What is equality to you?

[Cyclone 10]

2 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Yes flip a coin. At least that way someone loses out due to random luck rather than discrimination against their skin colour or gender.

 

Because it wasn't my hypothetical question, it was your mate SnailyBoy's. He was trying to get me to answer a hypothetical question without filling in any details for me to inform my answer. You shot yourself in the foot there.

 

Some people are simply obsessed with skin colour. I was miffed that Will Smith was given the part of Aladdin and blued himself up, denying a real blue skinned actor the part. I thought that was being picky but this is another level.

 

Of course what actually happens when positive action isn't a policy is that the unconscious bias is applied and someone does lose out due to skin colour, gender or orientation.  Which is exactly why positive action exists.

[Cyclone 10]

4 hours ago, danot said:

National pass rate figures don't lie.

 

Are you sure you know the meaning of positive action?  It's the implimentation of any of a wide range of measures designed to minimise disadvantage, or meet the needs of a disadvantaged group. It isn t restricted to the work place if that's what you're suggesting.

It is specifically aimed at the workplace, according to the government.

 

Positive action is one of the Government’s range of measures aimed at ending discrimination in the workplace under the Equality Act 2010. It can be used in two areas: “encouragement and training” (since October 2010) and “recruitment and promotion” (from April 2011).

 

2 hours ago, Car Boot said:

Equality to the out of touch BBC means 'no men'.

 

Just ask BBC Newcastle regional radio.

Despite your single anecdotal data point, the BBC is like most organisations more friendly towards men than towards women.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43610374

[WiseOwl182 10]

22 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Of course what actually happens when positive action isn't a policy is that the unconscious bias is applied and someone does lose out due to skin colour, gender or orientation.  Which is exactly why positive action exists.

But someone still loses out due to skin colour, gender or orientation. Which is exactly why "positive action" is a politically correct euphemism for "discrimination".

[Guest makapaka]

11 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

But someone still loses out due to skin colour, gender or orientation. Which is exactly why "positive action" is a politically correct euphemism for "discrimination".

Not as a whole though?

 

youre reducing it to a individual circumstance of a certain person (let’s say black female) being favoured over another (let’s say white male)  and not acknowledging that across a much larger base the black female attracts a bias which is why they’re under represented.

 

the individual white male may not get the job but there will still likely be more opportunities for them which might not be the case in the reverse.

[danot 10]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

It is specifically aimed at the workplace, according to the government.

 

 

 

 

 

No. You're wrong. It is not specifically aimed at the workplace.  The term "Positive action " is 'used in context' to the workplace, which means, the work place is the benchmark example for it. It isn't nor has been restricted to the work place in any way, shape or form.  

 

 

[WiseOwl182 10]

1 hour ago, makapaka said:

Not as a whole though?

 

youre reducing it to a individual circumstance of a certain person (let’s say black female) being favoured over another (let’s say white male)  and not acknowledging that across a much larger base the black female attracts a bias which is why they’re under represented.

 

the individual white male may not get the job but there will still likely be more opportunities for them which might not be the case in the reverse.

It is little consolation to the white male that his losing out on the job is for the 'greater good'.

[woodview 10]

1 hour ago, makapaka said:

Not as a whole though?

 

youre reducing it to a individual circumstance of a certain person (let’s say black female) being favoured over another (let’s say white male)  and not acknowledging that across a much larger base the black female attracts a bias which is why they’re under represented.

 

the individual white male may not get the job but there will still likely be more opportunities for them which might not be the case in the reverse.

And that's it in a nutshell. Treating people as a whole based on colour or gender.

So, doesnt it matter about trampling on Joe Bloggs because men are in the majority in some roles, or Josephine Bloggs because white women are the majority in others?

Positive discrimination rebranded.

Treat all people equally in all circumstances. Doing otherwise is wrong, full stop 

[Cyclone 10]

11 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

But someone still loses out due to skin colour, gender or orientation. Which is exactly why "positive action" is a politically correct euphemism for "discrimination".

I still think you're wrong.  Someone had to lose out, previously the organisation has shown a long term bias and so in order to balance the organisation that bias is deliberately swapped.  It's not discrimination.  It's not a negative applied to one candidate unfairly reducing their chance of being given the job.  They are not penalised for being white.

10 hours ago, danot said:

No. You're wrong. It is not specifically aimed at the workplace.  The term "Positive action " is 'used in context' to the workplace, which means, the work place is the benchmark example for it. It isn't nor has been restricted to the work place in any way, shape or form.  

 

 

The law seems quite clear about where it applies.  Do you have any evidence to actually support your opinion?

9 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

It is little consolation to the white male that his losing out on the job is for the 'greater good'.

Would it be any consolation if they lost out to a coin flip, or would it be a consolation to the minority applicant that they lost out to unconscious bias (or worse, conscious bias)?

Because that's the alternative that you're advocating.

9 hours ago, woodview said:

And that's it in a nutshell. Treating people as a whole based on colour or gender.

So, doesnt it matter about trampling on Joe Bloggs because men are in the majority in some roles, or Josephine Bloggs because white women are the majority in others?

Positive discrimination rebranded.

Treat all people equally in all circumstances. Doing otherwise is wrong, full stop 

Treating people equally is not and has not been the default position though.

[WiseOwl182 10]

3 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

I still think you're wrong.  Someone had to lose out, previously the organisation has shown a long term bias and so in order to balance the organisation that bias is deliberately swapped.  It's not discrimination.  It's not a negative applied to one candidate unfairly reducing their chance of being given the job.  They are not penalised for being white.

Yes it is and yes they are. If someone is getting the job (when all else is equal) because they have brown skin, then by definition the candidate losing out is not getting the job because they don't have brown skin. That's discrimination on grounds of skin colour no matter how you try to dress it up. Call it "positive action" if you want, but literally the only reason someone has lost out on a job is because of their skin colour. A toss of a coin would be non-discriminatory.

Edited March 9, 2019 by WiseOwl182

[Cyclone 10]

It's a subtle distinction and I don't think you're interested in understanding it, so there's little point in continuing to illustrate it.

[Car Boot 10]

16 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

I still think you're wrong.  Someone had to lose out, previously the organisation has shown a long term bias and so in order to balance the organisation that bias is deliberately swapped.  It's not discrimination.  It's not a negative applied to one candidate unfairly reducing their chance of being given the job.  They are not penalised for being white.

Exchanging one form of discrimination for another is still discrimination.  It's still wrong.

 

But as these 'positive' schemes have been devised by the racist wealthy middle-class, we know the intent is NOT to create a balance.

 

"And then there’s all the evidence that it is the white middle class who are making the decisions that result in structural barriers to equality. After all, it’s not the white working class making hiring decisions that mean it takes black graduates months longer to get a job than their white counterparts. It certainly wasn’t the white working class who came up with racist policies like the hostile environment or austerity, which has disproportionally affected the poorest women of colour." 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/07/white-working-class-bigotry-midde-income-earners-prejudice

 

If we truly wish to tackle discrimination, we must remove the wealthy middle class from ALL positions of authority in society.

[Magilla 510]

6 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

Exchanging one form of discrimination for another is still discrimination.  It's still wrong.

 

But as these 'positive' schemes have been devised by the racist wealthy middle-class, we know the intent is NOT to create a balance.

 

"And then there’s all the evidence that it is the white middle class who are making the decisions that result in structural barriers to equality. After all, it’s not the white working class making hiring decisions that mean it takes black graduates months longer to get a job than their white counterparts. It certainly wasn’t the white working class who came up with racist policies like the hostile environment or austerity, which has disproportionally affected the poorest women of colour." 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/07/white-working-class-bigotry-midde-income-earners-prejudice

 

If we truly wish to tackle discrimination, we must remove the wealthy middle class from ALL positions of authority in society.

LOL, or white people?