Waldo Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 (edited) @Cyclone. Sure, but it's a bit like putting a sticky plaster on it, and not addressing the core problem. How and why are purple people systematically disadvantaged? I would imagine, systems are generally run by people, and people tend to be cliquey, and act more favourably towards other people who are more like themselves. To my mind, that's the core issue, and the long-term solution is to diminish this proclivity we have for being discriminatory. ---------- Post added 20-10-2018 at 10:13 ---------- Also, how will non-purple people feel, who are more disadvantaged than some of the purple people being offered opportunities that they themselves are not? Could that conceivably increase tensions and discrimination? Edited October 20, 2018 by Waldo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fill Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 Positive discrimination is just another word for discrimination. if discrimination is always wrong...... and i do mean if then that obviously also includes positive discrimination if you disagree then what you are really saying is that the discrimination you approve of is ok and any other discrimination is not. how bad is that? and if you 'claim' to mean something else then you are just trying to wriggle out of what you said to remain PC in the eyes of other equally deluded folk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 if discrimination is always wrong...... and i do mean if then that obviously also includes positive discrimination if you disagree then what you are really saying is that the discrimination you approve of is ok and any other discrimination is not. how bad is that? and if you 'claim' to mean something else then you are just trying to wriggle out of what you said to remain PC in the eyes of other equally deluded folk Re bib... It isn’t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 Wrong. It's called positive discrimination to highlight the fact that it's intended to redress an imbalance. There isn't an imbalance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 There isn't an imbalance. Where? Nobody was discussing a specific example... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 (edited) if discrimination is always wrong...... and i do mean if then that obviously also includes positive discrimination if you disagree then what you are really saying is that the discrimination you approve of is ok and any other discrimination is not. how bad is that? and if you 'claim' to mean something else then you are just trying to wriggle out of what you said to remain PC in the eyes of other equally deluded folk Do you ever feel when you post something on here, (some) people just aren't intelligent enough to grasp the subtleties what you're saying? And that you just can't be bothered to enlighten them? In the simplest of terms... Positive discrimination for a group 'A' of people, is the same as negative discrimination against all people who are not in group 'A'. Edited October 25, 2018 by Waldo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choogling Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 talking about positive discrimination ,the BBC have got to be guilty for example the morning news has a totally useless black woman who can barely string a sentence together and asks stupid questions co-hosting the breakfast program, on a Saturday BBC radio 2 has become a gay male presenter day, look north has a gay weather guy talk about over representing the minorities . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramjit Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 talking about positive discrimination ,the BBC have got to be guilty for example the morning news has a totally useless black woman who can barely string a sentence together and asks stupid questions co-hosting the breakfast program, on a Saturday BBC radio 2 has become a gay male presenter day, look north has a gay weather guy talk about over representing the minorities . Thats a good point. Some minorities are way way waaaaaaaaaaaay over represented on tv including the commercials in in between programmes. Women seem to be way over represented too for some reason. I don't watch TV much myself but a person who I work with said pretty much the same as you a little while ago so I just had to have a nosy and see if that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 talking about positive discrimination ,the BBC have got to be guilty for example the morning news has a totally useless black woman who can barely string a sentence together and asks stupid questions co-hosting the breakfast program, on a Saturday BBC radio 2 has become a gay male presenter day, look north has a gay weather guy talk about over representing the minorities . If only you could look at the people who didn't get the job, their respective qualifications, their applications, their interview notes. Then compare to those who did get the job. They may have got the job on merit. Imagine that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 (edited) talking about positive discrimination ,the BBC have got to be guilty for example the morning news has a totally useless black woman who can barely string a sentence together and asks stupid questions co-hosting the breakfast program, on a Saturday BBC radio 2 has become a gay male presenter day, look north has a gay weather guy talk about over representing the minorities . Or maybe you're underestimating how many people are gay... And because it's unusual for presenters you notice it more. (Also how do you know they're gay)? When/why did it become relevant to their job as presenters? ---------- Post added 25-10-2018 at 17:28 ---------- Positive discrimination for a group 'A' of people, is the same as negative discrimination against all people who are not in group 'A'. Is it really that simple? If there's a huge institutional and societal bias against a group, then positive discrimination is really just an attempt to level the playing field. Particularly if you don't just look at a single appointment for a single job, but you consider the entire organisation where the minority is massively underrepresented. I know it's a subtlety, but you're trying to reduce a complex issue to being black and white, sometimes I feel like people on this forum just aren't intelligent enough to grasp these complex, multifaceted issues, you know. They think everything can be simplified into a single black/white picture, like "positive discrimination is just discrimination and therefore it's wrong". Edited October 25, 2018 by Cyclone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts