|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 22, 2022 19:01:14 GMT
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability. That definition leaves oodles of wiggle room. So long as all sides in any dispute are free to create and enforce their own definition of a just outcome, i guess it could be theoretically impartial - if entirely unworkable / useless. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 22, 2022 19:12:54 GMT
It could be described as anti-affirmative action i.e. dealing with the previously affirmative action that was apparently the norm. Or you could dispense with the multi-layered, self referential euphemisms and just call all of it racial discrimination. That would be racial discrimination for it and against it. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 22, 2022 19:27:53 GMT
That would be racial discrimination for it and against it. If one can be justified, so can both (even though they are the same thing) |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 22, 2022 19:33:30 GMT
That would be racial discrimination for it and against it. If one can be justified, so can both (even though they are the same thing) Not if one is in the position of overwhelming the other percentage wise, due to long term discrimination in their favour. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 22, 2022 19:38:03 GMT
If one can be justified, so can both (even though they are the same thing) Not if one is in the position of overwhelming the other percentage wise, due to long term discrimination in their favour. Two wrongs make a right. A commonly held fallacy . |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 22, 2022 19:43:10 GMT
If somebody uses the word Woke, it means he's over sixty. That's all the word means.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 22, 2022 19:45:06 GMT
Just to be clear. Are you saying affirmative action is NOT racially discriminatory? It could be described as anti-affirmative action i.e. dealing with the previously affirmative action that was apparently the norm. It may have been the norm however the important point was it was made illegal. Affirmative action is doing what is illegal against some legal against others |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 22, 2022 19:59:25 GMT
What is this “affirmative action” that apparently has such super power attributes, Sandy. Examples please.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 22, 2022 20:09:58 GMT
It could be described as anti-affirmative action i.e. dealing with the previously affirmative action that was apparently the norm. It may have been the norm however the important point was it was made illegal. Affirmative action is doing what is illegal against some legal against others Illegal after many many decades was intended to stop bias in selection, it apparently failed. So a short period of affirmative action/positive discrimination may have been the only way to eliminate many decades of biased selection. Only the biased would argue against that. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 22, 2022 20:11:39 GMT
What is this “affirmative action” that apparently has such super power attributes, Sandy. Examples please. We have determined that it is another name for discrimination |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 22, 2022 20:28:31 GMT
Have “we”, Mags?
Shouldn’t be too hard for Sandy to give us some examples then. “We” wait patiently ……
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 22, 2022 21:27:39 GMT
Have “we”, Mags? Shouldn’t be too hard for Sandy to give us some examples then. “We” wait patiently …… I'm not sure what you and sandy are disputing, but on the matter i posted on, examples wouldn't be needed. It's just logic and semantics. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 22, 2022 21:57:08 GMT
What is this “affirmative action” that apparently has such super power attributes, Sandy. Examples please. In the Equality Act 2010 (which I am sure you can find) it is called positive action and has it own specific wording there from which you can draw any conclusion you so wish however the important point to remember is that involves assessing any person as being from a group of the protected characteristics and allowing HR departments in any company to discriminate if they think it appropriate that discrimination can be racial, gender, sexual orientation etc etc. In short, in law, it allows racial discrimination. To expand, public organisations have an Equality duty to observe and racial discrimination is a tool they can use to meet that Equality Duty. The upshot is that companies are so scared to be labelled racist and taken to court they apply positive action across a host of their undertakings and frequently beyond the supposed intent of the law The most obvious of this skewing of the racial profile is in current TV adverts where a significantly high percentage include a recognisable BAME component. This skewing is so noticeable that there is little doubt that racial discrimination is actively at work in the selection of the actors outwith the limitations supposedly set by the law. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 22, 2022 22:23:48 GMT
The way I see it is you have workers and wokers. In an industry, the workers do work the customer is willing to pay for and the wokers do woke, which is all the shit the government wants them to do to please their perverse brainwashed minds. For example, in the middle of the new Apple headquarters, which took over the huge HP site and looks like a space ship, there is a rainbow thing. Someone had to build and plan it, and that is wokery. It's purely to wear like a badge of some smug git looking for brownie points. Exposing the ill-informed like yourself is part of the reason why I posted the OP. I suppose you didn't bother to read what the word woke actually means, or how the word is abused by people like yourself. It seems the title of the thread OP asks, What does Woke actually mean (without a question mark), then the author only a few posts later admits to starting the thread exposing people as ill-informed if they don't use the word the way he believes it should be used. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 22, 2022 22:25:54 GMT
So Sandy if by “affirmative” action you actually meant “positive action” , a term legally defined’ why not say “positive action”?? Weird.
If I understand you correctly Sandy you are saying that a person must be “woke” if they broadly support the principle that an employer may, in order to broaden the talent pool from which they select, take a range of measures designed to encourage people from under represented groups to apply and aid them to overcome embedded disadvantages in competing with other applicants BUT while ensuring that in all recruitment decisions, the role should never be awarded to an applicant not judged the best qualified. So for example say a Westcountry police force may stage a recruitment fair in an area of a city which has a large number of black people but cannot legally restrict award of jobs to those with a certain colour skin
If that is your definition of woke, then I must wear the woke badge of honour with pride. That concept seems entirely logical and sensible to me although as ever the devil in each case is in the detail.
You are a bright guy Sandy. You know that your TV ads example does not remotely prove your case. It is puzzling that when asked for examples to prove your case, you choose to use such a patently silly one. You must know that simply undermines your argument or are you relying that the majority on this form are so gullible and so radicalised that you can get away with any nonsense and still get them nodding.
|
|
