Positive discrimination!!

First topic message reminder :

surely it is just legalised discrimination and is just as wrong, isn't the best person for the job always the way it should be.
If I get a job/position I want tot know I got it because of me not because the company was in the middle of a mad drive to employ more west Indian's.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't see how discrimination could be proved if 2 people went for a job both equally qualified, and the white man got the job over the black applicant.
In any case, sometimes it's just down to personal preference regardless of colour......we all take to some people over others, next time, in that same company, the black man might be more appealing than the white applicant.

That's why Burdine offers a special formula for a legal test.  First, it poses the prima facie case.  Second, it takes and considers the defense.  Then the burden shifts to the pretextual case.

It is in the third case (pretext) that the court sorts out discrimination from other, non-discriminatory factors.  Everything is taken into consideration, such as timing, contrary behavior, former statements against interest, and comparisons with treatment of non-minorities.

Sorry Quill, that's all a bit too legalspeak for me to understand.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's not merely a numbers game, although you Brits fall into that trap.  Hey...blacks were once slaves.  You can read about it in the history books.  They were inferior as slaves, and in the south white folks have done everything to make sure they continue to be inferior.

You Brits think it's a numbers game because it's not a part of your history.  In America: Minority = a history of slavery and oppression, with numbers to assure it stays in place.  “Minority” is only a small part of the equation.

You do realize that slavery started in America back when Americans were British, don't you?

Slavery lasted longer in the new world as a British institution than as an American one.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's not merely a numbers game, although you Brits fall into that trap. Hey...blacks were once slaves. You can read about it in the history books. They were inferior as slaves, and in the south white folks have done everything to make sure they continue to be inferior.

You Brits think it's a numbers game because it's not a part of your history. In America: Minority = a history of slavery and oppression, with numbers to assure it stays in place. “Minority” is only a small part of the equation.

You do realize that slavery started in America back when Americans were British, don't you?

Of course. But the British were smart. They kept slavery off-shore. They never brought it home. And they outlawed the slave trade in 1807. That is why the British never developed a zeitgeist of racial status and superiority, while Americans did.

As a result of not living it, and feeling all around you, being brought up with it, associating all your feelings with it, etc., the British comprehend racism as a purely abstract, quantitative phenomenon. They take "minority" as the real, and only thing about racism.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

You do realize that slavery started in America back when Americans were British, don't you?

Of course.  But the British were smart.  They kept slavery off-shore.  They never brought it home.  And they outlawed the slave trade in 1807.  That is why the British never developed a zeitgeist of racial status and superiority, while Americans did.

As a result of not living it, and feeling all around you, being brought up with it, associating all your feelings with it, etc., the British comprehend racism as a purely abstract, quantitative phenomenon.  They take "minority" as the real, and only thing about racism.

Off shore? It was literally on British soil for centuries. It remained on British soil even after the Brits stopped engaging in the transatlantic trade.

The Brits were a couple of decades ahead of the US in terms of slavery.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Of course.  But the British were smart.  They kept slavery off-shore.  They never brought it home.  And they outlawed the slave trade in 1807.  That is why the British never developed a zeitgeist of racial status and superiority, while Americans did.

As a result of not living it, and feeling all around you, being brought up with it, associating all your feelings with it, etc., the British comprehend racism as a purely abstract, quantitative phenomenon.  They take "minority" as the real, and only thing about racism.

Off shore? It was literally on British soil for centuries. It remained on British soil even after the Brits stopped engaging in the transatlantic trade.  

The Brits were a couple of decades ahead of the US in terms of slavery.  

Britain never had a home economy based upon slavery. They allowed slaves until 1833, when they passed the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833:

Britannica wrote:Slavery Abolition Act, (1833), in British history, act of Parliament that abolished slavery in most British colonies, freeing more than 800,000 enslaved Africans in the Caribbean and South Africa as well as a small number in Canada. It received Royal Assent on August 28, 1833, and took effect on August 1, 1834.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Slavery-Abolition-Act

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Off shore? It was literally on British soil for centuries. It remained on British soil even after the Brits stopped engaging in the transatlantic trade.  

The Brits were a couple of decades ahead of the US in terms of slavery.  

Britain never had a home economy based upon slavery.  They allowed slaves until 1833, when they passed the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833:

Britannica wrote:Slavery Abolition Act, (1833), in British history, act of Parliament that abolished slavery in most British colonies, freeing more than 800,000 enslaved Africans in the Caribbean and South Africa as well as a small number in Canada. It received Royal Assent on August 28, 1833, and took effect on August 1, 1834.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Slavery-Abolition-Act

The empire (soil) expanded a bit outside the confines of that island.

Most slaves in the British empire got their freedom a couple of decades before those under control of the US.

Not that it's something that current Brits need to apologize for, but slavery in both countries lasted quite some time and neither can claim some level of moral superiority. Most European countries can't as they filled their colonized lands with slaves.

Maddog wrote:The empire (soil) expanded a bit outside the confines of that island.

See, you admit it. Britain did a smart thing when they kept slavery off-shore.

The empire is something that you use when it serves you, but you divest when it's inconvenient. And what did Britain do? Un-huh.

The result is that the British never had slavery infect their society.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:The empire (soil) expanded a bit outside the confines of that island.

See, you admit it.  Britain did a smart thing when they kept slavery off-shore.

The empire is something that you use when it serves you, but you divest when it's inconvenient.  And what did Britain do?  Un-huh.

The result is that the British never had slavery infect their society.

No I didnt. I stated that the empire and soil was the same.

Are you ever capable of not making shut up?

Seek help man, you have a serious problem.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

See, you admit it.  Britain did a smart thing when they kept slavery off-shore.

The empire is something that you use when it serves you, but you divest when it's inconvenient.  And what did Britain do?  Un-huh.

The result is that the British never had slavery infect their society.

No I didnt. I stated that the empire and soil was the same.

Denial is a river in east Africa. Britain played a trick on you, and you still don't get it. There is a big difference between "empire" and "soil", and Brits kept slavery out of their territory by maintaining that difference.

Maddog wrote:Are you ever capable of not making shut up?

Seek help man, you have a serious problem.  

Haha...the only reason you want me to shut up is because you are losing. Typical southerner...all guns and violence, no reasoning.

But to divert the discussion, means you lose the point. It's a form of running away, and speaks to how cowed you are. You keep losing, and diverting into attacking the messenger, and abandoning your message. Wouldn't it be better to just "shut up"?

Think Maddog meant to say...


"Are you ever capable of not making shit up?"

Tommy Monk wrote:

Think Maddog meant to say...

"Are you ever capable of not making shit up?"

No. All southerners are capable of anti-reason, but this time he blurted out just what he meant.

He's a big boy. He doesn't need protection...especially from you. You've got your own problems.

Tommy Monk wrote:


Think Maddog meant to say...


"Are you ever capable of not making shit up?"

Yeah.

My bad.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Think Maddog meant to say...

"Are you ever capable of not making shit up?"

No. All southerners are capable of anti-reason, but this time he blurted out just what he meant.

He's a big boy. He doesn't need protection...especially from you. You've got your own problems.

Really...?


So what do you think these problems are that you are claiming I've got...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No.  All southerners are capable of anti-reason, but this time he blurted out just what he meant.

He's a big boy.  He doesn't need protection...especially from you.  You've got your own problems.

Really...?

So what do you think these problems are that you are claiming I've got...?

Extreme racism/fascism.

No Quill... It's you who has problems bruv...


I have friends and family who are of a variety of ethnicities, and who I love and respect... And when I travel abroad, I like to explore the local areas and immerse myself and mix with/blend in with the local people as much as possible... So I think it's fair to say that I am certainly not an 'extreme racist' (or regular racist), as you claim I am...


And I am a firm believer of democracy and small government and the rights of freedom for the public... And for businesses to be allowed to operate in a fair and sensible way that on one hand are regulated enough so that employee rights are protected and environmental protections and financial rules are obeyed and correct taxes are paid etc, but also free from other forms of authoritarian state control... So I'm hardly any type of fascist either...!


The problem is all yours in that you need to keep throwing these abusive labels at people in order to try to justify your own warped ideology and position on things!

Tommy Monk wrote:

No Quill... It's you who has problems bruv...

I have friends and family who are of a variety of ethnicities, and who I love and respect... And when I travel abroad, I like to explore the local areas and immerse myself and mix with/blend in with the local people as much as possible... So I think it's fair to say that I am certainly not an 'extreme racist' (or regular racist), as you claim I am...

Tom, while you are busy blending in, you are also making the 'we/they' distinction.  Do you have to travel abroad to visit 'them'?  Or, are all the people of color in the UK busy raping women and starting the violence, you notoriously post about on NewsFix?

Tommy Monk wrote:And I am a firm believer of democracy and small government and the rights of freedom for the public... And for businesses to be allowed to operate in a fair and sensible way that on one hand are regulated enough so that employee rights are protected and environmental protections and financial rules are obeyed and correct taxes are paid etc, but also free from other forms of authoritarian state control... So I'm hardly any type of fascist either...!

Fascists were interested on all those things, too. It’s just the side they took and the degree to which they tolerated other views. In order to believe in democracy, you have to believe in self-determination. In order to believe in self-determination, you have to allow people to express themselves.

Yet, at every demonstration, every expression of opinion, you seem to argue intolerance and side with the police suppression of free opinion. You may think you are a democrat, but I don’t.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:And I am a firm believer of democracy and small government and the rights of freedom for the public... And for businesses to be allowed to operate in a fair and sensible way that on one hand are regulated enough so that employee rights are protected and environmental protections and financial rules are obeyed and correct taxes are paid etc, but also free from other forms of authoritarian state control... So I'm hardly any type of fascist either...!

Fascists were interested on all those things, too. It’s just the side they took and the degree to which they tolerated other views. In order to believe in democracy, you have to believe in self-determination. In order to believe in self-determination, you have to allow people to express themselves.

Yet, at every demonstration, every expression of opinion, you seem to argue intolerance and side with the police suppression of free opinion. You may think you are a democrat, but I don’t.

But I support the restoration of democracy in UK and the UK right to self determination... Which is why I voted for Brexit!!!

And I support freedom of speech and freedom of opinion!!!

Your lot are the ones who oppose this at every turn!!!

It is your lot who think that only your opinions and viewpoints are allowed to exist... And your lot who try to vilify anyone who dares express any other opinion that you disagree with and actively seek to silence and shut down any expression of any other opinion...


It is your lot who are therefore anti democratic and fascist and dangerous!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Your lot are the ones who oppose this at every turn!!!

Only because without the EU, Britain might not make it.

But, as luck would have it, all bets are off now with covid.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:And I am a firm believer of democracy and small government and the rights of freedom for the public... And for businesses to be allowed to operate in a fair and sensible way that on one hand are regulated enough so that employee rights are protected and environmental protections and financial rules are obeyed and correct taxes are paid etc, but also free from other forms of authoritarian state control... So I'm hardly any type of fascist either...!

Fascists were interested on all those things, too.  It’s just the side they took and the degree to which they tolerated other views.  In order to believe in democracy, you have to believe in self-determination.  In order to believe in self-determination, you have to allow people to express themselves.

Yet, at every demonstration, every expression of opinion, you seem to argue intolerance and side with the police suppression of free opinion.  You may think you are a democrat, but I don’t.

But I support the restoration of democracy in UK and the UK right to self determination... Which is why I voted for Brexit!!!

And I support freedom of speech and freedom of opinion!!!

Your lot are the ones who oppose this at every turn!!!

It is your lot who think that only your opinions and viewpoints are allowed to exist... And your lot who try to vilify anyone who dares express any other opinion that you disagree with and actively seek to silence and shut down any expression of any other opinion...


It is your lot who are therefore anti democratic and fascist and dangerous!!!

And you vilify anyone who disagrees with your views. Does that make you anti-democratic, fascist and dangerous?

Think about what you're saying!

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


But I support the restoration of democracy in UK and the UK right to self determination... Which is why I voted for Brexit!!!

And I support freedom of speech and freedom of opinion!!!

Your lot are the ones who oppose this at every turn!!!

It is your lot who think that only your opinions and viewpoints are allowed to exist... And your lot who try to vilify anyone who dares express any other opinion that you disagree with and actively seek to silence and shut down any expression of any other opinion...


It is your lot who are therefore anti democratic and fascist and dangerous!!!

And you vilify anyone who disagrees with your views. Does that make you anti-democratic, fascist and dangerous?

Think about what you're saying!

Did you mean to quote Tommy or Quill with this post?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


But I support the restoration of democracy in UK and the UK right to self determination... Which is why I voted for Brexit!!!

And I support freedom of speech and freedom of opinion!!!

Your lot are the ones who oppose this at every turn!!!

It is your lot who think that only your opinions and viewpoints are allowed to exist... And your lot who try to vilify anyone who dares express any other opinion that you disagree with and actively seek to silence and shut down any expression of any other opinion...


It is your lot who are therefore anti democratic and fascist and dangerous!!!

And you vilify anyone who disagrees with your views. Does that make you anti-democratic, fascist and dangerous?

Think about what you're saying!

No I don't try to vilify anyone by trying to label them as things such as racist/fascist etc, or attempt to silence and shut down their opinion... I merely sometimes disagree and I explain why my opinion is different.

That is true. Tommy rarely if ever, labels people.

No, I suppose you're right -- Tommy's approach is a bit more clever than that.

It depends on what one means by "label".  Tommy's modus operandi is to infer by frequent messaging against people of color.  He only posts what puts people of color in a bad light, conveying by inference that they are bad people.

Of course, it's only appearance, because he is cherry-picking the subject matter.

Ben Reilly wrote:No, I suppose you're right -- Tommy's approach is a bit more clever than that.

I think that’s a tad unfair. Just because he doesn’t label people doesn’t mean he’s being “clever”. I don’t label people but not because I’m trying to be clever. You may find him annoying or whatever, but he’s just debating. I often disagree with him and on homosexuality in particular, I find his views totally horrible, but he’s never outright rude.

He is sometimes, to be fair. He'll say he's been provoked, but we all feel provoked at times, so that's not an excuse I think any of us would accept.

I say he's more clever because he's not as obvious as some we've had on this forum. He at least tries to leave a trail of breadcrumbs to lead people to his desired conclusion. I like it -- it keeps me on my toes.

Ben Reilly wrote:He is sometimes, to be fair. He'll say he's been provoked, but we all feel provoked at times, so that's not an excuse I think any of us would accept.

I say he's more clever because he's not as obvious as some we've had on this forum. He at least tries to leave a trail of breadcrumbs to lead people to his desired conclusion. I like it -- it keeps me on my toes.

Fair enough post. The breadcrumb thing is spot on. I tend to either like that approach or find it exasperating. In a debate I’m rather more “stick to the point and say what you mean”....as you know.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:He is sometimes, to be fair. He'll say he's been provoked, but we all feel provoked at times, so that's not an excuse I think any of us would accept.

I say he's more clever because he's not as obvious as some we've had on this forum. He at least tries to leave a trail of breadcrumbs to lead people to his desired conclusion. I like it -- it keeps me on my toes.

Fair enough post. The breadcrumb thing is spot on. I tend to either like that approach or find it exasperating. In a debate I’m rather more “stick to the point and say what you mean”....as you know.

I know exactly what you mean

The breadcrumb approach is intriguing when done well, but when you can see the agenda behind it, yes, it can be exasperating. In fairness, I like to try to let people say things in their own way, but sometimes it's just too obvious.

Some people just don't like seeing the truth... it makes them squirm like they've got an itchy breadcrumb...

Tommy Monk wrote:



Some people just don't like seeing the truth... it makes them squirm like they've got an itchy breadcrumb...

Itchy breadcrumbs in bed is the worst.
I have never heard of the breadcrumb approach, I can see how it may work though.

My opinion is Tommy says what he thinks.
I think he stands alone on here with his views on homosexuality and he does seem to judge black and white people differently.....but he doesn't disguise his views either.

I don't judge people differently... It is the media and lefties who downplay the huge amount of criminal activities and dodgy behaviour of certain people because of ethnicity/nationality/religion...


I merely highlight the truth.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Some people just don't like seeing the truth... it makes them squirm like they've got an itchy breadcrumb...

Itchy breadcrumbs in bed is the worst.
I have never heard of the breadcrumb approach, I can see how it may work though.

Itchy breadcrumbs is a different metaphor from trail of breadcrumbs, but equally meaningful. I like both.

Tommy Monk wrote:I don't judge people differently... It is the media and lefties who downplay the criminal activities and behaviour of certain people because of ethnicity/nationality/religion...

Meh...the RW media does it's fair share. Haven't you noticed Fox News?

Anyway, you are changing the subject. Your message is different from the media, even though one might be influenced by the latter.

Never seen fox news.


Breadcrumb is rhyming slang for bum.

Tommy Monk wrote:Breadcrumb is rhyming slang for bum.

Oh, and I thought it was a new metaphor.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C6jiNMg1PAk

Tommy Monk wrote:


Never seen fox news.


Breadcrumb is rhyming slang for bum.

So you mean that someone has an itchy vagrant?