, rather than positively discriminating for, but a) going from negative to neutral is actually a move in a positive direction, so that leads to confusion and b) some people try to whip up outage by using the term 'positive discrimination' for their own agenda, when in fact it is usually not actually positive discrimination.
Ultimately it is just a phrase, and probably not a good one to reflect reality.

To put in another way "And of course, not negatively discriminating against the underprivileged will no doubt be interpreted by some as discrimination against another group."

Yes, but positive discrimination is an actual thing. A thing where, for example, only people with a certain skin colour, or of a certain sex, can apply to a position. That's not neutral. That's actively discriminating against the perceived advantaged group (perceived but not always correct) in order to try and achieve a balance.

Neutrality is the idea that should be strived for. Appointment based on merit and skill, and application open to all.

[JuliusHMarx]

The main discriminating issue in our society is class, not race (not to say race discrimination isn't an issue). But there's been very little to redress that balance over the years.

This is certainly also an issue. Do you remember the John Cleese, Ronnie Barker, Ronnie Corbett sketch?
I'm not sure very little has been done - tenement slums are mostly a thing of the past, workers have more rights, kids get free schooling up to the age of 16 (or 18 if they choose). Perhaps efforts have tailed off in more recent years, but I seem to recall e.g. efforts in education to address this - more University places for the underprivileged etc. But as always, and as with race, those with the advantage are very reluctant to give up that advantage, even if if means a more just society. And of course, positive discrimination for the underprivileged will no doubt be interpreted by some as discrimination against another group.

That's because it is. You do not solve discrimination by discriminating. You only increase animosity and division through this. The root causes need to be addressed so the issue can be solved.

Part of the issue is the mis-use of the phrase 'positive discrimination'. More often in reality, it is simply a case of not negatively discriminating against, rather than positively discriminating for, but a) going from negative to neutral is actually a move in a positive direction, so that leads to confusion and b) some people try to whip up outage by using the term 'positive discrimination' for their own agenda, when in fact it is usually not actually positive discrimination.
Ultimately it is just a phrase, and probably not a good one to reflect reality.

To put in another way "And of course, not negatively discriminating against the underprivileged will no doubt be interpreted by some as discrimination against another group."

Yes, but positive discrimination is an actual thing. A thing where, for example, only people with a certain skin colour, or of a certain sex, can apply to a position. That's not neutral. That's actively discriminating against the perceived advantaged group (perceived but not always correct) in order to try and achieve a balance.

Neutrality is the idea that should be strived for. Appointment based on merit and skill, and application open to all.

I agree (were it not already clear) that positive discrimination is a thing, but it is far outweighed by negative discrimination and it always has been. That doesn't make either of them right, but it makes the latter a bigger problem than the former.
The lesser super has already given examples of positive discrimination and I have given links of studies showing negative discrimination.

[super_realist]

Don't think people would have a problem with that, but doesn't seem to work out that way.

Many people would have a problem with it. For example, one of the big factors leading to the US Civil War was slavery. You would have thought people would not have had a problem with abolishing slavery (or, later, segregation) but apparently not.

What a bizarre comparison.

[McLaren]

You ask the question in your 1st line, and answer it in your 4th.

You believe discrimination was in favour of whites previously, so to "rebalance", it is now against them. You have captured DEI perfectly in fairness. Is there a term for race based discrimination?

Do you actually, honestly believe every accusation of racism is honest and given in a way facilitate personal growth? Serious question.

Follow up. If a statement is factually true, can it be racist?

You would have to willfully misunderstand most history relevant to our lives today to think that society wasn't engineered to favour the white, straight, male.

Not all accusations of racism will be honest. So what? Are you worried you don't have the critical thinking skills to work out which ones are which?

I can't think of an example of a true statement that would be racist but that doesn't mean they can't be misused to further a racist agenda. For example you get all those bunk IQ studies where black students perform worse on IQ tests but people then fail to mention that the tests don't control for levels of education or socioeconomic background etc. So you could say "black students have lower IQ's" but it's a meaningless statement only used to put forward a racist ideology.

[McLaren]

For every Jonathan Green (whoever he is) or Clive Tyldsely you've got a Rio Ferdinand, Thomas Hitzelsperger or Eni Oluko.

What does this even mean?

[super_realist]

There's a lot of circumstance in there Mac, but it doesn't mean anything was "engineered" for the straight white male.
The reason western countries, (which are predominantly white) s down to both the Scientific and Industrial revolution.
It was by default these benefitted white people, and which gave them an unassailable lead in terms of economic, societal and cultural senses , at the time these countries were largely patriarchal societies.
It wasn't by "design" that these events benefitted white British people in the outset, it was circumstantial.

[McLaren]

The main discriminating issue in our society is class, not race (not to say race discrimination isn't an issue). But there's been very little to redress that balance over the years.

I would not go so far as to say class is the main discriminating issue but it's definitely a serious issue in Britain. I know people hated the idea but intersectionality sort of dealt with this. The idea that several elements of a persons life (race or class for example) can come together to determine the sort of inequality they might face. A poor black woman and a poor white man will clearly both face discrimination in Britain but one will have a few added disadvantages in most situations.

[McLaren]

It wasn't by "design"  that these events benefitted white British people in the outset, it was circumstantial.

So when the British rocked up in Africa, India and Australia they just accidently genocided or enslaved the locals?

[super_realist]

For every Jonathan Green (whoever he is) or Clive Tyldsely you've got a Rio Ferdinand, Thomas Hitzelsperger or Eni Oluko.

What does this even mean?

Very simple Mac, for every inept white male commentator or pundit, like those two mentioned you've got another inept minority doing the same job.
Being bad at your job isn't dictated by your race.
You can have a great white or black presenter like Des Lynam or Michael Johnson or you can have duds like Eni Aluko or Leanne Crichton.

[McLaren]

You don't move towards a fairer, more inclusive society by flipping the see saw up and doing it the other way around.

Do you think a small proportion of jobs hiring people using affirmative action is flipping the see saw up?

[super_realist]

It wasn't by "design"  that these events benefitted white British people in the outset, it was circumstantial.

So when the British rocked up in Africa, India and Australia they just accidently genocided or enslaved the locals?

Mac that was preindustrial and pre scientific revolution.
What about the Barbary slave trade, Ottoman Empire etc enslaving and "genocided" white people? So one eyed is your history understanding you probably weren't even aware of that.

[super_realist]

You don't move towards a fairer, more inclusive society by flipping the see saw up and doing it the other way around.

Do you think a small proportion of jobs hiring people using affirmative action is flipping the see saw up?

You can't complain about under representation if you don't complain about over representation.

[the-goon]

You ask the question in your 1st line, and answer it in your 4th.

You believe discrimination was in favour of whites previously, so to "rebalance", it is now against them. You have captured DEI perfectly in fairness. Is there a term for race based discrimination?

Do you actually, honestly believe every accusation of racism is honest and given in a way facilitate personal growth? Serious question.

Follow up. If a statement is factually true, can it be racist?

You would have to willfully misunderstand most history relevant to our lives today to think that society wasn't engineered to favour the white, straight, male.

Not all accusations of racism will be honest. So what? Are you worried you don't have the critical thinking skills to work out which ones are which?

I can't think of an example of a true statement that would be racist but that doesn't mean they can't be misused to further a racist agenda. For example you get all those bunk IQ studies where black students perform worse on IQ tests but people then fail to mention that the tests don't control for levels of education or socioeconomic background etc. So you could say "black students have lower IQ's" but it's a meaningless statement only used to put forward a racist ideology.

My word. You are correct, those privileged white men press ganged to Navy and Army to fight and die 1000's of miles away, forced into factories or down mines for 12 hours a day to feed their starving families, to fight and die in the trenches of WW1, WW2, Crimean war, etc.. What a privileged life indeed.
You are correct, I don't understand history, thank you for explaining to me this wasn't the reality of the vast vast majority of white men in the UK and Europe for hundreds of years. I'm sure those white men must have been delighted to have lived in a society that treated them so well.

[the-goon]

You don't move towards a fairer, more inclusive society by flipping the see saw up and doing it the other way around.

True, but you've given isolated examples. Overall, there is no way that any current discrimination in favour of minorities is anything like the scale of discrimination against them over the years. It's just that the former is probably more overt and visible. The see saw has not been flipped up.
I would also suggest that for many people the real upset is that they were sitting at the top of the see saw and they now see a future where the see saw is level and they don't want that.

That isn't a reason to do it this way.
How can I give anything but isolated examples? I gave examples of work, sport, society, TV etc. I can't give every single example.
You don't solve bad behaviour by doing it to someone else instead.

Some people want to keep the see saw the way it has been historically. Other people want to tip it the other way completely. The majority of people and companies have seen the historical inequality and are seeking to level the see saw and reach equality, not tip it the other way. Occasionally they may get it wrong, as per your examples, but I see no reason to obsess about the few outliers, especially as equality has not yet even been reached.

So you are OK with some white men being discriminated for the greater good? Which is literally my point.

Denied a job because you are white? Stop complaining bigot! True equality hasn't even been reached, you need to be discriminated even more before we get there!!

[the-goon]

Meritocracy is being abandoned, but that doesn't mean it was ever 100% the only method by which people got a leg up and progressed, of course there was always favouritism or nepostism in addition, bit why try to erase meritocracy completely? BBC recently advertised a role where ONLY ethnic minorities could apply, RAF got in trouble for something similar as did perpetual racist Dianne Abbot.

How would you know if you've benefitted from discrimination? Have you been privy to the recruitment discussion about the role or met all of the previous applicants?

For every Jonathan Green (whoever he is) or Clive Tyldsely you've got a Rio Ferdinand, Thomas Hitzelsperger or Eni Oluko.

Favouritism, nepotism and discrimination against minorities, correct?
As I mentioned previously, working towards a genuine meritocracy, from a situation where it was nowhere close to it, will almost inevitably lead to some mistakes along the way - we're all human. For example, a large company that has knowingly discriminated against minorities in the past might be overly keen to discriminate in favour of them in order to redress the balance. In time, that will resolve itself.

Do I know for sure that I have benefitted from discrimination? No. But I've lived for decades in a society that discriminated in favour of my race and gender, so the odds are quite good.

I like Rio as a pundit. Not sure I've seen the other two.

Then resign and give your job to a minority. Lead by example. That will be one less job that a minority was discriminated out of getting.

Yeah, didn't think so.

[Duty281]

It wasn't by "design"  that these events benefitted white British people in the outset, it was circumstantial.

So when the British rocked up in Africa, India and Australia they just accidently genocided or enslaved the locals?

The British never committed genocide.

[Duty281]

The main discriminating issue in our society is class, not race (not to say race discrimination isn't an issue). But there's been very little to redress that balance over the years.

This is certainly also an issue. Do you remember the John Cleese, Ronnie Barker, Ronnie Corbett sketch?
I'm not sure very little has been done - tenement slums are mostly a thing of the past, workers have more rights, kids get free schooling up to the age of 16 (or 18 if they choose). Perhaps efforts have tailed off in more recent years, but I seem to recall e.g. efforts in education to address this - more University places for the underprivileged etc. But as always, and as with race, those with the advantage are very reluctant to give up that advantage, even if if means a more just society. And of course, positive discrimination for the underprivileged will no doubt be interpreted by some as discrimination against another group.

That's because it is. You do not solve discrimination by discriminating. You only increase animosity and division through this. The root causes need to be addressed so the issue can be solved.

Part of the issue is the mis-use of the phrase 'positive discrimination'. More often in reality, it is simply a case of not negatively discriminating against, rather than positively discriminating for, but a) going from negative to neutral is actually a move in a positive direction, so that leads to confusion and b) some people try to whip up outage by using the term 'positive discrimination' for their own agenda, when in fact it is usually not actually positive discrimination.
Ultimately it is just a phrase, and probably not a good one to reflect reality.

To put in another way "And of course, not negatively discriminating against the underprivileged will no doubt be interpreted by some as discrimination against another group."

Yes, but positive discrimination is an actual thing. A thing where, for example, only people with a certain skin colour, or of a certain sex, can apply to a position. That's not neutral. That's actively discriminating against the perceived advantaged group (perceived but not always correct) in order to try and achieve a balance.

Neutrality is the idea that should be strived for. Appointment based on merit and skill, and application open to all.

I agree (were it not already clear) that positive discrimination is a thing, but it is far outweighed by negative discrimination and it always has been. That doesn't make either of them right, but it makes the latter a bigger problem than the former.
The lesser super has already given examples of positive discrimination and I have given links of studies showing negative discrimination.

But the issue is that:

a) Positive discrimination is seen by some as a solution, or at least a temporary method of solution, not an issue, which is not the case with negative discrimination
b) Positive discrimination was invented as a means to solve negative discrimination

I don't think we can reach true equality until all discrimination is banished.

[JuliusHMarx]

I wrote "positive discrimination is a thing, but it is far outweighed by negative discrimination.....That doesn't make either of them right."

Racist wrote "So you are OK with some white men being discriminated for the greater good?"

[JuliusHMarx]

But the issue is that:

a) Positive discrimination is seen by some as a solution, or at least a temporary method of solution, not an issue, which is not the case with negative discrimination
b) Positive discrimination was invented as a means to solve negative discrimination

I don't think we can reach true equality until all discrimination is banished.

Yes, it is one issue, not the issue.
Overall it is a lot less of an issue than negative discrimination, which is still a much bigger barrier to true equality.

[super_realist]

But the issue is that:

a) Positive discrimination is seen by some as a solution, or at least a temporary method of solution, not an issue, which is not the case with negative discrimination
b) Positive discrimination was invented as a means to solve negative discrimination

I don't think we can reach true equality until all discrimination is banished.

Yes, it is one issue, not the issue.
Overall it is a lot less of an issue than negative discrimination, which is still a much bigger barrier to true equality.

When did you last hear of a negative discrimination example in the workplace that didn't result in some sort of punishment?

[JuliusHMarx]

But the issue is that:

a) Positive discrimination is seen by some as a solution, or at least a temporary method of solution, not an issue, which is not the case with negative discrimination
b) Positive discrimination was invented as a means to solve negative discrimination

I don't think we can reach true equality until all discrimination is banished.

Yes, it is one issue, not the issue.
Overall it is a lot less of an issue than negative discrimination, which is still a much bigger barrier to true equality.

When did you last hear of a negative discrimination example in the workplace that didn't result in some sort of punishment?

I don't keep an eye on the private decisions made by the hiring personnel in UK companies.
What makes you think it doesn't covertly happen?
Do you think all workplace negative discrimination has been eliminated?

[super_realist]

But the issue is that:

a) Positive discrimination is seen by some as a solution, or at least a temporary method of solution, not an issue, which is not the case with negative discrimination
b) Positive discrimination was invented as a means to solve negative discrimination

I don't think we can reach true equality until all discrimination is banished.

Yes, it is one issue, not the issue.
Overall it is a lot less of an issue than negative discrimination, which is still a much bigger barrier to true equality.

When did you last hear of a negative discrimination example in the workplace that didn't result in some sort of punishment?

I don't keep an eye on the private decisions made by the hiring personnel in UK companies.
What makes you think it doesn't covertly happen?
Do you think all workplace negative discrimination has been eliminated?

No I don't think it doesn't covertly happen. If I was an employer I'd probably be a bit discriminatory too, it's human nature isn't it? but you claimed it happens more often than positive discrimination, so you must have a reason for believing that.

[JuliusHMarx]

But the issue is that:

a) Positive discrimination is seen by some as a solution, or at least a temporary method of solution, not an issue, which is not the case with negative discrimination
b) Positive discrimination was invented as a means to solve negative discrimination

I don't think we can reach true equality until all discrimination is banished.

Yes, it is one issue, not the issue.
Overall it is a lot less of an issue than negative discrimination, which is still a much bigger barrier to true equality.

When did you last hear of a negative discrimination example in the workplace that didn't result in some sort of punishment?

I don't keep an eye on the private decisions made by the hiring personnel in UK companies.
What makes you think it doesn't covertly happen?
Do you think all workplace negative discrimination has been eliminated?

No I don't think it doesn't covertly happen. If I was an employer I'd probably be a bit discriminatory too, it's human nature isn't it? but you claimed it happens more often than positive discrimination, so you must have a reason for believing that.

Did you not see the links I posted earlier today?

[super_realist]

But the issue is that:

a) Positive discrimination is seen by some as a solution, or at least a temporary method of solution, not an issue, which is not the case with negative discrimination
b) Positive discrimination was invented as a means to solve negative discrimination

I don't think we can reach true equality until all discrimination is banished.

Yes, it is one issue, not the issue.
Overall it is a lot less of an issue than negative discrimination, which is still a much bigger barrier to true equality.

When did you last hear of a negative discrimination example in the workplace that didn't result in some sort of punishment?

I don't keep an eye on the private decisions made by the hiring personnel in UK companies.
What makes you think it doesn't covertly happen?
Do you think all workplace negative discrimination has been eliminated?

No I don't think it doesn't covertly happen. If I was an employer I'd probably be a bit discriminatory too, it's human nature isn't it? but you claimed it happens more often than positive discrimination, so you must have a reason for believing that.

Did you not see the links I posted earlier today?

No I didn't. I'm more interested in what you have experienced than with a study probably made with an agenda. Was only yesterday that the British Taxpayer have been saddled with the research costs of discovering whether milk is racist and  colonially oppressive, so I take such studies with a pinch of salt.

Couldn't you think of good reasons to discriminate against a potential foreign job applicant?

[JuliusHMarx]

What is your personal experience that leads you to assume those particular studies were made with an agenda and can thus be ignored?

[McLaren]

Super

If you think about the easiest route to a good job in the UK, which is good primary school, good high school, uni and then workplace, there is a filter at each stage which disproportionately inhibits the path of most minorities. Be that race, class, sex, or whatever. And would you agree that it will take decades of political change to even up the playing field at each stage of that process?

All affirmative action is saying is that we can't wait until that massive change has occurred to have minorities represented in the work place. It's a band aid to help aid the cultural change we need. It is also the case that the massive change we need in society won't happen until minorities are properly represented in important positions. I don't think we get the massive changes needed for equality in our society unless we try and do a few short cuts along the way.

[McLaren]

Super

For such a "rational" guy you do often seem to ignore the benefits of pragmatism. You have been drawn into the modern scourge that is purity.

[super_realist]

Mac, no person is restricted in primary school, secondary school, uni in the slightest, unless you also want to consider that this same things restrict the poorest, white population. Schools are catchment based and are required to take those who live there. Universities admit on the basis of meeting educational standards.

Affirmative action is discrimination by definition and simply leads to switching grievances to another group. Reminds me of the stupidity of reparations for slavery.

Make it equal for everyone, not take turns.

[McLaren]

Super

Another thing I don't get is this. You clearly have no interest in dealing with inequality so why not just let those that do get on with it? None of the policies, including affirmative action, are going to have any effect on you, so you might as well just let people have a go.

[super_realist]

Super

Another thing I don't get is this. You clearly have no interest in dealing with inequality so why not just let those that do get on with it? None of the policies, including affirmative action, are going to have any effect on you, so you might as well just let people have a go.

Says who Mac? We just have different views of how to approach it, and yes I am highly likely to be the type of person who would be overlooked in regards to affirmative action, why wouldn't I be?
If I'm up against a woman with the same experience as me, it's an easy tick in the box for diversity targets to take the woman isn't it? Companies get audited on the M/F ratio and details are published by the industry and individual companies, so yes I am at risk, as are you as a white, middle aged male.

[McLaren]

Super
Given how poorly you have performed in here over the years you are at risk of getting passed over because you are the numpty in the office.

[super_realist]

Super
Given how poorly you have performed in here over the years you are at risk of getting passed over because you are the numpty in the office.

Given that I'm working at a higher level than you, earning more than you, in one of the biggest companies in Europe I wouldn't say that, and to make it even funnier I've got better golf memberships than you and play to a higher level, so all you have is your own simpering, self indulgent, contrived social justice warrior projections over me. Hope that helps pay your bills and to sleep at night.

[the-goon]

I wrote "positive discrimination is a thing, but it is far outweighed by negative discrimination.....That doesn't make either of them right."

Racist wrote "So you are OK with some white men being discriminated for the greater good?"

You wrote:

Occasionally they may get it wrong, as per your examples, but I see no reason to obsess about the few outliers, especially as equality has not yet even been reached.

1. You admit "positive discrimination" or "re-balancing" gets it wrong sometimes. Which means a white man is discriminated against by definition. Not the goal but an unfortunate negative consequence of progress

2. No reason to obsess though as we have more to do. I.E. Not a big deal. Not important. Very low on the list of issues to address. I.E. YOU ARE OK WITH IT.

So we should sweep it under the carpet?

You admit it isn't perfect, so I'm not misrepresenting you. What do you say to the white man in this scenario? What do you say to the future white men? Should they accept this discrimination? Do they have the right seek some kind of "re-balancing" of their own?

How do we measure when "equality has been reached"? How do we measure if we even addressing it without creating even more?

[the-goon]

Super

If you think about the easiest route to a good job in the UK, which is good primary school, good high school, uni and then workplace, there is a filter at each stage which disproportionately inhibits the path of most minorities. Be that race, class, sex, or whatever. And would you agree that it will take decades of political change to even up the playing field at each stage of that process?

All affirmative action is saying is that we can't wait until that massive change has occurred to have minorities represented in the work place. It's a band aid to help aid the cultural change we need. It is also the case that the massive change we need in society won't happen until minorities are properly represented in important positions. I don't think we get the massive changes needed for equality in our society unless we try and do a few short cuts along the way.

Short cuts at whose expense? What are these short cuts? Quotas? Lowering the standards for certain races? Job openings only for certain races?

Again and again, you guys say it's ok to discriminate against white men in so many words, then deny that you are. Are you simply unaware of the implications of what you advocate? What would you need to see in order understand it?

[JuliusHMarx]

Can someone assist me? How can I put "That doesn't make either of them right" in terms that even someone with simplistic thought processes will understand?

[the-goon]

Super
Given how poorly you have performed in here over the years you are at risk of getting passed over because you are the numpty in the office.

Wow. What a thing to say.

[super_realist]

Super
Given how poorly you have performed in here over the years you are at risk of getting passed over because you are the numpty in the office.

Wow. What a thing to say.

I don't mind Goon. Mac's long been jealous of me. We have a cordial relationship with a slightly chippy set of retorts exchanged.

[the-goon]

Can someone assist me? How can I put "That doesn't make either of them right" in terms that even someone with simplistic thought processes will understand?

Do you retract this statement?

Occasionally they may get it wrong, as per your examples, but I see no reason to obsess about the few outliers, especially as equality has not yet even been reached.

Do you agree that discrimination against white men is equally bad as any other, and any policy that does so must cease immediately? Just as any policy that discriminates against women/minorities etc.

[the-goon]

Super
Given how poorly you have performed in here over the years you are at risk of getting passed over because you are the numpty in the office.

Wow. What a thing to say.

I don't mind Goon. Mac's long been jealous of me. We have a cordial relationship with a slightly chippy set of retorts exchanged.

Well then it's pretty funny.

[McLaren]

Super
Given how poorly you have performed in here over the years you are at risk of getting passed over because you are the numpty in the office.

Given that I'm working at a higher level than you, earning more than you,  in one of the biggest companies in Europe I wouldn't say that, and to make it even funnier I've got better golf memberships than you and play to a higher level, so all you have is your own simpering,  self indulgent,  contrived social justice warrior projections over me.  Hope that helps pay your bills and to sleep at night.

I can't argue with the golf memberships. When am I getting my guest round on TOC?

[Sponsored content]