I think tolerance is the enemy

[LaMaestra]

Being 'guaranteed an interview' is wrong in every way. It is patronising to the people it is intended to help and unfair on everyone else.

Positive discrimination is as bad as negative discrimination. ALL discrimination is wrong.

[Sally]

Being 'guaranteed an interview' is wrong in every way. It is patronising to the people it is intended to help and unfair on everyone else.

Positive discrimination is as bad as negative discrimination. ALL discrimination is wrong.

There were jobs I'd like to have been interviewed for when I was young out of school. At that time they were classified as "male" jobs (and I don't man heavy physical labor, welders; women weren't even being hired as insurance agents). The job notices in the paper were divided into "men" and "women". If thadn't been the case, I'm sure I could have convinced someone I could do those jobs. But I didn't have a chance because of negative discrimination: I couldn't get interviewed due to gender.

[LaMaestra]

As I said, Sally, wrong on every level.

[Arte]

Being 'guaranteed an interview' is wrong in every way. It is patronising to the people it is intended to help and unfair on everyone else.

Positive discrimination is as bad as negative discrimination. ALL discrimination is wrong.

I don't see how getting an interview is "wrong in every way". And I definitely don't see why it's necessarily patronising or even unfair. And the notion that "positive discrimination" is as bad as negative discrimination just doesn't make any sense. You're trying to tell me that getting HIRED because I'm black, is just as bad as getting FIRED because I'm black? GTFOH

[LaMaestra]

It's still discrimination. And discrimination is still wrong.

Or do you Americans just think differently?

[Hobbes!]

Being 'guaranteed an interview' is wrong in every way. It is patronising to the people it is intended to help and unfair on everyone else.

Positive discrimination is as bad as negative discrimination. ALL discrimination is wrong.

I don't see how getting an interview is "wrong in every way". And I definitely don't see why it's necessarily patronising or even unfair. And the notion that "positive discrimination" is as bad as negative discrimination just doesn't make any sense. You're trying to tell me that getting HIRED because I'm black, is just as bad as getting FIRED because I'm black? GTFOH

So you see nothing wrong with the notion of someone being given an interview with no reference whatsoever to their actual skills?

Whether it's patronising or not is a matter of personal opinion. Fairness on the other hand is debatable. I have already outlined most of my thoughts on this so I won't repeat them - only add that it's hypocritical to criticise one instance of being treated differently solely because of the colour of one's skin (Or whatever the arbitrary and irrelevant attribute is) and support another.

[Arte]

Being 'guaranteed an interview' is wrong in every way. It is patronising to the people it is intended to help and unfair on everyone else.

Positive discrimination is as bad as negative discrimination. ALL discrimination is wrong.

I don't see how getting an interview is "wrong in every way". And I definitely don't see why it's necessarily patronising or even unfair. And the notion that "positive discrimination" is as bad as negative discrimination just doesn't make any sense. You're trying to tell me that getting HIRED because I'm black, is just as bad as getting FIRED because I'm black? GTFOH

So you see nothing wrong with the notion of someone being given an interview with no reference whatsoever to their actual skills?

Whether it's patronising or not is a matter of personal opinion. Fairness on the other hand is debatable. I have already outlined most of my thoughts on this so I won't repeat them - only add that it's hypocritical to criticise one instance of being treated differently solely because of the colour of one's skin (Or whatever the arbitrary and irrelevant attribute is) and support another.

No, it's not hypocritical to hold two seperate opinions on two seperate instances, especially when the two instances are completely different, if not complete opposites in this case. And no why would getting an interview with no reference to your skill even matter? First, it's only an interview, lets not act like this person has been elected president just because their black. Second, the interview process is to determine if someone is suitable for the job, sure, for some jobs, qualification matters, but not most jobs. Third, people are given jobs unjustly all the time, so I don't see why we need to crack down on cripples, or blacks or anyone else. If I own a company I'm going to hire my friends over anyone else regardless of qualification, it's unrealistic to think you can change that, or any other "wrong" hiring practice. This is not a meritocracy, the world is not fair.

It's still discrimination. And discrimination is still wrong.

Or do you Americans just think differently?

Saying discrimination is wrong means basically nothing, because in this instance it doesn't appear so. you see, you need reasons for arguments. You need to explain why "positive discrimination" is wrong, because I would argue that college aid for poor people is "positive discrimination" and I doubt you think that's wrong. You don't just get to use a BS buzzword like discrimination and end an argument, it doesn't work that way, the world is not that simple.

[LaMaestra]

Being 'guaranteed an interview' is wrong in every way. It is patronising to the people it is intended to help and unfair on everyone else.

Positive discrimination is as bad as negative discrimination. ALL discrimination is wrong.

I don't see how getting an interview is "wrong in every way". And I definitely don't see why it's necessarily patronising or even unfair. And the notion that "positive discrimination" is as bad as negative discrimination just doesn't make any sense. You're trying to tell me that getting HIRED because I'm black, is just as bad as getting FIRED because I'm black? GTFOH

So you see nothing wrong with the notion of someone being given an interview with no reference whatsoever to their actual skills?

Whether it's patronising or not is a matter of personal opinion. Fairness on the other hand is debatable. I have already outlined most of my thoughts on this so I won't repeat them - only add that it's hypocritical to criticise one instance of being treated differently solely because of the colour of one's skin (Or whatever the arbitrary and irrelevant attribute is) and support another.

No, it's not hypocritical to hold two seperate opinions on two seperate instances, especially when the two instances are completely different, if not complete opposites in this case. And no why would getting an interview with no reference to your skill even matter? First, it's only an interview, lets not act like this person has been elected president just because their black. Second, the interview process is to determine if someone is suitable for the job, sure, for some jobs, qualification matters, but not most jobs. Third, people are given jobs unjustly all the time, so I don't see why we need to crack down on cripples, or blacks or anyone else. If I own a company I'm going to hire my friends over anyone else regardless of qualification, it's unrealistic to think you can change that, or any other "wrong" hiring practice. This is not a meritocracy, the world is not fair.

It's still discrimination. And discrimination is still wrong.

Or do you Americans just think differently?

Saying discrimination is wrong means basically nothing, because in this instance it doesn't appear so. you see, you need reasons for arguments. You need to explain why "positive discrimination" is wrong, because I would argue that college aid for poor people is "positive discrimination" and I doubt you think that's wrong. You don't just get to use a BS buzzword like discrimination and end an argument, it doesn't work that way, the world is not that simple.

Emboldened for emphasis: Exactly. The world is not fair. And that is why society and the world is so effed up.

[Hobbes!]

This is not a meritocracy, the world is not fair.

So "The world isn't fair" is your argument? Ok, fine, why don't we use that to justify anything? If we're going to go down that route we may as well just turn the clock back and forget about all this equality stuff once and for all

And the position is hypocritical. You cannot have it both ways - either it's unjust to be treated unequally due to the colour of your skin or it isn't. You don't get to pick and choose when equality should apply to you at your own convenience

[ThaHoward]

These things can be silly many times. Especially when stores are giving females 15% lower prices and males 15% higher prices to "compensate" for the wage gap. Only error is that, here atleast, men and women earn the same for the same job. It is just that it is still female and male dominated jobs. And to let women get whole grade(s) lower to get into "male" studies and the other way around can be a little bit too much. However I can see why things like 40% quotas can be good initially, but then I think it should only be like that in the very start to get down some social walls, which pretty much already have been torn down.

[Sally]

So you see nothing wrong with the notion of someone being given an interview with no reference whatsoever to their actual skills?

Giving them an interview doesn't mean you've hired them. It simply means you're checking them out.

[Hobbes!]

So you see nothing wrong with the notion of someone being given an interview with no reference whatsoever to their actual skills?

Giving them an interview doesn't mean you've hired them. It simply means you're checking them out.

Absolutely right. It's also - and I appreciate that this isn't always the case - a big jump past the initial shortlisting from the CVs. Getting from being seen as a half-read piece of paper to an actual person and potential employee is a battle in itself. Skipping that battle with no reference to that CV, and therefore those skills, is what's wrong about the idea

[LaMaestra]

'Dumbing down' of examinations and the 'there must be no competition, everyone must be seen to be winners' mentality are other by products of 'tolerance'. One cannot always come first and they must accept and respect this. Also, the plain bald truth is that not everyone is of above average (or even average) intellect so why should those with excellent academic potential be sacrificed on the altar of tolerance just to be seen to be doing the right thing?

[Sally]

'Dumbing down' of examinations and the 'there must be no competition, everyone must be seen to be winners' mentality are other by products of 'tolerance'. One cannot always come first and they must accept and respect this. Also, the plain bald truth is that not everyone is of above average (or even average) intellect so why should those with excellent academic potential be sacrificed on the altar of tolerance just to be seen to be doing the right thing?

Where is all that being done?

[Asex]

Arte said:

"...the world is not fair..."

Then what are you looking for, Arte?

[Asex]

"...Further, the culture of discrimination affects life in a variety of ways. In African American, communities, for example, the issue of absentee fathers is a major concern. A black child could be raised by a single mom who is working two shifts just to send her child/children to good schools. While they got a step up from going to a bad school, they still don't have the same homelife. Where A had got to go to a good school and had the benefit of two supportive parents and a nice prepared dinner every night, Z might spend most of their time alone with no one to help them with their school assignments and having to cook their own food and prepare their own clothes.

Note that I said supportive parents. I had one college professor tell our class her experience with a black student whose family actively tried and sabotage their child's education because they didn't want their child to grow up think he/she was better than them. There are all sorts of ways discrimination affects these groups that either don't affect the advantaged population anywhere near the same degree or in some case at all..."

I can't understand where is the discrimination, who is preventing African American from taking care of their children?

I also don't understand who's fault it is when a black student's family tries to sabotage their child's education?

"...I do agree with you that there is no easy alternative solution and would go further to say I don't think any solution will ever be perfect. However, I think giving this added consideration to disadvantaged groups will do more to minimize the discrimination overall..."

In my opinion this should read:

"... I do agree with you that there is no easy alternative solution and would go further to say I don't think any solution will ever be perfect. However, I think giving this added consideration to unfortunate groups will do more to minimize the injustice overall..."

Do you agree Lost247365?

[TheLycanthrope]

Hiring someone based off of the sex, race, nationality is a form of bias. Unless this is a job that needs to be performed specifically by a female (such as a female underwear model, let us say) or male then there is most likely an uncessecary bias. Some businesses may factor in maternity leave when considering a female or whether or not said applicant is married or not etc. etc.
There are a lot of skewed, bias, and just outright wrong statistics and surveys out there about bias in hiring, but there ARE bias in hiring such as the example you gave and I am against hiring one person over another who is more qualified due to a bias. (I've said the word bias a lot)

So, should we tolerate this? No. It is a form of discrimination to hire one person over another due to something such as race or sex. I, a white man, applied for a job a while ago (I will not say where) and I was more qualified and knew people in the workplace rather than the other person, a black man, also going for the same position who was less qualified than me. . . yet he got the job. Could it be because of race? Possibly. But, assuming that it was, this is a bias that should not be tolerated; in this case tolerance is an enemy.

[LaMaestra]

'Dumbing down' of examinations and the 'there must be no competition, everyone must be seen to be winners' mentality are other by products of 'tolerance'. One cannot always come first and they must accept and respect this. Also, the plain bald truth is that not everyone is of above average (or even average) intellect so why should those with excellent academic potential be sacrificed on the altar of tolerance just to be seen to be doing the right thing?

Where is all that being done?

Britain. And I live there (unfortunately) so I know what I'm talking about. It's called political correctness and was implemented by the previous government.

[Asex]

What motivates my position on this matter is minimizing/avoiding injustice.

The idea that there is a competition between races is foreign to me.

That's why I see no meaning in undoing one injustice with another.

And talking about competition between races: it could be something like who first invents some sophisticated weapons and eradicate all the other races with them and claim victory but I see no winning in such scenario.