|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 30, 2022 21:54:14 GMT
Gave up on this one a while back. But to summarise I think there is no perfectly fair result, but it seems to me levelling the field is fairer than maintaining the unlevel field just because the players had got used to playing down hill.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 30, 2022 22:03:35 GMT
 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. Well no surprise that you'd project it that way or that you base your opinion on how it seems to you having no doubt used many right wing reactionary sources to form that opinion. I encourage you to read the facts and then say what it is about the facts you find unacceptable assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85014/positive-action-recruitment.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 30, 2022 22:10:42 GMT
Gave up on this one a while back. But to summarise I think there is no perfectly fair result, but it seems to me levelling the field is fairer than maintaining the unlevel field just because the players had got used to playing down hill. Even if you walk all over the human rights of some individuals. It is worth recalling article 2 of the Universal Declaration "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty." Indeed we have our own articel 14 "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status." It is important to remember the UN declaration is a contract between the government and the people. I do not have to ensure you have Human Rights but the government has a duty not to infringe them. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 1, 2022 0:03:32 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) You have created an entirely inappropriate scenario. The problem under discussion at the moment is not about Black people being discriminated in general by White people, it is about Black people being discriminated in favour of White people when applying to join the Police Force. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 1, 2022 8:37:40 GMT
a wildly exaggerated position Where is the exaggeration? I outline two commonly held positions (stances) and then I argue these positions act logically in combination to lead to an absurd and oppressive conclusion. 1) White people should (must) allow black people into their communities. 2) Black minorities in majority white communities are oppressed and discriminated against by the white majority in those communities. 1 & 2 (above) applied in combination mean that the only ways white people can exist without perpetrating some form of discriminatory offence or crime against black people, is either as a powerless white minority in a black majority community, or in some part of the world black people don't also want to live. So which is exaggerated, 1 or 2? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 1, 2022 8:52:58 GMT
Gave up on this one a while back. But to summarise I think there is no perfectly fair result, but it seems to me levelling the field is fairer than maintaining the unlevel field just because the players had got used to playing down hill. People didn't participate in the many horrors of the Third Reich because they wished to do evil, on the whole they did it because they felt justified and that they were correcting a great wrong. They felt good about themselves - that they had participated in a great justice. The felt like racial justice warriors |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 1, 2022 9:53:49 GMT
Gave up on this one a while back. But to summarise I think there is no perfectly fair result, but it seems to me levelling the field is fairer than maintaining the unlevel field just because the players had got used to playing down hill. People didn't participate in the many horrors of the Third Reich because they wished to do evil, on the whole they did it because they felt justified and that they were correcting a great wrong. They felt good about themselves - that they had participated in a great justice. The felt like racial justice warriors They felt good about themselves because they were fed the lie that they were special people in a special country. Deutschland Uber Alles. Reminds me of the garbage Trump fed to his far right-wing supporters. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 1, 2022 10:12:08 GMT
They felt good about themselves because they were fed the lie that they were special people in a special country. Imho this is not so primary. Even if a people don't believe themselves superior, they can still feel justified in targeting another group if they believe the other group is / has been perpetrating an injustice on them. This happens often. I would also add, that once you get to that stage, there is practically no civilised way out - ie saying that group A is a perpetrator against group B and this being commonly believed, is more or less a declaration of war against group A. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 1, 2022 10:31:29 GMT
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. Are you an idiot by choice ? You want me to lay out the exact details of addressing discrimination at its source to refute your support of using discrimination to reduce discrimination? Are you serious or just trolling to disguise your reverse racism ? If there is evidence of racism in recruitment then it should be addressed there . Are you too dense to understand that very simple idea? |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 1, 2022 11:12:07 GMT
Sandy this is getting a little tedious. I have explained to you that companies may employ positive action to seek to encourage more applications from communities under-represented in their workforce but when it comes to selecting a new employee, it is illegal to ban applications from one or other sex, sexual orientation or race and it is illegal to award the job to say a woman where a man is better suited to the job. If you want to believe the law is otherwise to fit in with your racial paranoia well you crack on. You are factually wrong though. Similarly I have explained to you why people get selected for tv adverts. If however you want instead to see convoluted conspiracies, well everyone needs a hobby. I rejected applications for sales reps whose handwriting wasn't up to standard. Was that alright? |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 1, 2022 11:16:56 GMT
That assumes they are learnt. Genes are what pressure you to behave in certain ways. Learning is overcoming those pressures to greater or lesser degrees of success and fear is no exception. Most people are born with a personality learning is what develops it. Viking groups always tried to ensure they had members of berserk families in their fighting groups to take advantage of the gene that made them on occasion lose control and become vicious fighters. That was not learned that was genetics at work. Genes supply the parts that learn that which is safe and that which is not safe. The Amygdala in the emotional area of the brain is referred to as an early warning system. It learns perceived and actual danger. If it were never to experience either, it could never react to a learnt or perceived danger. The brain is not born with a prepared list of dangers it has to learn them. DNA carries the blueprints for all of the separate parts of the individual, and that's it. The separate parts of the body and brain are then left to do their individual jobs. Even if DNA could carry danger warnings, it could not forewarn individuals of a danger that had never existed before. It leaves that to the learning area of the emotional/sensory area of the brain. Do you think the newborn brain has no list of "instinctive" actions or reactions? |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 1, 2022 11:26:48 GMT
a wildly exaggerated position Where is the exaggeration? I outline two commonly held positions (stances) and then I argue these positions act logically in combination to lead to an absurd and oppressive conclusion. 1) White people should (must) allow black people into their communities. 2) Black minorities in majority white communities are oppressed and discriminated against by the white majority in those communities. 1 & 2 (above) applied in combination mean that the only ways white people can exist without perpetrating some form of discriminatory offence or crime against black people, is either as a powerless white minority in a black majority community, or in some part of the world black people don't also want to live. So which is exaggerated, 1 or 2? I think you need to include whether blacks should whites into their communities, racism isn't a one way street. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 1, 2022 13:43:27 GMT
I suggest Mags needs to stop slyly cropping quotes and in this case removing the actual challenged text when replying to challenges.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 1, 2022 14:19:13 GMT
Where is the exaggeration? I outline two commonly held positions (stances) and then I argue these positions act logically in combination to lead to an absurd and oppressive conclusion. 1) White people should (must) allow black people into their communities. 2) Black minorities in majority white communities are oppressed and discriminated against by the white majority in those communities. 1 & 2 (above) applied in combination mean that the only ways white people can exist without perpetrating some form of discriminatory offence or crime against black people, is either as a powerless white minority in a black majority community, or in some part of the world black people don't also want to live. So which is exaggerated, 1 or 2? I think you need to include whether blacks should allow whites into their communities, racism isn't a one way street. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 1, 2022 14:34:00 GMT
They felt good about themselves because they were fed the lie that they were special people in a special country. Imho this is not so primary. Even if a people don't believe themselves superior, they can still feel justified in targeting another group if they believe the other group is / has been perpetrating an injustice on them. This happens often. I would also add, that once you get to that stage, there is practically no civilised way out - ie saying that group A is a perpetrator against group B and this being commonly believed, is more or less a declaration of war against group A. In the case of German Fascism, it was very much the case. In Trump using right-wing groups it is also very much the problem. I.E., if you don't agree with me (Trump) you are a communist or a Marxist. Can't think of a much better way to divide the American electorate. |
|
