Car Boot Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 (edited) Or maybe you're underestimating how many people are gay... And because it's unusual for presenters you notice it more. (Also how do you know they're gay)? When/why did it become relevant to their job as presenters? ---------- Post added 25-10-2018 at 17:28 ---------- Is it really that simple? If there's a huge institutional and societal bias against a group, then positive discrimination is really just an attempt to level the playing field. Particularly if you don't just look at a single appointment for a single job, but you consider the entire organisation where the minority is massively underrepresented. I know it's a subtlety, but you're trying to reduce a complex issue to being black and white, sometimes I feel like people on this forum just aren't intelligent enough to grasp these complex, multifaceted issues, you know. They think everything can be simplified into a single black/white picture, like "positive discrimination is just discrimination and therefore it's wrong". Insulting the intelligence of people who object to discrimination on the grounds of race or sexual orientation is a trait of deeply authoritarian regimes. What do these people know? They just aren't intelligent enough to grasp the complexities of the inner workings of the state that will produce the perfect society. Very dangerous indeed. ---------- Post added 25-10-2018 at 17:48 ---------- Wrong. It's called positive discrimination to highlight the fact that it's intended to redress an imbalance. National Socialist Germany introduced laws to protect distinct ethnic groups and permitted racial discrimination. The Nazi's did this because they intended to redress what they perceived as an 'inbalance' in their society. Why is discrimination based on skin colour or sexual orientation acceptable to you? Edited October 25, 2018 by Car Boot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 National Socialist Germany introduced laws to protect distinct ethnic groups and permitted racial discrimination. The Nazi's did this because they intended to redress what they perceived as an 'inbalance' in their society. Do you really believe that, or are you taking the Michael? ---------- Post added 25-10-2018 at 18:11 ---------- Thats a good point. Some minorities are way way waaaaaaaaaaaay over represented on tv including the commercials in in between programmes. Women seem to be way over represented too for some reason. I don't watch TV much myself but a person who I work with said pretty much the same as you a little while ago so I just had to have a nosy and see if that's the case. Name them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramjit Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Name them. You know you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 You know you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Can you name them or can you not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 (edited) Is it really that simple? If there's a huge institutional and societal bias against a group, then positive discrimination is really just an attempt to level the playing field. Particularly if you don't just look at a single appointment for a single job, but you consider the entire organisation where the minority is massively underrepresented. No, I don't think it's at all simple... My ideal, is for no discrimination whatsoever, and for all people to treat each other as just 'human'. The solution, in my mind, is for people to stop considering themselves fundamentally different / seperate to other human beings, just because they look different, or believe different things, or are attracted to same sex, or different nationality, or age, or whatever. I believe there is an element of positive discrimination that serves to reinforce this seperation between groups of people, and so only hightens resentment and tension between groups of people. Also, doing something that benefits one particular group, wholesale; seems somehow clumsy to me (for example, many individuals in the group may be way better off than many individuals not within the group, who are not recieving aid). I'd prefer a system that considers people on their own individual merit when determining how much and what kind of aid they recieve. ---------- Post added 25-10-2018 at 19:29 ---------- Insulting the intelligence of people who object to discrimination on the grounds of race or sexual orientation is a trait of deeply authoritarian regimes. What do these people know? They just aren't intelligent enough to grasp the complexities of the inner workings of the state that will produce the perfect society. Very dangerous indeed. That's true. It is never clever to resort to insults, and it never strengthens your argument. In fairness; I think I was the one who started it, although my slight wasn't aimed at Cyclone, I do regret being so snippy. Edited October 25, 2018 by Waldo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 And your proposal would be great if all groups were starting from a level playing field, but that isn't the case. ---------- Post added 25-10-2018 at 21:26 ---------- Insulting the intelligence of people who object to discrimination on the grounds of race or sexual orientation is a trait of deeply authoritarian regimes. What do these people know? They just aren't intelligent enough to grasp the complexities of the inner workings of the state that will produce the perfect society. Very dangerous indeed. Post #226, I suppose you missed that one did you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviathan13 Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 And your proposal would be great if all groups were starting from a level playing field, but that isn't the case. ---------- Post added 25-10-2018 at 21:26 ---------- Post #226, I suppose you missed that one did you? No... many black people start from a higher level than many white working class people... How would you equalise that imbalance?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Cats Hat Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 No... many black people start from a higher level than many white working class people... I think you will need to explain that bizarre claim! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 No... many black people start from a higher level than many white working class people... How would you equalise that imbalance?? Really? Explain your thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fill Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Do you ever feel when you post something on here, (some) people just aren't intelligent enough to grasp the subtleties what you're saying? And that you just can't be bothered to enlighten them? if they don't or just pretend not to grasp the subtleties then to be honest they are not worth the time and effort of more explanation. if someone has a genuine problem let them pm me and i will try to help them In the simplest of terms... Positive discrimination for a group 'A' of people, is the same as negative discrimination against all people who are not in group 'A'. of course it is..... any one that says different does so because they want their 'selection' of the truth to be the one we all accept. well I won't and i'm sure i'm not alone.....it appears Waldo we have some similar views Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts