It would be SO helpful if you uploaded these in order or as a playlist. Very hard to watch the debate having to open numerous videos looking for the next speaker...
*Here's a wacky and crazy idea, but why don't we just employ the best person for the job? Does anyone else remember something we used to call **_'common sense'_** or is it just me?*
Positive discrimination is the enemy of a meritocratic society. “An unequal world is fair as long as their is equal opportunity”, this dogma is the path towards egalitarianism. Thus positive discrimination is very much counter intuitive in the sense that it ensures people receive equal outcome over equal opportunity. Creating this new-age idea that everything is owed to you, without having earned ones own establishments.
Martin, you might consider Geraldine Lancaster as 'fit' but I'm not sure it's appropriate to crack onto a lady in such advanced years. And what do you mean by slipping her a 'a crafty length'. You're going to do it while she's sleeping, once the effects of your Rohypnol have kicked in, you'll do so after she's died, or your length is so little she won't even notice during the act?
Screw meritocracy. We want parity. I love how they're spinning it as "positive discrimination". There's only so many spots; it's a zero sum game so it necessitates " negative" discrimination.
+j reitano By her reasoning women should be looked over in favour of men given that in today's society women are overrepresented by enrolment at tertiary education levels. It's 60/40 female to male and widening in all first world countries and a lot of third world ones too. Yet we still keep hearing how universities are male bastions. Go figure
I don't know how much I agree with her. I'm a girl and i want to go into engineering, currently a field with a small percentage of women in it. What I'm afraid of is being under skilled yet accepted into a university or job because I'm a girl. Or, people not valuing my position because they believe being female got me into engineering not my hard work. I understand why positive discrimination seems like a good idea but I think they should only discriminate based on performance and have a no-discrimination policy for background. Maybe if they want to fix issues like mine they should invest more in making engineering appeal to girls because most girls I talk to simply aren't interested in going into a STEM career. As for the race issue, maybe they should invest in state schools in and around London where there tends to be more ethnic diversity. I think positive discrimination should only be in the form of encouragement and inspiration, not biased selection.
they should just do what they do..give test interviews and exams and pick the best regarldess of what they are. dont pick gender or race pick grade thst is bs
If people who decide on the matter are as ignorant as you are, then yeah, you would make the perfect case for misunderstood positive discrimination. Hopefully they won't get any idiot into engineering, no matter the gender, or we are doomed
@@lozzybozzy234 The fact that discrimination by gender, race, ideology or religion (positive or negative) of any kind should be illegal, insconstitutional and a crime
@@pedromeneses5661 I understand your principle, but it's not as simple as that. Society negatively discriminates, so how would you correct it? Or do you believe that society doesn't negatively discriminate at all?
@@lozzybozzy234 Then you outlaw negative discrimination, that's what equal rights and the constitution is for, discrimination is discrimination, there's no two ways about it, there is no "good" discrimination, and basing it off of gender and race is bound to backfire IMMENSELY (as we can see nowadays). You can only fight negative (and the desperate but naive wish for positive) discrimination with education. It's like the old proverb says, "don't fight fire with fire, or you end up with a larger fire than before". Positive discrimination is not social justice, it is social INJUSTICE, you cannot discriminate a white man negatively in favour of a black woman purely based on the argument of "we have too many white men already", because the white man is not at fault for being born a white man, so why must he suffer for it, why must he be discriminated against for it? I see this normalization of racism and sexism everywhere in western democracies now (moreso in America), and the consequences it's having in our democratic process. A liberal democracy can only be sustained if we follow core principles of equality, non-discrimination of any kind, not judging based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or political orientation, those are the basis of democracy, and if you violate those principles, you put democracy at risk. For there to be positive discrimination, there must be negative discrimination. The ONLY positive discrimination I tolerate is between poor and rich people, I believe that poor people need to be propped up into society yes, but discriminating based on gender and race/religion? You are bound to get a failing democracy that way, plain and simple, it is a democratic principle that of equality of *opportunity*, not equality of outcome (the latter is a principle that can only be enforced by a government in complete control of society, or as many call it, authoritarian). And when you say, "society negatively discriminates", who does it discriminate against exactly? And what society exactly? Are we talking America (U.S.)? African countries? Europe? You talk of society as if we are one country one planet. The USA is very obsessed with race, that is one thing any european can see, americans are very quick to divide people by ethnicity. When you say "african-american" or "asian-american" you inherently create a racial divide between people, and maybe that which you think is respect toward the existence of other ethnicities, is actually perpetuating the racial divide between people, we are all human, I cannot care less where your ancestors come from, I judge people by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin (this applies tot he gender debate). Anyway, this is a long rant just to tell you that we are all human, and that to beat social inequalities "the good way", you must not act out of spite and ill will, do not seek revenge for what happened in the past, because the people of today are not to blame for it. Racism feeds racism, violence breeds war. Sexism feeds sexism. Discrimination feeds discrimination. If we want to maintain peace and democratic values, discriminating people based on their gender and race is the last thing you want to do, I thought you Americans liked Martin Luther King, you repeat his words, but you do not act them out, you are to me (no offense) still a very racist country, and positive discrimination (or as you call it, affirmative action) is just proof of it. You seek social equality, but instead, your policies of positive discrimination only perpetuate a race/gender based point of view, you will never see eachother equally, because don't want to see eachother equally, instead of caaling yourself a proud american, you call yourself a proud black woman/man, instead of seeking to destroy physical barriers between humans, you enforce it, and glorify it.
@@pedromeneses5661 Firstly, I'm not American, I'm not sure why you assumed that. So on that basis, I can safely ignore most of what you talked about on America specifically, I'm no expert on America. Discrimination is not always overt, and it may often be quite subtle. I'm going to make an assumption that you are Portuguese (due to your profile picture) but I do not know what gender you are. Lets say you are male. Say that when you grew up, there was part of you that really wanted to be a politician. For arguments sake, lets say that when you grew up, only 15% politicians were male and the rest were female. You might then think that this wasn't for you, as being a politician wasn't for people of your gender. This is a subtle discrimination, the effect of under representation of a group. I don't completely disagree with you, that a better way would be to not see things in terms of race, gender, sexuality. But unfortunately by not acknowledging that these different groups exist, with their differing opportunities, the subtle discrimination continues. If certain groups represent the powerful positions in society, how do you aim to make this fair without positive discrimination? In the UK, where I live, Black people are more likely to be involved in crime, more likely to experience schizophrenia, more likely to be of low income. Is this because they are inherently more likely to do these things, or is it because their social conditions are much poorer than that afforded to other groups? What do you think?
I don't agree with her on the basis of giving preference to a minority group when two identically qualified people are being considered for a role, I find that inherently unfair and demeaning to the minority group in question, but her argument was respectful unlike Katie's which felt like she was behaving like a troll. I get what she meant but behaviour matters.
In a case of two identically qualified persons running for the same thing, there will always be a case of discriminating one over the other, if both can't be hired for the same thing, the question is what criteria will you use for discriminating between the two. Congratulations on being one of the few who actually went through the video and then some more congratulations are in order for actually understanding the break-tie concept associated with it.
@@janespright yes but proof is in the pudding , by over benefitting a minority we are at risk , look at the state of america because of this . cringe jean peire the whitehouse press speaker is clueless , she was hired on her identity not her skills
@@girlsdrinkfeck "proof is in the pudding" My dude, you must be eating the wrong pudding. Please be careful not to get poisoned. Idk any jean peire, if someone gets hired on their identity and not their skills then you have a totally different understanding of applying positive discrimination. You act like I was promoting over discrimination, please stop projecting, thank you. I'm also sure you were arguing in honesty and not at all in bad faith
When she says that these "Positive" Discrimination measures won't be required forever, someone should point to her the case of India where "Positive" Discrimination based on Caste has been legal for over 75 years. Every couple years the quotas for "Positive" Discrimination have gone up, in many places over 90% of seats are "Reserved" for "Positive" Discrimination. "Positive" Discrimination is not just being practices in education but also jobs and even within promotions in said jobs. Previously these "Positive" Discrimination measures were only limited to publicly funded institutes and now they have been forced in privately funded educational institutes and in the coming five years will likely be forced in all private jobs and institutions as well. In some publicly funded institutions, 100% of promotions and sometimes appointments through "slight of hand" are now "Reserved". After 75 years most people who can have any effect on policy matters believe it must continue for "As long as is required" they are not against hypothetically continuing this system forever. Its funny that she gave example of Indira Gandhi who at one point had thrust our country in draconian "Emergency" because her party was caught rigging election. The speaker should I think look more closely at the examples she is citing. As for Affirmative Actions in America, I will let an American talk to that but one thing on note is in this years election California voted against most of these stipulations, so don't know what to expect from other states.
ohmygod the blatant amount of lies you told is obnoxious, first of all caste system and atrocities have a very deviant history of atleast 1500 or so years. 2. please tell me the names of private instuitions which are being forced to adopt qouta system or any other kind of affirmative action. 3. only approx 2% of job market is obliged to qouta sytem, only the public setor ones. 3. caste is sooooooooooooooo prominent in india that i cant emphasize enough, in every strucural and aocietal instituitions . 4, reservations in promotion is a protective measure to sheild LC people from further discrimination in promotion, as most of the executive and decision making bodies and still under the hegemony of Upper Caste hindus. 5, the talk about your everlasting reservations, in the first place reservations were never demanded by ambedkar but it was given as a alternative to separaate electorate for LCs, to preserve the political status qou which is still prevalent in 21st century india also its not the responsibility of lower caste indians to strip the caste its the responsibility of UCs to let go of their surnames and all the priviledges that come with it. TO ABOLISH CASTE BASED RESERVATIONS, FIRST WE HAVE TO ABOLISH CASTE. as simple as that. period
"lots of words , zero substance." among the world discrimination is another one of the largest problems. the problem with descrimination is due to older generations influencing the younger generation. but skin color is not the only problem we face. we also face religious differences , the LGBTQ communtity. I feel , I believe , I think is an opinionated word towards something. for instance I believe I god , I believe in equal pay , I believe in equal rights blah blah blah. descrimination is just an excuse to hate something or a person. it's really not that hard to respect one another no matter how twisted our society is just take a deep breath respect values , respect heritage , respect history , respect a person's religious rights. so what if your gay , bi , lesbian , trans , questioning. it's rediculous to hate or judge someone for their preferences in the end it's just a preference and their human rights. woman's rights let them have it! descrimination let's make it disappeared.
Imagine being one of the best students and win a math olympiad, but you don't get into Oxford cause positive discrimination. Instead of you a woman who is not very good at math take your place. Well, that's happening right now.
And also think about what it feels like to be that person. Imagine knowing that you got into one of the best schools or universities, not because of your skill, but because of your skin colour or gender. The only thing that would be oppressing them, would be the system of positive discrimination. The only people who should represent a person, should be the individual. Skin colour or gender does not make me similar to another person.
I believe you misinterpret the conditions... I believe she aimed at, as an example; a situation where there are limited spots to an University, and two applicants of different gender - who have the same qualifications and both a decent set of personal skills - apply, then the spot will go to the one with the less privileged position. The condition must be that they are both at or around the same level skillswise, yet, her or his lower social-economic status works beneficial for them within the system of positive discrimination. It is quite different from the example you presented; a situation where someone gets in without the right set of qualifications, over someone who does. That's just not it. They both have to have them.
@@sarahadeniyi1654 "No one should control each other... That is democracy... We do not need a dictator! "Then why are you a dictator ?" "Because i must control the society to it's greatest good!" Sounds the same in my opinion
“It’s pretty clear that our university is inherently unequal” is it? I don’t go there not do I even live in England, but I care about accuracy and accurate facts rather than manipulating statistics based on an agenda. Now ok, there are disproportionally less black people than white people in the university when compared to the outside population, but, what other factors other than race are there? Was wealth taken into account? Was the place where those people live taken into account? Were the rate of applications and the rate of admissions taken into account? No? Just the fact that there percentage doesn’t match the outside percentage? Well, your assumption of unequal ness is completely unfounded and pushed by an agenda. The answer is not positive discrimination, the answer is have better education be more accessible in areas where is not and have a system in place where everyone has acces to basic services like healthcare, water, light, guarantee everyone gets a decent income, because I guarantee you, everyone living in those areas and everyone that does not have those things, is affected by that lack of accessibility, regardless of skin color, religion or nationality.
if 2 individuals are on equal footing for a job appliance and there is no way to set them apart other than physical traits, well wouldnt randomly generated numbers help then? this is just stupid lol
That is such a rare if not a non-existant phenomenon. I'd like her to provide examples. I bet we can always find another attribute to use to distinguish applicants other than demographics.
It would be SO helpful if you uploaded these in order or as a playlist. Very hard to watch the debate having to open numerous videos looking for the next speaker...
Aah, positive discrimination, it's great because we all know nothing shouts "let's fight discrimination" quite like being discriminatory.
"Positive Descriptions" is an oxymoron.
This is not just wrong, it's insane.
*Here's a wacky and crazy idea, but why don't we just employ the best person for the job? Does anyone else remember something we used to call **_'common sense'_** or is it just me?*
Exactly.
horrible pre-planned jokes that aren't funny, hard to watch.
Positive discrimination is the enemy of a meritocratic society. “An unequal world is fair as long as their is equal opportunity”, this dogma is the path towards egalitarianism. Thus positive discrimination is very much counter intuitive in the sense that it ensures people receive equal outcome over equal opportunity. Creating this new-age idea that everything is owed to you, without having earned ones own establishments.
There's nothing positive about discrimination.
Lots of words, zero substance.
+Geraldine Lancaster Agree 100%
Geraldine, is that REALLY you? Any day now you'll be getting a birthday card from the Queen. And you're on UA-cam?
Martin, you might consider Geraldine Lancaster as 'fit' but I'm not sure it's appropriate to crack onto a lady in such advanced years. And what do you mean by slipping her a 'a crafty length'. You're going to do it while she's sleeping, once the effects of your Rohypnol have kicked in, you'll do so after she's died, or your length is so little she won't even notice during the act?
^ LOL, caught a good one there :)
ua-cam.com/video/wnedkVrgFF0/v-deo.html
You too!
Screw meritocracy. We want parity. I love how they're spinning it as "positive discrimination". There's only so many spots; it's a zero sum game so it necessitates " negative" discrimination.
+j reitano
By her reasoning women should be looked over in favour of men given that in today's society women are overrepresented by enrolment at tertiary education levels. It's 60/40 female to male and widening in all first world countries and a lot of third world ones too.
Yet we still keep hearing how universities are male bastions. Go figure
Society should be based of merit and merit only. That filters out the best of the best, which allows for the maximum best to be rulers of society.
I don't know how much I agree with her. I'm a girl and i want to go into engineering, currently a field with a small percentage of women in it. What I'm afraid of is being under skilled yet accepted into a university or job because I'm a girl. Or, people not valuing my position because they believe being female got me into engineering not my hard work.
I understand why positive discrimination seems like a good idea but I think they should only discriminate based on performance and have a no-discrimination policy for background.
Maybe if they want to fix issues like mine they should invest more in making engineering appeal to girls because most girls I talk to simply aren't interested in going into a STEM career.
As for the race issue, maybe they should invest in state schools in and around London where there tends to be more ethnic diversity.
I think positive discrimination should only be in the form of encouragement and inspiration, not biased selection.
Yes I totally agree with you...I'm a guy in engineering and wish more girls would join haha..
they should just do what they do..give test interviews and exams and pick the best regarldess of what they are. dont pick gender or race pick grade thst is bs
If people who decide on the matter are as ignorant as you are, then yeah, you would make the perfect case for misunderstood positive discrimination. Hopefully they won't get any idiot into engineering, no matter the gender, or we are doomed
She's gorgeous.
We should resist all forms of discrimination.
I'm on the fence as a whole about this topic but I have to say Katie Hopkins speech delivery is far superior.
emotion-based arguments never win. Facts don't care about feelings.
Haha, what facts?
@@lozzybozzy234 The fact that discrimination by gender, race, ideology or religion (positive or negative) of any kind should be illegal, insconstitutional and a crime
@@pedromeneses5661 I understand your principle, but it's not as simple as that. Society negatively discriminates, so how would you correct it? Or do you believe that society doesn't negatively discriminate at all?
@@lozzybozzy234 Then you outlaw negative discrimination, that's what equal rights and the constitution is for, discrimination is discrimination, there's no two ways about it, there is no "good" discrimination, and basing it off of gender and race is bound to backfire IMMENSELY (as we can see nowadays).
You can only fight negative (and the desperate but naive wish for positive) discrimination with education. It's like the old proverb says, "don't fight fire with fire, or you end up with a larger fire than before".
Positive discrimination is not social justice, it is social INJUSTICE, you cannot discriminate a white man negatively in favour of a black woman purely based on the argument of "we have too many white men already", because the white man is not at fault for being born a white man, so why must he suffer for it, why must he be discriminated against for it? I see this normalization of racism and sexism everywhere in western democracies now (moreso in America), and the consequences it's having in our democratic process. A liberal democracy can only be sustained if we follow core principles of equality, non-discrimination of any kind, not judging based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or political orientation, those are the basis of democracy, and if you violate those principles, you put democracy at risk.
For there to be positive discrimination, there must be negative discrimination.
The ONLY positive discrimination I tolerate is between poor and rich people, I believe that poor people need to be propped up into society yes, but discriminating based on gender and race/religion? You are bound to get a failing democracy that way, plain and simple, it is a democratic principle that of equality of *opportunity*, not equality of outcome (the latter is a principle that can only be enforced by a government in complete control of society, or as many call it, authoritarian).
And when you say, "society negatively discriminates", who does it discriminate against exactly? And what society exactly? Are we talking America (U.S.)? African countries? Europe? You talk of society as if we are one country one planet.
The USA is very obsessed with race, that is one thing any european can see, americans are very quick to divide people by ethnicity. When you say "african-american" or "asian-american" you inherently create a racial divide between people, and maybe that which you think is respect toward the existence of other ethnicities, is actually perpetuating the racial divide between people, we are all human, I cannot care less where your ancestors come from, I judge people by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin (this applies tot he gender debate).
Anyway, this is a long rant just to tell you that we are all human, and that to beat social inequalities "the good way", you must not act out of spite and ill will, do not seek revenge for what happened in the past, because the people of today are not to blame for it. Racism feeds racism, violence breeds war. Sexism feeds sexism. Discrimination feeds discrimination. If we want to maintain peace and democratic values, discriminating people based on their gender and race is the last thing you want to do, I thought you Americans liked Martin Luther King, you repeat his words, but you do not act them out, you are to me (no offense) still a very racist country, and positive discrimination (or as you call it, affirmative action) is just proof of it. You seek social equality, but instead, your policies of positive discrimination only perpetuate a race/gender based point of view, you will never see eachother equally, because don't want to see eachother equally, instead of caaling yourself a proud american, you call yourself a proud black woman/man, instead of seeking to destroy physical barriers between humans, you enforce it, and glorify it.
@@pedromeneses5661 Firstly, I'm not American, I'm not sure why you assumed that. So on that basis, I can safely ignore most of what you talked about on America specifically, I'm no expert on America.
Discrimination is not always overt, and it may often be quite subtle. I'm going to make an assumption that you are Portuguese (due to your profile picture) but I do not know what gender you are. Lets say you are male. Say that when you grew up, there was part of you that really wanted to be a politician. For arguments sake, lets say that when you grew up, only 15% politicians were male and the rest were female. You might then think that this wasn't for you, as being a politician wasn't for people of your gender. This is a subtle discrimination, the effect of under representation of a group.
I don't completely disagree with you, that a better way would be to not see things in terms of race, gender, sexuality. But unfortunately by not acknowledging that these different groups exist, with their differing opportunities, the subtle discrimination continues.
If certain groups represent the powerful positions in society, how do you aim to make this fair without positive discrimination?
In the UK, where I live, Black people are more likely to be involved in crime, more likely to experience schizophrenia, more likely to be of low income. Is this because they are inherently more likely to do these things, or is it because their social conditions are much poorer than that afforded to other groups? What do you think?
I don't agree with her on the basis of giving preference to a minority group when two identically qualified people are being considered for a role, I find that inherently unfair and demeaning to the minority group in question, but her argument was respectful unlike Katie's which felt like she was behaving like a troll. I get what she meant but behaviour matters.
In a case of two identically qualified persons running for the same thing, there will always be a case of discriminating one over the other, if both can't be hired for the same thing, the question is what criteria will you use for discriminating between the two. Congratulations on being one of the few who actually went through the video and then some more congratulations are in order for actually understanding the break-tie concept associated with it.
@@janespright yes but proof is in the pudding , by over benefitting a minority we are at risk , look at the state of america because of this . cringe jean peire the whitehouse press speaker is clueless , she was hired on her identity not her skills
@@girlsdrinkfeck "proof is in the pudding" My dude, you must be eating the wrong pudding. Please be careful not to get poisoned. Idk any jean peire, if someone gets hired on their identity and not their skills then you have a totally different understanding of applying positive discrimination. You act like I was promoting over discrimination, please stop projecting, thank you. I'm also sure you were arguing in honesty and not at all in bad faith
When she says that these "Positive" Discrimination measures won't be required forever, someone should point to her the case of India where "Positive" Discrimination based on Caste has been legal for over 75 years. Every couple years the quotas for "Positive" Discrimination have gone up, in many places over 90% of seats are "Reserved" for "Positive" Discrimination. "Positive" Discrimination is not just being practices in education but also jobs and even within promotions in said jobs. Previously these "Positive" Discrimination measures were only limited to publicly funded institutes and now they have been forced in privately funded educational institutes and in the coming five years will likely be forced in all private jobs and institutions as well. In some publicly funded institutions, 100% of promotions and sometimes appointments through "slight of hand" are now "Reserved". After 75 years most people who can have any effect on policy matters believe it must continue for "As long as is required" they are not against hypothetically continuing this system forever.
Its funny that she gave example of Indira Gandhi who at one point had thrust our country in draconian "Emergency" because her party was caught rigging election. The speaker should I think look more closely at the examples she is citing. As for Affirmative Actions in America, I will let an American talk to that but one thing on note is in this years election California voted against most of these stipulations, so don't know what to expect from other states.
ohmygod the blatant amount of lies you told is obnoxious, first of all caste system and atrocities have a very deviant history of atleast 1500 or so years. 2. please tell me the names of private instuitions which are being forced to adopt qouta system or any other kind of affirmative action. 3. only approx 2% of job market is obliged to qouta sytem, only the public setor ones. 3. caste is sooooooooooooooo prominent in india that i cant emphasize enough, in every strucural and aocietal instituitions . 4, reservations in promotion is a protective measure to sheild LC people from further discrimination in promotion, as most of the executive and decision making bodies and still under the hegemony of Upper Caste hindus. 5, the talk about your everlasting reservations, in the first place reservations were never demanded by ambedkar but it was given as a alternative to separaate electorate for LCs, to preserve the political status qou which is still prevalent in 21st century india also its not the responsibility of lower caste indians to strip the caste its the responsibility of UCs to let go of their surnames and all the priviledges that come with it.
TO ABOLISH CASTE BASED RESERVATIONS, FIRST WE HAVE TO ABOLISH CASTE. as simple as that. period
She is great at making us understand why so few northern people go to Oxford.
"lots of words , zero substance."
among the world discrimination is another one of the largest problems. the problem with descrimination is due to older generations influencing the younger generation. but skin color is not the only problem we face. we also face religious differences , the LGBTQ communtity. I feel , I believe , I think is an opinionated word towards something. for instance I believe I god , I believe in equal pay , I believe in equal rights blah blah blah. descrimination is just an excuse to hate something or a person. it's really not that hard to respect one another no matter how twisted our society is just take a deep breath respect values , respect heritage , respect history , respect a person's religious rights. so what if your gay , bi , lesbian , trans , questioning. it's rediculous to hate or judge someone for their preferences in the end it's just a preference and their human rights. woman's rights let them have it! descrimination let's make it disappeared.
It's funny because Americans actually want more black students to promote diversity. They have to
Imagine being one of the best students and win a math olympiad, but you don't get into Oxford cause positive discrimination. Instead of you a woman who is not very good at math take your place. Well, that's happening right now.
And also think about what it feels like to be that person. Imagine knowing that you got into one of the best schools or universities, not because of your skill, but because of your skin colour or gender. The only thing that would be oppressing them, would be the system of positive discrimination. The only people who should represent a person, should be the individual. Skin colour or gender does not make me similar to another person.
I believe you misinterpret the conditions... I believe she aimed at, as an example; a situation where there are limited spots to an University, and two applicants of different gender - who have the same qualifications and both a decent set of personal skills - apply, then the spot will go to the one with the less privileged position. The condition must be that they are both at or around the same level skillswise, yet, her or his lower social-economic status works beneficial for them within the system of positive discrimination. It is quite different from the example you presented; a situation where someone gets in without the right set of qualifications, over someone who does. That's just not it. They both have to have them.
Bollocks to posative DISCRIMINATION merit only
A river or emotions but that’s it just emotions. If you want to learn about discrimination look up Walter Williams.
The opposing panel seems to set up a perfect straw man for this debate
Omg that girl and I have the same top. The designer is Guano Bini. Btw this girl is mega hot. She looks like the girl from Scooby sop only hotter.
If your objective was to appear pretentious, congratulations.
Haven of the privileged? I assume you'd count yourself among the privileged, so why not give up your place for someone less privileged.
She’s using her privilege to speak out why would she give up her spot she’s using it for good lol
@@sarahadeniyi1654 Because that's all these activists ever do, speak out, well how about actually making a difference and practicing what you preach?
@@sarahadeniyi1654 "No one should control each other... That is democracy... We do not need a dictator!
"Then why are you a dictator ?"
"Because i must control the society to it's greatest good!"
Sounds the same in my opinion
"Yeah we excepted you in...no not due to your ability but because your black and it boost our numbers, hope you can keep up"
The best point in the debate was the bottom of that deep v-neck.
+JackAmero meh
mhm
Amero: and her puta shoes
She's beautiful
She's beautiful, holy
-_-
+debbie webbie she's doing a debate at Oxford ... Pretty sure she is bright . But alright that's your opinion
Aye she's well tidy. Sounds bright to me. Don't tend to have dummies debating in the Oxford Union.
+Jordan Bolduc Because she is stupid? Nothing holy about this little fool.
+Jordan Bolduc ikr? damn. like a sexy vampire.
The first opposition speaker is very beautiful.
her irish is showing.
Mother of God that's a beautiful woman.
Positive discrimination is not equal itself, we have equal opportunities but equal outcome is a terrible and near impossible thing. Foolish speech
Positive discrimination is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of
She going to read off the paper the whole day
“It’s pretty clear that our university is inherently unequal” is it? I don’t go there not do I even live in England, but I care about accuracy and accurate facts rather than manipulating statistics based on an agenda.
Now ok, there are disproportionally less black people than white people in the university when compared to the outside population, but, what other factors other than race are there? Was wealth taken into account? Was the place where those people live taken into account? Were the rate of applications and the rate of admissions taken into account?
No? Just the fact that there percentage doesn’t match the outside percentage? Well, your assumption of unequal ness is completely unfounded and pushed by an agenda.
The answer is not positive discrimination, the answer is have better education be more accessible in areas where is not and have a system in place where everyone has acces to basic services like healthcare, water, light, guarantee everyone gets a decent income, because I guarantee you, everyone living in those areas and everyone that does not have those things, is affected by that lack of accessibility, regardless of skin color, religion or nationality.
unbearable
if 2 individuals are on equal footing for a job appliance and there is no way to set them apart other than physical traits, well wouldnt randomly generated numbers help then? this is just stupid lol
That is such a rare if not a non-existant phenomenon. I'd like her to provide examples. I bet we can always find another attribute to use to distinguish applicants other than demographics.
Anyone else distracted by the gum smacking?
evil.
She lost me at 'CIS'. Probably reading Gender Studies.
lol
Northern lass....
What a load of drivel.
yakety yak yal. See folks, indoctrination works!
Hopkins is one clown is she not?
She’s cute, but speaks rubbish
She looks like a young slightly overweight Kate Bush.
Neil McIntosh overweight really who the duck are you like David Beckham