Positive Discrimination - Positive Action

[Micilin]

Got it nailed there Tone. Rather than distilling the points of his opponent's post into one or two ideas which can then be answered with a single paragraph or two, every sentence must be separated and commented on, however inane the point is. It's not a debate or discussion, it's a war of attrition.

Perhaps people should also reflect on what they write if they are unhappy with it being dissected!

 

[RogueHanger]

That's fine and obviously for someone of the appropriate ethnicity the discrimination would be perceived as positive, but an equivalent candidate of the wrong ethnicity would be subject to plain old discrimination.

My take on primary and secondary objectives means that the prefereable quality is part of the recruitment process. Therefore the unsuccessful candidate is not equal to the successful candidate.

Surely the best candidate should get the job, as a potential shareholder that would certainly be my preference.

But, the positive discimination may mean that it was the best candidate, in that circumstance.

I get it but it's crazy, it is racism by default but it's ok because the company have decided to implement a racist policy... crazy.

I think you are applying a negative attitude to a situation.
The situation may be that the company/organisation recognise that a negative perception of their organisation may be projected because it is not representational of the people it serves.
So they take a postive action to correct or prevent the perception.

 

[joe-90]

Stop being a prat. A boss has the right to pay or not to pay anyone he/she likes. Get over it.

 

[RogueHanger]

So it follows that some councils are practising "discrimination." As someone said earlier putting the word positive in front of it , still makes it discrimination.

Not only councils, but also other organisations.
But fo once, I agree with you positive discrimination is discrimination. It says so in the descprition. However I'll repeat myself, again, and again, and again.
Positive discrimination is pursuing a beneficial effect. Negative discrimination isn't.
I'll go one further and describe positive discrimantion as a stated, published policy of an organisation to achieve stated objectives, whereas negative discrimination is an unstated, unpublished attitude of individulas.

 

[RogueHanger]

OK Tone. I suspect this ongoing argument is beyond the remit of this thread and has history to it. Thus, it's time for one to duck out from the undercurrents.

I suspect that your suspicion is correct, Dex.
BT has used the analogy of a pi$$ing competition in the past, and that appears to be exactly what he wants.
He did ask me to raise a new thread, so maybe he wanted to divest himself of the old. That's OK, as far as I'm concerned, we need have no history and can start afresh.

So how about it, BT, a fresh start to a new topic?

 

[RogueHanger]

If a golf shop's customers say are 95% white, the shop decides to have a positive discrimination policy to prefer whites, Candidate A and B are evenly matched, but they pick A because B is Pakistani, they have discriminated in line with a stated policy. Is that ok with you roguehanger? if not, whats the difference in your example?

Some more information, please.
Is this a hypothetical scenario?
How many employees are there in this shop? And what are the ethnicity of the current employees?
Is this a single outlet, or part of a chain of outlets? How many outlets in this chain, if it is one?
You give a figure of the shop customers but you don't give a figure for the population, either of the local population or the players of the game, nationally or locally.

There may be more questions.

 

[RogueHanger]

Prediction and technique.

Two concepts, what have they to do with the topic of discussion?
Should we dismiss this part of your reply as irrelevant as it does not address the issue?

Reply with quote after quote after quote...

Addressing your points one at a time.

Mix with question after quote after question after quote and acusation after quote after missrepresentation and no one else on the thread either cares or has the will to bother keeping up other than watching an e-fight in a voyeuristic way.

Identify the misrepresentations, please and we'll discuss them. Or did you hope to slip that in unnoticed?

So we then give up and he feels victorious.

There's usually no winners, BT. Often we are all losers.
It's not a win-lose scenario. It's a discussion.

Then, this very post I write comes under scrutiny as defeatist and argument lost. (There's a Latin phrase could insert here).

French actually: que sera, sera.

He did not answer my question with a simple yes or no. But it's been noted what the reply or non reply was.

Did I not. I was sure that I'd said "yes", postive discrimination is a type of discrimination. The clue is in the description.

Rumbled Troll? Don't know. But I know he loves this stuff.

Would that be a question, a statement, or a rhetorical question? Or justy a little sarcasm there?

To feed or not to feed? That is the question

No it's not, the quotation is "to be or not to be. That is the question."

 

[RogueHanger]

We employ grafters and are too small a company to carry any dead wood.

This is probably the most important aspect. If a company is too small to a) have a representative workforce, there is no sense in trying to formulate or apply a postive discriminatory policy just to demonstrate a PC awareness and b) an organisation like a building company could hardly identify a specific catchment area with an identifiable population ethnic breakdown. Although that second statement may not be totally accurate. I would think it would depend on the size of the company.

So if an ethnic bod turned out to be not so good at grafting then I could see the sacking being contentious based not only on the lack of graft but also on the race thing.

Additionally, if a company is too small to be able to weather a mistaken recruitment, e.g. the employee turns out to be unsuitable, then the company's survival must be the priority.

 

[Big Tone]

OK Tone. I suspect this ongoing argument is beyond the remit of this thread and has history to it. Thus, it's time for one to duck out from the undercurrents.

I suspect that your suspicion is correct, Dex.
BT has used the analogy of a p**sing competition in the past, and that appears to be exactly what he wants.
He did ask me to raise a new thread, so maybe he wanted to divest himself of the old. That's OK, as far as I'm concerned, we need have no history and can start afresh.

So how about it, BT, a fresh start to a new topic?

If you haven't noticed, I bear no grudge and I have no one on an ignore list. As I keep saying, I give credit and/thanks no matter who it is. They just have to be right or make a valid point or contribution. Joe was 'orrible to me ages ago and we got into a tit for tat, but I kinda warm to him now

Ahem, I've got some +dis that would help. Maybe somone can clear this up for me.

It's Question Time on BBC1 and Dimbles is trying to point to the only black fella in an area of the audience. Instead of mentioning him by colour, which would be quick, obvious and we should all be proud of who we are, it goes something like this.

"The gentleman in the blue shirt. Er, next the the woman with horn rim glasses and pink hair" "Yes, you sir".

Now if I were Dimbles I would, (like), to say "the black gentleman". I would have thought that's helpful positive discrimination.

 

[JBR]

Ahem, I've got some +dis that would help. Maybe somone can clear this up for me.

It's Question Time on BBC1 and Dimbles is trying to point to the only black fella in an area of the audience. Instead of mentioning him my colour, which would be quick, obvious and we should all be proud of who we are, it goes something like this.

"The gentleman in the blue shirt. Er, next the the woman with horn rim glasses and pink hair" "Yes, you sir".

Now if I were Dimbles I would, (like), to say "the black gentleman". I would have thought that's helpful positive discrimination.

Treading on eggshells in our 'nation of free speech'! I'm afraid we all have to do it these days.

 

[RogueHanger]

If you haven't noticed, I bear no grudge and I have no one on an ignore list. As I keep saying, I give credit and/thanks no matter who it is. They just have to be right or make a valid point or contribution. Joe was 'orrible to me ages ago and got into a tit for tat, but I kinda warm to him now

OK. walk the walk.

Ahem, I've got some +dis that would help. Maybe somone can clear this up for me.

Please explain.

It's Question Time on BBC1 and Dimbles is trying to point to the only black fella in an area of the audience. Instead of mentioning him my colour, which would be quick, obvious and we should all be proud of who we are, it goes something like this.

"The gentleman in the blue shirt. Er, next the the woman with horn rim glasses and pink hair" "Yes, you sir".

Now if I were Dimbles I would, (like), to say "the black gentleman". I would have thought that's helpful positive discrimination.

This is a regurgitated discussion, dealt with at the time. Do you really want to re-raise old discussions?
And isn't it irrelevant anyway, on a topic discussing positive discrimination?

Why not start a new thread about David Dimbleby's colour blindness?

 

[Dextraneous]

Delete - off topic

 

[RogueHanger]

Ahem, I've got some +dis that would help. Maybe somone can clear this up for me.

It's Question Time on BBC1 and Dimbles is trying to point to the only black fella in an area of the audience. Instead of mentioning him my colour, which would be quick, obvious and we should all be proud of who we are, it goes something like this.

"The gentleman in the blue shirt. Er, next the the woman with horn rim glasses and pink hair" "Yes, you sir".

Now if I were Dimbles I would, (like), to say "the black gentleman". I would have thought that's helpful positive discrimination.

Treading on eggshells in our 'nation of free speech'! I'm afraid we all have to do it these days.

What has it to do with positive discrimination?

 

[Dextraneous]

And isn't it irrelevant anyway, on a topic discussing positive discrimination?

On the contrary - was Dimbleby asking this chap because of his colour, thus exemplifying positive discrimination?

Why not start a new thread about David Dimbleby's colour blindness?

I was unaware of this. Is he?

 

[RogueHanger]

Now if I were Dimbles I would, (like), to say "the black gentleman". I would have thought that's helpful positive discrimination.

Perhaps referring to the chap as the person with the stark contrast between lightness of teeth and darkness of skin would have avoided the issue

I would have thought that that is an absurd understanding of the concept of postive discrimination.