Minority Groups "Special Rights"

[Skeptic Tank]

The fact that he identifies himself as white defeats his very thesis ironically.

How so?

 

[banquetbear]

It proves exactly what I was seeking to prove: that I was not incorrect to include NZ in the list of countries where you'll find that minorities have grievances typical to minorities and which flow from them having to live in societies where larger groups are setting the tone and the rules.

...ROFL!!!

In other words, like I've been saying, minority status is something to be avoided

Why? Being a minority is awesome. You should try it some time.

and the consequences of assuming that status can be a hell of a lot more severe than "hey stop doing my tribal dance, I'm offended!"

Oh I finally get the point you are trying to make.

"Minorities lives suck.

White people are becoming minorities.

Shortly my life is going to suck."

Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

I look forward to welcoming you to the club.

They can range all the way up to "hey, please stop boiling my baby alive and raping my wife as you chop my head off!"

You better watch out: because I'm flying over to where you live to boil your baby alive. Because I'm a minority. BOOOOO!

Look into what's been going on in South Africa.

How about we look at whats going on in New Zealand? What do you want to know?

 

[Belz...]

Everyone but white males is eligible for affirmative action, not just blacks.

You are aware that AA doesn't remove white people from the workforce, right?

I think it will become increasingly dangerous to be white as we become a smaller minority.

At least you are implicitly admitting that discriminating against minorities is bad.

 

[Belz...]

...it wasn't a personal jab.

Now you're just in nay-saying mode. Telling me that I keep confusing things when I'm only confused about one post's wording is nothing but personal.

But it did need addressing.

Maybe it did, and yet my question remains unanswered. Hence the dodge.

No: it was an actual question.

If it was, it's a pretty stupid question.

You reconceptualised the act by deleting a sentence and inserting your own.

I quoted directly from the website and so did you. I didn't reconcepualise it. It's pretty clear by itself.

 

[Belz...]

Do you consider yourself "male" and does your birth certificate state you are male?

Does one of those two trump the other? If so, why mention the other? I'll remind you that a trans woman's BC says "male", too.

But that's beside the point. The point is that some people consider that trans people would have special "rights" if they could choose the bathroom they want to use. Personally I find that a bit ridiculous, mainly because it's not a "right", but I suggested a way to both allow trans people to pick the bathroom they're more comfortable with while preventing accusations of special treatment.

You are of course free to discard evidence that doesn't support your bias in this matter.

I am, but I don't intend to do that. However your post doesn't answer my main question nor does it address my general objection to quotas.

 

[Belz...]

Signal to noise ratio in this thread just dropped sharply.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Signal to noise ratio in this thread just dropped sharply.

You might want to stop contributing to the noise then.

 

[Darat]

Does one of those two trump the other? If so, why mention the other? I'll remind you that a trans woman's BC says "male", too.

...snip...

Will you be answering the question I asked?

quotas.[/HILITE]

And back to beginning we go - I thought we had got you past your misunderstanding but apparently not.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

How so?

You work it out.

 

[cullennz]

NZ? Unless you can say to me with a straight face that I would have no luck, or even any difficulty finding Maoris and other nonwhites kvetching endlessly about cultural appropriation, insufficient representation, marginalization, the legacy of colonialism, insufficient hand outs and set asides, etc. then your comment is invalid and it is not I who brought NZ into this conversation, but rather NZ which brought itself in.

I humbly request that you actually address whether such a dynamic of minorities bemoaning the consequences of being minorities can be readily found in your newspapers, on your TVs, etc. or not and if it can be, then kindly explain why my including NZ was invalid. Don't just appeal to your own preference that I not make such points. Refute me. For reals.



Obviously I always would favor the best treatment possible for me and my kind and I am no slave to the idea of fairness. I wasn't talking about how minorities SHOULD be treated, though.

I was talking about how minorities typically have been and are still treated and how they tend to feel about their minority status.

Regardless of how I or anyone else feels Whites should be treated as we shrink to an ever smaller minority globally and in the majority of nations we once had firm majority status in, the reality of how we WILL BE treated may be quite another matter. It's a matter prudence necessitates pessimism about. While we are still a majority there are already legal and institutional mechanisms in place to discriminate against us and one can get a very robust dose of anti-white rhetoric in almost any university or on almost any major news outlet. Or would you care to deny that in the current year whites are now openly demonized and our decline openly celebrated in completely mainstream courses and publications?

So I look at this trend toward demonizing whites and singling us out as the unique villains of history and I can't help but consider what the full flower of rhetoric like that may be when whites are a minority at the mercy of how larger groups with historical beef choose to treat us.

I have to think about this sort of thing because I have many decades left in me and I don't want my children slaughtered in a Haiti style ethnic cleansing in retribution for their privilege, group sins, historical oppressions both real and imagined, etc.

There's a reason that one of the central features of human history is distinct groups fighting like hell to take and hold their own slice of the planet. Being subject to others sucks. Self-determination is good.

Google treaty of Waitangi

 

[banquetbear]

Now you're just in nay-saying mode. Telling me that I keep confusing things when I'm only confused about one post's wording is nothing but personal.

...nope. You were plainly confused for several posts, and I believe you may still be confused now. I'm not getting personal. I'm being charitable. There are other, less charitable possibilities (than simply being confused) on why you have gotten something so simple so wrong. But I can't and won't share those here.

Maybe it did, and yet my question remains unanswered. Hence the dodge.

When you answer my question I'll answer your question. No dodge.

If it was, it's a pretty stupid question.

That may well be your opinion: but at least you now concede the possibility that the question was a question.

So now that you have acknowledged that: are you going to answer the question?

And do you have to do this in every thread we interact in? If you had simply taken my post at face value from the start we could have saved the planet from all this unnecessary typing.

I quoted directly from the website

You didn't quote the complete section of the act. You snipped the start of the section of the act which changes the meaning of that section. This is your version:

"employers targeted by the Act must "ensure that persons in designated groups achieve a degree of representation in each occupational group in the employer’s workforce that reflects their representation in the Canadian workforce..."

This is the actual version:

"instituting such positive policies and practices and making such reasonable accommodations as will ensure that persons in designated groups achieve a degree of representation in each occupational group in the employer’s workforce that reflects their representation in the Canadian workforce..."

They mean different things. Can you finally acknowledge that?

Also the next section of the act says:

"Employer not required to take certain measures

6 The obligation to implement employment equity does not require an employer

(a) to take a particular measure to implement employment equity where the taking of that measure would cause undue hardship to the employer;

(b) to hire or promote persons who do not meet the essential qualifications for the work to be performed;

(c) with respect to the public sector, to hire or promote persons without basing the hiring or promotion on merit in cases where the Public Service Employment Act requires that hiring or promotion be based on merit; or

(d) to create new positions in its workforce."

So I'm not really seeing a big problem with the act. It most certainly doesn't appear to encourage quotas.

and so did you.

I quoted it correctly.

I didn't reconcepualise it. It's pretty clear by itself.

You did reconceptualize it. It is apparent that you do not believe that snipping the first part of the sentence changed the meaning. But it did. That is pretty clear by itself.

 

[Belz...]

Will you be answering the question I asked?

Sure. The answer to your question is: Yes. But I'm yet to understand the point.

And back to beginning we go

I simply want one question answered at this point. I'm being told that forcing employers to have practices in place that ensure they hire women and minorities is not the same as forcing them to hire women in minorities but I don't see the difference. How about you help me out?

 

[Belz...]

...nope. You were plainly confused for several posts, and I believe you may still be confused now. I'm not getting personal. I'm being charitable. There are other, less charitable possibilities (than simply being confused) on why you have gotten something so simple so wrong. But I can't and won't share those here.



When you answer my question I'll answer your question. No dodge.



That may well be your opinion: but at least you now concede the possibility that the question was a question.

So now that you have acknowledged that: are you going to answer the question?

And do you have to do this in every thread we interact in? If you had simply taken my post at face value from the start we could have saved the planet from all this unnecessary typing.



You didn't quote the complete section of the act. You snipped the start of the section of the act which changes the meaning of that section. This is your version:

"employers targeted by the Act must "ensure that persons in designated groups achieve a degree of representation in each occupational group in the employer’s workforce that reflects their representation in the Canadian workforce..."

This is the actual version:

"instituting such positive policies and practices and making such reasonable accommodations as will ensure that persons in designated groups achieve a degree of representation in each occupational group in the employer’s workforce that reflects their representation in the Canadian workforce..."

They mean different things. Can you finally acknowledge that?

Also the next section of the act says:

"Employer not required to take certain measures

6 The obligation to implement employment equity does not require an employer

(a) to take a particular measure to implement employment equity where the taking of that measure would cause undue hardship to the employer;

(b) to hire or promote persons who do not meet the essential qualifications for the work to be performed;

(c) with respect to the public sector, to hire or promote persons without basing the hiring or promotion on merit in cases where the Public Service Employment Act requires that hiring or promotion be based on merit; or

(d) to create new positions in its workforce."

So I'm not really seeing a big problem with the act. It most certainly doesn't appear to encourage quotas.



I quoted it correctly.



You did reconceptualize it. It is apparent that you do not believe that snipping the first part of the sentence changed the meaning. But it did. That is pretty clear by itself.

None of this makes a point. You say that I "reconceptualised" it but leave it there. How about you make your point rather than go on and about how I'm wrong without saying in what way? Isn't what what threads like this are for?

Start by saying, exactly, how the quote I provided changes, in any way, the meaning.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Sure. The answer to your question is: Yes. But I'm yet to understand the point.



I simply want one question answered at this point. I'm being told that forcing employers to have practices in place that ensure they hire women and minorities is not the same as forcing them to hire women in minorities but I don't see the difference. How about you help me out?

Wait thats not what you have been told.

Having policies to ensure you don't discriminate against minorities is not the same as forcing you to hire minorities. Even having policies to encourage minority hiring is not the same as forcing anyone to hire minorities.

 

[Belz...]

Having policies to ensure you don't discriminate against minorities is not the same as forcing you to hire minorities.

Yeah but you're skipping a step: you _do_ force employers to have those policies. What's the difference with saying you force them to hire minorities?

 

[banquetbear]

None of this makes a point.

...sure it does.

You say that I "reconceptualised" it but leave it there.

Of course I did.

How about you make your point rather than go on and about how I'm wrong without saying in what way? Isn't what what threads like this are for?

Sure it is. You only had to ask. But its taken you this long to finally figure out what I was saying in my original post. All you had to do was accept what I said originally at face value and we would be in exactly the same place as we are now.

Start by saying, exactly, how the quote I provided changes, in any way, the meaning.

Archie in the post above me answers this question perfectly. The reconceptualised act omits what an employer is required to do: and implies an employer is required to hire people to achieve a degree of representation.

But this isn't what the actual act says. The actual act says the employer is required to institute positive policies and practices and making such reasonable accommodations that ensure a degree of representation.

Under the reconceptualised act you get "punished" for not achieving representation. Under the actual act you do not. The requirement is for employers to "instituting such positive policies and practices and making such reasonable accommodations": and it would be a failure to implement these policies that would trigger "punishment": not not achieving sufficient levels of representation. The metrics under the act are whether or not effective policies/practices/accommodations have been implemented. The metrics under your reconceptualised are "has representation been achieved." Two different things.

And as I've just pointed out: employers are not required to take certain measures if it will cause undue hardship, if it meant hiring unqualified people, or to employ people without basing it on merit.

That all sounds entirely reasonable to me. No quotas. No-one being forced to hire minorities.

So you asked me for clarification: and I've given it to you. I didn't dodge your question.

Here is my request for clarification again. Please don't dodge. If you dodge it will simply delay my answering your question.

Are you asking for the law as you've recontextualized it, or for the law as it is actually written?

 

[Belz...]

...sure it does.

Of course I did.

Sure it is.

Talk about proving my point!

The reconceptualised act omits what an employer is required to do: and implies an employer is required to hire people to achieve a degree of representation.

But this isn't what the actual act says. The actual act says the employer is required to institute positive policies and practices and making such reasonable accommodations that ensure a degree of representation.

That's the same thing!

Under the reconceptualised act you get "punished" for not achieving representation. Under the actual act you do not.

Then we go right back to this: a law need to be enforced to be of any use. What happens to an employer who fails to do this? "It depends on the country" is not an answer.

So you asked me for clarification: and I've given it to you. I didn't dodge your question.

You have now, but we're still not quite there yet.

Are you asking for the law as you've recontextualized it, or for the law as it is actually written?

Since I have not recontextualised (see above), both are one and the same. you may assume, for the sake of argument, that the answer is "the latter", however. As if I would ask a question about a hypothetical law rather than the one I QUOTED.

 

[banquetbear]

Talk about proving my point!

...what point?

When I said "sure it does" I meant "yes it did make a point."

When I said "of course I did" I meant "of course I did." You never said you didn't understand what I meant and you never asked for clarification. So I didn't provide it. The moment you did ask for clarification I provided it for you.

When I said "sure it is" I meant yes, sure, discussion is what these threads are for.

So if your point was that you have consistently failed to read and understand what I have posted in this thread: then yes, your point has been proven.

That's the same thing!

********. Hogwash. Nonsense. Rubbish. Feldergarb. Absolute tosh.

If the act was supposed to say the same thing as what you said it would have been written that way. It wasn't written that way because it doesn't.

Then we go right back to this: a law need to be enforced to be of any use. What happens to an employer who fails to do this? "It depends on the country" is not an answer.

Are you asking "what happens if an employer fails to follow any particular law" or "what happens if an employer fails to follow this particular law?"

You have now, but we're still not quite there yet.

I clarified because you asked.

Since I have not recontextualised (see above), both are one and the same. you may assume, for the sake of argument, that the answer is "the latter", however. As if I would ask a question about a hypothetical law rather than the one I QUOTED.

But you have recontextualised it. And I'm seeing above and simply stating "That's the same thing" does not actually mean they state the same thing. So far at least three people in this thread have told you they are not saying the same thing. Maybe all three of us are wrong. But simply stating "That's the same thing" is not a convincing argument. Please try again.

 

[Belz...]

...what point?

That you spend more time telling me that I'm wrong or that you're right when you could just cut to making the argument.

********. Hogwash. Nonsense. Rubbish. Feldergarb. Absolute tosh.

If the act was supposed to say the same thing as what you said it would have been written that way. It wasn't written that way because it doesn't.

It was written to be precise. If you really expect the law to say "the employer will be forced to hire minorities" then you think legislators are stupid.

Are you asking "what happens if an employer fails to follow any particular law" or "what happens if an employer fails to follow this particular law?"

This one. You will be dodging all the way through, won't you?

So far at least three people in this thread have told you they are not saying the same thing.

And none of them have explained what the difference is beyond how you write the sentence. I'm interested in the end result: if the employer is obliged by law to have policies ensuring a certain result, then he is forced to have that result. The intervening words are important in the procedure but they have the exact same outcome.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You're dancing around my point. If you were 95% and Whites were 5%, would that in any way position you better when it came to resolving the grievances you referred to, or would it not?

If the population was 95% Maori and 5% white there there would be no grievances to resolve. The grievances came from the fact that after signing a treaty granting Maori all rights as British Subjects and declaring that they retain the ownership and control of their lands, food gathering, and treasures, the Crown turned around and violated those exact same rights by taking those things away from them.

The grievances are from their rights as British subjects being violated, not because they are a minority.

Consider it this way. If the door of a house in kicked down by the cops in the US, and they have no warrant and no probable cause, then when the owner complains about their 4th Amendment rights being violated it's not because they are a minority if they happen to be black.

And if that had always been the proportion, would any of you have felt compelled to speak English much? Would that treaty exist in any form remotely like its current form? Would that alternate version be more or less likely to please the Maori and lead to White grievances due to who was the majority and who was the minority?

Maori wanted to learn English quite early on, had they remained the majority people, then we'd have become a bi-lingual society about 120 years ago rather than slowly getting there now as the white Government removed the use of Te Reo in schools in the 1890s and a lot of Maori Parents didn't pass it on to their kids because they wanted them to be able to speak English.

Maori actually dealt with the settlers in a pretty fair basis, and wanted to learn about their customs and ways, and were absorbed into the British culture fairly rapidly in most places that there was a lot of trading and exchange between the two groups. If anything, it caused more friction between Maori and Maori, than Maori and European, as some more isolated groups felt that the integrated groups were betraying their culture and history, something that ended up leading to the Land Wars. (Which actually started as a war between tribes, but then the Europeans poked their noses in and got it bloodied, and so started fighting the wars.)

You're fighting me on basic reality because you don't want to concede ANYTHING to the big bad racist.

No, you just don't know anything about New Zealand's History so you are not in a place to judge.