Classic

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

I don't think you can pick and choose the "impact" of hypocracy - who are you to say that the "chav" is any worse affected than the "toff"? And in any event I'm not sure it's possible to be so general.

Is "Toff" really a derogatory term though? Is anyone really ashamed of inheriting lots of money and being comfortably off?

It's not about being ashamed, it's about the intention behind the word. So, in the same way, it's not about whether or not you're living on a council estate and called a chav, or own an estate and are called a toff - if the intention is to insult (which, surely, you must agree that it is?) then there is no difference in principle.

Do you use the word "toff" as a compliment? Do your "toff" friends take it that way?

joelsim

Unfortunately positive discrimination causes major problems. I remember my old nan saying that it was dreadful that all the Asian families (not her own words either) got prime consideration on council houses because they had bigger families. That made her even more racist. And I'm pretty sure she isn't the only one, it's what the BNP dine out on. Come to think of it what do the BNP dine out on? Do they eat Chicken Tikka Massala or do they just eat beef and potatoes?

I know the above isn't quite PD, but it illustrates a point.

sketchley

notsoblue wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Do you not see this as the same thing (e.g. Positive Discrimination) at least that's what I thought you were getting at.

I think that the hypocrisy of allowing a vulnerable group to victimise a non-vulnerable group is incredibly inconsequential.

Well I don't view positive discrimination (PD) as a vulnerable group victimising a non-vulnerable group. PD isn't hypocritical in my view, its just a flawed method that authority (non-vulnerable) can used to make a situation thats perceived to be unfair look more fair than it actually is, without addressing the reasons for it being unfair in the first place.

I suppose it's different in so much that PD is likely to be instigated from outside of the vulnerable group, but affect is the same i.e. vulnerable group obtaining an advantage at the expense of the non vulnerable group. To me the distinction isn't that clear cut and I think section on discrimination in the wiki link applies to both scenarios anyway.

sketchley

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

I don't think you can pick and choose the "impact" of hypocracy - who are you to say that the "chav" is any worse affected than the "toff"? And in any event I'm not sure it's possible to be so general.

Is "Toff" really a derogatory term though? Is anyone really ashamed of inheriting lots of money and being comfortably off?

Yes I think so. To me at least, it implies that your a bit thick and would not of been capable of getting where you are by yourself without Daddy's or Mummy's money.

sketchley

Sketchley wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

I don't think you can pick and choose the "impact" of hypocracy - who are you to say that the "chav" is any worse affected than the "toff"? And in any event I'm not sure it's possible to be so general.

Is "Toff" really a derogatory term though? Is anyone really ashamed of inheriting lots of money and being comfortably off?

Yes I think so. To me at least, it implies that your a bit thick and would not of been capable of getting where you are by yourself without Daddy's or Mummy's money.

Having looked up the origin of the word, it would appear I'm wrong. But it's always meant the above to me.

notsoblue

Sketchley wrote:

I suppose it's different in so much that PD is likely to be instigated from outside of the vulnerable group, but affect is the same i.e. vulnerable group obtaining an advantage at the expense of the non vulnerable group. To me the distinction isn't that clear cut and I think section on discrimination in the wiki link applies to both scenarios anyway.

Well if you're looking at things at a group level, the non-vulnerable group is in more of a position to deal with being slightly less advantaged. Clearly at an individual level this means that some members of the non-vulnerable group will have their position of advantage stripped away from them. To make a fair balance between two groups that ideally would be equal, you have to sacrifice individual opportunities. But thats just how government policy works.

With regards to how that works for immigrants who move into a poor area and are given the same housing rights as natives, this will *always* cause resentment because natives believe they inherently have more right to services than immigrants. And again, as we're dealing with groups of people here, to accommodate the immigrants even slightly it means that some of the natives will negatively affected. Resenting this isn't particularly unreasonable. Especially as its the poorer communities that seem to have to put up with the government's burden of immigrants that need housing.

These aren't cases of positive discrimination though, or any kind of hypocritical anti-racism. Its the government badly putting into effect the obligations put on it by UN/EU conventions we are signed to. But natives will always assume that the immigrants are put ahead of them.

sketchley

notsoblue wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

I suppose it's different in so much that PD is likely to be instigated from outside of the vulnerable group, but affect is the same i.e. vulnerable group obtaining an advantage at the expense of the non vulnerable group. To me the distinction isn't that clear cut and I think section on discrimination in the wiki link applies to both scenarios anyway.

Well if you're looking at things at a group level, the non-vulnerable group is in more of a position to deal with being slightly less advantaged. Clearly at an individual level this means that some members of the non-vulnerable group will have their position of advantage stripped away from them. To make a fair balance between two groups that ideally would be equal, you have to sacrifice individual opportunities. But thats just how government policy works.

With regards to how that works for immigrants who move into a poor area and are given the same housing rights as natives, this will *always* cause resentment because natives believe they inherently have more right to services than immigrants. And again, as we're dealing with groups of people here, to accommodate the immigrants even slightly it means that some of the natives will negatively affected. Resenting this isn't particularly unreasonable. Especially as its the poorer communities that seem to have to put up with the government's burden of immigrants that need housing.

These aren't cases of positive discrimination though, or any kind of hypocritical anti-racism. Its the government badly putting into effect the obligations put on it by UN/EU conventions we are signed to. But natives will always assume that the immigrants are put ahead of them.

Yes but using the immigrant example it only serves to enforce the perceived difference if you treat the immigrant group differently to the native. It is far better to treat both groups equally and be able to prove that. Of course some natives will still complain at a perceived imbalance but it will be just that a perceived imbalance and not real one. Although agreeing what "equally" actually means could be contentious.

At the same time trying to address a real imbalance, for example access to local services by the immigrant group, by allowing them the gain an advantage by jumping the queue in front of the native group, just creates further imbalance and reinforces the divide and resentment between the groups, which in my opinion causes further damage to the vulnerable group despite the good intentions.

sketchley

Arrghhhh getting drawn in must resist....

"Luke, at that speed do you think you'll be able to pull out in time?"