Poll The 'Rooney Rule'/positive discrimination

[singlerider]

LOL ok ignore the point if you want you fucking cretin.

It's a ridiculous point that should be ignored.

If people employ something poorly - that's their problem.

It's like people that complain of 'Health and Safety gone mad' or idiots that say "we can't do that because of Data Protection" - the vast majority of the time what you've got is incompetent fuckwits that apply what they think is the law in a ridiculous fashion, but rather than blaming the fuckwits that are too much of a fucking tard to use it properly, people blame the law.

If affirmative action is used to employ people that are not the best candidate for the job - blame the people doing the recruitment. They're incompetent fuckwits that should be sacked. Affirmative action should only be used to give people an equal opportunity when ordinarily they wouldn't, because society is inherently 'ist'.

If the police don't carry out a proper investigation into a huge rape scandal (as they have done in numerous cases, such as the North Wales case, Isle of Wight children's homes, Elm Guest House scandal etc) then the problem is incompetent policing - so the blame should be laid at the feet of those responsible, nothing less, nothing more

 

[singlerider]

Well, I've read both your posts and Golgotha's carefully and you both seem to me to be doing precisely what you describe at the beginning of this post, namely excusing the discrimination inherent in affirmative action for the sake of the greater good.

Overall, with respect, your post posits a false distinction. Affirmative action is *both* an attempt to redress the balance *and* discriminatory in its own right, and I maintain for the reasons given above that the latter puts it out of court.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I think if applied correctly, it is not discriminatory - it's not giving any one group of people an unfair advantage, it's removing the unfair advantage that already exists

 

[Athens]

Genuine questions: do we know for certain that this is due to positive discrimination/affirmative action being applied to police recruitment, how was it implemented and what percentage of the Police Force of NI is now Catholic?

The percentage is now a lot closer to the population as a whole. I can't remember exactly how it was applied, as far as I know if two candidates were equal, then the position was given to the "taig". I think some of the imbalance was corrected due to the positive discrimination, but some others was probably due to Catholics/nationalists applying as they had always wanted to be a police officer and finally seen it as a more potential career due to the change in circumstances, whereas in the past they wouldn't have applied because they feared recriminations from republicans.

Not sure if that post makes sense, writing it on my phone while making dinner!

 

[Mamma Mia]

There's a pretty big difference between the Rooney Rule and affirmative action in my opinion.

 

[Judge Jules]

I genuinely don't think there is. Both involve favouring a specific group of people on the basis of the colour of their skin. While I understand the motivation behind the Rooney Rule, I don't see that that alters the nature of it.

 

[Athens]

I genuinely don't think there is. Both involve favouring a specific group of people on the basis of the colour of their skin. While I understand the motivation behind the Rooney Rule, I don't see that that alters the nature of it.

How would you go about addressing the issue?

 

[singlerider]

I genuinely don't think there is. Both involve favouring a specific group of people on the basis of the colour of their skin. While I understand the motivation behind the Rooney Rule, I don't see that that alters the nature of it.

You said earlier that the argument against affirmative action did not rely on the assumption that people less competent were being unfairly favoured.

You've just completely contradicted that.

Discrimination is acting in an unfair manner that denies people opportunities or treats them differently based upon a prejudice or characteristic.

This is what happens everywhere, all the time. Women get paid less. Black people don't get interviews. It's undeniable.

'Positive' discrimination would be acting in an unfair manner to give people opportunities and treat them differently based upon a characteristic.

An unfair manner in this instance - favouring people because of the colour of their skin - would necessitate them being given a job because they were black (for instance), rather than because they were the best candidate for the job. If they weren't less competent, it would not be favouring them, it would simply be a judgement call between two equally capable candidates.

You clearly think that affirmative action is unfairly favouring certain types of people at the expense of others, which suggests you think that the status quo is such that people are currently being treated equally; and any attempt to insist that society recognises and addresses the endemic racism/sexism or whatever else is tilting the balance in their favour.

What you're saying, and what you say you're saying are incompatible

 

[peterhague]

I might be tempted to accept the bad principle of a Rooney rule if I at least thought it would be harmless, but MC Golgotha has succeeded in persuading me that it would in fact be very successful.

 

[Judge Jules]

You said earlier that the argument against affirmative action did not rely on the assumption that people less competent were being unfairly favoured.

You've just completely contradicted that.

Discrimination is acting in an unfair manner that denies people opportunities or treats them differently based upon a prejudice or characteristic.

This is what happens everywhere, all the time. Women get paid less. Black people don't get interviews. It's undeniable.

'Positive' discrimination would be acting in an unfair manner to give people opportunities and treat them differently based upon a characteristic.

An unfair manner in this instance - favouring people because of the colour of their skin - would necessitate them being given a job because they were black (for instance), rather than because they were the best candidate for the job. If they weren't less competent, it would not be favouring them, it would simply be a judgement call between two equally capable candidates.

You clearly think that affirmative action is unfairly favouring certain types of people at the expense of others, which suggests you think that the status quo is such that people are currently being treated equally; and any attempt to insist that society recognises and addresses the endemic racism/sexism or whatever else is tilting the balance in their favour.

What you're saying, and what you say you're saying are incompatible

I suppose I should feel flattered that you find yourself so cornered in this debate that you keep setting up false versions of what I've supposedly said, or claiming to read my mind about what I "clearly think", in order to attack those phantoms and try to cloak your failed argument in respectability.

Try, if you can, to find a direct quote in my posts going back on my previously expressed view - by which I stand - that the argument against affirmative action doesn't rest on a view that less competent people are being favoured (it can have that effect sometimes, but that's a side issue). You'll fail, because I've said nothing of the kind. It remains my view that you set up a complete straw man when you suggested this, and nothing I've said since is remotely incompatible with that view, however much you want it to be.

Save your lectures please on the fact that discrimination based on sex or colour still happens. I'm well aware of that, nor have I said or suggested the contrary. The fact that you allege otherwise strongly suggests an underlying assumption on your part that anyone who disagrees with you and your views on this subject must themselves support such behaviour. I'm gong to treat that with the contempt that it deserves.

My quarrel with affirmative action - to repeat yet again - is that it makes use of the very approach it seeks to root out, namely favouring a particular group of people because of skin colour or sex. In doing so it cuts the ground out from under any objection to that pointless and discredited attitude. Whether you believe it or not, we both want such discrimination to fade away into a dark corner of history. The difference between us is that I don't see how adopting that very approach - whatever the motives for doing so - can provide a satisfactory basis for making it disappear.

 

[Judge Jules]

How would you go about addressing the issue?

Fair question.

My views on this issue are influenced by my own experiences at school. I went to an English public school, and being half Jewish can sometimes pose problems in such an environment (or could then, in the second half of the 1960s/beginning of the 70s). It didn't happen all *that* much, but if I'd reacted every time remarks were made on the subject (I did thump someone just the once - he's now a senior High Court judge so I hope his attitudes have changed) I'd have been doing so more often than I'd have liked. And here's the kicker - I'm totally convinced that doing so would have been counter-productive. Mostly I just ignored it, and it worked. It took a bit of time, but the people involved simply gave up. One even had the decency later to come to me, say he'd been wrong and apologise.

So I don't have any snappy, penny-in-the-slot solutions for this. For me the only lasting answer will be simple, dogged patience. Keep educating, ridiculing sometimes (non-aggressively, or you just entrench people in their attitudes) and not playing the bigots' game by making a big issue out of it. You catch more flies with honey than you ever do with sandpaper.

 

[singlerider]

'Favouring' someone based upon their colour or sex inherently implies they are being given an unfair advantage, but - by definition - if a candidate is equally competent then there cannot be any advantage given.

I'm not creating a straw man, nor falsely attributing anything to you - I've already provided quotes and shown you where you've said it, you just can't recognise that by describing it as 'discriminatory' or as 'favouring' people there are implicit connotations as a result

 

[Athens]

Fair question.

My views on this issue are influenced by my own experiences at school. I went to an English public school, and being half Jewish can sometimes pose problems in such an environment (or could then, in the second half of the 1960s/beginning of the 70s). It didn't happen all *that* much, but if I'd reacted every time remarks were made on the subject (I did thump someone just the once - he's now a senior High Court judge so I hope his attitudes have changed) I'd have been doing so more often than I'd have liked. And here's the kicker - I'm totally convinced that doing so would have been counter-productive. Mostly I just ignored it, and it worked. It took a bit of time, but the people involved simply gave up. One even had the decency later to come to me, say he'd been wrong and apologise.

So I don't have any snappy, penny-in-the-slot solutions for this. For me the only lasting answer will be simple, dogged patience. Keep educating, ridiculing sometimes (non-aggressively, or you just entrench people in their attitudes) and not playing the bigots' game by making a big issue out of it. You catch more flies with honey than you ever do with sandpaper.

The discrimination you suffered in that public school must have been like hell [emoji6]

 

[Oncy]

I see this fucking Rooney discrimination shit has happened again. Now the fucking fat orc is England Captain.
This shit is getting out of hand.

 

[Mistadobalina]

The only 'Rooney Rule' I have is to never leave Wayne alone in a room with my Nan.