The BBC again: ‘No whites need apply’

km991148

Lurleen wrote: »

Nowhere did they indicate that anyone who disagrees with them is thick or brain dead.

OMM linked a Chris Morris sketch called "Thick People" in reference to those who disagree. It appears either he has backtracked or the mods removed it? So I can understand your confusion.

The other two anecdotes referenced people as braindead for whatever reason.

Lurleen wrote: »

Why so rude? What about the rest of what that post says?

I complimented the stories and said they were quite amusing. I don't really have much else to say on someones anecdotes.

Lurleen wrote: »

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

Not really - I put the original story into context and find it a bit amusing that everyone is happy to dance to the tune of the Daily Mail who are clearly pushing division for their own gain.

RE disagreements - I too don't think positive discrimination is the best policy. I also am not sure what other approaches can/should be taken. I tried to open that conversation, but no one was really interested in alternatives.

I do think its useful to try and balance some industries - its not healthy if the entire creative industries are run by those who could buy their way into it and I think its good to have non profits such as Creative Access providing opportunists to under represented groups (including poorer white families*). They still need to have the talent or skills to do the actual job - so I don't buy this "the best person" as I don't see "the best" being excluded.

*In this case, The BBC role nor the Daily Mail scholarship do open these particular roles to poorer white students, which is unfortunate, but Creative Access has many others that are.

km991148

Gradius wrote: »

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.

I agree - it is all about the money.. promoting such division (as the clearly agenda driven DM article was doing) is good for business. Doesn't help anyone.

The BBC crap is the exact same policy the Daily Mail uses - but that won't sell clickbait crap or help them stick the boot int he BBC on behalf of their Tory buddies.

Gradius

km991148 wrote: »

I agree - it is all about the money.. promoting such division (as the clearly agenda driven DM article was doing) is good for business. Doesn't help anyone.

The BBC crap is the exact same policy the Daily Mail uses - but that won't sell clickbait crap or help them stick the boot int he BBC on behalf of their Tory buddies.

Information is all that matters. It can be presented in different ways, but if a person cannot distill information then there's nothing that can be done.

What I will point out is that the daily mail may have a fooked up angle on reporting something, but it's better than an organisation that is actively doing something fooked up.

Cut through all the crap, it's about money being made at the expense of others, all lovingly covered up by people talking through their holes about irrelevant stuff. As said, there's no history involved here, no ethics, no human rights, no justification. It's just made to look that way.

jiltloop

suicide_circus wrote: »

So it's time for modern Europeans to pay for the sins of a tiny fraction of their great great great grandfathers? A kind of blood libel if you will?

More accurately those are great great great grandfathers of imperial European nations such as the UK, Spain, Holland, Italy, Portugal etc.

As us Irish were swallowed up by the UK empire and oppressed ourselves I think we should have a special status and be excluded from all of this nonsense.

Gradius

jiltloop wrote: »

More accurately those are great great great grandfathers of imperial European nations such as the UK, Spain, Holland, Italy, Portugal etc.

As us Irish were swallowed up by the UK empire and oppressed ourselves I think we should have a special status and be excluded from all of this nonsense.

People really need to drop these lines of argument, for and against.

It is, quite literally, the intended goal of those making money. Obfuscate the truth by throwing in a whole load of irrelevant shut like "sins of the father" etc.

Does anyone really, genuinely think that millionaires and billionaires behind forced migration give a rats arse about history? Or human rights? Or ethics? Or justifications?

No. They do not.

Follow the money. Find the problem.

Who is collecting the inflated rents arisen from forced scarcity?

Who is collecting the votes from purposely fragmented groups?

Who is benefitting from deflated wages from unnecessary competition?

Those are the culprits.

Gradius

Gradius wrote: »

People really need to drop these lines of argument, for and against.

It is, quite literally, the intended goal of those making money. Obfuscate the truth by throwing in a whole load of irrelevant shut like "sins of the father" etc.

Does anyone really, genuinely think that millionaires and billionaires behind forced migration give a rats arse about history? Or human rights? Or ethics? Or justifications?

No. They do not.

Follow the money. Find the problem.

This right here.

There's a reason why this woke ****e started picking up as Occupy Wall Street started looking like it might have an impact, and cause some very rich, very powerful people to answer some very difficult questions.

I'm not communist (despise them, actually), and I'm not parrticularly enamoured with UBI systems and so on, but I do think we have a very long way to go to offer people better opportunities that we can entirely afford. And now, instead of focusing on Ahmed or Siobhan from the run-down estate, whose lives hold barely any hope for a brighter future, you have clowns doing their "activism" on Twitter, fighting over the skin tone or genitals of people earning €200k and which of them should earn €250k instead. Ridiculous.

OMM 0000

km991148 wrote: »

OMM linked a Chris Morris sketch called "Thick People" in reference to those who disagree.

Why are you lying?

I never said people who have a different opinion to me are thick.

That's something you're making up so you can attack me and avoid admitting you're both wrong and rude.

I said it's unbelievable some people will defend the BBC's racism and do so while thinking they're the righteous ones. These people are thick, as they literally think being racist is anti-racist.

You seem to have taken it very personally that I think racists who think they're righteous are thick. Why is that?

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

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.

Is there a discernible difference, you think, between "thick" and "absolute mugs"?

km991148

Gradius wrote: »

Information is all that matters. It can be presented in different ways, but if a person cannot distill information then there's nothing that can be done.

What I will point out is that the daily mail may have a fooked up angle on reporting something, but it's better than an organisation that is actively doing something fooked up.

Why is it acceptable for thge Daily Mail, Sky, ITV, the FT etc to use positive discrimination (or action or whatever you call it) vs the BBC? Im really confused, maybe I am struggling to distill(sic) information as well - please enlighten me!

Gradius wrote: »

Cut through all the crap, it's about money being made at the expense of others, all lovingly covered up by people talking through their holes about irrelevant stuff. As said, there's no history involved here, no ethics, no human rights, no justification. It's just made to look that way.

by the daily mail et al..

km991148

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there a discernible difference, you think, between "thick" and "absolute mugs"?

Not entirely, but the difference here is that I said the Daily Mail are treating their readership with absolute contempt - i.e. taking them for mugs - I (as I stated earlier) am surprised by this - how normally intelligent people buy into this clickbait without even doing the slightest bit of checking up.


Just go back a few further posts than the one you quoted.

km991148

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Why are you lying?

I never said people who have a different opinion to me are thick.

That's something you're making up so you can attack me and avoid admitting you're both wrong and rude.

I said it's unbelievable some people will defend the BBC's racism and do so while thinking they're the righteous ones. These people are thick, as they literally think being racist is anti-racist.

You seem to have taken it very personally that I think racists who think they're righteous are thick. Why is that?

Did you or did you not post a link to the Chris Morris sketch (you did of course)? And did you post it in reference to those who have a different view? And is it healthy for debate to refer to such people as thick (while ironically calling others rude in a fit of self righteousness!)?

Seriously - we are getting to one step away from my da is bigger than your da sorta stuff here..

km991148

Deleted User wrote: »

This right here.

There's a reason why this woke ****e started picking up as Occupy Wall Street started looking like it might have an impact, and cause some very rich, very powerful people to answer some very difficult questions.

I'm not communist (despise them, actually), and I'm not parrticularly enamoured with UBI systems and so on, but I do think we have a very long way to go to offer people better opportunities that we can entirely afford. And now, instead of focusing on Ahmed or Siobhan from the run-down estate, whose lives hold barely any hope for a brighter future, you have clowns doing their "activism" on Twitter, fighting over the skin tone or genitals of people earning €200k and which of them should earn €250k instead. Ridiculous.

But Creative Access do support people form poorer backgrounds (of all "skin tones") as well?

Gradius

km991148 wrote: »

Why is it acceptable for thge Daily Mail, Sky, ITV, the FT etc to use positive discrimination (or action or whatever you call it) vs the BBC? Im really confused, maybe I am struggling to distill(sic) information as well - please enlighten me!




by the daily mail et al..

What does it matter who is saying what about a problem?

What about focusing on the problem?

Even now, the millionaires who own this very website, are making money off these conversations. The main threads on this section of the forum are based on racial antagonism, 10's of thousand of posts, 100's of thousands of views all based off artificially created antagonism.

You could very well convert your time into an exact amount of money you're earning for people off at a beach, perhaps, not giving a good goddamn about anything.

And as long as that continues, nothing will ever change. Now, I've just contributed a fraction of a cent to someone else on my time.

People really need to snap out of this merry go round and get pulling at roots!

OMM 0000

km991148 wrote: »

Did you or did you not post a link to the Chris Morris sketch (you did of course)? And did you post it in reference to those who have a different view?

I thought I just explained this?

You literally quoted me explaining it?

Let me try for a final time.

There are some people who think being racist to white people is somehow a good thing. The people with these disgusting beliefs tend to think they're the righteous ones. They are thick but don't realise it. And I linked to a Chris Morris video explaining this concept (thick people who don't realise they're thick are a big problem in our society).

Are you going to keep pretending I'm saying people who have a different opinion to me are thick, or are you going to accept I'm talking about "woke" racists?

km991148

Gradius wrote: »

What does it matter who is saying what about a problem?

What about focusing on the problem?

Even now, the millionaires who own this very website, are making money off these conversations. The main threads on this section of the forum are based on racial antagonism, 10's of thousand of posts, 100's of thousands of views all based off artificially created antagonism.

You could very well convert your time into an exact amount of my net you're earning for people off at a beach, perhaps, not giving a good goddamn about anything.

And as long as that continues, nothing will ever change. Now, I've just contributed a fraction of a cent to someone else on my time.

People really need to snap out of this merry go round and get pulling at roots!

Well it does matter- because if it turns out that there isn't really a problem with "positive discrimination" (an oxymoron in itself) and the people are simply fanning this nonsense to further their own interests then we will have a far bigger problem on our hands than a few internships being handed out.

The fact that the BBC are the only corporation called out for this (ignoring the other media companies) and also ignoring the fact that Creative Access works with poorer white kids as well and also the Daily Mail run the same sort of positive discrimination scholarship tells me that the story is just another pathetic attempt to fuel the fires of hatred and division. Why would they do this and why is no one asking that question?

km991148

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I thought I just explained this?

You literally quoted me explaining it?

Let me try for a final time.

There are some people who think being racist to white people is somehow a good thing. The people with these disgusting beliefs tend to think they're the righteous ones. They are thick but don't realise it. And I linked to a Chris Morris video explaining this concept (thick people who don't realise they're thick are a big problem in our society).

Are you going to keep pretending I'm saying people who have a different opinion to me are thick, or are you going to accept I'm talking about "woke" racists?

I know a great video that applies in this scenario - but I guess it would be too rude to post it! (light hearted response.. no offence meant to you..)

I guess we will need to agree to disagree - I don't want to continue a fruitless argument tbh.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

But Creative Access do support people form poorer backgrounds (of all "skin tones") as well?

This isn't relevant to the point I made, but in any case, tokenistic bull**** internships are not about to even put a tiny chip in the systemic, cultural issue of relative poverty in the UK, and the same sort of people who think they are, are the people continually creating "solutions" that become poverty traps.

OMM 0000

km991148 wrote: »

I guess we will need to agree to disagree - I don't want to continue a fruitless argument tbh.

There's no need to agree to disagree.

You're pretending I'm saying people who have different opinions to me are thick.

You're making that up.

There's no disagreement. You're simply lying.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

The fact that the BBC are the only corporation called out for this (ignoring the other media companies) and also ignoring the fact that Creative Access works with poorer white kids as well and also the Daily Mail run the same sort of positive discrimination scholarship tells me that the story is just another pathetic attempt to fuel the fires of hatred and division. Why would they do this and why is no one asking that question?

It is irrelevant, since this discussion, from its inception, has been about the merits (or lack thereof) of "positive discrimination" and discriminatory hiring practices.

You could start another thread about media hypocrisy, maybe, but I don't assess the people posting in this thread to be the "absolute mugs" you keep implying they are.

km991148

OMM 0000 wrote: »

There's no need to agree to disagree.

You're pretending I'm saying people who have different opinions to me are thick.

You're making that up.

There's no disagreement. You're simply lying.

Yep - and I disagree with that assertion, so we will need to agree to disagree - or not or reply or don't!

km991148

Deleted User wrote: »

It is irrelevant, since this discussion, from its inception, has been about the merits (or lack thereof) of "positive discrimination" and discriminatory hiring practices.

You could start another thread about media hypocrisy, maybe, but I don't assess the people posting in this thread to be the "absolute mugs" you keep implying they are.

I didn't imply people were "absolute mugs" - I spoke of (a couple of times) intelligent people. I directly said that the Daily Mail are taking people for mugs/ treating them with contempt with their double standards and divisive reporting. No implication at all.

Deleted User wrote: »

This isn't relevant to the point I made, but in any case, tokenistic bull**** internships are not about to even put a tiny chip in the systemic, cultural issue of relative poverty in the UK, and the same sort of people who think they are, are the people continually creating "solutions" that become poverty traps.

Ok so taking your own advice then regarding the merits (or lack thereof) of "positive discrimination" - there is nothing really to discuss as it is illegal, and not common - outwith a few "tokenistic bull**** internships".



The thread topic is about a Daily Mail article - it's perfectly acceptable to call bull on such a piss poor article. If you want to take the "story" in the article and run with it then go for it - but I would suggest you are doing exactly what the DM want you to do. I am not saying you are a mug for doing so.

OMM 0000

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.

This article is worth a read. A bit long, but once you get past the introduction, it gets interesting when talking about the shifts in employment for the US.

While there are still more men in positions of upper management (of which there are less positions available), in middle management there are more women than men. All the while, the pressure increases to create parity for the upper positions, but notice how there's never any talk when there's more women in positions than men? The point being, even should equal percentages between the genders be achieved, the movements to put women in these positions won't stop. It just won't be discussed that women outnumber men, and in many cases, get paid more than men (female ceo's, on average, get paid more than male ceo's according to the article)

Equality is not the end goal here.. for either feminists or race activists. It's just marketing spin, when they claim it is. No feminist is ever going to say there's too many women in middle management, and we should be employing more men..

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

I didn't imply people were "absolute mugs"

We'll have to agree to disagree.

OMM 0000

km991148 wrote: »

Yep - and I disagree with that assertion, so we will need to agree to disagree - or not or reply or don't!

What's really happening here is you made a mistake, and you can't admit it, so you're doubling down.

You really need to do some introspection to figure out why you're doing this.

Let me give you some advice:

If you had of said "OK, I misread your post and replied in a snarky tone, sorry about that", you would have come out of this looking fine, but instead you chose to make a fool of yourself.

🤷🏻

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

Ok so taking your own advice then regarding the merits (or lack thereof) of "positive discrimination" - there is nothing really to discuss as it is illegal, and not common - outwith a few "tokenistic bull**** internships".

And we're talking about the internships.

km991148 wrote: »

The thread topic is about a Daily Mail article - it's perfectly acceptable to call bull on such a piss poor article. If you want to take the "story" in the article and run with it then go for it - but I would suggest you are doing exactly what the DM want you to do. I am not saying you are a mug for doing so.

Right, well, I'm not going to stop talking about topics that interest me because km991148 from boards dot ie might think I'm a dupe for the Daily Mail. I am precisely the wrong sort of personality to be targeting with that sort of effort, I'm afraid.

km991148

Deleted User wrote: »

Right, well, I'm not going to stop talking about topics that interest me because km991148 from boards dot ie might think I'm a dupe for the Daily Mail. I am precisely the wrong sort of personality to be targeting with that sort of effort, I'm afraid.

Are you having a laugh - barely two posts ago you state my point about the media is irrelevant (even although I gave good reason why it is perfectly reasonable).

km991148

OMM 0000 wrote: »

What's really happening here is you made a mistake, and you can't admit it, so you're doubling down.

You really need to do some introspection to figure out why you're doing this.

Let me give you some advice:

If you had of said "OK, I misread your post and replied in a snarky tone, sorry about that", you would have come out of this looking fine, but instead you chose to make a fool of yourself.

����

It's always great when you keep needing to "explain" something.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

Are you having a laugh - barely two posts ago you state my point about the media is irrelevant (even although I gave good reason why it is perfectly reasonable).

I said that your point about the media (the Daily Mail, actually, you didn't mention other media) was irrelevant to the ongoing discussion, which, aside from your repeated attempts to drag it into a "trash the DM" fest (for reasons I won't guess at, since that would be uncharitable), has been about positive discrimination in internship recruitment (and positive discrimination in a wider sense).

km991148

Deleted User wrote: »

I said that your point about the media was irrelevant to the ongoing discussion, which, aside from your repeated attempts to drag it into a "trash the DM" fest (for reasons I won't guess at, since that would be uncharitable), has been about positive discrimination in internship recruitment (and positive discrimination in a wider sense).

I am not simply trying to "trash the DM" for the sake of it (I do think they are a sensationalist gossip rag tho - I think people from all sides of political spectrum would be hard pushed to disagree, but my opinion is irrelevant here) - I am merely pointing out their hypocrisy in trashing the BBC - when the BBC have done no different to many other media organisations including the DM themselves. I think that's fair game in a thread that started with a post containing a link to the DM, no?


Now regarding specifically positive discrimination, I still don't think its necessarily a good idea, but its not like its a mass policy - its been a few internships.

km991148

Deleted User wrote: »

I said that your point about the media (the Daily Mail, actually, you didn't mention other media) was irrelevant to the ongoing discussion, which, aside from your repeated attempts to drag it into a "trash the DM" fest (for reasons I won't guess at, since that would be uncharitable), has been about positive discrimination in internship recruitment (and positive discrimination in a wider sense).

Re quoting your edits - I mentioned Sky, ITV, the financial times and the BBC several times.