|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 27, 2024 15:28:45 GMT
As the ''elected'' union plant she's the only one who can't be fired (without a GE) When Sir Kneeler of the free Gear tried it - she was back in hour with even more power I watched some football over the weekend, I saw footballers taking the knee against racism in football. Indeed but they accept racism that is officially sanctioned. Inclusive Coaching Opportunities The Professional Player to Coach Scheme is a joint programme from the PFA, the Premier League and the EFL, designed to increase the number of Black, South Asian and Minority Ethnic players who transition into full-time coaching roles in the professional game. The scheme provides up to six coaches per season with a 23-month intensive work placement at an EFL club, within the Academy or First Team environment. Each coach works through an individualised learning and development programme during their placement, incorporating a variety of football functions. This usually includes physical performance and conditioning, recruitment, analysis, administration and coaching different age groups. Participants also receive mentoring from PFA Coach Educators, who have extensive experience developing coaches within a club environment. Members of the Premier League's Black Participants' Advisory Group also support the players and clubs involved in the programme. If you're a PFA member from a Black, South Asian or Minority Ethnic background and are interested in coaching, we encourage you to apply for this programme. The scheme is fully inclusive, available for male and female members of all ages and beneficial for aspiring coaches at any stage in their careers. The pilot scheme cohort who began the programme at the start of the 2020/21 season, are all in full time employment, demonstrating the success of the scheme. www.thepfa.com/players/equalities/player-to-coach-schemeIf one wishes to take a stand (or a kneel) against racism why would one not object, or support, a programme that is racist in its selection procedures. It makes no sense if one is adopting the moral high ground and there is little doubt that is what taking the knee is supposed to show. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 11, 2024 22:53:26 GMT
I watched some football over the weekend, I saw footballers taking the knee against racism in football. Indeed but they accept racism that is officially sanctioned. Inclusive Coaching Opportunities The Professional Player to Coach Scheme is a joint programme from the PFA, the Premier League and the EFL, designed to increase the number of Black, South Asian and Minority Ethnic players who transition into full-time coaching roles in the professional game. The scheme provides up to six coaches per season with a 23-month intensive work placement at an EFL club, within the Academy or First Team environment. Each coach works through an individualised learning and development programme during their placement, incorporating a variety of football functions. This usually includes physical performance and conditioning, recruitment, analysis, administration and coaching different age groups. Participants also receive mentoring from PFA Coach Educators, who have extensive experience developing coaches within a club environment. Members of the Premier League's Black Participants' Advisory Group also support the players and clubs involved in the programme. If you're a PFA member from a Black, South Asian or Minority Ethnic background and are interested in coaching, we encourage you to apply for this programme. The scheme is fully inclusive, available for male and female members of all ages and beneficial for aspiring coaches at any stage in their careers. The pilot scheme cohort who began the programme at the start of the 2020/21 season, are all in full time employment, demonstrating the success of the scheme. www.thepfa.com/players/equalities/player-to-coach-schemeIf one wishes to take a stand (or a kneel) against racism why would one not object, or support, a programme that is racist in its selection procedures. It makes no sense if one is adopting the moral high ground and there is little doubt that is what taking the knee is supposed to show. The above is not racism it is an attempt to reduce the effects of generations of racism that have held back certain members of society. Taking the knee has nothing to do with "adopting the moral high ground" it has everything to do with keeping racism out of football. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 11, 2024 22:57:28 GMT
Returning to the OP.
"Who are the largest producers of solar power worldwide?
As of 2022, China is the largest producer of solar powered electricity generation in the world. The US comes in second, followed by Japan, Germany and India."
And Starmer is intent on catching up with some of the leaders.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 12, 2024 7:32:35 GMT
Indeed but they accept racism that is officially sanctioned. Inclusive Coaching Opportunities The Professional Player to Coach Scheme is a joint programme from the PFA, the Premier League and the EFL, designed to increase the number of Black, South Asian and Minority Ethnic players who transition into full-time coaching roles in the professional game. The scheme provides up to six coaches per season with a 23-month intensive work placement at an EFL club, within the Academy or First Team environment. Each coach works through an individualised learning and development programme during their placement, incorporating a variety of football functions. This usually includes physical performance and conditioning, recruitment, analysis, administration and coaching different age groups. Participants also receive mentoring from PFA Coach Educators, who have extensive experience developing coaches within a club environment. Members of the Premier League's Black Participants' Advisory Group also support the players and clubs involved in the programme. If you're a PFA member from a Black, South Asian or Minority Ethnic background and are interested in coaching, we encourage you to apply for this programme. The scheme is fully inclusive, available for male and female members of all ages and beneficial for aspiring coaches at any stage in their careers. The pilot scheme cohort who began the programme at the start of the 2020/21 season, are all in full time employment, demonstrating the success of the scheme. www.thepfa.com/players/equalities/player-to-coach-schemeIf one wishes to take a stand (or a kneel) against racism why would one not object, or support, a programme that is racist in its selection procedures. It makes no sense if one is adopting the moral high ground and there is little doubt that is what taking the knee is supposed to show. The above is not racism it is an attempt to reduce the effects of generations of racism that have held back certain members of society. Taking the knee has nothing to do with "adopting the moral high ground" it has everything to do with keeping racism out of football. We all know what racism is, it is discrimination against an individual based on the colour of his skin or his perceived ethnicity. What you are doing is giving in your opinion why racism in some instances is acceptable. In the past people gave very good reasons why they should be racist in their opinion as well; consideration for neighbours, a safer and better working environment for others, less friction amongst groups in the workplace, different races had different skills and temperament and many others. The upshot is that no matter what moral stance you take what happens is that individuals are discriminated against based solely on the colour of their skin or their perceived ethnicity. For most of us that is exactly what we thought was coming to an end and in essence is basically what universal human rights are supposed to ensure do not fall into the realm of government. It takes a particular blindness and belief in one's cause to call racial discrimination not racism and is of concern that one operates such a system and calls it moral. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 12, 2024 21:15:38 GMT
The above is not racism it is an attempt to reduce the effects of generations of racism that have held back certain members of society. Taking the knee has nothing to do with "adopting the moral high ground" it has everything to do with keeping racism out of football. We all know what racism is, it is discrimination against an individual based on the colour of his skin or his perceived ethnicity. What you are doing is giving in your opinion why racism in some instances is acceptable. In the past people gave very good reasons why they should be racist in their opinion as well; consideration for neighbours, a safer and better working environment for others, less friction amongst groups in the workplace, different races had different skills and temperament and many others. The upshot is that no matter what moral stance you take what happens is that individuals are discriminated against based solely on the colour of their skin or their perceived ethnicity. For most of us that is exactly what we thought was coming to an end and in essence is basically what universal human rights are supposed to ensure do not fall into the realm of government. It takes a particular blindness and belief in one's cause to call racial discrimination not racism and is of concern that one operates such a system and calls it moral. I disagree with your position and I have already explained previously. The fact is that what you call racism, is actually part of the rational move to remove the problems caused by racism in society. Without such moves racism in its age long negative form would continue unabated. You are doing your best to make the efforts to correct the faults of nasty racism look like nasty racism, it makes you look like a racist. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 13, 2024 7:37:25 GMT
We all know what racism is, it is discrimination against an individual based on the colour of his skin or his perceived ethnicity. What you are doing is giving in your opinion why racism in some instances is acceptable. In the past people gave very good reasons why they should be racist in their opinion as well; consideration for neighbours, a safer and better working environment for others, less friction amongst groups in the workplace, different races had different skills and temperament and many others. The upshot is that no matter what moral stance you take what happens is that individuals are discriminated against based solely on the colour of their skin or their perceived ethnicity. For most of us that is exactly what we thought was coming to an end and in essence is basically what universal human rights are supposed to ensure do not fall into the realm of government. It takes a particular blindness and belief in one's cause to call racial discrimination not racism and is of concern that one operates such a system and calls it moral. I disagree with your position and I have already explained previously. The fact is that what you call racism, is actually part of the rational move to remove the problems caused by racism in society. Without such moves racism in its age long negative form would continue unabated. You are doing your best to make the efforts to correct the faults of nasty racism look like nasty racism, it makes you look like a racist. You have put some descriptive terms for racism in there that are effectively meaningless unless you give them some context. You refer to a negative form of racism and nasty racism. Both are unclear. If racism has a negative effect upon any individual I assume that is negative racism. All racial discriminatory acts have a negative effect upon any individual or group of individuals. I cannot think of any racist act that does not have a negative effect upon any individual. Nasty racism seems a bit more subjective which seems to imbue some form of evil intent on the person who is being racially discriminatory towards the person to whom he is being racist. I would think that was a very difficult concept to show at work. So far it all boils down to, in current society, racism against white people OK, racism against anyone else bad and your excuses above go no way to dispel that view. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 13, 2024 22:50:58 GMT
I disagree with your position and I have already explained previously. The fact is that what you call racism, is actually part of the rational move to remove the problems caused by racism in society. Without such moves racism in its age long negative form would continue unabated. You are doing your best to make the efforts to correct the faults of nasty racism look like nasty racism, it makes you look like a racist. You have put some descriptive terms for racism in there that are effectively meaningless unless you give them some context. You refer to a negative form of racism and nasty racism. Both are unclear. If racism has a negative effect upon any individual I assume that is negative racism. All racial discriminatory acts have a negative effect upon any individual or group of individuals. I cannot think of any racist act that does not have a negative effect upon any individual. Nasty racism seems a bit more subjective which seems to imbue some form of evil intent on the person who is being racially discriminatory towards the person to whom he is being racist. I would think that was a very difficult concept to show at work. So far it all boils down to, in current society, racism against white people OK, racism against anyone else bad and your excuses above go no way to dispel that view. Part of Nasty Racism is racism that stops or greatly reduces a certain race(s) of people from making normal progress in society, the Yorkshire Cricket Club ran into that problem quite recently. When such Nasty Racism is countered and helped to be corrected in the ways that you have discredited and have referred to it as (bad racism) then you are confusing good intentions with bad racist intentions. If you cannot see the difference, that would imply that you are in favour bad racism, or at least are quite happy to see it continue. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 14, 2024 9:25:31 GMT
You have put some descriptive terms for racism in there that are effectively meaningless unless you give them some context. You refer to a negative form of racism and nasty racism. Both are unclear. If racism has a negative effect upon any individual I assume that is negative racism. All racial discriminatory acts have a negative effect upon any individual or group of individuals. I cannot think of any racist act that does not have a negative effect upon any individual. Nasty racism seems a bit more subjective which seems to imbue some form of evil intent on the person who is being racially discriminatory towards the person to whom he is being racist. I would think that was a very difficult concept to show at work. So far it all boils down to, in current society, racism against white people OK, racism against anyone else bad and your excuses above go no way to dispel that view. Part of Nasty Racism is racism that stops or greatly reduces a certain race(s) of people from making normal progress in society, the Yorkshire Cricket Club ran into that problem quite recently. When such Nasty Racism is countered and helped to be corrected in the ways that you have discredited and have referred to it as (bad racism) then you are confusing good intentions with bad racist intentions. If you cannot see the difference, that would imply that you are in favour bad racism, or at least are quite happy to see it continue. If one applies a positive action and organises a specific race(s) as being the sole benefactor of a programme what you are doing is stopping whatever race you are discriminating against making normal progress in society. This seems so obvious as to not be worth mentioning but it seems it has to be pointed out. What you are advocating and allowing is the correction of the racist acts of Mr x to be enacted on any member of Mr x's ethnic group in order to correct the effect that Mr x's actions have had on other groups. The only equivalence I can muster is if Mr Y has had his wallet stolen by a person Mr Z of a specific ethnic group then we gather together all from Mr Z's ethnic group, take the wallets from some and reimburse Mr Y his stolen money. Then we have to consider what is 'normal progress in society'. That has so many potential pitfalls as regards how to measure it they are impossible to list. Finally you come on to intentions and you assume that all those who support and enact positive action have only good intentions and I would think that is very far from being a proven case. The only 'good racism' I can see is when one considers medical possibilities in ethnic groups and tests accordingly on an individual to determine a health issue. It seems churlish to point out that racial discrimination has been illegal for over 50 years, there should be no working age person who has suffered a specific illegal act against them that was legal in any way. Now I am not silly enough to believe that racist acts have not taken place just as I am not silly enough to believe that acts of theft have not taken place. Acts of illegal racial discrimination is the only illegal act I am aware of where all individuals of one ethic group are potentially punished for the specific illegal acts, or often presumed specific illegal acts, of some of its members., |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 14, 2024 10:56:01 GMT
Part of Nasty Racism is racism that stops or greatly reduces a certain race(s) of people from making normal progress in society, the Yorkshire Cricket Club ran into that problem quite recently. When such Nasty Racism is countered and helped to be corrected in the ways that you have discredited and have referred to it as (bad racism) then you are confusing good intentions with bad racist intentions. If you cannot see the difference, that would imply that you are in favour bad racism, or at least are quite happy to see it continue. What you are advocating and allowing is the correction of the racist acts of Mr x to be enacted on any member of Mr x's ethnic group in order to correct the effect that Mr x's actions have had on other groups. The only equivalence I can muster is if Mr Y has had his wallet stolen by a person Mr Z of a specific ethnic group then we gather together all from Mr Z's ethnic group, take the wallets from some and reimburse Mr Y his stolen money. Then we have to consider what is 'normal progress in society'. That has so many potential pitfalls as regards how to measure it they are impossible to list. Finally you come on to intentions and you assume that all those who support and enact positive action have only good intentions and I would think that is very far from being a proven case. The only 'good racism' I can see is when one considers medical possibilities in ethnic groups and tests accordingly on an individual to determine a health issue. It seems churlish to point out that racial discrimination has been illegal for over 50 years, there should be no working age person who has suffered a specific illegal act against them that was legal in any way. Now I am not silly enough to believe that racist acts have not taken place just as I am not silly enough to believe that acts of theft have not taken place. Acts of illegal racial discrimination is the only illegal act I am aware of where all individuals of one ethic group are potentially punished for the specific illegal acts, or often presumed specific illegal acts, of some of its members., Your opening gambit is proof of your basic racism. The aim of the removal of racism is only required while the serious and obvious racist damage continues to be accepted. Once different races begin to be treated as equals, there will be no need to give them a helping hand, and rational objectivity will be accepted as normal. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 14, 2024 16:10:17 GMT
If one applies a positive action and organises a specific race(s) as being the sole benefactor of a programme what you are doing is stopping whatever race you are discriminating against making normal progress in society. This seems so obvious as to not be worth mentioning but it seems it has to be pointed out.What you are advocating and allowing is the correction of the racist acts of Mr x to be enacted on any member of Mr x's ethnic group in order to correct the effect that Mr x's actions have had on other groups. The only equivalence I can muster is if Mr Y has had his wallet stolen by a person Mr Z of a specific ethnic group then we gather together all from Mr Z's ethnic group, take the wallets from some and reimburse Mr Y his stolen money. Then we have to consider what is 'normal progress in society'. That has so many potential pitfalls as regards how to measure it they are impossible to list. Finally you come on to intentions and you assume that all those who support and enact positive action have only good intentions and I would think that is very far from being a proven case. The only 'good racism' I can see is when one considers medical possibilities in ethnic groups and tests accordingly on an individual to determine a health issue. It seems churlish to point out that racial discrimination has been illegal for over 50 years, there should be no working age person who has suffered a specific illegal act against them that was legal in any way. Now I am not silly enough to believe that racist acts have not taken place just as I am not silly enough to believe that acts of theft have not taken place. Acts of illegal racial discrimination is the only illegal act I am aware of where all individuals of one ethic group are potentially punished for the specific illegal acts, or often presumed specific illegal acts, of some of its members., Your opening gambit is proof of your basic racism. The aim of the removal of racism is only required while the serious and obvious racist damage continues to be accepted. Once different races begin to be treated as equals, there will be no need to give them a helping hand, and rational objectivity will be accepted as normal. My 'opening gambit' was laying out what positive action is in the context of your definitions. What is the evidence for the 'obvious racist damage'? You cannot treat races as equal you can only treat individuals as equal irrespective of what race they are; this is the very essence of the human rights aspects as it applies to individuals it does not apply to races. All races, on average, are different, that is basic human biology. That is why we have anti racism as we do not judge, or treat, any individual differently because of their race we treat them for the merits of their skills and attributes. You are advocating,and applying, race judgements onto individuals by way of; this man is disadvantaged because of his race; this man is advantaged because of his race. I cannot see how in base form that is any different to: this man cannot do the job because of his race; this man can do the job because of his race. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 14, 2024 21:30:22 GMT
Your opening gambit is proof of your basic racism. The aim of the removal of racism is only required while the serious and obvious racist damage continues to be accepted. Once different races begin to be treated as equals, there will be no need to give them a helping hand, and rational objectivity will be accepted as normal. What is the evidence for the 'obvious racist damage'? You cannot treat races as equal you can only treat individuals as equal irrespective of what race they are; this is the very essence of the human rights aspects as it applies to individuals it does not apply to races. All races, on average, are different, that is basic human biology. That is why we have anti racism as we do not judge, or treat, any individual differently because of their race we treat them for the merits of their skills and attributes. You are advocating,and applying, race judgements onto individuals by way of; this man is disadvantaged because of his race; this man is advantaged because of his race. I cannot see how in base form that is any different to: this man cannot do the job because of his race; this man can do the job because of his race. Nope, your opening gambit was an attempt to justify your own racism. All your initial condemnations would not have been there for you to condemn if there was no racism in the first place, so you are now acting as if you know nothing. Again you are acting dumb. When people of an ethnic minority are denied opportunities, it becomes racism against against that minority. It is a denial of their human rights for racist reasons. If people were ONLY treated on their merits there would be no racism, but the argument is that people of equal ability are being denied progress because of their race. That you do your best to insinuate that racism doesn't exist is seriously misguided. July 2023: "The outcome of the racism scandal at Yorkshire County Cricket Club (YCCC) was a fine of £400,000 and a 48-point deduction in the 2023 County Championship:" |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 14, 2024 22:34:47 GMT
My 'opening gambit' was laying out what positive action is in the context of your definitions. What is the evidence for the 'obvious racist damage'? You cannot treat races as equal you can only treat individuals as equal irrespective of what race they are; this is the very essence of the human rights aspects as it applies to individuals it does not apply to races. All races, on average, are different, that is basic human biology. That is why we have anti racism as we do not judge, or treat, any individual differently because of their race we treat them for the merits of their skills and attributes. You are advocating,and applying, race judgements onto individuals by way of; this man is disadvantaged because of his race; this man is advantaged because of his race. I cannot see how in base form that is any different to: this man cannot do the job because of his race; this man can do the job because of his race. Nope, your opening gambit was an attempt to justify your own racism. All your initial condemnations would not have been there for you to condemn if there was no racism in the first place, so you are now acting as if you know nothing. Again you are acting dumb. When people of an ethnic minority are denied opportunities, it becomes racism against against that minority. It is a denial of their human rights for racist reasons. If people were ONLY treated on their merits there would be no racism, but the argument is that people of equal ability are being denied progress because of their race. That you do your best to insinuate that racism doesn't exist is seriously misguided. July 2023: "The outcome of the racism scandal at Yorkshire County Cricket Club (YCCC) was a fine of £400,000 and a 48-point deduction in the 2023 County Championship:" And there was racism against white people in the RAF - so what do you want to do about it? Just treat everyone the same - then there is not a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 14, 2024 22:49:01 GMT
My 'opening gambit' was laying out what positive action is in the context of your definitions. What is the evidence for the 'obvious racist damage'? You cannot treat races as equal you can only treat individuals as equal irrespective of what race they are; this is the very essence of the human rights aspects as it applies to individuals it does not apply to races. All races, on average, are different, that is basic human biology. That is why we have anti racism as we do not judge, or treat, any individual differently because of their race we treat them for the merits of their skills and attributes. You are advocating,and applying, race judgements onto individuals by way of; this man is disadvantaged because of his race; this man is advantaged because of his race. I cannot see how in base form that is any different to: this man cannot do the job because of his race; this man can do the job because of his race. Nope, your opening gambit was an attempt to justify your own racism. All your initial condemnations would not have been there for you to condemn if there was no racism in the first place, so you are now acting as if you know nothing. Again you are acting dumb. When people of an ethnic minority are denied opportunities, it becomes racism against against that minority. It is a denial of their human rights for racist reasons. If people were ONLY treated on their merits there would be no racism, but the argument is that people of equal ability are being denied progress because of their race. That you do your best to insinuate that racism doesn't exist is seriously misguided. July 2023: "The outcome of the racism scandal at Yorkshire County Cricket Club (YCCC) was a fine of £400,000 and a 48-point deduction in the 2023 County Championship:" It is like you ignore what I write. I am not denying there is racism, I am not saying that racism was not a significant problem for ethnic minorities but we made that racial discrimination illegal and it has been illegal for over 50 years. So legal protection has been in place for ethnic minorities for over 50 years. What you are saying is that racism was still at work all during that period and we must carry out corrections to counter the effects of that racism and we must do that of necessity on people who have not been found guilty of any race crime and have identical human rights to all other UK citizens, or at least should have. You are upset at a denial of human rights for individuals discriminated against because of their race but are perfectly fine with people being discriminated against because of their race. In terms of morality this makes no sense. To be clear no one is bound except by law as regards the human rights of others but government is bound by the Human rights of all citizens. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 14, 2024 22:52:37 GMT
Nope, your opening gambit was an attempt to justify your own racism. All your initial condemnations would not have been there for you to condemn if there was no racism in the first place, so you are now acting as if you know nothing. Again you are acting dumb. When people of an ethnic minority are denied opportunities, it becomes racism against against that minority. It is a denial of their human rights for racist reasons. If people were ONLY treated on their merits there would be no racism, but the argument is that people of equal ability are being denied progress because of their race. That you do your best to insinuate that racism doesn't exist is seriously misguided. July 2023: "The outcome of the racism scandal at Yorkshire County Cricket Club (YCCC) was a fine of £400,000 and a 48-point deduction in the 2023 County Championship:" And there was racism against white people in the RAF - so what do you want to do about it? Just treat everyone the same - then there is not a problem. As you say, just treat everyone the same. Even so the RAF is not society. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 14, 2024 23:06:38 GMT
Nope, your opening gambit was an attempt to justify your own racism. All your initial condemnations would not have been there for you to condemn if there was no racism in the first place, so you are now acting as if you know nothing. Again you are acting dumb. When people of an ethnic minority are denied opportunities, it becomes racism against against that minority. It is a denial of their human rights for racist reasons. If people were ONLY treated on their merits there would be no racism, but the argument is that people of equal ability are being denied progress because of their race. That you do your best to insinuate that racism doesn't exist is seriously misguided. July 2023: "The outcome of the racism scandal at Yorkshire County Cricket Club (YCCC) was a fine of £400,000 and a 48-point deduction in the 2023 County Championship:" It is like you ignore what I write. I am not denying there is racism, I am not saying that racism was not a significant problem for ethnic minorities but we made that racial discrimination illegal and it has been illegal for over 50 years. So legal protection has been in place for ethnic minorities for over 50 years. What you are saying is that racism was still at work all during that period and we must carry out corrections to counter the effects of that racism and we must do that of necessity on people who have not been found guilty of any race crime and have identical human rights to all other UK citizens, or at least should have. You are upset at a denial of human rights for individuals discriminated against because of their race but are perfectly fine with people being discriminated against because of their race. In terms of morality this makes no sense. To be clear no one is bound except by law as regards the human rights of others but government is bound by the Human rights of all citizens. Making it illegal has not sorted the problem out, hence further actions are necessary. Racism was and is still at work. So obviously a little temporary push in the right direction is likely to help. And few reasonable people are likely to complain, spinning it into reverse racism. If after 50years of failure you wish to complain, then you need to come up with an answer, otherwise you are seen to be condoning racism. |
|
