The BBC again: ‘No whites need apply’

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

It's not the gotcha you think it is.. I'm not saying people cannot be discriminated against for being white.. but a few cases does not point to a general problem with racism against white people. The thread is about an article that purported to be about excluding whites, which turned out not even to be true.

The problem with that logic, is that the UK is still a predominately white nation. Discrimination against White people is not going to be examined as a race issue, instead, the natural response will be to assign a wide variety of other reasons why a person wouldn't get a job or whatever.

What the BBC are doing is the introduction of racist practices against <insert group>. That group could be white people. It could be men. It depends on the agenda being driven. If only women are given preference for a role that a man could do, then that's discriminatory towards men. If BAME people are given preference in a job role, then that's discriminatory towards others.

We used to seek to minimize discrimination on any grounds other than skills/education, because those were qualifications that most people could reach. However, when a preference is given to a racial group, or a gender (or genderless), then, that goes beyond what most people can achieve, and is discriminatory.

"Earlier this year, the BBC published its Diversity And Inclusion Plan, with a commitment to ensure its workforce comprises 50 per cent women, 20 per cent black and ethnic minority and 12 per cent disabled, to better reflect UK society"

I'd view the above as being discriminatory because it's a statement of intent. 50% women? You don't see that as a preference made based entirely on gender, and therefore discriminatory against men? That's not equality. It's an attempt to do away with equality. Imagine if a company released the same as the above with the intention of having 50% men, with the remainder being split between men/women of various other groups (disadvantaged, minorities, etc)... There would be outrage over such a thing. And rightly so.

This kind of preferential treatment for certain groups who are capable of competing equally with others is wrong.

nolivesmatter

Solving racism with more racism. The article says the BBC want it's workforce to be "50 per cent women, 20 per cent black and ethnic minority and 12 per cent disabled to better reflect UK society". If that's their goal there could in theory come a point where they'd have to discriminate against non-white people to keep the quota at a level that "reflects UK society".

nolivesmatter

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Solving racism with more racism. The article says the BBC want it's workforce to be "50 per cent women, 20 per cent black and ethnic minority and 12 per cent disabled to better reflect UK society". If that's their goal there could in theory come a point where they'd have to discriminate against non-white people to keep the quota at a level that "reflects UK society".

That's the problem with blank-slate constructionist bollocks. You just end up with a lot of broken slate.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And why do you think women tend not to, more so than their male peers?

Why do women tend not to become sewage workers, mechanics, toolmakers, plumbers, welders, etc.? Do we need positive discrimination there?

Do we also need positive discrimination in childcare recruitment until it's 50% men? Reject women from universities until we have an equal number of male and female graduates every year?

Should universities in the UK start rejecting ethnic minority applicants until the same percentage of white Brits as ethnic minority groups (who are currently twice as likely to get a degree) are receiving degrees?

How far does the social engineering go? Is it monodirectional? Can the person with "oppressor" blood sin ever become the oppressed? What metrics, aside from skin colour, sex and disability status would you use to decide?

50 per cent more women, but why? Nobody is stopping women from applying to the BBC. It's just wrong.

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights

Those who think men are being whiny from a position of privilege - what about young lads who have worked hard in college and training and the workplace and excelled, and could lose out on even just an interview for the BBC... these men haven't been around long enough to experience the privilege afforded to them by the "patriarchy". It's saddening to think this could be the future for young men/boys. The overly privileged men are from older generations.

Strumms

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Solving racism with more racism. The article says the BBC want it's workforce to be "50 per cent women, 20 per cent black and ethnic minority and 12 per cent disabled to better reflect UK society". If that's their goal there could in theory come a point where they'd have to discriminate against non-white people to keep the quota at a level that "reflects UK society".

How about, focusing less on what skin color, gender, disability and ethnicity the person has and more on the ability, skills and experience of the candidate...

WrenBoy

There is no such thing as Positive Discrimination.

yascaoimhin

suicide_circus wrote: »

You want to talk about naivety? You're not going to "solve" racism. You can however make racial discrimination unacceptable in society. But we've apparently rowed back on that one in the name of progress.

It's you dear sir that seems to think that not mentioning racism makes it go away.

I didn't mention racial discrimination in my response to you, you would know that if you paid attention instead of just waiting to make your next response.

It's the point of the thread sure, but if you want to make a point on a topic don't start off with flimsy anecdotes about where you didn't think racism was a big deal when you watched a film with a black guy when you were a child.

yascaoimhin

yascaoimhin wrote: »

It's you dear sir that seems to think that not mentioning racism makes it go away.

I didn't mention racial discrimination in my response to you, you would know that if you paid attention instead of just waiting to make your next response.

It's the point of the thread sure, but if you want to make a point on a topic don't start off with flimsy anecdotes about where you didn't think racism was a big deal when you watched a film with a black guy when you were a child.

You've been misrepresenting his point since he made it, and I'm not sure if it's intentional or if you just don't understand what he's been saying.

Without meaning to "so what you're saying is" SC, his point was that the segment of the political left that wants to engineer every area of society until all percentages are what they "should" be and everyone thinks the same "correct" stuff, are completely and utterly obsessed, possibly pathologically, with race.

He mentioned watching a movie—an incredibly popular movie—that starred a white man and a black man in title roles, and in seeing that as completely natural as a child. His point wasn't that no racism existed anywhere in the world in the 80s (that would be a silly and uncharitable interpretation, at best), but that for many people, possibly most people, depicting harmonious relations between individuals in light-hearted fiction or comedy, regardless of their immutable characteristics, is fine—possibly even preferable.

I know a lot of "woke" types would say that the whities are overdue having to confront their ancestral racist past or whatever guff, but I'm pretty sure the "oppressed groups" who largely, believe it or not, live their lives most of the time just like you and me, don't want to be constantly reminded about their oppression every time they sit down to enjoy media. Which is not to say that the occasional, poignant piece isn't a great thing, but... c'mon. How would you feel if every show you ever watched that had an Irish character in it felt compelled to refer to 800 years of British oppression, no matter the tone or tenor of the piece? Seems a bit unreasonable. Art is supposed to make statements, but art that is used as a political tool is propaganda. And we have enough of that already.

I personally find it strange that the same people telling me that media is crucial and everything is constructed through culture, are also the ones telling me that the media and culture should be pushing out endless messages of oppression, racial tension and misogyny in every non-fantasy show, no matter how light-hearted it's supposed to be (and in the next breath they talk about unity and harmony. Hah!). It would seem to me that if you believed that people are blank slates at birth just waiting to be written on (I don't) then that would be a very bad idea.

Strumms

They talk about ‘under representation’.... who the fûck has ever walked into a business and thought “ right, let me see who is ‘represented’ here “... “ ohhh not enough people of differing ethnicities for my satisfaction I’m out “

If I’m to go for a drink later, I don’t care what ethnicity the staff are.... if they are civil, polite, efficient and professional with a fluent ability to communicate in English ... nice, I’ll be back...

If they are not, like the new hire at the place we’ve been getting the car washed, who wanted me to point at the signs and to instruct him as to which wash to give the car......nooooo, not doing that, nor will we return..

No person is owed a job in this country, UK or EU... hiring of people should be solely on merit, solely on merit.... this is going to turn into a very divisive, dangerous and violent kip if the road being mapped out is to be the road travelled .....

If people are enabled by law to gain employment due to their ethnicity over ability.... where does this stop ?

Will people be able to get into college because of their ethnicity? As opposed to the fair competitiveness of the CAO system ?

Ideals of fairness which have been the pillar of society here for decades are being eroded. Employers don’t care, they want people who are prepared to work for less... politicians don’t care, they see it as an opportunity to get votes from these corners of society, look at SF as a prime example...jesus...

Things are going to get rough if a pillar of society such as the bbc are actually actively discriminating.... it can and will end up here...

"Representation" arguments always hint at some sort of deficit in empathy in the person espousing it, too. Some sort of "break" in their ability to empathise with people of another skin colour, or gender etc. which they project onto other people.

When you challenge this, by asking the (usually white) person if they find themselves unable to properly relate to and empathise with black people or Indian people or whatever on TV, they almost invariably insist that they don't. Which is worse, then, because they are assuming that it's only the "other" group that cannot fully relate with people who are not like them. Which is infantilising, prejudiced bull****.

"You can't be what you can't see" only holds if you teach children to "see", e.g., a "woman doctor" or a "black engineer". If you take the immutable characteristics out of it, you can "see" that much more, and horizons are expanded.

Salvation Tambourine

Deleted User wrote: »

How would you feel if every show you ever watched that had an Irish character in it felt compelled to refer to 800 years of British oppression, no matter the tone or tenor of the piece? Seems a bit unreasonable.

Personally, I find the, usually lighthearted, assumption that an Irish person would automatically have a dislike for an English person rather annoying. Irish people suffered because of some English people but that certainly wasn't me or the man/woman I'm speaking to today or tomorrow. I would hate for them to feel like the need to apologize for the famine and would find it strange that they'd think I'd want an apology and also slightly patronizing.

OMM 0000

Strumms wrote: »

If people are enabled by law to gain employment due to their ethnicity over ability.... where does this stop ?

Race
Gender
Disability

We're kidding ourselves if we think it's going to stop there.

Sexuality
Height
Weight
Number of hair on your head
Family wealth (or more accurately, lack of it)
Penis length
Due to complaints about the above, penis width

All these idiots are doing is making more conservatives.

biko

The left 2010: "Treating people differently based on skin colour is wrong"
The left 2020: "Treating people differently based on skin colour is right"

suicide_circus

Thanks for the above Cymro.

As you say my point was that a movie with a multiracial double act would not be made today unless race was a central theme. Unless the entire narrative was viewed through the prism of race. I'm dubious about the notion we can "fix" racism but i'm absolutely certain you won't fix it by constantly putting people in oppressor/oppressed boxes, focusing on collective guilt and encouraging people to see themselves as victims. And youre also not going to fix it by engaging in literal racial discrimination.

OMM 0000

Lurleen wrote: »

Those who think men are being whiny from a position of privilege - what about young lads who have worked hard in college and training and the workplace and excelled, and could lose out on even just an interview for the BBC... these men haven't been around long enough to experience the privilege afforded to them by the "patriarchy". It's saddening to think this could be the future for young men/boys. The overly privileged men are from older generations.

I had an annoying conversation with two "feminists' (I use quotes because they hadn't thought through any of their opinions) who thought discrimination against men is fair because many CEOs of multinationals are men.

Forgot for a moment how competent and hardworking these CEOs are and what they've done to get these jobs.

I asked the feminists how many men do they know who are CEOs of multinationals? Include your cousins, brothers, uncles, dad, college friends, school friends, etc.

"None".

It finally clicked that hey, almost no one has a chance of becoming a CEO of a multinational, so discrimination against all men due to a handful of hyper successful people is wrong.

We then ended up talking about how it's sexist that nurses aren't paid the same as programmers. These people are ****ing braindead.

km991148

biko wrote: »

The left 2010: "Treating people differently based on skin colour is wrong"
The left 2020: "Treating people differently based on skin colour is right"

Why do the Daily Mail do it as well then? I'm not saying it's right, but why shoehorn in "The Left"..?

km991148

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I had an annoying conversation with two "feminists' (I use quotes because they hadn't thought through any of their opinions) who thought discrimination against men is fair because many CEOs of multinationals are men.

Forgot for a moment how competent and hardworking these CEOs are and what they've done to get these jobs.

I asked the feminists how many men do they know who are CEOs of multinationals? Include your cousins, brothers, uncles, dad, college friends, school friends, etc.

"None".

It finally clicked that hey, almost no one has a chance of becoming a CEO of a multinational, so discrimination against all men due to a handful of hyper successful people is wrong.

We then ended up talking about how it's sexist that nurses aren't paid the same as programmers. These people are ****ing braindead.

Is there a point other than anyone who doesn't agree with you are thick or braindead?

Any other wee stories?

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

Why do the Daily Mail do it as well then? I'm not saying it's right, but why shoehorn in "The Left"..?

Because it's primarily driven near exclusively by a minority of people who fall to the left on the political spectrum. Again, one example doesn't negate this point.

OMM 0000

km991148 wrote: »

Is there a point other than anyone who doesn't agree with you are thick or braindead?

Any other wee stories?

That's your takeaway from my story?

My point was ideologues think discrimination is fine because they haven't thought through their positions and in general are a bit thick.

As a clear example, HR clowns at the BBC think banning white people from a role is a good way to get more blacks to join. They are so lost in their ideology and so lacking in critical thinking skills that they can't see they are racists.

I'll give another example.

I had a conversation recently with more feminist types (not sure if actual feminists) that men who are accused of rape should be imprisoned. That we should assume they are guilty until proven otherwise.

Because I'm not utterly braindead I thought this through for one second and asked them, "So if a woman accuses your father of rape, he should be imprisoned?"

Their response? "That's different". And they couldn't understand how that's wrong.

km991148

Hhhhh wrote: »

Because it's primarily driven near exclusively by a minority of people who fall to the left on the political spectrum. Again, one example doesn't negate this point.

And unqualified statements don't back it up either..

Sand

biko wrote: »

The left 2010: "Treating people differently based on skin colour is wrong"
The left 2020: "Treating people differently based on skin colour is right"

They never believed either of those arguments though. They thought other people might so they used them. In 2010, the people they wanted to protect were non-white. In 2020 the people they want to discriminate against are white. The actual principle of pushing whatever disadvantages white people is never compromised on.

km991148

OMM 0000 wrote: »

That's your takeaway from my story?

Yes, three out of four of your posts call people thick or brain-dead because they either hold a different opinion or couldn't back up their beliefs in a way that satisfied you.

Your anecdotes are amusing tho.

km991148

Again, to me the real story is how much the Daily Mail take a certain cohort for absolute mugs.

It would be quite funny really if it wasn't dividing our society so much.

We used to laugh at how ridiculous the USA were with regards to their media landscape but UK/Ireland is going the same way.

OMM 0000

km991148 wrote: »

Yes, three out of five of your posts call people thick or brain-dead because they either hold a different opinion or couldn't back up their beliefs in a way that satisfied you.

Your anecdotes are amusing tho.

Wanting to discriminate against all men due to the existence of a tiny number of successful men is just "a different opinion" ?

Claiming sexism is the reason programmers are well paid is just "a different opinion" ?

Racism against whites in a job application is just "a different opinion" ?

Wanting to put men in prison if they've been accused of rape, unless he's someone you care about, is just "a different opinion" ?

...

It must be hell seeing everything in black and white.

km991148

OMM 0000 wrote: »

"

...

It must be hell seeing everything in black and white.

That's a narrative you are pushing and not based on any evidence taken from my posts.

Differing opinion doesn't imply opposite, might I suggest that you should try and look beyond your own black and white thinking?

OMM 0000

km991148 wrote: »

That's a narrative you are pushing and not based on any evidence taken from my posts.

Differing opinion doesn't imply opposite, might I suggest that you should try and look beyond your own black and white thinking?

Racism and sexism aren't simply differences of opinion.

How can you not understand this?

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

Is there a point other than anyone who doesn't agree with you are thick or braindead?

Any other wee stories?

Why so rude? What about the rest of what that post says? Nowhere did they indicate that anyone who disagrees with them is thick or brain dead.

It is you who keeps sneering at people for just disagreeing with you.

Strumms

biko wrote: »

The left 2010: "Treating people differently based on skin colour is wrong"
The left 2020: "Treating people differently based on skin colour is right"

People wanted a level playing field ? Don’t think so, more they wanted things weighted IN their favor, through other means of discrimination.

Gradius

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395.amp

It's all about money. Former arse of Goldman Sachs and "big oil", ends up as UN migration chief.

Now there's a natural fit

"We must undermine European homogeneity" he stated. Yes, in order to make more money, by breaking the back of any unified resistance to manipulators.

Sneaky, wealthy scumbags make money hand over fist through immigration and the fragmentation of society.

Then, appealing to soft-brains on an emotional level present it as some sort of ethical argument. They take the ball and run with it, basking in the glory of faux-righteousness while their own lives are directly dis-improved, and 99% of those around them.

This BBC crap is merely another micro offshoot of the central problem.

Cynical, cynical, cynical.

And 100% the truth.