Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The BBC again: ‘No whites need apply’
Options
Comments
-
0
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »“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.
So, presumably, sex disparities in sewage workers need to be addressed until women make up 51% of sewage workers?0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »So, presumably, sex disparities in sewage workers need to be addressed until women make up 51% of sewage workers?
I know I was being facetious, but for you to completely miss the point is something else. People generally don’t aspire to a life of wading through other people’s shìte, they do aspire to a better standard of living - the idea being that nobody should have to wade through other people’s shìte, and that’s being done through the use of technology and improving standards and work conditions. People generally campaign for opportunities which are of benefit to them, as opposed to campaigning for opportunities which are of no benefit to them whatsoever.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I know I was being facetious, but for you to completely miss the point is something else. People generally don’t aspire to a life of wading through other people’s shìte, they do aspire to a better standard of living - the idea being that nobody should have to wade through other people’s shìte, and that’s being done through the use of technology and improving standards and work conditions. People generally campaign for opportunities which are of benefit to them, as opposed to campaigning for opportunities which are of no benefit to them whatsoever.
If people don't aspire to a life of wading through excrement, how come it ends up being in excess of 95% men that end up doing it? Bias? Discrimination against them?0 -
Amazon Studios have now released their "inclusion statement" which needs to be seen to be believed.
Can't post links so do a search for "Amazon Inclusion Policy and Playbook"0 -
Advertisement
-
0
-
-
[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?
Do I have to explain the difference to you between those very specific, physically demanding jobs and a broad organisation like the beeb? Stupid comparison.
The chances are that very few women apply for those roles, just like very few men apply for nursing or childcare roles. The BBC is much broader, and is a public service broadcaster, so it's much more imperative that their makeup reflects the general population. Assuming men and women are both applying for roles but only the men are getting them, that surely points to something going wrong somewhere no? Unless you think men are just better at everything they do, which isn't true0 -
Amazon Studios have now released their "inclusion statement" which needs to be seen to be believed.
Can't post links so do a search for "Amazon Inclusion Policy and Playbook"
Seems standard stuff, unless I'm missing something?
Random link from Google:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210616005809/en/Amazon-Studios-Releases-Inclusion-Policy-and-Playbook-to-Strengthen-Ongoing-Commitment-to-Diverse-and-Equitable-Representation
Is the problem that it's Amazon, a company that notoriously gouges everyone and is now pretending to give a damn about people?
You didn't really give any opinion?0 -
Seems standard stuff, unless I'm missing something?
Random link from Google:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210616005809/en/Amazon-Studios-Releases-Inclusion-Policy-and-Playbook-to-Strengthen-Ongoing-Commitment-to-Diverse-and-Equitable-Representation
Is the problem that it's Amazon, a company that notoriously gouges everyone and is now pretending to give a damn about people?
You didn't really give any opinion?
Well I think any "inclusion" policy by definition is actually exclusionary. When you've got race and gender based quotas to fill it means that somebody skin colour/gender/sexuality etc etc is being prioritised over their experience or skill for the job being offered.0 -
Advertisement
-
[Deleted User] wrote: »If people don't aspire to a life of wading through excrement, how come it ends up being in excess of 95% men that end up doing it? Bias? Discrimination against them?
For the same reason that it ends up being in excess of 95% of prostitutes are women, yes there’s bias involved, and discrimination and lack of opportunities and a whole plethora of socioeconomic factors which influence people’s decisions, but in just the same way as they’re not generally regarded as the healthiest of occupations, they’re not the kind of occupations that contribute to social mobility either and it’s disingenuous to claim that because people don’t campaign for equal opportunities for shìt jobs, they shouldn’t be given opportunities to enter into jobs which they want to get into.0 -
StupidLikeAFox wrote: »Do I have to explain the difference to you
The only thing you "have to" do is wind your neck in and find a little civility if you wish to discuss something with me, else you will not be permitted to do so.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »they’re not the kind of occupations that contribute to social mobility
If social mobility is the goal, why are the programs based on race, sex and so on, instead of focusing solely on socioeconomic status?0 -
Well I think any "inclusion" policy by definition is actually exclusionary. When you've got race and gender based quotas to fill it means that somebody skin colour/gender/sexuality etc etc is being prioritised over their experience or skill for the job being offered.
No it doesn’t mean that at all. It means considering other factors besides just experience or skills. If you have a group of candidates applying for a number of roles, how would you discriminate between them? The first thing you’d check for is that they qualify for interview according to the criteria advertised before they are considered for the next stage of the process.0 -
Well I think any "inclusion" policy by definition is actually exclusionary. When you've got race and gender based quotas to fill it means that somebody skin colour/gender/sexuality etc etc is being prioritised over their experience or skill for the job being offered.
The only time it really bothers me is in politics, it seems really undemocratic to have gender quotas.First they came for the socialists...
0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »No it doesn’t mean that at all. It means considering other factors besides just experience or skills. If you have a group of candidates applying for a number of roles, how would you discriminate between them? The first thing you’d check for is that they qualify for interview according to the criteria advertised before they are considered for the next stage of the process.
But that's exactly my point. I would consider that skill, experience and suitability for the job should be the FIRST criteria applied. If race/gender/sexuality is applied first then people that don't match those criteria despite having more relevant skills and experience are excluded.0 -
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.
Yup. I've avoided "for women" programs in my industry for the same reason.
I'm also very close to someone who has recruiting responsibility in the tech sector. That person's HR department asked that recruiters and interviewers be "more open minded" in recruitment for specific groups to meet unofficial diversity goals. Which this person refused to do, because they are responsible for several teams of people, who all deserve to work alongside the best colleagues the company can hire.
I don't think it's a coincidence that those who are very on-board with diversity hiring (and therefore often have a tendency to see people in the "other" groups as somehow less able, or more in need of a leg-up) have ended up with teams that almost exactly match the diversity goals, while the person who completely refused to consider anything but merit and experience took longer to recruit a full team and rejected more people post-interview and testing, but has ended up with the most diverse team (with more eg. women and ethnic minorities than they have to have) in the company.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »If social mobility is the goal, why are the programs based on race, sex and so on, instead of focusing solely on socioeconomic status?
Because those are factors which influence socioeconomic status and social mobility. If there weren’t programmes of other types aimed at other groups of people in society, then I’d agree you absolutely had a point about a specific program being offered to one group of people in society tailored towards their needs in order to give them the opportunities they need.
To the best of my knowledge, participation in these programs is entirely voluntary, people’s arms aren’t being twisted, and if anyone would be mortified or offended to participate in the program, the great news for them is that nobody is going to twist their arm to force them to participate.0 -
But that's exactly my point. I would consider that skill, experience and suitability for the job should be the FIRST criteria applied. If race/gender/sexuality is applied first then people that don't match those criteria despite having more relevant skills and experience are excluded.
I get your point, but you seem to be missing the point that other employers will set the criteria for the kind of people they want to hire who they consider suitable for the roles they’re hiring for. If people don’t match the criteria of race/gender/sexuality, then whether they have more experience or are better qualified is simply irrelevant, it doesn’t matter, because they don’t qualify according to the first criteria. That’s the whole point of having an ideal candidate in mind before even advertising a role or roles, and then determining which candidates are the closest fit to the brief.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Because those are factors which influence socioeconomic status and social mobility. If there weren’t programmes of other types aimed at other groups of people in society, then I’d agree you absolutely had a point about a specific program being offered to one group of people in society tailored towards their needs in order to give them the opportunities they need.
Mmm. Well the socioeconomic group most in need of assistance in the UK seems to be white, working-class boys, who are 40% less likely to go to university than, for example, black, working-class boys. But help is seldom forthcoming because older, middle-class people enjoy leaning into identity politics for brownie points, or because they have been trained by the societal moment to ignore the plight of any member of an "oppressor" group, no matter how dire. So they do things like refuse million pound bursaries from aged donors when they are stipulated to be for poor white boys, and so on.
And hey, while it's true that I am opposed to these DIE efforts on moral (they're racist/sexist) and practical (they reduce social mobility) grounds, I think there are more long-term reasons to be against them. The current Western zeitgesit is ignoring the most deprived and underprivileged demographic in society (which also happens to be one of the largest demographics), demanding that people adopt race consciousness and identify with their racial group, and expecting that this steaming pile of horse **** will somehow spontaneously sprout roses in the future rather than, you know, fostering resentment and racial tension that could easily cause a gigantic explosion of social issues that reek of race-and-class resentment. And I'm not sure we want the politics that flow out of that sort of a cluster****.One eyed Jack wrote: »To the best of my knowledge, participation in these programs is entirely voluntary, people’s arms aren’t being twisted, and if anyone would be mortified or offended to participate in the program, the great news for them is that nobody is going to twist their arm to force them to participate.
Nobody need be mortified. It is possible to appreciate that some people feel the need to take advantage of discriminatory policies, and see that they are very tempting, and to empathise with those who do take advantage of them, while at the same time insisting on forging your own success without the leg-up, and holding a principled position against such practices. Not just possible—easy.0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »I get your point, but you seem to be missing the point that other employers will set the criteria for the kind of people they want to hire who they consider suitable for the roles they’re hiring for. If people don’t match the criteria of race/gender/sexuality, then whether they have more experience or are better qualified is simply irrelevant, it doesn’t matter, because they don’t qualify according to the first criteria. That’s the whole point of having an ideal candidate in mind before even advertising a role or roles, and then determining which candidates are the closest fit to the brief.
With all due respect I don't think I'm missing the point. If applying the race criteria to job hires the only thing that person is qualified to do is to "be" their skin colour. That's the only way that works.
When ,as you say, having more experience or being better qualified is irrelevant then what is the point? Are you not doing a massive disservice to your employees, customers and the communities you are tying to empower by making skill and experience irrelevant?0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Mmm. Well the socioeconomic group most in need of assistance in the UK seems to be white, working-class boys, who are 40% less likely to go to university than, for example, black, working-class boys. But help is seldom forthcoming because older, middle-class people enjoy leaning into identity politics for brownie points, or because they have been trained by the societal moment to ignore the plight of any member of an "oppressor" group, no matter how dire. So they do things like refuse million pound bursaries from aged donors when they are stipulated to be for poor white boys, and so on.
The issue there is that working-class white boys are choosing not to avail of opportunities which are available to them. There is plenty of assistance and opportunities available in the UK for working-class white boys as there is here in Ireland, but I’m sure you’re familiar with the phrase - can lead a horse to water, but can’t make them drink. It’s absolutely not the case that help is seldom forthcoming, it’s that the help is there, but they don’t want to avail of it. One reason for their reluctance is that if they took advantage of the opportunities open to them, they’re afraid of being seen as taking advantage of opportunities available to them, or needing help, or insisting on forging their own success without the need for a leg-up, which invariably means they will remain at the bottom.
I don’t accept that other people should remain at the bottom and not take advantage of help when it is offered to them for fear of being seen as being in need of help to get a leg-up to improve their standard of living and quality of life, not just for themselves but so they too are in a position to help other people who need help or a leg-up. That’s why I say there’s no shame in it - I see no reason to break people’s balls to teach them life is hard, or make their lives any more difficult for some principles which mean they will always remain at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, but their principles will sustain them. If that’s not the epitome of virtue signalling because you care about what you think other people might think, I don’t know what is![Deleted User] wrote: »And hey, while it's true that I am opposed to these DIE efforts on moral (they're racist/sexist) and practical (they reduce social mobility) grounds, I think there are more long-term reasons to be against them. The current Western zeitgesit is ignoring the most deprived and underprivileged demographic in society (which also happens to be one of the largest demographics), demanding that people adopt race consciousness and identify with their racial group, and expecting that this steaming pile of horse **** will somehow spontaneously sprout roses in the future rather than, you know, fostering resentment and racial tension that could easily cause a gigantic explosion of social issues that reek of race-and-class resentment. And I'm not sure we want the politics that flow out of that sort of a cluster****.
They’re not being ignored though? The opportunities are already available to them and have been for some time. It’s only because the same opportunities haven’t been afforded to other people that it looks like they’re being given something they don’t deserve, and it’s discrimination and all the rest of it. Undoubtedly people upsetting the status quo is going to increase tension and resentment and all the rest of it, particularly among people who could previously afford to ignore it and pretend it didn’t exist, that they were blind to all discrimination and treated all people equally, but the problem with that is that they treated people equally on their terms, and not on those people’s terms, which would be genuinely regarding people as equals, regardless of their distinguishing characteristics. I don’t think anyone expects it to sprout roses, I think all anyone is demanding is that they are treated as equals.[Deleted User] wrote: »Nobody need be mortified. It is possible to appreciate that some people feel the need to take advantage of discriminatory policies, and see that they are very tempting, and to empathise with those who do take advantage of them, while at the same time insisting on forging your own success without the leg-up, and holding a principled position against such practices. Not just possible—easy.
It’s certainly easy to do just what you’re suggesting, and I’m sure their principles will keep them warm and fuzzy at night when they’re still at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, and they at least will have the comfort of knowing that you think a lot more of them than the person who takes advantage of opportunities which are given to them at no great cost to society, for the benefit of society as a whole.0 -
With all due respect I don't think I'm missing the point. If applying the race criteria to job hires the only thing that person is qualified to do is to "be" their skin colour. That's the only way that works.
When ,as you say, having more experience or being better qualified is irrelevant then what is the point? Are you not doing a massive disservice to your employees, customers and the communities you are tying to empower by making skill and experience irrelevant?
No, their skin colour, or their sex, or their ethnicity or their religious beliefs is where it starts, and depending upon the nature of the role there may be a genuine occupational requirement where one of the above characteristics is fundamental to the role. That’s notwithstanding the idea that an employer may wish to set out in their criteria that first and foremost the ideal candidates have to be women, or men, or black, or white or whatever else provided they can provide a legitimate reason for their criteria in line with equality legislation.
I didn’t say having more experience or being better qualified is irrelevant, i said that if the candidates don’t meet the first criteria, then their qualifications and experience are irrelevant, whatever those qualifications and experience are that the candidate feels should be relevant. It often happens that candidates feel they are the most suitable person for the role, whereas the person or people hiring has other ideas!
By searching for the relevant skills and experience among candidates where they already meet the first criteria, no, I don’t think it’s doing an employer or customers any disservice to hire people who are as close to the original brief of the ideal candidate or candidates as possible.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »The issue there is that working-class white boys are choosing not to avail of opportunities which are available to them.
I don't think discussing this issue with you is going to go anywhere productive. I trust that other readers will see exactly where the racism is here, so I'm bowing out.0 -
Even after Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?!? :pac:One eyed Jack wrote: »“When I grow up, I want to work in the sewers”, said no child ever :pac:0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »I don't think discussing this issue with you is going to go anywhere productive. I trust that other readers will see exactly where the racism is here, so I'm bowing out.
What did you hope would come of it? That productive on your terms means discouraging people from taking advantage of opportunities to improve their quality of life which are being offered to them, in favour of being sewer workers with principles in order to maintain your ideas of equality and non-discrimination as a means of addressing racial inequality? Nobody should aspire to improve their quality of life and nobody should want to help others in case they’re perceived as being racist or something? I’m ok with being perceived as racist, sexist and whatever else you imagine applies, like that’s really productive.0 -
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »What did you hope would come of it? That productive on your terms means discouraging people from taking advantage of opportunities to improve their quality of life which are being offered to them, in favour of being sewer workers with principles in order to maintain your ideas of equality and non-discrimination as a means of addressing racial inequality? Nobody should aspire to improve their quality of life and nobody should want to help others in case they’re perceived as being racist or something? I’m ok with being perceived as racist, sexist and whatever else you imagine applies, like that’s really productive.
I hoped for honest discussion, good-faith argument, the occasional concession on either side, acknowledgment of reality, a display of (at least an understanding of) empathy, and probably a few more things that elude the tip of my tongue. In fairness, this isn't the first topic we've discussed. I ought to have learned my lesson before. I won't make the mistake of forgetting this one.
Peace.0 -
Caring about your people and your nation is one of the healthiest things in the world.
No, it is not. The concept of "country" or "nation" is a relatively new one in human terms, and one defined largely by war.
Your people are those in your community and your society, and within that, your family. Being proud of an attribute which is an accident of birth is a new phenomenon, people used to be proud of their contribution and by extension the achievement of their community.0 -
Advertisement
-
[Deleted User] wrote: »I hoped for honest discussion, good-faith argument, the occasional concession on either side, acknowledgment of reality, a display of (at least an understanding of) empathy, and probably a few more things that elude the tip of my tongue. In fairness, this isn't the first topic we've discussed. I ought to have learned my lesson before. I won't make the mistake of forgetting this one.
Peace.
You were off to a hell of a start hoping for all those things by trying to make the same old tired argument that people who campaign for equal status don’t campaign for equal status in shìt jobs as though it was a legitimate argument against introducing measures which are intended to give people opportunities so that they don’t have to settle for shìt jobs.
An acknowledgment of reality and a display (or at least an understanding) of empathy means recognising that in the UK, black people are disproportionately discriminated against in employment on the basis of their skin colour, in the same way as people with disabilities are disproportionately discriminated against in employment on the basis of their disabilities, in the same way as women are discriminated against on the basis of their sex, in the same way as people who are gay or lesbian are disproportionately discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation.
You put forward one anecdote which I’m still not sure what the point of it was, so I didn’t say anything as it left me completely at a loss and I didn’t want to be rude, I figured it best to say nothing as you’d already formed your opinion of how great your mate was. I’m hardly in any position to disagree as I know nothing about them or the company they work for or anything else. Either way it appeared the aims of her employer were achieved, so what was the point of the anecdote?
By all means you do you and all the rest of it, but if you’re putting something out there for consideration, I don’t expect people will be as civil as I am in trying to figure out where you’re coming from, especially when you’re trying to engender sympathy for working-class white boys as if I’m supposed to buy the idea that you’re being in any way sincere about your concern for working-class white boys. God knows I’m not the sharpest tool in the box, but even I can see that nonsense for what it is, and it’s a poor attempt to paint anyone who disagrees with you as racist.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement