|
Post by Vegas on Jul 27, 2017 10:46:51 GMT
I'm sure you impress, well, Erjen...maybe. As much Cine-d**k as you've tried to suck in this thread.... You don't get to say anything about impressing others.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 27, 2017 10:48:44 GMT
I'm sure you impress, well, Erjen...maybe. As much Cine-d**k as you've tried to suck in this thread.... You don't get to say anything about impressing others. Have you ever wondered what life would be like if your brain actually functioned? But I guess in your condition it's actually impossible to wonder about anything.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 27, 2017 10:54:09 GMT
As much Cine-d**k as you've tried to suck in this thread.... You don't get to say anything about impressing others. Have you ever wondered what life would be like if your brain actually functioned? But I guess in your condition it's actually impossible to wonder about anything. Have you ever wondered what it would be like if you had a life?
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 27, 2017 10:59:59 GMT
Have you ever wondered what life would be like if your brain actually functioned? But I guess in your condition it's actually impossible to wonder about anything. Have you ever wondered what it would be like if you had a life? Goddamn, you went beyond Vegas-level all the way to Blade-level.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 27, 2017 11:04:02 GMT
Take any of the top male earners and explain why any female or BEM should be earning more. You keep avoiding this because you have no answer. Your attempt to imply racism and sexism in my question is just a deflection.
I have already made answer to this point. Considering one out of many (and the most extreme example at that) does not account for the disparity of treatment over all - a state of affairs made quite clear by the new transparency at the BBC which even you do not deny, so: QED. But I am sure you can really see this obvious point by now.
Here's the thing: the argument against any effective discrimination based on an individual which you cling to, that 'Evans is worth it', is not a real (i.e. proportionate) answer to the general query as to 'why are so few women and ethnics equally present in the top levels of pay at the BBC?' Unless, of course, one argues that the reason why white men generally are paid more than women and ethnics within the same company, especially when such cases make up the vast majority, is because they are all 'just happen' to be worth more than less fortunate colleagues. But it appears you must carry it over, at least to be consistent by way of explanation; i.e. what's good enough to justify an Evans must be applied using the same logic, all the way down the line. The trouble is, away from a single unique example, the argument becomes more and more stretched, until eventually the confirmation bias required becomes unavoidable Which again implies that no women or ethnics could be the equivalent of the top earning white males who make up the majority top earners at the BBC. Which sounds dubious. So the glaring imbalances at the BBC over the range of top earners 'just happens' to look bad now (and from your next answer, it appears this is so)? Or are you admitting by this comparison that the opportunities for women and ethnics are indeed discriminatory? I am pleased though that you recognise the likely effect on women's pay by some positive discrimination within the entertainment industry. I see; so then it appears that things are this way 'just now' lol then... and so presumably, in the past women and ethnics have had it much more all their own way? Really? Since we know now Winkleman, notable as being the only woman in the top ten earners list, is there 'just for now', it appears so you have already answered your own question to your own satisfaction. Already covered, this point of false comparison, especially when I much earlier have already accepted the status of a unique talent - but thanks. Which is why I chose two quotes and references which specifically mention 'pay gap'. See how this works? Yes thanks; I have heard the special pleading before, re: earnings. But this does not apply when we consider differing salaries for the same job.. the pay gap. (And who ought I place most weight with? Some guy on a message board or a professional research company and a government committee?) The gap at the BBC for instance is that between salaries, where white men nearly always seem to be paid the most - not earnings.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 27, 2017 11:05:52 GMT
Have you ever wondered what it would be like if you had a life? Goddamn, you went beyond Vegas-level all the way to Blade-level. Maybe if you mention a few other posters that you know have a following of haters... maybe somebody will show up to join you and give you affirmations . Just maaaaaaybe. Next time: Try to have a point. Me endlessly making fun of your mongoloid ass based on nothing but your meaningless insults is getting rather boring.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 27, 2017 11:10:16 GMT
Goddamn, you went beyond Vegas-level all the way to Blade-level. Maybe if you mention a few other posters that you know have a following of haters... maybe somebody will show up to join you and give you affirmations . Just maaaaaaybe. Next time: Try to have a point. Me endlessly making fun of your mongoloid ass based on nothing but your meaningless insults is getting rather boring. I almost forgot that Vegas World = Opposite World. You impotent little shitstain, no matter how much you try to pretend it doesn't bother you, you already know that you are the board's laughingstock and it eats away at you. Your defensive reactions are so transparent even you should be able to see it. Now go have a good cry.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 27, 2017 11:16:23 GMT
Maybe if you mention a few other posters that you know have a following of haters... maybe somebody will show up to join you and give you affirmations . Just maaaaaaybe. Next time: Try to have a point. Me endlessly making fun of your mongoloid ass based on nothing but your meaningless insults is getting rather boring. I almost forgot that Vegas World = Opposite World. You impotent little shitstain, no matter how much you try to pretend it doesn't bother you, you already know that you are the board's laughingstock and it eats away at you. Your defensive reactions are so transparent even you should be able to see it. Now go have a good cry. Dude... you and a few of your blow-buddies does not mean "the board".... and it is just really sooo sad and pathetic that you think that it is.. and anyone with two good eyes should be able to see it. But, at the very least, you tried to make a point... You get a "B" for effort. Who's a good boy? Whoooo's a good boy? You are! Yes, you are!!... Now, let's go outside so you can poop. Good boy! EDIT: Hey! I've got a great idea!! Why don't you create some more sock accounts so you can try to beat me for the "Funniest Poster" Award again.... How'd that turn out last time? Pathetic loser.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 27, 2017 18:31:35 GMT
Yes, it should. However:
Privilege: "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people"
One group has the advantage. The privilege. The immunity to the group-wide treatment suffered by the other. I'm generally past arguing the validity of the semantics (which pale to the import of the topic of the treatment of human beings) because I care less about the feelings of the ones with the advantage and how they think it should be expressed, but I don't think we've ever had the exchange so its worth quoting the relevance of the word in question.
It's unrelated to the notion of having "made it". Its advantages granted one group over another.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 27, 2017 18:35:31 GMT
I never said that. I believe all should be treated well. The problem wouldn't be that I'm treated fairly, it would be that some aren't. It should be seen as a right to be treated fairly, not a privilege. It shouldn't be seen as you have it made if you aren't abused. Holy shit! That's a Vegas-level misunderstanding of the topic. Don't do him/her that disservice - he/she would need to grasp at the semantics over the actual topic for years in order to achieve that level of ineptitude. Don't miss his comparison of the systemic treatment of a group of people with the random outcome of a car crash, btw. Another milestone. Edit: man, the rage. Like an angry, drunken moth flitting around the light bulb of rational conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 27, 2017 18:46:09 GMT
Holy shit! That's a Vegas-level misunderstanding of the topic. Don't do him/her that disservice - he/she would need to grasp at the semantics over the actual topic for years in order to achieve that level of ineptitude. Don't miss his comparison of the systemic treatment of a group of people with the random outcome of a car crash, btw. Another milestone. Edit: man, the rage. Like an angry, drunken moth flitting around the light bulb of rational conversation. See, Cash... Cine is here to make you feel aaaaaawwwwl bedder. Fake Edit: You can convince yourself of anything.... "Rage"
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 27, 2017 21:25:33 GMT
Chris Evans in 2016 was hosting the BBC 2 Breakfast Show, the daily flagship of BBC Radio. Which is pretty much the most popular radio program around, accounting for 60% of the channels listeners. He was also under contract as Top Gears main host. Top Gear being the BBCs most profitable export. A lot of these presenters are popular due in part to long-term exposure, as they become "icons" of a sort that people are accustomed to and tune into. How many opportunities / how much promotion did he get over the years as opposed to others / other types of people? Their current draw is less relevant than the current lopsidedness and the chicken/egg of what led to it.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 27, 2017 23:41:27 GMT
FilmFlaneur The "Top Earners" are all on screen or radio talent. How do you not understand that unless you can advance any female or BEM talent that should be on that list, your argument has zero merit. You are simply saying that the BBC employs both men and women so they should be be top earners, without actually looking at why the top earners get what they do. Evans and Norton are worth far more commercially to the BBC than Tess Daly or Andrew Marr, which is why they get paid more. You show that there are women worth as much, who host the same amount of high profile programs but get paid significantly less and I'll concede your point. Do you not understand how a free market economy works? The people at the top are there because they are worth that amount.Its exactly the same reason Johansson was paid more than Evans for Winter Soldier, but that example wouldn't bother you because a woman was at the top. Again, for the upmteenth time, which women at he BBC should be in the top earners? You have had ample chance to answer this and won't. No it simply doesn't. Your inference says more about your politics than anything else. If Jenifer Lawrence was cast as the 14th Doctor, then she would absolutely deserve a massive salary. I'm simply saying that currently no women or BEM working at the BBC can command the top salaries because none of them have the commercial value to do so. Lets look at the highest paid women at the BBC Lacey Turner, Clare Balding, Letitia Dean, Tameka Empson Emilia Fox, Rosie Marcel, Danni Minogue Amanda Mealing, Zoe Ball Sue Barker, Lauren Laverne Vanessa Feltz, Fiona Bruce, Tess Daly Alex Jones Claudia Winkleman Feel free to demonstrate which of these deserve should be higher than any of the men above them based on their value to the company that employs them. Nothing is stopping them except their own talent or work ethic, its that simple. The BBC is the most overtly PC, pandering, lefty social justice based company I have ever come across. The idea that a company that spent a reported £100,000,000 on "diversity" is limiting salaries and opportunities for minorities and women to favour white men is just laughable. The BBC operates in a free market, they pay people what they are worth. That isn't what I said, straw men are what I expect from the likes of Rabbit. Having fun beating those strawmen? How about you answer the question? And here is another, why does Winkleman get more than co host Tess Daly? Except it is actully talking about earnings. "Pay Gap" is the term used and in every instance I have seen it talks about earnings, not pay, including the study you mention. Yes. It does. Because. Even the study you mention is talking about earnings. The BBC report is earnings, because it is the total paid to the stars, which is why Evans is so high, because he is paid for his radio show and was paid for Top Gear. Norton was paid for his own show, his radio show and his other presenting credits. This again is fake outrage because people simply don't understand the reasons for the figures. Dan Walker and Louise Minchin are both paid the same for their jobs on Breakfast, but Walker is higher on the list because he also works on Football focus. Is that unfair somehow?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 28, 2017 1:45:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 28, 2017 3:58:59 GMT
Don't miss his comparison of the systemic treatment of a group of people with the random outcome of a car crash, btw. Another milestone. Well.. Since the bald cumtwat has mentioned this story more times than Trump mentions his own name... a story/metaphor that was posted for 20 seconds mind you... I suppose I'll repost it so other people can judge for themselves how much of a "milestone" this is... Bare in mind that this was in response to Cine insinuating that another poster wasn't concerned with racial disparity and treatment because he questioned useless "privilege"... The point, O moron of morons, isn't to compare how similar car crashes are like racial disparity.. It's to show that you are kinda like the you in the story.. an a**hole who is faaaar too concerned with the frame of mind of the guy less affected by the crash. That, and the other poster doesn't have to acknowledge your bullsh*t for him to be concerned with the welfare of his friend. But.. you're an a**hat who'd rather focus on every wrong aspect of everything.. because that's just who you are.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 28, 2017 12:26:12 GMT
The "Top Earners" are all on screen or radio talent. How do you not understand that unless you can advance any female or BEM talent that should be on that list, your argument has zero merit. You are simply saying that the BBC employs both men and women so they should be be top earners, without actually looking at why the top earners get what they do. Evans and Norton are worth far more commercially to the BBC than Tess Daly or Andrew Marr, which is why they get paid more. You show that there are women worth as much, who host the same amount of high profile programs but get paid significantly less and I'll concede your point. Nice try; but it all sounds like more special pleading for the obvious overall imbalance between the salaries of white men and the rest at the BBC. We all know why the utmost top earners get paid for what they do as an arguable exception, and (here) one accepts that they presumably represent good market value. But the idea that mostly white men 'just happen' to come out as the overall majority in a such a group, especially over such a number of employees, because they are always worth more does not convince. And, once again you evade the obvious issue of overall inequality while implying that no woman or ethnic worker can possibly be, or is worth, equal representation at the top end. Which sounds bad. Once again I can only repeat that the implication that practically all women and ethnics are 'just not worth as much' as the overwhelming amount of white men making up the top earning group here is unfortunate and, to be honest, can be considered slightly shameful. (Just a reminder: of the high-priced talent there are twenty four listed who earned over three hundred thousand; of those only seven were women. Only 2 appear in the top 14. The overall gender pay gap, admits the BBC is 10% Ethnic talent? Worse ) Since you on case-by-case comparisons though: do you think it is OK that News anchor Huw Edwards is paid over 550,000 pounds, some 200,000 pounds more than Fiona Bruce, who does much the same job? What makes John Humphries worth so much than the many female alternatives?
Ah, the "the disadvantaged and discriminated against have nothing to blame but themselves" trope. I hadn't heard that yet. It is good though that you are casting about for more reasons to explain the obvious, even when you alight on something so regressive.
You are naturally entitled to your opinion. But the disclosure of the pay structure would seem to argue the opposite and that the 'pandering' you see is, it turns out, just lip service. But I certainly agree the overall disparity between the races and sexes, special consideration being allowed for 'superstar salaries', is indeed ... laughable. But one doubts the BBC will be laughing when the class action hits the courts and when the contracts for the less-well paids among the group come up for renegotiation. So, by and large, besides it being their fault, now women and ethnics are also 'just not worth' as much as white men? Got it. It would have saved time if you had said this immediately instead of first trying the other arguments as you have. It was you who said above that "the argument would be that currently, the people worth the most to the BBC are white males." was it not? This would imply that things might be different or have been different when not so 'currently' considered. Do you actually believe this? This is a false comparison since we are considering the obvious imbalance between white men and the rest amongst the top earners at the BBC. One imagines however the relative distance between the salaries of the top 9 men and the top nine women would be equitable, which is where you ought to be paying attention. The argument at the BBC is about the perceived salary gap overall. Sorry, but there it is. As we can see from some recent coverage - in which by the way, just as you just did, an effort is made (by a privileged white male, obviously) to place the fault for discrimination and poorer treatment at the door of those employees who suffer under inequity.
And even if we accept your interpretation there is still no justification for women (and we still have the issue with ethnic employees pay, don't forget) to earn less than men as an overall condition at the BBC, even when one factors in the 'time off for babies' argument for some of them. Sometimes one just has to accept that institutional 'soft' discrimination exists and move to address it rather than thinking of excuses and doing nothing. So good luck to Jane Garvey and the rest if their action comes to court.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 28, 2017 13:21:10 GMT
Yes, it should. However: Privilege: "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people" You forgot to highlight the word " special"... Being treated in the normal manner that you should be treated isn't spec.... You know what? F**k it.. You're a moron. Next point: Then, you are the wrong person to be having these discussions.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 28, 2017 13:49:25 GMT
Yes, it should. However: Privilege: "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people" You forgot to highlight the word " special"... Being treated in the normal manner that you should be treated isn't spec.... You know what? F**k it.. You're a moron. Next point: Then, you are the wrong person to be having these discussions. I agree that being treated how someone ought to be treated should not be considered 'special'. Very important word that can't rightly be ignored.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 28, 2017 13:55:12 GMT
Two guys are in a car accident.... One is seriously injured, the other receiving only minor injuries... The less wounded tries to help his friend by trying to stop the bleeding.. Cine is in the sidewalk and yells " BOY! YOU SURE ARE LUCKY THAT YOU'RE NOT AS HURT AS YOUR FRIEND THERE!" "I don't care about that right now... Help me help my friend!""AREN'T YOU AWARE HOW MUCH LUCKIER YOU ARE THAN HE IS?"
" Help me stop the bleeding!!"
"AREN'T YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE DISPARITY BETWEEN YOUR INJURIES?"
" Shut up and call 9-1-1!"" NOT UNTIL YOU REALIZE HOW PRIVILIGED YOU ARE NOT TO BE AS HURT AS THE OTHER GUY IS!"You actually posted this bit of vags logic? More than once? I took a boat from Africa. Your granddad says "Hi".
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 28, 2017 15:53:25 GMT
FilmFlaneur And yet after all this time you cannot offer a single example of any non white male you think should be amongst the top earners. I don't know if this is dishonesty on your part or simple misunderstanding, but I am beginning to suspect he former. In the NBA 19 of the top earning players are black. I contend that these people earn what they do because of their value, both in commercial terms and talent wise. OMG, am I saying that white people CAN'T possibly be worth as much as black NBA players? I mean over 20% of NBA players are white, but only 10% of the top earners are. There must be a conspiracy to favour black people, not a system that rewards talent, hardwork and value.... Of the ten highest paid footballers, none are black. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that you would consider the NBA not a problem, but Football a problem. Are you going to be logically consistent and apply your argument to to the NBA and conclude it discriminates against white people? Huw Edwards presented more in that pay period than Fiona Bruce and has five years more service as well as multiple awards which Bruce does not. So should doing more work, industry recognition and length of service not play a role in earnings? Bullshit. The England National Football squad is 33% black, despite black Britons being around 3% of the population. There are no British Asians represented despite being about 5% of the British population. Is the FA super progressive for blacks, but really racist against Asians? Do you have a problem with the massive over representation of black people in England's national sports? Raheem Sterling is the second highest paid English footballer. Or is it that the black people playing for England are there on merit and no Asians are there because they simply aren't good enough? OMG, did I just say Asians can NEVER be good enough to play for England? And you know what? IF an England side took to the field with no black players, people like you would scream to the heavens about "muh racism" while ignoring the times that black people are so obviously well represented. You have a selective bias that ignores the individual and only sees skin colour. So banning white male applicants from jobs and spending £100m is lip service? And the "Class Action" will either not happen or will get nothing. Contract renegotiations fine, if women want to push for more money, all power to them, because ultimately this is what this is about. They haven't been treated unfairly but can use this as leverage. And notice the noise is only coming from women? Ah and there it is, the reason you cannot understand this. No, Chris Evans is worth more than Trevor Nelson, there race isn't relevant. I did not say "White Men" are worth more than "Women or BEMS" I said the people at the top who happen to be white men are worth more than other people who happen not to be white men. And you will now spin that as "oh, just happens...." So tell me, which woman or BEM should be paid more than the top earners? Another question you won't answer. Do you think the top earners at teh BBC are paid as much as they are because they are white men? Did I ever say that things were better for women or BEMS in the past? No. Could that change in the future? Yes. Trevor Macdonald earned over £600k at the BBC, making him the highest paid News presenter. Was that an issue? Except it isn't, because if Tess Daly's co host was a white man and was earning more you would consider it a problem. You fail to accept the individual. Winbkelman earns more than Daly for the same reason Norton earns more than Winkelman. Bollocks, you've not shown any inequality. You just spectacularly ignored the fact that Walker earns more because he does more work. IF Walker is higher on the list than his female co host because he presents two programs and she only presents one, how is that in any way a representation of inequality? Again, the list represents what the people earned.....doing more work on more programs increases earnings....this isn't rocket science. Working on higher profile shows increase earnings. Being commercially valuable, increases earnings. Name recognition increases peoples earnings. Length or service increases earnings. You've failed to make any case for any individual who is female or BEM being higher on that list, nor shown and presenter who is being discriminated against. You have simply pointed at people and sias "But they are white men!!!!111!!!" That isn't an argument. [/quote]
|
|