George Floyd/Black Lives Matter Protests

[Miguel Sanchez]

1 hour ago, D.A.F.C said:

Is the premier league racist?

Why is there no British Asian players?

 

 

2 hours ago, Marshmallo said:

I'm out of reputation points to down vote your ramblings so will just say take a minute or two away from the screen and read your posts back. I honestly don't think you're a bad guy but you've lost the run of yourself this weekend.

 

[Dan Steele]

9 minutes ago, gogsy said:

Scotland and the Klan presented by Neil Oliver just finished on BBC Scotland channel

Now, let me guess which side he was on...

Edited July 4, 2020 by The Skelpit Lug

[D.A.F.C]

Any white presenter; fine.
Any black presenter; tokenism! Box ticking! Quotas!
 
And you fail to see an issue with this attitude? You're seeing race and not just a person.

What is a diversity quota doing?

Its very definition is simplifying differences in people down to their race. I never said there was a problem with an all white motd lineup the bbc did.

Did any black people actually apply for the roles and were blocked? Did they advertise the roles? How do they select presenters?
Did they just hand their roles out to bame presenters to fulfill their quota?

At no point did I say there was any issue with having any colour or race on the show the bbc had this problem and have addressed it.

On the point of, is this all because someone got promoted ahead of me that was black? No, that wasn't the case.

My workplace is actually really diverse and a better place for it. My original point was that by throwing in bame presenters and actors its not going to solve racism.
We need to change the system of why bame people aren't applying or getting employed in overtly white like the police force or westminster.

The bbc is run by white middle class left leaning people who think they're solving racism by quotas. How about moving aside at the top?


https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whoweare/exco

All white apart from a black person in charge of diversity.
Its bullshit, change the top of the tree to make real changes.

[D.A.F.C]

BLM protestors are protesting about systemic racism, oppression and prejuidice that is centuries old.
The BBC hiring a few black people is in no way similar. Are you seriously suggesting that the BBC is being racist by hiring a few black folk? Are you seriously suggesting that, by hiring a few black people, the BBC is prejudice against white people and is actively working to put up all sorts of barriers and oppress white people?
Have a fucking word.

Again I didn't say that.

[Marshmallo]

1 minute ago, D.A.F.C said:

The bbc is run by white middle class left leaning people who think they're solving racism by quotas. 

And there we have it

[DA Baracus]

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

What is a diversity quota doing?

Its very definition is simplifying differences in people down to their race. I never said there was a problem with an all white motd lineup the bbc did.

Did any black people actually apply for the roles and were blocked? Did they advertise the roles? How do they select presenters?
Did they just hand their roles out to bame presenters to fulfill their quota?

At no point did I say there was any issue with having any colour or race on the show the bbc had this problem and have addressed it.

On the point of, is this all because someone got promoted ahead of me that was black? No, that wasn't the case.

My workplace is actually really diverse and a better place for it. My original point was that by throwing in bame presenters and actors its not going to solve racism.
We need to change the system of why bame people aren't applying or getting employed in overtly white like the police force or westminster.

The bbc is run by white middle class left leaning people who think they're solving racism by quotas. How about moving aside at the top?


https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whoweare/exco

All white apart from a black person in charge of diversity.
Its bullshit, change the top of the tree to make real changes.

You see a black person on the BBC and you immediately jump to conclusions about quotas. You don't see a person. You see their race and then start assuming all sorts of things.

You're saying that roles were just handed out. Black people couldn't possibly have got their role because they're good at it; no, it's to fill a quota. A sneaky form of racism at worst or unconscious bias at the best, with the unspoken implication that black people can't do the job or can't do it as well, all down to their skin colour.

No idea why you're bringing your work in to it. I never mentioned a thing about that.

Edited July 4, 2020 by DA Baracus

[pandarilla]

That we want to be careful to not setup institutions that turn into the very thing that blm protesters are quite rightly protesting about.

I had some sympathy with you up until this point.

Yes the bbc have been bending over backwards in recent years to redress the balance and promote more bame people to presenting roles.

But this is a good thing!!

There was a clear underrepresentation and they're making an attempt to fix it. Sometimes positive discrimination like this can be clumsy but by f**k it's necessary. The same has been happening with women's sport. I get slightly irritated sometimes and then i remind myself that it's long overdue, and will clearly benefit our society.

And yes, Ian wright is a twat, and it's not racist to say so. But as others have pointed out repeatedly, there are plenty of white twats in football punditry, and he's definitely not an example of recent tokenism as he's been there for years. Keep his skin colour out of any criticism and you'll be fine.

[D.A.F.C]

And there we have it

Aye, people who were brought up with no discrimination and had every opportunity in life who get to make decisions about oppression and racism because they feel smug about it and think theyre changing the world when it actual fact they're the ones who are keeping underprivileged kids and poor people out of top jobs.
Who are they to decide?
Oh let them have a wee go, no let them have the same opportunities to get to where you are by challenging the real reasons people are disadvantaged.
Maybe less black people are able to get into universitys that charge an absolute fortune because theyre poor. Why are they poor? Why aren't black people coming through top universitys and getting senior roles within the bbc?
The diversity women was a news presenter not a manager.
I don't have all the answers or pretend to but just saying that I disagree with a certain aspect of the bbcs recruitment policy.
If the police had a recruitment drive and employed 3000 black officers but in ten years not one had made it to the top then its still racist.
Its hard to explain, I think we need to see many big changes from the white ruling class rather than small ones. As said after Rodney King nothing seems to have changed. If you're going to stick people into roles based on quotas then do it where it will make a difference.
I really don't want to offend anyone and apologise if I have done and for taking this slightly off topic. At no time have I resorted to name calling or putting others down or assuming anything about anyone.

[D.A.F.C]

You see a black person on the BBC and you immediately jump to conclusions about quotas. You don't see a person. You see their race and then start assuming all sorts of things.
You're saying that roles were just handed out. Black people couldn't possibly have got their role because they're good at it; no, it's to fill a quota. A sneaky form of racism at worst or unconscious bias at the best, with the unspoken implication that black people can't do the job or can't do it as well, all down to their skin colour.
No idea why you're bringing your work in to it. I never mentioned a thing about that.

Err no, again the bbc said they MUST increase the percentage of certain groups throughout the organisation. Except where it really matters.

[DA Baracus]

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

14 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

You see a black person on the BBC and you immediately jump to conclusions about quotas. You don't see a person. You see their race and then start assuming all sorts of things.
You're saying that roles were just handed out. Black people couldn't possibly have got their role because they're good at it; no, it's to fill a quota. A sneaky form of racism at worst or unconscious bias at the best, with the unspoken implication that black people can't do the job or can't do it as well, all down to their skin colour.
No idea why you're bringing your work in to it. I never mentioned a thing about that.

Err no, again the bbc said they MUST increase the percentage of certain groups throughout the organisation. Except where it really matters.

Yes. You have no idea where they're done it (i.e. in which roles) or even if they've done it.

Instead you see a black person and instantly jump to 'quotas'. You don't see a person. You see race and immediately make conclusions. You don't see a person doing their job. You see a black person and for some reason have an issue with that. It's somehow wrong to you. The implications are clear here.

[D.A.F.C]

Yes. You have no idea where they're done it (i.e. in which roles) or even if they've done it.
Instead you see a black person and instantly jump to 'quotas'. You don't see a person. You see race and immediately make conclusions. You don't see a person doing their job. You see a black person and for some reason have an issue with that. It's somehow wrong to you. The implications are clear here.

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.

[NotThePars]

Quotas don't solve anything in and of themselves but as a method of addressing decades of racist hiring policies they're fine. I don't think anyone should see them as a solution to the problem of racial inequality but they're necessary.

[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?