What is equality to you?

[leviathan13 348]

1 hour ago, makapaka said:

You don’t because you can’t grasp the difference between one group being selected over another as anything but discriminatory.

 

“ positive action are measures which are targeted at protected groups in order to enable or encourage members of those groups to overcome or minimise disadvantage; or to meet the different needs of the protected group; or to enable or encourage persons in protected groups to participate in an activity.”

 

 

'Protected groups' = people being given special treatment due to race/sex/gender etc.

 

So if 2 people are equally appointable, one black and one white, the black person should automatically be offered the job simply due to their colour if that colour/bavkground is underrepresented in that organisation/position etc.

 

But that doesn't take in to account the opportunities open to the individual. So, if the black person comes from a family in a position of wealth and power (an MP's child, for example), and the white person lives on a council estate and has had to take a number of jobs to fund their education to get to the point where they are qualified enough to be appointable to that kind of job, well the black person, it could be argued, has a distinct advantage on both counts because they come from a more privileged background, and they are black.

 

That doesn't sound fair.

 

Also, what if women are underrepresented and the white person is a woman, the black person a man?

 

Does the man getting it mean 'patriarchy'? Or does the woman getting it mean 'white privilege'?

 

Intersectionality will eventually disappear up it's own backside... hopefully!

[phil752 10]

9 hours ago, Mister M said:

So you'd turn down a pay rise on the principle that you don't deserve it? 

Glad you're not my union representative.

did he say that?

[danot 10]

No matter how much you sugarcoat it,  treating person A less favourably than person B simply because he's person A is discriminatory.  Considerate?, perhaps, but most definitely 100% discriminatory.

[Cyclone 10]

The thread is now just being perpetuated by those who would rather do nothing about the current inequality and so argue against measures designed to address it.

Hardly surprising that they appear to be white males themselves who don't suffer from any disadvantages.

12 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

No, I understand perfectly well thanks. You're in denial because it doesn't suit your "progressive" left wing agenda. Discrimination is discrimination.

You understand perfectly well (you claim), but then make posts which show you don't understand...  What a conundrum.

[Mister M 1,609]

 

8 hours ago, phil752 said:

did he say that?

Why don't you find out for yourself if you're that bothered.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Mister M

[woodview 10]

Would having lower tax rates for those in disadvantaged categories also solve some of these problems?

[Guest makapaka]

12 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

As a consequence of "positive action", what happens to the unlucky ones who lose out? Collateral damage? What is the reason they lost out? Discrimination.

 

Discrimination: "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."

Can you explain why it is unjust or prejudicial to try and correct inequality borne out of unjust or prejudicial treatment?

[leviathan13 348]

6 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Can you explain why it is unjust or prejudicial to try and correct inequality borne out of unjust or prejudicial treatment?

Because, in a nutshell, it's using discrimination to try and cure discrimination. No matter how it's dressed-up; labelled; packaged etc. - people are being given an advantage based purely on the colour of their skin or their sex/gender. This is called 'discrimination'.

[SnailyBoy 10]

10 minutes ago, leviathan13 said:

Because, in a nutshell, it's using discrimination to try and cure discrimination. No matter how it's dressed-up; labelled; packaged etc. - people are being given an advantage based purely on the colour of their skin or their sex/gender. This is called 'discrimination'.

The majority group has been given £10

 

The minority group has been given £5

 

The minority group is given an additional £5 to make things equal with the majority group.

 

How is that an advantage for the minority group and discrimination against the majority group?

Edited March 11, 2019 by SnailyBoy

[Halibut 12]

1 minute ago, SnailyBoy said:

The majority group have been given £10

 

The minority group has been given £5

 

The minority group is given an additional £5 to make things equal with the majority group.

 

How is that an advantage for the minority group and discrimination against the majority group?

Awaits reply with interest...

[willman 10]

27 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

The majority group has been given £10

 

The minority group has been given £5

 

The minority group is given an additional £5 to make things equal with the majority group.

 

How is that an advantage for the minority group and discrimination against the majority group?

The issue is why was only the majority given £10 in the first place.

[woodview 10]

1 hour ago, SnailyBoy said:

The majority group has been given £10

 

The minority group has been given £5

 

The minority group is given an additional £5 to make things equal with the majority group.

 

How is that an advantage for the minority group and discrimination against the majority group?

Utter prejudice.

Assumes all the majority group and all the minority group are different to each other, and each group has the same characteristics.

So, in the next promotion at the council, the Indian guy who's dad is a doctor and mum is a lawyer gets promoted, over the white guy who's parents are from a council house on Manor and he hauled himself through the education system .

You either support racism and sexism or you denounce it.