 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] nospam com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/6/2010 12:25 PM, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
>
Unfortunately, it doesn't work, since the people involve are often *not*
interested in the help. Taking it is often even considered a betrayal of
their ideals, in some cases. There was a discussion on this a while back
on some MSNBC program, where the non-white brought in to talk about it
said, "We don't mind help, but we need to solve the problems ourselves,
and no one else can do it, so you don't want hand outs." It was clear as
mud as to what the hell she thought "help" would be, in such context, or
how you provide it, especially when the people involved flat out are
*not* solving the problems themselves.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/05/2010 5:29 PM, 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.
>
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> In the UK it is called ???positive discrimination???.
Which is an even worse oxymoron than "free speech zone"... :P
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/05/2010 10:34 AM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>> In the UK it is called ???positive discrimination???.
>
> Which is an even worse oxymoron than "free speech zone"... :P
>
may not agree that it is correct to do so. And what makes "free speech
zone" an oxymoron?
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> And what makes "free speech zone" an oxymoron?
Free speech is the notion that you have the right to express your opinion
without restrictions, wherever you want and whenever you want. A "free
speech zone" in the US is a restriction put to certain protest events.
The restriction is that the protest must be performed within a well-defined
zone. Exercising your right to free speech out of that zone is illegal.
Which kind of makes the whole point of "free speech" quite moot.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
