Originally Posted by Eurosceptic Atlanticist:
Please tell me how discriminating against people because they are white is anything but racism.

Because it is an attempt to rectify the ongoing effects of past and present discrimination. Whether it is wrong or right is different but to call it racism is just all rhetoric and makes you look as silly as those who compulsively yell socialist at things like the NHS or Welfare.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
Because it is an attempt to rectify the ongoing effects of past and present discrimination.

Which in itself is plain wrong. As I've said, I cannot be responsible for the actions of my ancestors. I do not have to make any apology for their actions.

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
Whether it is wrong or right is different but to call it racism is just all rhetoric and makes you look as silly as those who compulsively yell socialist at things like the NHS or Welfare.

Rubbish. Discriminating against people on the grounds of race is the very definition of racism. Just because the policy is against white people does not make it any different or any more acceptable.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Eurosceptic Atlanticist:
Which in itself is plain wrong. As I've said, I cannot be responsible for the actions of my ancestors. I do not have to make any apology for their actions.

So? The discrimination is often ongoing and has lasting effects, it effects you even if you ignore it.

Originally Posted by :

Rubbish. Discriminating against people on the grounds of race is the very definition of racism. Just because the policy is against white people does not make it any different or any more acceptable.

********, then I suppose you think damages awarded are theft? It is an attempt to rectify discrimination which is already there. The discrimination and its effects are present no matter what, these people simply want to try and balance this by interfering in this way. Therefore it has little to do with racism except as a balance.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
So? The discrimination is often ongoing and has lasting effects, it effects you even if you ignore it.

Discriminating against people on the grounds of race is illegal. This should work for all races. Obviously if someone has been discriminated against then they should pursue their case through the courts. However, 'positive' discrimination is a step too far.

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
********, then I suppose you think damages awarded are theft?

If someone has been directly discriminated against then no I don't.

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
It is an attempt to rectify discrimination which is already there. The discrimination and its effects are present no matter what, these people simply want to try and balance this by interfering in this way. Therefore it has little to do with racism except as a balance.

Balance what? Discrimination on the grounds of race is already illegal. This is as far as legal protection/interference should go.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Eurosceptic Atlanticist:
Discriminating against people on the grounds of race is illegal. This should work for all races. Obviously if someone has been discriminated against then they should pursue their case through the courts. However, 'positive' discrimination is a step too far.

Well now you seem to be moving done the road of methodological individualism.

Originally Posted by :
Balance what? Discrimination on the grounds of race is already illegal. This is as far as legal protection/interference should go.

The motivation of the aa supporters is to balance the ongoing discrimination against some and there often poorer starting places. In this sense it is not racist it is a balance to discrimination. You can easily imagine a spiral effect, a black parent continually gets past over for jobs and promotion, they get less money, there kids grow up poorer which often means less qualified and they are on top of that discriminated against and the circle goes on.

To call attempts to break this circle, which I too think are generally misguided in the current way they are carried out, racist is simply empty and misapplied rhetoric, which makes the user look silly.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
The motivation of the aa supporters is to balance the ongoing discrimination against some and there often poorer starting places. In this sense it is not racist it is a balance to discrimination. You can easily imagine a spiral effect, a black parent continually gets past over for jobs and promotion, they get less money, there kids grow up poorer which often means less qualified and they are on top of that discriminated against and the circle goes on.

Isn't this what State schools are supposed to be for? Also I still don't believe the discrimination is justified. I still maintain that it's racism, but I'll add that the best candidate for the job should always get the job - whether they be black or white (or any other race for that matter). Forcing inferior candidates onto employers through legislation and public policy is disgraceful and unjustifiable.

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
To call attempts to break this circle, which I too think are generally misguided in the current way they are carried out, racist is simply empty and misapplied rhetoric, which makes the user look silly.

It's not rhetoric. Discriminating against someone because of the colour of their skin is the very definition of racism. The victim being white does not excuse such behaviour.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Eurosceptic Atlanticist:
Isn't this what State schools are supposed to be for? Also I still don't believe the discrimination is justified. I still maintain that it's racism, but I'll add that the best candidate for the job should always get the job - whether they be black or white (or any other race for that matter). Forcing inferior candidates onto employers through legislation and public policy is disgraceful and unjustifiable.

I think it could be justifiable certainly, but I think it is a mistake.

Originally Posted by :
It's not rhetoric. Discriminating against someone because of the colour of their skin is the very definition of racism. The victim being white does not excuse such behaviour.

It is not discriminating but trying to balance discrimination. Otherwise discrimination just happens anyway, that is the view and it is not without justification. And therefore the racist remarks are just empty rhetoric.
[Rep]

Don't get me wrong I don't support aa, except perhaps in former colonies where massive estates are taken off the descendents of colonisers, but I simply think it is silly to call it racism when the view of those who support it is that discrimination is going to occur anyway so trying to strike a balance is best.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Eurosceptic Atlanticist:
Discriminating against people because of the colour of their skin is nothing but racism.

Just because you're doing it against the indigenous population does not make it acceptable or desirable - quite the opposite. All forms of racism, including 'positive' discrimination/affirmative action (which are oxymorons of the highest order) are despicable and should be opposed.

Well said.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
You mean affirmative action. Try and not use silly rhetoric, it doesn't impress. Whether you are for against aa, and I'm generally against, it isn't racism. It is an attempt to right past wrongs.

No it's racism and patronising claptrap I've known several non-whites who hate it on the basis that many people will think that it is the only way they could get the job

Meritocracy rules
[Rep]