fucking PC gone mad (a rant thread)
Jun 18 2009 14:43
#92
Joseph Kay wrote:
Brighton Council has been resisting equal pay claims for 8 years (and having finally caved, is attacking mens' pay rather than levelling up women).
If this is to do with the bins (if it ain't don't read on), hasn't this got more to do with them attacking (trying to smash them and recuperate cash) the most visibly militant section of council employees in brighton rather than the fact they're mainly blokes.
On another note they're attacking the parks workers as well, remember our Aufheben friend bringing this up at the crisis meeting?
Jun 18 2009 14:58
#93
Choccy wrote:
seriously, this whole fucking thread is a disgrace
I know, catherine was just saying she'd be embarrassed to have this shit on a communist board.
The worse thing is that this crap does give some creditability to those that criticise libcom for being white male centric. Just like those threads we had about the whether people should support racist strikes like the dock workers in the 70's, the default perspective is of that of a white british worker, as such the issue was around how to be critical and yet not alienate the striking workers, with no consideration with the need to actively stand alongside the black workers that were actively being marginalised and alienated let alone the consideration as to what a black worker would do.
Jun 18 2009 14:36
#94
Joseph Kay wrote:
seriously mate, this reads like a HR circular. for example, Brighton Council has been resisting equal pay claims for 8 years (and having finally caved, is attacking mens' pay rather than levelling up women). This kind of tokenistic shite on application forms is precisely the kind of figleaf for the lack of any meaningful equality that allows them to drag their feet. of course meaningful equality isn't granted or legislated, it is won through struggle. you know, communism.if you wanted to put potential applicants from underrepresented groups at ease you could stress that the process will be blinded to eliminate potential discrimination and that applications 'from all sections of the community' or somesuch are welcome. they didn't do that, they singled out groups and asked for photos.
Now i've looked into this some more, and applications are in fact anonymised (which removes most of my objections, since it's the best way to prevent any form of discrimination, although it remains a figleaf). presumably the photo is just for the equalities monitoring form. however the fact people have defended this uncritically without knowing the process is blinded is worrying, it puts you somewhere to the PC-side of public sector HR departments.
Arguments about PC aside, I find it far more worrying that you start from the assumption that any woman or ethnic minority person who gets a job ahead of you got it because of their gender or the colour of their skin, rather than their merits as (in this instance) a firefighter.
Jun 18 2009 14:41
#95
madashell wrote:
Joseph Kay wrote:
seriously mate, this reads like a HR circular. for example, Brighton Council has been resisting equal pay claims for 8 years (and having finally caved, is attacking mens' pay rather than levelling up women). This kind of tokenistic shite on application forms is precisely the kind of figleaf for the lack of any meaningful equality that allows them to drag their feet. of course meaningful equality isn't granted or legislated, it is won through struggle. you know, communism.if you wanted to put potential applicants from underrepresented groups at ease you could stress that the process will be blinded to eliminate potential discrimination and that applications 'from all sections of the community' or somesuch are welcome. they didn't do that, they singled out groups and asked for photos.
Now i've looked into this some more, and applications are in fact anonymised (which removes most of my objections, since it's the best way to prevent any form of discrimination, although it remains a figleaf). presumably the photo is just for the equalities monitoring form. however the fact people have defended this uncritically without knowing the process is blinded is worrying, it puts you somewhere to the PC-side of public sector HR departments.
Arguments about PC aside, I find it far more worrying that you start from the assumption that any woman or ethnic minority person who gets a job ahead of you got it because of their gender or the colour of their skin, rather than their merits as (in this instance) a firefighter.
where would such a sense of elitist entitlement come from? Would it stem from being a white straigh middle class male in a society geared towards you?
Fuck knows I'm not for PC identity politics but the sense of fucking entitlement and elitist assumption in Joseph K's opening post is fucking shocking.
Jun 18 2009 14:50
#96
let' go beat up some fookin Gypo Polskies, lads!
Jun 18 2009 14:55
#97
The best of this is that Joseph K is in Brighton, one of the whitest cities I've ever seen in the UK.
Jun 18 2009 14:57
#98
Choccy wrote:
seriously, this whole fucking thread is a disgrace
Can't agree more. The thread is shocking actually.
Revol, you're spot on.
Jun 18 2009 15:07
#99
shocking is a bit much. so Joseph K ranted about some dodgy affirmative action shit (which he said he was going to do in the title post) and Vanilla Ice Baby said that Eastern Europeans are all opportunist cunts who take good jobs away from decent BRITISH people. Nothing controversial there.
Jun 18 2009 15:08
#100
I thought this was actually a joke thread cos it was in libcommunity...
Jun 18 2009 15:12
#101
What is shocking is when Revol rightly calls JK out on this, he and Vanilla tries to defend it. I can understand a one off rant in the heat of the moment, but not when the whole thread runs to 100 posts.
Jun 18 2009 15:14
#102
Vlad336 wrote:
shocking is a bit much. so Joseph K ranted about some dodgy affirmative action shit (which he said he was going to do in the title post) and Vanilla Ice Baby said that Eastern Europeans are all opportunist cunts who take good jobs away from decent BRITISH people. Nothing controversial there.
It's not affirmitive action ffs, though the fact he reads a blurb saying "we particularly welcome applications from women and ethnic minorities" as "We will give the job to a black or a woman over the head of the much better qualified white man Joseph K" says quite a lot and none of it good.
Jun 18 2009 15:17
#103
revol68 wrote:
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
they have seen loads of cases where jobs are basically reserved for black, asian, or women candidatesAnd the problem with this is what?
Jun 18 2009 15:18
#104
Khawaga wrote:
What is shocking is when Revol rightly calls JK out on this, he and Vanilla tries to defend it. I can understand a one off rant in the heat of the moment, but not when the whole thread runs to 100 posts.
Honestly though my heart bleeds for all poor middle class white boys already in full time employment battling to change career paths. No one ever thinks about these poor marginalised souls at the sharp end of capitalism.
Jun 18 2009 15:21
#105
Given that firefighters don't only fight fires, wouldn't it actually be a NECESSITY for community cohesion to have targets for how many ethnic minorities and women get the job? like with the police, or in nursing... if certain groups are going to feel alienated or like they can't communicate with whites or men, isn't it a good thing to even straight up say 'WE MIGHT HIRE A BLACK BEFORE YOU SOZ'?
Jun 18 2009 15:31
#106
Jospeh Kay, I don't see what the complaint is since you've found the process is anoymous. No-one here is disagreeing that liberal tokenism isn't shit and a non-solution to a real problem, i.e. instituional racism.
Jun 18 2009 15:33
#107
Bob Savage wrote:
Given that firefighters don't only fight fires, wouldn't it actually be a NECESSITY for community cohesion to have targets for how many ethnic minorities and women get the job? like with the police, or in nursing... if certain groups are going to feel alienated or like they can't communicate with whites or men, isn't it a good thing to even straight up say 'WE MIGHT HIRE A BLACK BEFORE YOU SOZ'?
Careful now...
Personally it doesn't matter to matter to me whether I'm getting rescued from a fire by a white man or a black polish lesbian (revol68).
Jun 18 2009 15:35
#108
revol68 wrote:
madashell wrote:
Arguments about PC aside, I find it far more worrying that you start from the assumption that any woman or ethnic minority person who gets a job ahead of you got it because of their gender or the colour of their skin, rather than their merits as (in this instance) a firefighter.where would such a sense of elitist entitlement come from? Would it stem from being a white straigh middle class male in a society geared towards you?
Fuck knows I'm not for PC identity politics but the sense of fucking entitlement and elitist assumption in Joseph K's opening post is fucking shocking.
how do i start from that assumption? at all? i started from seeing a particular welcoming of certain applicants coupled with asking for photos as suggestive of a positive discrimination agenda, and ranted about it. when i looked into it, i found out this was not the case, said so, and made clear my only remaining objection was that it's a PC liberal figleaf, on which apparently everyone agrees.
this has nothing to do with entitlement, and everything to do with consistent opposition to gender & ethnic discrimination whether 'positive' or 'negative.' revol on the other hand is apparently all for racial allocation of jobs:
revol68 wrote:
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
they have seen loads of cases where jobs are basically reserved for black, asian, or women candidatesAnd the problem with this is what?
now yes, under capitalism we're all forced to compete with one another. that doesn't mean we shouldn't oppose all forms of ethnic or gender discrimination as divisive attacks on the class. now i've said, the actual application process is anonymised so that negates all my objections aside from the PC-tokenism, which seems uncontroversial. i'm surprised that people have come out supporting 'positive discrimination' regardless of the facts of this particular case though.
Jun 18 2009 15:38
#109
Refused wrote:
Bob Savage wrote:
Given that firefighters don't only fight fires, wouldn't it actually be a NECESSITY for community cohesion to have targets for how many ethnic minorities and women get the job? like with the police, or in nursing... if certain groups are going to feel alienated or like they can't communicate with whites or men, isn't it a good thing to even straight up say 'WE MIGHT HIRE A BLACK BEFORE YOU SOZ'?Careful now...
Personally it doesn't matter to matter to me whether I'm getting rescued from a fire by a white man or a black polish lesbian (revol68).
nah I'm just saying, not all 'affirmative action' type shit is necessarily about simply filling numbers to paint the image of racial equality. sometimes specific races or genders will be required for certain positions.
Jun 18 2009 15:38
#110
Refused wrote:
Jospeh Kay, I don't see what the complaint is since you've found the process is anoymous.
there isn't one, except apparently my opposition to 'positive' discrimination makes me a white-priveleged middle-class entitlement-mentality bigot.
Jun 18 2009 15:40
#111
"...IT'S A FUCKING DISGRAAACE."
Jun 18 2009 15:43
#112
Joseph Kay wrote:
i'm surprised that people have come out supporting 'positive discrimination' regardless of the facts of this particular case though.
How many times. Welcoming applicants from ethnic minority backgrounds etc does not constitute 'positive discrimination'.
Jun 18 2009 15:55
#113
Armchair Anarchist wrote:
Joseph Kay wrote:
i'm surprised that people have come out supporting 'positive discrimination' regardless of the facts of this particular case though.How many times. Welcoming applicants from ethnic minority backgrounds etc does not constitute 'positive discrimination'.
no, not 'how many times?', this isn't in dispute. it was this, coupled with requiring photos that made me suspect positive discrimination. a suspicion which I later found to be misplaced, and said so. others, revol quoted above for example explicitly supporting racial allocation of jobs very definitely is discrimination. not fucking rocket science.
Jun 18 2009 16:42
#114
Don't try and paint your lil hissy fit about some less qualified women or black person stealing your prospective job up as anything more than what it was, a baseless rant more becoming of a Stormfront poster than a Libcom admin.
As for opposing all forms of discrimination, well sorry that's liberal bullshit, infact it's worse than liberal bullshit, it's an attempt to paint out the hierarchies and power relations that run across society with a notion of a 'blind' bourgeois 'equality'.
What's your next post going to be, a rant about Gay Pride and how a straight equivalent would be deemed as homophobic? Or maybe you could whinge about the BBC's 'Asian Network' and how there is no 'White Network'.
Joseph K speaking truth to the PC powers.
Jun 18 2009 16:49
#115
revol wrote:
What's your next post going to be, a rant about Gay Pride
and how all gay priders are such "sex pests"? yes, surely that would not be becoming of a libcom poster.
Jun 18 2009 16:49
#116
In all truth I simply don't give a shit if certain companies might hire someone to meet their race or sex quotas. Sure I'll criticise it on the basis of it not dealing with the real problems of racism and sexism but I'm not going to fucking whinge about it cos it might make it harder for me as a white man to get the job, that's just pathetic shit.
Seriously Joseph this thread is a fucking embarrassment, as is your dig at my current employment status. To see the bitter whinging of a white kid from a rather well off background stamp his feet cos some 'lesser qualified woman or black' might get the job he weally, weally wanted is pathetic enough, when said white kid claims to be a fucking communist it's just a whole other level.
Jun 18 2009 16:52
#117
Vlad336 wrote:
revol wrote:
What's your next post going to be, a rant about Gay Prideand how all gay priders are such "sex pests"? yes, surely that would not be becoming of a libcom poster.
??
Jun 18 2009 16:58
#118
revol wrote:
also all these queer anarcho activities just sound like an excuse to be a sex pest.
Jun 18 2009 16:59
#119
Joseph Kay wrote:
Refused wrote:
Jospeh Kay, I don't see what the complaint is since you've found the process is anoymous.there isn't one, except apparently my opposition to 'positive' discrimination makes me a white-priveleged middle-class entitlement-mentality bigot.
when it's coached in the language of 'it's not fair on me as middle class white man' yes then it does come across like that.
As a communist I'm opposed to positive discrimination because it masks the real problems, I'm not opposed to it because it's unfair on middle class white men. Likewise I'm not opposed to University's positively discriminating towards kids from comprehensives over brats from public schools on the grounds that it's "unfair", in fact I'm not opposed to it at all.
Jun 18 2009 17:01
#120
Vlad336 wrote:
revol wrote:
also all these queer anarcho activities just sound like an excuse to be a sex pest.
yes, because Gay Pride is the same as those queer anarcho activities that were posted up?
Infact even if I did say Gay Pride has become an excuse for a lot of muppets who define themselves almost entirely through their sex lives to act up (it's not but there certainly is that aspect to it), it's not the same as complaining about Gay Pride because there is no Straight equivalent.
seriously, this whole fucking thread is a disgrace