The BBC again: ‘No whites need apply’

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

I absolutely disagree.

You don't counter historic discrimination with so called positive discrimination.

Laws are in place to ensure that people are treated equally.

I encounter more racism from people who claim to be on the "progressive side" than I do from any far right people.

It's disgusting how patronising "positive discrimination" is to people of colour.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I absolutely disagree.

You don't counter historic discrimination with so called positive discrimination.

Laws are in place to ensure that people are treated equally.

I encounter more racism from people who claim to be on the "progressive side" than I do from any far right people.

It's disgusting how patronising "positive discrimination" is to people of colour.

That’s exactly what you do, and that’s exactly why laws are now in place to ensure people are treated equally, because historically they weren’t, and that has had the effect on society where people aren’t starting from an equal standing. Your idea would be fair if everyone were already treated equally, but they’re not, and that’s why laws exist to ensure that people who are unfairly discriminated against have legal recourse to ensure their right to equal treatment is upheld.

I think the term “people of colour” is patronising nonsense, but I’m not offended by it, it’s just a meaningless term seeing as white is as much a colour as black, brown, blue or fifty shades of pink! I still wouldn’t immediately assume anyone is racist if they use any other term other than a term popular among people who consider themselves progressive.

There’s nothing progressive about arguing that people should be treated fairly. I don’t believe in equality or treating people equally, or pretending I’m blind to people’s skin colour or culture or religious beliefs or socioeconomic status or anything else. That’s patronising IMO, pretending as though everyone is the same when they’re clearly not, hence the need for policies like positive discrimination, affirmative action or any of the other many policies which acknowledge that there are circumstances where some people need more assistance than others in order to avail of the same opportunities as others and to participate equally in society.

JerCotter7

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s exactly what you do, and that’s exactly why laws are now in place to ensure people are treated equally, because historically they weren’t, and that has had the effect on society where people aren’t starting from an equal standing. Your idea would be fair if everyone were already treated equally, but they’re not, and that’s why laws exist to ensure that people who are unfairly discriminated against have legal recourse to ensure their right to equal treatment is upheld.

I think the term “people of colour” is patronising nonsense, but I’m not offended by it, it’s just a meaningless term seeing as white is as much a colour as black, brown, blue or fifty shades of pink! I still wouldn’t immediately assume anyone is racist if they use any other term other than a term popular among people who consider themselves progressive.

There’s nothing progressive about arguing that people should be treated fairly. I don’t believe in equality or treating people equally, or pretending I’m blind to people’s skin colour or culture or religious beliefs or socioeconomic status or anything else. That’s patronising IMO, pretending as though everyone is the same when they’re clearly not, hence the need for policies like positive discrimination, affirmative action or any of the other many policies which acknowledge that there are circumstances where some people need more assistance than others in order to avail of the same opportunities as others and to participate equally in society.

Have we really gone this far backwards because of social media?

JerCotter7

JerCotter7 wrote: »

Have we really gone this far backwards because of social media?

It's absolutely baffling that oej said that. I'm hoping it was a brain fart for his sake.

JerCotter7

JerCotter7 wrote: »

Have we really gone this far backwards because of social media?

Another one! Seems we have gone backwards.

One eyed Jack

JerCotter7 wrote: »

Have we really gone this far backwards because of social media?

It’s precisely because of social media that some people are getting themselves worked up into a tizzy about a job skills programme in the UK which is aimed at giving opportunities to minorities, not even at the expense of majorities, but just because it exists! If there were a shortage of opportunities in employment for people who are in the majority, I might have some sympathy for their victim mentality, but in this instance, it’s only because of social media that they’re aware of an opportunity which isn’t open to them, and they’re declaring it unfair discrimination which shouldn’t be permitted in law in the UK.

Triangle

listermint wrote: »

Do you know anyone white that has been discriminated against for a job ? Anyone at all? Just one

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/cheshire-police-man-rejected-for-job-for-being-white-and-straight-tribunal-finds-11645525

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s precisely because of social media that some people are getting themselves worked up into a tizzy about a job skills programme in the UK which is aimed at giving opportunities to minorities, not even at the expense of majorities, but just because it exists! If there were a shortage of opportunities in employment for people who are in the majority, I might have some sympathy for their victim mentality, but in this instance, it’s only because of social media that they’re aware of an opportunity which isn’t open to them, and they’re declaring it unfair discrimination which shouldn’t be permitted in law in the UK.

Amazing how wanting people to be treated equally is considered to be having a 'victim mentality'. Did MLK have a victim mentality too?

donaghs

EnzoScifo wrote: »

Europeans did it to every other continent on Earth. About time the chickens came home to roost.

No. Some Europeans did. What are you on about?

So when will the Mongols repay their debt to Asia and Europe?
And so on.

Judging people by the colour of their skin is stupid and racist.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s precisely because of social media that some people are getting themselves worked up into a tizzy about a job skills programme in the UK which is aimed at giving opportunities to minorities, not even at the expense of majorities, but just because it exists! If there were a shortage of opportunities in employment for people who are in the majority, I might have some sympathy for their victim mentality, but in this instance, it’s only because of social media that they’re aware of an opportunity which isn’t open to them, and they’re declaring it unfair discrimination which shouldn’t be permitted in law in the UK.

That's a shocking attitude.

Victim mentality?

Ffs

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's absolutely baffling that oej said that. I'm hoping it was a brain fart for his sake.

I was hoping it would be considered in the context in which I said it tbh. However in just the same way as you have experienced racism from people who think of themselves as progressive, I’d say you have plenty of experience too of people assuming the worst of you and interpreting everything you say through that lens.

Some people prefer to focus on equality and egalitarianism and all the rest of it as though people are actually the same, but I prefer to treat people fairly. I recognise that people are different, I’m biased towards hiring people with disabilities for example, because I wouldn’t be where I am had people not given me the opportunities they did. The idea of this hiring based solely upon merit is the stuff of fantasy. It’s certainly not reflective of the labour market.

I also treat people differently based upon their skin colour or any of a number of infinite characteristics, and it would take a special sort to insinuate that means I would treat anyone unfairly just because I don’t think people are all the same. It’s why the ‘people of colour’ terminology irritates me, lumping distinct groups of people together on the basis that they’re not white, as though they’re all the same, when they’re clearly not. I’ve never made any secret of the fact that I have no time for identity politics, and it’s clear that not many people here have any time for it either, which is why their arguments about privilege and discrimination come off as an insincere attempt at playing the victim.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's a shocking attitude.

Victim mentality?

Ffs

Yes, you’re not that thin-skinned.

donaghs

EnzoScifo wrote: »

Nothing as simple as blood and soil eh?

My "black and white" thinking relates to colonialism, the theft of natural resources and the imposition of divide and rule on decolonisation to create an economic dependence on the old powers. This lead to civil wars, tribal conflict and widespread poverty. These wars lead to migraton to make a new life in peace and prosperity. Due to the hegemonic cultural leftovers in these former colonies such as language, these people are drawn to the old colonial country to settle and make a new life for themselves. Why wouldn't you follow the money?

Your thinking is "Me and people like me are the most important thing"

You seem to see everything through academic ideas about white colonial hegemony. Ignoring simple things like our common human nature. Or that fact that powerful tribes/nations everywhere in the world have “colonised” others within reach. What made Europe different was the financial and technical innovations. Japan showed showed that other countries could mimic this, and in turn went on to quickly colonise Korea, northern China and other pacific islands.

But back on topic, judging people by skin colour is stupid and racist.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, you’re not that thin-skinned.

I'm not thin skinned. Not in the slightest.

But I'm sick of idiots (not you specifically btw) claiming that white people should serve penance for past crimes and that non white people are victims because of their history.

Treat people by their merits, on the basis of their character and their actions.

Don't patronise people by assuming they need your help based on what you believe their immutable characteristic deserves.

Rothko

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not thin skinned. Not in the slightest.

But I'm sick of idiots (not you specifically btw) claiming that white people should serve penance for past crimes and that non white people are victims because of their history.

Treat people by their merits, on the basis of their character and their actions.

Don't patronise people by assuming they need your help based on what you believe their immutable characteristic deserves.

Nah, if you treat people equally, that makes you a racist. Apparently.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not thin skinned. Not in the slightest.

But I'm sick of idiots (not you specifically btw) claiming that white people should serve penance for past crimes and that non white people are victims because of their history.

I’d generally eyeroll when I read nonsense like that too tbh. Both people claiming anyone should serve penance, and people claiming they’re being victimised by legislation which is intended to give people equal opportunities in employment, education, healthcare and equal status in society.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Treat people by their merits, on the basis of their character and their actions.

But you can do all that, while at the same time recognising that people are different, and the idea treating them the same as you’d treat someone else or another group of people just doesn’t apply! It doesn’t follow that implies that you should treat anyone unfairly. If I’m looking to hire people, I’m looking to hire people who are exceptional, I don’t just want anyone who is qualified. I’m thinking of their character and whether they are a good fit for the role. I’m also thinking about the fact that given the proper assistance, they have an equal opportunity as other people to fulfil their potential, something which is sometimes overlooked by the “meritocracy” types who surround themselves with people who are just like them. It’s not coincidence that it just happens that way and they too were considering people based upon their merits, character and actions.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Don't patronise people by assuming they need your help based on what you believe their immutable characteristic deserves.

And yet I’m not the person who is offended on behalf of ‘people of colour’, or like the other poster imagining that if I were black, I’d be offended by being offered assistance. It’s not with the intention of being patronising, it’s with the intention of taking a chance on people who wouldn’t otherwise have the same opportunities as people who take the opportunities they have for granted so much that the only time they think about it is when other people are given opportunities they aren’t, because they never needed them, so they talk about judging people on merit and character and how they’re being discriminated against and all the rest of it, even though there are numerous opportunities available to them that aren’t available to other people!

They’re not sore because they’re being denied anything, they’re sore because someone else is getting something that they’re not. They weren’t complaining about equal treatment when that person or those people weren’t getting the opportunities that they had. Then it was perfectly acceptable to be blind to race, sex, gender, ethnicity, religion, membership of the travelling community, family status, civil status, sexual orientation, age or disability in their own little bubble where they surrounded themselves with people who were just like them, and discriminated against those people who weren’t.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And yet I’m not the person who is offended on behalf of ‘people of colour’, or like the other poster imagining that if I were black, I’d be offended by being offered assistance. It’s not with the intention of being patronising, it’s with the intention of taking a chance on people who wouldn’t otherwise have the same opportunities as people who take the opportunities they have for granted so much that the only time they think about it is when other people are given opportunities they aren’t, because they never needed them, so they talk about judging people on merit and character and how they’re being discriminated against and all the rest of it, even though there are numerous opportunities available to them that aren’t available to other people!

They’re not sore because they’re being denied anything, they’re sore because someone else is getting something that they’re not. They weren’t complaining about equal treatment when that person or those people weren’t getting the opportunities that they had. Then it was perfectly acceptable to be blind to race, sex, gender, ethnicity, religion, membership of the travelling community, family status, civil status, sexual orientation, age or disability in their own little bubble where they surrounded themselves with people who were just like them, and discriminated against those people who weren’t.

That is being patronising. And I'm not taking offense on behalf of people of colour. I'm speaking from experience.

Every person is different.

That's my point.

timeToLive

fcuk the woke extremists

timeToLive

timeToLive wrote: »

fcuk the woke extremists

That's far too simplistic and far too dismissive of racism in general.

This is the problem with this whole thing. We will have people dismissing any racism as "woke" nonsense because according to certain sections, EVERYTHING is racist.

This means legitimate racism and inequality will be ignored in a boy who cried wolf scenario.

The only people who will suffer are the people who actually suffer actual racism and prejudice.

The idiots who like to imagine themselves as saviours are the ones who are exacerbating the intensity of genuine racism

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That is being patronising. And I'm not taking offense on behalf of people of colour. I'm speaking from experience.

Every person is different.

That's my point.

I can see exactly why you think of it as patronising, and sure, you’re right, every person is different, and because that’s true, and if you truly believed it yourself, you’d understand why I don’t see it the same way you do - precisely because we’re different people, and I’m well aware of your point, and still I’d rather err on the side of giving people who aren’t normally given a shot at the risk of them taking offence where none was intended, than not giving them a shot knowing that anyone else is unlikely to give them a shot either “at the risk of them taking offence”.

That’s a rather convenient excuse for anyone who doesn’t want people to have equal opportunities - they wouldn’t want to be seen as patronising. We’re all speaking from experience here to be fair, none of us emerged from a bubble yesterday.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can see exactly why you think of it as patronising, and sure, you’re right, every person is different, and because that’s true, and if you truly believed it yourself, you’d understand why I don’t see it the same way you do - precisely because we’re different people, and I’m well aware of your point, and still I’d rather err on the side of giving people who aren’t normally given a shot at the risk of them taking offence where none was intended, than not giving them a shot knowing that anyone else is unlikely to give them a shot either “at the risk of them taking offence”.

That’s a rather convenient excuse for anyone who doesn’t want people to have equal opportunities - they wouldn’t want to be seen as patronising. We’re all speaking from experience here to be fair, none of us emerged from a bubble yesterday.

That's true.

I just know my daughter is mortified and upset at the thought that someone would give her preference because of her ethnicity and would find it much more belittling than getting abuse from some arsehole you could dismiss as a racist.

She calls it acceptable racism.

Gradius

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can see exactly why you think of it as patronising, and sure, you’re right, every person is different, and because that’s true, and if you truly believed it yourself, you’d understand why I don’t see it the same way you do - precisely because we’re different people, and I’m well aware of your point, and still I’d rather err on the side of giving people who aren’t normally given a shot at the risk of them taking offence where none was intended, than not giving them a shot knowing that anyone else is unlikely to give them a shot either “at the risk of them taking offence”.

That’s a rather convenient excuse for anyone who doesn’t want people to have equal opportunities - they wouldn’t want to be seen as patronising. We’re all speaking from experience here to be fair, none of us emerged from a bubble yesterday.

I just can't get onboard with this thinking. It's coming from a fundamentally illogical place.

Discrimination is discrimination. Why not "positive beatings from the police" in 5% of cases, "positive burglary" 10% of the time, "positive genocide", "positive war", "positive negatives"

Yeah, some will say it's more complicated than that and slur out of their dribbling mouths about past colonialism and discrimination (funnily enough).

Well, the day I have a ring fenced job opportunity in the Congo ONLY because I'm Irish will be the day, or have Chinese people arguing for me to get a leg up over Chinese in China ONLY because I'm not Chinese will be the day, or extra marks in some Brazilian state exam ONLY because I'm Irish will be the day...

Yeah, that'll be the day I entertain the idea that I, or anyone like me, should just shrug their shoulders and sigh " oh well, maybe my children in my country will have a better shot next life. It's only fair, after all."

It's all ludicrous. Swap Europe for China, swap the entire shebang, mass migration, mass propaganda, mass guilt-inducement about how it's "only fair". Try to picture the countenance of China toward that.

People have been forced into such a microscopic level on this crap they're missing the far bigger picture, and that picture is one of sheer, balls-to-the-wall insanity. Duped into lessening one's own life and that of your children to prop up....who???

There is no end to this, there is no goal. Keep giving and there'll always be a hand ready to take.

Ravendale

I think I'll identify as a caramel colour female with one eye, think I should fit in nicely into all their brackets. 🀔🀔😅😅😅ðŸ‘️*🗨️

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's true.

I just know my daughter is mortified and upset at the thought that someone would give her preference because of her ethnicity and would find it much more belittling than getting abuse from some arsehole you could dismiss as a racist.

She calls it acceptable racism.

Your daughter sounds adorable, but I’m not arguing with a child, I would only hope that she is able to maintain that innocent and childish perspective throughout her childhood and that she never has to experience being belittled by some arsehole for any reason, because she shouldn’t have to be put in a position where she has no choice in how she feels about being discriminated against and can do nothing about it.

StupidLikeAFox

Deleted User wrote: »

That's true.

I just know my daughter is mortified and upset at the thought that someone would give her preference because of her ethnicity and would find it much more belittling than getting abuse from some arsehole you could dismiss as a racist.

She calls it acceptable racism.

Its a fair point but at the same time if the general population is 50% female and 20% black (and assuming the applicants to the BBC reflect that ratio aswell), yet the workforce ends up being 90% white male (as an example, I don't know the actual ratio), then surely that would show some bias in their past selections. Like if the BBC came out and said "Most of our workforce went to Oxford and Cambridge, we want to broaden the net to ensure people from other colleges are better represented" nobody would bat an eyelid

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your daughter sounds adorable, but I’m not arguing with a child, I would only hope that she is able to maintain that innocent and childish perspective throughout her childhood and that she never has to experience being belittled by some arsehole for any reason, because she shouldn’t have to be put in a position where she has no choice in how she feels about being discriminated against and can do nothing about it.

Again, a good point. And I know I am as blinkered by my own experiences than anyone else with an anecdote.

But as someone who has been regularly accused of racism and someone who also regularly experiences racism, I feel that my opinion is uniquely balanced.

We will never stop racism (not that we shouldn't do everything we can to minimise it) but we can never allow it to be socially acceptable. It's not currently and long may that last.

But what is acceptable is people assuming that anyone who isn't white needs help or saving. Or that white people have privilege.

That's socially acceptable at present and is disgusting

Treating people equally is really the only way to achieve equality.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, a good point. And I know I am as blinkered by my own experiences than anyone else with an anecdote.

But as someone who has been regularly accused of racism and someone who also regularly experiences racism, I feel that my opinion is uniquely balanced.

We will never stop racism (not that we shouldn't do everything we can to minimise it) but we can never allow it to be socially acceptable. It's not currently and long may that last.

But what is acceptable is people assuming that anyone who isn't white needs help or saving. Or that white people have privilege.

That's socially acceptable at present and is disgusting

Treating people equally is really the only way to achieve equality.

Being regularly exposed to idiots is not a unique perspective

I’m honestly not bothered about stopping racism or any of the rest of it - one person’s racism is another person’s privilege, or whatever else. I’m far more relaxed about the whole thing and I’m well-known for making off-colour jokes and sexist remarks, etc. I would hate to live in a sanitised society in which everyone had to pretend they were blind to differences in themselves and other people and couldn’t regularly take the piss. That’s why often times when people are talking about their own experiences or telling people what they should or shouldn’t do, I can’t relate, because I don’t share either their experiences, beliefs or perspective, which is absolutely not unique.

I can appreciate your saying that treating people equally is the only way to achieve equality, and that’s fine in theory, but in reality where people don’t share your perspective, and in a society where the statistics speak for themselves as to what groups experience unfair discrimination, then that’s why positive action policies or positive discrimination or whatever other term is used, are necessary!

It’s precisely because people do need help, and there’s no shame in it, and there’s no shame in asking for it, and there’s no shame in expecting it. It’s precisely what contributing to society means, and it’s what enables people who were previously considered unable to contribute anything to society to do so. Consider for example how many threads are regularly started about travellers and migrants in just this forum alone, and then tell me with a straight face that racism and discrimination isn’t socially acceptable. It is, and it’s precisely because of racism and discrimination and prejudice that people are denied opportunities which would enable them to contribute to society in the same way as the people who look down their noses at them, the same people who get their tits in a twist any time there’s so much as a sniff of an initiative to help these people to become equal members of society who have the same opportunities as everyone has.

The equivalent of a frickin’ JobsBridge in the UK and because it’s only being offered to ethnic minorities, people are claiming it’s discrimination and shouldn’t be tolerated, as if white people experience anything near the same level of discrimination in the UK as the people who the course is being offered to? And bearing in mind that nobody is forcing anyone to apply lest they feel mortified. It’s not unreasonable to suggest that there are other people would snap their arms off if they were given the opportunity.

StupidLikeAFox

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Its a fair point but at the same time if the general population is 50% female and 20% black (and assuming the applicants to the BBC reflect that ratio aswell), yet the workforce ends up being 90% white male (as an example, I don't know the actual ratio), then surely that would show some bias in their past selections. Like if the BBC came out and said "Most of our workforce went to Oxford and Cambridge, we want to broaden the net to ensure people from other colleges are better represented" nobody would bat an eyelid

Mmm. Never is that though, funny enough.

Is the massive gender disparity in sewage workers and oil riggers due to bias, too?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Mmm. Never is that though, funny enough.

Is the massive gender disparity in sewage workers and oil riggers due to bias, too?

“When I grow up, I want to work in the sewers”, said no child ever :pac:


But yes, the massive gender disparity in sewage workers and oil riggers is precisely due to bias.

OMM 0000

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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?

You've got to be trolling at this stage.

You literally want discrimination based on race, you think black people can't compete with whites, and you think all black people should be given a hand out so they can get into college easier... and your defence is I only have a problem with this is because I think everything is racism.

No, I think racism is racism. As an example, I don't think black people are inferior. However you have admitted multiple times you think black people are inferior.

Yet because you think you are "helping" these inferior people that somehow makes you the anti-racist?

The fact you think the only way Obama's daughters can have the same opportunities as Clinton's daughter is if they're judged by different standards (lower for the blacks) again proves you're a racist.

And, again, you think blacks can't have the same opportunities unless they're given a hand out.

Shame on you.

I'm adding you to my ignore list.