bbc drops itself in the...ya know. (discrimination)

Rifte said:
If you believe that it's OK to remove any race from being eligible for any position for whatever reason....I have no words.
Click to expand...

You really are not seeing the distinction are you?

billysielu said:
It's still racial discrimination.
Click to expand...

There are a million schemes out there that targets minorities, or class.

Schemes for people from poor backgrounds - so are you going to complaint it is discrimination because you earn too much?
Schemes for people living in social housing, such as football academy
Schemes for drug addicts to get integrate back into society
Schemes for everything and every side of society that is often forgotten by the majority to help them. They are there because of the discrimination that happens.


And it is the white majority who complaints?
 
The scheme itself is perfectly fine. The language, particularly the "non white" is inflammatory.

What the PC Brigade need to understand is that they allowed language to be used as a weapon to beat their political opponents with. They can't complain when those same opponents try to use language to beat them back with.

That's the game. If someone finds this language offensive then IT IS offensive.
 
TallPaul1878 said:
The scheme itself is perfectly fine. The language, particularly the "non white" is inflammatory.

What the PC Brigade need to understand is that they allowed language to be used as a weapon to beat their political opponents with. They can't complain when those same opponents try to use language to beat them back with.

That's the game. If someone finds this language offensive then IT IS offensive.
Click to expand...

But when it is the other side who says it, then it is free speech?
 
Rifte said:
Any 'scheme' that dilutes the 'best and most qualified for the position' concept HAS to be loaded with some sort of bias.

Who says that a white guy can't do this role as efficiently and effectively as a minority?
Click to expand...
It isn't doing anything of the sort though.

It's giving a specific chance for someone to get a bit of training/experience, if they get 100 applicants for it and choose the best one to go ahead with the training (which i think is basically a few weeks/months of fairly basic stuff) then that person if they've completed it is against everyone else as normal for any further opportunities.
It's giving an opening to people that haven't historically realised there was one, or that they would be taken seriously when applying for training.

This is something the BBC have done in one form or another for over 50 years as part of their role in offering training and openings to every part of society, the same basic ethos that (from memory) had open submissions for things like script ideas from both within the organisation and outside including things like competitions for scripts where the best X number got made into a pilot or "drama of the day" (which led to a number of people getting a start in the industry).
 
Rifte said:
If you believe that it's OK to remove any race from being eligible for any position for whatever reason....I have no words.
Click to expand...

Quite agree. Doesn’t matter ‘the situation’ - it’s discrimination. If it said the opposite I.e no black people there would be uproar - and for good reason.
 
Rifte said:
There isn't one, and on that note I fear we will not reach common ground on this.
Click to expand...

95% white majority in a field where the population is 40% screams there is a discrimination, underlying or otherwise in the industry. The scheme is doesn't say that out loud because people like you will call it positive discrimination in a heartbeat but the point is to raise the statistic that little bit higher, to counter balance this 95% majority, even by 0.1%.

But then you get so worked up about it, it's 1 trainee position, to encourage the minority to apply, to address the imbalance of minorities in the creative field. It's at no point guarantee they will even have a job in the end, that is base on merit. The trainee position is more like an interview !
 
Raymond Lin said:
95% white majority in a field where the population is 40% screams there is a discrimination, underlying or otherwise in the industry. The scheme is doesn't say that out loud because people like you will call it positive discrimination in a heartbeat but the point is to raise the statistic that little bit higher, to counter balance this 95% majority, even by 0.1%.

But then you get so worked up about it, it's 1 trainee position, to encourage the minority to apply, to address the imbalance of minorities in the creative field. It's at no point guarantee they will even have a job in the end, that is base on merit. The trainee position is more like an interview !
Click to expand...

Numbers don't mean discrimination at all. There are few male nurses, men aren't being discriminated against, actually quite the opposite. I'm told it's easy to get a job as a Nurse if you're a bloke, they're crying out for them.

If there is a lack of a certain group of people in any job, then all that should happen is that you robustly review the application and interview process to make sure everyone is being treated completely fairly, if they are then companies have done everything they need to do.

What's currently happening is that people look at numbers and assume discrimination so they choose to actively discriminate against the majority who are doing well. I'm not sure why Paul (white 53) having a good job means that John (white 24) should get discriminated against in favour of Isobel (Black 21) if John performs better in the interview. John is now being discriminated against because people of the same skin colour happen to be doing well, how does that ANY sense? The company also has a person in a role who isn't the best person for the job, so standards aren't as high as they could be, how does that make ANY sense?
 
Raymond Lin said:
95% white majority in a field where the population is 40% screams there is a discrimination,
Click to expand...

No it screams that you have fallen prey of an insidious idea.... Cultural Marxism.... That is your first response to any dissparity in representation in any field is to suggest that it must be the result of some form of systemic oppression whist ignoring some rather more prosaic explanations

Of course as usual your selection of disparity to whine about is rather selective... Certain SJW's like crow on about nonsense like the gender pay gap with some having suggested ludicrous 'solutions' like simply paying all women more then men doing the same job whilst making derogatory remarks about men that suggest that it's not all fine in the manosphere what with men accounting for some 97‰ of workplace deaths.....

Of course the corollary 'solution' to this issue would be to randomly execute as many women as required to achieve workplace death equity because its all about achieving equality of outcome in your Socialist fantasy now isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
But then you get so worked up about it, it's 1 trainee position, to encourage the minority to apply, to address the imbalance of minorities in the creative field.
Click to expand...

The tolerance should be zero. If one is 'ok', what about next time? Is two fine as well?what about three or four? Where is the line to be drawn?
 
This is a trainee scheme…you know, a trainee.

You get like 100 of trainees in, then you pick the best person in the end for a job in the company. The is a scheme to put a minority into the training program.

Get it now?
 
Raymond Lin said:
But when it is the other side who says it, then it is free speech?
Click to expand...
And that's the whole problem. People aren't prepared to look at the context anymore. They just make judgements based on their feelings rather than facts.

We can't have free speech if we put limits on certain words outright. Each incident needs to be taken into context.

For example if I was to call Vauxhall cars "a bit gay" then I'm not directly abusing a homosexual person. It's not a homophobic remark, insensitive sure, but not homophobic.

If I turn round and say something derogatory to a homosexual person directly based upon them being a homosexual then absolutely that's a homophobic comment because it was a deliberate attempt to cause offense.

Were H&M deliberately denying the humanity of a small black boy by putting him in a "Coolest Monkey" top? Or was it really just a massive blunder? If so then why the outrage.

If language can be used as a weapon, context be damned, then you have to accept that free speech is gone and language can be used by anyone at any time as a stick to beat whoever they choose on grounds that it may be offensive.

If this BBC advert has offended someone then it IS offensive. Until we inject some common sense back into society then this is path we are going to continue to go down.
 
billysielu said:
No because it doesn't mean white applicants have a 0% chance of being hired.

Although personally I don't agree with the Rooney rule either.
Click to expand...

But you know there are OTHER trainee positions which are taken by 95% of white applications? Not applied, but taken by. There may be a good 40% of minorities applicants to those other trainee positions for all you know, but 95% of them are already taken by the white.

So do you get it now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom