So, what is this going to achieve then?

There is racism on all sides, some more extreme that others.. But it's not the majority of people. Most people just want to be able to get on and live and the equality/equity argument makes sense there.

Unfortunately some people want to have 'power' beyond the average. These people / groups (as well as people just out to cause trouble) are those who seed social media with the controversial propaganda, that is then spread.

Unless social media is removed (not going to happen) or everyone starts using scientific method / evidence (also not going to happen) this won't end. Even if racism in general was completely eradicated, there would be groups seeding hatred against other groups.

helpimcrap said:
I am not my history, so let's learn from it.
Click to expand...

This is critical. Everyone needs to work on ensuring the future is a better place - not try to change the past.
 
Issues like racism could not exist if "good" people remain silent. Whilst isolated symbolic gestures do not accomplish much by themselves, hopefully it makes people discuss and think of the issues as well as their responses to them.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke.
 
So I'm a bit late on this Raab "take the knee" thing.

I take it that people who don't understand the history and difference between "taking the knee" and "kneeling" (like Raab) are get all hot under the collar about not wanting to feel threatened and subjugated by virtue signalling lefties when in fact their own ignorance is doing that job for them in plain view?

Raab is a total ****. You don't "take the knee" for the missus or the Queen. What an idiotic thing to think. What a know-nothing twerp. You kneel for them. Don't be like him.
 
My comment got deleted because I called out the person who implied that it's OK for black people not to be hired because they are "hassle" as a racist.

Care to explain this one? If anything, the poster (@Nasher) should have his post censored and if anything he ought to be suspended for these views.
 
Ahleckz said:
My comment got deleted because I called out the person who implied that it's OK for black people not to be hired because they are "hassle" as a racist.

Care to explain this one? If anything, the poster (@Nasher) should have his post censored and if anything he ought to be suspended for these views.
Click to expand...

How did he imply it's okay? He stated something that might or does happen, he didn't say he's on board with it. Jesus christ.
 
Roar87 said:
How did he imply it's okay? He stated something that might or does happen, he didn't say he's on board with it. Jesus christ.
Click to expand...

because they see the news and don't want to have to deal with that kind of hassle themselves
Click to expand...

It's quite obvious that his suggesting is that black people, in what he has seen in the news, are a hassle or creating a hassle. I wouldn't say that the calling for equal rights, opportunities and not to be murdered by police officers is a hassle. Only someone with overtly racist views would think this. Ergo, he's a racist.
 
Ahleckz said:
It's quite obvious that his suggesting is that black people, in what he has seen in the news, are a hassle or creating a hassle. I wouldn't say that the calling for equal rights, opportunities and not to be murdered by police officers is a hassle. Only someone with overtly racist views would think this. Ergo, he's a racist.
Click to expand...

People don't want to be in a position where they might need to let go of someone for something perfectly reasonable only to have them to turn round and accuse the company or manager of being racist/sexist. You do realise that managers are accused of being racist or sexist because they fired a staff member for legitimate reasons? That does happen. Who do you hire, the purple haired trans feminist or the white male? Even if you have absolutely no issues with trans people or feminists, if you want an easy life you just go with the latter, absolute no brainer. You aren't going to be accused of discrimination if you don't give a bloke a promotion in 2 years time because they weren't as good in the interview or something. I'm not saying I agree with that, but realistically these are things that will be in the back of people's minds.
 
Roar87 said:
People don't want to be in a position where they might need to let go of someone for something perfectly reasonable only to have them to turn round and accuse the company or manager of being racist/sexist. You do realise that managers are accused of being racist or sexist because they fired a staff member for legitimate reasons? That does happen. Who do you hire, the purple haired trans feminist or the white male? Even if you have absolutely no issues with trans people or feminists, if you want an easy life you just go with the latter, absolute no brainer. You aren't going to be accused of discrimination if you don't give a bloke a promotion in 2 years time because they weren't as good in the interview or something. I'm not saying I agree with that, but realistically these are things that will be in the back of people's minds.
Click to expand...

No you don't, you hire the best fit for the role and the business. You saying you would hire the white man, over the trans person because of your internal prejudice and bias is wrong. Change the purple haired trans feminist to a black man, as per Nasher's view, then you are a racist.

I agree with you, that these things happen and are at the back of racists minds. But we need to change that.
 
There are an awful lot of people about, who aren't racist/sexist/phobic but who conform to racist/sexist/phobic behaviours because they're common and want an easy life. The idea that BAME/women/LGBQT are "trouble" is self perpetuating one. There's nothing inherent about them that makes them more likely to troublesome than the likelihood of someone making trouble for them.

This is what's meant when people say it's not good enough to not be racist, you should be anti-racist.
 
Ahleckz said:
No you don't, you hire the best fit for the role and the business. You saying you would hire the white man, over the trans person because of your internal prejudice and bias is wrong. Change the purple haired trans feminist to a black man, as per Nasher's view, then you are a racist.

I agree with you, that these things happen and are at the back of racists minds. But we need to change that.
Click to expand...

You keep making out as if posters citing examples of what could happen is what they will personally do or feel, I don't get it. I explained reasons why hiring a black person or a trans person may be more problematic due to accusations of prejudice, that's all. That is not down to racism or transphobia, it is down to wanting an easy life. If someone is **** at their job, you want to be able to sack them without a letter coming through your door from a solicitor accusing you of being racist or whatever.
 
Newbie007 said:
What is being 'anti-racist'?
Click to expand...

I've just explained it.

It's about as an individual, making calls and judgements that may not preserve the status quo, for example thinking "I won't hire the black fella, he's more likely to attract unwanted trouble". That's easily dismissed as not being "racist" because race wasn't the negative, it's the trouble element.

It's like parents saying "don't hang out with the black kids", whilst considering that as a way of reducing the risk of their kids getting into trouble, rather than them not wanting to hang out with the black kids because they're black. They might argue there that "don't hang out with the black kids", though explicitly racist, isn't racist at all.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
You keep making out as if posters citing examples of what could happen is what they will personally do or feel, I don't get it. I explained reasons why hiring a black person or a trans person may be more problematic due to accusations of prejudice, that's all. That is not down to racism or transphobia, it is down to wanting an easy life. If someone is **** at their job, you want to be able to sack them without a letter coming through your door from a solicitor accusing you of being racist or whatever.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a good example of how people who are not (or don't consider themselves to be racist) end up contributing to institutionally racist/sexist/phobic outcomes and perpetuate racism as normal within society.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
You keep making out as if posters citing examples of what could happen is what they will personally do or feel, I don't get it. I explained reasons why hiring a black person or a trans person may be more problematic due to accusations of prejudice, that's all. That is not down to racism or transphobia, it is down to wanting an easy life. If someone is **** at their job, you want to be able to sack them without a letter coming through your door from a solicitor accusing you of being racist or whatever.
Click to expand...

Of course it's down to racism. You aren't hiring the black person, as you (wrongly) think that they are going to create hassle. When realistically, they just want to work, enjoy their work and provide for themselves and family. You have made a conscious decision not to employ someone based entirely on race and some bizarre view that people of that race are hassle when compared to someone of your own race. You are making a decision and treating someone differently (negatively in this case) due to their skin colour. How is that not racism? It's literally the definition.

(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.
Click to expand...

The Equality Act 2010.
 
Ahleckz said:
Of course it's down to racism. You aren't hiring the black person, as you (wrongly) think that they are going to create hassle. When realistically, they just want to work, enjoy their work and provide for themselves and family. You have made a conscious decision not to employ someone based entirely on race and some bizarre view that people of that race are hassle when compared to someone of your own race. You are making a decision and treating someone differently (negatively in this case) due to their skin colour. How is that not racism? It's literally the definition.
Click to expand...

He's arguing though, that it's not race that's his issue, it's the "hassle". Loads of people (if not most people) are like this and don't consider these attitudes racist, just pragmatic.

We've come a long way. It used to be normal say for example, for a landlord of a pub to bar black people on the grounds that their punters didn't like it. Now it's normal for landlords of pubs to bar folk that object to black people being in their pubs. That's an example of how legislation can force people to behave in a different way to just being "pragmatic".

It's far more difficult in the workplace and in general society though as these attitudes are insidious and pretty much all pervasive.
 
Last edited:
Ahleckz said:
Of course it's down to racism. You aren't hiring the black person, as you (wrongly) think that they are going to create hassle. When realistically, they just want to work, enjoy their work and provide for themselves and family. You have made a conscious decision not to employ someone based entirely on race and some bizarre view that people of that race are hassle when compared to someone of your own race. You are making a decision and treating someone differently (negatively in this case) due to their skin colour. How is that not racism? It's literally the definition.
Click to expand...

I don't have that view. I've said there is the potential for litigation from people based on their ethnicity or other protected characteristic that doesn't exist for a white male for example. There can be severe reputational and financial consequences to companies who are accused of racism, even when that allegation is false.
 
Roar87 said:
I don't have that view. I've said there is the potential for litigation from people based on their ethnicity or other protected characteristic that doesn't exist for a white male for example. There can be severe reputational and financial consequences to companies who are accused of racism, even when that allegation is false.
Click to expand...

Better not hire any of them darkies then eh?

At least until the threat of litigation from functional diversity legislation evens that up.
 
inogen said:
Better not hire any of them darkies then eh?

At least until the threat of litigation from functional diversity legislation evens that up.
Click to expand...

That could be a view that some people seriously take with how severe the repercussions are if you're merely accused of racism. Based on this thread and how readily those accusations are thrown it seems understandable.
 
Roar87 said:
That could be a view that some people seriously take with how severe the repercussions are if you're merely accused of racism. Based on this thread and how readily those accusations are thrown it seems understandable.
Click to expand...

So people calling out racism where they see it, makes people more likely to act in a racially discriminatory way?

That's that sewn up then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom