|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 20, 2017 16:04:36 GMT
@thorhairspray A company, while claiming to be inclusive of any minority, although not actually recruiting for any from that group, is just being mealy-mouthed around what is de facto, discrimination. It is doubtful that it is a defence that would stand in court, at least where the company's defence is that it just "does not actively seek to recruit more" of any minority with equal claims to employment. It is not just experience, as the summing up of the advantages of diversity makes clear: "When your workplace is home to a diverse group of individuals from different backgrounds and experiences, your company can more effectively market to all groups of consumers, from a wide range of racial and ethnic backgrounds". There can, of course, be cultural and sexual backgrounds. Selective reading noted. Which just means that ideas can be found from any appropriate source. So what? Really Thor, such links advocating and describing the advantages of diversity are really not that hard to find. EG www.forbes.com/sites/ekaterinawalter/2014/01/14/reaping-the-benefits-of-diversity-for-modern-business-innovation/ It's finding any of those repeating your peculiar idea that, actually, "diversity is good for nothing" and "discriminates against white men" that's slightly more of a problem. Something you haven't managed yet. Er, didn't I just list two appropriate examples from the UK and American Fire services which came from '78 and '82? I think I did, lol. Guess you didn't read the relevant paragraph after all, then... I have never said that women would not make personal choices in this regard. The point is more that they increasingly do make decisions to join those previously mostly unavailable professions, EG the Fire Service (since that was your initial fret), once official obstacles have been removed. That's a truth you can wriggle about with, but just can't avoid. Even though all those poor old white men are implicitly 'discriminated against' by any increased diversity.. Was it not the case that you have been insisting hitherto that "not good for anything" diversity necessarily means "discrimination against white men"? My use of the word 'underprivileged', needless to say, was ironic. I never said it would be. What would be discriminatory would be women (or any minority) being unable to join as a rule or through implicit discrimination (men thinking say that women are 'scared of danger' or are 'too weak'). Years ago such objections were made about a whole host of professions 'not being suitable for woman'. Things, since have moved on somewhat. For some of us. This, one notes is the first time such a thing has been mentioned by you. But for your information, as a general rule, “positive discrimination” is prohibited in employment, at least in the UK. I thought you might have known that. In contrast, “positive action” is permitted - and may even be required in certain circumstances. I hope that helps. The Daily Mail and other right wing commentators might not like the fact that such a difference exists, and can be differentiated, but it does. And ...this latest distraction noted. I'm not arguing with what you didn't say. I wonder why you mention these things as if I did. So something which is "not good for anything" in a workplace would not a be disadvantage when in operation, then? I see. Please note that I did not say that I was necessarily right because of what the majority opinion is, just that my view is one shared by many others (as against hardly any I can find from those arguing against diversity per se as 'discriminatory' or 'good for nothing'). But: perhaps you do not agree that plenty of people recognise the extra things a diverse recruitment (not just considering race - which appears your particular bête noir) can bring to a business? That the word is all negative? No, I don't think so, either... Where have I 'lied', Thor? I hope this does not mean you are starting up with personal attacks. Such things are not arguments. Not you personally, my friend; I am sure that in your white male bastion you are an essential cog.. But in your last post you did, helpfully, point out how educationally under-performing white guys can be, maybe with lower IQs.. Who, given a choice, would want to employ such dunces, or keep them on? You see one obvious advantage of a diverse workforce is always being able to pick from the brightest and best, no matter who they are. And sometimes yes, a homogenous older workforce has to move over for new, more enlightened practices towards minorities (such as the struggle for women's employment and pay rights in the British Car industry a few decades back, up against the entrenched men in unions and management, dramatized in Made in Dagenham, 2010 for those interested) Wrong again: Enlisted women made, or make up 2.7% of the US military's front-line units. Women were barred from the infantry, but were allowed to serve on gun crews, air crews and in seamanship specialties. Among officers, women represented 5.4% of those involved in "tactical operations." Despite the previous official ban on combat, women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan often found themselves engaged in firefights. Women made up 67 of the nearly 3,500 Americans lost in hostile fire in Iraq and 33 of the 1,700-plus killed in combat in Afghanistan; more than 600 others in Iraq and 300 in Afghanistan were wounded.
But of course all of the above is just another distraction, since the dispute is over women feeling they are capable to do 'physical' and 'dangerous' job, not the best, or existing, levels for participation. Clearly they are managing just fine, once allowed the opportunities.
That's the point really; one cannot aim for the best people employed without necessarily drawing from the whole range of population, and thus ending up with a more diverse staffing. Unless, of course, one thinks the most worthy candidates are always only possible from white males for instance. Yes, Thor. That would be one of the advantages of diversity you were asking for - that variety in selection, reflected in workplace diversity, ultimately answers your own call for having the best possible workforce. But you've been told the obvious before.
Exactly my friend! And that is why diversity should reflect that: different individuals, all sorts of people, working to better themselves - and not owing any advance, or lack of it, to the social, sexual or racial privileges and advantages of one hitherto dominant group. Just as you here say And, if it takes positive action policies, or legalities, to force the matter, all well and good, though I am still not saying that every attempt promoting diversity will work out for the best. But still, QED then. I thank you, and it's good night from me on this thread. The rest of your (over-lengthy) reply really now becomes moot.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 20, 2017 23:32:09 GMT
@thorhairspray A company, while claiming to be inclusive of any minority, although not actually recruiting for any from that group, is just being mealy-mouthed around what is de facto, discrimination. It is doubtful that it is a defence that would stand in court, at least where the company's defence is that it just "does not actively seek to recruit more" of any minority with equal claims to employment. It is not just experience, as the summing up of the advantages of diversity makes clear: "When your workplace is home to a diverse group of individuals from different backgrounds and experiences, your company can more effectively market to all groups of consumers, from a wide range of racial and ethnic backgrounds". There can, of course, be cultural and sexual backgrounds. Selective reading noted. Which just means that ideas can be found from any appropriate source. So what? Really Thor, such links advocating and describing the advantages of diversity are really not that hard to find. EG www.forbes.com/sites/ekaterinawalter/2014/01/14/reaping-the-benefits-of-diversity-for-modern-business-innovation/It's finding any of those repeating your peculiar idea that, actually, "diversity is good for nothing" and "discriminates against white men" that's slightly more of a problem. Something you haven't managed yet. Er, didn't I just list two appropriate examples from the UK and American Fire services which came from '78 and '82? I think I did, lol. Guess you didn't read the relevant paragraph after all, then... I have never said that women would not make personal choices in this regard. The point is more that they increasingly do make decisions to join those previously mostly unavailable professions, EG the Fire Service (since that was your initial fret), once official obstacles have been removed. That's a truth you can wriggle about with, but just can't avoid. Even though all those poor old white men are implicitly 'discriminated against' by any increased diversity.. Was it not the case that you have been insisting hitherto that "not good for anything" diversity necessarily means "discrimination against white men"? My use of the word 'underprivileged', needless to say, was ironic. I never said it would be. What would be discriminatory would be women (or any minority) being unable to join as a rule or through implicit discrimination (men thinking say that women are 'scared of danger' or are 'too weak'). Years ago such objections were made about a whole host of professions 'not being suitable for woman'. Things, since have moved on somewhat. For some of us. This, one notes is the first time such a thing has been mentioned by you. But for your information, as a general rule, “positive discrimination” is prohibited in employment, at least in the UK. I thought you might have known that. In contrast, “positive action” is permitted - and may even be required in certain circumstances. I hope that helps. The Daily Mail and other right wing commentators might not like the fact that such a difference exists, and can be differentiated, but it does. And ...this latest distraction noted. I'm not arguing with what you didn't say. I wonder why you mention these things as if I did. So something which is "not good for anything" in a workplace would not a be disadvantage when in operation, then? I see. Please note that I did not say that I was necessarily right because of what the majority opinion is, just that my view is one shared by many others (as against hardly any I can find from those arguing against diversity per se as 'discriminatory' or 'good for nothing'). But: perhaps you do not agree that plenty of people recognise the extra things a diverse recruitment (not just considering race - which appears your particular bête noir) can bring to a business? That the word is all negative? No, I don't think so, either... Where have I 'lied', Thor? I hope this does not mean you are starting up with personal attacks. Such things are not arguments. Not you personally, my friend; I am sure that in your white male bastion you are an essential cog.. But in your last post you did, helpfully, point out how educationally under-performing white guys can be, maybe with lower IQs.. Who, given a choice, would want to employ such dunces, or keep them on? You see one obvious advantage of a diverse workforce is always being able to pick from the brightest and best, no matter who they are. And sometimes yes, a homogenous older workforce has to move over for new, more enlightened practices towards minorities (such as the struggle for women's employment and pay rights in the British Car industry a few decades back, up against the entrenched men in unions and management, dramatized in Made in Dagenham, 2010 for those interested) Wrong again: Enlisted women made, or make up 2.7% of the US military's front-line units. Women were barred from the infantry, but were allowed to serve on gun crews, air crews and in seamanship specialties. Among officers, women represented 5.4% of those involved in "tactical operations." Despite the previous official ban on combat, women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan often found themselves engaged in firefights. Women made up 67 of the nearly 3,500 Americans lost in hostile fire in Iraq and 33 of the 1,700-plus killed in combat in Afghanistan; more than 600 others in Iraq and 300 in Afghanistan were wounded.
But of course all of the above is just another distraction, since the dispute is over women feeling they are capable to do 'physical' and 'dangerous' job, not the best, or existing, levels for participation. Clearly they are managing just fine, once allowed the opportunities.
That's the point really; one cannot aim for the best people employed without necessarily drawing from the whole range of population, and thus ending up with a more diverse staffing. Unless, of course, one thinks the most worthy candidates are always only possible from white males for instance. Yes, Thor. That would be one of the advantages of diversity you were asking for - that variety in selection, reflected in workplace diversity, ultimately answers your own call for having the best possible workforce. But you've been told the obvious before.
Exactly my friend! And that is why diversity should reflect that: different individuals, all sorts of people, working to better themselves - and not owing any advance, or lack of it, to the social, sexual or racial privileges and advantages of one hitherto dominant group. Just as you here say And, if it takes positive action policies, or legalities, to force the matter, all well and good, though I am still not saying that every attempt promoting diversity will work out for the best. But still, QED then. I thank you, and it's good night from me on this thread. The rest of your (over-lengthy) reply really now becomes moot.
And now your confusing "increasing diversity" with not hiring non whites. They are not the same and you know it. Nobody anywhere has suggested not hiring non whites, so again you're inventing positions to argue against. If 95% of your white there is no legal case to answer unless you are discriminating against non whites. Unless you are advocating for legally mandated diversity? So Boris Johston and Arthur Skargil had the same backgrounds? Barack Obama and Ice Cube? See, I tend to think of people as individuals, not groups of skin colour. Well it kinda suggests that artificially manipulating your recruitment doesn't necessarily gain you anything. The Forbes article links to a study. Which asserts benefits. But doesn't list them, nor demonstrate them. All this is is the repeated mantra of "Diversity is our strength" You literally cannot show a tangible and demonstrable benefit to any company for being "diverse" Linear time is actually a thing. It is 2017. Those restrictions were ended in the UK 39 years ago. No woman under the age of 60 has faced these restrictions in the UK. What argument of mine are you actually arguing against at this point? I don't think even you know. I didn't say women couldn't or shouldn't join. I didn't say BEM couldn't or shouldn't join. I said that these people should not be recruited to fit a diversity quota. What part of this confuses you? No, that was the strawman you built. I didn't say diversity was discriminatory or disadvantageous. I said diversity offers no actual demonstrable benefit and that recruiting for the sake of diversity discriminates against white men. why is this so confusing for you? Hring qualified BEM candidates is not discriminatory. Hiring BEM candidates specifically to "increase diversity" is discriminatory. I can't make this any simpler for you. Brilliant, and if you can demonstrate that the fire service does this when hiring, present the evidence. As with all lefty types you automatically assume that an imbalance in numbers is down to discrimination. The statements presented were not "women are being discriminated against" They were "we do not have enough women" Because YOU think there should be more of a certain type of demographic doing specific jobs, you claim discrimination. Yet with every example of any field that is not dominated by white men, you run screaming from giving an answer to the cause. Is the over representation of women in teaching due to discrimination? How about nursing? What about the over representation of Jews in banking or law? How about the over representation of black people in the Premier League? Why do you assume that most nurses being women is fine, but most fire fighters being male is due to sexism? Whatever dude. Only one of us is advocating for men and women to be judged equally on the basis of their ability and it isn't you. Which has not stopped the BBC offering jobs specifically excluding white applicants. Nor has it stopped the police offering recruitment workshops to women and BEMs only. And no, this isn't the first time I mentioned this. Thats a shameless lie. You have constantly straw manned me throughout. Like usual. Your suggesting that : "..But I guess it would be much more preferable to keep the helpless, non-physicals darlings safe, womanly and at home if we can." Was a totally irrelevant point, said only with the intention of making an ad hom. You were simply trying to discredit me by assigning a patronising, chauvinistic attitude to my person, that wasn't based on any argument I'd made, but rather your misrepresentation of something I said. Your civility doesn't hide your deviousness from me. No. The demographic make up of a company doesn't affect anything in terms of the productivity of that company. If it did, you would have provided the evidence, rather than opinion pieces in Forbes. If the best people are hired the gender or racial mix shouldn't have any affect be it 50% black or 1% black. A non discriminatory hiring process is the best possible one. This obviously allows anyone to recruit the best talent available. The thing is, I have no problem if the best talent is all women. You have a problem if the best talent is all men. Which one of us is the sexist? If you had a company that was 95% white and needed to hire 10 new staff, would you pick the 10 best candidates based on their strengths, or would you attempt to increase your companies diversity? You quote mined me. That is lie. You have intentionally misrepresent me. That is dishonest. You have implied racism and sexism on my part and tried to link me to the Daily Mail, which is well known for its right wing views. Don't play the innocent by pretending you have been thoroughly honest and don't try to pretend that your implication were not intended as insults. It insults both our intelligence. If I'm going to insult you, I will, I won't hide behind coy language. Why did you selectively take this part of a paragraph out of context and address it by iteslf? This is a distraction brought up by you to begin with. So 2.7% of the US military are women and you think this somehow bolsters your claim that that women are generally attracted to dangerous jobs? Yes, so actively increasing diversity isn't recruiting the best by default is it? Jesus man. We agree that the best candiates should be hired We agree that anyone able and willing should be equally considered. You cannot reconcile those two points with wanting to increase diversity, because when you do that you must consider race, gender sexuality etc. This means that you will discriminate against the candidates who share those traits with the existing majority of the workforce. If you have a 90% South Asian workforce, if you try to increase diversity you will have to give more consideration to none South Asian candidates based on them being not South Asian. There is no other way around it and if diversity is the actual goal, you may have to overlooked better suited South Asian candidates in favour of less qualified people of other ethnicities to achieve it. Noted that you ignored the actual point debunking your "white privilege" nonsense. And you still fail to grasp the difference between fair hiring practices that may or may not produce diverse workforces and unfair practices to artificially create diverse workforces. Literally nothing you offered a a benefit to "diversity" couldn't be achieved through egalitarian hiring.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 21, 2017 1:04:43 GMT
In this context, yes: whatever amount leads to the correct answer. Not sure what this question has to do with the bias being unconscious/conscious, though. In that context NO! That example is explicitly designed for the purpose of fooling people. It tells you nothing about the practicality of “relying heavily on the first number” except that it’s wrong in some cases, which is useless. No one doesn’t already know that. The weighting is being applied precisely because they don’t have time to calculate. Why hasn't Google’s unconscious bias training reduced unconscious bias? The firing of James Damore shows Google is completely blind to bias. They’re doing what you’re doing. Parallaxing all bias against their own. In that context UNDISPUTABLY AND DEMONSTRABLY YES! The only way to argue otherwise is to suggest there aren’t correct answers to math questions. The example is specifically designed to demonstrate the anchoring effect. What it tells you is that people’s estimates can be dramatically off based on an erroneous factor like the order in which the information is presented in. I’m not suggesting that it will ALWAYS lead to incorrect answers, but rather it will if the information is presented in a different order than whatever order yields the correct answer. OF COURSE the weighting is being applied because they don’t have time to calculate: the entire point is that these unconscious biases exist and that they deviate from valid reasoning. Nobody is denying that it’s possible to correct/override them via conscious reasoning (like, say, doing the math problems without having to estimate). Your third paragraph is a whole different can of worms. It may be impossible to eliminate all biases and it may not be desirable even if we could. It’s entirely possible that some biases are more useful than harmful even though we can clearly demonstrate how they deviate from rationality and lead to incorrect conclusions in some circumstances. However, I think it would be ridiculous to suggest that we can’t do better via artificial selection than what nature did via natural selection.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 21, 2017 1:04:59 GMT
In this context, yes: whatever amount leads to the correct answer. Not sure what this question has to do with the bias being unconscious/conscious, though. A right answer per conventions that people accept you mean? Of course; the conventions of mathematics.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 21, 2017 11:01:54 GMT
A right answer per conventions that people accept you mean? Of course; the conventions of mathematics. There's nothing objective about that.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 21, 2017 22:47:28 GMT
Of course; the conventions of mathematics. There's nothing objective about that. Not in the "external to the mind" sense; in this context I was thinking of objective in the "mutually defined goal" sense. The "mutually defined goal" was to produce an accurate as possible estimation, yet the estimation's accuracy was affected by an irrelevant factor like the order the information was presented in. Allowing any irrelevant factor to influence an estimation would be "relying too heavily on it" if the goal/objective is accuracy; I would think that would be pretty obvious. Are we gonna get back to whether or not the bias is unconscious or not?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 22, 2017 14:29:34 GMT
There's nothing objective about that. Not in the "external to the mind" sense; in this context I was thinking of objective in the "mutually defined goal" sense. The "mutually defined goal" was to produce an accurate as possible estimation, yet the estimation's accuracy was affected by an irrelevant factor like the order the information was presented in. Allowing any irrelevant factor to influence an estimation would be "relying too heavily on it" if the goal/objective is accuracy; I would think that would be pretty obvious. Are we gonna get back to whether or not the bias is unconscious or not? You're not moving away from "relying too heavily" being a judgment. We've got people with goals, where the goal is to match a convention, and then they're making a judgment about what's most appropriate or not per their goals about their conventions, and now we're adding in judgments about relevance, too.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 24, 2017 1:10:15 GMT
Not in the "external to the mind" sense; in this context I was thinking of objective in the "mutually defined goal" sense. The "mutually defined goal" was to produce an accurate as possible estimation, yet the estimation's accuracy was affected by an irrelevant factor like the order the information was presented in. Allowing any irrelevant factor to influence an estimation would be "relying too heavily on it" if the goal/objective is accuracy; I would think that would be pretty obvious. Are we gonna get back to whether or not the bias is unconscious or not? You're not moving away from "relying too heavily" being a judgment. We've got people with goals, where the goal is to match a convention, and then they're making a judgment about what's most appropriate or not per their goals about their conventions, and now we're adding in judgments about relevance, too. I’m not denying any of that, but I don’t see what relevance you think it has to whether or not biases are unconscious, and I’m not really sure what you’re objecting to about it to begin with. Just to clarify: Goal: provide an accurate estimation of a mathematical problem. Convention: mathematics Judgment: one “relies too heavily” on a bias that alters our estimation based on irrelevant data. The “judgment” about it being irrelevant is true per the convention itself, because there’s nothing in mathematics that says the order a multiplication problem is presented in alters the total, so altering the total estimate based on that order would be irrational as per the goal and convention. It would be the same as saying the color of your wall is irrelevant to the sum of 2+2.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 24, 2017 1:22:26 GMT
You're not moving away from "relying too heavily" being a judgment. We've got people with goals, where the goal is to match a convention, and then they're making a judgment about what's most appropriate or not per their goals about their conventions, and now we're adding in judgments about relevance, too. I’m not denying any of that, but I don’t see what relevance you think it has to whether or not biases are unconscious, I'm examining whether the example really qualifies as something we could say is both (a) extant, and (b) unconscious. If we're talking about people making judgments, people having goals in mind, etc. we're not talking about something unconscious, are we?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 24, 2017 23:07:37 GMT
I’m not denying any of that, but I don’t see what relevance you think it has to whether or not biases are unconscious, I'm examining whether the example really qualifies as something we could say is both (a) extant, and (b) unconscious. If we're talking about people making judgments, people having goals in mind, etc. we're not talking about something unconscious, are we?No, but I wasn't claiming it was the judgment or goals that were unconscious, only that the bias (that lead to the conclusion that lead to the judgment that the bias diverted the conclusion from the goal) was unconscious. (How's that for a mouthful?)
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 25, 2017 2:35:19 GMT
I see no reason why firefighters must be 96% white. But for the safety of everyone they should definitely be 95% male. Few women have the physical strength and dexterity to do that job. I didn't say they should 96% white.....
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 25, 2017 12:18:45 GMT
I'm examining whether the example really qualifies as something we could say is both (a) extant, and (b) unconscious. If we're talking about people making judgments, people having goals in mind, etc. we're not talking about something unconscious, are we?No, but I wasn't claiming it was the judgment or goals that were unconscious, only that the bias (that lead to the conclusion that lead to the judgment that the bias diverted the conclusion from the goal) was unconscious. (How's that for a mouthful?) The example of bias you chose to go was a judgment. So if the bias is supposed to be unconscious, that judgment is supposed to be unconscious.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 26, 2017 0:26:03 GMT
No, but I wasn't claiming it was the judgment or goals that were unconscious, only that the bias (that lead to the conclusion that lead to the judgment that the bias diverted the conclusion from the goal) was unconscious. (How's that for a mouthful?) The example of bias you chose to go was a judgment. So if the bias is supposed to be unconscious, that judgment is supposed to be unconscious. The bias is not the judgment; the bias was behind the reasoning that lead to a conclusion (the estimation), and the judgment was about that conclusion based on how mathematics works.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 26, 2017 11:42:54 GMT
The example of bias you chose to go was a judgment. So if the bias is supposed to be unconscious, that judgment is supposed to be unconscious. The bias is not the judgment; The example of bias you chose was a judgment.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 27, 2017 10:34:01 GMT
I see no reason why firefighters must be 96% white. But for the safety of everyone they should definitely be 95% male. Few women have the physical strength and dexterity to do that job. It might be best to allow women to make their own estimation whether they could do a job and to apply, or not, accordingly - with the employer setting the standards for entry. Certainly more and more females are entering the fire service since being allowed consideration for employment - "safety reasons" notwithstanding. But at least you are not reserving a whole range of professions for men only, being otherwise considered 'unladylike', as was the case in the past...
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 27, 2017 12:05:39 GMT
I see no reason why firefighters must be 96% white. But for the safety of everyone they should definitely be 95% male. Few women have the physical strength and dexterity to do that job. I didn't say they should 96% white..... One, last, correction for you, Thor. At the start you quoted HM Govt:
with your observation that you were
By questioning the need for diversity away from this figure you, in effect, support retaining the status quo: i.e. that 96% should remain white and male to do the job. QED.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 27, 2017 13:02:43 GMT
I didn't say they should 96% white..... One, last, correction for you, Thor. At the start you quoted HM Govt:
with your observation that you were
By questioning the need for diversity away from this figure you, in effect, support retaining the status quo: i.e. that 96% should remain white and male to do the job. QED.
No. I don't care about the status quo. If the demographics change through genuine fair recruitment, thats fine. Falsely changing them to suit a PC agenda isn't. Typing QED after every incorrect assertion on your behalf doesn't prove you right either. Questioning the need to change something is not supporting not changing it. ~So well done on being utterly wrong.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 27, 2017 13:17:16 GMT
One, last, correction for you, Thor.
By questioning the need for diversity away from this figure you, in effect, support retaining the status quo: i.e. that 96% should remain white and male to do the job. QED.
No. I don't care about the status quo. If the demographics change through genuine fair recruitment, thats fine. Falsely changing them to suit a PC agenda isn't. Typing QED after every incorrect assertion on your behalf doesn't prove you right either. Questioning the need to change something is not supporting not changing it. ~So well done on being utterly wrong. Excellent. Then, since you say you don't support not changing things, notably the overall percentage of white male firefighters, I am pleased that we both support change in the Fire Service, past and present, increasing diversity after finally treating minorities fairly and genuinely. I thank you again for playing.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 27, 2017 13:33:28 GMT
No. I don't care about the status quo. If the demographics change through genuine fair recruitment, thats fine. Falsely changing them to suit a PC agenda isn't. Typing QED after every incorrect assertion on your behalf doesn't prove you right either. Questioning the need to change something is not supporting not changing it. ~So well done on being utterly wrong. Excellent. Then, since you say you don't support not changing things, notably the overall percentage of white male firefighters, I am pleased that we both support change in the Fire Service, past and present, increasing diversity after finally treating minorities fairly and genuinely. I thank you again for playing. You know, you're not nearly half as clever as you think you are. I said consistently that the demography of a service or company isn't important if the best people are being hired. Maybe if you responded to what I actually say, rather than inventing things, your "gotchas" might have some meaning.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 27, 2017 13:44:57 GMT
Excellent. Then, since you say you don't support not changing things, notably the overall percentage of white male firefighters, I am pleased that we both support change in the Fire Service, past and present, increasing diversity after finally treating minorities fairly and genuinely. I thank you again for playing. You know, you're not nearly half as clever as you think you are. I said consistently that the demography of a service or company isn't important if the best people are being hired. Maybe if you responded to what I actually say, rather than inventing things, your "gotchas" might have some meaning. I see. So white males just happen to make up 96% of the best people for fire fighting? (Or you'd think the need for change was more urgent.) Got it. It all seems so simple if one explains a largely homogenous workplace away like that. But this really is my last post to you here, lol
|
|