What is equality to you?

[WiseOwl182]

Just now, SnailyBoy said:

Nice post snip there.

 

State your case for white disadvantage.

 

Once again don't forget to in the research in post #371.

I already have stated it about 5 times. If all else is equal, then minority status should not be the deciding factor. That is discrimination and pure hypocrisy in action. 

[SnailyBoy]

4 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

I already have stated it about 5 times. If all else is equal, then minority status should not be the deciding factor. That is discrimination and pure hypocrisy in action. 

Here's the thing, saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

 

Come on state you case for white disadvantage.

 

Oh, don't forget #371. (it's really odd you don't comment on that). Is it unfair to minorities that white sounding names are more likely to get an interview?

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by SnailyBoy

[WiseOwl182]

6 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Here's the thing, saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

 

Come on state you case for white disadvantage.

 

But it is true. If someone loses out on a job purely because of their race or gender, then that is discrimination towards that individual. The fact that in general, the individual is statistically less like to suffer the discrimination, or that the organisation has previously discriminated against others, does not make it any better for that individual now suffering the discrimination. Two wrongs don't make a right. True equality would mean race, gender, religion, etc, wasn't even considered a factor AT ALL. If all else was identically equal, draw straws.

9 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

.

 

Oh, don't forget #371. (it's really odd you don't comment on that). Is it unfair to minorities that white sounding names are more likely to get an interview?

 

If you can't be bothered to quote yourself, I can't be bothered to scroll back through pages hunting out a specific post.

 

To answer your question, yes of course it is. It shouldn't happen and it's illegal. Discriminating against white candidates to try to compensate for it (and making said candidates collateral damage in the process) is also unfair. Neither should happen. I'm an advocate of true equality.

[SnailyBoy]

16 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

But it is true. If someone loses out on a job purely because of their race or gender, then that is discrimination towards that individual. The fact that in general, the individual is statistically less like to suffer the discrimination, or that the organisation has previously discriminated against others, does not make it any better for that individual now suffering the discrimination. Two wrongs don't make a right. True equality would mean race, gender, religion, etc, wasn't even considered a factor AT ALL. If all else was identically equal, draw straws.

If you can't be bothered to quote yourself, I can't be bothered to scroll back through pages hunting out a specific post.

 

To answer your question, yes of course it is. It shouldn't happen and it's illegal. Discriminating against white candidates to try to compensate for it (and making said candidates collateral damage in the process) is also unfair. Neither should happen. I'm an advocate of true equality.

Lol, you're just repeating yourself again, it isn't true.

 

Wow, you can't even simply state that it's unfair to ethnic minorities, without the emotive white person caveat.

 

Lol, an advocate of true equality........really?

 

 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by SnailyBoy

[WiseOwl182]

7 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Lol, you're just repeating yourself again, it isn't true.

 

Wow, you can't even simply state that it's unfair to ethnic minorities, without the emotive white person caveat.

 

Lol, an advocate of true equality........really?

 

 

 

 

Which bit of this isn't true?

 

"If someone loses out on a job purely because of their race or gender, then that is discrimination towards that individual."

[SnailyBoy]

12 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Which bit of this isn't true?

 

"If someone loses out on a job purely because of their race or gender, then that is discrimination towards that individual."

Well that all depends if the employer explicitly decides that a person doesn't get a job based on their race/gender.

 

That would be illegal

 

or deciding that  a under represented minority candidate who is equally capable does get the job to increase the representation of that minority.

 

That's legal, and not discrimination.

 

Oh, you really need to get away from the 'individual'. You know full well that ethnic minorities on the whole suffer from discrimination on a greater scale than the white majority.

 

Attempting to reduce disadvantage for a minority and making the playing field level should be supported, shouldn't it?

Edited March 7, 2019 by SnailyBoy

[WiseOwl182]

2 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Well that all depends if the employer explicitly decides that a person doesn't get a job based on their race/gender.

 

That would be illegal

 

or deciding that  a under represented minority candidate who is equally capable does get the job to increase the representation of that minority.

 

That's legal, and not discrimination.

 

The two situations you've outlined are not mutually exclusive. By deciding the 2nd, they have by definition decided the 1st too. Hence, discrimination.

4 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

 

Attempting to reduce disadvantage for a minority and making the playing field level should be supported, shouldn't it?

Not when the means of tackling discrimination is redirecting the discrimination, no.

[SnailyBoy]

1 minute ago, WiseOwl182 said:

The two situations you've outlined are not mutually exclusive. By deciding the 2nd, they have by definition decided the 1st too. Hence, discrimination.

Please stop sniping my posts.

 

The situations are mutually exclusive, I even highlighted the relevant parts.

 

The first is discrimination, the second isn't.

 

Attempting to reduce disadvantage for a minority and making the playing field level should be supported, shouldn't it?

 

 

[WiseOwl182]

1 minute ago, SnailyBoy said:

Please stop sniping my posts.

 

The situations are mutually exclusive, I even highlighted the relevant parts.

 

The first is discrimination, the second isn't.

 

Attempting to reduce disadvantage for a minority and making the playing field level should be supported, shouldn't it?

 

 

To enact the 2nd you have to enact the first. They are not mutually exclusive.

[SnailyBoy]

6 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

To enact the 2nd you have to enact the first. They are not mutually exclusive.

Wow, you don't and yes they are.

 

So when both equally qualified candidates are from an under represented ethnic minority, and one candidate is given the job.

 

Who is discriminated against?

Edited March 7, 2019 by SnailyBoy