has affirmative action gone too far?

[DeletedUser]

Don't you mean: Now own up the false sources and opinions?

Forgive me Darknoon, I've spent the last week in Syria, travelling all over with intellectuals.

I shall do my best to speak plainly to the likes as Giz.


Your skills as a translator is most appreciated

 

[DeletedUser]

hehe

Glad to see I've come by just in time to catch yet another "John Rose moment."

 

[DeletedUser8950]

Forgive me Darknoon, I've spent the last week in Syria, travelling all over with intellectuals.

I shall do my best to speak plainly to the likes as Giz.


Your skills as a translator is most appreciated

Np:laugh: Enjoy yourself?

 

[DeletedUser]

Both yes and no, my time in Syria could be further discussed in the JR thread.

 

[DeletedUser]

So you deny this post

Did you stop beating your mother?

 

[DeletedUser]

lol that is funny. I gotta go for a few hours but I have been composing my own thoughts on this topic and can hardly wait to share.

 

[DeletedUser]

hehe

Glad to see I've come by just in time to catch yet another "John Rose moment."

Glad to be of service

 

[DeletedUser]

Did you stop beating your mother?

lol, just lol. You are trying to imply that my arguments in that post are loaded?

Fair enough that post that you quoted my be mis-phrased.

How about this then:

Since you laugh at the accusations of being racist to caucasions would you like to refute the arguments contained within the following post:

http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=199008&postcount=103

That better for you?

 

[DeletedUser]

Since you laugh at the accusations of being racist to caucasions would you like to refute the arguments contained within the following post:

http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=199008&postcount=103

Nah...you're not worth my time.

 

[DeletedUser]

If I may...

Yes they are. Affirmative action can be highly racist. If a company has to have a set percentage of minority workers, which I believe the local councils in the UK do then surely if a minority worker leaves then they HAVE to employ a minority worker, thereby meaning that a non minority cannot be considered even should they be better for the job. That is racist is it not?

It has already been stated, ad nauseam, that you are wrong about quotas and are wrong about qualification parameters. Furry, it's your country. The least you could do is educate yourself on your own laws.

No one is saying that, however as someone else has stated why should we feel the need to call them anything other then people? What is wrong with coloured? Surely then whenever you say "white" you're being racist? It should at the very least be caucasion.

Calling someone by a certain commonly referred-to label is not racist. Using a title in a derogatory manner isn't racist. Being racist is racist. The problem with using labels that are commonly perceived as offensive is that when you use such labels, people "assume" you are racist. If you are not racist, then you would more than likely make a sincere effort not to be perceived as racist, and would thus not use labels that are perceived as racist.

I think that's pretty simple.

not all caucasions are oppressed but some still are,

Still are? Furry, even with all the evidence presented, you still claim caucasions are oppressed? Segregation is real, the impacts are real, the KKK is real, skinheads are real. Racism is real. Grossly caucasion-dominated upper management is real. The huge disparity in incomes is real. Middle-aged African Americans, Hispanics, Asians and women are still dealing with the physical ramifications of the fear imposed by blatant racism/sexism. Affirmative action is not about, "bringing the man down," it's about striving for equality. Something that clearly doesn't presently exist.

Affirmative action is about ensuring inclusion for all in American society, not leaving one group of people out on the basis of race. Far too often, claims that affirmative action programs disadvantage specific individuals based on their race cannot withstand scrutiny. In the Gratz case, plaintiff Jennifer Gratz complained about racial discrimination in the University of Michigan's admissions process, even though there were African-American students with higher academic qualifications than hers who also were denied admission. Clearly, if there were African-American students being denied admission to the school with stronger academic credentials than white students like her, then race cannot be the sole or even the predominant basis upon which students are admitted. As another example, Cheryl Hopwood, the plaintiff in Hopwood v. Texas, involving the use of race in admissions at the University of Texas Law School, also complained about an admissions process that considered race. Nevertheless, a court ultimately determined that Ms. Hopwood had "no reasonable chance of being admitted to the Law School under a race-blind admissions system."

Furry, it seems to me you're far too invested in your stance. I'm willing to continue these discussions but, somewhere along the way, I would like to think you aren't just trying to win a debate.

 

[DeletedUser]

If I may...


It has already been stated, ad nauseam, that you are wrong about quotas and are wrong about qualification parameters. Furry, it's your country. The least you could do is educate yourself on your own laws.

And the very least you can do is look at the timing of the post. I admit that I was incorrect regarding quotas.

However I disagree with the fact that our equal opportunities policies do not amount to AA. Lets go back to this and you can explain where I am wrong.

"The term affirmative action refers to policies that take race, ethnicity, or gender into consideration in an attempt to promote equal opportunity."

"The Equal Pay Act 1970 (EPA) (amended 1983)" - Takes into account gender

The Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) 1975 (amended 1986) - Again takes gender into account.

Race Relations Act 1976 and Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000
The Race Relations Act 1976 makes it unlawful to discriminate against anyone on grounds of race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origin. It applies to jobs, training, housing, education and the provision of goods, facilities and services.
The amended Act also imposes positive duties on many public authorities to promote racial equality.

The Employment equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003
This offers protection for workers from discrimination and harassment at work on grounds of religion or belief. It covers all aspects of the employment relationship, including recruitment, pay, working conditions, training, promotion, dismissal and references.

Please explain how they do not fit the given definition. If you disagree with the given definition then please provide your own and valid reasons why the one given is wrong.

Calling someone by a certain commonly referred-to label is not racist. Using a title in a derogatory manner isn't racist. Being racist is racist. The problem with using labels that are commonly perceived as offensive is that when you use such labels, people "assume" you are racist. If you are not racist, then you would more than likely make a sincere effort not to be perceived as racist, and would thus not use labels that are perceived as racist.

I think that's pretty simple.

Fair enough, but who actually decided that African Americans (and other minorities that fall under this) were offended by being called Black? Or Coloured? Was it the minorities themselves? Or was it by a white group? If so with reference to the minorities affected by this?

If white people can make a choice of what is offensive for a completely unrelated group then anyone can make a choice of what is offensive for a certain group.

[sarcasm]As such I hereby state that the term Blonde is henchforth to be percieved as discriminatory towards light haired people. They shall hence forth be known as Chickity Chickty Wa Was.[/sarcasm]

Still are? Furry, even with all the evidence presented, you still claim caucasions are oppressed? Segregation is real, the impacts are real, the KKK is real, skinheads are real. Racism is real. Grossly caucasion-dominated upper management is real. The huge disparity in incomes is real. Middle-aged African Americans, Hispanics, Asians and women are still dealing with the physical ramifications of the fear imposed by blatant racism/sexism. Affirmative action is not about, "bringing the man down," it's about striving for equality. Something that clearly doesn't presently exist.

If you actually took the time to read my post and not scan read it then you would realise that I actually said SOME, not all SOME. Therefore the fact that you say "Segregation is real, the impacts are real, the KKK is real, skinheads are real. Racism is real. Grossly caucasion-dominated upper management is real. The huge disparity in incomes is real." Makes no difference to the fact that SOME Caucasions are oppressed.

I also at no point deny that others are oppressed. I simply question the blinkered view held by many that Caucasions cannot be oppressed as they are the origional oppressors. 2 Wrongs doesn't make a right, the fact that we(white males) did commit so many wrongs doesn't make it acceptable for wrongs to be commited against them.

Furry, it seems to me you're far too invested in your stance. I'm willing to continue these discussions but, somewhere along the way, I would like to think you aren't just trying to win a debate.

I would ike to continue them, not from the point of trying to win a debate but from the point of view of sharing opinions and reasoning.

I personally believe strongly in what I am saying as I personally believe that in the not too distant future the white male will be oppressed, and any attempt to stop it will be met with cries of racism/sexism/ageism etc.

 

[DeletedUser]

I personally believe strongly in what I am saying as I personally believe that in the not too distant future the white male will be oppressed, and any attempt to stop it will be met with cries of racism/sexism/ageism etc.

There is a strong vein of "male rights" going around in many western nations and while there might be some mild cases to be made at the micro level, the big picture imo is that most of it is just backlash and social adjustment to what has been fairly radical social change in a relatively brief period.

Obviously, this relates to sexism more than racism, but the dynamic is identical. I'd like to hear what exactly your definition of oppression is here, because when the men came home from WW2 and the women who had been working wanted to keep their jobs, they were firmly shoved back into the kitchen because those jobs "belonged" to the men. Obviously, those jobs belong to no one.

Has male unemployment (for example) been effected by women working, and working more and more in fields which require high level training and expertise, and those which have higher social and finacial value? Yes. Did men "lose" something? Yes. But what they lost was not something that was their right. What they lost was an unearned and unequitable privilege. Sharing the pie around a bit always makes those who had the lion's share feel cheated. Because while others are finally getting more than crumbs, their own portion is shrinking.

It is an enormous social adjustment for men to make, and I certainly wouldn't make light of it, but imo the perception of oppression is simply the result of having to share what has previously been experienced as an entitlement.

 

[DeletedUser]

-snipped to save space .

I agree with you Vi, it may simply be that and you are right in that it that is where it arises from. My only concern is that it will swing too far the other way as we have seen in the UK in recent times from PC actions, as show with the gingerbread men, and the xmas decorations links I posted.

That has surely gone too far when England bans its own religious symbols from schools yet allows other faiths to keep theirs? When people can choose not to abide by our law (Muslim courts - if accepted by both it is legally binding).

That is what worries me, and that is the majority of what I ask that is seen.

EDIT: Please note that I do not say it will happen, only that I fear it may.

 

[DeletedUser]

PC probably deserves its own thread, because that is a pretty big subject and distinct from affirmative action I think, but my brief response (without knowing all the details of the things you've mentioned) is that we can't expect for things to change with perfect balance at every step. When society is in flux, it swings wildly before settling again. And even then, "settled" is probably a huge overstatement.

 

[DeletedUser]

PC probably deserves its own thread, because that is a pretty big subject and distinct from affirmative action I think, but my brief response (without knowing all the details of the things you've mentioned) is that we can't expect for things to change with perfect balance at every step. When society is in flux, it swings wildly before settling again. And even then, "settled" is probably a huge overstatement.

Indeed it probably does, I was simply using it as an example I'm not going to argue with any of that as you're right, all I want to do is try make sure it doesn't turn out too bad for a different group this time, or at least lands closer to balanced :unsure:

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree with you Vi, it may simply be that and you are right in that it that is where it arises from. My only concern is that it will swing too far the other way as we have seen in the UK in recent times from PC actions, as show with the gingerbread men, and the xmas decorations links I posted.

That has surely gone too far when England bans its own religious symbols from schools yet allows other faiths to keep theirs? When people can choose not to abide by our law (Muslim courts - if accepted by both it is legally binding).

That is what worries me, and that is the majority of what I ask that is seen.

EDIT: Please note that I do not say it will happen, only that I fear it may.

Furry,

I know that I said I refused to enter further into this debate because of accusations of tokenism, but I feel that I must respond to the bilge that you spout.

In my experience so-called political correctness (if you are referring to arbitrary actions by individuals and organisations), has done little to redress issues surrounding differentials in pay and general discrimination in the workplace. Those pieces of legislation you refer to Furry (namely the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act) are decades old and yet the Government in the UK still has to consider pushing through further legislation because men are still earning more money than women to do the same work. This crap about swinging too far the other way is preposterous. Wake up and smell the coffee man.

I am a teacher (and have been for 8 years) and want to know the facts that relate to your contention that state mainstream schools have banned "English religious symbolism" and allowed other non-English faiths theirs? Are you referring to the chastity ring debacle? Nothing to do with English religions there, this is born-again American import claptrap. Stop taking the Telegraph as being gospel...

There is no Sharia law in the UK. The reports that you may have read about, may refer to Muslim Sharia divorces being upheld in British Courts. What is wrong with that? Personally, I would like a wholly secular education system as I am a devout atheist, but that maybe some way off yet.

What do you mean by this statement:

"That is what worries me, and that is the majority of what I ask that is seen."

It makes no sense. Please clarify.

Before you batten down your hatch in preparation for the eradication of your white male Englishness, remember that there is more that unites us than divides us…

 

[DeletedUser]

Furry,

I know that I said I refused to enter further into this debate because of accusations of tokenism, but I feel that I must respond to the bilge that you spout.

In my experience so-called political correctness (if you are referring to arbitrary actions by individuals and organisations), has done little to redress issues surrounding differentials in pay and general discrimination in the workplace. Those pieces of legislation you refer to Furry (namely the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act) are decades old and yet the Government in the UK still has to consider pushing through further legislation because men are still earning more money than women to do the same work. This crap about swinging too far the other way is preposterous. Wake up and smell the coffee man.

I am a teacher (and have been for 8 years) and want to know the facts that relate to your contention that state mainstream schools have banned "English religious symbolism" and allowed other non-English faiths theirs? Are you referring to the chastity ring debacle? Nothing to do with English religions there, this is born-again American import claptrap. Stop taking the Telegraph as being gospel...

There is no Sharia law in the UK. The reports that you may have read about, may refer to Muslim Sharia divorces being upheld in British Courts. What is wrong with that? Personally, I would like a wholly secular education system as I am a devout atheist, but that maybe some way off yet.

What do you mean by this statement:

"That is what worries me, and that is the majority of what I ask that is seen."

It makes no sense. Please clarify.

Before you batten down your hatch in preparation for the eradication of your white male Englishness, remember that there is more that unites us than divides us…

Firstly - I don't think I said all schools but see this

Secondly as regards the legislation I posted yes it is old, surely you can't be so simple as to expect legislation not to change over time? However that is why the Race Relations Act was ammended in 2000, and the Religion ones date to 2003. With regards the comment that new ones are having to be pushed through, of course they are, legislation needs to update and change so they will still be bringing in new legislation.

Thirdly - all civil cases. Source

Fourthly - I am worried that as I said "My only concern is that it will swing too far the other way" and I simply ask that people take that into consideration which in recent times (using PC as an example) hasn't been done.

 

[DeletedUser]

Firstly - I don't think I said all schools but see this

Secondly as regards the legislation I posted yes it is old, surely you can't be so simple as to expect legislation not to change over time? However that is why the Race Relations Act was ammended in 2000, and the Religion ones date to 2003. With regards the comment that new ones are having to be pushed through, of course they are, legislation needs to update and change so they will still be bringing in new legislation.

Thirdly - all civil cases. Source

Fourthly - I am worried that as I said "My only concern is that it will swing too far the other way" and I simply ask that people take that into consideration which in recent times (using PC as an example) hasn't been done.

Lol. I knew that you would refer to an article in the bloody Telegraph. It says a lot about your political perspective and world view.

You did not get the part about the age of anti-discrimination law in the UK at all. The Sex Discrimination Act (now 40 years old) was aimed ostensibly at ensuring that women wouldn't get discriminated against particularly when looking at pay differentials for the same job. Forty years later, women need further protection because the same discrimination continues, yet you contend we have gone "too far". That was my point.

You then refer to two other pieces of legislation amended in the noughties. Do you know what those amendments were? The point remains that discrimination continues and is commonplace. I still believe that I prefer the UK because it is more open and accepting than many other countries. My wife is white and her family are dear to me. I have many white friends and my neighbour's are warm and accepting. But your knee-jerk reactionary politics are inflammatory.

 

[DeletedUser]

If it ever became necessary for the white male to be protected, those same laws would protect them. They state that you can't discriminate because of race or gender, so reverse discrimination would be equally covered.

 

[DeletedUser]

Lol. I knew that you would refer to an article in the bloody Telegraph. It says a lot about your political perspective and world view.

Yup, since thats the first linkable source available upon a google search of "school bans cross" since I have no idea where I first read it then that simply provides evidence.

Are you simply going to ignore the implications of banning one religious symbol but not others?

You did not get the part about the age of anti-discrimination law in the UK at all. The Sex Discrimination Act (now 40 years old) was aimed ostensibly at ensuring that women wouldn't get discriminated against particularly when looking at pay differentials for the same job. Forty years later, women need further protection because the same discrimination continues, yet you contend we have gone "too far". That was my point.

If you would like to get your facts right I do not say ANYWHERE that AA has gone to far. I say that Political Correctness has in certain instances and I say that I worry that AA MIGHT go to far.

That is a far cry from what you are accusing me of. Would you like to actually read what I wright, not what you want me to have written?

You then refer to two other pieces of legislation amended in the noughties. Do you know what those amendments were? The point remains that discrimination continues and is commonplace. I still believe that I prefer the UK because it is more open and accepting than many other countries. My wife is white and her family are dear to me. I have many white friends and my neighbour's are warm and accepting. But your knee-jerk reactionary politics are inflammatory.

No I don't know what the ammendments were, do you? Without having to go look it up? Still, its not decades old is it? If it was reviewed and amended?

So simply stating the fact of my beliefs that AA may go too far is inflammatory? Asking for explanations of things that I don't understand (going back to names/descriptions) is inflammatory?

If you feel that I am being inflammatory or racist in anyway then report my posts, and let a moderator deal with it.


How about THIS for discrimination for you?