''Diversity'' and ''Inclusion'' in the UK: the rise of the Racist White Liberals

[mishkin]

discrminination
a : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment
racial discrimination
b : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually and discriminate

discriminate, verb: to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of.

I have never suggested the inferiority of any race and that said race should be discriminated against because ot the said inferiority.

[Cope]

I presume yours is the BBC that broadcasts in Fairyland. In real life BBC we see such speakers as Nigel Farage appearing on a very requent basis, as well as the likes of Nick Griffin, albeit it some time ago, Tommy Robinson and your favorite Sir Roger Scrotum. Discussion shows, such as Question Time are packed with gammon.

Yeah, I said it promotes cosmopolitan leftism, not that it's abandoned all semblance of balance. I have no interest in trying to explain implicit bias to you again, so I'll just let Hitchens do it.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Aexodus]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with discriminating to help any group of people who by any circumstance (race, sex, age, illness...) have difficulties or suffer discrimination.

Okay, so I asked was it okay to discriminate by race, you basically said only in cases of positive discrimination. In what way is Rory Stewart not standing for office positive discrimination?

Re: the thread
It is shamefull watching european white men complaining about racism. Mostly it is like crying because you have scratched your finger when a person next to you has just lost his hand.

1. I don’t think you know what the race and gender of the posters is.

2. If there is any amount of racism why shouldn’t someone complain about for example, telling someone they’re unsuitable for public office because of their race.

It is not bad to discriminate on the basis of race

Martin Luther King would be rolling in his grave.

[mishkin]

Okay, so I asked was it okay to discriminate by race, you basically said only in cases of positive discrimination. In what way is Rory Stewart not standing for office positive discrimination?.

You missed my post denying that it was right to forbid Rory Stewart from running for elections.

I will not answer the rest of your message, as stupid as the sample I have shown.

[Aexodus]

Alright then.

Do you see how discrimination to help say, Hindu Spaniards is effectively relative discrimination against non-Hindu Spaniards, for example? Can you bring yourself to say that racial or religious discrimination is always wrong? (except for maybe, casting etc)

[mongrel]

Okay, so I asked was it okay to discriminate by race, you basically said only in cases of positive discrimination. In what way is Rory Stewart not standing for office positive discrimination?



1. I don’t think you know what the race and gender of the posters is.

2. If there is any amount of racism why shouldn’t someone complain about for example, telling someone they’re unsuitable for public office because of their race.



Martin Luther King would be rolling in his grave.

There is no concept of positive discrimination in the UK, it's illegal. There is genuine occiupational requirement, which is hardly controversial.

Yeah, I said it promotes cosmopolitan leftism, not that it's abandoned all semblance of balance. I have no interest in trying to explain implicit bias to you again, so I'll just let Hitchens do it.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Bollocks it does. Hitchen's says whatever for money.

Here's another person who writes what peoople want to hear, for money.

https://www.culturematters.org.uk/in...ight-wing-bias


The truth can be read from the fact that Robbie Gibb, who edited the BBC’s political programmes, was appointed Theresa May’s Director of Communications.


At one time the likes of Oswald Moseley were banned. Now any loon can be invited into a studio , in order to inject 'balance'. There is not a discussion that does not have a renta-gammon. For example if someone criticises vaxxers for being a literal plague on the nation, or promotes the curbing of climate change, the BBC is compelled to give voice to some unqualified loon, in order to give them a say. The Naga Munchetty row was a case in point, a complaint against her sensible suggestion that Trump's 'go home' tweets could be construed as racist landed her in trouble.

[The spartan]

Martin Luther King would be rolling in his grave.

Do you think Martin Luther King was against Affirmative Action?

[Aexodus]

I would be surprised if he was. His entire shtick was being against racial discrimination.

[Love Mountain]

https://www.nola.com/opinions/articl...2f741336c.html

[Aexodus]

Shame. It’s hypocritical to campaign against racial discrimination but at the same time advocate racial discrimination.

[G. Ward]

In other news, a white man told he shouldn't go for a job because of the colour of his skin. Imagine what would happen if a black man was told he shouldn't stand for office in Norwich because the area is predominantly white and he wouldn't fit in?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-Etonian.html

Yes, there'd (rightfully) be a -storm, and, whomever told him that he couldn't stand for office in Norwich (coincidentally, my location right now as I write this) would be castigated.

aside from the anecdote, those comparisons ("imagine if they had said that to a black man", "imagine if that had happened to a woman") seem to ignore the discrimination suffered by some groups. (No, not even jokingly the european white man is a discriminated group).

It does not matter that European white men are not a discriminated-against group. It does not matter that they have been historically privileged in certain, major, ways. The principle is, or ought to be, equality among races.
If you are going to argue that it is permissible to stop a white-man running for office in Norwich, then you are simply going replacing one form of racism with another.

if you really want to atone for slavery, you should -- where you can -- pressure your government into taking some kind of action to sort-out Africa sensibly and responsibly, or, donate to a reputable charity, active in Africa.

This nonsense self-castigation (assuming that you are white) about "privileged" people having to atone for their great-grandfather's sins is outrageous, disgusting drivel.

-V

[G. Ward]

Bollocks it does. Hitchen's says whatever for money.

Here's another person who writes what peoople want to hear, for money.

https://www.culturematters.org.uk/in...ight-wing-bias


The truth can be read from the fact that Robbie Gibb, who edited the BBC’s political programmes, was appointed Theresa May’s Director of Communications.


At one time the likes of Oswald Moseley were banned. Now any loon can be invited into a studio , in order to inject 'balance'. There is not a discussion that does not have a renta-gammon. For example if someone criticises vaxxers for being a literal plague on the nation, or promotes the curbing of climate change, the BBC is compelled to give voice to some unqualified loon, in order to give them a say. The Naga Munchetty row was a case in point, a complaint against her sensible suggestion that Trump's 'go home' tweets could be construed as racist landed her in trouble.

I am -- I admit -- ignorant regarding the general discussion (I haven't bothered to read it all), and, I think, support your view that 'discrimination is discrimination, and ought to be illegal, regardless of who is doing the discriminating'.

But, I must take objection with your criticisms of Mr Peter Hitchens. I disagree with about half of what he says. His views on punishment -- his heavy emphasis on using force & long-sentences as a deterrent -- strike me as objectionable. His views on drugs are also, I think, perhaps overstated, but, that being said, I am glad that he gives them.

I agree with his views on politics. He does not vote, and hasn't for the past thirty years. He does not respect the Conservative Party. He does not like the Labour Party. He classifies himself as a Conservative, and yet supports the Nationalisation of the Railways.

He is a very unusual man, with unusual political opinions. It would be unfair to categorise him as "just like every other right-winger". I read his column weekly, and, whilst it sometimes annoys me, generally enjoy hearing his voice & opinions.

He strikes me as a pretty good man, who tries to be fair and honest.

I would be very surprised if he took money to espouse certain views.

If you would like sources, I can provide them:

Peter Hitchens on not-voting:
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...-go-away-.html

Peter Hitchens Nationalisation:
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...be-better.html

Peter Hitchens on the Labour & Conservative parties:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ervatives.html

Peter Hitchens on punishment and drugs:
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...-are-back.html

As I have said. I don't agree with everything he says, but is -- as far as I know -- a genuine man of integrity, and a respectable conservative.

I like him, and will insofar as I am able, defend him from attack.

-V

[mongrel]

I am -- I admit -- ignorant regarding the general discussion (I haven't bothered to read it all), and, I think, support your view that 'discrimination is discrimination, and ought to be illegal, regardless of who is doing the discriminating'.

But, I must take objection with your criticisms of Mr Peter Hitchens. I disagree with about half of what he says. His views on punishment -- his heavy emphasis on using force & long-sentences as a deterrent -- strike me as objectionable. His views on drugs are also, I think, perhaps overstated, but, that being said, I am glad that he gives them.

I agree with his views on politics. He does not vote, and hasn't for the past thirty years. He does not respect the Conservative Party. He does not like the Labour Party. He classifies himself as a Conservative, and yet supports the Nationalisation of the Railways.

He is a very unusual man, with unusual political opinions. It would be unfair to categorise him as "just like every other right-winger". I read his column weekly, and, whilst it sometimes annoys me, generally enjoy hearing his voice & opinions.

He strikes me as a pretty good man, who tries to be fair and honest.

I would be very surprised if he took money to espouse certain views.

If you would like sources, I can provide them:

Peter Hitchens on not-voting:
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...-go-away-.html

Peter Hitchens Nationalisation:
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...be-better.html

Peter Hitchens on the Labour & Conservative parties:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ervatives.html

Peter Hitchens on punishment and drugs:
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...-are-back.html

As I have said. I don't agree with everything he says, but is -- as far as I know -- a genuine man of integrity, and a respectable conservative.

I like him, and will insofar as I am able, defend him from attack.

-V

Put simply, I refuse buy a story from anyone who suggests that the BBC is 'leftist'. Peter Hitchen's reputation isn't so lofty that he would escape my scorn if he jumped on that bandwagon. It's values are inhereted from Baron Reith, who was an active Tory. Many of its news/politics staff have Tory party or Tory press links. It is risible to suggest it is 'leftist'.

[The spartan]

Shame. It’s hypocritical to campaign against racial discrimination but at the same time advocate racial discrimination.

If you want to call MLK jr. a hypocrite, that's one thing, but don't inappropriately evoke his views.

[Cope]

Put simply, I refuse buy a story from anyone who suggests that the BBC is 'leftist'. Peter Hitchen's reputation isn't so lofty that he would escape my scorn if he jumped on that bandwagon. It's values are inhereted from Baron Reith, who was an active Tory. Many of its news/politics staff have Tory party or Tory press links. It is risible to suggest it is 'leftist'.

I can see why Corbyn fanboys wouldn't think the BBC is leftist. Then again, you're making the classic mistake of thinking that Hitchens thinks that the Tory party represents conservatism in England.

If you want to call MLK jr. a hypocrite, that's one thing, but don't inappropriately evoke his views.

Are you saying that affirmative action is discriminatory?

[G. Ward]

Put simply, I refuse buy a story from anyone who suggests that the BBC is 'leftist'. Peter Hitchen's reputation isn't so lofty that he would escape my scorn if he jumped on that bandwagon. It's values are inhereted from Baron Reith, who was an active Tory. Many of its news/politics staff have Tory party or Tory press links. It is risible to suggest it is 'leftist'.

Okay. Firstly, the B.B.C was founded in 1922. Nearly a hundred years ago. Just because it was conservative when it was founded -- I must re-iterate, one-hundred-years-ago -- it does not mean, necessarily, that it is still conservative now.

Secondly, the Conservative Party of the 1920s, and the people it attracted, and what it represented, were very different from the Conservative Party of the 2000s - 2010s.

Just as, for instance, the Labour Party of today is different from the Labour party of the 1940s - '50s.

A great deal of social-conservatives, Peter Hitchens is an example, do not feel that the Conservative Party is a conservative institution. They do not feel that it values -- for instance -- religion and family-life, two traditionally conservative, and Conservative values.

I can see why Corbyn fanboys wouldn't think the BBC is leftist. Then again, you're making the classic mistake of thinking that Hitchens thinks that the Tory party represents conservatism in England.



Are you saying that affirmative action is discriminatory?

Indeed Peter Hitchens loathes the Conservatives (I.E. The political Party), but, would consider himself a conservative.

When I watched the video, I could get behind what Peter Hitchens was saying. I've seen the sort of thing he says happen, and, in-fact, seen them happen to him on T.V.
Hitchens makes the point that it is not conscious, and that the B.B.C. are unaware of it, as are a great deal of listeners. This sort of 'bias', if you want to call it that, is very difficult -- perhaps impossible -- to combat.
I don't think that it is aided by the fact that Peter's position is so unusual. He approaches problems from an unusual angle.

Now, I feel like I'm batting for Peter Hitchens.

I am a man of the Left, & would support Corbyn for P.M.

-V

[mongrel]

Are you saying that affirmative action is discriminatory?

Affirmative action is a foreign practice, irrelevant to UK life.

[The spartan]

Are you saying that affirmative action is discriminatory?

No? I was saying that MLK jr. was not against affirmative action, which Aexodeus seems to consider to be discriminatory.

[G. Ward]

Affirmative action is a foreign practice, irrelevant to UK life.

If I might jump-in here.

I don't like affirmative action. I don't think that it works, and I don't think that it is good. I think that if you really want to help people, then affirmative action is probably not the way to do because, inevitably, it is 'us' (the privileged), imposing reforms & aid on 'them' the un-privileged. I think that the best thing to do to help the under-privileged is to wait for them to air their demands, and try to respond to them as best we can, rather than attempting to second-guess their demands before they are made.

Affirmative action is a more widely-spread practise in America, but, it still very much exists over here.

I've seen more benign examples of it on countless jobs I've looked at.

They normally have a message like this:

"Candidates from ethnic-minority backgrounds will be considered closely for this role."
"We encourage application for this role from all members of the community."
"Candidates from ethnic-minority backgrounds will be at an advantage in applying for this role." (I've only seen it phrased like this once).

Now, I feel a little like I'm attacking you Mongrel.

But I'm probably more in-alignment with you than the other forum-posters.

Take care,

-V

[mongrel]

If I might jump-in here.

I don't like affirmative action. I don't think that it works, and I don't think that it is good. I think that if you really want to help people, then affirmative action is probably not the way to do because, inevitably, it is 'us' (the privileged), imposing reforms & aid on 'them' the un-privileged. I think that the best thing to do to help the under-privileged is to wait for them to air their demands, and try to respond to them as best we can, rather than attempting to second-guess their demands before they are made.

Affirmative action is a more widely-spread practise in America, but, it still very much exists over here.

I've seen more benign examples of it on countless jobs I've looked at.

They normally have a message like this:

"Candidates from ethnic-minority backgrounds will be considered closely for this role."
"We encourage application for this role from all members of the community."
"Candidates from ethnic-minority backgrounds will be at an advantage in applying for this role." (I've only seen it phrased like this once).

Now, I feel a little like I'm attacking you Mongrel.

But I'm probably more in-alignment with you than the other forum-posters.

Take care,

-V

It does not exist in the UK, it is illegal here end of. The only instance where it is lawful to give someone less qualified than another on basis of race, gender ,faith, sexuality , disability etc is if the reason falls under the definition of a genuine occupational requirement, for example female bra fitters or catholic priests.

Lines begging for diverse candidates to apply is not the same as actually handing out the job to them.

The only thing akin to affirmative action in the UK I'm aware of was the union closed shop and the exclusion of black people from certain roles in the Army and Civil Service, prior to the passing of the old Race Relations Act, as amended 1976. This of course only benefitted white people.


I suggest you read this. You will get the picture

https://assets.publishing.service.go...story_Note.pdf