Soldato
@Nitefly that is a good post.
Disgusting display of Racism
- Thread starter i-bert
- Start date
Soldato
Ah ok. My apologies, your original post read to me as if there was something within the equality act stopping you from employing a white person on the grounds of equality.
Caporegime
Oh gosh no! I literally can't employ anyone else as we have no other applicants for the roles
Caporegime
Don’t worry I do my share of recruiting, I’ll even things up by making sure I only hire whites.
Come at me with the “you can’t do that” line, prove I’m hiring based on race. They were the best candidates honestly guv!
Come at me with the “you can’t do that” line, prove I’m hiring based on race. They were the best candidates honestly guv!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,414
Well this post would prove it.
Caporegime
Well yeah, to those on here. To those in the wider audience, they have no idea about my blatant racism. I can carry on my with KKK hood on, they're none the wiser. Just have to make sure I have my camera switched off when joining Zoom meetings and the likes.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Jun 2020
- Posts
- 2,410
On the topic of hiring based on race, equality monitoring is meant to be anonymous and confidential so how exactly does that work?
I mean sure you can see a persons skin colour, but there is far more to racial diversity than just white and black people.
And say you hire a black person but they identify as and put 'White British' on their equality form, then how exactly are such statistics reliable?
Furthermore another hypothesis - 90% of a workforce is non white, but say they all decided to list White British on their equality monitoring form.
Does this mean that this company is now racist for only having white people listed as working there and must they continue to recruit more non white people?
I mean sure you can see a persons skin colour, but there is far more to racial diversity than just white and black people.
And say you hire a black person but they identify as and put 'White British' on their equality form, then how exactly are such statistics reliable?
Furthermore another hypothesis - 90% of a workforce is non white, but say they all decided to list White British on their equality monitoring form.
Does this mean that this company is now racist for only having white people listed as working there and must they continue to recruit more non white people?
Soldato
yes would be the general answer, though there could maybe be a maybe thrown in to the mix too.
but you would have to also consider the risk of over exposure to the effects of harmful bacteria. that could possible be mitigated somewhat by less invasive methods of scrubbing but always worth considering.
Soldato
As the Wokery thread is closed this seems like the place for this. So it appears the UK was the main source of the racist abuse.
Caporegime
No. It was the main source of racist abuse according to Twitter. Their definition of racism isn't explained, it certainly doesn't match the UK legal definition. What also isn't explained is what the numbers were. Did 99% come from the UK or 50.000001%?
I wonder what makes footballers and Twitter have this layer of special protection where the Police will investigate people and arrest them, why doesn't this extend to online gaming or chat rooms for example? If someone uses the N word on Xbox live and the person on the opposite side reports it, are the Police investigating that? It's an utterly bizarre use of Police time and again there's nothing to stop someone from creating a profile in someone else's name, there's nothing to verify someone using the name John Smith from Huddersfield didn't just take the guys name and Facebook profile picture and follow a bunch of accounts
Soldato
I’m going to hazard a guess that it’s the level of reach/number of people liable to see or be ‘impacted’ by the racial slur.
By that I mean that you sitting nekkid pulling the gingangs off yourself calling folk the ‘n’ word in an Xbox Uno chat room is going be relatively low ‘impact’ with few folk taking note.
Someone posting on the Twitter feed of a footballer with 100’s of thousands if not millions of followers calling them the ‘n’ word is going to be more impactful and harder to ignore.
Not saying it’s right but guessing that’s why you can insult the **** outta the kids on COD without much risk of come back.
Soldato
Also most people are idiots and don't even think to use a VPN to hide their IP. Most probably just use the app on their phone.
So Roar would you want the police to take more seriously a Muslim telling a crowd to go forth and commit jihad, or just one saying it on a xbox chat room? Or a video published on social media that is getting hundreds of thousands of views compared to someone with zero followers? I know where I'd prefer the police to be using their limited resources.
So Roar would you want the police to take more seriously a Muslim telling a crowd to go forth and commit jihad, or just one saying it on a xbox chat room? Or a video published on social media that is getting hundreds of thousands of views compared to someone with zero followers? I know where I'd prefer the police to be using their limited resources.
Man of Honour
Some would argue that equality doesn't go far enough and that it's 'equity' that we need to strive for.
Equality means everyone is treated the same.
Equity means that everyone is bought up to the same level.
The biggest issue I have with that picture (in its various forms) is that it's a lie in the sense that it doesn't match what it's used to promote. In crucial ways, it's the opposite of what it's used to promote.
The image shows individuals being treated as individuals, with help based on genuinely relevant individual circumstances.(*)
The image is used to promote the ideology of unchosen group identity - "they're all the same", a dehumanising denial of the very existence of individuals and utter disregard for individual circumstances. It's purpose is to promote the idea that whatever irrational prejudice the speaker supports is just and righteous and good and to corrupt and destroy the entire concept of equality. The whole point of "equity" is to promote sexism, racism and any other irrational prejudice and discrimination the speaker supports.
I'll use the same situation to illustrate my point, but since I can't draw for toffee I'll have to describe it.
Person A is male and old enough to not be assigned the unchosen group identity of "child" by the "equity" bigots. He's 5'1" tall.
Person B is female. She's 6'3" tall.
Under "equity", A will at best be required to stand on the ground and be unable to see anything. At worst, he'll be required to stand in a pit dug into the ground. Or not be allowed into the location at all.
Under "equity", B will have all the crates to stand on despite being able to see over the fence while standing on the ground.
Note that B is not necessarily to blame for the situation. Even if she wants to change it, even if she wants to treat people as people and assign help based on genuinely relevant individual circumstances, the "equity" ideology strictly forbids her to do so. If she breaks her conditioning and tries to treat people as people, she will be villified.
* That particular example of it ensures that the definitely female person is literally head and shoulders above the others. It's a feminist version of the image. But that's not an important point compared to the main point.
Soldato
Y'all know it's not really about height though right? It's a metaphor for opportunity.
Man of Honour
Of course. That's obvious. What's also obvious is that pointing it out is evading the point.
Some people are using that metaphor (analogy? I often get those two mixed up) to promote irrational prejudice and discrimination and to lie about it.
Some people are using the same metaphor to point out that those people are lying.
If it being a metaphor invalidates the argument, it invalidates both of them.
Soldato
Some people need jokes explained to them... some people don't. Some people need images on the internet explained to them, some people don't. Most people who don't get it would rather nod or use it for their own agenda than ask for an explanation.
That said, I don't think the image invalidates the argument at a very basic level.
Public interest is a key point of our law enforcement.
You can get a harsher sentence if enough people demand it etc.
A celebrity has more public interest
Exactly!
As a person. With functioning legs I can’t even count the amount of times a wheelchair user has been provided with a ramp or a lift while I have been thrown into a put outside the front door.
Damn those feminists
Man of Honour
Do you even realise you're now arguing that 6'3" tall is shorter than 5'1" tall? That degree of denial of reality is necessary to maintain belief in the ideology. It's downright deluded.
You're trying to pretend these two things are the same:
i) Treating individuals as individuals and assigning help on the basis of need.
ii) Doing the "they're all the same" thing, the core of all irrational prejudice, and simply being racist, sexist or whatever form of irrational prejudice a person favours.
They're not the same thing. Saying that they are is a politically useful piece of propaganda, but it's not true. If a person believes it, they're deluded. If they don't and say it anyway for propaganda reasons, they're lying.