|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Nov 26, 2022 9:38:30 GMT
James McClean
The stoke / irish Internation refused to wear the poppy on his shirt and the right /right press was in up roar about it .
So much for individual thought
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 26, 2022 9:46:31 GMT
James McClean The stoke / irish Internation refused to wear the poppy on his shirt and the right /right press was in up roar about it . So much for individual thought If it was a team decision to wear the poppy then he should be supporting the values of the team as that is what England say that they have, values. The fact the poppy is a symbol also of many dead Irishmen who fought in both wars is also relevant. He is aligning his values with that of the likes of the De Valera government in 1945, one of the few to send a Communique to the German government expressing their sympathy for the death of Hitler. However he is entited to his view and good on you for highlighting it. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 26, 2022 10:37:27 GMT
Inclusivity is the opposite of racism. Not necessarily so. Inclusivity implies that all are included, how and in what way are the obvious questions that are always inadequately answered. Racism implies that people are selected or rejected based on the colour of their skin. Inclusivity means that people are included on the basis of any particular characteristic including the colour of their skin so therefore, whether it is intended or not, a degree of selection has to be operated which is in effect racism. Inclusivity is a rather ambiguous word with no clear message as to what it wants. In the area under discussion, i.e. Racism. Then Inclusivity means inclusive including all people regardless of race. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 26, 2022 12:16:46 GMT
Inclusivity is the opposite of racism. Not necessarily so. Inclusivity implies that all are included, how and in what way are the obvious questions that are always inadequately answered. Racism implies that people are selected or rejected based on the colour of their skin. Inclusivity means that people are included on the basis of any particular characteristic including the colour of their skin so therefore, whether it is intended or not, a degree of selection has to be operated which is in effect racism. Inclusivity is a rather ambiguous word with no clear message as to what it wants. Nope, you just want to position a false version of the word for less than obviously good purpose. Inclusivity is including people regardless of their irrelevant personal characteristic not as you would have us to be deceived, because of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 26, 2022 12:41:01 GMT
Inclusivity is including people regardless of their irrelevant personal characteristic not as you would have us to be deceived, because of it. to clarify - If it is 'wrong' to select six heads and no tails, then 'the more correct selection' is dependent on the heads vs tails quality If you deliberately (must) only select heads, you are making a selection based on the heads vs tails quality If you deliberately (must) only select tails, you are making a selection based on heads vs tails quality If you deliberately (must) select three heads and three tails, you are also making a selection based on the heads vs tails quality Such is deception. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 26, 2022 14:02:13 GMT
I think you're saying positive discrimination is not inclusivity. If so I'd agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 26, 2022 14:09:10 GMT
I think you're saying positive discrimination is not inclusivity. If so I'd agree. We do not have positive discrimination we have positive action which includes a degree of racial discrimination. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 26, 2022 14:13:06 GMT
Not necessarily so. Inclusivity implies that all are included, how and in what way are the obvious questions that are always inadequately answered. Racism implies that people are selected or rejected based on the colour of their skin. Inclusivity means that people are included on the basis of any particular characteristic including the colour of their skin so therefore, whether it is intended or not, a degree of selection has to be operated which is in effect racism. Inclusivity is a rather ambiguous word with no clear message as to what it wants. Nope, you just want to position a false version of the word for less than obviously good purpose. Inclusivity is including people regardless of their irrelevant personal characteristic not as you would have us to be deceived, because of it. If one is regardless of something one ignores it and its existence is of no consequence. That is not what is happening, measures are taken across all characteristics by a host of stats gatherers who disseminate those to the public in many ways with guilt induced recommendations. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 26, 2022 14:18:09 GMT
I think you're saying positive discrimination is not inclusivity. If so I'd agree. We do not have positive discrimination we have positive action which includes a degree of racial discrimination. Two phrases for the same thing but yes they are to a varied extent discriminatory. Worse (arguably) they are often used to treat symptoms and not root causes in order to make things appear to be OK In some circumstances though they can be the lesser of two evils. But when we get 'no whites to be considered' policies they are usually wrong although I suspect their occurrence is far less that the Daily Express and its readers would lead us to believe. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 26, 2022 14:26:46 GMT
We do not have positive discrimination we have positive action which includes a degree of racial discrimination. Two phrases for the same thing but yes they are to a varied extent discriminatory. Worse (arguably) they are often used to treat symptoms and not root causes in order to make things appear to be OK In some circumstances though they can be the lesser of two evils. But when we get 'no whites to be considered' policies they are usually wrong although I suspect their occurrence is far less that the Daily Express and its readers would lead us to believe. Unfortunately over the years we have seen school trips open to BAME pupils only, we have seen many training programmes specifically stated to be for BAME personnel only, we see government funds go to the likes of OBV who work only for BAME candidates as trainees and mentoring schemes and refer to their mission as the home of 'black politics' whatever that is and we also know that white candidates can be rejected legally if they are assessed as being equal to a BAME candidate. I would have thought one example of legal racial discrimination was too many. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2022 14:41:50 GMT
Inclusivity is including people regardless of their irrelevant personal characteristic not as you would have us to be deceived, because of it. to clarify - If it is 'wrong' to select six heads and no tails, then 'the more correct selection' is dependent on the heads vs tails quality If you deliberately (must) only select heads, you are making a selection based on the heads vs tails quality If you deliberately (must) only select tails, you are making a selection based on heads vs tails quality If you deliberately (must) select three heads and three tails, you are also making a selection based on the heads vs tails quality Such is deception. The missing bit here is that your table is already full of heads and your floor scattered with tails, based on your previous dislike of tails. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 26, 2022 14:44:48 GMT
Two phrases for the same thing but yes they are to a varied extent discriminatory. Worse (arguably) they are often used to treat symptoms and not root causes in order to make things appear to be OK In some circumstances though they can be the lesser of two evils. But when we get 'no whites to be considered' policies they are usually wrong although I suspect their occurrence is far less that the Daily Express and its readers would lead us to believe. Unfortunately over the years we have seen school trips open to BAME pupils only, we have seen many training programmes specifically stated to be for BAME personnel only, we see government funds go to the likes of OBV who work only for BAME candidates as trainees and mentoring schemes and refer to their mission as the home of 'black politics' whatever that is and we also know that white candidates can be rejected legally if they are assessed as being equal to a BAME candidate. I would have thought one example of legal racial discrimination was too many. Do you have any recent UK examples of such school trips? I can find DM outrage in 2007 which is not really a cause for alarm today. As for OBV it is about addressing why Black people tend not to vote (the clue being in their Operation Black Vote) name so it's hard to see why they would initiate activities with whites. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 26, 2022 15:07:02 GMT
The missing bit here is that your table is already full of heads and your floor scattered with tails, based on your previous dislike of tails. That's like saying the reason there are lots of black people in African society is because black people are racist. It's gibberish. In any case, if we are examining a process itself in isolation, it can either select on the basis of race, in which case it is racist / discriminatory, or it it doesn't and it isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2022 15:49:09 GMT
No it isn't
Mag note:
Sorry Zany. I wiped out some of your reply
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 26, 2022 16:05:19 GMT
Yes it is. Of course European institutions and organisations are going to be heavily dominated by white people. They were created in places entirely demographically dominated by white people (Europe) It is only very recent history the numbers in Europe have crept about a small number of percent. Essentially, you are inventing 'a crime' that amounts a people's mere existence, and using that invented crime as a pretext to employ overt, officially backed racism against them. It's really not a million miles from the sort of thing Adolf Hitler did. |
|
