Why is positive discrimination ok?

keelanj69 · 20-07-2013 10:18AM

desertcircus wrote: »

I'm going to presume that you had a better point in mind than a confused rephrasing of "I have no idea how statistics work". Did you actually have an idea of what you were writing, or did you respond purely in order to miss the point of institutionalised bias? "So a black man gets passed over for promotion and it's racist" - did you actually read that back to yourself and still think that was a fair estimation of what I wrote? Really?

I know how statistics work, so please dont lose any sleep, compadre. I'm merely asking if three people go for a job, 2 white, 1 black. One of the white guys gets it. The black man has an oppurtunity to claim race. What about the other white man?

I agree that their is ingrained injustice but my point is - the black man can claim race. The white man gets to claim the other guy was better for the job.

bgrizzley · 20-07-2013 10:19AM

The strange thing is, that the people who quietly perpetuate discrimination, be it against blacks, women, gays, immigrants or whoever, are the very fat rich old white men making the rules.

Someday you will all see, that they just want us to distractedly argue about quotas, while they scoop up all the gravy.

pablomakaveli · 20-07-2013 10:26AM

I don't really see how "positive" and "discrimination" can be used together. A job candidate should be picked on merit. Not based on what race,religion, nationality etc they are.

desertcircus · 20-07-2013 10:29AM

keelanj69 wrote: »

I know how statistics work, so please dont lose any sleep, compadre. I'm merely asking if three people go for a job, 2 white, 1 black. One of the white guys gets it. The black man has an oppurtunity to claim race. What about the other white man?

I agree that their is ingrained injustice but my point is - the black man can claim race. The white man gets to claim the other guy was better for the job.

Is this an actual point? What exactly does a black candidate get out of being able to point to race as a possible factor? Are you claiming that white people have it hard because they don't suffer racism? Really? Because white people don't as a rule suffer racial discrimination, they're losing out? Surely you're not saying that, because only a lunatic would say that. But I still can't see any actual point. Is is that it's easier being passed over for jobs and promotions when there's a significant possibility that you're being passed over as a result of your skin colour rather than your suitability for the post?

What does a black candidate get out of not being selected that a white candidate doesn't?

B0jangles · 20-07-2013 10:30AM

I always though this was a good illustration of why the "Positive discrimination is the real problem" argument is bull****:

keelanj69 · 20-07-2013 10:37AM

desertcircus wrote: »

Is this an actual point? What exactly does a black candidate get out of being able to point to race as a possible factor? Are you claiming that white people have it hard because they don't suffer racism? Really? Because white people don't as a rule suffer racial discrimination, they're losing out? Surely you're not saying that, because only a lunatic would say that. But I still can't see any actual point. Is is that it's easier being passed over for jobs and promotions when there's a significant possibility that you're being passed over as a result of your skin colour rather than your suitability for the post?

What does a black candidate get out of not being selected that a white candidate doesn't?

Being white doesn't help the other guy either.

Put it this way, if Obama didn't get elected first time around would people have said its because he's black or that the white guy was better for the job.

If you put in quotas such as x amount of women in government it, in a way, forces peoples hands. While you have greater equality it doesn't neccesarily reflect the best people for the job.

It causes more problems than it solves. If x amount of women need electing, she can claim I'm only here because I'm a woman. Similarly the spurned candidate can claim gender bias as well. Kind of undermines the process.

RandomName2 · 20-07-2013 10:41AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Its not okay. Its political correctness gone mad and will blow up on society in the future.

I can be racist towards you - but don't worry; it's okay because I'm going to call it 'positive discrimination'.

Pro Hoc Vice · 20-07-2013 10:45AM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I don't really see how "positive" and "discrimination" can be used together. A job candidate should be picked on merit. Not based on what race,religion, nationality etc they are.

Yes in a perfect word, but what about say a world which does not allow say women to be educated, or no education for blondes, then say none of those uneducated people get jobs, well its ok it was done on merit, so no problem. By introducing positive discrimination you are removing the advantage one group in society have by reason of control, of politics, education or money.

Pro Hoc Vice · 20-07-2013 10:46AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

I can be racist towards you - but don't worry; it's okay because I'm going to call it 'positive discrimination'.

How is it racist to say that the same % of a particular group in society should have roughly the same % of the jobs in particular areas.

desertcircus · 20-07-2013 10:53AM

keelanj69 wrote: »

Being white doesn't help the other guy either.

Put it this way, if Obama didn't get elected first time around would people have said its because he's black or that the white guy was better for the job.

If you put in quotas such as x amount of women in government it, in a way, forces peoples hands. While you have greater equality it doesn't neccesarily reflect the best people for the job.

It causes more problems than it solves. If x amount of women need electing, she can claim I'm only here because I'm a woman. Similarly the spurned candidate can claim gender bias as well. Kind of undermines the process.

Except being white, statistically speaking, does help. And being black, statistically speaking, does hinder. And being male, statistically speaking, does help. And being female, statistically speaking, does hinder. And if someone's reaction to positive discrimination is to assume that someone only got where they were because of the colour of their skin or the shape of their genitals, then they either think that person is inferior on the basis of their skin or genitals (which makes them a bigot), or they think racial bias is fine as long as it's white people benefitting (which makes them an asshole). If people like that think the process of undoing centuries of bigotry and oppression is undermined because someone took that bigotry and oppression into account when evaluating two candidates, then cry me a river. My heart bleeds for the poor unfortunate racists and sexists who can't conceive of a situation where someone who isn't a white male has their circumstances taken into account.

keelanj69 · 20-07-2013 11:07AM

desertcircus wrote: »

And if someone's reaction to positive discrimination is to assume that someone only got where they were because of the colour of their skin or the shape of their genitals.

Isn't that what positive discrimination is? Quotas and such?

Victor · 20-07-2013 11:10AM

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Its only positive for those who are benefiting from it.

No. Allowing people who are discriminated against into higher positions allows them become positive role models in their community, whereas some communities only have negative role models.

It benefits those communities by giving people an alternative life path and it benefits all of society by discouraging negative role models. Not having negative role models is a positive common good for all of society.

Scruffles · 20-07-2013 11:15AM

oldyouth wrote: »

If you use your status (white/black/female/disabled/ethnic background etc) to advance in any situation, you do that sector no favours at all. You're basically saying that your group is not good enough to achieve on merit

please dont compare disability with race,race has come a long way with equality and does not have the barriers in society it used to,we have a long way to go to seen as human let alone achieve near equality.
am not able to speak for other groups as am bogstandard irish-english and have got little understanding of race overall but the reason disabled people need positive discrimination is because our disability 'barriers',the way society is adapted for normies in general and how our barriers are viewed by society puts us at a very unequal footing in comparison.

positive discrimination in disability does not make it unfair and give us extra achievement-its to put us closer to an equal footing,one example of it is the 'two ticks' scheme; am not sure if this is in ireland but in england companies who operate under the two ticks scheme guarantees disabled people an interview in whatever job; it doesnt give them any more chance of getting a job than someone else, it just stops them from being automaticaly turned down when bosses see they have a disability on paper,the two ticks scheme gives them a chance to actualy meet them and have a proper face to face interview to prove they can do x,y,z.

sometimes it actualy feels like people are resentful and jealous when the positive discrimination topic rears its head,rational discussion about it shoud be done because its how things change, but taking it out on whole groups when have got no direct experience of being one of these nor understanding the barriers we all face from a direct perspective is rather unfair.

Victor · 20-07-2013 11:16AM

martinedwards wrote: »

if there was a White people's police society

ACPO http://www.acpo.police.uk/Home.aspx

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Its not okay. Its political correctness gone mad and will blow up on society in the future.

As if existing ghettoisation is a successful policy.

oldyouth wrote: »

And you penalised the chap who put the effort in, even if he came from a poorer white background

Money isn't the only deciding factor.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I don't really see how "positive" and "discrimination" can be used together. A job candidate should be picked on merit. Not based on what race,religion, nationality etc they are.

But many jobs aren't allocated on merit. It is a person of power employing his buddies.

keelanj69 wrote: »

If you put in quotas such as x amount of women in government it, in a way, forces peoples hands. While you have greater equality it doesn't neccesarily reflect the best people for the job.

How about re-framing the point as "qualified for the job". It's not like being a teacher or publican magically makes you suitable to being a politician.

gallag · 20-07-2013 11:20AM

The MOBO awards.(music of black origin)
The black entertainment channel.

Shelflife · 20-07-2013 11:36AM

I understand the logic behind "positive discrimination" but for me its not the correct way to do things.

If you have a job or committee and you give the job to someone on the basis of their gender or race when there are better qualified people available is wrong on two counts.

1. it weakens the company/committee by not having the best available staff working for it.

2. it sends a message to the winning gender/race that they dont have to have as high a standard as the rest in order to get the position.

I fail to see how either of those situations solves the problem, it merely creates more problems down the road.

Pro Hoc Vice · 20-07-2013 11:59AM

Shelflife wrote: »

I understand the logic behind "positive discrimination" but for me its not the correct way to do things.

If you have a job or committee and you give the job to someone on the basis of their gender or race when there are better qualified people available is wrong on two counts.

1. it weakens the company/committee by not having the best available staff working for it.

2. it sends a message to the winning gender/race that they dont have to have as high a standard as the rest in order to get the position.

I fail to see how either of those situations solves the problem, it merely creates more problems down the road.

It may very well make it worse some studies have shown some positive discrimination does not work. But for me when faced with two bad options I would rather go for the one that at least try's to balance rights as in my opinion afirmitive action does.

20-07-2013 12:05PM

So what, there can be no discrimination at all now?

Positive discrimination is discrimination where there is harm to those who are discriminated. Why does this thread exist?

Femme_Fatale · 20-07-2013 12:09PM

As a white, middle-class, educated, heterosexual western woman who has never experienced discrimination in my life (unlike my male counterparts, who apparently face untold misery from dawn to dusk every day

Brothers... unite!) it would be supremely arrogant of me to condemn those in whose shoes I have never walked, for this particular phenomenon.

I get people's issues with it (people who actually think about things, not the "Herpa derp why can't there be a white music awards" crowd) in that merit should be the deciding factor, but at the same time, things aren't as straightforward as that, so let them to it; it makes no difference to my life, I still have a ridiculous amount of privilege that many others don't. Overall, white people have always had it better. This should be very very easy to grasp - and I'm sure the naysayers are capable of grasping it, it's just that they need their daily dose of vitamin the-only-group-discriminated-against-nowadays-is-the-white-man. You'd think that sh1t would be strictly confined to satire, but nope, some folks actually convince themselves it's true. :pac:

At the same time though, I don't agree with "Women only" this and that (apart from when it's only practical) - the genders should be working together instead of coming up with crap that just further polarises.

keelanj69 · 20-07-2013 12:13PM

I suppose in relation to politics it depends on society as a whole. I would never vote for a woman just because shes a woman. Etc Etc with regards white men, black men, disabled people.

That would be nonsensical.

gallag · 20-07-2013 12:20PM

I keep hearing about this privilege I have as a white heterosexual male, what is it? Why am I slogging away working 70hrs a week to try and keep roof above our heads, is it my privilege to pay stupid amounts of tax that as many in here have said goes towards these poor minorities that benefit disproportionately from it?

What is exactly this privilege I should feel guilty about having?

matthew8 · 20-07-2013 12:24PM

The problem with positive discrimination is that it takes some statistic and then assumes that any disparity between different races/sexes/orientations is caused by discrimination, when there are some obvious other reasons.

Far fewer women than men are candidates at election time. Has to be sexism. Couldn't be anything to do with many just not wanting the job.

Less black people in American colleges. Obviously it's because the people who get the applications are racist. Can't have anything to do with the fact by and large black Americans are born into a poor family, and that white people born into poor families are just as likely to struggle to get into college.

Femme_Fatale · 20-07-2013 12:27PM

gallag wrote: »

I keep hearing about this privilege I have as a white heterosexual male, what is it? Why am I slogging away working 70hrs a week to try and keep roof above our heads, is it my privilege to pay stupid amounts of tax that as many in here have said goes towards these poor minorities that benefit disproportionately from it?

What is exactly this privilege I should feel guilty about having?

How come I can recognise the privilege I have yet you can't? No you shouldn't feel guilty about it - I sure as hell don't about mine.
Simple as this: you don't encounter discrimination and marginalisation due to your colour - and the group you're a part of never has. It's not as bad for minorities now, but that doesn't mean they still don't encounter the prejudice that white people just do not encounter.
Your 70-hour work week and high taxes are not the result of your colour and it's weird to equate the two. You can be sure plenty of non white people are living in the very same circumstances as you are.

martinedwards · 20-07-2013 12:27PM

Herb Powell wrote: »

The truth is, as a white person, you are very very very unlikely to ever be discriminated against in the Western World.

unless you are ginger.

like me.

Sandy Vagina · 20-07-2013 12:38PM

Positive discrimination is a bull**** term for racism and it doesn't work.

Jobs and positions should be based on merit and not the colour of skin.

In south africa they fired all the CEOs of public service business' and replaced them with a bunch of unqualified black people. Guess what happened? ?? Multi-million dollaf profitable companies were turned into basket cases swimming in debt.

pablomakaveli · 20-07-2013 12:54PM

B0jangles wrote: »

I always though this was a good illustration of why the "Positive discrimination is the real problem" argument is bull****:

Actually that that doesn't really accurately depict it. In the case of being white and black in America is it right that some sense of guilt must be carried for the actions of other white people in the past by the white people of today? If a someone works hard to become qualified and to become a suitable candidate for a job it can't really be considered fair to give that job to someone else merely because they are from a minority.

infosys wrote: »

Yes in a perfect word, but what about say a world which does not allow say women to be educated, or no education for blondes, then say none of those uneducated people get jobs, well its ok it was done on merit, so no problem. By introducing positive discrimination you are removing the advantage one group in society have by reason of control, of politics, education or money.

Again it becomes a situation where people are effectively punished because they are from the majority. Positive discrimination is a lazy solution to the problem. It's better to push more resources in improving education and access to it for minorities so they can be on a more equal footing if not better than any candidate for a job.

Victor wrote: »

But many jobs aren't allocated on merit. It is a person of power employing his buddies.

I despise that just as much but nepotism is another issue altogether.

everdead.ie · 20-07-2013 01:07PM

I don't agree with positive discrimination I think it's absurd things should be allowed to even themselves out over time couple of examples.

1) More women then men being brought into the airservice to combat previous discrimination. - I'd rather our airforce had the best regardless of sex, religion, colour or sexual orientation.

2) Women Quotas on company boards. - Again experience is Key here I'd rather the best candidates for the job get the job the problem is women of the age which would normally sit on the boards of companies faced discrimination and would often either leave the workforce or not enter it due to that discrimination so we have to wait until graduates from the late 80/early 90's are at the appropriate age to start taking places on boards in greater numbers then shoe horning in 2-3 women on a board with little experience.

I think an area where we can see the difference of allowing time to even things out can be seen in the law profession where now under a certain age 30/40 (i think) 60% of Lawyers are women in another 10 years these will be the managing partners of those Law firms and they will of gotten there by earning it.

inforfun · 20-07-2013 01:33PM

Well, all i know it pissed me off to no end when i was looking for a job in Holland years ago.
You see a job that looks good and reading further you ll see the gem of a line: By equal qualifications/suitability our preference goes out to people from foreign decent.

Femme_Fatale · 20-07-2013 01:36PM

inforfun wrote: »

Well, all i know it pissed me off to no end when i was looking for a job in Holland years ago.
You see a job that looks good and reading further you ll see the gem of a line: By equal qualifications/suitability our preference goes out to people from foreign decent.

Yeh that is crap in fairness - and it surely feeds into further division. But I don't think e.g. a black policemen's group in London is the same thing.

Phill Ewinn · 20-07-2013 01:40PM

inforfun wrote: »

Well, all i know it pissed me off to no end when i was looking for a job in Holland years ago.
You see a job that looks good and reading further you ll see the gem of a line: By equal qualifications/suitability our preference goes out to people from foreign decent.

Happening now in Ireland. Happening for the last seven years. People burying their head in the sand isnt helping.

Why is positive discrimination ok?

Comments