The BBC again: ‘No whites need apply’

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

I'm not a huge fan of positive discrimination. It has problems and can mean the best person for the job may actually miss out (however, the best person may only be the best person because they had opportunities available to them that others may not have had, but let's park that for a moment).

However, for those saying this is wrong, I'd like to know what alternatives should be in place to ensure we have a fairer work work force/ society.

Or is it just a case of 'I don't like it, leave things as they are'.. because I don't think that cuts it anymore.

Blind CVs ie no name or picturesfor a start. 'Positive' discrimination is wrong, particularly when race based. No one should be for it.

suicide_circus

EnzoScifo wrote: »

Because I did a thesis on far right internet subcultures.

Ahhhh ok, makes sense now.

km991148

Hhhhh wrote: »

Blind CVs ie no name or picturesfor a start. 'Positive' discrimination is wrong, particularly when race based. No one should be for it.

It's a bit impractical these days, but I see where you are coming from.

What else?

sydthebeat

joseywhales wrote: »

I guess by definition disabled must be a minority otherwise what we see as a function or action that a human should be able to perform is incorrect as a large number of people cannot perform it. I'm not sure about "wildly twisted", that might be a bit of hyperbole for the word "incorrect". I'm not saying I expect all abled people to run 100m in 12 seconds but I really would have expected the status of disabled to be defined in such a way as to target about 5% of people who really cannot perform everyday simple tasks.

You didn't answer the question.

Why do you think people have to "get hurt" to be considered disabled?

Obviously your idea of who can be considered disabled is "incorrect" so I'll stand by my assertion that it's wildly twisted.
Someone with dyslexia is considered disabled, similarly anyone who has dyspraxia can be considered disabled.

Oh and the answer to your question is, at a minimum, 13.5% of Irish society cannot perform "everyday simple tasks" as per medical definition

EnzoScifo

TomTomTim wrote: »

This seriously sounds like a case of projection, considering your views. I'm not one bit ashamed of being a nativist. Why would I be? Caring about your people and your nation is one of the healthiest things in the world. I'll never be ashamed of that regardless of the howls of the modern world. The problem with black and white thinkers like yourself, is that you can't grasp simple concepts, like caring for your own, without hating the other. The world is not so simple, and it never will be.

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"

EnzoScifo

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ahhhh ok, makes sense now.

Yeah it does, makes it easier to spot them in wild.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

It's a bit impractical these days, but I see where you are coming from.

What else?

Why is it impractical?

joseywhales

sydthebeat wrote: »

You didn't answer the question.

Why do you think people have to "get hurt" to be considered disabled?

Obviously your idea of who can be considered disabled is "incorrect" so I'll stand by my assertion that it's wildly twisted.
Someone with dyslexia is considered disabled, similarly anyone who has dyspraxia can be considered disabled.

Oh and the answer to your question is, at a minimum, 13.5% of Irish society cannot perform "everyday simple tasks" as per medical definition

Incorrect is not equivalent to wildly twisted as you assert here.

The fact that I admitted that my definition of disabled is incorrect is an answer to your question.

"Why do you think people have to "get hurt" to be considered disabled?"

Because my definition of disabled is incorrect, you understand logic right? Would you like a public apology for being incorrect? Perhaps a flogging?

km991148

Hhhhh wrote: »

Why is it impractical?

Who uses a CV to apply for jobs, especially professional jobs?

It's all about your network, headhunters, LinkedIn etc

Even then, you can tell a lot about a persons background by where they worked previously or studied. Throw in other details like languages spoken etc and it becomes really hard to anonymise like you suggest.

Even if it were possible, I doubt it would go far enough to address imbalances in the jobs and education market.

I'm genuinely asking for alternatives here, I'm not sure either here.

sydthebeat

joseywhales wrote: »

Incorrect is not equivalent to wildly twisted as you assert here.

The fact that I admitted that my definition of disabled is incorrect is an answer to your question.

"Why do you think people have to "get hurt" to be considered disabled?"

Because my definition of disabled is incorrect, you understand logic right? Would you like a public apology for being incorrect? Perhaps a flogging?

Nope

Education is the way to progress for you

suicide_circus

EnzoScifo wrote: »

Yeah it does, makes it easier to spot them in wild.

So what are your prospects having produced this thesis? I'd say your future success relies heavily on sowing racial division, selling racebaiting snake oil to institutions and generally spooking people with the spector of far right bogiemen under the bed. Having spent endless hours down the grimest holes on the internet, you have not come out unscathed which is sad for you but i do not wish you success in your future endeavours.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

So we don't want people to study now as well?? Maybe we could start getting rid of books as well? I hear burning them is quite efficient, but it's tricky with eBooks etc.

No. Government resources, particularly regards to education, aren't endless and need to be spent wisely. Spending money on someone to produce a whole thesis on far right internet sub cultures is not spending money wisely.

But ye, real good reply there. Do try and grow up.

grassylawn

EnzoScifo wrote: »

Yeah it does, makes it easier to spot them in wild.

Did you study subtext?

joseywhales

sydthebeat wrote: »

Nope

Education is the way to progress for you

That's very wise, thank you

TomTomTim

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ahhhh ok, makes sense now.

He's probably one of the many "experts on the far right" that The Journal loves to cite :pac:

km991148

Hhhhh wrote: »

No. Government resources, particularly regards to education, aren't endless and need to be spent wisely. Spending money on someone to produce a whole thesis on far right internet sub cultures is not spending money wisely.

But ye, real good reply there. Do try and grow up.

I'll ignore the dig if you'll forgive my faceioussness, are we not able to lighten up a little?

Besides you have no Idea the title of the paper, never mind how it was funded, so your mocking of it is as bad as the assumptions you made.

Edit to add tho: my point still stands - are people only to be educated on subjects that you or some central authority agree are allowed?

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

Who uses a CV to apply for jobs, especially professional jobs?

It's all about your network, headhunters, LinkedIn etc

Even then, you can tell a lot about a persons background by where they worked previously or studied. Throw in other details like languages spoken etc and it becomes really hard to anonymise like you suggest.

Even if it were possible, I doubt it would go far enough to address imbalances in the jobs and education market.

I'm genuinely asking for alternatives here, I'm not sure either here.

Positive discrimination does not address imbalances in the education market either. Ireland, the UK and America are all a testement to that.

Most people still obtain jobs through the use of old school cv's. Networking is highly overrated and few people get headhunted.

Imbalances that do exist should not be 'fixed' by racial, or sex, discrimination.

TomTomTim

km991148 wrote: »

So we don't want people to study now as well?? Maybe we could start getting rid of books as well? I hear burning them is quite efficient, but it's tricky with eBooks etc.

This is very ironic considering that many books have been banned for sale from certain sites in the last few years, and nearly everyone of them have been books critical of new age progressivism.

km991148

Hhhhh wrote: »

Positive discrimination does not address imbalances in the education market either. Ireland, the UK and America are all a testement to that.

Most people still obtain jobs through the use of old school cv's. Networking is highly overrated and few people get headhunted.

Imbalances that do exist should not be 'fixed' by racial, or sex, discrimination.

So moving on from positive discrimination, I'm looking for alternatives.

grassylawn

TomTomTim wrote: »

This seriously sounds like a case of projection, considering your views. I'm not one bit ashamed of being a nativist. Why would I be? Caring about your people and your nation is one of the healthiest things in the world. I'll never be ashamed of that regardless of the howls of the modern world. The problem with black and white thinkers like yourself, is that you can't grasp simple concepts, like caring for your own, without hating the other. The world is not so simple, and it never will be.

So you want to care for people specifically from your own nation. Would you say that you're kind of a national socialist then?

km991148

TomTomTim wrote: »

This is very ironic considering that many books have been banned for sale from certain sites in the last few years, and nearly everyone of them have been books critical of new age progressivism.

Yeah of course, and I'm sure we will get the usual suspects about Abigail Shrier being banned from Target etc. I don't think people should be banned in such a way. Equally tho, those that profit from the outrage industry are also out if order. Really tho, it's got feck all to do with the poster mocking someone else's studies based on assumptions that they held.

Some people just love the division. I'll bet this whole thread only came to light via some YouTube* channel or such like.

Edit*: Apologies.. I never saw the link to the entirety neutral Daily Mail who are not in any way interested in stiring the ****.

grassylawn

grassylawn wrote: »

So you want to care for people specifically from your own nation. Would you say that national socialism would be a good way of describing that?

I recently learned that Hitler had opinions.

Do you have any opinions?

grassylawn

Deleted User wrote: »

I recently learned that Hitler had opinions.

Do you have any opinions?

I think that social media is intrinsically radicalizing. This is because it gives dopamine hits for attention and support, and you get more attention and support by moving towards an extreme. Meanwhile there is a sense of anonymity so you are less cautious about saying things that might reflect badly on you or piss people off.

TomTomTim

grassylawn wrote: »

So you want to care for people specifically from your own nation. Would you say that national socialism would be a good way of describing that?

It's actually funny how binary people like you are. It's either Nazism or Wokeism, nothing in between. The fact that you reach a conclusion like that, based simply on me stating that I care for my people, shows how mad the world has gone. You wouldn't reach the same conclusion with any other group, you'd likely even defend their right to "care", yet when I do it it's some sort of evil?

grassylawn

TomTomTim wrote: »

It's actually funny how binary people like you are. It's either Nazism or Wokeism, nothing in between. The fact that you reach a conclusion like that, based simply on me stating that I care for my people, shows how mad the world has gone. You wouldn't reach the same conclusion with any other group, you'd likely even defend their right to "care", yet when I do it it's some sort of evil?

No I was just hoping you would agree with me without noticing the reference. You know - for fun.

suicide_circus

I think i may have been drawn into a not so subtle jest

grassylawn

grassylawn wrote: »

I think that social media is intrinsically radicalizing. This is because it gives dopamine hits for attention and support, and you get more attention and support by moving towards an extreme. Meanwhile there is a sense of anonymity so you are less cautious about saying things that might reflect badly on you or piss people off.

Like jumping to asking people if they'd consider themselves Nazis as soon as you find their reasonably-stated opinions disagreeable, for example?

TomTomTim

grassylawn wrote: »

I think that social media is intrinsically radicalizing. This is because it gives dopamine hits for attention and support, and you get more attention and support by moving towards an extreme. Meanwhile there is a sense of anonymity so you are less cautious about saying things that might reflect badly on you or piss people off.

Odd, that you never called out the lad who wanted racial vegnance against the whole white race. That's far closer to Nazism than anything I've said.

gormdubhgorm

Stuff like this always amuses me the tightrope between incluviness and 'positive discrimination' or racism/sectarianism/sexism.

It reminds me of that Jock Stein Line when he was asked if two players are available of equal ability Catholic and one Protestant who would you you chose?

'The protestant because Rangers would never sign a Catholic'

-

But nowadays it does not seem to be based on ability if there was a person of one race more qualified than another for a job. It does not mean they will get the job because they are not the 'right' race.

The Dail introduced gender quotas and some of those who ran for TD as a result left a lot to be desired, and were clearly out of their depth. Catherine Noone springs to mind for example. Who ironically tied herself in knots over various issues to do with race and disability.

grassylawn

TomTomTim wrote: »

Odd, that you never called out the lad who wanted racial vegnance against the whole white race. That's far closer to Nazism than anything I've said.

/Checks breadcrumb trail

Yep "Social and fun"

I think my posts are the ones trying to keep with this theme.