Positive Discrimination - Positive Action

[RogueHanger]

I'm going to make this REAL simple for you, (as they say in America), and I would like a straight 'yes' or 'no' answer because it's really not rocket science.

You have two equal candidates in your analogy, A and B. They are of equal merit in some photo finish type interview which simply cannot be called either way.

Without mentioning which colour you have just favoured, (yes FAVOURED), have you or have you not just discriminated against one of the two candidates based on his or her colour? Yes or no RogueHanger???

If they are both truly equal, then they will both be of an ethnicity that the organisation is looking to recruit. So therefore, the target that is failing by the most should influence the recruitment.
So yes. You have applied positive discimination.

You see, I would much rather pull their names out of a hat in the name of fairness rather than colour because, wait for it, that is racism by definition no matter how you sugar-coat it!

Then you would not be applying company policy or procedure.

I put it to you, sir, that you are more racist than you think you are, how you portray yourself and how much you think I am.

No m'Lud. It's him wot said it, m'Lud

Hec, I thought this would be much harder than it was when I suggested he start a different thread on this subject. But he's finally shown his true colours and my work here is done.

Nice talking to you, BT.

J'ai fini

(BTW. My desktop has gone **** up and I'm using my un-smart phone and lodgers laptop which is almost as crap. Cut slack until normal service is resumed).

No problem.

 

[Trazor]

whereas positive discrimination is persuing a positive result.

positive discrimination, discriminates against someone on racial grounds, that's Racism.

 

[Dextraneous]

whereas positive discrimination is persuing a positive result.

positive discrimination, discriminates against someone on racial grounds, that's Racism.

and indeed is slavery in a new cloak

 

[RogueHanger]

Is all racism a bad thing? Honest question.

To whom?
My response, apart from the previous points is that a) racism has taken a negative colloquial meaning and positive discrimination is not negative and b) positive discimination is persuing a beneficial result, whereas negative discrimination, or racism in it's colloquial sense, is persuing a negative result.

 

[RogueHanger]

whereas positive discrimination is persuing a positive result.

positive discrimination, discriminates against someone on racial grounds, that's Racism.

and indeed is slavery in a new cloak

Sorry, Dex, we divege here. I fail to see how the enslavement of a people is a case of positive discrimination.

 

[Trazor]

b) positive discimination is persuing a beneficial result.

Total rubbish, tell the applicant who did not get the job, that it was "beneficial"

 

[Dextraneous]

and indeed is slavery in a new cloak

Sorry, Dex, we divege here. I fail to see how the enslavement of a people is a case of positive discrimination.

I refer you to Trazor's sidestep and my subsequent reply at the bottom of page 2 of this thread.

 

[RogueHanger]

whereas positive discrimination is persuing a positive result.

positive discrimination, discriminates against someone on racial grounds, that's Racism.

But you haven't refused a person a position simply on your whim. You have followed a stated, shared objective of the organisation in its pusuit of a proportional repesentation.

 

[Dextraneous]

b) positive discimination is persuing a beneficial result.

Total rubbish, tell the applicant who did not get the job, that it was "beneficial"

On the other hand, employ this person and tell those who have to be laid off work due to lack of subsequent contracts that tossing the coin had a beneficial result.

Cuts both ways.

 

[RogueHanger]

quote="Dextraneous";p="3083788"]and indeed is slavery in a new cloak

Sorry, Dex, we divege here. I fail to see how the enslavement of a people is a case of positive discrimination.

I refer you to Trazor's sidestep and my subsequent reply at the bottom of page 2 of this thread. [/quote]
Yes, sory, Dex. I seen it after my reply.

 

[Dextraneous]

On the whole, and with there being no pun intended, it's not a black and white issue.

 

[RogueHanger]

b) positive discimination is persuing a beneficial result.

Total rubbish, tell the applicant who did not get the job, that it was "beneficial"

Beneficial to the organisation in pursuit of their goals.

 

[Big Tone]

b) positive discimination is persuing a beneficial result.

Total rubbish, tell the applicant who did not get the job, that it was "beneficial"

Beneficial to the organisation in pursuit of their goals.

He cares more about racist company policy in the pursuit of money than racism. This just gets better and better and worse...

 

[RogueHanger]

On the whole, and with there being no pun intended, it's not a black and white issue.

It may also be seen in such terms as "swings and roundabouts" or not a "zero sum equation".
By that I mean that a proportional representation may have far more long-sighted or far reaching benefits than simply one person was employed and one was not.

 

[Dextraneous]

He cares more about racist company policy in the pursuit of money than racism. This just gets better and better and worse...

Are you saying that it is better to starve whilst upholding one's egalitarian views instead of surviving and feeding one's family by applying a pragmatic approach towards the marketplace?