|
|
Post by dappy on Sept 25, 2023 15:11:23 GMT
Personally I think there is a moral case - we should seek to judge people as people and seek to equalise their opportunities rather than those opportunities being limited based on their race, sex, sexuality etc. You are free of course to have a different moral judgement emphasising the rights of the discriminator over the rights of the discriminated. That's perfectly legitimate too. As I said the role of politics (and from that the law) is to balance those rights and decide which to prioritise. I think in this case we have broadly got it right but you are perfectly entitled to argue the opposite case. Its what a democracy is. I thought we now did judge people as people and the moral case is that we do not discriminate against individuals based on race etc. As regards equalising opportunities that can only be measured against identities and removes individuality from consideration as you seek to equalise numbers proportionally in any field. To do this one must discriminate against/for individuals based on their race which is the very thing one is trying to erase. It makes little sense both morally and when one regards it through the prism of individual human rights where it is our government making laws that discriminate currently against one specific group. I am sure that if we said we must have fewer Jews in Parliament as they are way over represented there would be no end of complaints. I am trying to understand your point here Sandy and in truth struggling to discern it. If you are saying that if 20% of an application pool has ginger hair, then it is necessary that 20% of hired people should have ginger hair - well that's not what I am saying at all. But if you are hiring a significant number of people and the number of people with ginger hair is 10% it is suggestive that there may be a problem and the reasons for this should be investigated. The outcome of that investigation may conclude that it is entirely a coincedence in which case there is no issue. If you are making another point, sorry I haven't understood it. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 25, 2023 15:16:35 GMT
dappy: weren't you complaining that using the entire WB population as the comparator leads to false indications of racial bias? I'm giving you option to use your preferred sample target population which I understood to be university graduates. Why are you seemingly so reluctant to follow your own lead? Are you having difficulty in finding the necessary data?
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 25, 2023 15:17:55 GMT
The race inquisitor applies his judgment fairly to every case and none have just cause to argue.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Sept 25, 2023 15:27:23 GMT
dappy : weren't you complaining that using the entire WB population as the comparator leads to false indications of racial bias? I'm giving you option to use your preferred sample target population which I understood to be university graduates. Why are you seemingly so reluctant to follow your own lead? Are you having difficulty in finding the necessary data? As I said much earlier Dan, as far as I know the racial mix of UK graduates is as far as I know not available. Unless you have better information to prove your hypothesis, it does seem that the racial mix of 18-24 year olds would be a better indicator than the racial mix of 0-99 year olds. I think this might be a good time for you to stop digging, Dan |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 25, 2023 15:33:59 GMT
On the contrary, dappy, it's time for you to do some serious digging such as into the racial breakdown of UK university graduates. That was, as I understand it, your preferred basis for determining a racially-unbiased selection protocol for the Civil Service Fast Stream.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 25, 2023 15:40:20 GMT
but - but
There may be significant anti-white racial quotas applied to university applications
I very much doubt the racism is restricted just to the civil service
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 25, 2023 15:48:51 GMT
The problem for dappy in switching horses to the 18-24 cohort is that employment rates for all ethnic groups except White Other are significantly lower than for the White British group in the 16-24 age range. Employment rates, bellyaching about racial discrimination aside, are usually a function of employability, which in turn is strongly related to educational attainment and personal attitude.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 25, 2023 15:50:34 GMT
I thought we now did judge people as people and the moral case is that we do not discriminate against individuals based on race etc. As regards equalising opportunities that can only be measured against identities and removes individuality from consideration as you seek to equalise numbers proportionally in any field. To do this one must discriminate against/for individuals based on their race which is the very thing one is trying to erase. It makes little sense both morally and when one regards it through the prism of individual human rights where it is our government making laws that discriminate currently against one specific group. I am sure that if we said we must have fewer Jews in Parliament as they are way over represented there would be no end of complaints. I am trying to understand your point here Sandy and in truth struggling to discern it. If you are saying that if 20% of an application pool has ginger hair, then it is necessary that 20% of hired people should have ginger hair - well that's not what I am saying at all. But if you are hiring a significant number of people and the number of people with ginger hair is 10% it is suggestive that there may be a problem and the reasons for this should be investigated. The outcome of that investigation may conclude that it is entirely a coincedence in which case there is no issue. If you are making another point, sorry I haven't understood it. The point is what the law currently demands, mainly from the public sector but increasingly from the private sector who have a perceived duty to seek diversity and inclusion. In the public sector the law currently indicates that there is a duty to ensure 'under represented' groups (as per protected characteristics) must be considered when seeking staff and if necessary special provisions, including straigthtforward discrimination, made to bring the numbers more in line with the proportion in the country, and/or locally. The law as it stands allows/demands racial discrimination, I was trying to understand why you think this is acceptable to so discriminate against any individual, and this is the important bit, as an allowance in law. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 25, 2023 16:18:17 GMT
You are not changing innate racism, you are supposedly countering its effects and in the process doing exactly what you are trying to stop except with different beneficiaries and victims. If innate racism becomes a worthless phrase and racism is accepted by more people as wrong, then racism will eventually be reduced and perhaps even fade away. But if it is ignored it will will continue to raise its ugly head specifically every now and then. But why is racism wrong? The whole process of countering racism or being 'anti-racist' means one actually indulges in racism. If the moral imperative is that racial discrimination is wrong then it is surely by definition always wrong. One cannot apply it to correct its assumed effects with the halo of morality floating above you. The whole process is supposedly based on the individual yet it is the group identity that decides what happens to any individual. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2023 16:31:49 GMT
If innate racism becomes a worthless phrase and racism is accepted by more people as wrong, then racism will eventually be reduced and perhaps even fade away. But if it is ignored it will will continue to raise its ugly head specifically every now and then. But why is racism wrong? The whole process of countering racism or being 'anti-racist' means one actually indulges in racism. If the moral imperative is that racial discrimination is wrong then it is surely by definition always wrong. One cannot apply it to correct its assumed effects with the halo of morality floating above you. The whole process is supposedly based on the individual yet it is the group identity that decides what happens to any individual. I guess it's like asking a brainwashed loony lefty why it's OK to racially discriminate againt certain races and not others. You won't get an answer. They simply rely on the collectivism where a superior tells them that's it's OK. These people are not only stupid, they're dangerously stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Sept 25, 2023 17:04:58 GMT
On the contrary, dappy, it's time for you to do some serious digging such as into the racial breakdown of UK university graduates. That was, as I understand it, your preferred basis for determining a racially-unbiased selection protocol for the Civil Service Fast Stream. Well no Dan. It is your hypothesis that has collapsed like a badly made soufflé. We have established that the racial mix of fast track offerees is broadly in line with the racial mix of the 18-24 age group from which they are drawn. If you wish to claim that the racial mix of the graduate subset of 18-24s differs materially from the total racial mix for that age, you need to show some evidence. Meanwhile we also know that a higher proportion of white applicants are successful than other races further undermining your proposition. Time to stop digging Dan. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Sept 25, 2023 17:09:23 GMT
But why is racism wrong? The whole process of countering racism or being 'anti-racist' means one actually indulges in racism. If the moral imperative is that racial discrimination is wrong then it is surely by definition always wrong. One cannot apply it to correct its assumed effects with the halo of morality floating above you. The whole process is supposedly based on the individual yet it is the group identity that decides what happens to any individual. I guess it's like asking a brainwashed loony lefty why it's OK to racially discriminate againt certain races and not others. You won't get an answer. They simply rely on the collectivism where a superior tells them that's it's OK. These people are not only stupid, they're dangerously stupid. Not sure if I qualify as a brainwashed looney lefty but the answer to your question is “it isn’t”. Which is why I agree with the law that states it is illegal to base recruitment decisions on race - whether in favour of white or black candidates. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2023 17:34:04 GMT
I guess it's like asking a brainwashed loony lefty why it's OK to racially discriminate againt certain races and not others. You won't get an answer. They simply rely on the collectivism where a superior tells them that's it's OK. These people are not only stupid, they're dangerously stupid. Not sure if I qualify as a brainwashed looney lefty but the answer to your question is “it isn’t”. Which is why I agree with the law that states it is illegal to base recruitment decisions on race - whether in favour of white or black candidates. Only that it isn't, which others have been highlighting. It isn't illegal to employ people based on race. You just have to make up an excuse that it's necessary, and that's where quotas and exception to laws are used and abused. Plus, once the ball is rolling recruitment can be restricted to advertisements in, say, the Voice, which is how the larger London councils ended up anti-white.
People have to fight in court over racial discrimination or unfair dismissals. I am sure those people would have rather kept their jobs than win a stressful court case. You hear of them happening all of the time, and they only make up a tiny percentage of those who are victims to the abuse of positive discrimination.
Basically, throwing a peice of paper around doesn't make it all go away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 25, 2023 17:40:07 GMT
I guess it's like asking a brainwashed loony lefty why it's OK to racially discriminate againt certain races and not others. You won't get an answer. They simply rely on the collectivism where a superior tells them that's it's OK. These people are not only stupid, they're dangerously stupid. Not sure if I qualify as a brainwashed looney lefty but the answer to your question is “it isn’t”. Which is why I agree with the law that states it is illegal to base recruitment decisions on race - whether in favour of white or black candidates. It is?  |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Sept 25, 2023 18:14:00 GMT
However much you wish to pretend it isn’t so, the simple fact is that it is illegal to base employment decisions on race. Sorry guys that is simply a fact.
|
|
