The BBC again: ‘No whites need apply’

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh right then. So then am I against a more detailed and inclusive interview process where everyone is afforded the same treatment and assessed fairly, with the job going to the person who performed the best, regardless of disability, race or sex?

No I am not.

I did make an assumption that it was some sort of diversity quotas initiative. Probably because of the context in which you brought it up.

It's completely my fault Andrew. Anything you say should be thoroughly looked into before taking it at face value.

You seem to be the only one talking about diversity quotas. Is that some kind of strawman that you've made up?

AndrewJRenko

Shield wrote: »

I'm simplifying for the sake of debating a point. If I was to go to the lengths you seem to require, we'd still end up at this point of debate.

The point in question is, in a situation where a BAME person scored second highest in a recruitment competition for a tech job in Microsoft, but a white autistic person scored highest... who gets the job?

I haven't outlined any particular lengths for the discussion.

And again, I'm not here to do your research for you. If you want to know more, do your own research.

These threads always bring out a coterie of folk who will do as much intellectual contortions as possible to downplay such a rotten policy, and to depict those in disagreement as backward bigots and whiny victims. I know the type well as I used to be one (although I would never have agreed with this measure by the BBC).

They are always so hostile too - almost as though they know their position is a weak one so sneering and insults and passive-aggressiveness will somehow bolster it.

The BBC mean well, and no, I don't think this means white folk have it tough, but it IS discrimination based on skin colour. There's no arguing against that. Now if it was for a position that required being black or brown, that would be a different story but this isn't such a position, and it's terribly unfair on young white people who'd love to apply for it.

The argument that white people colonised and plundered up to decades ago so there's nothing wrong with this, it's about time the chickens came home to roost... is some of the stupidest sh1t I've ever read. 21-year-olds can't apply for a position because of what some people of the same nationality did long long before they were born and that's reasonable?

All of those white folk who didn't colonise and who were poor, powerless and downtrodden... still fair enough because of those who did colonise having the same skin colour as them? Absolutely barking. It's mostly white people who come up with this kinda rot too, oblivious to the irony.

How about, to address the racial injustices of the past, we don't discriminate against anyone and we treat everyone equally?

Shield

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Are you fine with positive discrimination like Microsoft's autism hiring programme?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I haven't outlined any particular lengths for the discussion.

It appears to me that you were inviting discussion on the above and I was simply bringing you down that path of discussion to a possible dilemma, hoping for reasoned discourse.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And again, I'm not here to do your research for you. If you want to know more, do your own research.

I never asked you to research anything for me or anyone else. I’ve been nothing but civil to you in inviting you to debate a point that you yourself raised. I don’t understand the snippy tone?

biko

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ok setting aside the fact that the DM may also engage in racial discrimination, it's still wrong.

These two words shouldn't appear together.
Something is a fact, or it is not. There is no "may".

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So you want a solution that you know won't actually fix the problem that you're trying to fix?

Treating people equally isn't a solution?

Hhhhh

Hhhhh wrote: »

Treating people equally isn't a solution?

Yeah nothing I said indicated I "wanted" a solution that doesn't work. But as I said, that's the kind of stuff which gets resorted to.

Gradius

Anyone with a semblance of forethought can see this is all going to end brutally. An artificially architectured programme to the detriment of a native people, black, white or blue, won't be tolerated when push comes to shove.

When scarcity eventually arrives, temporarily through the likes of economic depression, or permanently via environmental issue, people are going to react the way people have always reacted.

There's nothing natural about this, and nature always corrects.

Gradius

Gradius wrote: »

Anyone with a semblance of forethought can see this is all going to end brutally. An artificially architectured programme to the detriment of a native people, black, white or blue, won't be tolerated when push comes to shove.

When scarcity eventually arrives, temporarily through the likes of economic depression, or permanently via environmental issue, people are going to react the way people have always reacted.

There's nothing natural about this, and nature always corrects.

What I find most worrying is how it could serve to embolden the far right, particularly those living in disenfranchised communities and who haven't received much education. You can see it here with the Gemmabots.

suicide_circus

Gradius wrote: »

There's nothing natural about this, and nature always corrects.

People who support this believe in social engineering, the power of ideology over nature.

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

People who support this believe in social engineering, the power of ideology over nature.

Exactly. It's why it tends to be extremists that support these initiatives, whether they be left wing extremeists or right wing extremists.

I mean imagine openly insinuating that treating people equally is a negative!

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

People who support this believe in social engineering, the power of ideology over nature.

Always worked well that one.

Gradius

Lurleen wrote: »

What I find most worrying is how it could serve to embolden the far right, particularly those living in disenfranchised communities and who haven't received much education. You can see it here with the Gemmabots.

It doesn't embolden the far right, it creates it.

Also, the idea that the far right is associated with poor education is simply untrue. Some of the most bizarre, ill-brained, anti-scientific ideas ever conceived have come from the left side of the political spectrum.

If politics maintained a steady course through the middle of that spectrum, you wouldn't have the volatility right now. And you can bet it's going to get a lot wilder.

Imagine a world where exclusively far right ideas are pushed through education, media, representation, while the far left is neutered, to the extent that it is guiding employment policies and housing policies and even "thought" policies and "identity" policies?

What would be the natural reaction swelling in the population?

As they say, fook around and you'll find out. And we will.

I didn't say only uneducated people are far right - just that those who ARE uneducated are in a situation where they can become dangerously resentful (yes of course that's the case when it comes to leftwing politics - hello Russia 1917 and Cambodia). The rest of what you say I'm not contradicting.

AndrewJRenko

Hhhhh wrote: »

Treating people equally isn't a solution?

How's it been working out so far?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How's it been working out so far?

But increasing chances for some, is decreasing chances for others.

AndrewJRenko

Gradius wrote: »

Anyone with a semblance of forethought can see this is all going to end brutally. An artificially architectured programme to the detriment of a native people, black, white or blue, won't be tolerated when push comes to shove.

When scarcity eventually arrives, temporarily through the likes of economic depression, or permanently via environmental issue, people are going to react the way people have always reacted.

There's nothing natural about this, and nature always corrects.

Nature doesn't have much to do with recruitment practices.

Gradius

Lurleen wrote: »

I didn't say only uneducated people are far right - just that those who ARE uneducated are in a situation where they can become dangerously resentful (yes of course that's the case when it comes to leftwing politics - hello Russia 1917 and Cambodia). The rest of what you say I'm not contradicting.

True enough.

But educated people can become dangerously resentful.

Empathetic people can become dangerously resentful.

All people can become dangerously resentful.

The only thing needed is a bonafide reason, and they just keep piling 'em high.

Natural reactions.

Dr. Bre

One of the B’s in BBC is black

AndrewJRenko

Lurleen wrote: »

But increasing chances for some, is decreasing chances for others.

So the 10%—30% representation of women in politics is something that we don't need to fix?

AndrewJRenko

Gradius wrote: »

True enough.

But educated people can become dangerously resentful.

Empathetic people can become dangerously resentful.

All people can become dangerously resentful.

The only thing needed is a bonafide reason, and they just keep piling 'em high.

Natural reactions.

Did you consider the natural reactions of the people who have been discriminated against for decades?

Sweetemotion

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So the 10%—30% representation of women in politics is something that we don't need to fix?

Have women not got a vote?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How's it been working out so far?

Not too badly, actually. A lot better than if we all actively discriminated against eachother. The fact that you are opposed to treating people equally says it all, and as I have repeatedly said, not surprising given your extremist views.

Silentcorner

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So the 10%—30% representation of women in politics is something that we don't need to fix?

Most women aren't concerned about the genitals of the person they vote for...you can see it in the way they vote.

Unless you are prepared to force women to vote only for women, is that your solution? Because we can't have women thinking for themselves now can we.....

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So the 10%—30% representation of women in politics is something that we don't need to fix?

Do me a favour and stop the "so what you're saying is" bollox about stuff I didn't say.

Encouraging women to get into politics is the solution, not discriminating against men. Recognition too that women are just less likely to enter into politics than men are, the way men are less likely to become teachers or nurses or work in recruitment/HR or PR. Also recognition that more women are stay at home parents than men. Work needs to be done to make politics less of a boys club culture (which I believe is happening with younger generations) but it's not all down to an anti women conspiracy.

As an independent woman who won't put up with misogyny, I have never felt discriminated against due to being a woman.

km991148

So, I'm still struggling to see what the issue is here.

Positive discrimination is still illegal in the UK.

We have a non profit that works within the creative industries that creates some opportunities and internships for people from under represented communities this is not only for non white people as white people from poor backgrounds can also apply. They accept pretty much everyone except rich white kids in these roles.

Only one such role is currently open in the BBC.

A lot of the roles advertised don't even have this restriction.

As usual, the Daily Mail has resorted to half baked reporting to get a rise out of the usual suspects - and what for? To push the anti BBC agenda. Is that worth more division?
I honestly don't understand how you would not be annoyed at being fed this crap.

Everyone needs to calm the fu(k down and stop being spoon fed and ready to be outraged.

Gradius

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Nature doesn't have much to do with recruitment practices.

When artificial barriers are introduced? Yes, this kind of thing is directly connected. Nature has its way of correcting artificial abnormalities, no matter what the mode.

Swathes of employment ring-fenced for those with a physical feature different to the vastly outnumbering population. You'll get a natural reaction to an unnatural situation eventually.

suicide_circus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How's it been working out so far?

Enormous progress

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

So, I'm still struggling to see what the issue is here.

Positive discrimination is still illegal in the UK.

We have a non profit that works within the creative industries that creates some opportunities and internships for people from under represented communities this is not only for non white people as white people from poor backgrounds can also apply. They accept pretty much everyone except rich white kids in these roles.

Only one such role is currently open in the BBC.

A lot of the roles advertised don't even have this restriction.

As usual, the Daily Mail has resorted to half baked reporting to get a rise out of the usual suspects - and what for? To push the anti BBC agenda. Is that worth more division?
I honestly don't understand how you would not be annoyed at being fed this crap.

Everyone needs to calm the fu(k down and stop being spoon fed and ready to be outraged.

Whose outraged? I'm dissapointed as to what left wing politics is turning into, as this guff is mostly if not exclusively pushed by people on the left side of the political spectrum. Left wing politics when I was growing up was about fighting discrimination, not actively engaging in it.

km991148

Hhhhh wrote: »

Whose outraged? I'm dissapointed as to what left wing politics is turning into, as this guff is mostly if not exclusively pushed by people on the left side of the political spectrum. Left wing politics when I was growing up was about fighting discrimination, not actively engaging in it.

There's a lot of outrage here. What's the problem? A non profit giving a few roles to underrepresented communities? Trying to correct the imbalances of those that can buy their way into the industry. It's not even got much to do with race, yet we've came to page 20odd arguing over skin colour because most people took the Daily Mail at their word.

And if it's being pushed almost exclusively by the left side if the spectrum, then why are the Daily Mail themselves actively engaging in the same sort of programmes? More speculation perhaps?