Racial Preferences for Britain?

[Kuciwalker]

Nestle makes milk out of babies? Cool.

[Dauphin]

It's the dog food that's dodgy.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by BeBro


Was that the time when Lorne Greene was Adama or earlier?

I dunno, I think Michael Hogan makes a better Tigh than the old Tigh.

[Qwertqwert]

Originally posted by Spiffor

In a racist society, "darkies" (or more accurately, any race that is mostly considered as inferior by the members of mainstream society) face a slew of specific problems, that the "whities" do not know about.

One obvious consequence of racism in a society, is that the "darkies" can get rejected from a job for no reason other than race. Sometimes, that's because the employer is a bigot himself, and sometimes it is fairly rational ("My bank can't afford to have darkie bankers! Some of my customers are bigots and will leave for the competition!").

More subtly, one possible consequence of these problems is the lack of equal opportunity, i.e. that the "darkies" have an unequal access to education, to friends in high places, etc. This unequality isn't only racial, it is social as well (ad IMO, the social component is more important).

In any case, "darkies" do face specific obstacles, so I don't see anything inherently wrong with granting them specific crutches as well.

It's not the governments job to try to fix it though. Atleast how I feel. If someone get's rejected simply because of their race that's bad but doing this would make it so that white people get rejected simply because of their race, because the companies employees don't have enough diversity. It doesn't really fix the problem, just changes it to another.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
I believe that's called nepotism.

Yes, and that was my point. There are plenty of reasons why the "best qualified" doesn't get the job in real life. Nepotism is one. Anti-Paki racism is one. An imperfect system of degrees is one. Etc.

Our societies would like to picture themselves as merictocratic, but they aren't. There are just too many things that make the "best guy at the right place" a concept that has little reality.

When people say that positive discrimination goes against meritocracy, they're right indeed. But when they say "there is only one right thing: the best guy at the right job", they're calling for something that has never existed yet. Moralism is all right and dandy, but a policy-maker has to deal with reality. And the reality is that we're not in a meritocracy, and that the darkies -being on the lower end of the food chain- need help facing the discrimination they're victims of.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I'm not talking about nepotism ffs, or course that's wrong too. I'm talking about racism.

I'm talking about someone who does not deserve to have the job being given a job over the best candidate because of racist laws.

Well, considering that more often than not, the whitie would get the job over a better qualified darkie, because of several factors (the racism in the society being one - the fact that the darkies have a much smaller web of friends in high places is another), I think it helps evening things out, even though the whitie is still largely advantaged.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, and that was my point. There are plenty of reasons why the "best qualified" doesn't get the job in real life. Nepotism is one. Anti-Paki racism is one. An imperfect system of degrees is one. Etc.

So, no reason to add another and make things even worse.

You're saying we don't have perfect meritocracy. So? We actually do have a reasonable approximation. And affirmative action quotas aren't just non-meritocratic, but they actively oppose meritocratic decisions. They are designed to undermine meritocratic decisions.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Well, considering that more often than not, the whitie would get the job over a better qualified darkie, because of several factors (the racism in the society being one - the fact that the darkies have a much smaller web of friends in high places is another), I think it helps evening things out, even though the whitie is still largely advantaged.

You left out a factor more important by an order of magnitude: there are fewer darkies applying for the job in the first place. Our society has largely left racism behind (I don't know about France).

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Yes, and that was my point. There are plenty of reasons why the "best qualified" doesn't get the job in real life. Nepotism is one. Anti-Paki racism is one. An imperfect system of degrees is one. Etc.

So, no reason to add another and make things even worse.

You're saying we don't have perfect meritocracy. So? We actually do have a reasonable approximation. And affirmative action quotas aren't just non-meritocratic, but they actively oppose meritocratic decisions. They are designed to undermine meritocratic decisions.

You and I disagree on two things:

1. I don't think that our meritocracy is a "reasonable approximation" at all. I don't think that the unequal opportunities only stem from racism (far from it), but the darkies are the ones getting even more shafted than the others.
I know you have a deep grounded belief in the meritocracy of our societies (or at least: of the American society), and I won't try to change your mind. But now you know where my support (which is lukewarm actually) of positive discrimination comes from.

2. You take a more theoretical approach, while I take a more pragmatic approach. I don't care whether an argument sounds nice on paper or not. What I care about is the end result. I expect that positive discrimination will end up creating people who are aware that their darkie colleagues can do the job. And it will also end up with young darkies knowing they actually have a chance to get a job if they pursue a carreer plan that is currently only for whities. Sure, it will also create the problems you're talking about, but I think positive discrimination will do more help than harm.


Oh, and about the American society that went beyond racism (at least, in comparison to Europe): I think this is strongly related to all the policies you put into place to help the darkies after Jim Crow. Including affirmative action. Some of these policies are probably outdated today, but they were ****ing necessary back in the day.
And in Europe, they are necessary right now.

[Kuciwalker]

2. You take a more theoretical approach, while I take a more pragmatic approach. I don't care whether an argument sounds nice on paper or not. What I care about is the end result. I expect that positive discrimination will end up creating people who are aware that their darkie colleagues can do the job.

I see the opposite happening, in places where affirmative action is in place: it creates the default assumption in most people that any darkie there only got in because of affirmative action. (I have witnessed this personally; sometimes it's even true.)

And it will also end up with young darkies knowing they actually have a chance to get a job if they pursue a carreer plan that is currently only for whities.

All of my friends who get help from affirmative action (and, frankly, don't need it) aren't reassured at all by affirmative action; if anything, they're irritated by it because they know they can succeed perfectly well on their own abilities.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
All of my friends who get help from affirmative action (and, frankly, don't need it) aren't reassured at all by affirmative action; if anything, they're irritated by it because they know they can succeed perfectly well on their own abilities.

It's a wild guess, but I imagine your friends are from your general area, and that many of them are from your "school for talents". Of course people from the upper-middle class, and those picked for because of their exceptional intellect, are likely to succeed by their own merit. Especially in a society (the US) where bosses will barely look at your colour before hiring you.

I'm more interested by Speer's input. I wonder if his black friends think the same as yours.

[Kuciwalker]

It's a wild guess, but I imagine your friends are from your general area, and that many of them are from your "school for talents".

Yes.

Of course people from the upper-middle class, and those picked for because of their exceptional intellect, are likely to succeed by their own merit. Especially in a society (the US) where bosses will barely look at your colour before hiring you.

It's still a big issue for us, actually, because the school board has been trying for several years to do affirmative-action-but-not - things like expanding class sizes, reserving spots in the first cut (there are two cuts to get into the school) from specific regions, etc. to "improve diversity". "Diversity" is a code word for "blacks and hispanics", since my class is 27% Asian. They pwn us whities

Incidentally, it hasn't worked at all so far, and it has seriously pissed off most of the upperclassmen.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by joncha
Things were much better back when the darkies knew their place.

Arrian:
Oh, the poor oppressed white man.

Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

Hueij:
Hey, another Cali race-thread

So are you people supporting this policy of racism against white people or opposing it?

When the cousin of the boss' wife gets the job (assuming he is acceptably qualified), instead of some unknown person who should be better, is it racism?

red herring, only a tiny minority of British companies suffer from nepotism

Oh, and government quotas = government intervention reducing business efficiency = less economic progress = less wealth in the future

IMHO: Big government BS like this is exactly the reason why EU's economic growth is so slow.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Dis assumes there's no racial discrimination in the workplace.

There isn't in mine.

Don't know about yours.

Trying to reverse imagined racism in few places with racist policies in general is fighting racism with racism

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Well then we've cleared up that it is perfectly fine for that article to criticize the new proposed policy.

Nobody claimed it wasn't. However that doesn't make the opinions expressed in the article laudable or based on a credible ethical or factual stance, does it?

But that's the issue. Their recruitment strategy is fine: we look for a bunch of (for example) engineers, get a bunch of resumes, interview some of them, and pick the good ones. Race already doesn't come into it.

You state that is if it's a fact. What makes you think you are speaking for employers in general, particularly those with a self-confessed problem with institutional racism?

The new recruitment strategy will be: oh, we'll do things normally, but if a black person, or a Pakistani comes along, we'll try really hard to hire them even if someone else would do a better job

Or, and this is the more realistic approach, they take a good long look at their recruitment strategy to see whether they are (inadvertantly, negligently or deliberately) excluding genuine talent from ethnic minorities.
Incidentally, the way that section was worded seems to imply that ethnic minorities would not perform as well, but I'm sure that was down to merely a moment of weak communication.

By the way, how's Nestle unethical? Do they use Finns to make their chocolate or something?

When was the last time you emerged from your bubble?