George Floyd/Black Lives Matter Protests

[DA Baracus]

I get what you said. You aren't grasping what I'm saying, or perhaps don't want to face up to it.

You have an issue with black people being on TV shows. You can talk about quotas all you like, but it doesn't hide that you have an issue with black people on BBC shows. When you see a white person on a BBC show what is your reaction? Nothing I imagine. But when you see a black person you seem to immediately think 'quotas!'. You aren't seeing a person; you're seeing a race.

You complained earlier about TV shows on BBC having black people on them.

. I just noticed after blm started that EVERY SINGLE show now has at least one black person on it, presenting or doing punditry

You said it's 'tokenism'. There's racist implications there. A black person couldn't possibly get a job over a white person; they're just there for 'tokenism'. That seems to be your line of thought, unconscious or not. You'll no doubt quote the BBC policy again, but that misses the point. You've instantly assumed this about black presenters etc without having the first clue if any of them have been selected due to a quota, and you also seem to be implying that these people aren't skilled and qualified, or at least not as skilled and qualified as their white counterparts. You see more black people on the BBC and it's somehow an issue. Why? If MOTD got two new panelists and they were white, would you comment? Doubtful. Yet you commented on Ian Wright. Why?

Edited July 4, 2020 by DA Baracus

[effeffsee_the2nd]

12 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said:

Youre not reading over the information I've already supplied on this thread and jumping to conclusions. I've said three times now that I see quotas and agendas that imo don't solve anything. I dont see colour i see a failed system that actually separates races rather than trying to solve why its necessary to do that in the first place.
The bbc jumped to quotas, its on their website. They've not tried to hide it, I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.
White people need to make the big changes and imo one of them is stopping trying to just pigeon hole people into roles and perhaps try to fix the larger, harder to solve, problems in society that make them come up with quotas.
Maybe my original post didn't make this so clear and I understand why it might look as if I'm just seeing colour. I'm frustrated because I'm seeing a system that is failing to give black people real chances in life.
 

To help explain things a wee bit,  racism doesn't always come in the form that you can clearly see with the naked eye. It's not necessarily a case of "I don't like black people therefor no black person will be employed here whilst I'm in charge"  if you've ever had a job I'm sure you'll know that getting in and getting on at a company isn't solely down to how good you are at the job, everyone knows stories of jobs for the boys / masons , people helping family members into good jobs or even just a case of someone's face fitting in a certain setting.  For example a manager in a small team has to decide when hiring someone that they will be sharing a small place and a lot of time with them and others who he/she already knows well. When all the applications are in and it's even Stevens between candidate A who they know and candidate B who they don't , they almost always favor familiarity over an unknown quantity,

The same thing applies when a black person is applying in an overwhelmingly majority white environment like Scotland.  There is a job opening to work in a team of 8. the man in charge of recruitment has 2 candidates to chose from , one black one white, In the white one he can identify and understand . relate to their upbringing, family, hobbies, culture, mannerism etc etc but in the black one he can't. when he has to picture who is going to be the best fit in his team he will usually edge towards the familiar rather than take a potential risk on an unknown quantity.  this does not make him a raging bigot but it does mean that the black man finds doors closed more often than not.

having a diversity policy means that arms get twisted into employing the people who should have been employed on merit all along. it also means that people get more chance to meet and interact with people of different races ( which in Scotland is not a given, you could go through your whole life and never talk to a non white ) and become familiar with them.  when there is familiarity discrimination and bias decrease rapidly.

look at sectarianism now compared to 50 years ago,  we've went from workplaces routinely having no kafflicks policys to only hardcore bigots practicing such attitudes

[Honest_Man#1]

3 hours ago, D.A.F.C said:

Youre right have posted the last thing.
Marshmallow has been red dotting me for over a month and has used this to accuse me of being a racist. Im not happy about it.

And there we have it. Conclusive proof that getting too many red dots turns you racist.

[The_Kincardine]

3 hours ago, Stellaboz said:

That's why Duel Street was invented.

A place in Glasgow  where only two people can have a square go?

[D.A.F.C]

18 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

I get what you said. You aren't grasping what I'm saying, or perhaps don't want to face up to it.

You have an issue with black people being on TV shows. You can talk about quotas all you like, but it doesn't hide that you have an issue with black people on BBC shows. When you see a white person on a BBC show what is your reaction? Nothing I imagine. But when you see a black person you seem to immediately think 'quotas!'. You aren't seeing a person; you're seeing a race.

You complained earlier about TV shows on BBC having black people on them.

. I just noticed after blm started that EVERY SINGLE show now has at least one black person on it, presenting or doing punditry

You said it's 'tokenism'. There's racist implications there. A black person couldn't possibly get a job over a white person; they're just there for 'tokenism'. That seems to be your line of thought, unconscious or not. You'll no doubt quote the BBC policy again, but that misses the point. You've instantly assumed this about black presenters etc without having the first clue if any of them have been selected due to a quota, and you also seem to be implying that these people aren't skilled and qualified, or at least not as skilled and qualified as their white counterparts. You see more black people on the BBC and it's somehow an issue. Why? If MOTD got two new panelists and they were white, would you comment? Doubtful. Yet you commented on Ian Wright. Why?

You do know that Wright walked away from the bbc in a huff before claiming he was a jester between Hansen and Shearer and that the bbc had to change. He also backed up John Barnes claim that he was hunted out of Celtic for being black. Add to that the schmiechel incident and you’ve got a real ‘likeable’ person who really deserved to get invited back to the company he slagged off.

26 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

To help explain things a wee bit,  racism doesn't always come in the form that you can clearly see with the naked eye. It's not necessarily a case of "I don't like black people therefor no black person will be employed here whilst I'm in charge"  if you've ever had a job I'm sure you'll know that getting in and getting on at a company isn't solely down to how good you are at the job, everyone knows stories of jobs for the boys / masons , people helping family members into good jobs or even just a case of someone's face fitting in a certain setting.  For example a manager in a small team has to decide when hiring someone that they will be sharing a small place and a lot of time with them and others who he/she already knows well. When all the applications are in and it's even Stevens between candidate A who they know and candidate B who they don't , they almost always favor familiarity over an unknown quantity,

The same thing applies when a black person is applying in an overwhelmingly majority white environment like Scotland.  There is a job opening to work in a team of 8. the man in charge of recruitment has 2 candidates to chose from , one black one white, In the white one he can identify and understand . relate to their upbringing, family, hobbies, culture, mannerism etc etc but in the black one he can't. when he has to picture who is going to be the best fit in his team he will usually edge towards the familiar rather than take a potential risk on an unknown quantity.  this does not make him a raging bigot but it does mean that the black man finds doors closed more often than not.

having a diversity policy means that arms get twisted into employing the people who should have been employed on merit all along. it also means that people get more chance to meet and interact with people of different races ( which in Scotland is not a given, you could go through your whole life and never talk to a non white ) and become familiar with them.  when there is familiarity discrimination and bias decrease rapidly.

look at sectarianism now compared to 50 years ago,  we've went from workplaces routinely having no kafflicks policys to only hardcore bigots practicing such attitudes

I agree to an extent but you’re asking people who don’t understand to make decisions. It need to go deeper than that. They will make bad uninformed decisions and feel under pressure to just employ or promote people down to their minority status. What evidence do you have that the majority of Scottish employers and institutions are racist?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/mar/11/quotas-alone-cant-fix-diversity-its-time-to-go-further

Many company higher-ups commit only to diversifying their staff at the very lowest levels, and are not interested in new perspectives but in having views they already hold parroted back to them. Of the very few female executive directors in FTSE 100 companies (they make up just over 30%), 97% of them are white.

Google any company and their management team, do an image search. Pretty much guaranteed that they’re all white. By twisting their arm and getting them to shoehorn people into roles it’s not going to fix it. Put someone at the table who understands or have a blind hiring policy that takes away names, pictures and hobbies and interests. It’s such a childish way of selecting people. I feel it’s similar to clapping for the nhs, it’s not really changing anything long term. One study I read said that it would take 217 years for quota based equality to make women and men equal in workplaces in terms of a split. 

 

World Economic Forum’s 2017 Global Gender Gap Report: “Given the continued widening of the economic gender gap, it will now not be closed for another 217 years”. 217 YEARS…! So, on reflection, and within this context, should the PwC / BBC model of banning all-male / all-white shortlists be re-evaluated? Can we really wait 217 YEARS to close the economic gender gap (which is re-enforced by the employment positions that men and women hold)? Shouldn’t we support businesses who look for radical solution to reducing gender, and race inequality? (We don’t have a figure for reducing the race gap, but, for sure, it’d be equally stark).

White people need to stop small changes and make bigger ones, make it equal for all to make the best of themselves. 
Here’s another quote from someone regarding tokenism and real change.

 

One of the biggest mistakes companies can make in trying to address systemic racial discrimination is to reflexively add one or two black people to a board/leadership team and think the problem is fixed. There are many complicated reasons why simply adding one or two black faces to the executive team (albeit a positive step) won’t act as a panacea. First, depending on the size of the group (to which they’re being added), they may not have any real power – which often leads to diversity without inclusion which some DEI experts liken to being invited to the ball but having no one ask you to dance. Even worse, if they begin to view themselves as tokens (being used to check off a diversity goal) there’s a morale decreasing boomerang effect. To make matters worse, sometimes the one or two black people on the board/leadership team somehow get charged with the least desirable work or are assigned all “diversity related” problems – essentially holding them responsible for single handedly solving the organization’s decades old systemic racial problems. This glass cliff type scenario (traditionally associated with women leaders) can be both career limiting and emotionally exhausting. In this New York Times article, “Corporate America has failed black America”, Darren Walker president of the Ford Foundation and a black member of Pepsi’s board explains, “We are put into these positions that are honorific, because they want our presence, but we are not given authority and resources.”

Actually here’s an article where bame bbc employees say that they feel like window dressing.

They said the incident had led to discussions among some BAME journalists that they are used as “window dressing” by the corporation’s news bosses, despite the BBC having one of the most diverse workforces in British media.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/27/growing-backlash-against-bbc-in-naga-munchetty-race-row

 

They failed to back a presenter who quite rightly called trump a racist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Theroadlesstravelled]

Copying and pasting stuff to try and prove your innocence is the trademark of someone who’s OFTW.

[D.A.F.C]

Not allowing someone to explain themselves is pretty shitty behaviour as well isn’t it?

All the quotes are from black people btw. If they don’t agree with diversity quotas then why wouldn’t I try and use that to help my argument that they don’t really work. People nowadays have been mentally conditioned by Facebook and other social media to seek out fitting in due to a dopamine fix from getting likes. It’s so much easier to troll through threads and discussions and just fish for likes than provide an actual thought out and reasoned discussion. It’s not bullying and I don’t feel picked on I just feel sorry for people that have been conditioned to hate and seek out a fix by causing arguments on threads and reducing it to bun fights.

You can see the same people dotting and insulting people time and time again. They don’t actually contribute anything to the discussion other than hatred and like to isolate, intimidate and discredit people. I fully expect three or four posters to reply with heads gone or bullying or that I’m getting picked on again. I really don’t care if that’s what you think but I do take exception to being called a racist.

This site really needs to think about removing the dotting feature, it brings out the worst in people and serves no purpose.

 

[Stellaboz]

I might be way off here but am I right in saying you're questioning the BBC"s reasoning for their hiring process rather than the whom?

[Stellaboz]

A place in Glasgow  where only two people can have a square go?

Teaches me to double check before posting. Nice idea though.

[Pcplum]

12 hours ago, D.A.F.C said:

The bbc seem to be pushing forward any bame presenter or pundit they can find.

Kind of creating the same conditions as before isn’t it? Equality of outcome regardless of talent or ability.

Alex Scott and some others are great but Ian Wright ffs, what’s going on there?

This is some meltdown you’re having .I think you should keep away from the internet for a few days for you own sake.

Edited July 5, 2020 by Pcplum

[Pcplum]

11 hours ago, MixuFruit said:

Aggregate greenie but Limmy does not belong in there

Limmys absolutely chronic.

[Bairnardo]

To help explain things a wee bit,  racism doesn't always come in the form that you can clearly see with the naked eye. It's not necessarily a case of "I don't like black people therefor no black person will be employed here whilst I'm in charge"  if you've ever had a job I'm sure you'll know that getting in and getting on at a company isn't solely down to how good you are at the job, everyone knows stories of jobs for the boys / masons , people helping family members into good jobs or even just a case of someone's face fitting in a certain setting.  For example a manager in a small team has to decide when hiring someone that they will be sharing a small place and a lot of time with them and others who he/she already knows well. When all the applications are in and it's even Stevens between candidate A who they know and candidate B who they don't , they almost always favor familiarity over an unknown quantity,
The same thing applies when a black person is applying in an overwhelmingly majority white environment like Scotland.  There is a job opening to work in a team of 8. the man in charge of recruitment has 2 candidates to chose from , one black one white, In the white one he can identify and understand . relate to their upbringing, family, hobbies, culture, mannerism etc etc but in the black one he can't. when he has to picture who is going to be the best fit in his team he will usually edge towards the familiar rather than take a potential risk on an unknown quantity.  this does not make him a raging bigot but it does mean that the black man finds doors closed more often than not.
having a diversity policy means that arms get twisted into employing the people who should have been employed on merit all along. it also means that people get more chance to meet and interact with people of different races ( which in Scotland is not a given, you could go through your whole life and never talk to a non white ) and become familiar with them.  when there is familiarity discrimination and bias decrease rapidly.
look at sectarianism now compared to 50 years ago,  we've went from workplaces routinely having no kafflicks policys to only hardcore bigots practicing such attitudes

This is a good post. There is a human instinct element to all of this. A natural reaction in your brain to things you see that are different from yourself and it doesn't just apply to race.

The Bigot takes that instinctual reaction and assumes it to be correct/acts on it/demands it be respected as his right.

The non-bigot recognises that the reaction is rooted in bias and seeks to look past it to ensure no discrimination is taking place.

[Pcplum]

10 hours ago, D.A.F.C said:

Is the premier league racist?

Why is there no British Asian players?

 

Ffs pal,you’re not doing to well here.

[Theroadlesstravelled]

31 minutes ago, Pcplum said:

Limmys absolutely chronic.

He’s hit or miss but the falconhoof stuff is generally pretty funny.

[Gordon EF]

I find the idea of quotas pretty intrinsically uncomfortable. They might be the least worst of the realistic options though. It's fairly clear that humans generally have a tendency to be consciously or unconsciously biased towards 'people like them' and across society that has resulted in fewer opportunities for non-white people.

In an ideal world, people wouldn't be biased, would always hire the best people for the job, blah, blah. That very clearly does not happen though. Whoever brought up the example of Derek Ferguson pretty much nailed that one. He's got the verbal skills of a 6 year old and all the insight of a farmyard animal.

 

[pandarilla]

This is a good post. There is a human instinct element to all of this. A natural reaction in your brain to things you see that are different from yourself and it doesn't just apply to race.

The Bigot takes that instinctual reaction and assumes it to be correct/acts on it/demands it be respected as his right.

The non-bigot recognises that the reaction is rooted in bias and seeks to look past it to ensure no discrimination is taking place.

I don't think it's quite as black and white as this (if you pardon the pun).

Yes there are still bigots who are racist, and those people are being rightly called out (this has been happening more regularly for many years).

But i think it's too far to call the person who doesn't understand systemic racism a bigot. They're not being a bigot, they're just acting in what they perceive to be an open and honest way. They're trying to do the right thing - but they've yet to understand the difficult concept of unconscious bias.

If someone has it explained to them and still argues then that's a worrying a sign. But are they a bigot or are they just thick? And does that difference even matter? I don't know.

The key for society is for us to discuss systemic racism and unconscious bias much more. We need to educate ourselves better. I've said this before but calling people out as racist generally doesn't win folk round.

[Bairnardo]

I don't think it's quite as black and white as this (if you pardon the pun).

Yes there are still bigots who are racist, and those people are being rightly called out (this has been happening more regularly for many years).

But i think it's too far to call the person who doesn't understand systemic racism a bigot. They're not being a bigot, they're just acting in what they perceive to be an open and honest way. They're trying to do the right thing - but they've yet to understand the difficult concept of unconscious bias.

If someone has it explained to them and still argues then that's a worrying a sign. But are they a bigot or are they just thick? And does that difference even matter? I don't know.

The key for society is for us to discuss systemic racism and unconscious bias much more. We need to educate ourselves better. I've said this before but calling people out as racist generally doesn't win folk round.

You are right it's absolutely not as clear cut. Just a bit of a summary really. One good thing that might come out of the recent focus on racism is more awareness of the types of racism that exist and the more unconscious ways it manifests itself. I expect vast swathes of society to refuse to be educated on it though. The "all lives matter" brigade mostly.

FWIW I had this discussion with Gaz (I think) a good while ago on here about people using the term "chinky" specifically in reference to takeaway food which was a debate between whether that in itself makes someone a racist person, or whether it represents an ignorant use of a racist term from someone who just thinks it's a word and has no issue whatsoever with anyone based on race. The point about being educated on its use and still using it was discussed then too.

It's very difficult to go anecdotal on these subjects too. I felt I had personal experience of why it doesnt neccesarily follow that someone who says it is a racist, but that led to "some of yer best pals are black/asian/gay" type chat and the whole thing got lost really.

I do think you are right that we maybe need to realign who gets branded a racist. The above example, is that worthy of getting plastered all over social media and held up as racist scum/cancelled, whatever else..... Not for me. The football fan caught on camera making monkey gestures otoh, definitely. Get them nailed to the fullest extent of the law. They deserve the brand.

As I had said before, and more so now. Being branded a racist will be a tough mark to remove, and will affect peoples life and prospects so we probably need to be more careful about it as we hopefully move through a constructive and educational phase on the subject.

[Gordon EF]

Part of the issue with "calling people out" is how effective is it. The example of someone who refuses to stop using words like "chinky" or "paki" after having it explained multiple times that's it's not really acceptable is a bit of an easy one. But there are far more ambiguous examples. If someone doesn't see themselves as a racist then it seems pretty unlikely that being called a racist is going to change their views.

[Stellaboz]

What's so hard just saying you're ordering a Chinese?

[philpy]

2 minutes ago, Stellaboz said:

What's so hard just saying you're ordering a Chinese?

Exactly. Some people say "I'm going to the pakis" when heading to the shop. What's wrong with just saying "I'm going to the shop"??