Race report: 'UK not deliberately rigged against ethnic minorities'

FoxEye said:
Your beliefs as expressed (the sum of) are highly contradictory and conflicting.

I'm surprised you can't see it.

Here's a hint: most/all "affirmative action" schemes are drawn along the lines of race and sex.

You stated that these schemes do not disadvantage the other races/sexes that don't benefit.

When asked if you agreed with equality of outcome you went off on a tangent about "diversity". Then said that "white people are diverse" but that didn't stop the need for "more diversity". You used this as a justification of "affirmative action" schemes. Run along the lines of race and sex.

Hence you must believe that skin colour determines many things about a person, such that having a workforce with many different skin colours guarantees a workforce with a "more diverse" set of ideas/experiences.

None of what you said is the slightest bit convincing, and as a package the sum total of what you said barely makes any sense as a coherent position. *Unless* you believe that people with different skin colour can't be similar. Either in upbringing, experience, or equality of opportunity.
Click to expand...

Allow me to spell it out for you.

On the whole, I agree with the report and its position that many outcome differences can be explained by factors other than current institutional or structural racism.

That doesn't mean we should take no action to try to address or manage the impact of both the causes and effects of these disparities.

I reject the notion that the simple existence of targeted or, if you prefer, discriminatory, programs or rules for specific things results in a net disadvantage for those not part of the target group. It's simplistic nonsense.

You appear to demand I support one extreme or the other, either an absolute acceptance of structural racism and a demand for equality of outcome, or an absolute rejection of any claim of racism and a demand for any form of consideration for disadvantage be removed. I reject both, and the false dichotomy it creates.
 
Skunkworks said:
"Net".
Click to expand...

When looking on a gross level, women's toilets are discriminatory, because men can't use them, irrespective of whether mens toilets also exist.

When looking at the net impact, men are not impacted by the existence of women's toilets, because men's toilets exist.

This is the essence of most of my somewhat flippant posts, looking at examples in isolation is dumb.
 
Skunkworks said:
If toilets came in either pairs of male/female, or female alone, but never male alone, would males be at a disadvantage?
Click to expand...

The comparison you are looking looking is pairs or gender neutral and female only, and no, they wouldn't be, especially if (for whatever reason) there was low utilisation of the gender neutral facilities by females.
 
Dolph said:
Now who is advocating equality of outcome.
Click to expand...
Why do you continue to make ridiculous comparisons?

Is it because you've shown no data on the actual subject matter, and are reaching to find something (nonsensical) to compare to, that you think means you have a point? I don't think you do, and your comparisons are as ridiculous as ever.

The fact is, there are discriminatory policies that benefit non-whites and non-males.

The only data people such as yourself point to to justify these policies is data on outcomes. Every. Single. Time. Like number of black CEOs, number of black people in prison, etc, etc.

Forgive me bit it's quite boring.

The only concrete proof of systemic/institutional racism is given when somebody highlights all these affirmative action policies. Something tangible. Something real.

And then you claim it's not a "net" discrimination because of something believed, something felt, something proclaimed. That something being "institutional racism." For which we're still struggling to find any concrete proof...
 
I'm not getting sold on this toilet based explanation of downside free reserving of jobs for women/minorities.

There can't BE an advantage given to women/minorities if it's not coming from reducing opportunities for everyone else.

Is there some undisclosed part of this where it's justified as downside free by other measurements.
 
Hotwired said:
I'm not getting sold on this toilet based explanation of downside free reserving of jobs for women/minorities.

There can't BE an advantage given to women/minorities if it's not coming from reducing opportunities for everyone else.

Is there some undisclosed part of this where it's justified as downside free by other measurements.
Click to expand...

Do you agree with (for example) scholarships/bursaries to private schools for people on low incomes?

They discriminate after all.
 
Dolph said:
Do you agree with (for example) scholarships/bursaries to private schools for people on low incomes?

They discriminate after all.
Click to expand...
That is whataboutery to a high degree, they discriminate on grounds of ability and sometimes need. The school I attended in the sixties had places for the sons in single parent families. Quite obviously race was not an issue as many children of several nationalities got there.
 
Dolph said:
Do you agree with (for example) scholarships/bursaries to private schools for people on low incomes?

They discriminate after all.
Click to expand...
They don't discriminate on age, ethnicity or sex though. They just allocate a certain amount of money to particularly high achieving pupils. Those children still, in most cases, have to pass a very tough test and are the top performing children. e.g. 95% of the intake would be those children who achieved the highest rating in the induction test and interviews regardless of which school they fed from and then the remaining 5% on the same highest performing criteria but only from the state sector. Of that entire group, a very, very, very small number will receive a bursary to help their parents fund their place. It really is just a tiny number and the child first has to pass their tough selection criteria on performance.

Incidentally it's a bit of a whizz to make people think the school is being altruistic when in actual fact many private schools fund the bursary with donations from the other fee paying parents.
 
Dolph said:
Do you agree with (for example) scholarships/bursaries to private schools for people on low incomes?

They discriminate after all.
Click to expand...
AFAIK you have to pass an entrance exam, and for scholarships you have to be really exceptional student to benefit from one. To my knowledge they don't give bursaries just because you're poor - you have to be poor and exceptional. And it's very arguable that you aren't getting the bursary because you're poor but because you're exceptional, and sadly also poor.

Also, income is able to be measured fairly accurately. It's not some vague or ambiguous thing. "Institutional racism" isn't able to be measured/demonstrated, that we've seen so far.

So this is yet another deflection. Yet again we're not getting data on the actual issue at hand, but another tangent/utterly different situation that is supposed to be analogous, but isn't.
 
FoxEye said:
And it's very arguable that you aren't getting the bursary because you're poor but because you're exceptional, and sadly also poor.
Click to expand...
This is correct. It's to the schools benefit to attract extremely capable pupils because it pushes their average pass rate up in the league tables.
 
It's all based on the incredibly simplistic thinking that if [group] is under represented in [situation], then [situation] is discriminating against [group].

Like gardening:


Or the outdoors:

This Black British hiker is tackling exclusion from the outdoors

Rhiane Fatinikun started a hiking group for Black women in 2019

A diversity gap in outdoor activities means a disproportionate share of visitors to public parks are white.

In the US, around 90% of visitors to public parks are white, despite making up about 60% of the population.

One UK hiker has created a community for women of colour to help make outdoor activities more inclusive.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020...-tackling-exclusion-outdoors-systemic-racism/
Click to expand...

We’re getting to a point where any activity mostly enjoyed by white people will automatically be deemed racist, because the only evidence you need is representation.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, that's interesting.

So if outdoor groups/clubs accept black people, white people and basically all comers... they are absolutely still racist if the club doesn't contain sufficient black members. Erm, OK then.

And the way to fix it is... unashamed racial discrimination! A black-only members club! Appartheid!

You couldn't make it up.

But more than that - the word "exclusion". The phrase "outdoor exclusion". How can anybody take this seriously? There has never been any impediment to black people experiencing the outdoors, barring those common to all people (i.e. disability/mobility impediment).

You don't even need to be a member of anything to visit a public park. What is going on with these people? If black people wanted to visit a public park, they can just... do it? What kind of systemic racism is stopping them from visiting a public park at will?

This stuff just blows my mind :p
 
Bassmansam said:
I wonder if people would experience these injustices if they moved to a majority black/brown/whatever country.
Click to expand...

No no, no white person ever experienced racism in Pakistan or Africa.

Not to mention the levels of sexism in these countries.

It is no secret that Africa is still a patriarchal society that treats women and girls as second-class citizens. Over time, men have been given prominence both in public and in private. From installing practices that are harmful to the girl and women to giving boys prominence in education, some communities are still using sexist codes that are not only detrimental to women but to the society at large.

It is therefore not surprising that some African countries went ahead and added these sexist codes in their laws and regulations. As recent as 2009, Nigeria required a married woman to have a letter of consent from her husband so that they could be issued a passport. This was because the law categorised married women as minors and thus they needed consent from the ‘head of the family’.
Click to expand...


Thats institutionalised sexism. You don't see that replicated by race in the UK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom