N***** in a Woodpile.

fields5069

I'm not sure, but I expect lots of pictures of gollywogs to be appearing on Facebook in the near future.

"U carnt tell me wot too do"!

Drew_TNBD

impmann said:

So... to summise 8 pages of stuff, the general consensus is that you all feel its OK for someone in a position of power to use a phrase that is deemed unacceptable in our society, is that correct? I'm not fussed about people's opinions on whether or not that word or phrase should be unacceptable.

So are you saying that everyone is comfortable with this woman using this terminology?

That's a pretty shit summary to be fair.

I said earlier that an eyeroll and a tut is pretty much all she deserves. I don't particularly feel like a suspension is out of order. I'm not up in arms about it.

But we had people earlier in the thread saying she should've had her face smashed in and that a suspension wasn't good enough. I think that's where the thread developed a bit of a schism.

PS: She's a woman, so how can she be in a position of power?! lolssssss

Lewy

Drew_TNBD said:

Lewy said:

why do you think it is useful, or even makes sense, to address this issue by using a global perspective? Surely a local approach is the way to go? That way, you can really capture all the nuance to the point where you would also capture the experience of the white person living in a predominantly Pakistani community in the north of England who is experiencing discrimination trying to find employment close to home. Your global perspective sweeps that nuance away.

In short: Because we live in a globalised world. It makes no sense to ignore swathes of empirical evidence. The only reason to do so is to maintain a dogma.

It used to be that empirical evidence was only obtainable through localised research. If you wanted to expand your field of research you had to change your localisation. That used to be the entire principle behind anthropology.

Most of the research underpinning modern social justice theory was done pre-internet and pre-globalisation. So it's largely already localised research. Until intersectionality came along, you couldn't really do too much with all of these disparate fields.

The internet was a game changer. Because it really does allow us to see an unfiltered view of other cultures where our pre-established conceptions can be shattered. And you don't need to be an expert to be able to witness these things anymore either, nor do you need to be a position of power to do so. It's democratized sociology, basically.

Lewy said:

And the evidence - which I know you like - overwhelmingly shows an increase in the number of women hired as a result, even though the only hiring criteria is "best person for the job".

This was something I came across recently:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/public-service/public-servants-more-likely-to-hire-women-shock-study-results-20170629-gx1pqg.html

In short: It completely disproves your claim above. When you focus purely on qualifications and ability, women actually suffer more when it comes to hiring. Of course that's for public sector jobs in one area of Australia. Would be good to see a similar study done for the UK.

I get the science of what you're saying, but I don't really get the point. The empirical evidence around race would say that looked at on a global basis, there's nothing uniquely oppressive about white people, because non white people do that shit too.

Yep, I'm on board with that. It's indisputable. 

And pretty much useless if what you want to do is tackle racism in within the very distinct geopolitical regions the world is made up of. Because racism is by and large executed locally (whether it is interpersonal or institutional) and requires leadership which again tends to be less than global.

On the point of diverse shortlists, I can't point to a piece of research, my point is based on data I've seen on the financial services sector in the US and Europe and I'm not sure if it's public domain. I'll have to check if it got published when I have time if you want to see it.

Fretwired

Dominic said:

 Never knew they ever attacked England directly tho'.

Here you go .. a potted history.

http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Barbary-Pirates-English-Slaves/

Fretwired

Lewy said:

If we're talking about revising definitions, you may need to look at your definition of "majority" because you seem to be equating it with "some". Saying there are some - or I think without going back and reading your post you also used "plenty (bit subjective that) - of minorities in key positions doesn't mean that the majority of power doesn't sit elsewhere.

Let's keep this simple. My point is that if you look at Europe immigrants from Africa make up less than 5% of the population - of course white people will have more power. There's more of them .. the US is different and you have a valid point, but you can't compare the US to Europe with this broad brush 'west' as there are major differences.

impmann

Drew_TNBD said:

impmann said:

So... to summise 8 pages of stuff, the general consensus is that you all feel its OK for someone in a position of power to use a phrase that is deemed unacceptable in our society, is that correct? I'm not fussed about people's opinions on whether or not that word or phrase should be unacceptable.

So are you saying that everyone is comfortable with this woman using this terminology?

That's a pretty shit summary to be fair.

To be fair, thats just your opinion, Drew... much like your opinion about a tut and a raised eyebrow...

I've read through eight pages of bobbins about Egyptians and other invading cultures (what have the Romans ever done for us?), pedantry towards anti-Irish sentiment (I'm old enough to remember the "no dogs, no blacks, no Irish" thing for real) and justifications for everyone to be anti-everyone else... but there wasn't really a consensus.

Put it another way, in the vast majority of jobs you wouldn't get away with saying such things, so I was interested to understand the consensus on here.

For the record, I think people in public office have a duty to be as clean as possible - and that includes using terms during debates that some may consider racist. So no, a tut and a raised eyebrow is not sufficient in my book - and wouldn't be in any other business that I've worked.

Drew_TNBD

impmann said:

Drew_TNBD said:

impmann said:

So... to summise 8 pages of stuff, the general consensus is that you all feel its OK for someone in a position of power to use a phrase that is deemed unacceptable in our society, is that correct? I'm not fussed about people's opinions on whether or not that word or phrase should be unacceptable.

So are you saying that everyone is comfortable with this woman using this terminology?

That's a pretty shit summary to be fair.

To be fair, thats just your opinion, Drew... much like your opinion about a tut and a raised eyebrow...

I've read through eight pages of bobbins about Egyptians and other invading cultures (what have the Romans ever done for us?), pedantry towards anti-Irish sentiment (I'm old enough to remember the "no dogs, no blacks, no Irish" thing for real) and justifications for everyone to be anti-everyone else... but there wasn't really a consensus.

Put it another way, in the vast majority of jobs you wouldn't get away with saying such things, so I was interested to understand the consensus on here.

For the record, I think people in public office have a duty to be as clean as possible - and that includes using terms during debates that some may consider racist. So no, a tut and a raised eyebrow is not sufficient in my book - and wouldn't be in any other business that I've worked.

It was actually an eyeroll, not a raised eybrow...

The consensus here is that what she did was incredibly stupid and she should face consequences. The rest of it was about what sort of consequences. I think a suspension and/or a bit of condemnation from society is enough. I think violence or ruining her entire life is probably just a bit OTT.

Drew_TNBD

Lewy said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Lewy said:

why do you think it is useful, or even makes sense, to address this issue by using a global perspective? Surely a local approach is the way to go? That way, you can really capture all the nuance to the point where you would also capture the experience of the white person living in a predominantly Pakistani community in the north of England who is experiencing discrimination trying to find employment close to home. Your global perspective sweeps that nuance away.

In short: Because we live in a globalised world. It makes no sense to ignore swathes of empirical evidence. The only reason to do so is to maintain a dogma.

It used to be that empirical evidence was only obtainable through localised research. If you wanted to expand your field of research you had to change your localisation. That used to be the entire principle behind anthropology.

Most of the research underpinning modern social justice theory was done pre-internet and pre-globalisation. So it's largely already localised research. Until intersectionality came along, you couldn't really do too much with all of these disparate fields.

The internet was a game changer. Because it really does allow us to see an unfiltered view of other cultures where our pre-established conceptions can be shattered. And you don't need to be an expert to be able to witness these things anymore either, nor do you need to be a position of power to do so. It's democratized sociology, basically.

Lewy said:

And the evidence - which I know you like - overwhelmingly shows an increase in the number of women hired as a result, even though the only hiring criteria is "best person for the job".

This was something I came across recently:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/public-service/public-servants-more-likely-to-hire-women-shock-study-results-20170629-gx1pqg.html

In short: It completely disproves your claim above. When you focus purely on qualifications and ability, women actually suffer more when it comes to hiring. Of course that's for public sector jobs in one area of Australia. Would be good to see a similar study done for the UK.

I get the science of what you're saying, but I don't really get the point. The empirical evidence around race would say that looked at on a global basis, there's nothing uniquely oppressive about white people, because non white people do that shit too.

Yep, I'm on board with that. It's indisputable.

Right. Okay. So now we're at a point where you need to go off and explore Tumblr, Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook. Look at all the groups who are saying similar stuff to what you've been saying, but in the context of all white people everywhere all over the world being oppressors and being inherently evil. Because they do exist. And there are a LOT of them. Bahar Mustafa might be a good place to start, or Zarna Joshi maybe. I can't really continue this exchange until you update your observations because we're not playing in the same ballpit.

Bidley

Isn't Zarna Joshi the "Hugh Mungous" woman? She's one of the figureheads of everything wrong with this Tumblrina, SJW bullshit movement.

chillidoggy

mgaw said:

there is a black man in the local village here, married a white woman and the gossip, oh the gossip...usual stuff she went to the Gambia and brought him back cos of his massive todger....hes from croydon and has an average sized todger

Can't help wondering how you know that.

Drew_TNBD

Bidley said:

Isn't Zarna Joshi the "Hugh Mungous" woman? She's one of the figureheads of everything wrong with this Tumblrina, SJW bullshit movement.

Oh mate, you've no idea...

fields5069

chillidoggy said:

mgaw said:

there is a black man in the local village here, married a white woman and the gossip, oh the gossip...usual stuff she went to the Gambia and brought him back cos of his massive todger....hes from croydon and has an average sized todger

Can't help wondering how you know that.

His accent I guess.

Lewy

Drew_TNBD said:

Right. Okay. So now we're at a point where you need to go off and explore Tumblr, Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook. Look at all the groups who are saying similar stuff to what you've been saying, but in the context of all white people everywhere all over the world being oppressors and being inherently evil. Because they do exist. And there are a LOT of them. Bahar Mustafa might be a good place to start, or Zarna Joshi maybe. I can't really continue this exchange until you update your observations because we're not playing in the same ballpit.

Yeah I'm not going to do that any more than I'm going to go read through a load of white supremacist material or 9/11 truther or flat earth bullshit. I don't fee the need to accommodate or counter that nonsense in my opinions.

Drew_TNBD

Lewy said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Lewy said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Lewy said:

why do you think it is useful, or even makes sense, to address this issue by using a global perspective? Surely a local approach is the way to go? That way, you can really capture all the nuance to the point where you would also capture the experience of the white person living in a predominantly Pakistani community in the north of England who is experiencing discrimination trying to find employment close to home. Your global perspective sweeps that nuance away.

In short: Because we live in a globalised world. It makes no sense to ignore swathes of empirical evidence. The only reason to do so is to maintain a dogma.

It used to be that empirical evidence was only obtainable through localised research. If you wanted to expand your field of research you had to change your localisation. That used to be the entire principle behind anthropology.

Most of the research underpinning modern social justice theory was done pre-internet and pre-globalisation. So it's largely already localised research. Until intersectionality came along, you couldn't really do too much with all of these disparate fields.

The internet was a game changer. Because it really does allow us to see an unfiltered view of other cultures where our pre-established conceptions can be shattered. And you don't need to be an expert to be able to witness these things anymore either, nor do you need to be a position of power to do so. It's democratized sociology, basically.

Lewy said:

And the evidence - which I know you like - overwhelmingly shows an increase in the number of women hired as a result, even though the only hiring criteria is "best person for the job".

This was something I came across recently:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/public-service/public-servants-more-likely-to-hire-women-shock-study-results-20170629-gx1pqg.html

In short: It completely disproves your claim above. When you focus purely on qualifications and ability, women actually suffer more when it comes to hiring. Of course that's for public sector jobs in one area of Australia. Would be good to see a similar study done for the UK.

I get the science of what you're saying, but I don't really get the point. The empirical evidence around race would say that looked at on a global basis, there's nothing uniquely oppressive about white people, because non white people do that shit too.

Yep, I'm on board with that. It's indisputable.

Right. Okay. So now we're at a point where you need to go off and explore Tumblr, Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook. Look at all the groups who are saying similar stuff to what you've been saying, but in the context of all white people everywhere all over the world being oppressors and being inherently evil. Because they do exist. And there are a LOT of them. Bahar Mustafa might be a good place to start, or Zarna Joshi maybe. I can't really continue this exchange until you update your observations because we're not playing in the same ballpit.

Drew_TNBD said:

Right. Okay. So now we're at a point where you need to go off and explore Tumblr, Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook. Look at all the groups who are saying similar stuff to what you've been saying, but in the context of all white people everywhere all over the world being oppressors and being inherently evil. Because they do exist. And there are a LOT of them. Bahar Mustafa might be a good place to start, or Zarna Joshi maybe. I can't really continue this exchange until you update your observations because we're not playing in the same ballpit.

Yeah I'm not going to do that any more than I'm going to go read through a load of white supremacist material or 9/11 truther or flat earth bullshit. I don't fee the need to accommodate or counter that nonsense in my opinions.

Well then you're always going to be arguing from a position of ignorance. It's that simple. Unfortunately these days, we don't get to ignore extremists and hope they go away.

capo4th

boogieman said:

Lewy said:

On positive discrimination....I think the issue is overstated but agree pockets of unfairness exist. We agree that there is a history of institutional racism...and more specifically a pattern of discrimination based on it. At this point our opinions appear to diverge. You believe that ceasing the discrimination is the extent of the action required. I disagree. I think there needs to be some correction, and that correction requires proactivity. It's interesting that you mention hiring practices as that's something I have a reasonable amount of experience of. Cases of things like women only shortlists are exceptionally rare, and the only examples I can think of is where the hiring organisation has either a requirement or a desire to be demographically representative  in it's composition and is hopelessly adrift from that. More often than not, what companies really do -if they do anything at all in this regard - is say that there should be at least one woman (sometimes it's an ethnic group but more often this is gender based) on the shortlist, from which the best person for the job should be hired. And the evidence - which I know you like - overwhelmingly shows an increase in the number of women hired as a result, even though the only hiring criteria is "best person for the job". So what's going on there? A little bit of positive discrimination (i.e. having to make the effort to attract at least one female applicant) is correcting some latent bias without in any way detracting from the meritocratic nature of the decision. I'm all for that and I struggle to see why anyone wouldn't be unless they just want to preserve the boys club and don't see why they should have to compete harder for what is "rightfully" theirs. Like I say, I see very very little of this happening on the grounds of race, rather than gender - it seems predominantly to be a US academia thing and there, the requirement to correct rather than just cease and desist from discrimination has a whole other set of arguments.....

Probably TBC...

I've no idea if it's common nowadays but  in the 90s there was a LOT of positive discrimination going on. My ex worked for a local authority in social services and it was common practice across lots of boroughs. I can see the reasoning behind it, but I'm not entirely comfortable  with the best person for the job not getting the post, just because they don't fit a certain demographic. 

Still goes on everyday ! The person with the best performance and experience does not always get the job as a box needs to be ticked. 

JezWynd

Dominic said:

 Never knew they ever attacked England directly tho'.

They regularly raided the south west of Britain in Elizabethan times.

http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Barbary-Pirates-English-Slaves/

capo4th

Did anyone watch Ross Kemp in Texas last night? 

The rise of heavily armed black groups in Texas preparing for the race war! 

BigMonka

capo4th said:

boogieman said:

Lewy said:

On positive discrimination....I think the issue is overstated but agree pockets of unfairness exist. We agree that there is a history of institutional racism...and more specifically a pattern of discrimination based on it. At this point our opinions appear to diverge. You believe that ceasing the discrimination is the extent of the action required. I disagree. I think there needs to be some correction, and that correction requires proactivity. It's interesting that you mention hiring practices as that's something I have a reasonable amount of experience of. Cases of things like women only shortlists are exceptionally rare, and the only examples I can think of is where the hiring organisation has either a requirement or a desire to be demographically representative  in it's composition and is hopelessly adrift from that. More often than not, what companies really do -if they do anything at all in this regard - is say that there should be at least one woman (sometimes it's an ethnic group but more often this is gender based) on the shortlist, from which the best person for the job should be hired. And the evidence - which I know you like - overwhelmingly shows an increase in the number of women hired as a result, even though the only hiring criteria is "best person for the job". So what's going on there? A little bit of positive discrimination (i.e. having to make the effort to attract at least one female applicant) is correcting some latent bias without in any way detracting from the meritocratic nature of the decision. I'm all for that and I struggle to see why anyone wouldn't be unless they just want to preserve the boys club and don't see why they should have to compete harder for what is "rightfully" theirs. Like I say, I see very very little of this happening on the grounds of race, rather than gender - it seems predominantly to be a US academia thing and there, the requirement to correct rather than just cease and desist from discrimination has a whole other set of arguments.....

Probably TBC...

I've no idea if it's common nowadays but  in the 90s there was a LOT of positive discrimination going on. My ex worked for a local authority in social services and it was common practice across lots of boroughs. I can see the reasoning behind it, but I'm not entirely comfortable  with the best person for the job not getting the post, just because they don't fit a certain demographic. 

Still goes on everyday ! The person with the best performance and experience does not always get the job as a box needs to be ticked. 

The difficulty is that a lot of jobs it's very hard to have an objective "best person".
As an employer you need to make sure that the person will fit with the team and bring something different to what you've already got. We've got a massive equality/inclusion/diversity push at work as I believe that research shows that diverse teams are more creative and better able to create innovative solutions (I'm in engineering). I'm not sure if it's wrong to have positive discrimination that stops my team just being full of 25year old white males with very similar school and education backgrounds? I'd never choose someone based on race, but having diverse personality types, personal experiences and social upbringing etc is certainly an asset to the team dynamic.

holnrew

Lewy

Drew_TNBD said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Right. Okay. So now we're at a point where you need to go off and explore Tumblr, Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook. Look at all the groups who are saying similar stuff to what you've been saying, but in the context of all white people everywhere all over the world being oppressors and being inherently evil. Because they do exist. And there are a LOT of them. Bahar Mustafa might be a good place to start, or Zarna Joshi maybe. I can't really continue this exchange until you update your observations because we're not playing in the same ballpit.

Yeah I'm not going to do that any more than I'm going to go read through a load of white supremacist material or 9/11 truther or flat earth bullshit. I don't fee the need to accommodate or counter that nonsense in my opinions.

Well then you're always going to be arguing from a position of ignorance. It's that simple. Unfortunately these days, we don't get to ignore extremists and hope they go away.

I'm not ignorant to the existence or content of those views, but I temper that with a judgement on what real impact the proponents have, or are gaining, outside of the blogosphere and social media. The vast majority of the more ridiculous SJWs will leave education and change their tune overnight, having changed precisely nothing. Britain First have 2m Facebook followers and zero material influence. I am not going to build into my perspective any kind of compensation for or reaction to those people and their hyperbole. I'm thinking mostly of identity politics here. Religious extremism requires a different approach because that branch of crazy is having a serious material impact, but the sort of stuff we're discussing....it's just noise from what I can see.

For example, going back to that point around hiring and diversity - totally not driven by anything any SJW has said ever. The theory underpinning that is entirely commercial (edit: hiring in the private sector I mean here, not those organisations that need to be representative because they are public services...and in fact that's still not the result of annoying kids on campuses waving placards).