Animal Farm and Positive Discrimination

So, my sense, from your OP, had been correct, and Animal Farm, is less than a perfect analogy.

Just sayin'; that's all (no reply needed).

 

Nature is not the context in which we exist. We are nature.

Nature is not an immutable entity. It constantly changes. We call that changes evolution. Human evolution is as much nature as every other life form's evolution, so if we call bees and their hives, with their strict social rules, nature, then why not call humans and our social rules also nature? Our social, economic, cultural - and whatever else you might think of as a human construct - environment is just nature evolving, not an alien growth. So, if we expect bees and birds to behave in certain ways that are natural to them, why shouldn't we expect human societies to behave in ways that are natural to us? I'd say that "picking up the slack of the individual" is as much a natural trait for humans as sitting on eggs is for hens, otherwise our streets would be littered with dead and dying invalids, elderly and other helpless people.

If it wasn't in our nature to pick up the slack for the individuals, we'd have no laws protecting the individual, no police, no justice system, no doctors, no powder milk, no rules other than "might makes right". Would you like to live in such a world?

 

Having given the idea of money equals excellence so beloved of some, it occurred to me that I can provide a list of those who do not come under this definition.
Almost all those British recipients of honours bestowed by the UK state for excellence.
Whole some are relatively wealthy, most of them are middle income earners at best.
Names are available via a Google search.

 

Reply necessary to correct a misunderstanding.
The OP was asking whether those who are of less than equal opportunities deserve help...positive discrimination. Not relative values of segments of the economy.
Further in the novel I see that the pigs, so outwardly wedded to equality, exploited the other animals. For example they used boxers strength but did very little for him when he was worked out. In fact this is contrary to the ideal of communism but Orwell knew that and satirised it. Irony alert.

 

While I agree that some kind of positive discrimination must exist, seems to me that you're too focused on the social aspect of things. In certain circumstances, people with a high income need as much help from the system as the poor.

"Equal opportunities" is a misleading term, one which doesn't begin to describe the scope and magnitude of the task. Creating the basis for the mere possibility that such equal opportunities may some day become available is a gigantic task, involving parents, educators, and a whole array of professionals from social workers to psychiatrists.

Offering equal opportunities to people who were not born equal and were never taught how to overcome the issues that make them not equal, is a futile, dangerous enterprise. It engenders frustrations and resentment on both sides - those who can succeed are not allowed to, and those who can't are forced to try the impossible. Positive discrimination will work best if it begins in early childhood.

 

It doesn't matter this one has more skills than you you are not equal to them you can kind of skills but chances are they will be gaining skills too the only point in which you catch up is when they retire.

 

I was never assuming that creating such a awesome task as levelling up was either easy, will be in my lifetime or whether it will ever happen.
My purpose was to encourage reflection of both our own place in and attitudes about inequalities which cant be changed without that reflection and will.
And maybe to suggest that when we as a society blame others for not competing successfully on a level field and call them something hinting at both "bad luck" and lack of effort, but always inferior, we should admit, be honest that white straight middle class plus children were and are born damned lucky. And that white privilege does in fact permeate our culture and that I in particular don't see that as something to deny but to accept and use to offer consideration to those who aren't so lucky. IOW to become a tad more sensitive to the difficulties we have created for others...often to defend our own position.
I do not mean to criticise or lecture because as they say, we are where we are . But there is always room for improvement and it often starts with talking about it.
Thanks for what I think was an interesting discussion largely without name calling or cliches. Just throwing some light into forgotten places. Never a bad thing.

 

Housing is something you earn there's no organized group that denies people housing.

Forcing people to go to school based on where they live is an awful setup I don't know why we still go by this form of mediocrity. No wait I know exactly why teachers unions would have a cow because underperforming schools would go out of business.

Employment must be discriminatory you have to hire someone with the skills you need.

 

this is really the way people who don't achieve look at it. If someone else has to do something for you you're never getting anywhere.

That's a real lame excuse not to pursue excellence. Like a who wants to be a mechanic but doesn't pursue that career because he's socially expected to be an interior designer?
[/QUOTE]
And on what excellence is.
Clue:it isn't money.[/QUOTE]
It can be money it can be things that can't be measured with money. If you want to be an excellent mother or father nobody's going to pay you for that. If you want to make the city's best hamburgers probably not going to make a lot of money.

It's not confusing what excellence is it's only confusing when you try to apply some sort of standard to it.

And I'm sorry people just aren't equal. Some people want to pursue excellence in whatever field or area of their life they're trying to improve and other people make excuses like it's not socially acceptable or nobody gave me the opportunity.

 

Pixie I know I argued with you about points but I liked the thread you posted here I like the questions you ask because I make a person think.

So don't let this competitiveness between the posters get you down. There is a lot of negativity in the world and a lot of people actually don't like to think. I'm one of those people that do and your thread caused me to think so thank you for that.

As far as an even playing field there's no such thing. This is why we have to find our talents or the things we're good at the things we like doing so much we become good at them.

And a math teacher tell me this once it isn't fair but tiger woods can hit a bowl of the stick and get millions of dollars. He had whatever drive was necessary to pursue golf as a hobby and a career. He had some luck in being born in the family that could afford to support such an expensive hobby. And he was probably born with some sort of tendency toward athleticism done a lot of people just don't have.

I'm really tall the sport I did was swimming I was really tall in high school and people complained that it wasn't fair because it took me fewer strokes to get across the pool. They were right I didn't have to move my arms as fast as they did I didn't have to move my legs at all in fact when I did it slowed me down.

Life isn't fair and breaking people's kneecaps to try and make it fair is not a good solution. And quite frankly that's the only way you can do it. So what we do is we find what we're good at and do that or find what we want to do and figure out how to be good at it.

 

Indeed.
The answer is equality of OPPORTUNITY.
And a lot fewer assumptions made on the basis of things that cant be changed. And a better sensitivity to both.
Enjoy your day/evening or whatever.
Thank again.

 

What?!? Who is not allowing you to demonstrate them?

 

Housing exactly how are black people discriminated against in housing?

Post code lottery. There’s no such thing as the post code lottery in the United States. So I assume you must be referring to the UK. BUT oopsue most of the funding from the UK post code lottery goes to INNER CITY schools which benefits blacks at a disproportionate rate.
Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...y-handed-according-pupils-needs-not-area.html

Discriminatory employment practices. Give me an example. Because according to this study black managers hire at grossly disproportionate and discriminatory rates when compared to white managers. Because white managers hire at rates that are comparable to the overall population rate.
Source: https://moya.bus.miami.edu/~lgiuliano/Hires.pdf
(Which btw is hilarious to read because it was done by some social justice warriors who were hoping to find that white managers hired in a racist fashion but actually found out it’s black managers that hire in a racist fashion)

Police Discrimination. Police aren’t discriminating against them, blacks commit a GROSSLY disproportionate amount of violent crime. By DEFINITION that means they’re going to come into contact with police more often.

 

Finally! Equality and opportunity for short basketball players!

 

If only!
You wouldn't see me as I wove artfully between your legs and shot the ball upwards from the bottom of the basket and out through the top.
Now with a bit of sympathy and creativity, I could be one of the most valuable players ever to set foot on a court. Shall we negotiate a wage?

 

Except this thread isn't about sport .. at all.

This is about the general success of physical security, which is universal to all cultures and societies.

 

That's entirely un-unique. Everyone has nice memories .. even the poorest on earth.

Isn't this thread about MATERIAL security? It's your thread, so it's unclear why you would veer off at this juncture to dissert on the irrelevance of materialism.

 

1) Explain housing discrimination, please. What laws are in place preventing certain people from accessing housing?

2) Explain which laws force people to stay in post codes they don't like.

3) Employment discrimination has been illegal for years.

4) Police profiling is essential to policing.

 

Potential is an individual thing, and cannot be either quantified, nor forced into realisation.

Which means outcomes are the only actual measurement we have.

 

Opportunities are not 'offered'. They are sought.

And as it stands, we all have equal access to the opportunity to better ourselves. Education and self-discipline are both free, and the combination is unstoppable.

 

You evidently didn't read my post very well. I said we humans pick up the slack of our kith and kin when nature thwarts them DESPITE THEIR BEST EFFORTS.

A completely different thing, to simply slackness expecting to be picked up. When we are victims of nature (the external context in which we exist), it's natural to be aided by our 'pack'. It's entirely UNnatural for a pack to carry the weight of a member who has simply chosen to threaten the pack's survival via wilful behaviour. Nature will always cast out those individuals, and rightly so.

 

My great grandfather tells me things have gotten better lately.

Competent police profiling is essential. The A-hats they had doing it before were out of line, and they had to go.

 

Correct.

And, though the sports are different, we have had many that become top players in multiple games. While the games are different, much of what makes a person a competitor and a winner are the same.

While "whodat" says "Success is entirely determined by the system, because it defines success."....He's wrong. Systems loosely define many goals, but success in learning to achieve the ones that matter to you.
That means looking at the obstacles and necessities, figuring out how to get yourself where you want to be- and doing it.

People who want to believe their destiny is in someone else's hands have surrendered it, and that is their own fault. They make themselves a burden on a system, rather than an asset, a mover/shaker.

 

Allow me to, also, correct some possible misunderstandings, or honest mistakes. First, I want to tell you that I didn't point out the accuracy of my initial impression, in order to be confrontational; I was, admittedly, only tooting my own horn. (In fact, I'd held off doing so, for a bit, until it seemed it might fit within the context of other things that were being posted, in your thread). I confess to a deficit, in humility. I also wish to make clear, my sincere hope that my boast has not done any harm to our nascent, forum friendship.

The post of mine, which I'd quoted, & to which I was referring, was my first of your thread, written after having read only your OP; I know, some might fault any poster, for not reading more, before posting. While I, typically, do-- still, since every thread needs an initial reply-- it does not seem a stretch, to me, to expect any OP to sufficiently explain itself, for that initial responder to have a fair idea of the thread's subject. Logically, then, I cannot see why that OP should automatically be considered insufficient, for any later responders. Again, that small point, is only meant as an argument against the indictment of my own negligence, which I just cited. IOW, I am merely going through things, trying to provide a range of perspectives. Please do not infer, from this, any intent to criticize your OP (just wait until you get a load of some of the others, that are "good enough," for some members). When I am issuing a criticism, it will be unmistakable.

The timing of my first post (having only read your OP), means that I'd not yet read your mention of "positive discrimination." Further, as I'd earlier explained, I had interpreted that term (when I'd later, first seen it), as meaning boons, given to those who might be regarded as "more equal," which I, again, interpreted to mean possessing "superior," attributes, which was the way the pigs in Animal Farm, and the Soviet official, who I spoke of, in my 1st post, thought of themselves. I do not mean, by saying so, that I do not, now, also understand & acknowledge the validity of the way in which you had intended them. I do think, though, that it should have been clear that terms like "more equal," and, "positive discrimination," begged for supplementary explanation. I was clearly not, I will note, the only one who was unclear, of the meaning of your terms. I reiterate: no offense intended, by pointing that out.

So, to get to the meat of it. You had made Animal Farm, seem central to your thread. While, of course, that novel was about the exploitation and hypocrisy of Communism, it was NOT meant to refer to that exploitation, based on ethnicity; it was the exploitation of a much more universal, "worker," that is, the common population, by the elites.

To risk being redundant, I am not trying to undercut your premise, of applying this concept of "elites"-- referring unambiguously, to a minority group of privileged leaders, in the novel-- to a country's majority racial population, for example. I am only saying, and I hope that you can now agree, that your intent was much less than crystal-clear, in your OP and, in fact, is not what had been implied, to that point. This is the only reason that I feel (for lack of a better word coming to me, at the moment), "proud," of my intuition's having been right, regarding something that was not apparent, from what was actually in the text, to that point.

Truthfully, it is not merely my own, "being so good," that is behind my wanting to mention this, but the same concept which had led me to talk about this, in my initial post. That is, the idea that it would be predictable to a person, even without it being clearly-stated, that race & ethnicity were going to come to the fore, in your thread. Do you understand my thinking?-- I think this reality of our societal perspective, and psychology, is itself, worth discussion.



While I do not feel proud of my succumbing to my desire to underline my earlier insight, I can think of it as a counter-balance to my earlier post, in which I freely admit that I had been mistaken, in my interpretation of your meaning. My point is that I try to be honest about my failings, so I feel I would be doing myself an unfair disservice, if I did not also, at least sometimes, trumpet my successes, modest as they may be.

 

Let's just concentrate on the nascent forum friendship eh?