Stormzy Cambridge Scholorship

As crappy as it may seem, history has shown the black community has been discriminated against for decades, opportunities have been made difficult and expectations to succeed are lower because they are not white. Yes, it still happens today in 2018. Stormzy has come along and said "lets make something just that bit easier for a few people because black people are still seen as the underdogs in the world."

If a white person did the same for only white people then of course it would be seen as racist because white people have it easier in life from day one compared to their darker skinned counter parts, so why make it more easier for them as it is already.

Its not fair and not right as everyone should be entitled to the same opportunities no matter what their skin colour is but we all know life doesn't work like that. In the same way, if a man sleeps with 50 women then he's a legend but if a woman sleeps with 50 men then she's a whore.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
its media bait to do exactly as intended. people hooked.
Click to expand...
Raise the issue of on-going discrimination and flush out the sort of outdated racism most would have otherwise thought had been consigned to history, you mean? Yup. It's definitely done what it was intended to do.
 
malachi said:
As crappy as it may seem, history has shown the black community has been discriminated against for decades, opportunities have been made difficult and expectations to succeed are lower because they are not white. Yes, it still happens today in 2018. Stormzy has come along and said "lets make something just that bit easier for a few people because black people are still seen as the underdogs in the world."

If a white person did the same for only white people then of course it would be seen as racist because white people have it easier in life from day one compared to their darker skinned counter parts, so why make it more easier for them as it is already.

Its not fair and not right as everyone should be entitled to the same opportunities no matter what their skin colour is but we all know life doesn't work like that. [..]
Click to expand...

Because of people like you, who excuse and promote irrational prejudice and discrimination. You don't think everyone should be entitled to the same opportunities no matter what their skin colour is. You explicitly oppose that position.

Everyone who approves of irrational prejudice and discrimination has an excuse for it. The excuses fall into one of three broad categories:

1) <insert group here> is inherently superior and deserves preferential treatment.
2) <insert groups here> are inherently different and so should be treated differently.
3) <insert group here> is privileged and should be discriminated against because discrimination is "equality".

Of course, they all require a belief in group identity, a belief in the most basic foundation of irrational prejudice - "they're all the same".

Generally, (3) is the most effective approach because (1) and (2) usually require the prejudice and discrimination to already be deeply engrained. Even if they are, (3) is usually still the most effective choice because it makes believers feel righteous when promoting the desired irrational prejudice and discrimination. Hence, for example, propaganda such as the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
 
antijoke said:
I bet the law of averages says poor white kids don't get an offer to go to Cambridge Uni.
Click to expand...
I did. I also got a full scholarship for poor gifted children to my grammar school. The criteria was that you had to live within 10 miles of the school. The excluded every black kid in the country so I presume that was racist as well?
 
Greebo said:
I did. I also got a full scholarship for poor gifted children to my grammar school. The criteria was that you had to live within 10 miles of the school. The excluded every black kid in the country so I presume that was racist as well?
Click to expand...

No as that was location based. Not race. That wasn't a very good school it seems.
 
I wonder what the correlation is between being outraged by this but yet also wanting to be near people of their own 'culture' and people who are like themselves. I've not read the whole thread but I'm sure there are people who contradict themselves on this matter. But that's OK because, as individuals, we are never wrong, only other people are wrong.

Having said that, surely he could have done this for 'disadvantaged' people?
 
garnett said:
What an insidious strawman argument you've constructed there.
Click to expand...

If you really think that, you will be able to explain why.

I won't hold my breath waiting for that explanation because I think you don't have one. I think you lack a counter-argument and are attempting to dismiss my post by declaring it <insert bad thing here> for no reason.

Diddums said:
I think this is all just a Stormzy in a teacup tbh.
Click to expand...

Bravo!
 
Angilion said:
If you really think that, you will be able to explain why.

I won't hold my breath waiting for that explanation because I think you don't have one. I think you lack a counter-argument and are attempting to dismiss my post by declaring it <insert bad thing here> for no reason.
Click to expand...
In your own style of pseudo-authoritive logic-looking argument, you've created an artificially bound set of possible reasons for the action which comprise <insert bad thing 1 here>, <insert bad thing 2 here>, <insert bad thing 3 here> without including <insert good thing here>.

If your original point is to stand, you need to show why positive discrimination is isn't a reasonable response to discrimination.
 
Angilion said:
Because of people like you, who excuse and promote irrational prejudice and discrimination. You don't think everyone should be entitled to the same opportunities no matter what their skin colour is. You explicitly oppose that position.

Everyone who approves of irrational prejudice and discrimination has an excuse for it. The excuses fall into one of three broad categories:

1) <insert group here> is inherently superior and deserves preferential treatment.
2) <insert groups here> are inherently different and so should be treated differently.
3) <insert group here> is privileged and should be discriminated against because discrimination is "equality".

Of course, they all require a belief in group identity, a belief in the most basic foundation of irrational prejudice - "they're all the same".

Generally, (3) is the most effective approach because (1) and (2) usually require the prejudice and discrimination to already be deeply engrained. Even if they are, (3) is usually still the most effective choice because it makes believers feel righteous when promoting the desired irrational prejudice and discrimination. Hence, for example, propaganda such as the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Click to expand...

What the blinking hell are you chatting about?!?!?!
 
Angilion said:
Because of people like you, who excuse and promote irrational prejudice and discrimination. You don't think everyone should be entitled to the same opportunities no matter what their skin colour is. You explicitly oppose that position.

Everyone who approves of irrational prejudice and discrimination has an excuse for it. The excuses fall into one of three broad categories:

1) <insert group here> is inherently superior and deserves preferential treatment.
2) <insert groups here> are inherently different and so should be treated differently.
3) <insert group here> is privileged and should be discriminated against because discrimination is "equality".

Of course, they all require a belief in group identity, a belief in the most basic foundation of irrational prejudice - "they're all the same".

Generally, (3) is the most effective approach because (1) and (2) usually require the prejudice and discrimination to already be deeply engrained. Even if they are, (3) is usually still the most effective choice because it makes believers feel righteous when promoting the desired irrational prejudice and discrimination. Hence, for example, propaganda such as the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Click to expand...

er no - in this case your '3' which is worded to ignore the reasonable arguments in favour of positive discrimination/affirmative action is not even applicable in this case. If it was a state-run scholarship program for black kids only then you could make a 'white people being discriminated against' argument. however, it is not, it is a private citizen attempting to positively improve the situation of some people in a group that have been discriminated against historically and ongoing and so start from a position of disadvantage relative to others. It is practically the ideal form of positive discrimination, as there's no 'negative' side to it. If he wasn't allowed to do this, there would be no scholarships from him to anyone.
 
garnett said:
In your own style of pseudo-authoritive logic-looking argument, you've created an artificially bound set of possible reasons for the action which comprise <insert bad thing 1 here>, <insert bad thing 2 here>, <insert bad thing 3 here> without including <insert good thing here>.
Click to expand...

There is no <insert good thing here> about irrational prejudice and discrimination. That's the crux of where we disagree - I think that irrational prejudice and discrimination is a bad thing, you think that irrational prejudice and discrimination is a good thing.

If your original point is to stand, you need to show why positive discrimination is isn't a reasonable response to discrimination.
Click to expand...

I don't regard irrational prejudice and discrimination as being a positive thing. You do. Like everyone who thinks irrational prejudice and discrimination is a positive thing, you do so only when the group identity (or identities) you are irrationally prejudiced against are the target.

Thank you for demonstrating my argument, by the way. You're using excuse number 3 on my list to rationalise the irrational prejudice and discrimination you approve of.

Applying the same excuse, it would be a positive thing for me to steal money from a random person with black hair because someone with black hair once stole some money from me. Same group identity, so it's not only justified but a positive thing, a good thing.
 
DreadNiK said:
er no - in this case your '3' which is worded to ignore the reasonable arguments in favour of positive discrimination/affirmative action [..]
Click to expand...

I reject the claim that irrational prejudice and discrimination is a positive thing. There are no reasonable arguments in favour of irrational prejudice and discrimination because it isn't a reasonable thing.
 
Angilion said:
There is no <insert good thing here> about irrational prejudice and discrimination. That's the crux of where we disagree - I think that irrational prejudice and discrimination is a bad thing, you think that irrational prejudice and discrimination is a good thing.



I don't regard irrational prejudice and discrimination as being a positive thing. You do. Like everyone who thinks irrational prejudice and discrimination is a positive thing, you do so only when the group identity (or identities) you are irrationally prejudiced against are the target.

Thank you for demonstrating my argument, by the way. You're using excuse number 3 on my list to rationalise the irrational prejudice and discrimination you approve of.

Applying the same excuse, it would be a positive thing for me to steal money from a random person with black hair because someone with black hair once stole some money from me. Same group identity, so it's not only justified but a positive thing, a good thing.
Click to expand...
Yet more strawman arguments from you - trying to artificially bind this subject matter as purely "irrational prejudice and discrimination" when you're unable to support your fallacious basis.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think you're doing this deliberately - you just can't see the fundamental flaw in the logic with which you're going at this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom