Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[ralphjohn69]

First topic message reminder :

It's not logic. Most pot 4 teams are no worse than Rangers. If Rangers were the worst ever pot 4 team last year, what makes them any better now?

Because instead of playing another Pot 3 team they will be playing a Pot 4 team, who will probably be worse than a Pot 3 team so they have a better chance of getting 3rd, although it's obviously not guaranteed. You really don't help yourself when you post about football....

[McLaren]

goon/super

One way to help you think about equality policies like affirmative action which have some negative consequences is to think about the science of drug development.

Every drug we use has side effects, some quite serious, but it has been established that these negative consequences are worth it for the overall gain to society of using the drug. Like a drug, political interventions will have side effects. If you adopt the purists position that no side effects can be tolerated you end up not adopting anything.

[JuliusHMarx]

Can someone assist me? How can I put "That doesn't make either of them right" in terms that even someone with simplistic thought processes will understand?

Do you retract this statement?

Occasionally they may get it wrong, as per your examples, but I see no reason to obsess about the few outliers, especially as equality has not yet even been reached.

Do you agree that discrimination against white men is equally bad as any other, and any policy that does so must cease immediately? Just as any policy that discriminates against women/minorities etc.

No, I disagree. If the discrimination were to lead to the lynching of a white man, that would be worse than discrimination preventing a black man getting a job. So it would not be equal.

[superflyweight]

Can someone assist me? How can I put "That doesn't make either of them right" in terms that even someone with simplistic thought processes will understand?

Pretty hard to do when he/it doesn't seem to understand a simple term like "f*ck off".

[the-goon]

goon/super

One way to help you think about equality policies like affirmative action which have some negative consequences is to think about the science of drug development.

Every drug we use has side effects, some quite serious, but it has been established that these negative consequences are worth it for the overall gain to society of using the drug. Like a drug, political interventions will have side effects. If you adopt the purists position that no side effects can be tolerated you end up not adopting anything.

Not even close. You can choose not to take a drug, then you have no benefits or side effects. You can't choose not to part a society wide political intervention.

Unless you support the state forcing ppl to take a drug against their will... Then it is the same. Tyranny.

[the-goon]

Can someone assist me? How can I put "That doesn't make either of them right" in terms that even someone with simplistic thought processes will understand?

Do you retract this statement?

Occasionally they may get it wrong, as per your examples, but I see no reason to obsess about the few outliers, especially as equality has not yet even been reached.

Do you agree that discrimination against white men is equally bad as any other, and any policy that does so must cease immediately? Just as any policy that discriminates against women/minorities etc.

No, I disagree. If the discrimination were to lead to the lynching of a white man, that would be worse than discrimination preventing a black man getting a job. So it would not be equal.

So until whites are being lynched we haven't reached equality?? What?? This is not your position, surely!!

We were talking about job opportunities etc, but OK.

let me re-phrase:

Do you agree that discrimination against white men in the workplace/education sector is equally bad as any other, and any policy that does so must cease immediately? Just as any policy that discriminates against women/minorities etc.

[super_realist]

goon/super

One way to help you think about equality policies like affirmative action which have some negative consequences is to think about the science of drug development.

Every drug we use has side effects, some quite serious, but it has been established that these negative consequences are worth it for the overall gain to society of using the drug. Like a drug, political interventions will have side effects. If you adopt the purists position that no side effects can be tolerated you end up not adopting anything.

Mac, the point is that you don't need affirmative action to increase what you refer to as equality. You put the best person in the job and you do that by blind applications and blind interviewing. It isn't hard.

What would you do of the % of ethnic people in the workforce or in management roles or whatever were to exceed their % of the population. Would you want to positively discriminate against further employment from that sector?

Are you asking more white Londoner's to be stabbed to make it more equal in the same way?
Do you think it's disgraceful that the highest achieving demographics come from Asian and Indian families and want to stop them working so hard or take them out of the schools they are in?

[JuliusHMarx]

Do you agree that discrimination against white men in the workplace/education sector is equally bad as any other, and any policy that does so must cease immediately? Just as any policy that discriminates against women/minorities etc.

Yes, that is more or less what I believe, as I'm fairly sure Duty, S_r and everyone else realised some time ago. I can only imagine why it was more difficult for you to grasp.
At the risk of being more nuanced to a level beyond your simplistic black and white (pun intended) worldview, the overall level or amount of discrimination on the workforce still seems to be very much weighted against minorities and in favour of white males. In that sense, whilst an individual act or policy of discrimination can be equal (or, of course, can be more draconian) regardless of who it is against, the overall level of discrimination is not equal. Overall, white males are very much the beneficiaries, as many people in this country prefer.

[the-goon]

Can someone assist me? How can I put "That doesn't make either of them right" in terms that even someone with simplistic thought processes will understand?

Pretty hard to do when he/it doesn't seem to understand a simple term like "f*ck off".  

Go back to licking windows. You will add no value here.

[McLaren]

Not even close. You can choose not to take a drug, then you have no benefits or side effects. You can't choose not to part a society wide political intervention.

Unless you support the state forcing ppl to take a drug against their will... Then it is the same. Tyranny.

Yeah, you can choose not to take antibiotics for a toe infection, but you might lose your leg.

[super_realist]

I had 8 Nigerians on my MSc course, not one of them was allowed through to dissertation stage.
Someone like Mac would instantly jump to the conclusion this was racism and discrimination, same way people like him thinking legitimate criticisms of someone like Dianne Abbot would be mysogyny and racism.
To coin a cliche, everything with the "progressives" (regressive, more like) is black and white, and there's no further nuance or comprehension required.

[the-goon]

Do you agree that discrimination against white men in the workplace/education sector is equally bad as any other, and any policy that does so must cease immediately? Just as any policy that discriminates against women/minorities etc.

Yes, that is more or less what I believe, as I'm fairly sure Duty, S_r and everyone else realised some time ago. I can only imagine why it was more difficult for you to grasp.
At the risk of being more nuanced to a level beyond your simplistic black and white (pun intended) worldview, the overall level or amount of discrimination on the workforce still seems to be very much weighted against minorities and in favour of white males. In that sense, whilst an individual act or policy of discrimination can be equal (or, of course, can be more draconian) regardless of who it is against, the overall level of discrimination is not equal. Overall, white males are very much the beneficiaries, as many people in this country prefer.

Well no. Because you say one thing, and the opposite later in your post.

You say you oppose discrimination against white men, but then rationalise why it OK/necessary for reason XYZ.

I might be a massive racist according to you. But I'm the only one out of the 2 of us that opposes policies that discriminate against any individual full stop.
Take from that what you will.

Show me a policy that favours a white man over any minority, I will say that is wrong. You cannot say that when it's the other way around. You sort say it is, then give some rationalisation about overall historic scorecard, or that it's the other way around somewhere else (without an example) so who cares.

[JuliusHMarx]

You say you oppose discrimination against white men, but then rationalise why it OK/necessary for reason XYZ.

No, I haven't rationalized it or said it is necessary or even desirable. You are reading want you want to read, not what I actually write.

But I'm the only one out of the 2 of us that opposes policies that discriminate against any individual full stop.

Again, no, if indeed you do think that, then that would make 2 of us. Again, you seem desperate for me to believe something I don't actually believe.

[the-goon]

You say you oppose discrimination against white men, but then rationalise why it OK/necessary for reason XYZ.

No, I haven't rationalized it or said it is necessary or even desirable. You are reading want you want to read, not what I actually write.

But I'm the only one out of the 2 of us that opposes policies that discriminate against any individual full stop.

Again, no, if indeed you do think that, then that would make 2 of us. Again, you seem desperate for me to believe something I don't actually believe.  

Do you retract this statement?

Occasionally they may get it wrong, as per your examples, but I see no reason to obsess about the few outliers, especially as equality has not yet even been reached.

Should we continue with policies that produce these outliers? If you are genuine about opposing discrimination, you would say yes. And we would need to stop and think of another way to tackle the issue. It's very simple, discrimination isn't how you solve discrimination, if you are opposed to it in totality. Like I am.

But you defend policies that you know to discriminate. Ergo, you DO NOT oppose policies that discriminate against any individual full stop.

[JuliusHMarx]

This is genuinely amusing.

"Should we continue with policies that produce these outliers?"

Can you not comprehend simple English or must everything be reduced to monosyllabic statements for you to understand?

"Should we continue with policies that produce these outliers? If you are genuine about opposing discrimination, you would say yes"
No. There you go. Please let me know if that is too difficult for you. Note that I have not said 'Yes' despite your recommendation, because you appear to be confused about what continuing or not continuing these policies means.

As for the "I'm 100% right" and "opposed to it in totality. Like I am.", such self-aggrandizing statements are an amusing psychological insight.

Would it make you feel better if I said I am humbled by your very presence on this board and that your moral values put us mere mortals to shame?

[the-goon]

Fair cop.

It should read no. And thank you for answering.

So the BBC and every organization should stop having job openings only for minority applicants?

We should end diversity targets and quotas, as it incentivises hiring a less qualified candidate to boost that score?

Stop having different admission standards based on race?

You agree all these are wrong?

[JuliusHMarx]

Jesus Christ, how many times do I have to say it, and how many different ways do I need to say it?!

I heard the BBC would only interview women for the role of Queen Elizabeth II. This nonsense has to stop!

[the-goon]

Saying once would be nice. Unqualified.

[JuliusHMarx]

It would also be nice if you said using the term "black bint" was wrong. Unqualified.
You go first.

[super_realist]

England living up to their pre tournament favourite tag.
They are basically the US Ryder Cup squad, good individuals, can't play as a team.

[the-goon]

It would also be nice if you said using the term "black bint" was wrong. Unqualified.
You go first.

There you go. Can't bring yourself to say it. Fair enough. The left always accuse you of what they are.

Almost got to some common ground, but being against the discrimination of white men was just a bridge too far.

Maybe JAS, McClaren will be more tolerant.

[JAS]

I was hellish busy yesterday and missed the interesting debate. Reading it over breakfast this morning my main takeaway is that I’m adding a new favourite word to my vocabulary. It’s 9 letters and ends in ‘slice. Thank you super flyweight :-)

[the-goon]

England living up to their pre tournament favourite tag.
They are basically the US Ryder Cup squad, good individuals, can't play as a team.

Do they still take the knee? Or has racism been solved?

[JuliusHMarx]

It would also be nice if you said using the term "black bint" was wrong. Unqualified.
You go first.

There you go. Can't bring yourself to say it. Fair enough. The left always accuse you of what they are.

Almost got to some common ground, but being against the discrimination of white men was just a bridge too far.

Maybe JAS, McClaren will be more tolerant.

The problem is that you are so desperate to 'own the libtards' or whatever the current phrase is, that you misinterpret (wilfully or though lack of intelligence, I'm not sure) answers and lack of answers in a simplistic way that leads to your much-coveted 'gotcha' conclusion, when in fact, your conclusions are wrong.
However, given that -
1. This situation clearly makes you feel better about yourself, which is a good thing and apparently necessary for your mental health.
2. I don't really care that you, a stranger on the internet, erroneously thinks badly of me.
3. I don't want to spend my life convincing you that the earth is not flat (or the political and personal equivalences thereof).
4. You think 'black bint' is an acceptable term, with all that implies about you.
- then I will return to limericks and flouncing around with morning tea. Or perhaps Duty calls?

[navyblueshorts]

What are the "right reasons"?

Really that's it? That's all DEI, CRT etc is asking us to do? Just have a little think?

There aren't jobs where only BAME candidates are considered? Lower scores for black to access higher education? Quotas? Race based grants? Race based political activism for every group except whites?

It sounds like you think there is a widespread conspiracy out to get the white man?


The right reason to feel offended if you are called out for being racist is because you have been racist. Acknowledge it, learn and move on.

No idea what DEI is, but yes, quite simply you are being asked to be a more considerate member of society.

And yes, policies exist which try and rebalance discrimination. Obviously they will not be perfect but we have to try.

Diversity, Equality and Inclusion.

The E stands for Equity actually, not equality. DEI is shorthand for an abandoning of  a meritocracy.

Ta for the correction. Completely disagree w/ your interpretation of its function though; suggests you know little about its typical operation in any environment.

[navyblueshorts]

"Anti-racist" CRT asserts that all whites are racist, and there is no amount of pandering that can wash away that original sin.

This gets to the heart of the issue. Racists like goon are rightly offended when themselves or others are called racist but they are not offended for the right reasons.

All the "pandering" you are being asked to do is occasionally think about how you view or treat others, and accept that like everyone you will have inherent biases.

What are the "right reasons"?

Really that's it? That's all DEI, CRT etc is asking us to do? Just have a little think?

There aren't jobs where only BAME candidates are considered? Lower scores for black to access higher education? Quotas? Race based grants? Race based political activism for every group except whites?

I won't comment on the rest of this (which is almost certainly utter baloney and/or misrepresentation of the facts to fit your agenda), but I work in this sector, have been responsible for admissions onto STEM UG programmes at one particular university, and what you say re. this is flat out rubbish. There are so-called widening participation schemes, but that has nothing to do w/ ethnicity.

What's this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard#:~:text=Harvard%2C%20600%20U.S.%20181%20(2023,Students%20for%20Fair%20Admissions%20v.

And this?

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-chart-illustrates-graphically-racial-preferences-for-blacks-and-hispanics-being-admitted-to-us-medical-schools/

My agenda is treat ppl regardless of race, but if you a race to the bottom with ID politics, whites also get to play.

I don't give a damn what's going on in the U.S. in this sphere. I'm talking about the U.K. I also don't give a damn if there are some examples from which you extrapolate that this is the case everywhere.

I'm not sure I'd give much credence to many SCOTUS decisions just now on cases such as this either.

I specifically told you that I have 1st hand experience in one specific area and what you say is nonsense. I've also been party to job interview panels in the same sphere, and the amount of hurdle jumping etc that has to be gone through to avoid exactly what you suggest is a real pain, but also confirms it doesn't happen in that area (at least in my experience) either.

[super_realist]

What are the "right reasons"?

Really that's it? That's all DEI, CRT etc is asking us to do? Just have a little think?

There aren't jobs where only BAME candidates are considered? Lower scores for black to access higher education? Quotas? Race based grants? Race based political activism for every group except whites?

It sounds like you think there is a widespread conspiracy out to get the white man?


The right reason to feel offended if you are called out for being racist is because you have been racist. Acknowledge it, learn and move on.

No idea what DEI is, but yes, quite simply you are being asked to be a more considerate member of society.

And yes, policies exist which try and rebalance discrimination. Obviously they will not be perfect but we have to try.

Diversity, Equality and Inclusion.

The E stands for Equity actually, not equality. DEI is shorthand for an abandoning of  a meritocracy.

Ta for the correction. Completely disagree w/ your interpretation of its function though; suggests you know little about its typical operation in any environment.

I'm sure it's intention is noble, but it's resulted in the acceptance of lunatic tie ins with groups like Stonewall, a once decent organisation turned into idiocy and other things like not being allowed to matriculate without accepting "white privilege".

Too much laughable things have been tagged on to it.

[navyblueshorts]

When was there ever a meritocracy to be abandoned?

I want the best person to get the job, not the person who ticks a DEI box.

Yes, and that's almost universally what happens in any sane company. What does happen in places is that where two candidates are equal in all other aspects, but a company has a gender imbalance or lack of representation from certain ethnicities, they're quite within their rights to say that in those circumstances, they'll take the one that improves their gender or ethnic makeup.

[navyblueshorts]

What are the "right reasons"?

Really that's it? That's all DEI, CRT etc is asking us to do? Just have a little think?

There aren't jobs where only BAME candidates are considered? Lower scores for black to access higher education? Quotas? Race based grants? Race based political activism for every group except whites?

It sounds like you think there is a widespread conspiracy out to get the white man?


The right reason to feel offended if you are called out for being racist is because you have been racist. Acknowledge it, learn and move on.

No idea what DEI is, but yes, quite simply you are being asked to be a more considerate member of society.

And yes, policies exist which try and rebalance discrimination. Obviously they will not be perfect but we have to try.

Diversity, Equality and Inclusion.

I prefer Didn't Earn It

You would, but you don't understand how this sort of thing works. You think you do because of your own prejudices, but you don't.

[JuliusHMarx]

I'm sure it's intention is noble...

Perhaps that is why DEI is not as bad in the scheme of things as, say, white supremacism, whose intention is evil, or as bad as the people who have hijacked DEI for less noble purposes for which it was not originally intended.

[navyblueshorts]

...We have seen meritocracy in action in  University Entrance for example. You used to get in with the requisite grades, now, you get in if you pay more as a foreign student....

This is facile nonsense. At least, it is in any meaningful university. Entrance grades, in most courses, are the be all, and end all. There was something in the media recently about, I think York, trying to allow foreign students in via lower grades because they pay ~3x the fee, but that was rightly trashed once it became common knowledge. That's not to say some universities aren't doing this for the 2024-25 intake behind the scenes, but there's an incoming financial crisis in pretty much all UK universities, so not surprising they're trying to balance books by hook or by crook.

[super_realist]

I'm sure it's intention is noble...

Perhaps that is why DEI is not as bad in the scheme of things as, say, white supremacism, whose intention is evil, or as bad as the people who have hijacked DEI for less noble purposes for which it was not originally intended.

Who is trying to compare the two? It is absolutely ludicrous to bring in "white supremacism" into a conversation about UK society. It might have flown in 1950's Deep South USA, but in UK, that's assinine.

For info I actually do know a DEI officer in a Russell Group University who grades and rates departments in her own, and in other Universities for how well they are reaching their DEI "objectives" and frankly some of the criteria is laughable, but if it makes wonks like David Tenant feel better it must be worth it.

[JuliusHMarx]

In future I will try to ensure my analogies meet your strict criteria (whatever they are) if it makes you feel better.

[navyblueshorts]

Super

Another thing I don't get is this. You clearly have no interest in dealing with inequality so why not just let those that do get on with it? None of the policies, including affirmative action, are going to have any effect on you, so you might as well just let people have a go.

Says who Mac? We just have different views of how to approach it, and yes I am highly likely to be the type of person who would be overlooked in regards to affirmative action, why wouldn't I be?
If I'm up against a woman with the same experience as me, it's an easy tick in the box for diversity targets to take the woman isn't it? Companies get audited on the M/F ratio and details are published by the industry and individual companies, so yes I am at risk, as are you as a white, middle aged male.

...but if you and she are otherwise equal in skills/experience, that's not an issue if the company has a male dominated workforce and think there might be a benefit in balancing that out, is it?

[navyblueshorts]

It wasn't by "design"  that these events benefitted white British people in the outset, it was circumstantial.

So when the British rocked up in Africa, India and Australia they just accidently genocided or enslaved the locals?

Mac that was preindustrial and pre scientific revolution.
What about the Barbary slave trade, Ottoman Empire etc enslaving and "genocided" white people? So one eyed is your history understanding you probably weren't even aware of that.

Kind of whataboutery. There's no reason why, for example, Britain can't acknowledge/examine its colonial past, and the potential -ve effects that might have had on people of African descent. What other colonial, for example, nations do re. addressing their past is down to them.

[navyblueshorts]

Super

If you think about the easiest route to a good job in the UK, which is good primary school, good high school, uni and then workplace, there is a filter at each stage which disproportionately inhibits the path of most minorities. Be that race, class, sex, or whatever. And would you agree that it will take decades of political change to even up the playing field at each stage of that process?

All affirmative action is saying is that we can't wait until that massive change has occurred to have minorities represented in the work place. It's a band aid to help aid the cultural change we need. It is also the case that the massive change we need in society won't happen until minorities are properly represented in important positions. I don't think we get the massive changes needed for equality in our society unless we try and do a few short cuts along the way.

Short cuts at whose expense? What are these short cuts? Quotas? Lowering the standards for certain races? Job openings only for certain races?

Again and again, you guys say it's ok to discriminate against white men in so many words, then deny that you are. Are you simply unaware of the implications of what you advocate? What would you need to see in order understand it?

So, in your opinion/interpretation? That's what you mean.

It's not even true in any broad sense. You can't (well, you can) pick one discrete example of possible minority practice and then extrapolate in the way that you do.

[JuliusHMarx]

Surely it is absolutely ludicrous to bring "the Barbary slave trade" into a conversation about UK history?

[navyblueshorts]

goon/super

One way to help you think about equality policies like affirmative action which have some negative consequences is to think about the science of drug development.

Every drug we use has side effects, some quite serious, but it has been established that these negative consequences are worth it for the overall gain to society of using the drug. Like a drug, political interventions will have side effects. If you adopt the purists position that no side effects can be tolerated you end up not adopting anything.

Stop banging on about this, as if it's a majority practice. It's not, and in pretty much all cases in the UK, I imagine it would be against employment law.

[navyblueshorts]

...Do you agree that discrimination against white men in the workplace/education sector is equally bad as any other, and any policy that does so must cease immediately? Just as any policy that discriminates against women/minorities etc.

I would agree with this, but it's not happening so it's a moot point.

[navyblueshorts]

I had 8 Nigerians on my MSc course, not one of them was allowed through to dissertation stage.
Someone like Mac would instantly jump to the conclusion this was racism and discrimination, same way people like him thinking legitimate criticisms of someone like Dianne Abbot would be mysogyny and racism.
To coin a cliche, everything with the "progressives" (regressive, more like) is black and white, and there's no further nuance or comprehension required.

Don't be so ridiculous.

[super_realist]

It wasn't by "design"  that these events benefitted white British people in the outset, it was circumstantial.

So when the British rocked up in Africa, India and Australia they just accidently genocided or enslaved the locals?

Mac that was preindustrial and pre scientific revolution.
What about the Barbary slave trade, Ottoman Empire etc enslaving and "genocided" white people? So one eyed is your history understanding you probably weren't even aware of that.

Kind of whataboutery. There's no reason why, for example, Britain can't acknowledge/examine its colonial past, and the potential -ve effects that might have had on people of African descent. What other colonial, for example, nations do re. addressing their past is down to them.

Why is it only Britain that needs to do this? No one is asking the same from Dane's, Belgians, Dutch, Chinese, French, Ottomans, Africans etc. It seems that it's only Britain that needs to feel shame for a colonial past.
Britain DOES examine and acknowledge it's colonial past.

No one alive today was responsible, so we have absolutely no reason to feel any "shame".

Name a country that hasn't done anything bad in its history? They all have, but for some reason we're supposed to feel shame and guilt for something we played no part in.

[navyblueshorts]

Surely it is absolutely ludicrous to bring "the Barbary slave trade" into a conversation about UK history?

Not to some...

[navyblueshorts]

It wasn't by "design"  that these events benefitted white British people in the outset, it was circumstantial.

So when the British rocked up in Africa, India and Australia they just accidently genocided or enslaved the locals?

Mac that was preindustrial and pre scientific revolution.
What about the Barbary slave trade, Ottoman Empire etc enslaving and "genocided" white people? So one eyed is your history understanding you probably weren't even aware of that.

Kind of whataboutery. There's no reason why, for example, Britain can't acknowledge/examine its colonial past, and the potential -ve effects that might have had on people of African descent. What other colonial, for example, nations do re. addressing their past is down to them.

Why is it only Britain that needs to do this? No one is asking the same from Dane's, Belgians, Dutch, Chinese,  French, Ottomans, Africans etc. It seems that it's only Britain that needs to feel shame for a colonial past.
Britain DOES examine and acknowledge it's colonial past.

No one alive today was responsible, so we have absolutely no reason to feel any "shame".

Name a country that hasn't done anything bad in its history? They all have, but for some reason we're supposed to feel shame and guilt for something we played no part in.

Good Lord. No-one says it's only Britain that has to do this. The point is that other nations are irrelevant and we're talking about possible reasons why blacks in UK society might have an experience of historical prejudice. Do you not get that? Do you disagree?

[McLaren]

...not being allowed to matriculate without accepting "white privilege"

Yeah, and the kids are pooping in litter trays. :shock:

[McLaren]

Yes, and that's almost universally what happens in any sane company. What does happen in places is that where two candidates are equal in all other aspects, but a company has a gender imbalance or lack of representation from certain ethnicities, they're quite within their rights to say that in those circumstances, they'll take the one that improves their gender or ethnic makeup.

Problem is that with mindsets like Super and Goon, they can't imagine that a company having a diverse workforce could actually be a good thing for the company. Financially and HR wise.

[McLaren]

I had 8 Nigerians on my MSc course, not one of them was allowed through to dissertation stage.
Someone like Mac would instantly jump to the conclusion this was racism and discrimination, same way people like him thinking legitimate criticisms of someone like Dianne Abbot would be mysogyny and racism.
To coin a cliche, everything with the "progressives" (regressive, more like) is black and white, and there's no further nuance or comprehension required.

Would you care to expand on this?

[super_realist]

It wasn't by "design"  that these events benefitted white British people in the outset, it was circumstantial.

So when the British rocked up in Africa, India and Australia they just accidently genocided or enslaved the locals?

Mac that was preindustrial and pre scientific revolution.
What about the Barbary slave trade, Ottoman Empire etc enslaving and "genocided" white people? So one eyed is your history understanding you probably weren't even aware of that.

Kind of whataboutery. There's no reason why, for example, Britain can't acknowledge/examine its colonial past, and the potential -ve effects that might have had on people of African descent. What other colonial, for example, nations do re. addressing their past is down to them.

Why is it only Britain that needs to do this? No one is asking the same from Dane's, Belgians, Dutch, Chinese,  French, Ottomans, Africans etc. It seems that it's only Britain that needs to feel shame for a colonial past.
Britain DOES examine and acknowledge it's colonial past.

No one alive today was responsible, so we have absolutely no reason to feel any "shame".

Name a country that hasn't done anything bad in its history? They all have, but for some reason we're supposed to feel shame and guilt for something we played no part in.

Good Lord. No-one says it's only Britain that has to do this. The point is that other nations are irrelevant and we're talking about possible reasons why blacks in UK society might have an experience of historical prejudice. Do you not get that? Do you disagree?

The clue is HISTORICAL, ie, not affecting them now.
Playing the guilt and oppressed card has long since expired.

[super_realist]

I had 8 Nigerians on my MSc course, not one of them was allowed through to dissertation stage.
Someone like Mac would instantly jump to the conclusion this was racism and discrimination, same way people like him thinking legitimate criticisms of someone like Dianne Abbot would be mysogyny and racism.
To coin a cliche, everything with the "progressives" (regressive, more like) is black and white, and there's no further nuance or comprehension required.

Would you care to expand on this?

Why don't you give me a list of reasons as to why it might be possible that it was nothing to do with their skin colour why they were kicked off the course. Have you got it in you to make some suggestions. It will tell me a lot about how little you know about certain countries that you claim to "stand shoulder to shoulder with".

If you can't answer, it will just confirm that you can't see past race, which ironically makes you a racist.

[McLaren]

Why is it only Britain that needs to do this? No one is asking the same from Dane's, Belgians, Dutch, Chinese,  French, Ottomans, Africans etc. It seems that it's only Britain that needs to feel shame for a colonial past.
Britain DOES examine and acknowledge it's colonial past.

No one alive today was responsible, so we have absolutely no reason to feel any "shame".

Name a country that hasn't done anything bad in its history? They all have, but for some reason we're supposed to feel shame and guilt for something we played no part in.

I'm sure those other countries are being asked to examine their past, it just doesn't feature in our news cycle. But even if they don't want to, does that mean we shouldn't?

Are we sure no one is alive today who was responsible for racist practices in the empire? There are quite a few African countries that didn't get independence until the 60's.

And even if people aren't alive, the legacy persists. Why do you think you and Goon have some of the views you have? You have been raised by people with a lineage to a time when Britain treated black and brown people like property.

[JuliusHMarx]

I had 8 Nigerians on my MSc course, not one of them was allowed through to dissertation stage.
Someone like Mac would instantly jump to the conclusion this was racism and discrimination, same way people like him thinking legitimate criticisms of someone like Dianne Abbot would be mysogyny and racism.
To coin a cliche, everything with the "progressives" (regressive, more like) is black and white, and there's no further nuance or comprehension required.

Would you care to expand on this?

Why don't you give me a list of reasons as to why it might be possible that it was nothing to do with their skin colour why they were kicked off the course. Have you got it in you to make some suggestions. It will tell me a lot about how little you know about certain countries that you claim to "stand shoulder to shoulder with".

If you can't answer, it will just confirm that you can't see past race, which ironically makes you a racist.

You want Mac to suggest some possible reasons, when you know the actual reasons, but won't tell him? How old are you?

[super_realist]

Yes, and that's almost universally what happens in any sane company. What does happen in places is that where two candidates are equal in all other aspects, but a company has a gender imbalance or lack of representation from certain ethnicities, they're quite within their rights to say that in those circumstances, they'll take the one that improves their gender or ethnic makeup.

Problem is that with mindsets like Super and Goon, they can't imagine that a company having a diverse workforce could actually be a good thing for the company. Financially and HR wise.

Mac, I've already told you I work for one of the biggest companies in Europe. In my own team I've got 25 different nationalities and in the company over 100 different nationalities. I work in one of the most diverse industries in the entire world and it has a pretty much equal gender ratio.
Doubt yours is anywhere close to any of that.

[Sponsored content]