|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 30, 2022 10:05:35 GMT
I didn't say 'public sphere' I listed the roles that project society and establishment and I reckon 1960 would fit. But I repeat, that is to miss the point. What would be the BAME population in 1960? Shirley Bassey was around Kenny Lynch, Cleo Laine, Hussain was a BBC director, 1948 saw black extras in Oliver Twist, Coloured worker in Quatermas and the Pit 1957, Lucky Gordon high profile as well as Keeler case. There are many more thast just off teh top of my head' Just thought of another two. Cy Grant and Cliff Hall (The Spinners). Both 1960 or earlier. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 30, 2022 10:36:33 GMT
And what is a fair break and why if there was such a problem would government after government, until Blair opened the floodgates, allowed a situation like that to develop Indeed. Why? If your starting premises are that black people can't live fairly in a society that is dominated by white people and that black people and white people should live together, white people are going to represent an implicit encumbrance / oppression to black people everywhere they exist and are dominant. This combination of notions turns white people's aggregate existence into a kind of a crime perpetrated against other groups. Why is this peculiar vision of justice only being applied to one group? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 30, 2022 10:56:28 GMT
So a group that is discriminated against should just suck it up? You don’t seem to be bright enough to understand a simple point .( just using your debate technique).. Discrimination should be solved by addressing the discrimination…..have a think …..ready? …..NOT by actively discriminating against another group. I can’t make it any easier. That is your confused solve nothing opinion. You have no apparent concerns about the discrimination taking place and have no answer on how to actually 'address' the problem. All you are doing is messing about with words showing you have no real point to make. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 30, 2022 11:14:23 GMT
You don’t seem to be bright enough to understand a simple point .( just using your debate technique).. Discrimination should be solved by addressing the discrimination…..have a think …..ready? …..NOT by actively discriminating against another group. I can’t make it any easier. That is your confused solve nothing opinion. You have no apparent concerns about the discrimination taking place and have no answer on how to actually 'address' the problem. All you are doing is messing about with words showing you have no real point to make. Nope .That is YOUR confused solve nothing opinion. I have every apparent concern about discrimination taking place , especially the idiotic approach of discrimination to solve discrimination. All you are doing is using obtuseness and obfuscation showing that you have no real point to make . See I can do that too. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 30, 2022 11:23:48 GMT
It is a novel idea - the way to decrease discrimination is to increase discrimination..
Let me know how this works out..
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 30, 2022 13:38:20 GMT
It is a novel idea - the way to decrease discrimination is to increase discrimination.. Let me know how this works out.. The discrimination offered was that in order to balance up recruitment of Black people into the Police force then the perceived trend of a White applicant being chosen over a Black applicant who has the same abilities and education, needed to be addressed. So far no one has offered a way of addressing this problem, all they have done is to criticize the way suggested which is to intervene with that existing discrimination, and in making up for some lost time introducing a short term process where the decision would reverse the normal and preference would be given to the Black applicant instead. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 30, 2022 13:41:37 GMT
That is your confused solve nothing opinion. You have no apparent concerns about the discrimination taking place and have no answer on how to actually 'address' the problem. All you are doing is messing about with words showing you have no real point to make. Nope .That is YOUR confused solve nothing opinion. I have every apparent concern about discrimination taking place , especially the idiotic approach of discrimination to solve discrimination. All you are doing is using obtuseness and obfuscation showing that you have no real point to make . See I can do that too. You have been asked for a workable answer to the problem. Pity you have no answer. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 30, 2022 14:02:27 GMT
Nope .That is YOUR confused solve nothing opinion. I have every apparent concern about discrimination taking place , especially the idiotic approach of discrimination to solve discrimination. All you are doing is using obtuseness and obfuscation showing that you have no real point to make . See I can do that too. You have been asked for a workable answer to the problem. Pity you have no answer. I’ve given it . The solution is to address the initial discrimination not repeat it . Pity you didn’t read it . |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 30, 2022 16:25:57 GMT
It is a novel idea - the way to decrease discrimination is to increase discrimination.. Let me know how this works out.. The discrimination offered was that in order to balance up recruitment of Black people into the Police force then the perceived trend of a White applicant being chosen over a Black applicant who has the same abilities and education, needed to be addressed. So far no one has offered a way of addressing this problem, all they have done is to criticize the way suggested which is to intervene with that existing discrimination, and in making up for some lost time introducing a short term process where the decision would reverse the normal and preference would be given to the Black applicant instead. Where and how was the evidence that led to that perception presented as regards the police service. It seems to be one area where they are bending over backwards to accept black candidates even on occasion breaking the law to do so There does not seem to be a basis for any perception that black candidates for the police are rejected, or have been rejected in the past because they are black. In total it seems to be those rejected were not suitably qualified. There are many problems we currently cannot address becasue they infringe on Human Rights. It seems the only people whose human rights can be infringed both legally and as a matter of policy to address a problem are white people. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 30, 2022 18:52:14 GMT
And what is a fair break and why if there was such a problem would government after government, until Blair opened the floodgates, allowed a situation like that to develop Indeed. Why? If your starting premises are that black people can't live fairly in a society that is dominated by white people and that black people and white people should live together, white people are going to represent an implicit encumbrance / oppression to black people everywhere they exist and are dominant. This combination of notions turns white people's aggregate existence into a kind of a crime perpetrated against other groups. Why is this peculiar vision of justice only being applied to one group? Why is it ok for a minority to be discriminated against? Your post only appears to show a peculiar take on the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 30, 2022 18:56:43 GMT
You have been asked for a workable answer to the problem. Pity you have no answer. I’ve given it . The solution is to address the initial discrimination not repeat it . Pity you didn’t read it . I did read it now please explain how you propose to put this into action while at the same time resolving the problem caused by the discrimination that already exists. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 30, 2022 18:59:34 GMT
The discrimination offered was that in order to balance up recruitment of Black people into the Police force then the perceived trend of a White applicant being chosen over a Black applicant who has the same abilities and education, needed to be addressed. So far no one has offered a way of addressing this problem, all they have done is to criticize the way suggested which is to intervene with that existing discrimination, and in making up for some lost time introducing a short term process where the decision would reverse the normal and preference would be given to the Black applicant instead. Where and how was the evidence that led to that perception presented as regards the police service. It seems to be one area where they are bending over backwards to accept black candidates even on occasion breaking the law to do so There does not seem to be a basis for any perception that black candidates for the police are rejected, or have been rejected in the past because they are black. In total it seems to be those rejected were not suitably qualified. There are many problems we currently cannot address becasue they infringe on Human Rights. It seems the only people whose human rights can be infringed both legally and as a matter of policy to address a problem are white people. You would need to go back to the time when the proposition was proposed, it was based upon actual experiences, situations and complaints. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 30, 2022 19:06:09 GMT
Why is it ok for a minority to be discriminated against? You have misunderstood- I'll explain again. If you insist that white people must share their communities with black people and also assume that, in the communities in which this sharing happens, black people are being discriminated against or oppressed by white people, then logically you have created a set of assumptions that means white people can not exist anywhere without being guilty of some kind of race crime / offense. You have effectively pathologized whiteness (in aggregate) |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 30, 2022 20:59:23 GMT
Why is it ok for a minority to be discriminated against? You have misunderstood- I'll explain again. If you insist that white people must share their communities with black people and also assume that, in the communities in which this sharing happens, black people are being discriminated against or oppressed by white people, then logically you have created a set of assumptions that means white people can not exist anywhere without being guilty of some kind of race crime / offense. You have effectively pathologized whiteness (in aggregate)  a wildly exaggerated position and it's hard to see it as anything other than a continuation of your that apparent 'we must not act against discrimination unless it's against whites' stance |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 30, 2022 21:22:17 GMT
You have misunderstood- I'll explain again. If you insist that white people must share their communities with black people and also assume that, in the communities in which this sharing happens, black people are being discriminated against or oppressed by white people, then logically you have created a set of assumptions that means white people can not exist anywhere without being guilty of some kind of race crime / offense. You have effectively pathologized whiteness (in aggregate) a wildly exaggerated position and it's hard to see it as anything other than a continuation of your that apparent 'we must not act against discrimination unless it's against whites' stance I am certain that is not the position Mags has outlined. The effective question to my mind is that we have a narrative that racial discrimination that leads to the disadvanatge of any innocent individual is wrong and if that is the case then it is always wrong. The case seems to be that racism is wrong unless it is to the disadvantage of a white person. |
|
