Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    And of course "positive discrimination", "affirmative action" or whatever else you might call it is really only another form of racism...
    followed by:

    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, OK but you get the idea of what I'm driving at so no need to reach for the dictionary to prove you know that R comes after Q and before S..........
    It is so ironic that you should talk "spirit of the original observation being well understood." Please the my repost above. Now consider a recruiter recruiting 5 out of 100 non white applicants*. This IS racism by the definititions we have established. if the same recruiter is suggested to improve this ratio a little (but not much) and recuit 10 out of 100 non white applicants, he/she is likely to be thrilled if accused of racism against whites- your only option is to accuse the system of racism. The system which seeks to defeat racism. That is a quite contradictory stance if you accept racism is one of society's illnesses (do you?).

    *assume equal numbers of whites and non whites apply (to simplify things and avoid talk of proportions,stratified samples or general statistical analysis)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Why, oh why, oh why, do so many threads end up with people reaching for the Oxford English to partake in pointless wordplay when the spirit of the original observation is well understood?
    Just incase you don't accept that racism is one of socities illnesses, I thought it might be worth seeing how you defend your illogical "original obsevation":

    (Original post by Howard)
    And of course "positive discrimination", "affirmative action" or whatever else you might call it is really only another form of racism itself...
    Could you point out who you accuse of racism? May I point out a more sophisticated definition (most probably from the Oxford English):

    (Original post by vienna95)

    rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
    n.

    1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

    2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    How? Unless every single black person was disadvantaged, you just can't make that assumption. That is to say, if you see a black person, yes there's a statistically increased likelihood that they're from a poorer background, but it's not definite.
    I think it is important to be bold when addressing these issues. Let me exp,ain:

    This is how it goes for a statistically significant proportion of equally qualified ethnic minoriitties:

    Ethnic minority looks for work;
    faces discrimination;
    settles for a blue collar job;
    has children;
    children lack education and are automatically disadvantaged;
    they grow up;
    also get a blue collar job;

    This is creates an entire sub-society of non white working class. I can't understand why people don't take this seriously.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mariam Safe)
    Just incase you don't accept that racism is one of socities illnesses, I thought it might be worth seeing how you defend your illogical "original obsevation":



    Could you point out who you accuse of racism? May I point out a more sophisticated definition (most probably from the Oxford English):
    hehe, im totally lost, unless you are indeed destroying your original comment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mariam Safe)
    I think it is important to be bold when addressing these issues. Let me exp,ain:

    This is how it goes for a statistically significant proportion of equally qualified ethnic minoriitties:

    Ethnic minority looks for work;
    faces discrimination;
    settles for a blue collar job;
    has children;
    children lack education and are automatically disadvantaged;
    they grow up;
    also get a blue collar job;

    This is creates an entire sub-society of non white working class. I can't understand why people don't take this seriously.
    its the first two lines which consitute the problem/joke i think.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mariam Safe)
    followed by:



    It is so ironic that you should talk "spirit of the original observation being well understood." Please the my repost above. Now consider a recruiter recruiting 5 out of 100 non white applicants*. This IS racism by the definititions we have established. if the same recruiter is suggested to improve this ratio a little (but not much) and recuit 10 out of 100 non white applicants, he/she is likely to be thrilled if accused of racism against whites- your only option is to accuse the system of racism. The system which seeks to defeat racism. That is a quite contradictory stance if you accept racism is one of society's illnesses (do you?).

    *assume equal numbers of whites and non whites apply (to simplify things and avoid talk of proportions,stratified samples or general statistical analysis)
    what on earth are u talking about. if you could try again in more comprehensible logic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    what on earth are u talking about. if you could try again in more comprehensible logic.
    To reply to the first post it is way out of control..... in my city they call a christmas tree a f*cking holiday tree so it doesn't offend people.... and then i have to sit through multicultural week when mine is "offensive" it's such bs. And to respond to the quotas and what not, discrimination to counter discriminatory practices doesn't work.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    what on earth are u talking about.
    preceded by:

    (Original post by vienna95)
    hehe, im totally lost.
    pointless waste of space and effort taking 3 posts to say the same thing. solution: read all my posts on this thread again! It reallt shouldn't that difficult.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    .... i think.
    I'm glad its your opinion. marked improvement on your part.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am feeling some tension here....

    Not worth it guys.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mariam Safe)
    preceded by:



    pointless waste of space and effort taking 3 posts to say the same thing. solution: read all my posts on this thread again! It reallt shouldn't that difficult.
    its hardly pointless when im pointing out that your comments make no sense. for instance the first one, your reply to Howard is completely open-ended. and then you use my definition of racism( that i used to rubbish your claim that positive discrimination wasnt racist), for no apparent reason.

    the second one you take Howards comments completely out of context and then put us through 5 lines of analogy that i could not make sense of.

    instead of highlighting my disappoint, why not try answering the points such as,

    - "if you could try again in more comprehensible logic." i didnt understand.
    - "unless you are indeed destroying your original comment?" - will you retract it?
    - "its the first two lines which consitute the problem/joke i think." - do u have an opinion or more critique that has nothing to do with the post subject?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    what on earth are u talking about. if you could try again in more comprehensible logic.
    Yes, I couldn't digest that either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Yes, I couldn't digest that either.
    I think what I wrote is pretty explicit. Even if you didnt understand the example, you should have been able to work out what I was trying to get across.

    1)You said

    (Original post by Howard)
    And of course "positive discrimination", "affirmative action" or whatever else you might call it is really only another form of racism itself...
    2)I assumed that you accept racism is undesirable for any society

    3)I told you ethnic minorities DO face racism when looking for work, backed it up with an realistic example.

    3)In response to (1), someone (or some group) is racist to someone else (or some other group); its not an ideology that floats in air. So I asked you, who is it that you consider to be racist?

    4)Various bodies, institutions, maybe allied to the government enforce the "quotas" you talk about. I then asked you whether these bodies believe that "race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others" when enforcing such quotas.

    5)I then pointed if you answer no, to the above question, and still assert 1), your views are inconsistent.

    I think it is reasonable to justify why your comment was inaccurate, just by our intrinsic sense of ethics. But it is also possible to justify it using definitions. Maybe I shouldn't have made assumption (2).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mariam Safe)
    I think what I wrote is pretty explicit. Even if you didnt understand the example, you should have been able to work out what I was trying to get across.

    1)You said



    2)I assumed that you accept racism is undesirable for any society

    3)I told you ethnic minorities DO face racism when looking for work, backed it up with an realistic example.

    3)In response to (1), someone (or some group) is racist to someone else (or some other group); its not an ideology that floats in air. So I asked you, who is it that you consider to be racist?

    4)Various bodies, institutions, maybe allied to the government enforce the "quotas" you talk about. I then asked you whether these bodies believe that "race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others" when enforcing such quotas.

    5)I then pointed if you answer no, to the above question, and still assert 1), your views are inconsistent.

    I think it is reasonable to justify why your comment was inaccurate, just by our intrinsic sense of ethics. But it is also possible to justify it using definitions. Maybe I shouldn't have made assumption (2).
    Christ Almighty! Do you just talk in riddles? I'm not going to wade through that lot.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    its hardly pointless when im pointing out that your comments make no sense.
    4th time

    (Original post by vienna95)
    its ...for no apparent reason.
    5th time

    (Original post by vienna95)
    the second one you take Howards comments completely out of context and then put us through 5 lines of analogy that i could not make sense of.
    5.5th time? Are you really lost here too? You could not make sense of my post and yet you mamge to infer that Howards comments completely out of context. Ambiguous.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    - "if you could try again in more comprehensible logic." i didnt understand.
    - "unless you are indeed destroying your original comment?" - will you retract it?
    - "its the first two lines which consitute the problem/joke i think." - do u have an opinion or more critique that has nothing to do with the post subject?
    thanks for saving me the humiliation of trying to make you clarify your questions, you only forgot to answer them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Christ Almighty! Do you just talk in riddles? I'm not going to wade through that lot.
    Then I suggest you don't make such comments?

    (Original post by Howard)
    Yes, I couldn't digest that either.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mariam Safe)
    Then I suggest you don't make such comments?
    Look. It's quite simple. "We especially welcome applications from ethnic minorities who are currently represented in this area" sends out a pretty clear message to me.

    That those who adopt such a policy, faced with two applicants of similar experience and qualifications, will favor the application of the ethnic applicant. That is racism. Period.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm sure you've already spotted it but in the interests of averting a pedantic response I would clarify that I meant to type "underrepresented" and not "represented" in the above post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Look. It's quite simple. "We especially welcome applications from ethnic minorities who are currently represented in this area" sends out a pretty clear message to me.

    That those who adopt such a policy, faced with two applicants of similar experience and qualifications, will favor the application of the ethnic applicant. That is racism. Period.
    I fundementally disagree. I'm not going to stress why, because I've done that 3 times already.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I'm sure you've already spotted it but in the interests of averting a pedantic response I would clarify that I meant to type "underrepresented" and not "represented" in the above post.
    You know there is an edit button... wonder why you had to say that?
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.