fucking PC gone mad (a rant thread)
Jun 22 2009 11:30
#212
not particularly giving a shit about positive discrimination in certain jobs or having a criticism of it but not from a position of it being unfair on white men is not the same as supporting it.
Jun 22 2009 12:02
#213
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'?
revol68 wrote:
I wouldn't particularly have a problem with some form of positive discrimination, the example of more male primary school teachers or black firemen.
apologies if i'm being uncharitable interpreting that as support for racial quotas.
Jun 22 2009 12:50
#214
Joseph Kay 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'?revol68 wrote:
I wouldn't particularly have a problem with some form of positive discrimination, the example of more male primary school teachers or black firemen.apologies if i'm being uncharitable interpreting that as support for racial quotas.
Note the I wouldn't particularly have a problem....
does that sound like support or simply a 'meh'.
It is interesting how you've twisted this, earlier you claimed it was tantamount to supporting a separatist policy of 'black firefighters' for 'black communities', which of course is bollocks, having a more representative fire service is about integration not segregation.
But now you've went for racial quotas, which whilst I don't support as it's a sticky plaster over a wider problem I simply wouldn't give that much of a shit about and I certainly don't give a shit about it being 'unfair' on white men.
Do you think it would be wrong to take active steps to get more men into primary school teaching, so that say all other things being equal a man would most likely get a position?
Like I've said there are many problems with these approaches but the issue of it being 'unfair' on white men isn't one and your initial posts had fuck all to do with nuanced critiques of state multiculturalism and was simply an ignorant rant based on the fact you were worried that you wouldn't get the job you obviously think you are entitled to because some less qualified women or person from an ethnic minority would be given the job a head of you. You're subsequent acknowledgement of your assumptions being wrong doesn't address why you so readily swallowed such bullshit and came to such conclusions in the first place.
Jun 22 2009 13:29
#215
revol68 wrote:
Note the I wouldn't particularly have a problem....does that sound like support or simply a 'meh'.
Bob explicitly supports it, you drew on his example, granted not all that enthusiastically.
revol68 wrote:
It is interesting how you've twisted this, earlier you claimed it was tantamount to supporting a separatist policy of 'black firefighters' for 'black communities', which of course is bollocks, having a more representative fire service is about integration not segregation.
the assumption that 'black' firefighters 'represent' "certain groups" is dripping with assumptions that reify race as a valid category of defining human beings. it isn't. it doesn't imply separatism, it's official state multiculturalism, an ideology of 'difference' that is more divisive to the working class in Britain today than old racist supremacism, which is now, thankfully, for the most part untenable if one wants to participate in mainstream politics (e.g. see the BNP). i've seen you make this argument before, and i'm not sure if you've changed your mind or are just being argumentative.
revol68 wrote:
But now you've went for racial quotas, which whilst I don't support as it's a sticky plaster over a wider problem I simply wouldn't give that much of a shit about and I certainly don't give a shit about it being 'unfair' on white men.
well i think they would be worth giving a shit about - to be fair so does Steven. - since as i say official state multiculturalism in an ideology of 'difference' that is more divisive to the working class in Britain today than old racist supremacism. clearly my critique of multiculturalism is not that it's "unfair on white men", this thread was a rant. you can tell this because i put "rant thread" in the title. however, the assumption white men can't complain about stuff is dripping in liberal white guilt. yes, systematic discrimination has historically and continues to disproportionately effect ethnic minorities and women, but that doesn't mean we support them because they are 'victims' but because racial/sexual discrimination is bullshit full stop, whoever it's aimed at.
revol68 wrote:
Do you think it would be wrong to take active steps to get more men into primary school teaching, so that say all other things being equal a man would most likely get a position?
there's a difference between encouraging applications and actively discriminating based on race or sex, as i noted when i said i'd got it wrong and described how they actually went about encouraging applications from under-represented groups. i don't know as much about teaching, but surely if the problem is 'feminised' teaching alienating boys, shoehorning more male teachers into the jobs essentialises gender down to biological sex?
revol68 wrote:
your initial posts had fuck all to do with nuanced critiques of state multiculturalism and was simply an ignorant rant
well, it was a self-titled rant where i got the facts wrong, yes.
revol68 wrote:
based on the fact you were worried that you wouldn't get the job you obviously think you are entitled to
no i don't. ~98% of applicants fail. i have no presumption that i'm in the top 2%, and in all honesty i'm probably not at present, given the strength of the best applications. my point througsout is that sex or race should play no part in selection, which should be based on merit alone (hence the black vagina comment). now if you want to accuse me of bourgeois meritocracy there, go for it, but i would ask by what criteria you'd select communist firefighters if not merit (and yes there is systematic discrimination under capitalism, which is precisely why a blinded, meritocratic selection is the best bet).
revol68 wrote:
You're subsequent acknowledgement of your assumptions being wrong doesn't address why you so readily swallowed such bullshit and came to such conclusions in the first place.
no, but i have detailed all the other confounding factors which informed my assumption which i obviously shouldn't have omitted from the OP. but of course, it's actually that i'm a secret racist middle class nazi misogynist bigot.
Jun 23 2009 03:40
#216
poor white people. hopefully at some time in the future you'll get SOME power in society. until then, i shall pray for you
Jun 23 2009 21:40
#217
revol68 wrote:
Joseph Kay 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'?revol68 wrote:
I wouldn't particularly have a problem with some form of positive discrimination, the example of more male primary school teachers or black firemen.apologies if i'm being uncharitable interpreting that as support for racial quotas.
Note the I wouldn't particularly have a problem....
does that sound like support or simply a 'meh'.
.
What does 'meh' actually mean? I see it written down all the time, fucking new words..
Jun 23 2009 23:15
#218
It means "whatever", like "who cares?"
Jun 24 2009 06:16
#219
thanks.
Jun 24 2009 14:29
#220
Alan wrote:
Joseph Kay wrote:
(Steven. says he'd bring it up through the union as it's illegal and divisive).To be honest, all he's done in this thread is claim how affirmative action doesn't happen "cos it's illegal", which is frankly mind-boggling logic. If some of the posters on this thread could please Google Alberto Durango so they can see why certain employers prefer foreign labour that'd be really great.
rather than my logic being flawed, I think it's more your comprehension skills.
For starters, Joseph has admitted that he was wrong in thinking that there was positive discrimination in his job application. So I was correct in saying that it wasn't happening, and also correct in saying that it was unlawful. What is mind-boggling about that?
I also stated that I did not believe vanilla's statement saying that he knew of lots of jobs in local government which were "reserved for blacks, women, etc". I said if this were true for him to tell me the names of the councils, and I would look into it - as he hasn't responded, I'll assume it was bullshit. Jack has also stated that he does not believe this is the case. Seeing as local government is already overwhelmingly female, albeit with disproportionately high numbers of men in senior management (which would actually suggest discrimination *against* women), this would be nonsensical.
You also seem to be a little confused, alleged positive discrimination in the public sector (which no-one has given any evidence of its existence, and plenty to contradict it) is a very different phenomenon to some employers preferring to employ say Eastern European labourers over British ones.
Last time I checked, my local council or fire service hadn't sacked all the English workers and replace them all with Poles or Romanians.
Jack wrote:
Steven. wrote:
Firstly, genuine question to you. As you seem to be only expressing a disagreement with knee, and not with vanilla, do you agree with this statement of his:Quote:
I know people who work in local government in the equalities department and they have seen loads of cases where jobs are basically reserved for black, asian, or women candidatesNo. I think it's completely unofficial, and far more informal. By explicit but informal i mean people will admit it, but there aren't extra points for being non-white or a legal equivalent to affirmative action.
To be honest tho i think vanilla is somewhere between trolling and exagerating.
Quote:
In terms of do I think positive discrimination happens? Well, I think a lot of places do genuinely take action to try to prevent discrimination. When you're doing recruitment, there's a lot of checks and balances to get through to ensure equal treatment - people get scored on their applications, to a uniform scale, people get the same interview questions, again for which they get a score, and you can only give the jobs to those with amongst the highest scores.Yes, i am aware there is a standardire process where there are there are the same questions, with scored interview questions. But the process is obviously bias free - the scores are afterall given by people. Obviously people will give different scores for different reasons, and are bound to subconsciously applying bias to their scores based on all sorts of factors- and in a context where multicultural ideology is so dominant obviously there factors are likely to weigh heavily. Same as, i'd imagine in a workplace with a more macho ethos, a similar interview process wouldn't guard against men being scored higher, for example.
right so you acknowledge this is completely different from jobs being reserved for blacks or Asians etc. Also, this stuff is subjective and going to be biased - because of widespread ingrained racist attitudes and stereotypes (which are in everyone) there will also be systematic bias against people from ethnic minorities. It's good that a lot of people in local government do try to make allowances for this, or counteract this. But this is completely different from systematic positive discrimination, racial quotas, etc.
Quote:
Quote:
And seriously, are you saying that you think that you are discriminated against at your work because you are either white or male? If not, then STFU, whatever point you're making is irrelevant.I'm talking about recruitment, not while at work. And so yes, i do think people have been discriminated against because they are white or male in public sector recruitment. I don't think it's huge, i don't think it's a giant issue, and it's not something i'd ever organise against. But it happens nonetheless, and it's still 'a bad thing'. It was only raised in response to someone (i think you?) saying it didn't.
I don't agree that this is the case - I think if it were there would not be such disproportionately high numbers of white males at senior, management and well-paid levels. Also, as you are well aware there are ongoing equal pay disputes in local government as women have been systematically underpaid compared to men. This is indicative of discrimination against women, not in favour.
Again, at my work we have been attempting to get hold of ethnicity statistics related to redundancy. Employers have been dragging their feet about getting this information to us, and now that they have we can see that, despite the workforce well representing the makeup of the local area, proportionately twice as many black people are made redundant as other ethnic groups. This again is indicative of some form of systematic discrimination against, and not in favour of, black people.
The idea of widespread discrimination against whites or men are racist myths peddled by the likes of the BNP and the gutter press like the Daily Mail, the Sun, the express, etc.
No I can see how they sounded, but I have subsequently clarified, which didn't stop the stream of hysterics. it's also weird that nobodys batted an eyelid at people supporting racial quotas on this thread, which is far more reactionary than even the least charitable reading of my posts.