Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MaxMaxMax)
    Correct, it is a platform to help minorities to get into IBs, but since white people are banned from entering it, it is racist. Fairly simple concept here.


    I can understand wanting Chinese employees if it's a language issue, for example, but the ugly political dogma behind these 'diversity quotas' is absurd -and they are racist, since they involve discrimination on basis of skin colour. Again, simple concept. As I've said before, over time an 'ethnic balance' will emerge, simply through a meritocratic hiring process

    EDIT: It's getting late now, so even if you will not admit that SEO itself is racist, will you at least admit that since discrimination on basis of skin colour is racist, racial discrimination against white people is equally as racist and unacceptable as racial discrimination against black/brown/tanned people? Because this seems to be a bizarrely difficult hurdle for people's overzealously-anti-racist-leftist-media-brainwashed minds to get over.
    oh gosh i really dont want to repeat my arguments again!

    1. they are not racists because they are to help minorities, and it so happens that the minorities here are the non-whites

    2. SEO's sole purpose is to help these minorities, obviously they dont admit whites! thats like saying the tough and fit club in my secondary school is discriminating against non-obese people because they only admit obese students (i studied in singapore and they do have this club). or the oriental society not admitting whites, they only admit oriental. THAT'S THEIR PURPOSE IN THE FIRST PLACE! so it's not racist. it's group-specific (in this case; the minority which HAPPENS to be non-whites)

    3. firstly, each firm has different reason why they have quota in the first place and who knows it might be to their advantage/it's their vision etc etc. and your definition of racism itself is too vague. "discrimination based on skin color?" quota is not discrimination. if the firm sees diversity as an asset/investment, then they dont discriminate. they have clear vision who they want to hire in the first place (eg. a few browns, lots of whites)

    4. i agree that discrimination on a basis of skin color is racist. i dont agree that SEO is racist (see above why). i dont agree that quota is discrimination (see above).

    yes its late so good night and sleep tight
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MaxMaxMax)
    You miss my point. Regardless of its supposed 'purpose', it bans white applicants -this is why it is racist. Just as, if a BNP-linked organisation banned black applicants, it would be racist
    again, SEO is intended not to admit whites, how hard is that to understand? the purpose IS the defining factor whether it's racist or not. a BNP-linked org which bans black applicants is racist, UNLESS it is stated clearly that its purpose is to help latinos and vietnamese, like in a way what SEO is. like i said before, oriental society is not racist because they dont admit whites. but if the football club doesnt admit chinese, it's racist. oriental football club however, is not racist if it bans white. SIMPLE CONCEPT.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MaxMaxMax)
    And that's an interesting point you raise there about University societies. Despite championing 'diversity', 'multiculturalism' and 'racial integration and inclusion', these societies actually segregate further in their separatist nature. Further absurdities as a 'Chinese football society' or 'Indian athletics club' further segregate the student poulation. Why not just stick to a football society for everyone, an athletics club for everyone, a tennis club for everyone, etc -this would help, rather than hinder, racial integration
    this is another topic altogether but i agree with your point of view.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dabuzz123)
    oh gosh i really dont want to repeat my arguments again!

    1. they are not racists because they are to help minorities, and it so happens that the minorities here are the non-whites
    They ARE racist because they bar white people from applying

    (Original post by dabuzz123)
    2. SEO's sole purpose is to help these minorities, obviously they dont admit whites! thats like saying the tough and fit club in my secondary school is discriminating against non-obese people because they only admit obese students (i studied in singapore and they do have this club). or the oriental society not admitting whites, they only admit oriental. THAT'S THEIR PURPOSE IN THE FIRST PLACE! so it's not racist. it's group-specific (in this case; the minority which HAPPENS to be non-whites)
    The keep fit club point is not a good analogy, since obese people and athletically fit people are inherently different in this sense and have different needs. They shouldn't have this purpose, because the mindset behind this purpose is racist, and although there is nothing wrong with a racist mind, due to the bastion of freedom of thought, acting on it to the disadvantage of anyone IS.

    (Original post by dabuzz123)
    3. firstly, each firm has different reason why they have quota in the first place and who knows it might be to their advantage/it's their vision etc etc. and your definition of racism itself is too vague. "discrimination based on skin color?" quota is not discrimination. if the firm sees diversity as an asset/investment, then they dont discriminate. they have clear vision who they want to hire in the first place (eg. a few browns, lots of whites)
    They should not have this quota or this vision. They should view all applicants/employees/people as equal, regardless of race. What on Earth can a certain race of applicant do better than any other race of applicant? Diversity is something which emerges by itself from a fair and meritocratic society, not something to directly work towards by disadvantaging certain types of 'majority'.

    (Original post by dabuzz123)
    4. i agree that discrimination on a basis of skin color is racist. i dont agree that SEO is racist (see above why). i dont agree that quota is discrimination (see above).
    Do you admit that racial discrimination against white people is equally as racist and unacceptable as racial discrimination against black/brown/tanned people?

    (Original post by dabuzz123)
    again, SEO is intended not to admit whites, how hard is that to understand? the purpose IS the defining factor whether it's racist or not. a BNP-linked org which bans black applicants is racist, UNLESS it is stated clearly that its purpose is to help latinos and vietnamese, like in a way what SEO is.
    What if it states that its purpose is to 'help whites', hence it doesn't accept applicants from any other racial group?

    (Original post by dabuzz123)
    like i said before, oriental society is not racist because they dont admit whites. but if the football club doesnt admit chinese, it's racist. oriental football club however, is not racist if it bans white. SIMPLE CONCEPT.
    Oh so a White Football Club, banning all non-whites, would be acceptable then? :shifty:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    maxmaxmax, I hope SEO is not giving you sleepless night, can you make another thread, about SEO being racist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MaxMaxMax)
    They ARE racist because they bar white people from applying


    The keep fit club point is not a good analogy, since obese people and athletically fit people are inherently different in this sense and have different needs. They shouldn't have this purpose, because the mindset behind this purpose is racist, and although there is nothing wrong with a racist mind, due to the bastion of freedom of thought, acting on it to the disadvantage of anyone IS.


    They should not have this quota or this vision. They should view all applicants/employees/people as equal, regardless of race. What on Earth can a certain race of applicant do better than any other race of applicant? Diversity is something which emerges by itself from a fair and meritocratic society, not something to directly work towards by disadvantaging certain types of 'majority'.


    Do you admit that racial discrimination against white people is equally as racist and unacceptable as racial discrimination against black/brown/tanned people?


    What if it states that its purpose is to 'help whites', hence it doesn't accept applicants from any other racial group?


    Oh so a White Football Club, banning all non-whites, would be acceptable then? :shifty:
    seriously im tired of going circles and saying the same old thing. i already said my arguments and i dont think u even read them so until you do im gonna leave it at that. and pls stop sayin "they are racist coz they ban white". u said that a few times already despite my arguments its stupid.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MaxMaxMax)
    Oh so a White Football Club, banning all non-whites, would be acceptable then? :shifty:
    if it is in china, a white football club would not be unheard of. simple as that, as they are a minority there. and i bet your ass no one will be complaining. if it is in uk, it would be PERCEIVED unacceptable, for the simple reason that they are a majority. perhaps you have never been to a place where you are a minority (i didnt say non-whites) before so i can see why your thinking is skewed. to say an organization is racist simply because they ban other races from joining in, then OCA, Organization of Black Designers, Organization of Black Screenwiters, NAACP, NCLR and MANA are racists. i dont see any public outcry about them.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dabuzz123)
    if it is in china, a white football club would not be unheard of. simple as that, as they are a minority there. and i bet your ass no one will be complaining. if it is in uk, it would be PERCEIVED unacceptable, for the simple reason that they are a majority. perhaps you have never been to a place where you are a minority (i didnt say non-whites) before so i can see why your thinking is skewed.
    How do you know my skin colour/ethnicity?

    (Original post by dabuzz123)
    to say an organization is racist simply because they ban other races from joining in, then OCA, Organization of Black Designers, Organization of Black Screenwiters, NAACP, NCLR and MANA are racists. i dont see any public outcry about them.
    Yes, they are all racist. The reason no-one complains about them is because they fear they would be called racist themselves for objecting to it. Also, most people have been so brainwashed about racism and have so little perspective that they only consider racism to be white-on-coloured. I was speaking to some moron the other day who didn't believe that it was racist if a gang of black people beat up a white person, but thought it was automatically racist if the colours were reversed in this situation.

    There have been such massive amounts of overzealous anti-racism campaigns in the media and education system that all people think about is that only white people are racist and that racism is the worst thing in the world. This is the same screwed up thinking that leads to the absurd question 'Should homosexual attacks be treated/punished as severely as racist attacks?' when the question should be 'Should ALL attacks be treated/punished as severely as racist attacks?', to which the answer is obviously yes! It’s like the posters in schools that say ‘Stamp out racism’ when they should just say ‘Stamp out bullying’.

    The leftist media drone on and on about how evil it was back in the day when there was discrimination against black people, and then rejoice at positive discrimination schemes which benefit non-white people. You may as well say that the treatment of black people in America before the Black Rights movement was positive discrimination because it benefited white people. All discrimination benefits some groups and harms others, therefore you may as well say all discrimination is ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ simultaneously, which is absurd. It doesn’t matter one bit who is a minority and who is a majority, racism is defined as treatment on basis of skin colour, so any group which excludes applicants on basis of skin colour is racist.

    Perhaps the problem is your kneejerk association of racism with evil. People are naturally racist to an extent, and this is shown by the tendency of people from different ethnic groups to hang around with each other at University and at schools. Racist thought doesn’t matter, it’s only when this thought is put into action that the problem arises. The SEO is obviously racist, because it chooses applicants due to their skin colour, but you find it acceptable. Hence you have the quandary of something being both racist and acceptable. But if you consider such racism acceptable then you must consider such groups as ‘White football club’ acceptable too. You just can’t have it both ways.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    no schoolwork to do this weekend??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i'd like to add that seo is a charity

    there are many charities which help SPECIFIC people, so should the afro caribbean leukemia trust not exist because it aims to increase the amount of black people on the bone marrow list? guess their whole existence is racist huh? or charities that help educate people about STDs in south america?

    you seem very immature maxmax and the posts which people put forward to you seem to go straight over your head.

    and i'd like to add that I think racism is one of the worse things in this world, and i speak as a person who has suffered from it
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lets go turtles!)
    i'd like to add that seo is a charity
    there are many charities which help SPECIFIC people, so should the afro caribbean leukemia trust not exist because it aims to increase the amount of black people on the bone marrow list? guess their whole existence is racist huh? or charities that help educate people about STDs in south america?
    The Caribbean Leukemia Trust is racist because it focuses only on one demographic. Why do they want to increase the number of black people on the bone marrow list? Why on Earth does it matter what colour people on the list are? The South American charities, meanwhile, are not racist because they are geography-specific, not skin colour-specific.

    (Original post by lets go turtles!)
    you seem very immature maxmax and the posts which people put forward to you seem to go straight over your head.
    At least I answer every bit of people's posts in this bit-by-bit fashion.

    (Original post by lets go turtles!)
    and i'd like to add that I think racism is one of the worse things in this world, and i speak as a person who has suffered from it
    What have you suffered from? Racist discrimination? Racist bullying? Then it is dicrimination and bullying that you have suffered from, in the same way that the fat kid or the kid with glasses suffers from these things. Racism is just the motive behind what you have suffered, the thing that you have actually suffered is just bullying and discrimination because of it. A friend of mine was bullied back in primary school because he 'looked a bit geeky', apparently. But he doesn't blame people's dislike of people who 'look a bit geeky', he blames the rudeness and nastiness of the people who commited the bullying itself, and quite rightly. Racist bullying is just a form of bullying, and racial discrimination is just a form of discrimination. Therefore it is bullying and discrimination that are the worst things in the world to you, not the racist thoughts which are just the motive behind it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    maxmaxmax obviously there is no point for me to rebut your arguments coz obviosuly u cant even distinguish between racist organization and race-specific/group-specific organization so i wont continue this pointless debate anymore.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i find white football club in china acceptable, just as it is acceptable for SEO to exist in UK. keyword: minority. and it is not enough to say racism is treatment on the basis of skin color. it is the treatment on the basis of skin color where one race is deemed superior than the other. SEO does not say non-whites superior in anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    are you really trying to say racism does not exist?


    and the aclt exists because black people tend to have a different blood type to white british people, thats why its important for them to give blood because if a black person has sickle cell, leukemia etc they cant just use any old blood

    thats why it matters to have more black people on the bone marrow list
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lets go turtles!)
    are you really trying to say racism does not exist?
    Not as we know it, no.


    (Original post by lets go turtles!)
    and the aclt exists because black people tend to have a different blood type to white british people, thats why its important for them to give blood because if a black person has sickle cell, leukemia etc they cant just use any old blood

    thats why it matters to have more black people on the bone marrow list
    And there was I thinking the blood type was determined by DNA...

    But no, it's the great truth hidden by us, the white folk, blood type, eye colour, hair colour and intelligence is all determined by one's skin colour. Think M Jackson - when he was black he had one frizzy hairdo, but now that he renegaded to the white side, all of a sudden his hair is as straight as a ruler. Well done turtles for uncovering this great secret. Give Dan Brown a ring, I;m pretty sure he'll love to hear all about it - hey you should write a book about it. You could even call it, "Do we really give a ****?"
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lets go turtles!)
    are you really trying to say racism does not exist?


    and the aclt exists because black people tend to have a different blood type to white british people, thats why its important for them to give blood because if a black person has sickle cell, leukemia etc they cant just use any old blood

    thats why it matters to have more black people on the bone marrow list
    I didn't know that. Well in that case they are not racist, because of medical differences between races. But since there are no recruitment-related differences (eg. intelligence, communication skills, professionalism) between races, that ACLT example is not a good analogy, and hence the ACLT not being racist doesn't stop SEO being racist.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MaxMaxMax)
    I didn't know that. Well in that case they are not racist, because of medical differences between races. But since there are no recruitment-related differences (eg. intelligence, communication skills, professionalism) between races, that ACLT example is not a good analogy, and hence the ACLT not being racist doesn't stop SEO being racist.
    I think you can put forward a pretty good argument that SEO are racist; however many would argue that postive discrimination is warranted in certain industries and for certain ethnic groups (not a view I totally agree with and don't want to get into that one). I personally think SEO's value add is pretty low.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm ethnic minority but I woudnt want to apply through SEO. Seems a bit ****** tbh.

    I'd rather know I got in by applying to the actual firm itself and competing with the best.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There is no moral justification for discrimination, only "practical" reasons.

    Everyone argues that it's to provide justice and fairness to "minority," but people forget that the smallest minority is the individual. The individual's rights (e.g. access to a job opportunity) should supersede all other justifications. Making decisions on the basis of skin colour without a rational reason (e.g. you want a black man to play Martin Luther King in a movie) is immoral no matter how you spin it.

    But due to historical reasons, we have been forced to enact laws that specifically affect minorities that are moral - the Civil Rights Movement, for example, prompted a series of legislation to protect the interests of (mostly) African-Americans. However, affirmative action (positive discrimination as it is known in the UK) took it a step too far (or too long) and now serves mostly as an institutionalized form of racism. Proof? Ask universities to release their admission data based on race. Quite a few researchers tried, but to no avail. Finally a few universities did, and the difference between scores of Asian/White students and other minority group was enormous - the statistical data heavily implied that a Chinese applicant must earn a much higher SAT score in order to effectively compete with a black/Latino applicant, all else equal.

    But people want to think they like to help the poor minorities who faced relatively more hardship, and through this weird sense of moralistic self-flagellation they justify affirmative action as "social-economically fair," forgetting that not every minority person grew up poor/had a hard life. There are plenty of white people who grew up in extremely poor conditions and suffered far worse than an average minority student, but they number considerably less than poor minorities. However, in the interest of the minorities who did have a more difficult life than most whites, we can overlook (i.e. sacrifice) the rights of those whites. So, in the end you're still screwing over one minority group over another.

    I am a minority student myself, and I do not believe that this positive discrimination is morally justified. I have no qualms ridiculing someone when it is obvious that he or she got a job purely due to his/her minority status. If people thinks that I got my job due to my minority status, I will not blame or resent them; I'll just simply work hard to prove that it's not true. Those who whine about not having enough chances, and then complain about people looking down at them because of their reliance on minority status, are simply pathetic.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LoZEr)
    I'm ethnic minority but I woudnt want to apply through SEO. Seems a bit ****** tbh.

    I'd rather know I got in by applying to the actual firm itself and competing with the best.

    I met a couple of people on spring week that did SEO and said it was awful. Both have good internship offers but not through SEO.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Articles:

    Guide to investment bankingGuide to consultancy

    Featured recruiter profiles:

    Deutsche Bank logo

    Deutsche Bank is recruiting

    "Thrive in an international banking environment"

    Quick link:

    Unanswered investment banking and consultancy threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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