What is equality to you?

[Cyclone]

10 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

The issue is that your discrimination made an assumption about an entire race and gender. Can you not see your own hypocrisy?

There's no hypocrisy in calling out the "racism against whites as well" trope that is played whenever someone wants to distract from the facts of racism against ethnic minorities.

You've continued to argue this point because it distracts from the issue of privilege and positive action, issues you'd prefer not to discuss I guess.

[leviathan13]

13 hours ago, Cyclone said:

There's no hypocrisy in calling out the "racism against whites as well" trope that is played whenever someone wants to distract from the facts of racism against ethnic minorities.

You've continued to argue this point because it distracts from the issue of privilege and positive action, issues you'd prefer not to discuss I guess.

Which matters more - is a black man more or less oppressed than a white woman?

[Halibut]

1 hour ago, leviathan13 said:

Which matters more - is a black man more or less oppressed than a white woman?

It's not a competitive sport. It depends on context and circumstance. 

[Penistone999]

On 04/03/2019 at 22:24, Baron99 said:

We now have an author who does not identify as either male or female, who has a book in contention for the Women's Prize for Fiction?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/entertainment-arts-47442283

 

Can anyone explain this? I'm sure that if this non-binary trans wins the prize, the other women authors will be chuffed? 

 

Also if you don't identify as either male or female but are in transition, what exactly are you transitioning from & too?

You are either a bloke or a bird. You cant be a bit of both. 

[leviathan13]

3 minutes ago, Halibut said:

It's not a competitive sport. It depends on context and circumstance. 

Which is pretty much my point - 'equality' is an ideology based upon everyone, every single human being, being the same. And we're not.

 

Theoretical situataion:

 

There is under-representation of BAME in certain positions, so a when two people apply for the job and score equally - one person is black, one is white - the black person gets the job.

 

However, it turns out that the successful candidate is from a wealthy family, and the person who misses out is from a poor area; single parent family etc. One has been to the best school and has a better start in life... they just happen to be black.

 

The other is white and, as such, has perceived privilege, despite their upbringing and background.

 

Where is the equality is simply looking at someone's colour?

 

Maybe the white person is female and females are under-represented in that particular sector... shouldn't she have gotten the job?

 

You claim it's not a competition, but by the left adding this intersectional hierarchy, you're making it a competition.

 

If you were being operated on, would you want the best surgeon, or the one who was there to fill a quota?

[WiseOwl182]

16 hours ago, Cyclone said:

There's no hypocrisy in calling out the "racism against whites as well" trope that is played whenever someone wants to distract from the facts of racism against ethnic minorities.

You've continued to argue this point because it distracts from the issue of privilege and positive action, issues you'd prefer not to discuss I guess.

You making assumptions on the life experiences of strangers based purely on their race is hypocrisy. Everyone can see it. Deny it all you like. I will continue to argue the point until you accept it, because it's true.

Edited March 5, 2019 by WiseOwl182

[leviathan13]

2 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

You making assumptions on the life experiences of strangers based purely on their race is hypocrisy. Everyone can see it. Deny it all you like. I will continue to argue the point until you accept it, because it's true.

But that's 'reverse' racism, so it's OK... because he's an SJW and feels guilty for being white and having all of the privilege...

[danot]

6 hours ago, leviathan13 said:

But that's 'reverse' racism, so it's OK... because he's an SJW and feels guilty for being white and having all of the privilege...

It's not guilt, it's sanctimony. Stubborn, hypocritical sanctimony. 

[woodview]

Equality is about equality of opportunity, and equal treatment regardless of circumstance.

Examples at the BBC are meaningless in lots of cases, unless it's a job that can be objectively shown as equal. So does the camera operator get the same if they are a man or woman, does the cleaner get the same man or woman? I'd bet my mortgage at the BBC they do. And in most workplaces they do too.

Does Linekar get more than Clare Balding? Probably. Do I care either way? No.

Does Joe Bloggs and Joanne Bloggs get the same for doing the same job in an office, if they have the same experience and skill, then 100% they should and most likely do. If not the employer needs backside kicking.

[Cyclone]

10 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

You making assumptions on the life experiences of strangers based purely on their race is hypocrisy. Everyone can see it. Deny it all you like. I will continue to argue the point until you accept it, because it's true.

It's not hypocrisy and it's entirely reasonable to make some assumptions in the UK about people based on the few factors you know about them.

Your assertion that it isn't possible is disingenuous and in support of the ridiculous "me too" nonsense that people throw up when you point out how ethnic minorities are systemically disadvantaged in the UK.

10 hours ago, leviathan13 said:

Which is pretty much my point - 'equality' is an ideology based upon everyone, every single human being, being the same. And we're not.

 

Theoretical situataion:

 

There is under-representation of BAME in certain positions, so a when two people apply for the job and score equally - one person is black, one is white - the black person gets the job.

 

However, it turns out that the successful candidate is from a wealthy family, and the person who misses out is from a poor area; single parent family etc. One has been to the best school and has a better start in life... they just happen to be black.

 

The other is white and, as such, has perceived privilege, despite their upbringing and background.

 

Where is the equality is simply looking at someone's colour?

 

Maybe the white person is female and females are under-represented in that particular sector... shouldn't she have gotten the job?

 

You claim it's not a competition, but by the left adding this intersectional hierarchy, you're making it a competition.

 

If you were being operated on, would you want the best surgeon, or the one who was there to fill a quota?

The typical answer of someone who wishes to support the status quo of themselves gaining advantage over others.

Firstly they "misunderstand" what equality is about to then proclaim (as if it's news) that people are all different.

They then make up hypothetical edge cases that somehow show a person from a minority gaining an advantage over a white person, this they shout loudly, is unfair.  Ignoring the ongoing systematic advantages that white people get through in built bias from people and systems.

Finally, despite positive action having been explained to you, you proceed to pretend to misunderstand it and suggest that a person less suited for the job might be given it.