is positive racism as bad as negative racism

[Lucifus]

Yes. Its called positive discrimination which is just as bad as negative discrimination. To make things worse its a subject that no politician will touch with a bargepole.

I talked in a conference that was being recorded on films with high level ministers and organisations giving speachs saying "yes we are more equal now positive discrimination is in place".

I stood up and said "Well no discrimination is discrimination, your just as bad as the racists and homophobes, if i get a job i want to get it because i was the best person for the job NOT because they decided a little multi culturism would look good and they wont be sued by the goverment because they didn't hit their look good on paper so we look like we want equality. This isn't equality its a farce giving unfair advantages to a minority population, if they need to use there race, sexuality, gender or disability's as a method to get into the job then they have no place being there in the first place........oh and by the way positive discrimination was set up to help people like me"

To say the least they looked at me like i just walked over to them, stood on the table, dropped my pants and dropped a steaming shit into their coffee cups.

To say the least nothing will be done about it. No politician has a backbone anymore.

 

[Seldon2639]

no such thing as positive racism

Sure there is! For example:

"I love black people!"
"Asians are really smart!"
"Hispanic people cook really well!"

Doesn't mean that it's accurate.

Thats steryotyping, and is not a good thing.

OT: Yes, if an English man can't get a job because the company need to fill there minority quotas, even if he is better qualified, then that is as bad as racism.

Well, there are some stereotypes that are legitimately backed up by empirical evidence (like Ashkenazi intellect), but that's neither here nor there.

The issue with "better qualified" is that it assumes from the outset that there was an equality of opportunity to become qualified. Here in America, there's a pretty significant debate about whether it's the Jonathan Kozol "Savage Inequality" we-shaft-minorities-when-it-comes-to-education reality, or the Herrnsein & Murray "Bell Curve" the-successful-parents-had-smarter-kids reality. It could be a bit of both, obviously, but the question revolves around whether ones believes that everyone had the same chance to do well and some succeeded, or that some people started off with a leg up.

If white people start off on third base, is it unreasonable to want to give a minority applicant a pinch runner... Okay, the metaphor doesn't work. The point is that qualification is not a measurement of ones actual abilities (arguably) and is merely a measurement of his opportunities. If there is a disparity, should it be about final destination, or about distance travelled?

 

[Ophiuchus]

Over here the BBC have a radio station called 1Xtra, a spinoff from their main Radio 1, which they marketed as their "black music station" (their exact words). If they had a similar "white music station", there'd be uproar, and rightly so because it would be utterly pointless. Of course, since the introduction of 1Xtra made absolutely no difference to the content of Radio 1, it's completely redundant as well as discriminatory and patronising.

This whole thing reminds me of a debate I once had with a friend. She wasn't happy that a mutual friend of ours was a self-confessed misogynist, and said that she thinks everyone should be equal. I agreed, but the whole discussion fell apart when it turned out that her idea of 'equal' was 'women being in charge of everything as a means of getting back at men for any slight perceived injustice'. Just... argh.

Equal means equal. I don't understand why people have so much trouble with that.

 

[Woodsey]

If someone called me cracker, honkey, white-boy, vanilla or whatever, I really could not give a shit. Nor do I know anyone that would care.

I can understand the whole deal with n*gger (us whites haven't suffered much oppression lately have we) because of where it stems from.

I find it funny about how anything that could be seen as racist if you're really twisting it around is only seen by white middle-class chaps, and yet if it's about someone black hardly any black people even mention it. I'm talking about the really stupid stuff you hear, not balls-out racism.

true, but i think that its equally racist if an offensive remark is ignored or if a white person is accused of being racist for using a phrase such as "blackboard" or "blacksheep"

i actually find the word cracker offensive (despite being a chris rock fan) as it comes from whip-cracker

speaking of positive racism, i think that people who try to "act black" using phrases like "sup nigga" can be more offensive than simply calling a black person a ******

Is it really? Well I guess you learn something new everyday.

But to add to your point on that, it's like someone calling me another offensive name from a few hundred years ago. It just holds nothing over me what so ever. But still, I'd never call someone a n*gger or p*ki - what's the point?

 

[Kiutu]

Equal should mean equal. Simple as that. But here, conservative pricks want to forbid that, as well as other ignorant/racist/prejudoce people. Even those who were oppressed opress unfortunatly. (Way too many blacks who hate gays, atleast as I have experienced)
Also feminism sometimes ruins it. Some feminists (neo/nazi feminists) strive for woman superiority, not equality.

 

[JoshGod]

i love it im racist to myself often
i got ur potatoes now we ladie!!
also its fine if its not true like the german guy we call hitler what theres nothing wrong with a team of potatoe man and heil hitler!

 

[El Poncho]

no such thing as positive racism

There is, the OP stated that racism is when you treat another race differently, so says in a building your not allowed to wear any headgear, masks etc but a person of another race wear those headdress things and are allowed to wear them inside, you are treating them differently but it's in there favor.

 

[Seldon2639]

As I see it qualificatioms are proof of ability, an un-educated person could be as able, but probably not. As for oppertunities, I could say that I dropped out of school, and therefore had no chance to study, and therefore should be equally intitled to a job as an astro-physicist, because the only reason that the other applicant are better qualified is because they went to school. Bad example but you get the idea. No matter what race the job should go to the people most capable of doing it, black white asian or alien[sub][sub]person?[/sub][/sub]; and not to the person who will look best on the ethnic minorities sheet.

You're equating "I chose to leave school" with "I couldn't go to school" or "the school I went to was crumbling down around me". That's the issue. You see it as "education is there for the taking, if you didn't go after it, that's your fault", whereas there is ample evidence that the reality is more "if you're an affluent white, education is there for the taking". Again, follow a race analogy:

If you and I are in a 100 meter dash, and I start at the 50 meter mark (because my parents are wealthier, or I live in a better neighborhood, ect), I'm going to have a better time than you. Does that mean I'm a better athlete? Probably not. Hell, if we're doing an endurance run, and I start 50 meters ahead, if I'm 50 meters ahead at the end, was I a better athlete? What if you gained ground, and I'm only 25 meters ahead by the end? You would have actually gone a greater distance, and been a better athlete.

We view minorities as getting a leg up due to "quotas" but forget the more invisible legs up affluent whites get. Life for American whites is on the whole better than life for American minorities. I don't really think it's that white people work harder or are smarter.

 

[hyrulegaybar]

no such thing as positive racism

Sure there is! For example:

"I love black people!"
"Asians are really smart!"
"Hispanic people cook really well!"

Doesn't mean that it's accurate.

Thats steryotyping, and is not a good thing.

zombie nixon is right

i love blackpeople means you dont love non black people

asians are smart means everyone else is dumb

they are two sides of the same coin, you cannot have one without the other

I was just making the point that there's such a thing as positive racism. I didn't say that it was GOOD. I said that it was positive. There's a difference. And you are also committing a lot of grievous logical fallacies. If I tell my mom I love her, it doesn't mean I don't love my dad. C'mon. This is bad because it's singling out a group of people and assuming that they all behave so similarly that you can make a blanket statement.

But we do have to be careful--you have to make blanket statements from time to time. You cannot really make a point if you have to keep conceding to exceptions to the rule. You have to get to your point eventually, even if you're setting up a rule with multiple exceptions and understanding within context what it means. Drives me nuts that you can't even have an opinion without someone jumping up your ass and saying that there's an exception to the rule. Of COURSE there's an exception to the rule. Otherwise it wouldn't be a rule, it'd be taken for granted.

 

[TikiShades]

no such thing as positive racism

Sure there is! For example:

"I love black people!"
"Asians are really smart!"
"Hispanic people cook really well!"

Doesn't mean that it's accurate.

Thats steryotyping, and is not a good thing.

zombie nixon is right

i love blackpeople means you dont love non black people

asians are smart means everyone else is dumb

they are two sides of the same coin, you cannot have one without the other

Untrue. If I say that I love black people, I can still love non-black people. But I am saying that I love someone simply because of their skin, which shouldn't be.

And asians can find it offensive, because you are saying they are smart because of their background, and not because of their hard work.

It's racist because they want to be treated equally, and feel like everyone else. If someone believes they should be treated better than others because they're a minority, and still finds the "positive racism" offensive, then they too are racist, and hypocritical as well.

 

[Seldon2639]

Equal should mean equal. Simple as that. But here, conservative pricks want to forbid that, as well as other ignorant/racist/prejudoce people. Even those who were oppressed opress unfortunatly. (Way too many blacks who hate gays, atleast as I have experienced)
Also feminism sometimes ruins it. Some feminists (neo/nazi feminists) strive for woman superiority, not equality.

In defense of black "oppression", there's a difference (a real one) between homosexual rights and Civil rights. Gay rights groups are looking for something very different, and to couch it in the same terms pisses off a lot of the old guard of the civil rights movement.

It does bother some people (myself included, white as the driven snow as I may be) to hear the right to marry homosexually being compared to the rights to vote and to... You know... not be lynched. Or to marry white people.

"What?" I hear you cry "but that's the same thing, black people didn't have a right other people had, so they needed to get it. Homosexuals don't have the right to marry, Q.E.D, Seldon." That's kind of true, but only if we mince words and equivocate. African-Americans didn't have the right to marry white people, true, and other people did. Is that really a proper analogy? African-Americans were seeking access to a right other people had: "the right to marry whites", and homosexuals are seeking the access to a right they argue other people have: "the right to marry my partner". The devil's in the details, though.

African-Americans wanted the exact same right, which is "the right to marry white people of the opposite gender" while homosexuals want an analogous right "the right to marry my partner, of the same gender". I promise you, homosexuals can marry anyone they please following the same standard everyone else is held to: consenting, of age, and opposite-gendered. Right or wrong, it's not the same thing. Homosexuals have the same right to marry that I do, they just don't care to exercise it. The difference is that African-Americans were denied a right that other groups had, while homosexuals want a right that no-one else has. It's not "homosexuals can't marry" it's "no one can marry someone of the same gender". Not to mention the voting rights, the segregation, and the whole... You know... Lynching thing.

To compare the two types of oppression is staggering.

 

[celladoth]

I don't quite understand what is being said here but it reminds me of something I either read or herd from somewhere to the effect of you should be able to say whatever when ever you want but know that everyone else can do the same thing.

Actually if anyone can find what it is I'm thinking of and post it on the thread I think it would make more sense.

 

[Kiutu]

Equal should mean equal. Simple as that. But here, conservative pricks want to forbid that, as well as other ignorant/racist/prejudoce people. Even those who were oppressed opress unfortunatly. (Way too many blacks who hate gays, atleast as I have experienced)
Also feminism sometimes ruins it. Some feminists (neo/nazi feminists) strive for woman superiority, not equality.

In defense of black "oppression", there's a difference (a real one) between homosexual rights and Civil rights. Gay rights groups are looking for something very different, and to couch it in the same terms pisses off a lot of the old guard of the civil rights movement.

It does bother some people (myself included, white as the driven snow as I may be) to hear the right to marry homosexually being compared to the rights to vote and to... You know... not be lynched. Or to marry white people.

"What?" I hear you cry "but that's the same thing, black people didn't have a right other people had, so they needed to get it. Homosexuals don't have the right to marry, Q.E.D, Seldon." That's kind of true, but only if we mince words and equivocate. African-Americans didn't have the right to marry white people, true, and other people did. Is that really a proper analogy? African-Americans were seeking access to a right other people had: "the right to marry whites", and homosexuals are seeking the access to a right they argue other people have: "the right to marry my partner". The devil's in the details, though.

African-Americans wanted the exact same right, which is "the right to marry white people of the opposite gender" while homosexuals want an analogous right "the right to marry my partner, of the same gender". I promise you, homosexuals can marry anyone they please following the same standard everyone else is held to: consenting, of age, and opposite-gendered. Right or wrong, it's not the same thing. Homosexuals have the same right to marry that I do, they just don't care to exercise it. The difference is that African-Americans were denied a right that other groups had, while homosexuals want a right that no-one else has. It's not "homosexuals can't marry" it's "no one can marry someone of the same gender". Not to mention the voting rights, the segregation, and the whole... You know... Lynching thing.

To compare the two types of oppression is staggering.

Heres why I said that. Prejudice is wrong. No excuses. Gays were not enslabed, but are still being forbidden rights and all that. You would think all blacks would appreciate their civil rights past and be for rights for all humans, but still many are ignorant fucks. What happened shouldnt be an excuse to be a dick, it should be an oportunity to be better as people.
Also people hate gays to the point of killing, and blacks were forbidden from marrying whites.
My point is, it should have been a learning experience, not an excuse for hate, and any black person who wants to forbid anyone's human rights might as well say "I liked slavery/segregation", to me anyways. (Anyone who wants to forbid rights is just as bad, but it just seems sad to not want to be better than those who harmed you)

 

[Saith]

But they do want the same thing: to marry the partner of their choice. And anywho, homosexuality isn't a race, so it would be granting the right to everybody else, so~

 

[Z of the Na'vi]

..........Positive.............Racism?

.......What?

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Megacherv]

The only racism that can be tolerated is reverse racism, damn crackers*...


(*Just to point out, I'm white)