The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
So, Labour eliminate males from standing to be candidates for the next election in 3 Welsh constituancies.
Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3308645.stm
Which puts more women in parliament. A good thing, right?
Ah, I really hate positive discrimination. It does so many things, all of them bad.
1. It's still discrimination. If you're the wrong gender you're screwed. Whatever slant you try to put on it, this is pretty messed up.
2. If one person benefits from it (whether getting a job, parliamentary candidacy or whatever, where they otherwise would have failed), then it means another person has lost out. Plus, if the other person would have got the position (to use the employment example) it’s probably because they were better for the position. So the employers and others connected with the business lose out too.
Note the key balance – 1 *person* benefits, 1 *person* plus a bunch of others loses out.
If we’re genuinely supporting *equality* this should be a problem for us.
3. Anyone benefiting from positive discrimination will be aware they may not have won their achievement through merit, but by default.
It can’t be a nice position to be in.
4. It hides problems of the discrimination it tries to correct.
‘Positive discrimination’ can’t stop people having discriminatory attitudes, and if we’re going to correct problems of discrimination, this is what *needs* to be addressed.
It can, however, ensure racism, sexism and other bigoted behaviour will more often go undetected by people able to do anything about it.
5. It fuels resentment and competition between people, dividing them along lines of gender, ethnicity, religion or whatever. Why are the BNP winning increasing political power? Because society is creating more racists, by dividing people along these lines. I’ll bet ‘positive discrimination’ makes a significant contribution.
In the case of the above story, it also erodes democracy (Blair undemocratic? Surely not!). People cannot choose a male labour candidate, thus people cannot possibly elect a male labour MP.
‘All of them bad’? Maybe a bit harsh. I do see one important potential positive benefit:
If you’re in some group who is discriminated against on a serious scale, you may, for example, be in a position where you feel you have no real chance of getting a good job.
If employers are forced to take a percentage of their workforce from your group, then you do have a chance. Meanwhile all the other groups also have a chance to make up the rest of the 100%.
But I believe this is limited. Maybe it’d be true for one particular company, but I’m sure there are plenty of other companies that will give everyone an equal shot. Meanwhile if your employers would keep you out of the company given the chance, I can’t see you’d have a very pleasant working life. Then back to prevention – it’s difficult to win a legal action for bullying in the workplace, even if victims come forward. But a prejudiced recruitment system should become apparent in time.
So why is positive discrimination used?
Political image. Not prevention of discrimination, because for the most part it perpetuates discrimination in every possible way.
But it allows politicians to pretend that they care, pretend they’re taking positive action to improve things.
When really they’re just selling us all down the river to look after their own backs.
Just like always.
Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3308645.stm
Which puts more women in parliament. A good thing, right?
Ah, I really hate positive discrimination. It does so many things, all of them bad.
1. It's still discrimination. If you're the wrong gender you're screwed. Whatever slant you try to put on it, this is pretty messed up.
2. If one person benefits from it (whether getting a job, parliamentary candidacy or whatever, where they otherwise would have failed), then it means another person has lost out. Plus, if the other person would have got the position (to use the employment example) it’s probably because they were better for the position. So the employers and others connected with the business lose out too.
Note the key balance – 1 *person* benefits, 1 *person* plus a bunch of others loses out.
If we’re genuinely supporting *equality* this should be a problem for us.
3. Anyone benefiting from positive discrimination will be aware they may not have won their achievement through merit, but by default.
It can’t be a nice position to be in.
4. It hides problems of the discrimination it tries to correct.
‘Positive discrimination’ can’t stop people having discriminatory attitudes, and if we’re going to correct problems of discrimination, this is what *needs* to be addressed.
It can, however, ensure racism, sexism and other bigoted behaviour will more often go undetected by people able to do anything about it.
5. It fuels resentment and competition between people, dividing them along lines of gender, ethnicity, religion or whatever. Why are the BNP winning increasing political power? Because society is creating more racists, by dividing people along these lines. I’ll bet ‘positive discrimination’ makes a significant contribution.
In the case of the above story, it also erodes democracy (Blair undemocratic? Surely not!). People cannot choose a male labour candidate, thus people cannot possibly elect a male labour MP.
‘All of them bad’? Maybe a bit harsh. I do see one important potential positive benefit:
If you’re in some group who is discriminated against on a serious scale, you may, for example, be in a position where you feel you have no real chance of getting a good job.
If employers are forced to take a percentage of their workforce from your group, then you do have a chance. Meanwhile all the other groups also have a chance to make up the rest of the 100%.
But I believe this is limited. Maybe it’d be true for one particular company, but I’m sure there are plenty of other companies that will give everyone an equal shot. Meanwhile if your employers would keep you out of the company given the chance, I can’t see you’d have a very pleasant working life. Then back to prevention – it’s difficult to win a legal action for bullying in the workplace, even if victims come forward. But a prejudiced recruitment system should become apparent in time.
So why is positive discrimination used?
Political image. Not prevention of discrimination, because for the most part it perpetuates discrimination in every possible way.
But it allows politicians to pretend that they care, pretend they’re taking positive action to improve things.
When really they’re just selling us all down the river to look after their own backs.
Just like always.
Page:
So, Labour eliminate males from standing to be candidates for the next election in 3 Welsh constituancies.
Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3308645.stm
Which puts more women in parliament. A good thing, right?
Ah, I really hate positive discrimination. It does so many things, all of them bad.
1. It's still discrimination. If you're the wrong gender you're screwed. Whatever slant you try to put on it, this is pretty messed up.
2. If one person benefits from it (whether getting a job, parliamentary candidacy or whatever, where they otherwise would have failed), then it means another person has lost out. Plus, if the other person would have got the position (to use the employment example) it’s probably because they were better for the position. So the employers and others connected with the business lose out too.
Note the key balance – 1 *person* benefits, 1 *person* plus a bunch of others loses out.
If we’re genuinely supporting *equality* this should be a problem for us.
3. Anyone benefiting from positive discrimination will be aware they may not have won their achievement through merit, but by default.
It can’t be a nice position to be in.
4. It hides problems of the discrimination it tries to correct.
‘Positive discrimination’ can’t stop people having discriminatory attitudes, and if we’re going to correct problems of discrimination, this is what *needs* to be addressed.
It can, however, ensure racism, sexism and other bigoted behaviour will more often go undetected by people able to do anything about it.
5. It fuels resentment and competition between people, dividing them along lines of gender, ethnicity, religion or whatever. Why are the BNP winning increasing political power? Because society is creating more racists, by dividing people along these lines. I’ll bet ‘positive discrimination’ makes a significant contribution.
In the case of the above story, it also erodes democracy (Blair undemocratic? Surely not!). People cannot choose a male labour candidate, thus people cannot possibly elect a male labour MP.
‘All of them bad’? Maybe a bit harsh. I do see one important potential positive benefit:
If you’re in some group who is discriminated against on a serious scale, you may, for example, be in a position where you feel you have no real chance of getting a good job.
If employers are forced to take a percentage of their workforce from your group, then you do have a chance. Meanwhile all the other groups also have a chance to make up the rest of the 100%.
But I believe this is limited. Maybe it’d be true for one particular company, but I’m sure there are plenty of other companies that will give everyone an equal shot. Meanwhile if your employers would keep you out of the company given the chance, I can’t see you’d have a very pleasant working life. Then back to prevention – it’s difficult to win a legal action for bullying in the workplace, even if victims come forward. But a prejudiced recruitment system should become apparent in time.
So why is positive discrimination used?
Political image. Not prevention of discrimination, because for the most part it perpetuates discrimination in every possible way.
But it allows politicians to pretend that they care, pretend they’re taking positive action to improve things.
When really they’re just selling us all down the river to look after their own backs.
Just like always.
Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3308645.stm
Which puts more women in parliament. A good thing, right?
Ah, I really hate positive discrimination. It does so many things, all of them bad.
1. It's still discrimination. If you're the wrong gender you're screwed. Whatever slant you try to put on it, this is pretty messed up.
2. If one person benefits from it (whether getting a job, parliamentary candidacy or whatever, where they otherwise would have failed), then it means another person has lost out. Plus, if the other person would have got the position (to use the employment example) it’s probably because they were better for the position. So the employers and others connected with the business lose out too.
Note the key balance – 1 *person* benefits, 1 *person* plus a bunch of others loses out.
If we’re genuinely supporting *equality* this should be a problem for us.
3. Anyone benefiting from positive discrimination will be aware they may not have won their achievement through merit, but by default.
It can’t be a nice position to be in.
4. It hides problems of the discrimination it tries to correct.
‘Positive discrimination’ can’t stop people having discriminatory attitudes, and if we’re going to correct problems of discrimination, this is what *needs* to be addressed.
It can, however, ensure racism, sexism and other bigoted behaviour will more often go undetected by people able to do anything about it.
5. It fuels resentment and competition between people, dividing them along lines of gender, ethnicity, religion or whatever. Why are the BNP winning increasing political power? Because society is creating more racists, by dividing people along these lines. I’ll bet ‘positive discrimination’ makes a significant contribution.
In the case of the above story, it also erodes democracy (Blair undemocratic? Surely not!). People cannot choose a male labour candidate, thus people cannot possibly elect a male labour MP.
‘All of them bad’? Maybe a bit harsh. I do see one important potential positive benefit:
If you’re in some group who is discriminated against on a serious scale, you may, for example, be in a position where you feel you have no real chance of getting a good job.
If employers are forced to take a percentage of their workforce from your group, then you do have a chance. Meanwhile all the other groups also have a chance to make up the rest of the 100%.
But I believe this is limited. Maybe it’d be true for one particular company, but I’m sure there are plenty of other companies that will give everyone an equal shot. Meanwhile if your employers would keep you out of the company given the chance, I can’t see you’d have a very pleasant working life. Then back to prevention – it’s difficult to win a legal action for bullying in the workplace, even if victims come forward. But a prejudiced recruitment system should become apparent in time.
So why is positive discrimination used?
Political image. Not prevention of discrimination, because for the most part it perpetuates discrimination in every possible way.
But it allows politicians to pretend that they care, pretend they’re taking positive action to improve things.
When really they’re just selling us all down the river to look after their own backs.
Just like always.
The world is screwed, face it. And no one can do anything about it, no one can make a difference, corruptness, tyranny and stupidity will rule forever so we may as well roll over and die.
Ah, I love pessimism.
Ah, I love pessimism.
ROBOTS!!!
Sorry.
Sorry.
'positive discrimination' is a contradiction in terms.
there is no positive discrimination
there is no positive discrimination
Dr Duck wrote:
> 3. Anyone benefiting from positive discrimination will be aware they
> may not have won their achievement through merit, but by default.
> It can’t be a nice position to be in.
Speaking from experience I can say: no, it isn't a nice position to be in. Someone fixed it for me to win a prize draw when I joined the union where I used to work and, when I found out, I felt like a complete a**hole. Worse still, the prize was £500 worth of holiday vouchers and I'd already spent them. I insisted on giving them £500 so they could do the draw properly but they refused to accept it. I even sent a letter with a cheque to the head office but it never got cashed.
> 3. Anyone benefiting from positive discrimination will be aware they
> may not have won their achievement through merit, but by default.
> It can’t be a nice position to be in.
Speaking from experience I can say: no, it isn't a nice position to be in. Someone fixed it for me to win a prize draw when I joined the union where I used to work and, when I found out, I felt like a complete a**hole. Worse still, the prize was £500 worth of holiday vouchers and I'd already spent them. I insisted on giving them £500 so they could do the draw properly but they refused to accept it. I even sent a letter with a cheque to the head office but it never got cashed.
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
'positive discrimination' is a contradiction in terms.
there is no positive discrimination
--------------
I agree.
It's like being 'encouragingly racist'.
'positive discrimination' is a contradiction in terms.
there is no positive discrimination
--------------
I agree.
It's like being 'encouragingly racist'.
Timmargh wrote:
> Dr Duck wrote:
> 3. Anyone benefiting from positive discrimination will be aware they
> may not have won their achievement through merit, but by default.
> It can’t be a nice position to be in.
>
> Speaking from experience I can say: no, it isn't a nice position to
> be in. Someone fixed it for me to win a prize draw when I joined the
> union where I used to work and, when I found out, I felt like a
> complete a**hole. Worse still, the prize was £500 worth of
> holiday vouchers and I'd already spent them. I insisted on giving
> them £500 so they could do the draw properly but they refused
> to accept it. I even sent a letter with a cheque to the head office
> but it never got cashed.
Heh, i can't believe people would rig the draw just because you have a disability, thats mad.
> Dr Duck wrote:
> 3. Anyone benefiting from positive discrimination will be aware they
> may not have won their achievement through merit, but by default.
> It can’t be a nice position to be in.
>
> Speaking from experience I can say: no, it isn't a nice position to
> be in. Someone fixed it for me to win a prize draw when I joined the
> union where I used to work and, when I found out, I felt like a
> complete a**hole. Worse still, the prize was £500 worth of
> holiday vouchers and I'd already spent them. I insisted on giving
> them £500 so they could do the draw properly but they refused
> to accept it. I even sent a letter with a cheque to the head office
> but it never got cashed.
Heh, i can't believe people would rig the draw just because you have a disability, thats mad.
Can I just point out that there is no such thing as 'positive discrimination', because discriminating in favour of one group by default means discriminating against another.
A bar on male candidates?
White people banned from using the word 'nígger' when black people use it freely amongst themselves?
It's all discrimination. And discrimination is never a positive thing.
A bar on male candidates?
White people banned from using the word 'nígger' when black people use it freely amongst themselves?
It's all discrimination. And discrimination is never a positive thing.
I agree
Yes, I agree too -
to me this demonstrates a paradox which we have today. On the one hand, it IS true that women have been discriminated agaisnt, and are still in some places. So in a way it is justified to help them to a position of equality. However, this is a good example of the problems with a quick fix, as the reasons given show so well. As a question though, do others find it sexist for example that all women's institutions like St Hilda's College in Oxford have last month voted to continue to bar males? If not, is it sexist if all men's institutions like Eton are kept all male? Is it possible to justify a double standard?
to me this demonstrates a paradox which we have today. On the one hand, it IS true that women have been discriminated agaisnt, and are still in some places. So in a way it is justified to help them to a position of equality. However, this is a good example of the problems with a quick fix, as the reasons given show so well. As a question though, do others find it sexist for example that all women's institutions like St Hilda's College in Oxford have last month voted to continue to bar males? If not, is it sexist if all men's institutions like Eton are kept all male? Is it possible to justify a double standard?
Page: