Racist Bake sale - pretty cool idea...

[Castiel]

Sorry (actually, no, I'm not. Instinctive manners, and all that), but I'm (simply) not going to be impartial when faced with a discriminatory scenario, whether it be linguistically, or factually, accurate.

Were you so partisan against the White minority in Zimbabwe under apartheid?

don't understand the second part of your sentence though.

That's not the only part you do not understand it seems.

 

[Castiel]

I had to read that part twice, I read it wrong the first time.

 

[Gepetto]

What is incredible is that you cannot seem to understand that it depends on the specific application and nature of the action taken and not based on a sweeping generalisation, even when it has been explained numerous times. It isn't promotion by skin colour either, it is promotion of disadvantaged groups to enable them to have equal opportunity to fulfil their potential and ability, the fact that the disadvantaged groups are thus disadvantaged because of their colour or sex or economic situation is moot, it is the disadvantage they endure that needs redress.

Clearly you do not, and yes I realise you are a White Zimbawean and have valid issue with the Mugabe regime and his policies, nonetheless that doesn't mean that you understand the difference between promoting equal opportunities by positive action and a racial pogrom because clearly you do not if you think the civil rights movement in the United States in any way compares to Robert Mugabe's policies against the White population in Zimbabwe.

Like I said. No idea. Who said I was white BTW?

You are blinkered. Face it, you don't believe in merit at all, you'd rather a disadvantaged (in your opinion) person got a "leg up", and you cannot even concieve that it might be to the detriment of some other person. That's all right, they were probably better off to begin with, and now that they are the one that won't get the Uni/job position doesn't seem to cross your radar, because you've helped some poor downtrodden soul, who may, or may not, take full advantage of their handout.

There is always a loser in the way you want things done.

 

[Gepetto]

Were you so partisan against the White minority in Zimbabwe under apartheid?

Actually, I was still at school during Zimbabwe's independence struggle.

That's not the only part you do not understand it seems.

Pray, explain it then. Keep it simple mind.

 

[badcompany]

Harriot harmen would like this!

 

[Castiel]

Like I said. No idea. Who said I was white BTW?

You are blinkered. Face it, you don't believe in merit at all, you'd rather a disadvantaged (in your opinion) person got a "leg up", and you cannot even concieve that it might be to the detriment of some other person. That's all right, they were probably better off to begin with, and now that they are the one that won't get the Uni/job position doesn't seem to cross your radar, because you've helped some poor downtrodden soul, who may, or may not, take full advantage of their handout.

There is always a loser in the way you want things done.

I'm not blinkered my friend, you are blind. blind to what I have repeatedly said in this thread regarding the disproportionate effect on other groups and the need to make sure that doesn't happen.

You are also blind to the fact that I am opposed to affirmative action in allocating university places for that very reason as I have said time and again throughout this thread.

I am for equal opportunities and equal facility to take advantage of those opportunities, unlike you who seems all for keeping the ethnic minorities in their supposed place.

As to your ethnicity, are you stating you are a black Scotsman who grew up in Zimbabwe? Was this before or after Apartheid?

 

[Castiel]

Actually, I was still at school during Zimbabwe's independence struggle.

So, does that mean you have no opinion either then or now?

We are still waiting for you to explain how the American Civil Rights movement and President Kennedy's Affirmative Action policy is comparable to Robert Mugabe's Africanisation Policy?

Pray, explain it then. Keep it simple mind.

Read the thread, it has been explained numerous times. To illustrate just a single example:

You are correct, if some had read my first post on this I made it clear that I do not support higher education selection by anything other than merit, however I do accept that there is a place, especially in American Society for affirmative action particularly in employment and primary and secondary state education.

However, this must be balanced and with careful consideration to the adverse effects it may have on other groups so that it advocates equality and bridging the gaps to achieve that equality without creating an opposing inequality in other demographics.

No to Quotas and Point Allocations, yes to Outreach Campaigns and Employee Support Programs.

All affirmative action programs should be by definition short term measures designed to tackle the disadvantages some groups have because of historical discrimination, they should not be used to create reverse discrimination but to advocate and encourage a level equal playing field regardless of ethnic or gender background.

 

[Deadbeat]

Still with the "inappropriate"? I direct you back to your very next observation.

Ergo, quite appropriate, I thought.

for the most part

As in not all the time - again, we weren't talking about specific instances, but the concept of positive discrimination in general. I'm seeking to highlight that the term is taken as somethin very negative because it has been associated with very negative processes, but taking its meaning as raw shouldn't always lead to assumptions of detrimental discrimination.

Sorry (actually, no, I'm not. Instinctive manners, and all that), but I'm (simply) not going to be impartial when faced with a discriminatory scenario, whether it be linguistically, or factually, accurate.

I don't understand the second part of your sentence though.

Well highlighted in this quote. You hear the term 'positive discrimination' or even just 'discrimination' and immediately you take offence to the idea. The last sentence was essentially warding against just that:

That shouldn't stop someone from being impartial when such a scheme is labelled thus out of linguistic accuracy and with an academic disregard for the connotations it may recall to the ignorant.

In other words, a process may or should rightfully be called positive discrimination but one shouldn't automatically take it in negative consideration.

 

[Gepetto]

I'm not blinkered my friend, you are blind. blind to what I have repeatedly said in this thread regarding the disproportionate effect on other groups and the need to make sure that doesn't happen.

You are also blind to the fact that I am opposed to affirmative action in allocating university places for that very reason as I have said time and again throughout this thread.

I am for equal opportunities and equal facility to take advantage of those opportunities, unlike you who seems all for keeping the ethnic minorities in their supposed place.

You are pro what you call "Positive Discrimination", so, to my mind, you are not for "equal opportunities" at all. You want certain people to get certain advantages. My argument is in who gets to decide.

Where on Earth do you get the impression that I (or you) have a "supposed place"? Perhaps you think I should confine myself to Scotland, or go back to Africa?

Because I disagree with "Positive Discrimination" does not mean I disagree with "Equal Opportunities". They are opposites, in actual fact, and I welcome "Equal Opportunities" on all levels, which brings me back to my original comments regarding cake.

 

[Gepetto]

So, does that mean you have no opinion either then or now?

No, it doesn't. The opinions that I had at school, however, might have changed, although I have never been a person who favoured discrimination in any way.

Read the thread, it has been explained numerous times. To illustrate just a single example:

It was merely a sentence that I was unsure of, and you seem to be unable to appraise me of its meaning. I see that the writer has now clarified it, which amply indicates that you don't know what I was talking about.

 

[Castiel]

You are pro what you call "Positive Discrimination", so, to my mind, you are not for "equal opportunities" at all. You want certain people to get certain advantages. My argument is in who gets to decide.

You just don't understand, that is all. I cannot help that you have no the facility to see that you cannot have an equality policy without an equal playing field and that encouraging and helping those from disadvantaged backgrounds is not promoting inequality, it is about creating a even playing field for all.


Equal opportunities is exactly that equal, if you begin from a disadvantage to begin with then it is not equal is it.

Society decides.

Where on Earth do you get the impression that I (or you) have a "supposed place"? Perhaps you think I should confine myself to Scotland, or go back to Africa?

I don't think you should confine yourself anywhere, neither do I think anyone has a place, I think that you do actually harbour those ideas due in part to your upbringing under minority rule. You certainly cannot seem to comprehend that without opportunity there can be no equality and without addressing the historical discrimination and disadvantage of certain groups you cannot have equal opportunities as one group is more advantaged than another from the outset.

Because I disagree with "Positive Discrimination" does not mean I disagree with "Equal Opportunities". They are opposites, in actual fact, and I welcome "Equal Opportunities" on all levels, which brings me back to my original comments regarding cake.

If you welcome equal opportunities then you must accept that we must work to supply those opportunities to disadvantaged groups who currently do not have those opportunities, or do you feel that we should continue to operate from an unequal playing field which skews equality policies in favour of one group over another without attempting to redress the balance.

 

[Gepetto]

In other words, a process may or should rightfully be called positive discrimination but one shouldn't automatically take it in negative consideration.

Thanks. You've stated your viewpoint far more coherently than some others, and perhaps I should consider my own negative impressions of the phrase. Perhaps I am ignorant.

My continuing argument is, and always will be, who gets to decide? It is a very slippery slope, and people's good intentions often give rise to endless resentment.

 

[Castiel]

It was merely a sentence that I was unsure of, and you seem to be unable to appraise me of its meaning. I see that the writer has now clarified it, which amply indicates that you don't know what I was talking about.

I knew precisely what you were talking about which is why I stated it wasn't the ONLY thing you didn't understand. You asked for an explanation of why it wasn't the only thing you didn't understand and I gave you an example of another.

Another sign of your level of comprehension of multifaceted ideas, or rather lack of.

As for clarity on the actual sentence that was not for me to explain, that was for Deadbeat who has subsequently done so.

 

[CmJared]

I'm surprised there is no discount for the LGBT community.

 

[Deadbeat]

Thanks. You've stated your viewpoint far more coherently than some others, and perhaps I should consider my own negative impressions of the phrase.

My continuing argument is, and always will be, who gets to decide? It is a very slippery slope, and people's good intentions often give rise to endless resentment.

I agree on that part - as I've mentioned, I'm an idealist at root and more prone to extrapolate back to realism from that than to start with what I have and work upwards. Even still, I recognise how woefully inadequate we are as a society to follow through with decisions for the greater good - altruism is simply not profitable enough

I'm surprised there is no discount for the LGBT community.

There's no disparity of homosexual and transgender student populations. You really need to start thinking before you open your mouth, or everybody you ever meet is going to dismiss you as a moron.

 

[JCBeastie]

/Sashays up to a native, requests they buy up all the cookies and offers shiny beads in return...

Profit!

 

[RDM]

As a matter of interest Gepetto, how do you feel the problems with racism in the US and the UK should in fact be dealt with? Taking the issue raised in the OP as an example?

 

[kokuten]

if that was the other way round.... explosions.....

 

[CmJared]

There's no disparity of homosexual and transgender student populations. You really need to start thinking before you open your mouth, or everybody you ever meet is going to dismiss you as a moron.

You really hurt my feelings

 

[Castiel]

Thanks. You've stated your viewpoint far more coherently than some others, and perhaps I should consider my own negative impressions of the phrase.

Let me take this from another angle:

It is (or at least should be) about correcting pre-existing inequalities, if you do not then equality policies only reinforce those pre-existing inequalities and do nothing for racial justice.

As time progresses the need for such affirmative action is lessened, the US need less now than in 1960 for example, which is why such policies must be short term less they create reverse inequality and become counter productive, that is not to say that the US has no need of them, only that the need has lessened and more care is now needed in their application (as in University Allocation).

Affirmative Action should not seek to discriminate against anyone, whereas discrimination seeks to exclude or prejudice against someone, affirmative action is about inclusion and making special effort to create that inclusive situation. an example I read went along the lines of treating a bodily deficiency with vitamin tablets, in a healthy balanced person vitamins can be damaging, whereas in a sick person they can restore the balance. Affirmative Action should be akin to that.

This is why I can support one kind of affirmative action policy such as outreach campaigns which encourage and support people from disadvantaged background to apply for better schools and employment programs which encourage and support people from those background to get the qualification needed to compete in an equal society and so on.

I do not support affirmative action where it seeks to replace one qualified person with another less qualified person simply because of their colour or disadvantaged background, neither do I support programs which allocate points or quotas to give a false impression of equality or to socially engineer equality while bringing down the quality and advantage of the majority rather than increasing the quality and advantage of the minority.

I believe in social and racial justice and you cannot achieve that without first addressing the pre-existing inequalities in a society.

I hope that is rather more coherent than my previous posts and puts across my point of view in a less adversarial way.