The BBC again: ‘No whites need apply’

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

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.

And if there is no critical blowback then they'll know they can extend such a policy to affect more sections. They're testing the water to see what kind of reception they'll receive. Internships are a good place to test these initiatives at because they're not considered (by many) to be real work, and can be dismissed easily.

It's not like this hasn't happened before. The US started with the same thing, applying these policies in limited contexts until society became more comfortable with them, and now, positive discrimination is pretty widely accepted over there as a valid answer to their problems. In spite of all the negativity associated with such initiatives.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

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?

Social media and internet advertising models have caused all media companies to become trashy gossip rags, some of which hide it better than others. More news at 6.

I get what you're saying, but someone asked further back in the thread if the DM doing the same sort of scheme was also bad... and I answered yes. Which I think is probably obvious by the ongoing discussion. If the DM happens to bring criticism on itself for engaging in the same behaviour as the media companies it writes about... so much the better!

km991148 wrote: »

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.

Sure. I think we should close the internships loophole and make sure it doesn't become mass policy.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

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

Mea culpa - I didn't see those ones.

JimmyVik

Saw a tweet a few weeks ago.
A straight, able bodied, guy going to an interview in a dress, proclaiming he is a lesbian in the wrong body, in a wheel chair.
He reckoned he couldnt not get the job.
And a few weeks after he starts he would come out of the closet as a heterosexual male.
Dont know what became of him though.

OMM 0000

km991148 wrote: »

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

The fact you cannot understand a simple concept is on you.

But we both know you're purposefully misunderstanding because the alternative is having to admit you've made a fool of yourself.

Watch how you continue doubling down.

One eyed Jack

Shield wrote: »

The BBC are at it again exploiting loopholes in equality law that allow them to advertise jobs specifically not for white people.

Got me thinking, I wonder could you just turn up at the interview and claim to identify as the race they’re looking to hire? It worked for Rachel Dolezal for a few years.

They’re hardly exploiting a loophole if the legislation is specifically intended to address the circumstances they’re using to advertise for qualifying candidates? I mean, there’s nothing stopping you applying for the role, you just don’t meet the criteria, and if you decide to do Rachel Dolezal on it, then who’s exploiting loopholes exactly? It’s pretty well explained in this article -


What "positive action" is permitted under discrimination legislation?

Shield wrote: »

How can people ever show that they’re more than just a Diversity hire if they didn’t have to compete on the open market for a job?

Does anyone have to prove to anyone they’re more than just a diversity hire? When did anyone start having to prove that to anyone? In any case, they’re still competing on the open market for jobs, roles or positions where they meet the qualifying criteria, and it still doesn’t mean that just because they meet the qualifying criteria that they’re guaranteed to be hired or accepted for a position on the course.

I can see why people would have issues with positive action if they were somehow disadvantaged by the idea of offering opportunities to people who don’t have the same opportunities they do, but otherwise? I don’t see any reason for anyone to be critical of something which has existed in UK legislation for years, but has never come to public attention because there was only lip service paid to the idea and no positive action which would have instituted actual change in the status quo and given people who were previously disadvantaged, equal opportunities as anyone else.

km991148

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The fact you cannot understand a simple concept is on you.

But we both know you're purposefully misunderstanding because the alternative is having to admit you've made a fool of yourself.

Watch how you continue doubling down.

I'm very much able to admit a mistake, maybe if it's explained just one more time I'll get it?

OMM 0000

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In any case, they’re still competing on the open market for jobs, roles or positions where they meet the qualifying criteria

They're not though, that's the point. By using racism to rule out nearly 90% of your population from getting the job, it's far from being an open market for jobs.

Maybe a way to think about it is South Africa. Remember the jobs were for whites only? That was racist too. It doesn't matter what the excuse is, discriminating based on race is racism.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can see why people would have issues with positive action if they were somehow disadvantaged by the idea of offering opportunities to people who don’t have the same opportunities they do, but otherwise?

Don't you think it's a bit racist to claim non-whites can't compete with whites when it comes to education and talent?

If I were black I'd be highly insulted they think they have to artificially hold back whites to give me a chance.

The reason people here are upset about this is they can see how they personally could be affected by racist hiring practices like this.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t see any reason for anyone to be critical of something which has existed in UK legislation for years

We shouldn't give racism a pass just because the law for it has been around for a while. The law needs to change.

km991148

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And if there is no critical blowback then they'll know they can extend such a policy to affect more sections. They're testing the water to see what kind of reception they'll receive. Internships are a good place to test these initiatives at because they're not considered (by many) to be real work, and can be dismissed easily.

It's not like this hasn't happened before. The US started with the same thing, applying these policies in limited contexts until society became more comfortable with them, and now, positive discrimination is pretty widely accepted over there as a valid answer to their problems. In spite of all the negativity associated with such initiatives.

I'm not sure if it's going to go that way in the UK. Different populations, different political situation.
There is no way the current government are going to enact laws for positive discrimination, nor would people want it.

I still think this one is mainly about the DM throwing mud on the BBC for their own anti BBC agenda. It's seems that way, otherwise they would attack the policy rather than the corporation (and attacking the policy is quite difficult considering they also do it).

One eyed Jack

OMM 0000 wrote: »

They're not though, that's the point. By using racism to rule out nearly 90% of your population from getting the job, it's far from being an open market for jobs.

Maybe a way to think about it is South Africa. Remember the jobs were for whites only? That was racist too. [b{It doesn't matter what the excuse is[/b], discriminating based on race is racism.

Contrary to your opinion, it does matter in law what the excuse is, and there are numerous circumstances where the policy applies and the excuse, or reason, is regarded as legitimate or not, or unlawful or not. In this case, their reasons are perfectly legitimate under UK law. The comparison with South Africa isn’t even worth considering tbh. They’re not using racism to rule anyone out of a job, they’re using positive discrimination to determine candidates who are qualified to apply for the opportunities which would otherwise be unavailable to them.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Don't you think it's a bit racist to claim non-whites can't compete with whites when it comes to education and talent?

No I don’t, not immediately at least, and I wouldn’t jump down anyone’s throat and claim they’re a racist if they made that claim, because I’m aware of the inequality in opportunities for people based not just upon the colour of their skin, but also their socioeconomic status, and a whole boatload of other factors which generally preclude them from taking advantage of the same opportunities that other people have which they take for granted.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

If I were black I'd be highly insulted they think they have to artificially hold back whites to give me a chance.

You’re not black though, so your argument is as good as me saying if you actually were black, you might feel very differently about things.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The reason people here are upset about this is they can see how they personally could be affected by racist hiring practices like this.

We shouldn't give racism a pass just because the law for it has been around for a while. The law needs to change.

The law did change, precisely because racism was given a pass before the law changed, that’s exactly why it changed, to force organisations and employers to give people opportunities where they wouldn’t have given those people opportunities before. Of course that’s going to upset some people of a “dey tuk our jobs” mentality, as though they imagine they shouldn’t have to compete on the open market on a level playing field for all candidates where everyone has equal opportunities as everyone else.

Gradius

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Contrary to your opinion, it does matter in law what the excuse is, and there are numerous circumstances where the policy applies and the excuse, or reason, is regarded as legitimate or not, or unlawful or not. In this case, their reasons are perfectly legitimate under UK law. The comparison with South Africa isn’t even worth considering tbh. They’re not using racism to rule anyone out of a job, they’re using positive discrimination to determine candidates who are qualified to apply for the opportunities which would otherwise be unavailable to them.





No I don’t, not immediately at least, and I wouldn’t jump down anyone’s throat and claim they’re a racist if they made that claim, because I’m aware of the inequality in opportunities for people based not just upon the colour of their skin, but also their socioeconomic status, and a whole boatload of other factors which generally preclude them from taking advantage of the same opportunities that other people have which they take for granted.





You’re not black though, so your argument is as good as me saying if you actually were black, you might feel very differently about things.





The law did change, precisely because racism was given a pass before the law changed, that’s exactly why it changed, to force organisations and employers to give people opportunities where they wouldn’t have given those people opportunities before. Of course that’s going to upset some people of a “dey tuk our jobs” mentality, as though they imagine they shouldn’t have to compete on the open market on a level playing field for all candidates where everyone has equal opportunities as everyone else.

So you're all for discrimination in your favourable opinion.

That's the spirit

OMM 0000

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re not using racism to rule anyone out of a job, they’re using positive discrimination

[Don't you think it's a bit racist to claim non-whites can't compete with whites when it comes to education and talent?]
No I don’t, not immediately at least

Holy crap, you're literally a racist.

One eyed Jack

Gradius wrote: »

So you're all for discrimination in your favourable opinion.

That's the spirit

You say that like it’s supposed to be a bad thing? :pac:

I find the claims of racism or discrimination as if they don’t understand the point of the legislation in these circumstances to be as disingenuous as suggesting that employers should be forced to hire every Tom, Dick and Harry who sends in an application as not doing so is discrimination. Of course it is! The point is whether it is lawful or unlawful discrimination.

Wait till they read about the genuine occupational requirement, which also exists in Irish law as well as a whole bucketload of other legitimate discrimination legislation -

Exemptions to the Employment Equality Acts

Gradius

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You say that like it’s supposed to be a bad thing? :pac:

I find the claims of racism or discrimination as if they don’t understand the point of the legislation in these circumstances to be as disingenuous as suggesting that employers should be forced to hire every Tom, Dick and Harry who sends in an application as not doing so is discrimination. Of course it is! The point is whether it is lawful or unlawful discrimination.

Wait till they read about the genuine occupational requirement, which also exists in Irish law as well as a whole bucketload of other legitimate discrimination legislation -

Exemptions to the Employment Equality Acts

Oh so you're hiding behind letter of the law.

I'm sure if a law was passed that required you to murder 5 children per week, you wouldnt think twice about whether it's absolutely insane. It's the law, after all

One eyed Jack

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Holy crap, you're literally a racist.

Y’know for someone who spent the last two pages cribbing about being misrepresented, you’re quare handy at it yourself. I said I wouldn’t immediately be given to thinking someone else who espoused that opinion was immediately racist, because I don’t imagine everyone but me is racist, or that if people don’t share my opinions they’re racist. I said specifically, that I know it’s not just based upon the colour of a person’s skin, but also it is based upon their socioeconomic status.

OMM 0000

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Y’know for someone who spent the last two pages cribbing about being misrepresented, you’re quare handy at it yourself. I said I wouldn’t immediately be given to thinking someone else who espoused that opinion was immediately racist, because I don’t imagine everyone but me is racist, or that if people don’t share my opinions they’re racist. I said specifically, that I know it’s not just based upon the colour of a person’s skin, but also it is based upon their socioeconomic status.

You literally excused racism with a euphemism, then you claimed it's not racist to say non-whites can't compete with whites when it comes to academics or talent, and then repeatedly tried to claim racism is ok as long as there's a law allowing it.

It's literally right here in your comment:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117477164&postcount=461

One eyed Jack

Gradius wrote: »

Oh so you're hiding behind letter of the law.

I'm sure if a law was passed that required you to murder 5 children per week, you wouldnt think twice about whether it's absolutely insane. It's the law, after all

What do you mean hiding? I’m not “hiding” behind any law. I’m not given to knee-jerk reactions on the basis of a shìtpiece in a tabloid rag where their only reason for existing is to perpetuate hysteria and feed paranoia. I don’t feel the least bit threatened by an organisation in the UK advertising for candidates according to the criteria which they are. I disagree with the notion that white people have any reason to be getting their knickers in a bunch just yet. The BBC isn’t likely to resemble Wakanda any time soon :pac:

OMM 0000

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Y’know for someone who spent the last two pages cribbing about being misrepresented, you’re quare handy at it yourself. I said I wouldn’t immediately be given to thinking someone else who espoused that opinion was immediately racist, because I don’t imagine everyone but me is racist, or that if people don’t share my opinions they’re racist. I said specifically, that I know it’s not just based upon the colour of a person’s skin, but also it is based upon their socioeconomic status.

In the US they have "Affirmative Action". Every black person, regardless of family wealth, what school they went to, etc., is held to a lower standard than whites and Asians, so they're able to get into college with lower grades.

Do you agree blacks need this, regardless of family wealth, what school they went to, etc.?

One eyed Jack

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You literally excused racism with a euphemism, then you claimed it's not racist to say non-whites can't compete with whites when it comes to academics or talent, and then repeatedly tried to claim racism is ok as long as there's a law allowing it.

It's literally right here in your comment:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117477164&postcount=461

I never said racism was ok. I’m perfectly fine with discrimination though, as long as there are legitimate reasons for it, which in the case mentioned in the opening post, there are. You can continue to portray it as racism all you want, I just don’t see it the same way you do is all.

OMM 0000

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never said racism was ok. I’m perfectly fine with discrimination though, as long as there are legitimate reasons for it, which in the case mentioned in the opening post, there are. You can continue to portray it as racism all you want, I just don’t see it the same way you do is all.

You're perfectly fine with discrimination based on race.

You need to get some fresh air and have a think about what you're saying.

Let me guess, your personal politics are far left? I sense quite a bit of authoritarianism there too, based on your "it's fine by me if it's the law" comments.

One eyed Jack

OMM 0000 wrote: »

In the US they have "Affirmative Action". Every black person, regardless of family wealth, what school they went to, etc., is held to a lower standard than whites and Asians, so they're able to get into college with lower grades.

Do you agree blacks need this, regardless of family wealth, what school they went to, etc.?

You’re choosing to misrepresent affirmative action policies there really, as nobody is held to a lower standard. The point of affirmative action policies are to give people opportunities that have either historically been unavailable to them, or would be unavailable to them without affirmative action policies. What I don’t agree with is the idea of breaking people’s balls just for the sheer hell of it.

I’m all for supporting people where they need support, as opposed to imagining everyone is of equal socioeconomic status and therefore we all have equal opportunities already. We clearly don’t, and I don’t feel the least bit threatened by ensuring other people have the opportunities they need to realise their potential.

OMM 0000

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re choosing to misrepresent affirmative action policies there really, as nobody is held to a lower standard. The point of affirmative action policies are to give people opportunities that have either historically been unavailable to them, or would be unavailable to them without affirmative action policies. What I don’t agree with is the idea of breaking people’s balls just for the sheer hell of it.

I’m all for supporting people where they need support, as opposed to imagining everyone is of equal socioeconomic status and therefore we all have equal opportunities already. We clearly don’t, and I don’t feel the least bit threatened by ensuring other people have the opportunities they need to realise their potential.

It's non-stop mental gymnastics with you, isn't it?

If black people can get into college with worse grades solely on the basis of their skin colour, of course they're being held to a lower standard.

If they weren't being held to a lower standard, they would have to get the same grades as everyone else.

"Affirmative Action" means people like Obama's daughters, who go to the best schools and live a life of incredible privilege, they don't need to get the same grades as whites or Asians because they're black.

You keep excusing racism. Sure, you call it discrimination based on race. But it's racism.

Why is it racists can never see they're racist?

One eyed Jack

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You're perfectly fine with discrimination based on race.

You need to get some fresh air and have a think about what you're saying.

Let me guess, your personal politics are far left? I sense quite a bit of authoritarianism there too, based on your "it's fine by me if it's the law" comments.

Instead of name-calling and pigeon-holing, can you present any sort of an argument as to why you imagine people should be compelled to adhere to your standards? And they are your standards, because you’re the person arguing that such policies shouldn’t exist.

People should not afford other people privileges or disadvantages based on immutable characteristics because it's immoral.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

People should not afford other people privileges or disadvantages based on immutable characteristics because it's immoral.

It's amazing that your statement can even be disputed, never mind be deemed prejudiced

km991148

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's amazing that your statement can even be disputed, never mind be deemed prejudiced

I don't think people would dispute it. Of course ideally we would live in a world where people *should* not afford people such privileges.

But guess what, we don't live in a world where that is currently possible. It might be convenient to think everyone had an equal chance, but for many complex reasons this is not possible.. too complex that I can't even find a gif for that!

So we have the situation whereby some roles have been filled giving a go to those of underrepresented groups (which also generally covers poorer white people, albeit not in the specific cases of the BBC internship and Daily Mail scholarship that was discussed).

Does this mean that mass "positive discrimination" is coming to UK/Ireland - no of course not. Does that mean those getting the jobs have no talent or skills - no of course not.

One eyed Jack

OMM 0000 wrote: »

It's non-stop mental gymnastics with you, isn't it?

If black people can get into college with worse grades solely on the basis of their skin colour, of course they're being held to a lower standard.

If they weren't being held to a lower standard, they would have to get the same grades as everyone else.

"Affirmative Action" means people like Obama's daughters, who go to the best schools and live a life of incredible privilege, they don't need to get the same grades as whites or Asians because they're black.

You keep excusing racism. Sure, you call it discrimination based on race. But it's racism.

Why is it racists can never see they're racist?

The only reason it looks like racism to you is because apart from your funky notions of what constitutes racism - “evewyting is wacist!” I don’t share your perspective of what constitutes racism, which is a considerably higher bar than the standard you’re attempting to set. Your bar for what constitutes racism is so low as to be considered unreasonable.

I don’t see the problem with affirmative action meaning people like Obama’s daughters have the same opportunities as people like Hillary Clinton’s daughter, why not? Why shouldn’t they have the same opportunities?

Because according to your standards, they shouldn’t have the same opportunities, which would mean that overall as a social group, they do not have the same opportunities to fulfil their potential in education or make use of their talents as other people who take those opportunities for granted, and to see someone else having the same opportunities has them feeling like they’re being treated unfairly, or they’re the real victim of discrimination.

Who do you imagine can’t see that attempt at an argument for what it is? You even have to imagine you’re black in order to be offended. Is it because you’re not black?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's amazing that your statement can even be disputed, never mind be deemed prejudiced

It’s a statement which can be easily disputed, and refuted by the numerous examples of circumstances where it would be considered immoral not to acknowledge people’s immutable characteristics if it means they are at a considerable disadvantage from participating equally in society. It’s the reason why equality legislation exists - to protect people from what is commonly referred to as the tyranny of the majority, or majority rule.

It’d be mighty convenient for example if I could make all the rules to suit myself seeing as I’m in a majority in most contexts, and I wouldn’t have to care for what anyone in a minority who is negatively impacted by the effects of my decisions thinks is immoral because I’d engineer the rules in such a way that there’s feckall they could do about it.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It's amazing that your statement can even be disputed, never mind be deemed prejudiced

Eh, s'not that amazing. People adore the easy path to virtue. It's paved with thumbs-up icons and stranger-praise.

Not to mention that if you happen to be a racist POS who's sick of the closet the last few decades have imposed.... whew lad. Current year is your time to SHINE, son.

grassylawn

Meanwhile there are diversity quotas being set that directly affect *us*

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/21/eu-prepares-cut-amount-british-tv-film-shown-brexit?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

The EU want to limit the number of British productions on Netflix. Many of the best shows are British, especially kids tv - hey duggee, pocoyo (half british), octonauts...