|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 14, 2017 20:47:37 GMT
Here are some quotes from the British Government.
Now the first quote is talking about the UK Fire Brigade. I refuse to call them "service" These are the people who put out fires and rescue you from trapped cars. Basically brave as f*ck people. Now can anyone tell me why we need "diversity" to do that job? What is it about the White Male(tm) that makes it problematic to rescue an Asian child from a well? Or put out a fire in a Jewish owned house?
Now the second quote has slightly more merit, but we are talking about charities here. People who give up their time to help others are are usually unpaid. But yanno, white man bad and all that.
What the above quotes are actually saying is that we need to segregate. We need Jewish police in Jewish areas. We need Black police in black areas. Well done again Progressives for regressing us back 50 years.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Nov 14, 2017 20:56:44 GMT
I'd expect a vast majority of Caucasians in a country that is 85+% Caucasian... just more applicants. Not sure why it's as high as it is, though. 96% is pretty incredible.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 14, 2017 22:04:06 GMT
tpfkar Probably a good-ol-boy type history had something to do with it. But I'm really not following your "segregate" leap. no platforming culture
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Nov 15, 2017 12:02:04 GMT
I'd expect a vast majority of Caucasians in a country that is 85+% Caucasian... just more applicants. Not sure why it's as high as it is, though. 96% is pretty incredible. Wrong. You don’t expect half male half female. You don’t think that’s incredible. Quit clutching your pearls.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2017 12:41:57 GMT
Oftentimes, there isn't merely the suggestion that workplaces ought to be more diverse, in order to ensure that fair hiring policies are in place. It's that ethnic diversity is seen as an absolutely indispensible feature of any cohesive and even minimally competent and functional workplace. Whether that be an accountancy practice, firefighting or groundskeeping. If it's all white people, then they just won't have the first idea what it is they're meant to be doing. No matter how much training or qualifications that they have, it doesn't amount to anything productive without the magic ingredient of the right ratio of dark-pigmented individuals.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 15, 2017 14:24:44 GMT
Here are some quotes from the British Government. Now the first quote is talking about the UK Fire Brigade. I refuse to call them "service" These are the people who put out fires and rescue you from trapped cars. Basically brave as f*ck people. Now can anyone tell me why we need "diversity" to do that job? What is it about the White Male(tm) that makes it problematic to rescue an Asian child from a well? Or put out a fire in a Jewish owned house? Now the second quote has slightly more merit, but we are talking about charities here. People who give up their time to help others are are usually unpaid. But yanno, white man bad and all that. What the above quotes are actually saying is that we need to segregate. We need Jewish police in Jewish areas. We need Black police in black areas. Well done again Progressives for regressing us back 50 years. I would argue that 95% of any service being of one colour and one sex is indeed segregation - the segregation of a mostly one-sort of functioning group from the rest of much more integrated society, thereby failing to reflect it and, possibly, promoting resentment and charges of discrimination. You are right of course that we don't need a more varied service to cope well with any incident (although some instances might be best dealt with by a variety of background and experience of any sort.) But then neither do we 'need' a largely homogenous band of heroes, either. There is also a difference between wanting, say, more black police in black areas and asserting all police ought to be black in such instances, although I appreciate neither you, or those damned liberals don't say this. What you have said however is a peculiar take on what I would suggest most people would see as best practice - better integration in public services reflecting the wider society they support.
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Nov 15, 2017 17:53:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 15, 2017 20:14:37 GMT
tpfkar I'd expect a vast majority of Caucasians in a country that is 85+% Caucasian... just more applicants. Not sure why it's as high as it is, though. 96% is pretty incredible. Wrong. You don’t expect half male half female. You don’t think that’s incredible. Quit clutching your pearls.
You can learn many things from children. How much patience you have, for instance.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Nov 15, 2017 21:51:11 GMT
I remember starting a thread on the subject of diversity on the Politics board some time ago (it may have been on the old boards). Basically I wrote that it is interesting how there are two sides with completely different views on diversity, with both of them being false. The "leftist" view, so to speak, is that diversity is inherently beneficial and should be actively pursued. That is the view of the British and Canadian governments and of media institutions such as The New York Times, The Guardian, the BBC and the CBC.
The other side is the opinion by certain conservatives and of course white supremacists that diversity is inherently detrimental and that forcing it will bring about the end of civilisation (I may be exaggerating a little bit, but not much).
In my opinion both views are very wrong. Diversity is neither inherently good not inherently bad. Japan and South Korea, Tokyo and Seoul are fantastic countries/cities that have very little diversity. On the other hand London, New York, Montreal are all very diverse and are also great cities. So the lack of diversity doesn't hurt Tokyo, and the presence of diversity doesn't hurt Montreal. Is Montreal a better city now then it was 40 years ago when it was considerably less ethnically diverse? I don't think so. It was a great city then and it is a great city now.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 15, 2017 23:19:43 GMT
tpfkar I remember starting a thread on the subject of diversity on the Politics board some time ago (it may have been on the old boards). Basically I wrote that it is interesting how there are two sides with completely different views on diversity, with both of them being false. The "leftist" view, so to speak, is that diversity is inherently beneficial and should be actively pursued. That is the view of the British and Canadian governments and of media institutions such as The New York Times, The Guardian, the BBC and the CBC. The other side is the opinion by certain conservatives and of course white supremacists that diversity is inherently detrimental and that forcing it will bring about the end of civilisation (I may be exaggerating a little bit, but not much). In my opinion both views are very wrong. Diversity is neither inherently good not inherently bad. Japan and South Korea, Tokyo and Seoul are fantastic countries/cities that have very little diversity. On the other hand London, New York, Montreal are all very diverse and are also great cities. So the lack of diversity doesn't hurt Tokyo, and the presence of diversity doesn't hurt Montreal. Is Montreal a better city now then it was 40 years ago when it was considerably less ethnically diverse? I don't think so. It was a great city then and it is a great city now. I thought the "leftist" view was more about reversing the effects the long ugly history of systemic exclusion. acquitted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2017 23:56:36 GMT
Now the first quote is talking about the UK Fire Brigade. I refuse to call them "service" Why? I think you've misunderstood the argument somewhat. I don't think anybody is arguing that white people shouldn't be allowed to rescue people from wells. I think they're rather saying that rescuing people from wells is so awesome that everyone who can should get an equal chance of doing it. Huh? Nothing in the quotes said "white man bad" or anything like it. No, thats not actually what they said at all. That's something you made up.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 16, 2017 5:04:28 GMT
Now the first quote is talking about the UK Fire Brigade. I refuse to call them "service" Why? I think you've misunderstood the argument somewhat. I don't think anybody is arguing that white people shouldn't be allowed to rescue people from wells. I think they're rather saying that rescuing people from wells is so awesome that everyone who can should get an equal chance of doing it. Huh? Nothing in the quotes said "white man bad" or anything like it. No, thats not actually what they said at all. That's something you made up. Services need to reflect the communities they serve. So what ethnicity should the services be in an all Muslim area?
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 16, 2017 5:16:24 GMT
Here are some quotes from the British Government. Now the first quote is talking about the UK Fire Brigade. I refuse to call them "service" These are the people who put out fires and rescue you from trapped cars. Basically brave as f*ck people. Now can anyone tell me why we need "diversity" to do that job? What is it about the White Male(tm) that makes it problematic to rescue an Asian child from a well? Or put out a fire in a Jewish owned house? Now the second quote has slightly more merit, but we are talking about charities here. People who give up their time to help others are are usually unpaid. But yanno, white man bad and all that. What the above quotes are actually saying is that we need to segregate. We need Jewish police in Jewish areas. We need Black police in black areas. Well done again Progressives for regressing us back 50 years. I would argue that 95% of any service being of one colour and one sex is indeed segregation - the segregation of a mostly one-sort of functioning group from the rest of much more integrated society, thereby failing to reflect it and, possibly, promoting resentment and charges of discrimination. You are right of course that we don't need a more varied service to cope well with any incident (although some instances might be best dealt with by a variety of background and experience of any sort.) But then neither do we 'need' a largely homogenous band of heroes, either. There is also a difference between wanting, say, more black police in black areas and asserting all police ought to be black in such instances, although I appreciate neither you, or those damned liberals don't say this. What you have said however is a peculiar take on what I would suggest most people would see as best practice - better integration in public services reflecting the wider society they support. Well, show me anywhere that more than 5% of suitable candidates were BEM and I'll agree. Until anyone does that I'll maintain that the reason the Fire Brigade is made up of mostly white men is because its mostly white men who want jobs as firefighters. 30% of British police officers are women. Why the disparity? Are the police simply less sexist? Literally nobody is claiming that the reason 80% of teaching staff are female is a diversity issue. Nobody is saying 75% of the NHS being female is because the NHS isnt working hard enough to promote gender inclusion. 91% of teaching assistants are women, is that gender segregation in your view? Or is it simply down to who chooses to do the job? "Diversity" here simply means "less white men because reasons"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 10:12:43 GMT
Services need to reflect the communities they serve. So what ethnicity should the services be in an all Muslim area? Is there such a thing?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 16, 2017 12:56:45 GMT
show me anywhere that more than 5% of suitable candidates were BEM and I'll agree. With what will you agree? That organisations work best when they reflect the society in which they operate? This is not something you have hitherto suggested. You are, of course welcome to maintain whatever you want. One of course would then ask why women are so put off (although this is gradually changing) and is the fact that still they might be good for society? The disparity between services could be down to a number of reasons. Some of them not so good. But now you have changed your ground from the OP, which was wondering why we need diversity at all, specifically to do a job. Here, you seem to be suggesting that a lack of diversity can be explained away or, taking up that old reactionary canard, that progressive employment practices necessarily would 'discriminate against white men'. Personally I would rather a greater, more balanced inclusion of all sexes and races in every profession encouraged, where practical, for reasons already mentioned. But I guess you have your reasons to prefer different. Such notions certainly seem to exercise you in favour of the status quo.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 16, 2017 13:50:17 GMT
Services need to reflect the communities they serve. So what ethnicity should the services be in an all Muslim area? Is there such a thing? Yes, but nice deflection.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 16, 2017 13:55:22 GMT
show me anywhere that more than 5% of suitable candidates were BEM and I'll agree. With what will you agree? That organisations work best when they reflect the society in which they operate? This is not something you have hitherto suggested. You are, of course welcome to maintain whatever you want. One of course would then ask why women are so put off (although this is gradually changing) and is the fact that still they might be good for society? The disparity between services could be down to a number of reasons. Some of them not so good. But now you have changed your ground from the OP, which was wondering why we need diversity at all, specifically to do a job. Here, you seem to be suggesting that a lack of diversity can be explained away or, taking up that old reactionary canard, that progressive employment practices necessarily would 'discriminate against white men'. Personally I would rather a greater, more balanced inclusion of all sexes and races in every profession encouraged, where practical, for reasons already mentioned. But I guess you have your reasons to prefer different. Such notions certainly seem to exercise you in favour of the status quo. That the Fire Brigade is discriminatory in hiring practise. The physical, dangerous nature of firefighting? Those positions are not mutually exclusive. We don't need diversity for anything and lack of diversity can be explained. And yes, increasing diversity necessarily mean discriminating against white men.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 16, 2017 14:10:12 GMT
tpfkar Oftentimes, there isn't merely the suggestion that workplaces ought to be more diverse, in order to ensure that fair hiring policies are in place. It's that ethnic diversity is seen as an absolutely indispensible feature of any cohesive and even minimally competent and functional workplace. Whether that be an accountancy practice, firefighting or groundskeeping. If it's all white people, then they just won't have the first idea what it is they're meant to be doing. No matter how much training or qualifications that they have, it doesn't amount to anything productive without the magic ingredient of the right ratio of dark-pigmented individuals. That's a new one. Thought it was all about the previous boot and momentum keeping people out, and trying to address the effects of that. Never heard of anybody saying whiteness meant incompetence in firefighting, groundskeeping or anything else, save maybe enactment of ethnic characters and the like. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 14:19:52 GMT
tpfkar Oftentimes, there isn't merely the suggestion that workplaces ought to be more diverse, in order to ensure that fair hiring policies are in place. It's that ethnic diversity is seen as an absolutely indispensible feature of any cohesive and even minimally competent and functional workplace. Whether that be an accountancy practice, firefighting or groundskeeping. If it's all white people, then they just won't have the first idea what it is they're meant to be doing. No matter how much training or qualifications that they have, it doesn't amount to anything productive without the magic ingredient of the right ratio of dark-pigmented individuals. That's a new one. Thought it was all about the previous boot and momentum keeping people out, and trying to address the effects of that. Never heard of anybody saying whiteness meant incompetence in firefighting, groundskeeping or anything else, save maybe enactment of ethnic characters and the like. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.The current fashion is to state that a committee or group of all white people (especially if all heterosexual and all male) are too congenitally 'boring' by reason of their combined lack of cultural diversity, to be capable of achieving a high standard of performance in the workplace. Or in universities, nobody will learn anything unless they have some brown people in robes to look at. This is used to justify having ethnic quotas for university admissions. By the admission of the universities themselves, it's being done more for the sake of campus culture than to redress social injustice. See university of Michigan, for example.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 16, 2017 14:24:12 GMT
With what will you agree? With what will you agree? Thor: That the Fire Brigade is discriminatory in hiring practise. Well then this is not in line with what you maintained earlier, that "the reason the Fire Brigade is made up of mostly white men is because its mostly white men who want jobs as firefighters.". And it does not represent my position either, which was, that that 95% of any service being of one colour and one sex is indeed segregation ... of a mostly homogenous group from the rest of much more integrated society. I have never said that the Fire Brigade, or any other service come to that, explicitly discriminates. For one thing it would be open to legal action. Finally, if the fire service is mostly white and male as you say, then how can it be said to discriminate against white men? By still allowing in a few, token, others? Perhaps to be sure to eliminate all discrimination in this respect we best have this service only white and male... Such considerations have not stopped women now being considered and placed by the army on the front line. But I guess it would be much more preferable to keep the helpless, non-physicals darlings safe, womanly and at home if we can. We don't need diversity for anything and it discriminates against white men. Got it. LOL
|
|