Disgusting display of Racism

[Zatoichi.uK]

Some would argue that equality doesn't go far enough and that it's 'equity' that we need to strive for.

Equality means everyone is treated the same.
Equity means that everyone is bought up to the same level.

The thing that should be noted here is that none of them paid to see the game.

 

[Chris Wilson]

The thing that should be noted here is that none of them paid to see the game.

Oh, yes, nice one, big chortle here!

 

[bloodiedathame]

The thing that should be noted here is that none of them paid to see the game.

Try approaching the concept less literally. Equality and Equity can be thought about in more ways than financial; eg opportunities, treatment.

 

[BallistixOnZ490]

Try approaching the concept less literally. Equality and Equity can be thought about in more ways than financial; eg opportunities, treatment.

This kind of reminds me of previous outrage over it apparently being racist that there were no or very few black people going to national parks. This was labelled as an example of white supremacy and institutional racism.

Explain how it is white peoples fault if non white people generally don't have an interest in going to such national parks or similar places?

 

[bloodiedathame]

This was labelled as an example of white supremacy and institutional racism.

By whom? One nutter on Twitter?

Explain how it is white peoples fault if non white people generally don't have an interest in going to such national parks or similar places?

There's nothing to explain, people like different stuff.

 

[Chris Wilson]

This kind of reminds me of previous outrage over it apparently being racist that there were no or very few black people going to national parks. This was labelled as an example of white supremacy and institutional racism.

Explain how it is white peoples fault if non white people generally don't have an interest in going to such national parks or similar places?

It's in the name "national"? All English parks should be named after famous people of colour. Hyde Park becomes "Idi (Dadda) Amin Park", Regent's Park becomes "Robert Mugabe Park". You get the picture. Let's see if the students cry foul about that...

The leader of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus would like the latter, seeing he was vetoed from making his mate the butcher Mugabe an envoy for the World Health Organisation. Yes, really!

 

[Dis86]

I thought it assumed that races are all equal but treatment hasn't been. Colour me confused!

So what if treatment hasn't been? We're not in the past, we're in the present where everyone in this country is equal under the eyes of the law.

Well, unless you're white British. Then you're actually inferior as there are laws to protect everyone else that don't apply to you. For example I can refuse to employ someone because they're white in favour of someone who is black. I can't do that the other way around.

 

[Jean-F]

So what if treatment hasn't been? We're not in the past, we're in the present where everyone in this country is equal under the eyes of the law.

Well, unless you're white British. Then you're actually inferior as there are laws to protect everyone else that don't apply to you. For example I can refuse to employ someone because they're white in favour of someone who is black. I can't do that the other way around.

I’m not sure that that’s true, even if you feel that you would like to equalise your amount of black employees to the same amount as you have white employees, but I’m open to being proved wrong.

 

[Zatoichi.uK]

Try approaching the concept less literally. Equality and Equity can be thought about in more ways than financial; eg opportunities, treatment.

It is a nice cosy picture but you seem to be arguing for equality of outcome, i.e. communism. It's covered pretty well in various places if you care to read up.

https://www.steveglaveski.com/blog/why-equality-of-outcome-is-a-bad-idea

https://youtu.be/TkVwYOYrxWM

The 20th century is littered with examples of it's failure, often resulting in millions of deaths. The road to hell is paved with good intentions as they say.

 

[BallistixOnZ490]

By whom? One nutter on Twitter?

.

No it was a highly documented case across the main liberal newspapers, National Parks are somehow racist because black people don't go to them, and this is somehow white peoples fault.

 

[Dis86]

I’m not sure that that’s true, even if you feel that you would like to equalise your amount of black employees to the same amount as you have white employees, but I’m open to being proved wrong.

Its in black and white in the Equality Act 2010.

"As of April 2011, positive action can also be exercised within recruitment and promotion in cases where the employer reasonably believes that there is a lack of representation. This allows an employer, when making hiring decisions, to select a candidate from a group that is disadvantaged or under-represented"

 

[Thekwango]

"As of April 2011, positive action can also be exercised within recruitment and promotion in cases where the employer reasonably believes that there is a lack of representation. This allows an employer, when making hiring decisions, to select a candidate from a group that is disadvantaged or under-represented"

so if white people were under-represented within your workforce you could actively seek to employ a white person rather than a person of any other 'colour' ?

 

[BallistixOnZ490]

so if white people were under-represented within your workforce you could actively seek to employ a white person rather than a person of any other 'colour' ?

I think they would apply all that 'systemic bullcrap' in such a situation and because normally white people are never at a disadvantage in their own countries (Wow, who would've thought so?), therefore they can never be perceived as disadvantaged or under represented.

 

[Chris Wilson]

so if white people were under-represented within your workforce you could actively seek to employ a white person rather than a person of any other 'colour' ?

You mean if you were running a "County Lines" type operation?

 

[Dis86]

so if white people were under-represented within your workforce you could actively seek to employ a white person rather than a person of any other 'colour' ?

Arguably, yes.

 

[Bear]

Arguably, yes.

Then the law doesnt make white people inferior then does it, all it does is enable employers to recruit under represented people in the bid to be more representative. It just happens that in a predominantly white country, the likelihood of the above scenario happening is literally non existent but everyone is still equal under the law

 

[bloodiedathame]

So what if treatment hasn't been? We're not in the past, we're in the present where everyone in this country is equal under the eyes of the law.

Well, unless you're white British. Then you're actually inferior as there are laws to protect everyone else that don't apply to you. For example I can refuse to employ someone because they're white in favour of someone who is black. I can't do that the other way around.

Not sure what rock you're living under, but facts and reality are very different things.

However, I agree that positive discrimination exists, but I've yet to hear a short term solution for what is a long term problem.

 

[Roar87]

Then the law doesnt make white people inferior then does it, all it does is enable employers to recruit under represented people in the bid to be more representative. It just happens that in a predominantly white country, the likelihood of the above scenario happening is literally non existent but everyone is still equal under the law

The problem is which stats do you use to decide what is representative? My company has decided that it isn't diverse enough, which isn't really surprising to me because they're looking at national statistics to decide how diverse we should be when the company is based up North which is predominantly white people. So if you want the company to be about 15% non white people but the area you're mostly hiring from is 97% white then it's likely you're going to struggle. But of course the people setting these targets aren't concerned with logic

 

[Bear]

The problem is which stats do you use to decide what is representative? My company has decided that it isn't diverse enough, which isn't really surprising to me because they're looking at national statistics to decide how diverse we should be when the company is based up North which is predominantly white people. So if you want the company to be about 15% non white people but the area you're mostly hiring from is 97% white then it's likely you're going to struggle. But of course the people setting these targets aren't concerned with logic

Agreed, I would have thought the local demographic would be fair for representation

 

[Nitefly]

I've been musing over this topic for some time and still haven't been able to land my feet on what I feel is a solid position on the specific topic at hand. I guess it's just complicated. But I'll share my thoughts / ideas, why not.

I acknowledge that there is factually some discrimination based on skin colour going on here. Only a specific class of persons may apply, which is discriminatory to the other classes of persons. Yet, I can't say I share the sentiment of the thread title: "disgusting display of racism". It just doesn't feel to me that it warrants that sort of aggressive labelling and I guess that's down to a number of reasons (all overlapping, but different in nuance):

- First, this all relates to a benefit conferred to a limited and discrete number of a class of persons (upon their application). The benefit conferred brings those that receive it to a highly elevated position (enjoyed by very few persons of any class). I feel that this is definitely not the same as invoking a blanket wanton disadvantage against a specific class.

- Secondly, the act of the discrimination is charitable in nature (rather than deliberately punitive).

- Thirdly, to me this feels more 'inadvertently discriminatory' than 'ugly racist'. Again, I agree that it is discriminatory. To my mind, a 'crude act of racism' would be some sort of deliberately malicious attack. This scholarship does not seem to be inherently malicious.

So, yeah, it doesn't really strike me as a "disgusting display of racism" at all (I find the statement a little hysterical). I do nevertheless find the scholarship a little clumsy, in that it perpetuates a 'tit-for-tat' back and forth of aggrieved persons (which I refer to again below).

Other key questions, then: "is discrimination like this inherently 'bad?". I'm still not sure. I can break that down further into: "is discrimination always inherently bad?" and "is discrimination based on race always disgusting?". I find myself leaning towards answering both with: "it's complicated - it always depends on the circumstances and in particularly how deliberate, malicious and punitive the disadvantage/discrimination actually is".

Then, when can discrimination based on race be justified? If not for charitable purposes, perhaps for health and safety? If statistically in a population, a particular class of person is more likely to carry out criminal activity, should that class be targeted for 'stop and search' purposes? That would be discriminatory. Is that OK? In my view, it depends.

I guess the only strong conclusion I can draw is that I don't think it's helpful for anyone (on any 'side') to be so 'binary' in their reaction to matters that affect group X or Y, inadvertently or not. It will just end up in a sorry and inflammatory 'tit-for-tat' where aggressive language is thrown around anywhere without anything progressing.

I'm reminded of the interplay between law and equity; it's an intellectual sinkhole to apply the same rigid thinking to the facts ("there is discrimination and discrimination is always violently bad") and sometimes you need to be a little flexible to end up with true justice and fairness.

Otherwise, I have no strong views.

Again, just some thoughts / ideas.