|
|
Post by happyhornet on Jan 31, 2024 16:43:09 GMT
If you look back on my posts my original objection was to the argument that British citizens who's parents and grandparents are British to be given priority. Which would mean denying born and raised British citizens access to housing because of an accident of birth and creating two tiers of citizenship. I believe this is somewhat similar to the way social housing used to work. Those with a long-standing connection to an area would get priority. This rule disincentivises moving around to passively collect advantages created by other groups. Given this principled show of egalitarianism, can I assume you are firmly against all other forms of 'positive discrimination' or 'affirmative action'? That's still an accident of birth, it's also entirely possible that someone could have one immigrant parent and another who's local ancestry goes back to when Jesus was a lad. Yes I am opposed to other forms of so called positive discrimination. I assume that you are in favour of it? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 31, 2024 16:52:03 GMT
I believe this is somewhat similar to the way social housing used to work. Those with a long-standing connection to an area would get priority. This rule disincentivises moving around to passively collect advantages created by other groups. Given this principled show of egalitarianism, can I assume you are firmly against all other forms of 'positive discrimination' or 'affirmative action'? That's still an accident of birth, it's also entirely possible that someone could have one immigrant parent and another who's local ancestry goes back to when Jesus was a lad. Yes I am opposed to other forms of so called positive discrimination. I assume that you are in favour of it? You keep rambling about 'accidents of birth' as if nations and families don't / shouldn't exist. Is this standard applied to all families and nations, or just one? I react to circumstances. For instance, if positive discrimination is applied by society and this isn't going to change, i suggest that my group seek a similar advantage until this changes (or can be changed). I also keep an eye out for the distinction between functional vs dysfunctional discrimination. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Jan 31, 2024 16:56:42 GMT
That's still an accident of birth, it's also entirely possible that someone could have one immigrant parent and another who's local ancestry goes back to when Jesus was a lad. Yes I am opposed to other forms of so called positive discrimination. I assume that you are in favour of it? I react to circumstances. For instance, if positive discrimination is applied by society and this isn't going to change, i suggest that my group seek a similar advantage until this changes (or can be changed). I also keep an eye out for the distinction between functional vs dysfunctional discrimination. So you don't have a problem with positive discrimination in principle so long as your group benefits? We'll have to agree to disagree on that, I don't want anyone doing me any favours, just a level playing field where everyone stands or falls on their individual merits. Missed this edit: "You keep rambling about 'accidents of birth' as if nations and families don't / shouldn't exist. Is this standard applied to all families and nations, or just one?" I never said that nations or families shouldn't exist, I just believe that in this country every British family should be on a level playing field. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 31, 2024 17:10:48 GMT
I react to circumstances. For instance, if positive discrimination is applied by society and this isn't going to change, i suggest that my group seek a similar advantage until this changes (or can be changed). I also keep an eye out for the distinction between functional vs dysfunctional discrimination. So you don't have a problem with positive discrimination in principle so long as your group benefits? Not as simple as that. I wouldn't suggest white people should get prioritised welfare treatment in African countries because this would be dysfunctional and might result in a form of group parasitism. However, a rule that placed someone in the queue depending on their connection to African society would not (IMHO) be dysfunctional. It would act as a deterrent to white people showing up to collect welfare created by African society. My preference would be an egalitarian society with strict border controls and (more or less) zero immigration. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Jan 31, 2024 17:14:34 GMT
So you don't have a problem with positive discrimination in principle so long as your group benefits? Not as simple as that. I wouldn't suggest white people should get prioritised welfare treatment in African countries because this would be dysfunctional and might result in a form of group parasitism. However, a rule that placed someone in the queue depending on their connection to African society would not (IMHO) be dysfunctional. It would act as a deterrent to white people showing up to collect welfare created by African society. My preference would be an egalitarian society with strict border controls and (more or less) zero immigration. You seem to keep trying to crowbar recent arrivals into the conversation when I'm talking about British citizens. Neither me, nor anyone else on this thread as far as I can see is advocating putting newly arrived immigrants ahead of British citizens. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 31, 2024 17:19:26 GMT
Not as simple as that. I wouldn't suggest white people should get prioritised welfare treatment in African countries because this would be dysfunctional and might result in a form of group parasitism. However, a rule that placed someone in the queue depending on their connection to African society would not (IMHO) be dysfunctional. It would act as a deterrent to white people showing up to collect welfare created by African society. My preference would be an egalitarian society with strict border controls and (more or less) zero immigration. You seem to keep trying to crowbar recent arrivals into the conversation when I'm talking about British citizens. Neither me, nor anyone else on this thread as far as I can see is advocating putting newly arrived immigrants ahead of British citizens. I didn't say you did. All i am illustrating here is that my view is not that "white people should be the beneficiaries, regardless". |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Jan 31, 2024 17:25:51 GMT
You seem to keep trying to crowbar recent arrivals into the conversation when I'm talking about British citizens. Neither me, nor anyone else on this thread as far as I can see is advocating putting newly arrived immigrants ahead of British citizens. I didn't say you did. All i am illustrating here is that my view is not that "white people should be the beneficiaries, regardless". I never said that it was. My view is it shouldn't be decided by an accident of birth. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 31, 2024 17:33:18 GMT
I didn't say you did. All i am illustrating here is that my view is not that "white people should be the beneficiaries, regardless". I never said that it was. My view is it shouldn't be decided by an accident of birth. That's a bit daft imo. You may as well say it shouldn't be decided by an 'accident of nationality' |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 31, 2024 18:08:51 GMT
Not as simple as that. I wouldn't suggest white people should get prioritised welfare treatment in African countries because this would be dysfunctional and might result in a form of group parasitism. However, a rule that placed someone in the queue depending on their connection to African society would not (IMHO) be dysfunctional. It would act as a deterrent to white people showing up to collect welfare created by African society. My preference would be an egalitarian society with strict border controls and (more or less) zero immigration. You seem to keep trying to crowbar recent arrivals into the conversation when I'm talking about British citizens. Neither me, nor anyone else on this thread as far as I can see is advocating putting newly arrived immigrants ahead of British citizens. That has been the Law since the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 which introduced priority for social housing based on need rather than years on the waiting list. As soon as you are granted leave to remain you are able to access social housing. |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Jan 31, 2024 18:11:38 GMT
That has been the Law since the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 which introduced priority for social housing based on need rather than years on the waiting list. As soon as you are granted leave to remain you are able to access social housing. Which is as it should be. Allocation according to need has long been at the heart of social policy. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Jan 31, 2024 18:44:16 GMT
I never said that it was. My view is it shouldn't be decided by an accident of birth. That's a bit daft imo. You may as well say it shouldn't be decided by an 'accident of nationality' No what's daft is saying British homes for British workers then saying it should be down to ancestral links to the area and then backing a policy that potentially puts British workers with an ancestral link to the local area at the back of the que. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 31, 2024 18:57:58 GMT
That's a bit daft imo. You may as well say it shouldn't be decided by an 'accident of nationality' No what's daft is saying British homes for British workers then saying it should be down to ancestral links to the area and then backing a policy that potentially puts British workers with an ancestral link to the local area at the back of the que. Pardon? What policy am i backing here? When the whole notion of a communal welfare was formed, the underlying assumption was that this will be wealth aggregated in a community and used by that community to help its members. The whole notion is unworkable if you let people wander in and take an equal share for simply bothering to find you on a map. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Jan 31, 2024 20:59:30 GMT
No what's daft is saying British homes for British workers then saying it should be down to ancestral links to the area and then backing a policy that potentially puts British workers with an ancestral link to the local area at the back of the que. Pardon? What policy am i backing here? When the whole notion of a communal welfare was formed, the underlying assumption was that this will be wealth aggregated in a community and used by that community to help its members. The whole notion is unworkable if you let people wander in and take an equal share for simply bothering to find you on a map. Again if you look back at my posts the argument I originally objected to was that priority had to be given to people with British parents and grandparents. Do you back this or not? Because if you do that could mean a British person with British ancestry going back centuries being put to the back of the que because they also happen to have an immigrant grandparent. Nobody is talking about letting people wander in and take an equal share, you're shadow boxing. I'm saying British citizens shouldn't be put to the back of the que because of an accident of birth. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 31, 2024 21:08:44 GMT
Pardon? What policy am i backing here? When the whole notion of a communal welfare was formed, the underlying assumption was that this will be wealth aggregated in a community and used by that community to help its members. The whole notion is unworkable if you let people wander in and take an equal share for simply bothering to find you on a map. Again if you look back at my posts the argument I originally objected to was that priority had to be given to people with British parents and grandparents. Do you back this or not? Because if you do that could mean a British person with British ancestry going back centuries being put to the back of the que because they also happen to have an immigrant grandparent. Nobody is talking about letting people wander in and take an equal share, you're shadow boxing. I'm saying British citizens shouldn't be put to the back of the que because of an accident of birth. No. The post I initially replied to objected to the notion because some British citizens would have priority over others. The point you raise now about various types of ancestry is valid, but it's not the point I intervened on. We are talking about pluses and minuses of such an approach. I am talking about people wandering in and claiming an equal share, because this is a notable feature of our current situation. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Jan 31, 2024 21:20:48 GMT
Again if you look back at my posts the argument I originally objected to was that priority had to be given to people with British parents and grandparents. Do you back this or not? Because if you do that could mean a British person with British ancestry going back centuries being put to the back of the que because they also happen to have an immigrant grandparent. Nobody is talking about letting people wander in and take an equal share, you're shadow boxing. I'm saying British citizens shouldn't be put to the back of the que because of an accident of birth. No. The post I initially replied to objected to the notion because some British citizens would have priority over others. The point you raise now about various types of ancestry is valid, but it's not the point I intervened on. We are talking about pluses and minuses of such an approach. I am talking about people wandering in and claiming an equal share, because this is a notable feature of our current situation. Why are you challenging me on an argument I haven't made? |
|
