VillaAndLoyal Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 What I'm trying to do Clarry is look past the rhetoric. Personally I think you're failing in that aim Personally I think you're failing to answer the questions raised in the debate on the previous page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 9, 2009 Moderator Share Posted June 9, 2009 Am I Ok then What Blandy said, there happy now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Any form of positive discrimination for one group of individuals will inevitably result in negative discrimination against others. Ergo, if the basis of that discrimination is skin colour then the decision is inherently racist. To package that up as an 'Equality Bill' says to me that some in government still have a sense of humour, if nothing else. That is not complete bollocks imo, it's blindingly fecking obvious. I completely disagree. It is not "inevitable" that someone else gets "negative" discrim against them. Leaving aside colour or any other minority aspect, the simplest example I can think of is say you have 2 people. 1 lives in a puddle and one lives in shed - if you positively discriminate to give the person in the puddle shelter, that does not mean that the person in the shed is being treated unequally, just that the person(s) with the greatest need are dealt with first. Bringing it back to reality, if you help people who are more disadvantaged, whether by disability, circumstance or racial issues, then you are putting a higher need before a lower need. And people from some sections of society are still badly treated, so to help that section be not so badly treated is a good thing. Yes I know all that's a massive simplification, and there are counter arguments that can be made, but the experience in real life is that things like sexism and racism and disability-ism are less prevalent in society than they were partly as a result of equality laws. Over time it works, despite it's imperfections and the cases it throws up where some people do lose out through apparent favouritism of the kind it's supposed to eliminate, in reverse. The overall effect is for the good. That's why, for me, the BNP argument and the one made along the same lines by non-BNP people is wrong. They pick the exceptions and show it is imperfect (no shit!) but ignore the overall beneficial effect, and the majority of instances where it genuinely works. Thanks for the feedback Pete but for once I fundamentally disagree with you. I'm sure this legislation has been introduced with the best of intentions but it has, imo, created one problem while solving another. The solution is simple, no discrimination against anyone based on gender, race, socio-economic background, disability (where practical), age etc, ever. That would be a true meritocracy. This should be the law imo, which as you point out is imperfect. The trouble for me is that it is so by design. Anyway, Gordon eh? Talk about a loss of nerve from the PLP. This is the best possible result for the Tories, Gordon is wounded, humiliated and virtually powerless and they still get to face him at a GE. Cameron must be pishing himself laughing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 ^Where are you going to get your gold from? :? are you suggesting I vote BNP snowy? No, no, not at all. I was suggesting that your policy of forced full employment is going to cost rather a lot. :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I wouldn't be surprised if the posters fundamentally opposed to positive discrimination are white, middle class males aged 18 to 45 i.e. the people least likely to need it in British society. Some people are statistically disadvantaged based on their race or sex or disability etc. Helping them out to give the same opportunities that the group of people above take for granted is no bad thing. It is also only a temporary situation until the disadvantaged party is brought up to speed. You can call it racist if you want but it doesn't change the fact that some people in our society need more help than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykeyb Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Is there such a thing as positive disrimination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarry Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I completely disagree. It is not "inevitable" that someone else gets "negative" discrim against them. Leaving aside colour or any other minority aspect, the simplest example I can think of is say you have 2 people. 1 lives in a puddle and one lives in shed - if you positively discriminate to give the person in the puddle shelter, that does not mean that the person in the shed is being treated unequally, just that the person(s) with the greatest need are dealt with first. Bringing it back to reality, if you help people who are more disadvantaged, whether by disability, circumstance or racial issues, then you are putting a higher need before a lower need. And people from some sections of society are still badly treated, so to help that section be not so badly treated is a good thing. Yes I know all that's a massive simplification, and there are counter arguments that can be made, but the experience in real life is that things like sexism and racism and disability-ism are less prevalent in society than they were partly as a result of equality laws. Over time it works, despite it's imperfections and the cases it throws up where some people do lose out through apparent favouritism of the kind it's supposed to eliminate, in reverse. The overall effect is for the good. . Thanks for the feedback Pete but for once I fundamentally disagree with you. I'm sure this legislation has been introduced with the best of intentions but it has, imo, created one problem while solving another. The solution is simple, no discrimination against anyone based on gender, race, socio-economic background, disability (where practical), age etc, ever. That would be a true meritocracy. This should be the law imo, which as you point out is imperfect. The trouble for me is that it is so by design. . I hope I've quoted the above properly.... I'd like to say that both Blandy and Awol have very valid and well argued points here. I'm more to the Blandy side, because there is still not a "level playing field". But yes, as Awol says, a true meritocracy would be the perfect way, but then I refer you into a circular argument about the "level playing field"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 ...The solution is simple, no discrimination against anyone based on gender, race, socio-economic background, disability (where practical), age etc, ever. That would be a true meritocracy. This should be the law imo... Well it's simple on a moral level, and most people would probably agree with it. In practice, a "colour-blind" approach where people say they treat everyone equally leads in practice to people not being treated equally. Sometimes that's because some people say they are practising equal treatment while knowingly doing the opposite. More often, it's because people unconsciously give preference to people who share similar backgrounds as them, share cultural references and so on. We've all had the experience of the job interview where you find a shared interest with the interviewer and then things go that much better, haven't we? And the more similar the backgrounds, the more likely it is that you share interests, reference points, even friends. I'm sure many of those City boys who recruit their fellow public school boys earnestly believe they are selecting without fear or favour, being totally objective. By comparison, it's been pretty frequently demonstrated that juries are more likely to believe people who are good-looking, regardless of the evidence. They don't know they are doing it, but it happens. So if we can't rely on people of good intent managing a fair set of outcomes across the breadth of a complex society with all sorts of inbuilt disadvantage, of which while doing an interview they may be at best only dimly aware, what should we do? Well, several things. Outlawing direct discrimination, obviously. Educating people in the ways discrimination may happen even if they are not trying to discriminate is another. Letting people challenge outcomes if they think they have been disadvantaged is a third. And creating the opportunity to employ people who can broaden the social mix is another - not if it means you employ numpties, but yes if it helps create a more balanced workforce where better understanding can develop. After all, the balance of feeling on this site against racism is very different to what you would have found 40 years ago, if the internet existed. Why? Only because living in an increasingly mixed society has raised the bar in terms of awareness of issues, and reduced our tolerance of racism. But as for simply having a law outlawing discrimination - been there, done that, worked in parts and not in others, need a more sophisticated approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 In a more practical sense, I would say that the more realistic situation is that companies (with weak managers) will tend not to sack badly performing workers from minorities, where they would do so for the majority - not based on race, but based on fear of a minority person using the law to bring trouble upon them. it's a problem of weak management, not law, but it definitely happens. Yes, that's true. It does happen, and it is to do with weak management. Sometimes it happens because managers are not supported. Sometimes it happens because they think they won't be supported. Sometimes it happens because they don't want the hassle, time commitment, emotionally draining consequences, and strained work relationships which come from facing down unacceptable behaviour, and find it more convenient to claim they have been "prevented" from acting by a "politically-correct" employer. But you're absolutely right to locate the problem at the level of management, rather than legislation or society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Is there such a thing as positive disrimination Yes, undoubtedly. But in this context, the word positive isn't a synonym to 'a good thing' as it would be in everyday speak. It simply means that you discriminate to give a group of people opprtunities at the expence of others (plausibly), whereas negative discrimination is where you discriminate to take something away from a group of people. There isn't meant to be any normative connotation to the phrase. It would be a valid view to say positive discrimination is a bad thing, even if I personally think such a thing could be necessary and sensible sometimes, Another example is the distinction between positive and negative freedom - both are seen as good - where positive freedom is the encouragement and backing to do certain things, negative freedom is simply the abscense of a law against doing those same things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 ^Where are you going to get your gold from? :? are you suggesting I vote BNP snowy? No, no, not at all. I was suggesting that your policy of forced full employment is going to cost rather a lot. :winkold: I don't want full employment but it's the case in certain areas that there are jobs out there but certain people don't want to work because they cannot be arsed. Apathy is not an excuse, nor is the fact that certain people only want to do certain jobs. Beggers cannot be choosers and long term welfare personal aren't that far away from beggers in all honesty. If there is a valid reason, through personal injury or a condition that prevents them from certain work, that is completely fine, but apathy is not and therefore they should either work or basically be made homeless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Well it's simple on a moral level, and most people would probably agree with it. In practice, a "colour-blind" approach where people say they treat everyone equally leads in practice to people not being treated equally. Sometimes that's because some people say they are practising equal treatment while knowingly doing the opposite. .... But as for simply having a law outlawing discrimination - been there, done that, worked in parts and not in others, need a more sophisticated approach. Very well argued points Peter and I can see the logic behind the way you have presented them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrissmith921 Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 ^Where are you going to get your gold from? :? are you suggesting I vote BNP snowy? No, no, not at all. I was suggesting that your policy of forced full employment is going to cost rather a lot. :winkold: I don't want full employment but it's the case in certain areas that there are jobs out there but certain people don't want to work because they cannot be arsed. Apathy is not an excuse, nor is the fact that certain people only want to do certain jobs. Beggers cannot be choosers and long term welfare personal aren't that far away from beggers in all honesty. If there is a valid reason, through personal injury or a condition that prevents them from certain work, that is completely fine, but apathy is not and therefore they should either work or basically be made homeless. Agree with this - cant see why some people get stuff for nothing and others have to pay their way through. If you cant be arsed to work - fine - just dont expect stuff for free. We shouldnt support those who have no DESIRE to support themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 ^Where are you going to get your gold from? :? are you suggesting I vote BNP snowy? No, no, not at all. I was suggesting that your policy of forced full employment is going to cost rather a lot. :winkold: I don't want full employment but it's the case in certain areas that there are jobs out there but certain people don't want to work because they cannot be arsed. Apathy is not an excuse, nor is the fact that certain people only want to do certain jobs. Beggers cannot be choosers and long term welfare personal aren't that far away from beggers in all honesty. If there is a valid reason, through personal injury or a condition that prevents them from certain work, that is completely fine, but apathy is not and therefore they should either work or basically be made homeless. Agree with this - cant see why some people get stuff for nothing and others have to pay their way through. If you cant be arsed to work - fine - just dont expect stuff for free. We shouldnt support those who have no DESIRE to support themselves. most definitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 This letter to the Times from Kim Howells MP, having a dig at Flint (et al), put a smile on my face today: Sir, The remaining recipients of the Assisted Places Scheme for Cabinet members should consider seriously the advantages of putting a sock in it for the next eleven months. I know how difficult it must be for these youngish adults who have done little in their lives but walk the moderately risky tightrope strung between university Labour clubs and Cabinet positions. I am vaguely aware of some of the pressures contemporary life places on them: the sheer toil of blogging, twittering, trying to balance the competing attractions of exuding gravitas and fashion chic at the same time as running government departments. I even have some notion of the nature of their nightmares: that they will wake up to discover that their obsession with Self has caused them to be cast out of the Assisted Places paradise. No longer would they be able to count on an audience, breathless with anticipation, waiting to hear whether or not they contemplated resigning before or after their former Assisted Places colleagues. The past month or so has been as disastrous for Labour as any I can recall. The next months will be worse if these people, my esteemed colleagues, don’t begin to understand that feeding their egos is not the same thing as nourishing the Labour Party. Their apparent inability to resist leaking to their old university chums in the media their frustrated ambitions may be a consequence of having experienced only the barest of lives and careers outside the House of Cards. Time to stop gazing lovingly into the political mirror and get on with making the most of the leg-up they’ve received over the past decade. Use it to help the Prime Minister make the world a better place. Kim Howells, MP (Labour, Pontypridd) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djdabush Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Letter from the British Legion to Nick Griffin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santa_Rosa Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Letter from the British Legion to Nick Griffin Aye, saw that in the Guardian at the weekend while I was knitting some yoghurt. Marvellous stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 How can you trademark a flower ?? What next the house of Lancaster writing to the labour party saying they own the rights to the red rose and some kindergarten saying one of their 4 year olds drew the original Tory party emblem and thus owns the copyright ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts