Student diversity officer in racism row could lose her job after allegedly tweeting 'kill all white

[Angilion]

Your definition of diversity is simply wildly different to mine. Diversity to me, and the way that my company uses it, means people different in many ways. One of those ways is male:female ratio and understanding why my company lags behind others in terms of numbers but females being in the employ of the company is not more important, in any way, than any of the other areas.

You may find it irrational, you may believe it to be discriminatory, but I disagree wholeheartedly. It's not about judging people on their capabilities depending on which arbitrary groups they belong to but ensuring that no-one is denied opportunity based on the very same groups.

That's an important difference.

That's not what I consider irrational and discriminatory.

It's also not something that bears any resemblence to what is usually meant by "diversity", which is entirely about which arbitrary groups they belong to (and almost always only sex and "race") and about denying people opportunities based on those groups.

That's an important difference.

"Diversity" in its normal usage is pretty much the opposite of actual diversity because it depends on and reinforces the assumption that people in the same group (sex, "race", whatever) are all the same when in reality those groups aren't even groups in any meaningful sense.

I'll try to illustrate my apparently very unusual viewpoint with a real-world example.

Most of my coworkers are "white" women. At some point, by chance, there is probably a time when all of those "white" women and only those "white" women are in the same room at the same time.

To me, that room contains a diversity of people. The trivial unimportant coincidence that they all happen to be of the same sex and the same "race" (which it iself a fictional concept) doesn't make them all the same.

Almost all of those people are from the same area. All of them have an extremely similar socio-economic background and current circumstances. Almost all of them have a very similar level of formal education. Granted, my boss does have a higher income but her salary isn't very much larger than our wages. Not enough to put her in a significantly different economic position. Despite that, to me that room still contains a diversity of people. I see it that way because I don't think that people are defined by their sex, "race" or whatever other irrelevancies it's fashionable to see as being of paramount importance.

 

[Angilion]

Absolutely not, no.

For starters the internal work that is being done is being done to benefit the company and it's employees, not for external people to like.

The industry norm is something like 70:30 and we, as a company, do not fit with that. The challenge is to understand why, and to ensure that it isn't because any group is being discriminated against. It's not about promotion of certain groups over other groups, and it's not about offering opportunities to those groups that are lower in number - it's about ensuring that opportunities are open to all, and that the decision making isn't influenced by discrimination.

The numbers and ratios may stay the same, and that's fine as long as we understand why and that it isn't because activities are suppressing the right people with the right knowledge and skills solely because they are in a minority group.

That's fair and sensible. I've done the same thing myself (on a much smaller scale) for the same reason when I was teaching.

Why call it "diversity", which has a completely different meaning? It doesn't match either meaning, neither the real meaning nor the more common meaning of being a euphemism for socially acceptable sexism and racism.

 

[Gilly]

That's fair and sensible. I've done the same thing myself (on a much smaller scale) for the same reason when I was teaching.

Why call it "diversity", which has a completely different meaning? It doesn't match either meaning, neither the real meaning nor the more common meaning of being a euphemism for socially acceptable sexism and racism.

D&I - Diversity & Inclusion, is the program of work I'm speaking of. It's not about changing the numbers of groups within the workforce; it's understanding more about the individuals. From a corporate standpoint changing the thinking from a group mentality to an individual one.

The fact that I'm a mid-30s white male shouldn't count against me, but also shouldn't count for me. It's the skills, knowledge, experiences and drive I have that should stand me apart from my peers and not because they are female, black, gay or whatever else they may be. It's ensuring that everyone gets the nurture and support they require in order to excel that we are truly after, and that is something that is about diversity and is about inclusion

I'll try to illustrate my apparently very unusual viewpoint with a real-world example.

Most of my coworkers are "white" women. At some point, by chance, there is probably a time when all of those "white" women and only those "white" women are in the same room at the same time.

To me, that room contains a diversity of people. The trivial unimportant coincidence that they all happen to be of the same sex and the same "race" (which it iself a fictional concept) doesn't make them all the same.

Almost all of those people are from the same area. All of them have an extremely similar socio-economic background and current circumstances. Almost all of them have a very similar level of formal education. Granted, my boss does have a higher income but her salary isn't very much larger than our wages. Not enough to put her in a significantly different economic position. Despite that, to me that room still contains a diversity of people. I see it that way because I don't think that people are defined by their sex, "race" or whatever other irrelevancies it's fashionable to see as being of paramount importance.

Great viewpoint, that's what we are trying to ensure is being achieved

 

[anything I don't mind]

These feminists hate white straight men. Extremely racist and sexist and hypocritical. Because they take the moral high ground it allows them to justify any sort of violence or racist/sexist acts.

 

[Shocky-FM]

Feminists? they're the slightly more crazy ones right?

 

[jpod]

Has she ever had any English in her?

 

[Monkeh]

Has she ever had any English in her?

You know without wanting to 'trigger' anyone... I honestly think this could be a part of the problem, especially from the SJW participants I have known personally, hetro, men hating darlings that they are. A century ago I'm pretty sure it was termed Hysteria and sufferers received special, erm, treatment or got locked up in the local asylum for it.

I'm on the fence as to which would be best for these, care in the community and all that but the more outspoken ones do seem to be gomping.

 

[Nix]

Victim complex within an echo chamber.

 

[Hitman_Leon]

The look in her eyes says it all, she really would not look out of place with a chainsaw in her hand, sociopath.

 

[Dicehunter]

I'll never understand how people can rationalise in their brains that you can't be racist to white people.

Well according to the new social justice warrior term of racism it's got to do with wealth, Position of power, Ownership of property and privilege.

When you exit the land of the complete nut job though the real definition of racism is:

Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

And apparently according to some black people I know, White people are not a real race, Only black people, Middle Eastern and Asian people are.

 

[Hitman_Leon]

And apparently according to some black people I know, White people are not a real race, Only black people, Middle Eastern and Asian people are.

We are all one race, the human race.

Inform them of that and watch their heads explode

 

[Angilion]

We are all one race, the human race.

Expressing that idea is already forbidden in some USA universities for being racist.

And no, I'm not joking. Also forbidden is the expression of "racist" and "sexist" ideas such as the idea that a job (or any other position) should go to the person most qualified for it.

None of this should be surprising to anyone, really. A key point of the most successful biological group advocacy ideologies is to usurp, corrupt and destroy the very idea of equality because equality is the biggest obstacle to group advocacy. So it's to be expected that feminists will say (and maybe believe) that anti-male sexism isn't possible, anti-"white" racists will say (and maybe believe) that anti-"white" racism isn't possible, etc.

To them (or at least to their propaganda, which they might or might not believe) prejudice and discrimination against everyone not in their favoured group (as they define it) is a good thing and therefore can't be racism, sexism or anything else they claim to oppose.

It's internally consistent:

Premise: Prejudice and discrimination against "males" (not male people, obviously - they're not really people) and "whites" is a good thing.

Premise: Sexism and racism are bad things.

Conclusion: Prejudice and discrimination against "males" and "whites" can't be sexism and racism.

 

[Monkeh]

As said many times its just a long winded way of saying delusion. If this is the direction the world is heading bring on Skynet... please.

 

[Gilly]

I like your posts on this page Angilion.

I do wonder what the response would be if they were challenged with the dictionary definition and asked why they are using one no-one else is. Racism and sexism are nothing to do with privilege or even minority groups; and everything to do with prejudice.

That's really all there is to it.

 

[Monkeh]

The usual response is to deny the actual dictionary definition on the grounds of originally being written by white males thus making it prejudiced in essence, they are unlikely to verify this as a fact but it will be assumed. They are wrapped in a fully circular delusion in that they are right and any information or fact that disagrees with their beliefs is just further proof of the concept they are trying to fight against. I know people like this, you really cannot talk any sense with them most of the time.

Its a sad situation they are in and my jokes towards them aside they are going to need some drastic help if they are every going to be capable of integrating back into regular society. The worry is that it seems they are beginning to be taken more seriously by policy makers and media these days.

 

[Angilion]

You know without wanting to 'trigger' anyone... I honestly think this could be a part of the problem, especially from the SJW participants I have known personally, hetro, men hating darlings that they are. A century ago I'm pretty sure it was termed Hysteria and sufferers received special, erm, treatment or got locked up in the local asylum for it.

I'm on the fence as to which would be best for these, care in the community and all that but the more outspoken ones do seem to be gomping.

I suspect a significant proportion of them are BDSMers in furious denial.

I'm reminded of the people, especially in the USA, who speak vehemently against homosexuality and are so obsessed with it that they see it everywhere, literally everywhere and frequently in circumstances that no rational person would see it in. The SJW crowd are exactly the same way with men dominating women. I suspect that in both cases the reason is quite often denial.

 

[Caged]

Not to defend mental people looking everywhere but themselves for something to blame their failures on, but pointing to a dictionary and going "see, you're wrong" is a bit of a cop-out as well.

In most cases it reflects the current use of the words, but not always.

 

[Monkeh]

The Oxford Dictionary is updated annually with newer/current meanings and words being added or removed. It forms the basis of the English language and so you can point to the current definition and confidently say this is what you intend the word to mean, at least in the UK where they pretty much are the documenters of our language.

If you are preaching for equality then you should expect to show tolerance, and understanding, not the complete bile and hate for sectors of humanity who you blame for all past transgressions.

@Angilion - I suspect you are right, and I have completely the wrong personality to engage with these people as I'm pretty tolerant of people choosing their own opinions/lifestyle choices as long as they don't try to force them to be taken on by me, I can be pretty sarcastic and quick to throw humour in as a defusing tactic, which normally has the opposite effect quite dramatically.

 

[Caged]

The Oxford Dictionary is updated annually with newer/current meanings and words being added or removed. It forms the basis of the English language and so you can point to the current definition and confidently say this is what you intend the word to mean, at least in the UK where they pretty much are the documenters of our language.

I totally get that part, but I also accept that it's not going to win you arguments with people who don't consider the dictionary to be a legitimate source because it doesn't agree with them.

Merciless sarcastic ridicule is probably the only way to tackle this one.

 

[Monkeh]

To be honest these day's I'd just rather not interact with them at all if I can help it, if I wanted a fruitless hobby I think I'd have more success teaching kittens to knit.