Gooners Warned!

[wellquickwoody]

Do you get it now?

Ahh, rudeness again.

Black and gay people may or may not 'try to diffrentiate themselves'. This is irrlevant.

Now the crux of the matter. Minority groups, black, gay, LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ and transgender, continually tell the mainstream that they are as normal as the rest of society and want to be seen as such, and as far as I and many others are concerned they are, until they tell me that they are different.

Cake and eat it?

 

[wellquickwoody]

Generally, when talking about 'equality' in political or sociological terms, it doesn't mean 'treating everyone the same.' It means treating everyone according to their needs in order to give them equal opportunity.

The definition from the Equality and Human Rights Commission says: www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/seco...ces/useful-information/understanding-equality
"Equality is about ensuring that every individual has an equal opportunity to make the most of their lives and talents, and believing that no one should have poorer life chances because of where, what or whom they were born, what they believe, or whether they have a disability. Equality recognises that historically, certain groups of people with particular characteristics e.g. race, disability, sex and sexuality, have experienced discrimination."

Allowing white people the opportunity to use racist language does nothing to achieve the aims spoken of in this definition. The last part of the definition is the complicated bit. It says that equality recognises previous discrimination. Recognising this requires an understanding that there will be responses to discrimination from those who have it acted upon them. These response are large and various, but one of the responses has been to adopt and reclaim the language of those who did the discrimination. The act is basically about those with less power in society taking power for themselves and may make you uncomfortable, but does not impinge upon your own opportunities in any way.

Thanks for clearing that up then, double standards it is.

 

[Stato]

Thanks for clearing that up then, double standards it is.

Imagine it in terms of a hundred metres race. Most people are starting on the start line, but there are disadvantaged groups who are 10 metres back. Equality would say give those people some help to get to the same start line as everyone else, not because they should win, but because they should be allowed the equal chance to compete. When this help is given, some others claim that this is not fair and that equal treatment would mean them also being given help to move on 10 metres. If this is done, these people will still win because they only have to run 90m. Equal treatment and equality of opportunity are not the same thing, but are often treated as equivalent in these kind of arguments.

My guess is that those who claim double standards don't accept that they start from a position of advantage. What do you think? Would you say that you have more opportunity than someone from one of the groups traditionally thought of as disadvantaged?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Imagine it in terms of a hundred metres race. Most people are starting on the start line, but there are disadvantaged groups who are 10 meters back. Equality would say give those people some help to get to the same start line as everyone else, not because they should win, but because they should be allowed the equal chance to compete. When this help is given, some others claim that this is not fair and that equal treatment would mean them also being given help to move on 10 metres. If this is done, these people will still win because they only have to run 90m. Equal treatment and equality of opportunity are not the same thing, but are often treated as equivalent in these kind of arguments.

My guess is that those who claim double standards don't accept that they start from a position of advantage. What do you think? Would you say that you have more opportunity than someone from one of the groups traditionally thought of as disadvantaged?

Paul Hayward has written a very good article on discrimination.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...id-make-contact-gay-professional-footballers/

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Ahh, rudeness again.



Now the crux of the matter. Minority groups, black, gay, LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ and transgender, continually tell the mainstream that they are as normal as the rest of society and want to be seen as such, and as far as I and many others are concerned they are, until they tell me that they are different.

Cake and eat it?

Well, I am not fixated on whether minorities feel they have or want a cake. I suspect neither you nor I are black, gay or anything else you might like to add to the list so, to be fair, we can only speculate about how others feel about their lot. We shall have to disagree on this.

All the best.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Imagine it in terms of a hundred metres race. Most people are starting on the start line, but there are disadvantaged groups who are 10 metres back. Equality would say give those people some help to get to the same start line as everyone else, not because they should win, but because they should be allowed the equal chance to compete. When this help is given, some others claim that this is not fair and that equal treatment would mean them also being given help to move on 10 metres. If this is done, these people will still win because they only have to run 90m. Equal treatment and equality of opportunity are not the same thing, but are often treated as equivalent in these kind of arguments.

My guess is that those who claim double standards don't accept that they start from a position of advantage. What do you think? Would you say that you have more opportunity than someone from one of the groups traditionally thought of as disadvantaged?

No, because we all have different things in our lives which may offer us advantages or disadvantages. As a child I had asthma, should I have had to run a shorter distance in the 100 metres than others? In life I was born to an unmarried mother when it was still deemed to be a bad thing and so had snide comments aimed at me from a young age. So what? I had a speech impediment into my mid teens, I still live with it now on occasion, did I claim that I was disadvantaged and should be given a public facing role as a TV presenter? No, I did my best to overcome my disadvantages and then attempted to enhance the things I was good at even further. We are not all dealt an entirely even hand, but we have a duty to allow genuine talent to shine and not to handicap those who have drive and determination to succeed. It matters not what sexuality, ethnic group or creed people belong to, those in genuine need should be given targeted assistance to improve their everyday lives, they should not be given things on a plate at the expense of others.

I bet that on there are far more top class sprinters who are 6ft tall or above than there are those 5ft 8' or below. Should the shorter guys have to run less far?

 

[Stato]

No, because we all have different things in our lives which may offer us advantages or disadvantages. As a child I had asthma, should I have had to run a shorter distance in the 100 metres than others? In life I was born to an unmarried mother when it was still deemed to be a bad thing and so had snide comments aimed at me from a young age. So what? I had a speech impediment into my mid teens, I still live with it now on occasion, did I claim that I was disadvantaged and should be given a public facing role as a TV presenter? No, I did my best to overcome my disadvantages and then attempted to enhance the things I was good at even further. We are not all dealt an entirely even hand, but we have a duty to allow genuine talent to shine and not to handicap those who have drive and determination to succeed. It matters not what sexuality, ethnic group or creed people belong to, those in genuine need should be given targeted assistance to improve their everyday lives, they should not be given things on a plate at the expense of others.

I bet that on there are far more top class sprinters who are 6ft tall or above than there are those 5ft 8' or below. Should the shorter guys have to run less far?

Thanks for the response. I find perceptions of equality interesting. There will obviously never be absolute equal opportunity for all, because genetic factors cause inequality at birth. There were loads of kids born into the poverty that Maradona experienced as a child, but he was born with the balance and awareness that allowed him to develop skills that his peers could not and this allowed him to be rich and successful, whilst, I guess, they mostly stayed in poverty. I would think that most of us wouldn't view this as inequality, but would use other terms like luck, natural talent, or giftedness.

The problem for me is when inequality of opportunity seems to repeatedly impact upon the same groups because of societal constructs. There seems to me to be good reason to try to redress this because it is an artificial inequality that doesn't need to exist. However, even with statistical evidence and research showing patterns of discrimination, it is difficult to even satisfactorily define the groups affected, because people are all individuals and defy definition or grouping.

The relatively recent inclination for liberals to try to redress perceived inequalities, though well intentioned, has seemed to have led to a bit of a cul-de-sac for some on the left, because it turns off those, like you, who define the world less in terms of groups and more in terms of individuals. This has been amplified by the reduction or collapse of so many things that people previously used to define themselves as part of a group; traditionally industries and the communities around them have gone, trade unions have reduced accordingly, fewer people define themselves in class terms, religion has declined and now nation states seem to many to be under threat. These changes seem to have made it difficult for those used to using these definitions to address individuals. To me this is a shame because Democratic Socialism in the UK, although founded on Marxist definitions of power groups in society, has historically seemed to be more about removing obstacles preventing each individual from making the most of their chances.

The fact is that, though race and sexuality are more easily defined differences, the major difference that will impact anybody's life chances is still whether you are born into a family, a country or a class with or without financial advantage. This is the hardest one to shift. Parents generally love their children above everything and are mostly disinclined to share or give up any advantage that their kids might be born with. A lot find it easier not to even admit that their kids might have it better than some others, as this means not having to admit to protectionism or selfishness. Inequality of opportunity is perpetuated by this inclination and totally eradicating it made impossible. That's possibly why those inclined, for altruistic reasons, to try to change things are continuously shot at from all sides. If we all refuse to accept that some groups don't have it so good, we don't have to give up anything to change things.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Thanks for the response. I find perceptions of equality interesting. There will obviously never be absolute equal opportunity for all, because genetic factors cause inequality at birth. There were loads of kids born into the poverty that Maradona experienced as a child, but he was born with the balance and awareness that allowed him to develop skills that his peers could not and this allowed him to be rich and successful, whilst, I guess, they mostly stayed in poverty. I would think that most of us wouldn't view this as inequality, but would use other terms like luck, natural talent, or giftedness.

The problem for me is when inequality of opportunity seems to repeatedly impact upon the same groups because of societal constructs. There seems to me to be good reason to try to redress this because it is an artificial inequality that doesn't need to exist. However, even with statistical evidence and research showing patterns of discrimination, it is difficult to even satisfactorily define the groups affected, because people are all individuals and defy definition or grouping.

The relatively recent inclination for liberals to try to redress perceived inequalities, though well intentioned, has seemed to have led to a bit of a cul-de-sac for some on the left, because it turns off those, like you, who define the world less in terms of groups and more in terms of individuals. This has been amplified by the reduction or collapse of so many things that people previously used to define themselves as part of a group; traditionally industries and the communities around them have gone, trade unions have reduced accordingly, fewer people define themselves in class terms, religion has declined and now nation states seem to many to be under threat. These changes seem to have made it difficult for those used to using these definitions to address individuals. To me this is a shame because Democratic Socialism in the UK, although founded on Marxist definitions of power groups in society, has historically seemed to be more about removing obstacles preventing each individual from making the most of their chances.

The fact is that, though race and sexuality are more easily defined differences, the major difference that will impact anybody's life chances is still whether you are born into a family, a country or a class with or without financial advantage. This is the hardest one to shift. Parents generally love their children above everything and are mostly disinclined to share or give up any advantage that their kids might be born with. A lot find it easier not to even admit that their kids might have it better than some others, as this means not having to admit to protectionism or selfishness. Inequality of opportunity is perpetuated by this inclination and totally eradicating it made impossible. That's possibly why those inclined, for altruistic reasons, to try to change things are continuously shot at from all sides. If we all refuse to accept that some groups don't have it so good, we don't have to give up anything to change things.

Very eloquent Sir. I think we all aspire to giving the best opportunities that life can offer to every individual, whilst improving society in general. How we actually achieve this is where the discussion begins.