Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> And yes, there are controversies over that. California keeps flip-flopping 
> between "affirmative action" and not. (AA being where you make it easier for 
> minorities to (say) get into college simply because they're a minority.)

  One of the most hilarious terms that some people use is "reverse racism".

  That term just doesn't make any sense. What is "reverse racism"? What
people *mean* by that, and I'm not kidding a bit here, is when a white
person is the victim and a non-white person is the perpretrator. As if
regular plain "racism" was only when a white person is prejudiced or
discriminates a non-white person due to his ethnicity. Just the existence
of that term and the meaning it's used with is even more telling, IMO.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> I think that our parliament should be hung ;-)

I think you mean 'hanged'. :-)
See you tomorrow @ 7.
BTW don't forget that you are now on record as saying that you're buying ;-)
> I’ll tell you something. This Friday I get Dr John so drunk that he will regret
starting this thread. 


John
-- 
Cogito sum,|| wbu### [at] tznvypbz (rot'ed) || GPG Key Fingerprint:
ergo sum,  ||   These opinions are mine alone,   || 0D9BCF4CF1B71CA2F5F7
cogito     ||     others can find their own      || BFBBCBC34EDEAEFCE453

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 May 2010 08:51:31 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   I think this example is rather telling. And it certainly isn't the
>   only
> example of such things.

It is - applied here in the US to decision making, we call it "reverse 
discrimination" (which in some ways I think is kinda a stupid term, 
because it's still discrimination, though I understand what's meant by 
it).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:03:00 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 05/05/2010 11:59 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 May 2010 23:01:06 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> You all know that this thread has a time limit. After tomorrow
>>> (Thursday) the election is over, I hope.<g>
>>
>> It seems lots of people hope so, but what are the real odds of a hung
>> parliament?
>>
>> Jim
> 
> “Real odds” how would I know? But at the end of last month they were 8
> to 13, so said the bookies. Today it was 4 to 7 for a hung parliament. I
> think that our parliament should be hung ;-)

LOL

The projections I've seen show nobody with a majority (ie greater than, 
what is it, 326?), but with the conservatives with the largest number of 
MPs.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> It is - applied here in the US to decision making, we call it "reverse 
> discrimination" (which in some ways I think is kinda a stupid term, 
> because it's still discrimination, though I understand what's meant by 
> it).

  I think "reverse discrimination" is the idea that two wrongs can make
a right. Which I think is a bad idea in the long run. Do enough "reverse
discrimination" and you will only cause more animosity between people,
as some people will feel that others are getting privileges, not to talk
about the hypocrisy ("all people are equal and should have equal rights
and privileges, but we are giving this group of people extra privileges").

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I think "reverse discrimination" is the idea that two wrongs can make
> a right. 

The proponents claim that it's making up for past wrongs. Since economics 
(amongst other things) has a high level of hysteresis in families and 
cultures, by (for example) giving money to people for education who have 
families that traditionally have been unable to pay for education because of 
lack of education caused by earlier racial discrimination, you can get 
people back on par with the rest of the culture.

> about the hypocrisy ("all people are equal and should have equal rights
> and privileges, but we are giving this group of people extra privileges").

It's not hypocrisy any more than making the thief give back the stolen money 
is stealing.

I'm not saying I agree, mind, but I can see the rationale.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 May 2010 15:08:48 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> It is - applied here in the US to decision making, we call it "reverse
>> discrimination" (which in some ways I think is kinda a stupid term,
>> because it's still discrimination, though I understand what's meant by
>> it).
> 
>   I think "reverse discrimination" is the idea that two wrongs can make
> a right. Which I think is a bad idea in the long run. 

I agree with this. A better approach is to get rid of the reverse 
discrimination.

> Do enough "reverse
> discrimination" and you will only cause more animosity between people,
> as some people will feel that others are getting privileges, not to talk
> about the hypocrisy ("all people are equal and should have equal rights
> and privileges, but we are giving this group of people extra
> privileges").

Yep.  When I was in high school, I worked for a guy who was put in the 
position of having to work *by himself* until his staff was done with 
classes (this was a retail store setting).  He started at 8:00 in the 
morning and had to work straight through until about 4:00 when we showed 
up; he had to close the store (which was not seen as a good thing) to 
take lunch and to do the mandatory trip to the bank with the deposit.

Why?

Because his boss (the regional director) had told him the next staff he 
hired *must* be a minority of some sort - woman, racial minority, didn't 
matter, but he couldn't hire another white male.

Except that he was the *only* senior staff in the store - no assistant 
manager at all.  I was the senior sales clerk (so usually was "the boss" 
in the evenings).  No other sales staff.

Needless to say, he was found to be ineffective because nobody who met 
this arbitrary criteria set down by the sales director was applying for 
the jobs.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/05/2010 6:25 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> I think that our parliament should be hung ;-)
>
> I think you mean 'hanged'. :-)

You sure know how to spoil a joke ;-)

> See you tomorrow @ 7.

> BTW don't forget that you are now on record as saying that you're buying ;-)

ONE!

>> I’ll tell you something. This Friday I get Dr John so drunk that he will regret
starting this thread.

OK two :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 06/05/2010 6:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:03:00 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 05/05/2010 11:59 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 05 May 2010 23:01:06 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> You all know that this thread has a time limit. After tomorrow
>>>> (Thursday) the election is over, I hope.<g>
>>>
>>> It seems lots of people hope so, but what are the real odds of a hung
>>> parliament?
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> “Real odds” how would I know? But at the end of last month they were 8
>> to 13, so said the bookies. Today it was 4 to 7 for a hung parliament. I
>> think that our parliament should be hung ;-)
>
> LOL
>
> The projections I've seen show nobody with a majority (ie greater than,
> what is it, 326?), but with the conservatives with the largest number of
> MPs.

Play with this and put the 3 main parties at 33.3%

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8609989.stm

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 5/6/2010 9:29 AM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> And yes, there are controversies over that. California keeps flip-flopping
>> between "affirmative action" and not. (AA being where you make it easier for
>> minorities to (say) get into college simply because they're a minority.)
>
>    One of the most hilarious terms that some people use is "reverse racism".
>
>    That term just doesn't make any sense. What is "reverse racism"? What
> people *mean* by that, and I'm not kidding a bit here, is when a white
> person is the victim and a non-white person is the perpretrator. As if
> regular plain "racism" was only when a white person is prejudiced or
> discriminates a non-white person due to his ethnicity. Just the existence
> of that term and the meaning it's used with is even more telling, IMO.
>
Not quite that simplistic, but sort of correct. It refers to the 
tendency of groups to automatically assume racism in one group, and thus 
victimize them, preemptively. Its completely stupid, but just as real as 
'normal' racism.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message