Quantcast

None white racism

maddy

Well-known Member
I thought that Martin Luther King chap was onto something when he said:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character".

Guess I was wrong.
 

Aj33

Distinguished Member
I thought that Martin Luther King chap was onto something when he said:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character".

Guess I was wrong.
Unfortunately for some, that’s not good enough.
 

Glostarz

Active Member
I'm bald so haven't been to a hairdresser for years. Does a salon really charge pending on sex ?
Generally no. The consensus is that the cost is based on time rather than sex/gender.

For the most part women generally have more hair than men as per social conventions, so the higher cost to women is because it takes a hairdresser longer to do their hair. It’s like anything, the longer it takes to do something, the more you can expect to pay for the service.

In my experience if a woman with short hair goes to a stylist/hairdresser, then they might agree to a lower fixed cost to accommodate. There is no discount if you show your penis.

(...or at least there wasn’t for me when I did. Quite the opposite in fact!!)
 

mcbainne

Well-known Member
I'm agreeing with you in relation to the MLK quote. In this day and age instead of looking past colour there still seem to be some people that aren't happy unless there are white faces, i don't know about you but personally i find that quite tragic
 

Sonic67

Distinguished Member

psikey

Distinguished Member
Don't need these official figures to know media industries are being taken over by LGBTQ+..... and distorting their representation in society, as the CH5 figures illustrate the extreme example "18 per cent, compared to a national LGB population of 6.4 per cent".

I was surprised that national disabled is 17% ! Surely not that high (unless including mental health then its more like 50% ! )
 

John-Tropi

Active Member
There is certainly insanity at work in the imbecilic notion that numerical represention of any sector of the general population should play the slightest part in job selection criteria. It is hard to think of anything more utterly brainless than hiring someone because they represent anything other than being the overall best person to fulfill the job specification. If the job is actually specified in terms of race or gender, that would seem absolutely certain to be illegal. Yet it seems to be happening as a matter of course.
It is immensely disturbing that any person or organisation has the unmitigated gall to profess that they KNOW the percentages of straights to un-straights. Since a good proportion of the population doesn't seem to know what . . it is, any such figures would be grossly inaccurate and close to utterly meaningless. Therefore it beggars belief that anyone else could have the unbelievable arrogance to claim that they do know meaningful figures. Judging by existing law, I strongly suspect that the very act of even trying to ascertain someone's true sexual orientation is not only an unforgivable intrusion, but is almost certainly illegal.

Having just watched "Dark Waters", there might be a clue there as to one plausible source for the pandemic of lunacy that is consuming a disturbingly large proportion of the population.
 

John-Tropi

Active Member
Generally no. The consensus is that the cost is based on time rather than sex/gender.
That is very reasonable as a principle and only an unreasonable person would argue with that.
But there is also little doubt that they who are more inclined towards female characteristics are far more readily inclined to spend disproportionately more on attempting to make themselves seem more attractive. There is equally no shortage of operators, not only too willing to relieve them of their apparent excess wealth, but also of an additional hefty tip, just for doing what they have already been paid far too much already.
So, although the principle of 'doing more costs more' is inarguably fair, the degree of difference actually is largely sex/gender dependent.
 
I'm agreeing with you in relation to the MLK quote. In this day and age instead of looking past colour there still seem to be some people that aren't happy unless there are white faces, i don't know about you but personally i find that quite tragic
I think you have just proven the point by focusing on one particular colour ;)

The whole point is that as long as we focus on the colour of anyone’s skin we haven’t moved on. I find it really sad that that is still happening; ALL colours.
 

rustybin

Distinguished Member
The problem with the argument that you should just appoint the 'best' person for the job is that it's extremely subjective.

Some employers might think that it would be 'best' if they didn't employ someone who might need special consideration for 9 months, and then be paid for several months of not working.

There are all sorts of prejudices which wouldn't be tackled by 'naturally' by market forces.

Fortunately the more progressive companies of this earth can see the benefit of a diverse workplace above simply having the 'best' person for the job.
 

wass1985

Banned
I hate to say it but racism is part of human nature.
The problem with the argument that you should just appoint the 'best' person for the job is that it's extremely subjective.

Some employers might think that it would be 'best' if they didn't employ someone who might need special consideration for 9 months, and then be paid for several months of not working.

There are all sorts of prejudices which wouldn't be tackled by 'naturally' by market forces.

Fortunately the more progressive companies of this earth can see the benefit of a diverse workplace above simply having the 'best' person for the job.
There is no benefit to a diverse workplace if those chosen are not the 'best' person for the job....
 
The problem with the argument that you should just appoint the 'best' person for the job is that it's extremely subjective.

Some employers might think that it would be 'best' if they didn't employ someone who might need special consideration for 9 months, and then be paid for several months of not working.

There are all sorts of prejudices which wouldn't be tackled by 'naturally' by market forces.

Fortunately the more progressive companies of this earth can see the benefit of a diverse workplace above simply having the 'best' person for the job.
Totally agree that best is subjective. And naturally can change as well due to other redeeming features that one perhaps didn't originally consider or thought about.

There can always be exceptions found and situations where cultural backgrounds may be very important. I'm totally aware of it that it made me the 'best' candidate a few times. Heck even simply 'not being British' or 'not having had Israel stamps in passport' have been requirements.

But in general, that is not a common requirement. And in general in my opinion skin colour or cultural background or religion and so on should not be a consideration.
 

rustybin

Distinguished Member
I hate to say it but racism is part of human nature.

There is no benefit to a diverse workplace if those chosen are not the 'best' person for the job....
That's been proven the be completely untrue.

In many, many cases, the 'best' person for the job might not even bother applying to a company they perceive as either, at best, lacking diversity, or worst, actively racist.

So looking at the long game, companies need to be diverse both to attract the best candidates and because anthropologically speaking, humans tend to thrive better in diverse environments.
 

rustybin

Distinguished Member
But in general, that is not a common requirement. And in general in my opinion skin colour or cultural background or religion and so on should not be a consideration.
I completely agree. And yet we have numerous examples of companies which don't even come close to reflecting the demographic make up of the countries in which they're based. So unless white males are somehow superior to other genders / ethnicities, I'd suggest that something doesn't currently add up.
 
That's been proven the be completely untrue.

In many, many cases, the 'best' person for the job might not even bother applying to a company they perceive as either, at best, lacking diversity, or worst, actively racist.

So looking at the long game, companies need to be diverse both to attract the best candidates and because anthropologically speaking, humans tend to thrive better in diverse environments.
I would remove the word completely and make that statement less certain. Sure it could be untrue, but then it wouldn't be the 'best' person for the job ;)

As per your earlier statement, with which I agree in principle, it all depends on how you define best. And it is ok for it to change.
 

Aj33

Distinguished Member
I completely agree. And yet we have numerous examples of companies which don't even come close to reflecting the demographic make up of the countries in which they're based. So unless white males are somehow superior to other genders / ethnicities, I'd suggest that something doesn't currently add up.
Now you seem to be arguing for equality of outcome.

all this diversity nonsense and measuring of this needs to stop. It’s divisive and serves no purpose.

if you provide equality of opportunity for all, then the best person for the job should get the job.
 

Aj33

Distinguished Member
I would remove the word completely and make that statement less certain. Sure it could be untrue, but then it wouldn't be the 'best' person for the job ;)

As per your earlier statement, with which I agree in principle, it all depends on how you define best. And it is ok for it to change.
Absolutely!

the best person for a company might not be the most qualified, but someone is qualified enough but a better fit to the companies culture and work ethic.

it should be for the company to decide. Particularly if it is a private sector company. Not for governments and pressure groups to “shame” a company on diversity grounds.
 
I completely agree. And yet we have numerous examples of companies which don't even come close to reflecting the demographic make up of the countries in which they're based. So unless white males are somehow superior to other genders / ethnicities, I'd suggest that something doesn't currently add up.
I don't see that as a reflection of superiority, I do think it is a two-way street. And perhaps an even great social-environmental impact than an issue of the companies. I mean just yesterday I was at an options evening for my youngest daughter. Oh dear oh dear. The lack of inspiration that the school provides, that many of the parents can provide to their children, the knowledge the teachers have, and the way the curriculum is being set. I think it will take a lot of determination from those who may not have seen or been given the examples of what is possible and what work exists and how to get there, to make that jump and establish it.

But when they do, I don't see that there is some kind of ethnicity superiority going on. It is no different than a whole bunch of other children. Skin colour may just make it easier to spot, but I don't think it is the correct conclusion to draw that it is related to skin colour.
 

Aj33

Distinguished Member
I don't see that as a reflection of superiority, I do think it is a two-way street. And perhaps an even great social-environmental impact than an issue of the companies. I mean just yesterday I was at an options evening for my youngest daughter. Oh dear oh dear. The lack of inspiration that the school provides, that many of the parents can provide to their children, the knowledge the teachers have, and the way the curriculum is being set. I think it will take a lot of determination from those who may not have seen or been given the examples of what is possible and what work exists and how to get there, to make that jump and establish it.

But when they do, I don't see that there is some kind of ethnicity superiority going on. It is no different than a whole bunch of other children. Skin colour may just make it easier to spot, but I don't think it is the correct conclusion to draw that it is related to skin colour.
Correct me if I am wrong but it sounds like you are moving to, correlation is not causation.
 

rustybin

Distinguished Member
Absolutely!

the best person for a company might not be the most qualified, but someone is qualified enough but a better fit to the companies culture and work ethic.

it should be for the company to decide. Particularly if it is a private sector company. Not for governments and pressure groups to “shame” a company on diversity grounds.
Even if that company decides it doesn't want to afford to employ a pregnant woman? Or that putting someone LGBT into a certain team might make members of that team uncomfortable? Or that maybe a Catholic would upset the balance?
 

rustybin

Distinguished Member
I don't see that as a reflection of superiority, I do think it is a two-way street. And perhaps an even great social-environmental impact than an issue of the companies. I mean just yesterday I was at an options evening for my youngest daughter. Oh dear oh dear. The lack of inspiration that the school provides, that many of the parents can provide to their children, the knowledge the teachers have, and the way the curriculum is being set. I think it will take a lot of determination from those who may not have seen or been given the examples of what is possible and what work exists and how to get there, to make that jump and establish it.

But when they do, I don't see that there is some kind of ethnicity superiority going on. It is no different than a whole bunch of other children. Skin colour may just make it easier to spot, but I don't think it is the correct conclusion to draw that it is related to skin colour.
So you're admitting that certain groups might have to be 'more determined' to overcome barriers?

Well that's my point. Those barriers should be removed.
 

Aj33

Distinguished Member
Even if that company decides it doesn't want to afford to employ a pregnant woman? Or that putting someone LGBT into a certain team might make members of that team uncomfortable? Or that maybe a Catholic would upset the balance?
Ultimately a company should do what is right for the company.

in those examples, I think there is already legislation to prevent that. So they seem moot. Excluding the pregnant lady, I don’t see how the other two would be self evident, because again they cannot be asked at interview. Frankly the vast majority of people it would seem to me just don’t care about these things enough. They will just want the best person.

I would also point out that I was talking about working culture and work ethics of an individual. I never mentioned any characteristics of a person. Which is kind of the point, it shouldn’t matter in equality of opportunity.
 

Aj33

Distinguished Member
So you're admitting that certain groups might have to be 'more determined' to overcome barriers?

Well that's my point. Those barriers should be removed.
It seems like you are arguing for both equality of opportunity and outcome. But you cannot have both.

if you go for outcome and balance a company by all the myriad of options and metrics you will have along the way denied someone an opportunity for a post.

If you go down the opportunity route, you most likely will not balance the outcome across the metrics.
 

Trending threads

Latest News

BenQ launches new Home Cinema and Gaming projectors
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Acorn TV streaming service to launch in UK
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
LG UK 2020 TV rollout and prices revealed
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
TV shipment forecasts slashed for Q2 2020
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung Display to quit LCD production
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom