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

Raymond Lin said:
Don't you support Trump and everything that goes with it? alas, discriminations against Mexicans, Muslims, blacks and women?
Click to expand...
I live in the UK, what Trump does or doesn't do or say is irrelevant to me.
You can't have it both ways you either do not discriminate or you do, what's it to be sunshine?
 
stockhausen said:
I must admit, I have never really paid much attention to Karl Marx's views on race - do please tell us more.
Click to expand...
Well my particular favourite is his "racial trash must perish in a revolutionary holocaust" quote.

He wasn't a big fan of the Scottish Highlanders, Basques or Slavs. In his opinion anybody who identified their culture based upon their race must be exterminated. Marx didn't want multiculturalism, he wanted a monoculture of complete Communism.
 
I’ve noticed that most people who constantly moan about positive discrimination are utterly silent or dismissive when it comes to the negative discrimination of others. Why is that?
 
Blocking someone from a job position because of skin colour is racist and always has been. Seams it’s gone from once side of the spectrum to the other.
 
stockhausen said:
I must admit, I have never really paid much attention to Karl Marx's views on race - do please tell us more.
Click to expand...

He didn't have an awful lot to say about race (thanks Paul for highlighting what he did have to say on the matter) .. He did however have a rather discredited idea that sought to explain disparities in outcomes via alleged systemic oppression.....

Hence the usage of cultural Marxism (based on the proposition of systemic discrimination on basis of things like race and gender identity etc) to be distinguished from 'classical' marxism based on systemic discrimination based on class
 
explicit4u said:
Huh? Who's suggesting that these schemes are trying to make BAME people do better than white people?
Click to expand...

I would suggest that denying training for "white people" whilst giving training to "BAME people" means that BAME people will be better equipped to do the job that both groups can apply for. If not then what is point in the training?
 
Roar87 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Presumably you’re very much against things like this then as well?

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.teleg...fered-3000-sweetener-induce-train-nurses/amp/

Men are being offered a £3,000 sweetener to entice them to train as nurses.

Coventry University said the plans aim to “address a growing gender imbalance” on such courses

Men account for just 10 per cent of the total nursing students placed at UK universities, and the gender gap is growing.

Nurses said some male patients preferred to be treated by another man.

The £30,000 fund, paid for by the National Express Foundation is thought to be the first created specifically for men taking nursing and healthcare courses in UK higher education.
Click to expand...

Much like the article in the OP it’s a way of trying to persuade more of a minority into a profession they are under represented in and/or don’t normally consider.

Presumably you would argue that that bursary could make the difference between a woman being able to afford to go to nursing school or not, but it’s only available to men so it may stop better female nurses.

And no, that’s not what’s “currently happening” in the vast majority of cases. What’s actually happening is making sure Isobel get a chance to show if she is better than John. If she is she gets the job, if not, John gets the job. Otherwise Isobel may not even get an interview because her name may well look foreign, or she is judged as unable because of her sex or skin colour.

There is still currently massive discrimination (much of it may well be unintended) against ethnic minorities and people with certain foreign sounding names. The aim of these schemes is to try and get passed that.
 
Amp34 said:
Presumably you’re very much against things like this then as well?

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.teleg...fered-3000-sweetener-induce-train-nurses/amp/
Click to expand...

Personally, I am against any scheme that offers an advantage to any race, sex, religion etc, and for whatever reason, and the more we offer them relevancy by being part of any criteria the more the issue will remain.

In respect of that link if there is an 'issue' with male nurses in the profession I fully understand that its a gender stereotyped profession (as are many other professions), but I believe that the 'block' is more down to personal preconception than some invisible barrier or monetary hurdle that prevents men entering the profession. Nursing for many of its professionals is a vocation. Do we really want people to enter the profession because they were offer three grand towards their training?

If men don't want to enter the profession where is the 'issue' if they are comfortable with the status quo? Is this just a complication for the sake of it? Is this a result of the sudden requirement in society to make each and everything gender fluid/neutral?

As we have seen from a few posts in here, it seems that the moment anyone yells out in protest against positive discrimination, the pitchforks and the 'Trump' comparisons come out, where actually I believe in most cases its the complete opposite.

I would be critical of this training scheme if it restricted to white people as much as I am at the current reality, as I mentioned the more we talk about race as being relevant, the more credibility and importance we seemingly give it.
 
I don't know how I would feel as a non-white being interviewed by the FA knowing that i'm not being interviewed because they think I would be suitable for the job but because they just need to put a tick in a box. Sounds very racist to me.
 
Drizmod said:
I don't know how I would feel as a non-white being interviewed by the FA knowing that i'm not being interviewed because they think I would be suitable for the job but because they just need to put a tick in a box. Sounds very racist to me.
Click to expand...

The Rooney rule comes from the NFL and resulted in a dramatic increase in black coaches being hired.

Black coaches were suitable for the job but they weren’t getting a foot in the door for whatever reason.
 
Tunney said:
The Rooney rule comes from the NFL and resulted in a dramatic increase in black coaches being hired.

Black coaches were suitable for the job but they weren’t getting a foot in the door for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

The Rooney rule is a great addition to the NFL, but from my understanding it did not exclude other races from the interview process. This is very different to what is happening in the case of the BBC in my opinion,
 
Rifte said:
The Rooney rule is a great addition to the NFL, but from my understanding it did not exclude other races from the interview process. This is very different to what is happening in the case of the BBC in my opinion,
Click to expand...

Maybe I haven’t read the original post properly but my understanding is that the BBC is giving BAME candidates a boost in applying for jobs (through additional trainining) rather than making jobs open to BAME candidates only.

It’s a clumsy and imperfect way to boost diversity at the BBC but I don’t understand the level of outrage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom