Is it ok to be proud to be white?

[i-bert]

Putting something first is by definition inferring it is superior to other things, that is how prioritisation works. For something to be put first, other things have to be put second or third, i.e. a lesser priority. I'm not really sure how I can communicate that to you any more clearly than I have done.

Quite why you're off on some unrelated, emotive tangent about the NHS and taxation is baffling.

Priority and superiority are not the same thing.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

Guys stop putting your family it is making my family less well off!

 

[Theophany]

So is someone putting their family first saying they believe their family is superior because they're prioritising? My post isn't baffling you're just struggling to come up with a counter argument because your point is dumb

Yes. Why else would you give them preferential treatment? :/

It is baffling because you think I'm stupid enough to take your argumentative bait instead of calling it out.

 

[Theophany]

Guys stop putting your family it is making my family less well off!

Still upset I called you out for posting out yer ass?

 

[Deleted User 298457]

Still upset I called you out for posting out yer ass?

You'll have to remind me when that was after you posted war and peace agreeing with everything said but caveated with a timeline

Anyway, sleep easy taking money from vulnerable people to line your own pockets. Nice tidy living that leaves a real honourable legacy

 

[Theophany]

You'll have to remind me when that was after you posted war and peace agreeing with everything said but caveated with a timeline

Anyway, sleep easy taking money from vulnerable people to line your own pockets. Nice tidy living that leaves a real honourable legacy

Lmao "I can't read more than a paragraph that disagrees with my incorrect worldview so you're a bad, naughty, mean person!"

It was the MSE/Sunday Times jibe wasn't it? Seems like it touched a nerve lol.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

Lmao "I can't read more than a paragraph that disagrees with my incorrect worldview so you're a bad, naughty, mean person!"

It was the MSE/Sunday Times jibe wasn't it? Seems like it touched a nerve lol.

It was the fact you felt the need to come back and add it in which really put a light on your fragile character

 

[Theophany]

It was the fact you felt the need to come back and add it in which really put a light on your fragile character

Says the guy dogpiling in an unrelated thread.

Just FYI, the edit was for phrasing, the snark was in the original post, I just finessed it after the fact to read better. I still don't get why you're so weirdly fixated on it though.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

Says the guy dogpiling in an unrelated thread.

Just FYI, the edit was for phrasing, the snark was in the original post, I just finessed it after the fact to read better. I still don't get why you're so weirdly fixated on it though.

You made a dumb point in this thread as called out by 2 other posters - you were the one that drew in the other thread.

 

[Theophany]

You made a dumb point in this thread as called out by 2 other posters - you were the one that drew in the other thread.

What was dumb about my point that nationalism is bad and not the same as patriotism? The argument then became idiotically reductive (which appears to be a common deflection tactic round these parts) and it's my bad for continuing to engage it - I'll fess up to that.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

What was dumb about my point that nationalism is bad and not the same as patriotism? The argument then became idiotically reductive (which appears to be a common deflection tactic round these parts) and it's my bad for continuing to engage it - I'll fess up to that.

Maybe take a dose of your own obtuse advice you seem so readily able to give:

<snip> I'm not really sure how I can communicate that to you any more clearly than I have done.

Quite why you're off on some unrelated, emotive tangent <snip>and quoting other unrelated threads</snip>

Prioritisation across vertically constructed concepts/memberships/societies is absolutely possible without verging into reprioritisation of other groups. Groups like nations, sports teams, companies can all believe they are the best and compete to be the best. A sports fan "depriortising" another team has no detrimental impact at all.

Your idea that it must deprioritise only makes sense within a vertical, e.g. prioritising elderly would reduce supply for the young. Any of the examples provided are not constructed in this way. Being proud of being 'white' inherently breaks this rule, hence the relevance to the topic.

Edit: Just realised you are deflecting this to be a call out on your definition of patriotism and nationalism. That wasn't what you were called out on.

 

[Theophany]

Maybe take a dose of your own obtuse advice you seem so readily able to give:

Prioritisation across vertically constructed concepts/memberships/societies is absolutely possible without verging into reprioritisation of other groups. Groups like nations, sports teams, companies can all believe they are the best and compete to be the best. A sports fan "depriortising" another team has no detrimental impact at all.

Your idea that it must deprioritise only makes sense within a vertical, e.g. prioritising elderly would reduce supply for the young. Any of the examples provided are not constructed in this way. Being proud of being 'white' inherently breaks this rule, hence the relevance to the topic.

Edit: Just realised you are deflecting this to be a call out on your definition of patriotism and nationalism. That wasn't what you were called out on.

What is your point because the edit makes it seem like you don't know what you're on about and honestly I have no idea either.

 

[Roar87]

What is your point because the edit makes it seem like you don't know what you're on about and honestly I have no idea either.

Yeah I think the problem is you seem to mysteriously lack any understanding of basic English when posts refute your original dumb argument, weird that. It's almost like you're trying to gas light posters which is a tactic of the worst kinds of people by the way

 

[Tony Edwards]

Yeah I think the problem is you seem to mysteriously lack any understanding of basic English when posts refute your original dumb argument, weird that. It's almost like you're trying to gas light posters which is a tactic of the worst kinds of people by the way

Stop gaslighting!

 

[Efour]

Id put my family first and mine is superior so .... ner!

 

[silvagti]

Wrong thread

 

[Tony Edwards]

You have absolutely no evidence that your highlighted statement is true.

It's an obvious side effect of the way the law is written - a claim of discrimination has to be made on the basis of one or more legally protected characteristics. In this case, sex and "race". Obviously, that rules out a claim referring to someone else of the same sex and "race".

Also, a key part of this particular case is the claim that there is evidence that the pay cut was in place before she was given the job and that the pay cut was waived for her because of her sex and "race".

So there's a relevant thing you haven't taken into account and a thing you've made up. Not a compelling argument.

I think it's impossible to tell if it's a clear case either way without seeing that claimed evidence about when the pay cuts were introduced. The reason why she was put on the old salary and not the new salary is the key point - whether it was just lucky timing on her part or whether she was given the previous salary because of her sex and "race".

Anyway.

Employment Judge Richard Nicolle said: 'We consider that cost considerations were a significant factor to the Respondent in assessing and setting the new salary scales.

'The evidence points to significant pressure from the Treasury to reduce HMI pay because of austerity but also a perception that their pay was 'excessive' compared to other comparable public sector positions.

'At the time of his appointment, we find that an equivalent black man would have been offered, and paid, the same remuneration as the Claimant.

'Given that the benchmarking exercise had been undertaken, and the new salary scales set after Ms Williams' appointment the Respondent has reason to pay a different salary to the Claimant.

'Ms Williams is not therefore a correct comparator. We therefore reject the claims for direct race discrimination.'

A Home Office Spokesperson said: 'We welcome the Tribunal’s decision, which re-enforces our position that HMI Parr was not paid differently because of his sex or race.

'HMI pay is set by the Home Office to make sure HMIs are appropriately remunerated, whilst ensuring value for the UK taxpayer.

'We value the crucial work of HMICFRS and will continue to support the inspectorate in its mission to ensure effective and efficient police forces and fire and rescue services.'

 

[Caracus2k]

Anyway.

Are many people surprised by this point that Tony Edwards proves himself to be the sort of thoroughly unreliable character that would fail to link his source because he knows it will show him for the charlatan he is?


from the top of the same artice....

Senior civil servant was awarded £180,000 top-of-the-range pay packet - £52,000 more than her white male co-worker - because she benefited from positive discrimination as a black woman, tribunal finds


A senior civil servant benefited from positive discrimination when she was awarded a top pay packet because she is a black woman, an employment tribunal has concluded.

Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary Matthew Parr said he was paid £52,000 less than Wendy Williams to do the same job.

He brought an employment tribunal case against the Home Office, claiming he had been discriminated against on the grounds of race and sex because he is a white man.

Home Secretary Priti Patel, backed by Mrs Williams, attempted to get salary calculations due to be disclosed by the tribunal made secret - but their case was thrown out.

The Central London tribunal court has now ruled that Mr Parr was not discriminated against because he was the first of a new pay scale and therefore could not compare himself to Mrs Williams.

But they concluded that the Home Office had feared possible accusations around her salary and she had benefited from positive discrimination.

They said positive discrimination was behind her pay hike from £165,000 to £185,791.

Mr Parr, one of the five HM Inspectors of Constabulary (HMIs) who oversee the UK's police forces, claimed 'ham-fisted' attempts to lower hefty pay packets left him discriminated against because he is a white man.

The former Royal Navy officer and Rear Admiral took the £133,983 job in 2016 when Theresa May was Home Secretary.

He was given a further £7,904 London living allowance, but was still paid far less than Ms Williams, appointed 15 months earlier on a salary of more than £185,000 despite her pay bracket then being £165,000 to £185,000.

Employment Judge Richard Nicolle said: 'We find that the fact of Ms Williams being a black woman, and the Respondent's perception of the litigation and reputational risk she therefore potentially posed, to be the reason for this sudden and significant increase.

'We do not consider it possible to apportion the extent to which the increase in Ms Williams' pay was attributable to concerns regarding her sex or race.. but rather that her being a black woman gave her a negotiating leverage to increase... her pay and as a result she benefited from what arguably constituted positive discrimination in her favour.

'We find that the Respondent viewed the Claimant as a white male to pose little legal and reputational risk should he seek to challenge his renumeration on equality/discrimination grounds.

'We therefore find that the increase in Ms Williams' salary from £165,000 to £185,791 was influenced by the Respondent's concern that the initially proposed differential between her pay and that of the white incumbents could give rise to legal and reputational risks to the Home Office.

'The differential was not due to the difference of sex but rather due to the positive discrimination from which Ms Williams benefited. '

The Employment Judge continued: 'The decision to increase Ms Williams' pay may have constituted positive discrimination in her favour, at least in part is attributable to the Respondent's perception that she as a black woman posed a greater litigation and reputational risk than the Claimant did at the time of his appointment.

'It did not automatically constitute less favourable treatment of the Claimant on account of his race.'

At the time of her appointment, the Treasury was trying to cut costs and discussed paying her a similar salary to that which Mr Parr was later to receive but decided there was a 'risk of a legal challenge on the grounds of discrimination' if they did that.

Mr Parr told an employment tribunal that she got her pay because the Home Office were concerned about 'reputational damage' and assumed he would accept the pay and not bring a claim.

a rather nonsense judgement in my view the judge accepts the previous applicant was placed slightly over the supposed maximum of the pay band, available at the time, based on some combination of her sex and colour. But then doesn't see a case for the next person through the door, even if the pay scales had changed in the meantime, given that he was not afforded the same consideration as he was a white male?

 

[Angilion]

Anyway.

Anyway...the tribunal found that the claimant was indeed discriminated against due to their sex and "race" but concluded that it wasn't illegal because he was a "white" man. Specifically, the judge concluded that it wasn't illegal because he was a man and therefore not entitled to the same legal status as a woman.

Pretty much the opposite of what you claim.

 

[Tony Edwards]

Anyway...the tribunal found that the claimant was indeed discriminated against due to their sex and "race" but concluded that it wasn't illegal because he was a "white" man. Specifically, the judge concluded that it wasn't illegal because he was a man and therefore not entitled to the same legal status as a woman.

Pretty much the opposite of what you claim.

No it found the man wasnt discriminated against because of his race or gender at the time.

'At the time of his appointment, we find that an equivalent black man would have been offered, and paid, the same remuneration as the Claimant.

'Given that the benchmarking exercise had been undertaken, and the new salary scales set after Ms Williams' appointment the Respondent has reason to pay a different salary to the Claimant.