Three different FE’s, three different butchered versions of gravity.

OK, OK, I’ll explain this one.

You were saying that CRT ignored discrimination against white males.

But where did CRT start?  What is the basic question that CRT is examining?

Basically “Why has the gap between black and white demographics not closed since the civil rights movement (now over 50 years ago), despite all the apparent progress on equality, legal rights, etc?”

Is the answer to that question because of discrimination against white males?  Seems highly unlikely to me.

Which is just further ignoring that discrimination.
It doesn't address the issue, it deflects from it.
It is a criticism of CRT, which promotes such continued racism.

It’s still wrong and you still think you get to tell me who and what I care about.

Yes, your "Correction" is still wrong, as you are making up a claim on my behalf.

May I remind you that all this is your claims about what I think.
It’s fascinating that you think I’m the one lying about you and inventing strawmen.

It's quite simple, because you said this:

You claim I don’t care about disadvantaged white males.  You are WRONG and doesn’t matter how much you insist you are right.

That is you claiming that I claimed that you don't care about disadvantaged white males.

Not that you don't care about racism against them, but that you don't care about them.

That is quite different.

I give up.  You’re clearly not going to acknowledge how bonkers it is to argue with me about what I think, based on your interpretation of a few lines of text.

Again, when you were refusing to clarify your position, is that surprising at all?

So here goes:

I do NOT support policies such as affirmative action that discriminate  based on race.  It’s not actually legal where I live, and I think that’s right. 

It is of course much harder to identify and enforce racial discrimination based on personal prejudice, which is also illegal.

So based on this new information are you going to revise your “conclusions” about me?

Thank you. Was that so hard?
Yes, based upon this new information I was mistaken to say you were racist.

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 10, 2023, 07:59:16 PM

1.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-29/job-applicants-with-black-names-still-less-likely-to-get-the-interview

I asked for the study, not a news website.
If you had that website, and bothered spending more than 5 seconds, it wouldn't be hard for you to provide the study itself.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29053/w29053.pdf

I find their null hypothesis blatantly racist:
"we cannot reject the null hypothesis that all 108 firms in our experiment weakly favor white names"
The null hypothesis should be that there is no discrimination, and they need evidence to show that is not the case.
Otherwise, you can just say that the effect was too small to be picked up by the survey, so of course they wont be able to reject that null hypothesis.

They sent 83,000 applications and had a 24% response rate, with 2.1 pp reduction for black people, with a standard deviation across companies of 1.9 pp for the gap.
So the gap is quite close to 1 standard deviation, and with some firms favouring black names.

And they end up with 23 of the 108 firms being shown to discriminate, with a 5% error rate. And of these, they are significant variations in industry. e.g. a lot come from the auto dealer industry, with one having a difference of 9.5 pp.

And it also suffers from selection bias with how they have chosen their companies to look at, and possible issues with the applicant pool not matching the population.
And the biggest that it is just the first step of the application process where it is halted, and it is just names.
(Some names did quite badly, e.g. Geoffrey did the third worst, maybe because they were such a crappy spoilt king).

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 10, 2023, 07:59:16 PM

2.
We ll have to agree to disagree.
But remeber this guy?
Last time me and you discussed affirmative action this guy hapoenstanced to be in the news amd we both agreed with each other and with him.

Except you thought (still think) the policy is dumb where as i thought the admin adminisitering the policy was acting like a dumbass robot.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/minority-professor-denied-grants-because-he-hires-on-merit-people-are-afraid-to-think

I don't remember the discussion, but I remember the story.
Yes, the policy is incredibly stupid, but the admin person is meant to act as a robot.
Allowing an exception to the policy for a "minority" person would be blatant racism and should not be permitted.
If you think the policy is good, then you should be happy this person didn't get a grant. You shouldn't change your mind because the policy served to disadvantage a "minority" person.

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 10, 2023, 07:59:16 PM

Racism like a dog that bites.
When its a chiauua no one cares.
When its a 100lb dog then we should care.
When its a majority overbearing on a minoroty we should care.

People do care when they are bitten by a chihuahua.
When it is racism we should care, regardless of who is the victim.

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 10, 2023, 07:59:16 PM

But claiming basic equalizing methods are as bad as systemic racism well.... thats just silly

"equalising" methods which target race, rather than the actual issue, are just as bad as systemic racism, as they are a form of systemic racism.
They also typically don't help, as we have already seen.
And one likely contributing factor is that the people they help the most are the ones that don't need it as much. i.e. people quite close to being qualified for whatever they are applying for, but just failing.

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 10, 2023, 07:59:16 PM

Skip to 7:59 for that kids face when asked about his home.

Not available in my country.

1
"resume name experiment"
well yes every social study has inherent bias...which i think is kind of also the point.
but they do the study every couple years.
i never dug deeper into each time if it was done the same.
it's generic.
i know my own personally i wouldn't hire someone i expect has a hard accent.

but again, there are many different versions, i just grabbed the first link that popped up.

here's anecdotal
https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/a-male-and-female-worker-switched-names-for-a-week-heres-how-clients-treated-the.html


here's the same school from 2003 but with different methodology.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w9873/w9873.pdf

here's one from havrad
http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/Whitening%20MS%20R2%20Accepted.pdf




2.
"affirmativeaction"

govt deals with big numbers.
they want integration of immigrants or just increasing the labour pool demographics.

ha see we're still oposite

but should be taken in context.
gov't deals with big numbers - but admin who have the ability to be a human with a human brain should take things in context.
so no, i agree with the policy, but Prof here has good reason to work individually with the admin to present his case.

Admin should not act as a robot.
Admin is wrong.

equalizing methods are NOT just as bad as systemic racism.
Because, if all things equal, the Hirer should be getting an hiree that is qualified, albeit has a vagina or more pigmentation or a heavy accent.
Not that the employer is getting a lesser thing.
Systemic racism the victimized group IS getting a lesser thing.


and separately, and even if so, big govt doesn't care.
they care about big nubmers.
If jim's company makes 98$ (vs 100$) at the end because his new pakistani employee's engislih isn't super topnotch, big gov't doesn't care.
big gov't cares only that the immigrant has assymilated, is learning, and is productive.


we should let this one die again since we're still at same stance/ POV.







3.
"reverse racism"

just as in context economics and in context racial.
if the racial disparagy happens in a very racist state then we can caus-ate with high confidence that there's no coincidental correlation going on there.

"don't say ngr ngr ngr"

but in an economic scene, the reverse racism, the irrational angry black woman flipping the race card every chance she gets, does nothing but hurt her peoples cause.
the rich white guy, if he's not being racist, is unaffected.
he can feel bad.
or he can feel confident he is not bad.
or he can be a sociopath and not care to begin with.
people can hate whoever they want to hate.
but people SHOULD not be able to impose detrimental economic or health disparagement on another people.



3.

maybe we loosing the forest and the trees and the whatever the saying goes.
you're right,  just saying again it's not always economic, it's not always racial, but it's sometimes economic and it's sometimes racial.
(skip to 2:39)

maybe we not all speaking the same language here:
semantical fight in 'racist' in that it implies committing resources towards a particular group of peoples (JBlack).
opposed to where in 'racist' implies punching down oppression (Kabool).

i'm sure you would prefer
Ruth Bader Ginsburg quoting Sarah Grimke:  "I ask no favor for my sex [or race]. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks."

but i think me and unco are saying
"don't say ngr ngr ngr" and that foot on the neck does happen.

here's anecdotal
https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/a-male-and-female-worker-switched-names-for-a-week-heres-how-clients-treated-the.html

Anecdotes aren't that helpful, especially with how great people are at a multitude of different biases.
e.g. if you think you are going to have a harder time signing off as female, you will likely perceive to be having a harder time; and likewise if you think you will have an easier time signing off as a male, you will likely perceive to be having an easier time.

here's the same school from 2003 but with different methodology.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w9873/w9873.pdf

here's one from havrad
http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/Whitening%20MS%20R2%20Accepted.pdf

Being similar in methodology, they have similar flaws, possibly the biggest being not knowing what applicants there are for the job, and if there is already any balancing being done by the company on the assumption of race which could affect the call back rate.

But one interesting thing from the first link is that the resumes sent weren't equal.
White names were more likely to have more years of experience and less likely to have computer skills.

And it still finds a very significant difference in call back rates among names from the same race. i.e. white names range from 6.6% to 15.9%, black names range from 2.2% to 11.3%.

For the second, it is a look at what people do to try to get a job, based upon all sorts of personal biases and presumptions; rather than a study of systemic racism.

govt deals with big numbers.
they want integration of immigrants or just increasing the labour pool demographics.

ha see we're still oposite

but should be taken in context.
gov't deals with big numbers - but admin who have the ability to be a human with a human brain should take things in context.
so no, i agree with the policy, but Prof here has good reason to work individually with the admin to present his case.

Again, I entirely disagree.
If you want to enact a policy, especially one allegedly for improving working conditions for minorities or making them more likely to be employed, especially when claimed to be doing it for equality, you apply it equally.
You do NOT make a special exception for minorities.

That would entirely defeat the point of the policy.
They are an example of why such stupid policies and such racist outlooks fail.
You aren't helping the disadvantaged people, you are helping the already successful people.

So no, the admin was only wrong in the sense they had to follow this ridiculous policy in the first place.
Making an exception means they are helping an already successful person that doesn't need this policy, while discarding those who are meant to benefit from it.

equalizing methods are NOT just as bad as systemic racism.
Because, if all things equal, the Hirer should be getting an hiree that is qualified, albeit has a vagina or more pigmentation or a heavy accent.
Not that the employer is getting a lesser thing.
Systemic racism the victimized group IS getting a lesser thing.

Considering they are system racism, they are.
In this case, the "victimised group" is being denied job opportunities, scholarships, university admission and so on.
If that wasn't the case, then this policy would be doing literally nothing and there would be no need for it in the first place.
It means the company gets an employee that is less qualified, with a more qualified not getting the job; and possible additional things compounding onto it where the less qualified person is looked down upon by other people in the company.

and separately, and even if so, big govt doesn't care.
they care about big nubmers.

So say for example, if black people are more likely to commit crimes (statistically speaking, likely due to other factors which correlate with race), then there should be a lower burden to convict a black person to try to lower the crime rate by locking up criminals?
And likewise the same for poor people?

How do you think such a look at "big numbers" would fly?

just as in context economics and in context racial.
if the racial disparagy happens in a very racist state then we can caus-ate with high confidence that there's no coincidental correlation going on there.

"don't say ngr ngr ngr"

but in an economic scene, the reverse racism, the irrational angry black woman flipping the race card every chance she gets, does nothing but hurt her peoples cause.
the rich white guy, if he's not being racist, is unaffected.
he can feel bad.
or he can feel confident he is not bad.
or he can be a sociopath and not care to begin with.
people can hate whoever they want to hate.
but people SHOULD not be able to impose detrimental economic or health disparagement on another people.

And reverse racism helps do just that, impose detrimental economic or health disparagement on other people.
The rich white guy likely doesn't give a damn, because he doesn't need it.
The rich black woman is happy, because it makes it much easier for her, even though she doesn't need it.
Meanwhile the poor white guy and the poor black woman just get tossed to the side.

The main people it affects are those in the middle, those similarly qualified, where there is a larger burden placed upon white people, needing them to be more qualified.

maybe we loosing the forest and the trees and the whatever the saying goes.
you're right,  just saying again it's not always economic, it's not always racial, but it's sometimes economic and it's sometimes racial.
(skip to 2:39)

maybe we not all speaking the same language here:
semantical fight in 'racist' in that it implies committing resources towards a particular group of peoples (JBlack).
opposed to where in 'racist' implies punching down oppression (Kabool).

i'm sure you would prefer
Ruth Bader Ginsburg quoting Sarah Grimke:  "I ask no favor for my sex [or race]. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks."

I use the term racist to mean you treat people different based upon their race.
And yes, I would prefer more like Ruth. Racism should be opposed, regardless of which direction it goes.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 12, 2023, 03:27:23 AM

OK, OK, I’ll explain this one.

You were saying that CRT ignored discrimination against white males.

But where did CRT start?  What is the basic question that CRT is examining?

Basically “Why has the gap between black and white demographics not closed since the civil rights movement (now over 50 years ago), despite all the apparent progress on equality, legal rights, etc?”

Is the answer to that question because of discrimination against white males?  Seems highly unlikely to me.

Which is just further ignoring that discrimination.
It doesn't address the issue, it deflects from it.
It is a criticism of CRT, which promotes such continued racism.

The whole point of CRT is a deflection? 

Maybe there’s more issues than the one you want to concentrate on?

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 12, 2023, 03:27:23 AM

It’s still wrong and you still think you get to tell me who and what I care about.

Yes, your "Correction" is still wrong, as you are making up a claim on my behalf.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 12, 2023, 03:27:23 AM

May I remind you that all this is your claims about what I think.
It’s fascinating that you think I’m the one lying about you and inventing strawmen.

It's quite simple, because you said this:

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 11, 2023, 01:14:46 AM

You claim I don’t care about disadvantaged white males.  You are WRONG and doesn’t matter how much you insist you are right.

That is you claiming that I claimed that you don't care about disadvantaged white males.

Not that you don't care about racism against them, but that you don't care about them.

That is quite different.

I might have missed the slight distinction in what you did say.  But that was wrong too so it doesn’t really change anything.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 12, 2023, 03:27:23 AM

I give up.  You’re clearly not going to acknowledge how bonkers it is to argue with me about what I think, based on your interpretation of a few lines of text.

Again, when you were refusing to clarify your position, is that surprising at all?

Not surprising you would form an opinion about me.  Surprising you would argue with me about it.  Who exactly were you trying to convince?

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 12, 2023, 03:27:23 AM

So here goes:

I do NOT support policies such as affirmative action that discriminate  based on race.  It’s not actually legal where I live, and I think that’s right. 

It is of course much harder to identify and enforce racial discrimination based on personal prejudice, which is also illegal.

So based on this new information are you going to revise your “conclusions” about me?

Thank you. Was that so hard?
Yes, based upon this new information I was mistaken to say you were racist.

Not hard at all, but I shouldn’t have to explain to you why I’m not a racist.  That’s the point.

The whole point of CRT is a deflection?

No, deflection away from criticism of CRT, because CRT wasn't made to focus on that criticism is a deflection.

Not hard at all, but I shouldn’t have to explain to you why I’m not a racist.  That’s the point.

Considering how many people will claim to not be racist or not be sexist and so on, while being blatantly racist or sexist etc., someone saying they aren't doesn't mean they aren't.
And often they wont want to answer direct questions about their views on topics which show they are racist or sexist etc.
So pressing for a direct answer to a question can be a lot better than simply accepting when they claim they aren't.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 17, 2023, 10:41:55 AM

The whole point of CRT is a deflection?

No, deflection away from criticism of CRT, because CRT wasn't made to focus on that criticism is a deflection.

I find your criticism to be on the extreme end of the spectrum.  While you say I dismiss your argument, you appear to be dismissing the entire field of study, by calling it all “an excuse for blatant racism”.  That sounds like the argument of right wing politicians and pundits, as opposed to social scientists and teachers. 

Try this, for a summary of the state of this debate and what these new laws could mean for teachers:

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 17, 2023, 10:41:55 AM

Not hard at all, but I shouldn’t have to explain to you why I’m not a racist.  That’s the point.

Considering how many people will claim to not be racist or not be sexist and so on, while being blatantly racist or sexist etc., someone saying they aren't doesn't mean they aren't.
And often they wont want to answer direct questions about their views on topics which show they are racist or sexist etc.
So pressing for a direct answer to a question can be a lot better than simply accepting when they claim they aren't.

So you insinuate that people are racist and then demand they prove otherwise?  Have you tried this approach to people you meet in real life, or just from the safety of your keyboard?

I find your criticism to be on the extreme end of the spectrum.  While you say I dismiss your argument, you appear to be dismissing the entire field of study, by calling it all “an excuse for blatant racism”.  That sounds like the argument of right wing politicians and pundits, as opposed to social scientists and teachers.

I'm not dismissing the entire field.
I'm saying they are looking at the wrong thing, and because of that their suggestions are fundamentally flawed and racist.

Try this, for a summary of the state of this debate and what these new laws could mean for teachers:
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05

Their main complaint regarding teachers seems to be about fear of self-censorship. Even though that already happens to appease the mob.
The main distinction is just what idea they are self-censoring.

So you insinuate that people are racist and then demand they prove otherwise?  Have you tried this approach to people you meet in real life, or just from the safety of your keyboard?

No, I make a conclusion based upon how they act.
In real life, I'm yet to meet someone who acts like you.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 19, 2023, 12:54:55 PM

I find your criticism to be on the extreme end of the spectrum.  While you say I dismiss your argument, you appear to be dismissing the entire field of study, by calling it all “an excuse for blatant racism”.  That sounds like the argument of right wing politicians and pundits, as opposed to social scientists and teachers.

I'm not dismissing the entire field.
I'm saying they are looking at the wrong thing, and because of that their suggestions are fundamentally flawed and racist.

Oh, it’s not a dismissal, it’s just all fundamentally wrong?  Hmm, does that remind you of any other arguments you hear round these parts?

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 19, 2023, 12:54:55 PM

Try this, for a summary of the state of this debate and what these new laws could mean for teachers:
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05

Their main complaint regarding teachers seems to be about fear of self-censorship. Even though that already happens to appease the mob.
The main distinction is just what idea they are self-censoring.

There’s more than one “mob”.

But the fear is how vague and ill defined laws could be applied.  Self censorship is how they might avoid running foul of them.  You do get the difference between various people on either side of the debate saying they don’t like how teachers are doing their jobs and governments stepping in to ban certain subjects, right?

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 19, 2023, 12:54:55 PM

So you insinuate that people are racist and then demand they prove otherwise?  Have you tried this approach to people you meet in real life, or just from the safety of your keyboard?

No, I make a conclusion based upon how they act.
In real life, I'm yet to meet someone who acts like you.

Moderates who don’t appreciate being accused of racism?

I guess you don’t get out much?

Oh, it’s not a dismissal, it’s just all fundamentally wrong?  Hmm, does that remind you of any other arguments you hear round these parts?

No, it isn't ALL fundamentally wrong, just the idea that race is the determining factor rather than a correlated one.

There’s more than one “mob”.

But the fear is how vague and ill defined laws could be applied.  Self censorship is how they might avoid running foul of them.  You do get the difference between various people on either side of the debate saying they don’t like how teachers are doing their jobs and governments stepping in to ban certain subjects, right?

Yes, there is more than just the one "mob".
And guess what? Both sides try to use legislation to silence descent.
For example, the liberals are quite happy with legislation which goes beyond merely trying to have teachers self-sensor and instead tries to force them to say something they think is a lie, i.e. legislation requiring teachers to address students by their chosen pronouns, rather than ones based upon their biological sex.

Moderates who don’t appreciate being accused of racism?

If that is your attempt to describe yourself it fails miserably.

How about people who deflect away from racial discrimination by appealing to racial stereotypes, who then take it as an accusation when it is pointed out their statement matches those of racists, and who further doubles down by refusing to answer simple questions to try and clarify.

But the big difference between online and in person is how the conversation proceeds.
In real life you don't normally have someone say something long and then wait a few hours for the other person to then respond.
Instead as one person says something the other person can respond almost instantly.

And a moderate, in an in person conversation, would respond with this:

And you accuse me of this?  Fuck off.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 19, 2023, 02:56:01 PM

Oh, it’s not a dismissal, it’s just all fundamentally wrong?  Hmm, does that remind you of any other arguments you hear round these parts?

No, it isn't ALL fundamentally wrong, just the idea that race is the determining factor rather than a correlated one.

What about a contributing factor?  I doubt any CRT academics claim it’s the only factor.

And how do you square the idea that race isn’t a big deal with inequality while apparently seeing examples of racism everywhere, like this?:

Considering how many people will claim to not be racist or not be sexist and so on, while being blatantly racist or sexist etc., someone saying they aren't doesn't mean they aren't.

Which is very similar to a central concept in CRT.  That there can still be discrimination by people who don’t consider themselves racist. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 19, 2023, 02:56:01 PM

There’s more than one “mob”.

But the fear is how vague and ill defined laws could be applied.  Self censorship is how they might avoid running foul of them.  You do get the difference between various people on either side of the debate saying they don’t like how teachers are doing their jobs and governments stepping in to ban certain subjects, right?

Yes, there is more than just the one "mob".
And guess what? Both sides try to use legislation to silence descent.
For example, the liberals are quite happy with legislation which goes beyond merely trying to have teachers self-sensor and instead tries to force them to say something they think is a lie, i.e. legislation requiring teachers to address students by their chosen pronouns, rather than ones based upon their biological sex.

So you’re fine with right wing politicians appealing to their “mob” and silencing dissent but not when liberals do it?

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 19, 2023, 02:56:01 PM

Moderates who don’t appreciate being accused of racism?

If that is your attempt to describe yourself it fails miserably.

How so?  I’m not a moderate?  I think we’ve firmly established that I don’t like being accused of racism, right?

How about people who deflect away from racial discrimination by appealing to racial stereotypes, who then take it as an accusation when it is pointed out their statement matches those of racists, and who further doubles down by refusing to answer simple questions to try and clarify.

No, I didn’t double down, I (eventually) explained what I meant, as well as being quite clear why I did refuse to answer for a while.  Not that any of that seems to have sunk in.  Do you still not see my point?

But the big difference between online and in person is how the conversation proceeds.
In real life you don't normally have someone say something long and then wait a few hours for the other person to then respond.
Instead as one person says something the other person can respond almost instantly.

Does this mean you don’t accuse people you meet face to face of racism or what?

And a moderate, in an in person conversation, would respond with this:

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 10, 2023, 04:14:12 AM

And you accuse me of this?  Fuck off.

Yes.  Many would.  Some might take it much worse than I did.

What about a contributing factor?  I doubt any CRT academics claim it’s the only factor.

I would say not a significant one, at least not the way they present it.

And how do you square the idea that race isn’t a big deal with inequality while apparently seeing examples of racism everywhere, like this?

The question of how significant it is, and there is the question of what way it goes.
In my experience, racism goes all ways.
But these are typically examples of individuals being racist, rather than systemic racism.

If you would like something more ridiculous, consider CRT, that claims race doesn't actually exist, yet people are being discriminated against on the basis of their race.

So you’re fine with right wing politicians appealing to their “mob” and silencing dissent but not when liberals do it?

No, it depends on the context and what they are trying to do.
I don't evaluate it on if it is left wing or right wing.

But in this case I wasn't even saying one is fine while the other is not, merely pointing out that BOTH SIDES try to use laws to silence descent.
So perhaps I should ask you the equivalent question?
So you’re fine with left wing politicians appealing to their “mob” and silencing dissent but not when right wing politicians do it?

Have you actually read one of the bills that is being vilified?

Like HR7 associated with DeSantis?
With quotes like this from them:
"No one should be instructed to feel as if they are not equal or shamed because of their race"

And what does it prohibit teaching? Things like:

• Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.
• An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
• An individual's moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.
• Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, sex, or national origin.
• An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.
• An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
• An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.
• Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race, color, sex, or national origin

Just what is so horrible about this?
About banning this racism and sexism?
The only people who should be upset are racists and sexists (etc) that want to discriminate against people on the basis of their race and sex, such as those that want white people to feel guilty, because in the past white people had black slaves; those that want to actively discriminate and penalise people in various things (job applications, scholarships, school/university admissions, etc) for being white or male; those that want to pretend all white people are racist or privileged, and so on.

When examined honestly, without bias, what is the problem with the bill? (I haven't read it all, so feel free to point out another section).
The backlash seems to be "This bill opposing some tenants of CRT, so the bill must be bad and racist", while in reality it just reveals the racism inside CRT.
And the other backlash of "This is from the right, so it must be bad".

How so?  I’m not a moderate?  I think we’ve firmly established that I don’t like being accused of racism, right?

As already said, your response is not that of a moderate.

Also again notice your double standard.
You object to me making conclusions about you "at the drop of a hat" (i.e. based upon how you acted), yet you happily conclude that I was accusing you of being racist and sexist by pointing out your statement was akin to how racists and sexists would respond.

No, I didn’t double down, I (eventually) explained what I meant, as well as being quite clear why I did refuse to answer for a while.  Not that any of that seems to have sunk in.  Do you still not see my point?

You doubled down, and appealed to getting offended rather than clarifying your point.

Does this mean you don’t accuse people you meet face to face of racism or what?

Typically no, as I don't see many people being racist in person.

Yes.  Many would.  Some might take it much worse than I did.

No, they wouldn't.
A moderate would have clarified their position, rather than taking a comparison to their claims to the way a racist would act as an accusation of racism.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 20, 2023, 07:30:49 AM

What about a contributing factor?  I doubt any CRT academics claim it’s the only factor.

I would say not a significant one, at least not the way they present it.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 20, 2023, 07:30:49 AM

And how do you square the idea that race isn’t a big deal with inequality while apparently seeing examples of racism everywhere, like this?

The question of how significant it is, and there is the question of what way it goes.
In my experience, racism goes all ways.
But these are typically examples of individuals being racist, rather than systemic racism.

Well, news from my country:  An extensive review of the metropolitan police concluded it’s institutionally racist, sexist and homophobic.  Not a million miles from what the BLM lot complain about, only they don’t shoot as many people:

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/london-police-institutionally-racist-sexist-major-review-finds-2023-03-21/

If you would like something more ridiculous, consider CRT, that claims race doesn't actually exist, yet people are being discriminated against on the basis of their race.

Oh good grief.  They say the biological differences are insignificant, and that racism is entirely a cultural construction.  Which is completely in line with our understanding of genetics etc.  Do you really disagree with that assessment?

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 20, 2023, 07:30:49 AM

So you’re fine with right wing politicians appealing to their “mob” and silencing dissent but not when liberals do it?

No, it depends on the context and what they are trying to do.
I don't evaluate it on if it is left wing or right wing.

But in this case I wasn't even saying one is fine while the other is not, merely pointing out that BOTH SIDES try to use laws to silence descent.
So perhaps I should ask you the equivalent question?
So you’re fine with left wing politicians appealing to their “mob” and silencing dissent but not when right wing politicians do it?

Nope.

Have you actually read one of the bills that is being vilified?

Like HR7 associated with DeSantis?
With quotes like this from them:
"No one should be instructed to feel as if they are not equal or shamed because of their race"

And what does it prohibit teaching? Things like:

• Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.
• An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
• An individual's moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.
• Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, sex, or national origin.
• An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.
• An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
• An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.
• Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race, color, sex, or national origin

Just what is so horrible about this?
About banning this racism and sexism?
The only people who should be upset are racists and sexists (etc) that want to discriminate against people on the basis of their race and sex, such as those that want white people to feel guilty, because in the past white people had black slaves; those that want to actively discriminate and penalise people in various things (job applications, scholarships, school/university admissions, etc) for being white or male; those that want to pretend all white people are racist or privileged, and so on.

When examined honestly, without bias, what is the problem with the bill? (I haven't read it all, so feel free to point out another section).
The backlash seems to be "This bill opposing some tenants of CRT, so the bill must be bad and racist", while in reality it just reveals the racism inside CRT.
And the other backlash of "This is from the right, so it must be bad".

On the face on it, it looks OK, but it doesn’t take much of stretch to accuse those teaching the more sordid parts of American history of some of those.

These bans need to be seen in the context of the “anti CRT movement”, especially since DeSantis specifically referenced CRT.   All the articles from credible sources I’ve seen are quite clear that they not only misrepresent what CRT is, but also use it as a catch all for a whole load of other things they don’t like.  CRT is a specialist subject not even taught in high schools, so the fact they bang on about wrt children should be a strong hint they are talking out of their arses. Basically fear mongering for political gain.   A couple of example articles:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2021/09/29/critical-race-theory-bans-are-expanding-to-cover-broad-collection-of-issues/?sh=340763925e5d

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-anti-critical-race-theory-movement-will-profoundly-affect-public-education/

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 20, 2023, 07:30:49 AM

How so?  I’m not a moderate?  I think we’ve firmly established that I don’t like being accused of racism, right?

As already said, your response is not that of a moderate.

Also again notice your double standard.
You object to me making conclusions about you "at the drop of a hat" (i.e. based upon how you acted), yet you happily conclude that I was accusing you of being racist and sexist by pointing out your statement was akin to how racists and sexists would respond.

Well I am a moderate, so that’s another shite conclusion on your part.  You’re not nearly as good at reading people as you think.

Semantics and tortured logic.  When you say “typical racist and sexist comment”, you basically were calling me a sexist and racist.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 20, 2023, 07:30:49 AM

No, I didn’t double down, I (eventually) explained what I meant, as well as being quite clear why I did refuse to answer for a while.  Not that any of that seems to have sunk in.  Do you still not see my point?

You doubled down, and appealed to getting offended rather than clarifying your point.

Correction: was offended.

Does this mean you don’t accuse people you meet face to face of racism or what?

Typically no, as I don't see many people being racist in person.[/quote]

So when you talk about racism in your experience, you don’t actually experience it in real life?

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 20, 2023, 07:30:49 AM

Yes.  Many would.  Some might take it much worse than I did.

No, they wouldn't.
A moderate would have clarified their position, rather than taking a comparison to their claims to the way a racist would act as an accusation of racism.

That doesn’t even make sense.  Having moderate political views has absolutely nothing to do with a person’s tolerance for taking crap from internet randoms.

Well, news from my country:  An extensive review of the metropolitan police concluded it’s institutionally racist, sexist and homophobic.  Not a million miles from what the BLM lot complain about, only they don’t shoot as many people:

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/london-police-institutionally-racist-sexist-major-review-finds-2023-03-21/

Again, is it really that hard to go to the report, rather than a news story which will often misrepresent things?
Reading the report paints a different picture, that they are understaffed and don't handle any reports well, and then the report goes on to complain that they aren't hiring enough black people, and that black people trust it less and are less satisfied with it.
They also appear to treat people's response to initiatives to hire black and ethnic minorities onto the force, while failing to retain those candidates as racist.
It also doesn't appear to think it would be a problem to have 80% of recruits being black in order to achieve diversity.
It is literally highlighting systemic racism which supports black people, only to ignore it and treat the response to that as racist.

Oh good grief.  They say the biological differences are insignificant, and that racism is entirely a cultural construction.  Which is completely in line with our understanding of genetics etc.  Do you really disagree with that assessment?

No, they (or at least some proponents) are literally saying race doesn't exist, that it isn't a biological thing at all, or at best saying it is a social construct.
I disagree with that, and instead think that there is a significant biological aspect to race. Not that such biological differences justify discrimination, but that such differences exist.

On the face on it, it looks OK, but it doesn’t take much of stretch to accuse those teaching the more sordid parts of American history of some of those.

These bans need to be seen in the context of the “anti CRT movement”, especially since DeSantis specifically referenced CRT.   All the articles from credible sources I’ve seen are quite clear that they not only misrepresent what CRT is, but also use it as a catch all for a whole load of other things they don’t like.  CRT is a specialist subject not even taught in high schools, so the fact they bang on about wrt children should be a strong hint they are talking out of their arses. Basically fear mongering for political gain.   A couple of example articles:

Stretching it could be said for plenty of other existing laws already, and it would be quite a stretch to go from objectively teaching that history to falling afoul of the prohibitions from the bill.

But basically to sum up, there is nothing wrong with the bill itself, and it appears the opposition is pretty much as I said; it is opposing CRT so it must be racist. Even when people say it isn't actually opposing CRT.

So the bill itself is quite reasonable, and there isn't really a decent reason to oppose it.

As for children, it is not CURRENTLY taught to children explicitly as part of the syllabus.
But there is no reason to require laws to be reactive, and already have something causing problems before a law exists to control it; rather than making them proactive and stopping it before it starts.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2021/09/29/critical-race-theory-bans-are-expanding-to-cover-broad-collection-of-issues/?sh=340763925e5d

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-anti-critical-race-theory-movement-will-profoundly-affect-public-education/

The second article is just scare mongering, quite similar to your objections to these bills.

The first is far more problematic.
It has lots of claims, with lots of links, but the most obvious and easy to demonstrate lie is regarding Wisconsin Bill 411.
It again entirely misrepresents this bill, which is quite comparable to the one above, with clauses prohibiting similar racist behaviour.
It claims there is a gag list prohibiting teaching of a variety of ideas with these ideas entirely forbidden, claiming 90 different ideas.
It even provided what appears to be a direct quote, but which is actually a dishonest misrepresentation of the testimony.
If you instead actually read the testimony it says:

Additional terms and concepts below that either wholly violate the above clauses, or which may if taught through the framework of any of the prohibited activities defined above, partially violate the above clauses in what is otherwise broadly defined as “critical race theory”

i.e. this is not a gag list of prohibited ideas.
It is a list of things which if taught poorly could result in violation of the law (such as by being racist).
But if taught without being racist, you can teach them.

And what a surprise, the racist left wing governor decided to veto the bill.
And before you try saying they aren't racist, in their justification for a veto, they specially appeal to the bill restricting schools from teaching honest, complete facts, which means they think the rules prohibiting racism and prohibiting teaching of racist ideas are prohibiting teaching facts, which means they think these racist ideas are facts.

Well I am a moderate, so that’s another shite conclusion on your part.  You’re not nearly as good at reading people as you think.

Again, you claim to be a moderate, that does not mean you are one.
A moderate wouldn't have gone to such an extreme objection over that perceived accusation.
So is it another shite conclusion on my part, or is it on your part?
Perhaps you're just not nearly as good at reading yourself as you think.

Semantics and tortured logic.  When you say “typical racist and sexist comment”, you basically were calling me a sexist and racist.

Yes, that is what you need to appeal to.

I said "That is the typical, racist, sexist response."
That is not accusing you of being a racist or sexist.
Instead, it is pointing out that your response matches that of racists and sexists.

And that wasn't the part you quoted and objected to.
Instead, the part you objected to as an accusation was this:
"If instead you look at it on an individual level, white males can be severely disadvantaged.
But the racist doesn't give a damn. They think they are white so who gives a shit, being white makes them privileged, so if they suffer because they are white, they deserve it.
And the sexist says the same about men."

A moderate, in an in person conversation, likely would have stepped when it was initially pointed out that the comment was the typical racist and sexist response and clarified.
If they didn't, and instead waited for the explanation of why racists and sexists would say that, they would have then clarified their position.
They wouldn't jump to it being an accusation and provide such an extreme response.

Correction: was offended.

That isn't a correction.
That is pretty much just as relevant to "Correction: the sky is blue".
You aren't contradicting what I have said there.

I don't care if you are offended by me pointing out your statements match those of racists.
That isn't an argument.
It is like a someone who was seen shooting someone getting offended when that is brought up and they are accused of murder, and then appealing to that and demanding it is taken back, rather than clarifying the shooting was in self defence.

So when you talk about racism in your experience, you don’t actually experience it in real life?

Not with people I directly interact with in person.
Understand the difference?

That doesn’t even make sense.  Having moderate political views has absolutely nothing to do with a person’s tolerance for taking crap from internet randoms.

So you were appealing to moderate political views, rather than a moderate response?
If you want to go down the path of holding moderate political views, a moderate could just decide to beat someone to death with their own computer for saying such a thing.
And in that case, appealing to being a moderate is entirely pointless.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 21, 2023, 04:36:56 PM

Well, news from my country:  An extensive review of the metropolitan police concluded it’s institutionally racist, sexist and homophobic.  Not a million miles from what the BLM lot complain about, only they don’t shoot as many people:

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/london-police-institutionally-racist-sexist-major-review-finds-2023-03-21/

Again, is it really that hard to go to the report, rather than a news story which will often misrepresent things?
Reading the report paints a different picture, that they are understaffed and don't handle any reports well, and then the report goes on to complain that they aren't hiring enough black people, and that black people trust it less and are less satisfied with it.
They also appear to treat people's response to initiatives to hire black and ethnic minorities onto the force, while failing to retain those candidates as racist.
It also doesn't appear to think it would be a problem to have 80% of recruits being black in order to achieve diversity.
It is literally highlighting systemic racism which supports black people, only to ignore it and treat the response to that as racist.

That’s hilarious.

I thought linking to a 360 page report might be a bit much, but you apparently read the whole thing and came to conclusion that the met is systemically racist in favour of black people?  Are you serious?

The article does not misrepresent the report.  Everyone else seems to get the message- left and right wing papers, the mayor, the commissioner of the met, the prime minister, etc even if a few disagree.  Not you though.

You want a quote from the report, instead of an article? Fine, how about this (page 17):

We have found institutional racism, misogyny and homophobia in the Met. In coming to this conclusion, we have applied four tests. We believe these can be applied in respect of homophobia, misogyny and racism but we have applied them in respect of racism below.

1. Clearly not everyone in the Met is racist, but there are racists and people with racist attitudes within the organisation
2. Black and ethnic minority officers and staff experience racism at work and it is routinely ignored, dismissed, or not spoken about. Many do not think it is worth reporting
3. Racism and racial bias are reinforced within Met systems
4. The Met under-protects and over-polices Black Londoners

Tackling discrimination is a legal and operational imperative for the Met. It needs to acknowledge the extent to which racism, misogyny and homophobia are present within its organisational processes and systems in order to move forward.

Quote

Oh good grief.  They say the biological differences are insignificant, and that racism is entirely a cultural construction.  Which is completely in line with our understanding of genetics etc.  Do you really disagree with that assessment?

No, they (or at least some proponents) are literally saying race doesn't exist, that it isn't a biological thing at all, or at best saying it is a social construct.
I disagree with that, and instead think that there is a significant biological aspect to race. Not that such biological differences justify discrimination, but that such differences exist.

Do you have a point to this?

Quote

On the face on it, it looks OK, but it doesn’t take much of stretch to accuse those teaching the more sordid parts of American history of some of those.

These bans need to be seen in the context of the “anti CRT movement”, especially since DeSantis specifically referenced CRT.   All the articles from credible sources I’ve seen are quite clear that they not only misrepresent what CRT is, but also use it as a catch all for a whole load of other things they don’t like.  CRT is a specialist subject not even taught in high schools, so the fact they bang on about wrt children should be a strong hint they are talking out of their arses. Basically fear mongering for political gain.   A couple of example articles:

Stretching it could be said for plenty of other existing laws already, and it would be quite a stretch to go from objectively teaching that history to falling afoul of the prohibitions from the bill.

But basically to sum up, there is nothing wrong with the bill itself, and it appears the opposition is pretty much as I said; it is opposing CRT so it must be racist. Even when people say it isn't actually opposing CRT.

So the bill itself is quite reasonable, and there isn't really a decent reason to oppose it.

As for children, it is not CURRENTLY taught to children explicitly as part of the syllabus.
But there is no reason to require laws to be reactive, and already have something causing problems before a law exists to control it; rather than making them proactive and stopping it before it starts.

But in many states books are being red listed now.  Not just CRT books.

Quote

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2021/09/29/critical-race-theory-bans-are-expanding-to-cover-broad-collection-of-issues/?sh=340763925e5d

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-anti-critical-race-theory-movement-will-profoundly-affect-public-education/

The second article is just scare mongering, quite similar to your objections to these bills.

The first is far more problematic.
It has lots of claims, with lots of links, but the most obvious and easy to demonstrate lie is regarding Wisconsin Bill 411.
It again entirely misrepresents this bill, which is quite comparable to the one above, with clauses prohibiting similar racist behaviour.
It claims there is a gag list prohibiting teaching of a variety of ideas with these ideas entirely forbidden, claiming 90 different ideas.
It even provided what appears to be a direct quote, but which is actually a dishonest misrepresentation of the testimony.
If you instead actually read the testimony it says:

Quote from: Wichgers

Additional terms and concepts below that either wholly violate the above clauses, or which may if taught through the framework of any of the prohibited activities defined above, partially violate the above clauses in what is otherwise broadly defined as “critical race theory”

i.e. this is not a gag list of prohibited ideas.
It is a list of things which if taught poorly could result in violation of the law (such as by being racist).
But if taught without being racist, you can teach them.

Why present a shit list of topics like that at all, and why are things like “anti bias training” and “anti racism” on there?  Aren’t you all about anti racism?
 

And what a surprise, the racist left wing governor decided to veto the bill.
And before you try saying they aren't racist, in their justification for a veto, they specially appeal to the bill restricting schools from teaching honest, complete facts, which means they think the rules prohibiting racism and prohibiting teaching of racist ideas are prohibiting teaching facts, which means they think these racist ideas are facts.

No.  The concern is that such rules would restrict teaching things like the history of black people in America.  Because learning about that might make white kids feel guilty, apparently.  Teachers in various states have already come under fire despite all the claims that’s not what it’s for.

But of course the left wing governor is a racist.  Sigh.

Quote

Well I am a moderate, so that’s another shite conclusion on your part.  You’re not nearly as good at reading people as you think.

Again, you claim to be a moderate, that does not mean you are one.
A moderate wouldn't have gone to such an extreme objection over that perceived accusation.
So is it another shite conclusion on my part, or is it on your part?
Perhaps you're just not nearly as good at reading yourself as you think.

Here we go again with you thinking you understand me better than I do. 

Quote

Semantics and tortured logic.  When you say “typical racist and sexist comment”, you basically were calling me a sexist and racist.

Yes, that is what you need to appeal to.

I said "That is the typical, racist, sexist response."
That is not accusing you of being a racist or sexist.
Instead, it is pointing out that your response matches that of racists and sexists.

And that wasn't the part you quoted and objected to.
Instead, the part you objected to as an accusation was this:
"If instead you look at it on an individual level, white males can be severely disadvantaged.
But the racist doesn't give a damn. They think they are white so who gives a shit, being white makes them privileged, so if they suffer because they are white, they deserve it.
And the sexist says the same about men."

A moderate, in an in person conversation, likely would have stepped when it was initially pointed out that the comment was the typical racist and sexist response and clarified.
If they didn't, and instead waited for the explanation of why racists and sexists would say that, they would have then clarified their position.
They wouldn't jump to it being an accusation and provide such an extreme response.

Blah blah blah. “Fuck off” is not an extreme response, it’s a short exclamation.  It was proceeded by the question “and you accuse me of that?” which was your opportunity to clear the air.  Instead you went on to confirm that you really were saying I was racist. 

BTW your description of people you consider racist is laughable.  Who says that people deserve to suffer for being white?  Not the “racist” CRT academics.  Not “racist” governors who oppose book burnings.

You throw the word racist around a lot when it comes to alleged discrimination against white people, yet you repeatedly play down discrimination against minorities.  Widespread discrimination in one of the world’s largest police forces?  Nothing to see here. Interesting.

Quote

Correction: was offended.

That isn't a correction.
That is pretty much just as relevant to "Correction: the sky is blue".
You aren't contradicting what I have said there.

I don't care if you are offended by me pointing out your statements match those of racists.
That isn't an argument.
It is like a someone who was seen shooting someone getting offended when that is brought up and they are accused of murder, and then appealing to that and demanding it is taken back, rather than clarifying the shooting was in self defence.

Great, and I don’t care that you think saying fuck off is some kind “extreme response” to being offended.  Continuing this ridiculous debate with you is not particularly normal though. 

Quote

So when you talk about racism in your experience, you don’t actually experience it in real life?

Not with people I directly interact with in person.
Understand the difference?

Yes.  It means your life is not affected by discrimination in any real way.  So I can probably ignore your “experience” of how much systemic racism there actually is.

Quote

That doesn’t even make sense.  Having moderate political views has absolutely nothing to do with a person’s tolerance for taking crap from internet randoms.

So you were appealing to moderate political views, rather than a moderate response?
If you want to go down the path of holding moderate political views, a moderate could just decide to beat someone to death with their own computer for saying such a thing.
And in that case, appealing to being a moderate is entirely pointless.

You do use the word “appealing” a lot don’t you? 

This is a political discussion, and that’s my general political position.  Why are you now talking about beating people to death with a computer?

I thought linking to a 360 page report might be a bit much, but you apparently read the whole thing and came to conclusion that the met is systemically racist in favour of black people?  Are you serious?

he was able to read it because he's a robot.
his cpu is a neural network.
a learning computer.

I thought linking to a 360 page report might be a bit much, but you apparently read the whole thing and came to conclusion that the met is systemically racist in favour of black people?  Are you serious?

You didn't even link the report, you linked to a crappy news article.
And I didn't need to read the entire thing as there were a lot of different types of discrimination it was focusing on.

But have you read it all to actually say my statements about it are incorrect?
Or have you just read the summary to find some claims you agree with to then pretend it means my statements must be wrong?

It also isn't surprising for a heavily left wing report to be biased and manipulate the facts to pretend things which aren't true.
Like what happened roughly 10 years ago in the US by feminists making a report on rape to present the narrative that the majority of victims are female and the majority of perpetrators are male, where they needed to exclude the most common form of rape where men are victims and women are perpetrators, because if they include that it shows at the time of the report men and women are being raped in equal amounts and female commit a large number of rapes (the data wasn't clear enough to see how equal it was, as they didn't provide a breakdown by perpetrator for the past 12 months).

So when it comes to BS reports like that, you need to actually look at the methodology and data, not just the overarching claims.
And that means your quote of the claims is entirely useless.

Here is another quote from them, showing the level needed to be deemed "racist":

If recruitment continues on its current trajectory, it will take at least another forty years to reach an officer cadre which is 46% Black, Asian, and ethnic minority. The key issue here is that nothing that the Met has done or is currently planning to do that will change this position in the near future.

Further expanded upon here:

The Met have repeatedly acknowledged a lack of diversity as both a challenge and a priority. There have been various initiatives designed to reduce disparity

Having initiatives designed to attract greater ethnic diversity – including those that have been adopted in line with national standards set by the College of Policing – has been a positive step by the Met. However, rather than acknowledging the importance of these initiatives, a view has been allowed to emerge in some officers, including some of those at a senior level, that standards have been lowered to attract more diverse officers into the force

To reach a position where 46% of officers were from a Black, Asian, and ethnic minority background within ten years would require the Met to increase the proportion of its Black, Asian, and ethnic minority officer recruitment to 50% immediately. It would then need to continue to recruit 3% more Black, Asian, and ethnic minority officers every year until they represented over 80% of all recruits.

So the author of the report is upset that black or minority groups don't make up 46% of recruits, and sees that as evidence of systemic racism against black people, while acknowledging the existence of actively racist policies in favour of these people, and seeing these policies as a good thing and seeing backlash against that blatant racism as racism against black and minority people. And they don't appear to have any problem at all with a massively racist recruiting policy which would have 80% of recruits being black or minority people.

And in discussing this, they don't even bother addressing what they have previously said regarding black and ethnic minorities:

This is creating a negative spiral in which some communities continue to have negative experiences at the hands of the police, trust them less, and are less likely to join.

The underrepresentation couldn't possibly be because black and ethnic minorities are less likely to want to join. No, it must be due to systemic racism.

Their methodology is one which intentionally includes past racism to try and claim it is racist now, and it follows the typical extreme left wing idea that racism against white people is fine, and backlash against that racism is actually racism against non-white people, while ignoring contributing factors.
An honest analysis would instead look at the applicants.

We can also look at another claim, one which you did include, that the police under-protects and over-polices black Londoners. This is quite a difficult issue to approach from any side.
But basically, in London, black people are much more likely to be the victim of a crime, and they are much more likely to be the perpetrator of a crime (not saying it is a causal factor).
This is often due to past racism leading to black people being more likely to be poor and live in poorer neighbourhoods which have a higher crime rate, with more people in the area committing crimes and more people being victims of crimes.
This leads to police policing those areas more.
In order to increase the protection of black people, they would need to police these areas more, leading to more complaints of over policing.
If instead they reduce the policing of that area it would lead to greater victimisation of black people, leading to more complains of under protection.
Likewise, there are complaints that black people are more likely to be arrested and charged, while also disliking stop and search due to a low level of convictions arising from it.
They could start charging people for these minor crimes to make the effectiveness of these searches more apparent, but that would result in even more convictions making them look worse. Or they could confiscate weapons and drugs found, without further action, making the searches look less effective.

It basically makes it impossible for the police to win; regardless of what they do, they are declared racist.
Again, an honest analysis would look at other factors, rather than just pretending race is the only factor.

Do you have a point to this?

Just pointing out the ridiculousness of it, compared to me saying systemic racism isn't massively disadvantaging black people while I see plenty of examples of racism.

But in many states books are being red listed now.  Not just CRT books.

Where?
Even looking at your articles, the York school board (not the legislature) froze the books to vet them, and you have a group of parents trying to get a bunch banned.

Why present a shit list of topics like that at all, and why are things like “anti bias training” and “anti racism” on there?  Aren’t you all about anti racism?

Who knows why it was presented. They were probably asked to provide such a list.
But notice how you entire ignore the blatant misrepresentation of this bill by news articles and the racist governor.

The reason why those topics are listed is quite simple, a common way to try to address "bias", is by giving allegedly discriminated against people a handout.
That in turn is racist.
Likewise, a common trend is the idea of implicit bias, which often treats it as everyone (or all white people) are implicitly biased against black people and so "corrections" need to be made.
So anti-bias training which follows those trends are racist and would be prohibited.
But it is possible to have anti-bias training which doesn't use those racist ideas.

There is also the issue of what is meant by "anti-racism".
Some people see it as merely opposing racism.
But others see it as including or being the same as reverse racism.

No.  The concern is that such rules would restrict teaching things like the history of black people in America.

Which is a gross misrepresentation.
What it is, is an extreme left-wing, racist governor opposing racism that they approve of.
Either that, or they just want to look good to their constituents and don't actually care about racism.

A non-racist governor should be happy about the bill which bans racism.

Here we go again with you thinking you understand me better than I do.

Here we go again with you thinking how you understand yourself must be perfectly correct and no one can say otherwise.

Blah blah blah. “Fuck off” is not an extreme response, it’s a short exclamation. It was proceeded by the question “and you accuse me of that?” which was your opportunity to clear the air. Instead you went on to confirm that you really were saying I was racist.

When you just take it as that, ignoring all the context, you can present it that way.
But that isn't all.
You took it as a direct accusation, told me to fuck off, and then refused to engage with the topic.

And after that I responded based upon your actions.
So no, I wasn't saying you were a racist at that point.
But after that display, it indicated you were.
But notice how you just deflect yet again. Why should I be the one having to clear the idea to confirm if I was or wasn't accusing you of racism, rather than you clearing the air to indicate you don't actually agree with such racism.

Who says that people deserve to suffer for being white?  Not the “racist” CRT academics.  Not “racist” governors who oppose book burnings.

They typically don't directly come out and say it. Instead they promote policies and ideas which are designed to disadvantage white people and advantage other races.

You throw the word racist around a lot when it comes to alleged discrimination against white people, yet you repeatedly play down discrimination against minorities.

And notice how you are doing the exact opposite.
You downplay discrimination against white people, while massively hyping up alleged systemic discrimination against minorities.

I accept that there are plenty of racists in the met, in all directions.
But what this discussion is meant to be about is systemic racism.
And what the report shows is that there is systemic racism against white people, but it doesn't have enough to support conclusions of systemic racism against black people which is anything more than a response to their racism against white people.

Yes.  It means your life is not affected by discrimination in any real way.

No, it doesn't.
Not in the slightest.
That would be like saying a company choosing not to hire black people, so never asking them to come for an interview, would not be racist, as they don't interact with these people in person.
That a black person, that is continually denied getting a job, due to a bunch of listing specially saying they want white people, doesn't have their life affected by discrimination in any real way.
It is like claiming that systemic racism doesn't affect people in any real way.

It is pure BS to pretend that certain kinds of racism don't exist.

Back in reality, you don't need to interact with people in person, talking to them face to face, to be racist against them.

You didn't even link the report, you linked to a crappy news article.
And I didn't need to read the entire thing as there were a lot of different types of discrimination it was focusing on.

As I said, it’s a 360 page report, so I linked to the headline news instead, as reported across the political spectrum.  The biggest culture warriors on the right are either publicly accepting the findings (eg Home Secretary Braverman) or are staying quiet.  Even GB News, the hilarious self proclaimed anti woke attempt to create a British Fox Nows equivalent is reporting the same thing. 

https://www.gbnews.com/news/new-met-commissioner-says-hundreds-of-officers-should-be-sacked-for-misconduct/377237

Yours is literally the first and only opinion I’ve seen with the bonkers conclusion that the report highlights the Met’s discrimination against white people.  So where does that put you on the political spectrum?

But I’ve made an effort to avoid the most partisan sources, hence my other links to Forbes and Scientific American.

Let’s compare to your links… oh wait you haven’t  linked to anything.

But have you read it all to actually say my statements about it are incorrect?
Or have you just read the summary to find some claims you agree with to then pretend it means my statements must be wrong?

I read the summary and some relevant sections including the parts you referenced.  I’ve cherry picked no more than you have.

It also isn't surprising for a heavily left wing report to be biased and manipulate the facts to pretend things which aren't true.

…

So when it comes to BS reports like that, you need to actually look at the methodology and data, not just the overarching claims.
And that means your quote of the claims is entirely useless.

LOL.  “Heavily left wing”  BS report, eh?

Since you obviously found the report (which I assume wasn’t too taxing without a direct link), you should have noticed it was commissioned by the Met, with the support of the right wing government, headed up by an independent peer who has worked for both Labour and Conservative parties.

Here is another quote from them, showing the level needed to be deemed "racist":

Quote

… cut for length…

So the author of the report is upset that black or minority groups don't make up 46% of recruits, and sees that as evidence of systemic racism against black people, while acknowledging the existence of actively racist policies in favour of these people, and seeing these policies as a good thing and seeing backlash against that blatant racism as racism against black and minority people. And they don't appear to have any problem at all with a massively racist recruiting policy which would have 80% of recruits being black or minority people.

No one is “upset” by that.  The author acknowledged there’s more diversity than there was, but the force is still predominantly white and male.  That is not the reason for the findings.  The thing you’ve decided to focus on gets barely a mention in the summary or recommendations.  It’s mainly the culture in the Met where racist, sexist and homophobic bullying are common and not effectively disciplined that’s the big problem, as well as how they deal with the public.

It’s not “massively racist” to try to attract more minorities to the force.  No one is discriminated against by encouraging women and minorities to apply.  Lastly, the 80% recruitment thing is not a policy recommendation.  It’s just a figure to show what it would hypothetically take for London’s police to reflect the population.

And in discussing this, they don't even bother addressing what they have previously said regarding black and ethnic minorities:

Quote

This is creating a negative spiral in which some communities continue to have negative experiences at the hands of the police, trust them less, and are less likely to join.

The underrepresentation couldn't possibly be because black and ethnic minorities are less likely to want to join. No, it must be due to systemic racism.

And why do you think minorities might be less likely to apply?  Are they genetically predisposed to not want careers in law enforcement or what?

Their methodology is one which intentionally includes past racism to try and claim it is racist now, and it follows the typical extreme left wing idea that racism against white people is fine, and backlash against that racism is actually racism against non-white people, while ignoring contributing factors.
An honest analysis would instead look at the applicants.

The only racism against white people here is in your head.  I believe I mentioned earlier that it’s illegal in this country to recruit on the basis of race.  The Met can try to encourage more applicants from minorities, but they have to treat each applicant equally.

If you think that’s extreme left or racist against white people, you must be off the chart right wing.

We can also look at another claim, one which you did include, that the police under-protects and over-polices black Londoners. This is quite a difficult issue to approach from any side.
But basically, in London, black people are much more likely to be the victim of a crime, and they are much more likely to be the perpetrator of a crime (not saying it is a causal factor).
This is often due to past racism leading to black people being more likely to be poor and live in poorer neighbourhoods which have a higher crime rate, with more people in the area committing crimes and more people being victims of crimes.
This leads to police policing those areas more.
In order to increase the protection of black people, they would need to police these areas more, leading to more complaints of over policing.
If instead they reduce the policing of that area it would lead to greater victimisation of black people, leading to more complains of under protection.
Likewise, there are complaints that black people are more likely to be arrested and charged, while also disliking stop and search due to a low level of convictions arising from it.
They could start charging people for these minor crimes to make the effectiveness of these searches more apparent, but that would result in even more convictions making them look worse. Or they could confiscate weapons and drugs found, without further action, making the searches look less effective.

It basically makes it impossible for the police to win; regardless of what they do, they are declared racist.
Again, an honest analysis would look at other factors, rather than just pretending race is the only factor.

Or they could stop the practice of random stop and search for no reason, or at least ensure they don’t massively target minorities, which they do.  If you speak to young black Londoners, they’ll tell you it’s pretty constant.

As I said, it’s a 360 page report, so I linked to the headline news instead, as reported across the political spectrum.

i.e. you haven't read the report, you don't understand the methodology used or what the data actually says.
Instead you will go with whatever clickbait BS news sites want to promote.
If you need to appeal to this clickbait BS, rather than the report itself, it indicates your claims are empty.

Let’s compare to your links… oh wait you haven’t  linked to anything.

That's right. Instead of going to second hand sources, saying whatever BS they want, I went straight to the source.

Just like for the bills, I went to the text of the bill, rather than what lying news sites claim about it.

But because that doesn't support your case, you need to look for some way to dismiss it.

I read the summary and some relevant sections including the parts you referenced.  I’ve cherry picked no more than you have.

You most certainly have.
You have picked a few lines, which simply state claims, providing no justification for those claims at all.
Instead, I examined and provided quotes from the section actually discussing racism which shows how they reached their erroneous conclusions.

No one is “upset” by that.  The author acknowledged there’s more diversity than there was, but the force is still predominantly white and male.  That is not the reason for the findings.  The thing you’ve decided to focus on gets barely a mention in the summary or recommendations.  It’s mainly the culture in the Met where racist, sexist and homophobic bullying are common and not effectively disciplined that’s the big problem, as well as how they deal with the public.

If you had bothered reading it, it does actually tie into the culture, and the rest of the findings.
There are currently racist hiring practices in place to try and increase the proportion of black and minority officers.
This leads to people questioning if such hires are done merely to increase the number with lower standards set for them.
This leads to questioning if people are fit for the job, possibly more misconduct cases for these people, and less promotion.

It’s not “massively racist” to try to attract more minorities to the force.  No one is discriminated against by encouraging women and minorities to apply.

That depends entirely upon how it is done.
If it is entirely empty and just merely advertising to encourage them, then sure it isn't. But that isn't what they do.
Instead, if they have programs to assist only minority applicants to improve their chance for success, or attempt to fulfil quotas, or choose them over other equally qualified other candidates because of their race or sex or other similar characteristic, then it is discrimination.

Lastly, the 80% recruitment thing is not a policy recommendation.  It’s just a figure to show what it would hypothetically take for London’s police to reflect the population.

It shows the double standard in the approach taken.
80% recruitment would be blatant racism, but they see it as fine because it is racism against white people.

Again, an honest, non-racist view, would be targeting recruitment percentages, not overall makeup of police.

And why do you think minorities might be less likely to apply?

Again, this is deflecting from the issue.
The report acts like minorities not having equal representation is institutional racism.
But if they aren't applying proportionally then they shouldn't be represented proportionally.

If you want to focus on why they aren't applying to see if there is racism causing it, then focus on that, don't focus on the lack of recruitment.
And if that is due to a lack of representation in the current makeup, then it isn't racism by the Met.

The only racism against white people here is in your head.  I believe I mentioned earlier that it’s illegal in this country to recruit on the basis of race.

Lots of illegal things are still done.
If you want to appeal to that, then the MET can't be racist or sexist because that would be illegal.

They are also typically exceptions granted when it discriminates against white people or males or cisgender people or straight people.
For example, part 11, chapter 2, section 159 of the quality act 2010.

159Positive action: recruitment and promotion
(1)This section applies if a person (P) reasonably thinks that—
(a)persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to the characteristic, or
(b)participation in an activity by persons who share a protected characteristic is disproportionately low.
(2)Part 5 (work) does not prohibit P from taking action within subsection (3) with the aim of enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to—
(a)overcome or minimise that disadvantage, or
(b)participate in that activity.
(3)That action is treating a person (A) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than another person (B) because A has the protected characteristic but B does not.
(4)But subsection (2) applies only if—
(a)A is as qualified as B to be recruited or promoted,
(b)P does not have a policy of treating persons who share the protected characteristic more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than persons who do not share it, and
(c)taking the action in question is a proportionate means of achieving the aim referred to in subsection (2)

.
This law, like so many like it, are quite strange, on one hand they try to prohibit discrimination, while stating quite explicitly that they are allowed to treat people more favourably.
The simplest way to get around the restriction on "qualified" is to give programs to them to make them as or more qualified, or at least appear that way at the time of recruitment. Or you just have a threshold to meet, and anything above that threshold doesn't make them more qualified.

And the government website ( https://www.gov.uk/employer-preventing-discrimination/recruitment ) even has this:

You can choose a candidate who has a protected characteristic over one who does not if they’re both suitable for the job and you think that people with that characteristic:
are underrepresented in the workforce, profession or industry
suffer a disadvantage connected to that characteristic (for example people from a certain ethnic group are not often given jobs in your sector)
You can only do this if you’re trying to address the under-representation or disadvantage for that particular characteristic. You must make decisions on a case by case basis and not because of a certain policy.
You cannot choose a candidate who is not as suitable for the job just because they have a protected characteristic.

So don't try telling me that such discrimination is illegal.

Or they could stop the practice of random stop and search for no reason, or at least ensure they don’t massively target minorities, which they do.  If you speak to young black Londoners, they’ll tell you it’s pretty constant.

Sure, just purely focus on that, and ignore the entire rest of it.
Yes, I disagree with stop and search for no reason. I think police should have to have a reason to stop and search someone, and that reason can't simply be because they are black.

But are they targeting minorities, or people they perceive as poor in poorer neighbourhoods?
If I speak to poor people, will they tell me it is pretty constant?

And more importantly, that wont remove the complains of over-policing, and it certainly wont help reduce the under-protection.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2023, 07:21:48 AM

As I said, it’s a 360 page report, so I linked to the headline news instead, as reported across the political spectrum.

i.e. you haven't read the report, you don't understand the methodology used or what the data actually says.
Instead you will go with whatever clickbait BS news sites want to promote.
If you need to appeal to this clickbait BS, rather than the report itself, it indicates your claims are empty.

Cut the crap.  You said you didn’t read it all either.  I read the parts you want to talk about, as well as some you apparently didn’t.

And I repeat that article is not click bait.  It’s the same story across all news sources.  The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Commissioner of the Met, etc have all addressed the findings outlined in this and every other article on it.

NOBODY HAS COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION AS YOU.  Even from a decidedly rightwing government.

Do you imagine you are the only one who understands the report?

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2023, 07:21:48 AM

Let’s compare to your links… oh wait you haven’t  linked to anything.

That's right. Instead of going to second hand sources, saying whatever BS they want, I went straight to the source.

Just like for the bills, I went to the text of the bill, rather than what lying news sites claim about it.

But because that doesn't support your case, you need to look for some way to dismiss it.

Yes, you went straight to the source to completely reject its findings. Instead deciding it means the Met is racist against white people.   I find the news sites reporting far more accurate than yours.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2023, 07:21:48 AM

I read the summary and some relevant sections including the parts you referenced.  I’ve cherry picked no more than you have.

You most certainly have.
You have picked a few lines, which simply state claims, providing no justification for those claims at all.
Instead, I examined and provided quotes from the section actually discussing racism which shows how they reached their erroneous conclusions.

I quoted parts of the conclusion.  You picked quotes from later in the report and made up your own conclusion.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2023, 07:21:48 AM

No one is “upset” by that.  The author acknowledged there’s more diversity than there was, but the force is still predominantly white and male.  That is not the reason for the findings.  The thing you’ve decided to focus on gets barely a mention in the summary or recommendations.  It’s mainly the culture in the Met where racist, sexist and homophobic bullying are common and not effectively disciplined that’s the big problem, as well as how they deal with the public.

If you had bothered reading it, it does actually tie into the culture, and the rest of the findings.
There are currently racist hiring practices in place to try and increase the proportion of black and minority officers.
This leads to people questioning if such hires are done merely to increase the number with lower standards set for them.
This leads to questioning if people are fit for the job, possibly more misconduct cases for these people, and less promotion.

Yes I read it, and it clearly says that the idea that standards have been lowered for ethnic minorities is a MYTH (p292), which you fail to mention.  A myth perpetuated by the kind of people who see everything as discrimination against white people.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2023, 07:21:48 AM

And why do you think minorities might be less likely to apply?

Again, this is deflecting from the issue.
The report acts like minorities not having equal representation is institutional racism.
But if they aren't applying proportionally then they shouldn't be represented proportionally.

If you want to focus on why they aren't applying to see if there is racism causing it, then focus on that, don't focus on the lack of recruitment.
And if that is due to a lack of representation in the current makeup, then it isn't racism by the Met.

The report doesn’t say current lack of representation is why more minorities aren’t applying.  It says trust in the Met among ethnic minority communities is low.  It’s not deflection to ask if you have a better explanation.  Apparently you don’t.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2023, 07:21:48 AM

The only racism against white people here is in your head.  I believe I mentioned earlier that it’s illegal in this country to recruit on the basis of race.

Lots of illegal things are still done.
If you want to appeal to that, then the MET can't be racist or sexist because that would be illegal.

They are also typically exceptions granted when it discriminates against white people or males or cisgender people or straight people.
For example, part 11, chapter 2, section 159 of the quality act 2010.

Quote

159Positive action: recruitment and promotion
(1)This section applies if a person (P) reasonably thinks that—
(a)persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to the characteristic, or
(b)participation in an activity by persons who share a protected characteristic is disproportionately low.
(2)Part 5 (work) does not prohibit P from taking action within subsection (3) with the aim of enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to—
(a)overcome or minimise that disadvantage, or
(b)participate in that activity.
(3)That action is treating a person (A) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than another person (B) because A has the protected characteristic but B does not.
(4)But subsection (2) applies only if—
(a)A is as qualified as B to be recruited or promoted,
(b)P does not have a policy of treating persons who share the protected characteristic more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than persons who do not share it, and
(c)taking the action in question is a proportionate means of achieving the aim referred to in subsection (2)

.
This law, like so many like it, are quite strange, on one hand they try to prohibit discrimination, while stating quite explicitly that they are allowed to treat people more favourably.
The simplest way to get around the restriction on "qualified" is to give programs to them to make them as or more qualified, or at least appear that way at the time of recruitment. Or you just have a threshold to meet, and anything above that threshold doesn't make them more qualified.

And the government website ( https://www.gov.uk/employer-preventing-discrimination/recruitment ) even has this:

Quote

You can choose a candidate who has a protected characteristic over one who does not if they’re both suitable for the job and you think that people with that characteristic:
are underrepresented in the workforce, profession or industry
suffer a disadvantage connected to that characteristic (for example people from a certain ethnic group are not often given jobs in your sector)
You can only do this if you’re trying to address the under-representation or disadvantage for that particular characteristic. You must make decisions on a case by case basis and not because of a certain policy.
You cannot choose a candidate who is not as suitable for the job just because they have a protected characteristic.

So don't try telling me that such discrimination is illegal.

Things like quotas are not legal.  It is not legal to recruit someone on the basis of race who would otherwise be considered unsuitable.   The part about allowing decisions on a case by case basis amounts to about as much as recruiting someone because you like the cut of their jib. 

You can’t have rules that are too restrictive and basically unenforceable or employers would be swamped in legal challenges.

There’s also glaringly obvious reasons why diversity is more important for a police force than say an office or a factory.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2023, 07:21:48 AM

Or they could stop the practice of random stop and search for no reason, or at least ensure they don’t massively target minorities, which they do.  If you speak to young black Londoners, they’ll tell you it’s pretty constant.

Sure, just purely focus on that, and ignore the entire rest of it.
Yes, I disagree with stop and search for no reason. I think police should have to have a reason to stop and search someone, and that reason can't simply be because they are black.

But are they targeting minorities, or people they perceive as poor in poorer neighbourhoods?
If I speak to poor people, will they tell me it is pretty constant?

And more importantly, that wont remove the complains of over-policing, and it certainly wont help reduce the under-protection.

I focus on stop and search because that’s a classic example of what is meant by over policing.  Having cops on patrol and responding to incidents is not over policing.

I’ve lived in a pretty poor mostly black part of London for years when I was younger and certainly didn’t look wealthy.  The only time I was ever stopped was carrying a rucksack into a tube station when they were on high terrorism alert.  Even that might have been largely due to having a tan and beard, because as soon as I spoke, the officer was suddenly very apologetic for bothering me.  Anecdotal of course, but the targeting of minorities looked pretty blatant to me, at least back then. 

And I repeat that article is not click bait.  It’s the same story across all news sources.  The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Commissioner of the Met, etc have all addressed the findings outlined in this and every other article on it.

And I repeat that it is.

NOBODY HAS COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION AS YOU.

So you have spoken to everyone who has read the report, privately, where they would be off the record with no possibility of backlash from it? Where they wouldn't just say things for publicity?

Yes, you went straight to the source to completely reject its findings.

No, I went to the source to examine the methodology and data; rather than focusing on a summary that is not supported by the data.

I find the news sites reporting far more accurate than yours.

Considering you haven't read the report, that would be impossible.

I quoted parts of the conclusion.  You picked quotes from later in the report and made up your own conclusion.

I picked quotes showing the data used to support their conclusions, and explained how it didn't support the conclusion of the report and actually leads to other conclusions.

Do you object to the idea of drawing conclusions from the data?

Yes I read it, and it clearly says that the idea that standards have been lowered for ethnic minorities is a MYTH

Yes, it states that; but doesn't provide any data to support that.
Of course those wanting to hire more minorities will claim the standards haven't been lowered, while actively trying to get more in.
Conversely, considering how much you love news articles, how about this one:
https://www.rebelnews.com/london_metropolitan_police_lower_hiring_standards_to_hit_diversity_targets_now_hiring_illiterates
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/26/applicants-functionally-illiterate-english-accepted-met-bid/

Do you know the easiest way to stop such myths? Stop with racist hiring practices. Make it clear that there will be no favouritism, no attempts to boost diversity and so on.

The report wants to dismiss it as a myth so it can take objections to racism as racism.

The report doesn’t say current lack of representation is why more minorities aren’t applying.  It says trust in the Met among ethnic minority communities is low.

Which is due to a number of factors.
But the point is, focusing on there being few minorities in the Met while they are less likely to apply doesn't show there is racism in the Met.

Things like quotas are not legal.  It is not legal to recruit someone on the basis of race who would otherwise be considered unsuitable.   The part about allowing decisions on a case by case basis amounts to about as much as recruiting someone because you like the cut of their jib.

It is establishing that you can give favourable treatment to certain individuals including based upon their race.
This means contrary to what you claimed, it is not illegal to be blatantly racist in the hiring process, as long as you are being racist against white people.

I focus on stop and search because that’s a classic example of what is meant by over policing.  Having cops on patrol and responding to incidents is not over policing.

I’ve lived in a pretty poor mostly black part of London for years when I was younger and certainly didn’t look wealthy.  The only time I was ever stopped was carrying a rucksack into a tube station when they were on high terrorism alert.  Even that might have been largely due to having a tan and beard, because as soon as I spoke, the officer was suddenly very apologetic for bothering me.  Anecdotal of course, but the targeting of minorities looked pretty blatant to me, at least back then.

Yes, it is anecdotal and thus of limited value. How many people did you see getting randomly stopped and searched?
It depends on many factors, and their response depends on many factors.

And we can also see data like this:
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/policing/stop-and-search/latest
While the rate is higher for black people, the absolute numbers are not. There were 359332 stop and search against white people, and only 98,010 against black people.
But again, this doesn't consider other factors.

But as for responding to incidents, that also depends on how they respond.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2023, 04:37:28 AM

And I repeat that article is not click bait.  It’s the same story across all news sources.  The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Commissioner of the Met, etc have all addressed the findings outlined in this and every other article on it.

And I repeat that it is.

It’s absolutely laughable to suggest that the current Home Secretary would take allegedly left wing click bait at face value. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2023, 04:37:28 AM

NOBODY HAS COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION AS YOU.

So you have spoken to everyone who has read the report, privately, where they would be off the record with no possibility of backlash from it? Where they wouldn't just say things for publicity?

Whatever they privately think, the Prime Minister, the mayor of London, the Home Secretary, the Met commissioner, etc have all talked about the findings of the report.  The most alarming findings that are summarized in the article I linked to as an example.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2023, 04:37:28 AM

Yes, you went straight to the source to completely reject its findings.

No, I went to the source to examine the methodology and data; rather than focusing on a summary that is not supported by the data.

You’ve focused almost entirely on representation and recruitment and basically ignored the more damning findings.  Such as the culture of bullying inside the Met where 46% of Black and 33% of Asian officers and staff say they personally experienced racism at work in the review survey.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2023, 04:37:28 AM

I find the news sites reporting far more accurate than yours.

Considering you haven't read the report, that would be impossible.

Ooooh.  Sick burn.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2023, 04:37:28 AM

I quoted parts of the conclusion.  You picked quotes from later in the report and made up your own conclusion.

I picked quotes showing the data used to support their conclusions, and explained how it didn't support the conclusion of the report and actually leads to other conclusions.

Do you object to the idea of drawing conclusions from the data?

I do when people cherry pick parts to support their own views and ignore the rest.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2023, 04:37:28 AM

Yes I read it, and it clearly says that the idea that standards have been lowered for ethnic minorities is a MYTH

Yes, it states that; but doesn't provide any data to support that.
Of course those wanting to hire more minorities will claim the standards haven't been lowered, while actively trying to get more in.
Conversely, considering how much you love news articles, how about this one:
https://www.rebelnews.com/london_metropolitan_police_lower_hiring_standards_to_hit_diversity_targets_now_hiring_illiterates
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/26/applicants-functionally-illiterate-english-accepted-met-bid/

Rebel news?  LOL

And is that the actual Telegraph article cited in the report?

192 Mr Parr has asked the Review to explain that the words quoted were ones he had heard anecdotally; HMICFRS has not inspected on this topic and Mr Parr had no evidence that standards were being lowered

Nice one.

But the Telegraph doesn’t always fuck up.  Sometimes they just report the news:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/21/met-police-casey-report-key-findings-racist-sexist/

Baroness Louise Casey has published a report into the toxic culture of the Metropolitan Police.

The review highlighted shocking examples of racist, homophobic and misogynistic behavior among serving officers and staff in Britain's biggest police force.

Lady Casey's report explored how a toxic culture of blame sought to pin responsibility for the widespread and "institutionalised" behavior on "bad apples" with a “strong tendency to look for a positive spin”.

Findings were branded "heartbreaking" by Met Commissioner Mark Rowley.

The report pointed to racism and sexism on an "institutional" scale and is letting down the public, it was concluded.

More lefty “clickbait” from the Telegraph, I presume?

Do you know the easiest way to stop such myths? Stop with racist hiring practices. Make it clear that there will be no favouritism, no attempts to boost diversity and so on.

The report wants to dismiss it as a myth so it can take objections to racism as racism.

No attempts to boost diversity?  Yeah, that’s definitely what the Met needs to do.

Another way to stop such myths would be if the likes of you stop crying racism against white people unless there’s good reason.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2023, 04:37:28 AM

The report doesn’t say current lack of representation is why more minorities aren’t applying.  It says trust in the Met among ethnic minority communities is low.

Which is due to a number of factors.
But the point is, focusing on there being few minorities in the Met while they are less likely to apply doesn't show there is racism in the Met.

You are the one focusing so much on the number of minorities in the Met.  The report bases its findings on much more, including some very troubling things that you apparently don’t want to talk about.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2023, 04:37:28 AM

Things like quotas are not legal.  It is not legal to recruit someone on the basis of race who would otherwise be considered unsuitable.   The part about allowing decisions on a case by case basis amounts to about as much as recruiting someone because you like the cut of their jib.

It is establishing that you can give favourable treatment to certain individuals including based upon their race.
This means contrary to what you claimed, it is not illegal to be blatantly racist in the hiring process, as long as you are being racist against white people.

And you can give favourable  treatment to the candidate with the nicest hair.

For a city like London, 77% of police recruits still being white is piss poor evidence of discrimination against white people.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2023, 04:37:28 AM

I focus on stop and search because that’s a classic example of what is meant by over policing.  Having cops on patrol and responding to incidents is not over policing.

I’ve lived in a pretty poor mostly black part of London for years when I was younger and certainly didn’t look wealthy.  The only time I was ever stopped was carrying a rucksack into a tube station when they were on high terrorism alert.  Even that might have been largely due to having a tan and beard, because as soon as I spoke, the officer was suddenly very apologetic for bothering me.  Anecdotal of course, but the targeting of minorities looked pretty blatant to me, at least back then.

Yes, it is anecdotal and thus of limited value. How many people did you see getting randomly stopped and searched?
It depends on many factors, and their response depends on many factors.

And we can also see data like this:
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/policing/stop-and-search/latest
While the rate is higher for black people, the absolute numbers are not. There were 359332 stop and search against white people, and only 98,010 against black people.
But again, this doesn't consider other factors.

But as for responding to incidents, that also depends on how they respond.

Other factors like those being UK wide figures you mean?  Where only 4.2% of the population is black on average.  Not really surprising that the total numbers are higher for white people, considering there are parts of the country where you’ll hardly see any black people at all.  That compares to black people making up 13.5% of the population in London.   

If you didn’t spot that, you might need to work on you own methodology a bit

Good to see numbers have improved a lot since I lived in London though.  When, yes, it really was very obvious. 

Anyway, I’m pretty tired of this discussion.  I might reply to whatever you say next, I might not.  Feel free to believe I’ve “run away” again if i can’t be arsed though.

It’s absolutely laughable to suggest that the current Home Secretary would take allegedly left wing click bait at face value.

Why?
First, as already pointed, you need to distinguish between what they actually think, vs what they say publically.
Politicians are known to lie quite a lot.

You’ve focused almost entirely on representation and recruitment and basically ignored the more damning findings.  Such as the culture of bullying inside the Met where 46% of Black and 33% of Asian officers and staff say they personally experienced racism at work in the review survey.

No, I have focused on a key part which leads to further issues.
Again, there are programs and a clear push to try to get more black and ethnic minorities into the MET.
And then it takes people objecting to this as racism.
e.g. asking or implying someone only got their job or got to where they were because of their race; more such officers getting dismissed; those officers having less chance for opportunities to lead to promotion.

That all makes sense if the standards have been lowered, as people have suggested and is reflected in how black hiring remains fairly constant while white hiring fluctuates far more, as if they hire as many black people as they can and leave the whites to fill in the gaps.

But the report just dismisses that idea as a myth and doesn't bother investigating it at all.
Instead, it acts as if that must all be down to racism.

If you instead approach the data without assuming racism is the reason, you see that the black and ethnic minorities are more likely to be terminated within 2 years of employment and are more likely to face disciplinary action; indicating that they have a lower standard for entry.

If the report actually cared about getting honest findings they would have actually looked into hiring practices to determine if standard were being lowered.

I do when people cherry pick parts to support their own views and ignore the rest.

Like what the report does and what the news articles have done?

Rebel news?  LOL
And is that the actual Telegraph article cited in the report?

So you happily dismiss articles when they don't support you, but fully accept them when they do.
But again, statements like these are taken as evidence of racism against black people, rather than even attempting to investigate if standards have been lowered.

No attempts to boost diversity?  Yeah, that’s definitely what the Met needs to do.

Yes, that is what they need to do.
Stop being racist in hiring practices and instead start treating all races equally.
Remove any possibility of people being hired because of their race, so suggestions of such must be wrong.
While targets and programs to boost diversity exist, the idea that standards are lowered to hire such candidates to meet those targets will remain.

Likewise, if you don't want to be accused of getting where you are due to racial favouritism, then speak out against these racist programs and do not use them yourself.
As soon as you use such racist programs you open yourself up to claims that without such racist programs you wouldn't have gotten to where you were.

Another way to stop such myths would be if the likes of you stop crying racism against white people unless there’s good reason.

You mean a good reason like racist hiring practices, and other racist practices inside the organisation designed to benefit non-white people which white people cannot use?
I would think such racism against white people would be a good reason to cry about racism against white people.

You are the one focusing so much on the number of minorities in the Met.  The report bases its findings on much more, including some very troubling things that you apparently don’t want to talk about.

No, I am focusing more on the likely racist hiring practices which leads to some of the more troubling things you want to focus on as if race played no part in reaching that point.

And you can give favourable  treatment to the candidate with the nicest hair.

Hair isn't a protected characteristic. Race is.
There is no law that even attempts to prohibit discrimination based upon hair style.

And this shows that racism is permitted in hiring, as long as you are racist against white people.

For a city like London, 77% of police recruits still being white is piss poor evidence of discrimination against white people.

Again, there are so many issues with this it isn't funny.

First, you are still clinging to the past.
Racism of the past is not evidence of racism now.
As the report even says, if you want a 46% representation within 10 years, you need to start with 50% recruitment of minorities, increasing until it is over 80%.

That means even if they switch to a massively racist hiring strategy, you wouldn't accept it was racist for 10 years.

But more significant is that you are looking at the number employed, without any regard for the number of applicants.
As the minorities are less likely to apply you should expect them to have lower representation.

Other factors like those being UK wide figures you mean?  Where only 4.2% of the population is black on average.  Not really surprising that the total numbers are higher for white people, considering there are parts of the country where you’ll hardly see any black people at all.  That compares to black people making up 13.5% of the population in London.

I already acknowledged the difference between absolute numbers vs rate.

Edit: I had something open this morning which I didn't have time to go through. But now I have.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c66abfd40f0b61a1e93a27a/Mr_M_Furlong_v_The_Chief_Constable_of_Cheshire_Police_2405577.18_judgment_and_reasons.pdf
A simple summary: a heterosexual, white male officer was discriminated against by the Cheshire police department to hire less qualified diversity candidates.

More comprehensive:
The pass mark for a initial selection process from the college of policing been lowered from 60% to 50%, so standards have been lowered.
At a later stage of the process they had collected a lot of data which could be used to rank people; but instead they chose to treat it as pass fail and everyone who passed as having "equal merit".
They used the allowance for positive action to these "equal merit" candidates to preferentially select diversity candidates.
From a simple calculation that was previously used, only 56 of the candidates could have been offered positions before the candidate.
There were 85 places filled.
But instead of using this scoring system they chose to use principles, where the first principle was diversity candidates, where if they were female, BME, LGBT or disabled, they would get the job.
That means 29 police officers were employed which were of lower quality than the candidate (based upon that scoring system), which were hired on the basis of diversity.
This means standards have been lowered and less qualified candidates have been employed to promote diversity.

Yes, I know it isn't the Met, but it is an example of such practices occurring in the UK police.

But what I find the most insulting is that the only reason this judgement was reached was the available data which was ignored. If instead they literally just had pass/fail and had no way to score other than that, this blatant racism and sexism would be permitted with no remedy available.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 26, 2023, 05:35:02 AM

It’s absolutely laughable to suggest that the current Home Secretary would take allegedly left wing click bait at face value.

Why?
First, as already pointed, you need to distinguish between what they actually think, vs what they say publically.
Politicians are known to lie quite a lot.

Because of everything she says, does and stands for.  You might as well say that Trump panders to BLM supporters.  She certainly lies though.

The point was that even the Home Secretary accepts the findings.  Just as even the right wing media does.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 26, 2023, 05:35:02 AM

You’ve focused almost entirely on representation and recruitment and basically ignored the more damning findings.  Such as the culture of bullying inside the Met where 46% of Black and 33% of Asian officers and staff say they personally experienced racism at work in the review survey.

No, I have focused on a key part which leads to further issues.
Again, there are programs and a clear push to try to get more black and ethnic minorities into the MET.
And then it takes people objecting to this as racism.
e.g. asking or implying someone only got their job or got to where they were because of their race; more such officers getting dismissed; those officers having less chance for opportunities to lead to promotion.

I hate to break this to you, but asking or implying someone got where they are because of their race is not “objecting to racism”, it IS racism.  Direct, degrading, humiliating, shitty racism.  Even if standards had been lowered, and you have no evidence that this has actually happened, it would still be prejudice towards the individual that it applies to them based on their race, and used to make them feel like they don’t belong there.  Racism.

You could possibly make the argument that such a policy, if it really exists, leads to there being  more racism towards ethnic minorities, but you’re not even saying that.  Amazing.

That all makes sense if the standards have been lowered, as people have suggested and is reflected in how black hiring remains fairly constant while white hiring fluctuates far more, as if they hire as many black people as they can and leave the whites to fill in the gaps.

But the report just dismisses that idea as a myth and doesn't bother investigating it at all.
Instead, it acts as if that must all be down to racism.

If you instead approach the data without assuming racism is the reason, you see that the black and ethnic minorities are more likely to be terminated within 2 years of employment and are more likely to face disciplinary action; indicating that they have a lower standard for entry.

If the report actually cared about getting honest findings they would have actually looked into hiring practices to determine if standard were being lowered.

That makes sense to you if you assume that everything is just a reaction to hiring practices.  Perhaps the review should have looked into the source of these rumors, but at best you have an alternative hypotheses with no supporting evidence.

And that still basically ignores inexcusable behavior and apparently a workplace culture where such behavior is not taken seriously. The report isn’t just about racism either, they found similar problems with attitudes towards women and gay people.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 26, 2023, 05:35:02 AM

I do when people cherry pick parts to support their own views and ignore the rest.

Like what the report does and what the news articles have done?

Even though you disagree with the report you still claim the news articles misrepresent the report by quoting the big findings?  Weird.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 26, 2023, 05:35:02 AM

Rebel news?  LOL
And is that the actual Telegraph article cited in the report?

So you happily dismiss articles when they don't support you, but fully accept them when they do.
But again, statements like these are taken as evidence of racism against black people, rather than even attempting to investigate if standards have been lowered.

Rebels news is a far right site.  You linked to a far right website giving their take on a Telegraph article, where the person quoted actually told the review to clarify that his comments were hearsay and not based on any evidence.

I didn’t didn’t say it was evidence of racism, I just laughed at your sources.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 26, 2023, 05:35:02 AM

No attempts to boost diversity?  Yeah, that’s definitely what the Met needs to do.

Yes, that is what they need to do.
Stop being racist in hiring practices and instead start treating all races equally.
Remove any possibility of people being hired because of their race, so suggestions of such must be wrong.
While targets and programs to boost diversity exist, the idea that standards are lowered to hire such candidates to meet those targets will remain.

Likewise, if you don't want to be accused of getting where you are due to racial favouritism, then speak out against these racist programs and do not use them yourself.
As soon as you use such racist programs you open yourself up to claims that without such racist programs you wouldn't have gotten to where you were.

Who exactly is “you” in those last couple of sentence?  Officers or members of staff told they only got where they were because of their race are not responsible for whatever hiring policy is in place, which again you have no evidence actually exist.  Now you put it on them to actively speak out against what you consider racist to avoid being victims of racism.  What the actual fuck?

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 26, 2023, 05:35:02 AM

For a city like London, 77% of police recruits still being white is piss poor evidence of discrimination against white people.

Again, there are so many issues with this it isn't funny.

First, you are still clinging to the past.
Racism of the past is not evidence of racism now.
As the report even says, if you want a 46% representation within 10 years, you need to start with 50% recruitment of minorities, increasing until it is over 80%.

That means even if they switch to a massively racist hiring strategy, you wouldn't accept it was racist for 10 years.

But more significant is that you are looking at the number employed, without any regard for the number of applicants.
As the minorities are less likely to apply you should expect them to have lower representation.

How is that clinging to “racism of the past”?  I’m pointing out that majority of recruits are still white.  Being white does not appear to a barrier to entry or advancement or lead to people questioning whether they deserve to be there.

And this “racism of the past” thing is just weird.  You’ve said it several times in this discussion.  Are you suggesting that racism against minorities disappeared, and everything now is just a reaction to racism against white people?  When do you think that happened?

Here’s an alternative idea- it never went away, it just became less socially acceptable.  What would Occam say?

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 26, 2023, 05:35:02 AM

Other factors like those being UK wide figures you mean?  Where only 4.2% of the population is black on average.  Not really surprising that the total numbers are higher for white people, considering there are parts of the country where you’ll hardly see any black people at all.  That compares to black people making up 13.5% of the population in London.

I already acknowledged the difference between absolute numbers vs rate.

So what was your point?

Because of everything she says, does and stands for.  You might as well say that Trump panders to BLM supporters.  She certainly lies though.
The point was that even the Home Secretary accepts the findings.  Just as even the right wing media does.

No, the point is that she commented on it in parliament, not that they actually accept the findings.

I hate to break this to you, but asking or implying someone got where they are because of their race is not “objecting to racism”, it IS racism.

And there you go with more pathetic dismissal.
Remember, a whole bunch of this started with people suggesting white people only got their job because of their race and that black people were excluded on the basis of their race.
Why is that acceptable, but suggesting the exact same thing for black people, when there are actively programs trying to get more black people into various sectors and cases like I provided at the end of the last post magically racism?

I would say it NOT racist to suggest that a significant number of minority applicants got their job due to their minority status rather than based upon merit.
This objection to blatant racism in hiring practises is not racist.

But this demonstrates the issue I was getting it.
People like you, and the makers of this report see this objection to racism as racism.

And if the person has used these racist policies and programs to improve their chances, then it is certainly not racism to call them out on it, even if you don't fully explain it all.
If a black person uses a program only available to black people and gets hired, it is NOT racist to suggest they got hired because they were black and thus had access to these programs and used these programs.

That makes sense to you if you assume that everything is just a reaction to hiring practices.  Perhaps the review should have looked into the source of these rumors, but at best you have an alternative hypotheses with no supporting evidence.

And that still basically ignores inexcusable behavior and apparently a workplace culture where such behavior is not taken seriously. The report isn’t just about racism either, they found similar problems with attitudes towards women and gay people.

Yes, they should have looked into the rumours. Instead they just dismiss it as racism.
And, yes, it does make sense, as already explained.

If the standards have been lowered to get more minority applicants in, you would expect there to be a lower standard among those minority applicants than the artificially elevated standard for non minority applicants; which in turn results in them being retained less and more likely to suffer disciplinary action.
This is a quite logical conclusion.

And I know the report isn't just about racism. But guess what? These policies can also apply to other "minority" applicants like females and non-heterosexual people.

And I think this behaviour should be taken seriously, with such blatant racist policies and programs prohibited, with those promoting them having their employment terminated.

Even though you disagree with the report you still claim the news articles misrepresent the report by quoting the big findings?

Yes, because they ignore the vast majority of the report and just put in the minimal effort required to bring people to their site to get ad revenue.

Rebels news is a far right site.  You linked to a far right website giving their take on a Telegraph article, where the person quoted actually told the review to clarify that his comments were hearsay and not based on any evidence.

The quotes in the telegraph said it was based on anecdotal evidence.
And I provided a tribunal judgement showing it is happening.

Who exactly is “you” in those last couple of sentence?

Anyone who attempts to use discriminatory programs to improve their chance of success.
Anyone who does so opens them up to quite likely justifiable allegations that they only got to where they are because of this discrimination.

again you have no evidence actually exist.

So what do you call the employment tribunal decision that a white, heterosexual male was discriminated against based upon their race, sex and sexual preference?

Now you put it on them to actively speak out against what you consider racist to avoid being victims of racism.

No, I put it on them to avoid being rewarded by racism, and to speak out against racism which favours them.
Again, anyone who uses such racist programs, and is then accused of getting to where they are due to their race is not a victim of racism. They have been rewarded and advanced by it.

How is that clinging to “racism of the past”?  I’m pointing out that majority of recruits are still white.

My bad, I missed the recruit part.

Being white does not appear to a barrier to entry or advancement or lead to people questioning whether they deserve to be there.

If that was the case, there wouldn't be allegation that people only got to where they were because of their race.
The tribunal decision shows that it IS a barrier.
Having programs to help you be hired or promoted, where being a white excludes you from it, shows that it is a barrier.

It doesn't lead to questioning if they deserve to be there because they have to overcome these barriers to get there.
When there are so many barriers up it makes no sense to question if they deserve to be there.
You would need programs specifically trying to hire or promote white people to lead to questions of if a white person deserves to be there.

And this “racism of the past” thing is just weird.  You’ve said it several times in this discussion.  Are you suggesting that racism against minorities disappeared, and everything now is just a reaction to racism against white people?  When do you think that happened?

I am just accepting the fact that in the past blatant discrimination against non-white people was a very real thing, which resulted in a lot of jobs being dominated by white men.
For these jobs, if you were to entirely stop with racist hiring practices it would take a considerable time to have the numbers reflected throughout the industry/company.
This is because stopping that racism wouldn't remove the current people employed. So instead you would need to wait for those hired under the racist system to retire or be fired or leave for other employment.
And this gets worse if you have minority candidates being less likely to apply due to thinking it doesn't represent them.

But this racism of the past doesn't justify racism now.

And no, I don't racism against minorities has disappeared, but I think systemic racism against minorities has, with it being replaced by blatant, intentional, wilful and publicly promoted racism against white people.

So what was your point?

If it was being targeted at black people, you wouldn't expect the absolute number of white people stopped to be so much higher than the absolute number of black people.
It indicates there are likely other factors at play.


And no comment on the tribunal?
Which found that standards have been lowered, racism is occurring, including racism which fails to meet the requirements for "favourable action" due to being able to rank people; showing that the allegations made which the report uses as evidence of racism has actually been occurring, at least in Cheshire.

And why no comment on the fact that it is NOT illegal to be racist against white people if you do it in certain ways, showing your claim that it is illegal is incorrect?

Objection to racism is racist

Affirmative action-

Just like covid the lines have been drawn.
The world is grey and SOME situations loke that professor i ref do apply.

However
Policy is done at a numbers game.
Because govt should care about immigration and welfare and crime/jail.

If you think economics is the problem, this will elevate the weaker population.
Its not stealing a job from a whiteman.
The blaclwoman must be qualified.
If you say the blackwoman is unqualified, for no other reasin, well you racist.
Ecomomics at olay will solve itself.
And as we already agreed - racusts exist therefore racist policies can exist as well.
The venn diagram of poverty and minorities and economic levels has many oveelaps.
So picking JUST racism is weong and picking JUST economis is also wrong.

If you think the policy in itself is racist  without extra context and just generalizing then youre right!
It is but it isnt.
Youre resource guarding.
The individual whiteman will be ok.
The whiteman population will also be ok.
The economy will level itself out.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 27, 2023, 08:53:59 AM

I hate to break this to you, but asking or implying someone got where they are because of their race is not “objecting to racism”, it IS racism.

And there you go with more pathetic dismissal.
Remember, a whole bunch of this started with people suggesting white people only got their job because of their race and that black people were excluded on the basis of their race.
Why is that acceptable, but suggesting the exact same thing for black people, when there are actively programs trying to get more black people into various sectors and cases like I provided at the end of the last post magically racism?

I would say it NOT racist to suggest that a significant number of minority applicants got their job due to their minority status rather than based upon merit.
This objection to blatant racism in hiring practises is not racist.

But this demonstrates the issue I was getting it.
People like you, and the makers of this report see this objection to racism as racism.

And if the person has used these racist policies and programs to improve their chances, then it is certainly not racism to call them out on it, even if you don't fully explain it all.
If a black person uses a program only available to black people and gets hired, it is NOT racist to suggest they got hired because they were black and thus had access to these programs and used these programs.

Pathetic dismissal from me?  You are literally defending obvious racism directed personally at work colleagues.

Even IF such a scheme existed to help some people, you’re saying it’s fine to assume a colleague has benefited from it based on the colour of their skin and then question their ability to do their job?  Does that really sound reasonable to you?

It’s not acceptable to do this to white people either.  I wouldn’t dream of doing it anybody.  It’s a disgraceful thing to do to someone.  If you think that’s what “people like me” are saying, then you fundamentally don’t understand the basic argument.

If the race debate has turned too partisan, then just ask yourself the simple question- “is this treating someone with basic respect, or is it being a total arsehole?”

But the problem is he as an individual feels disrespected.
The point is its not anout him or any regular person indivudual.

If you think economics is the problem, this will elevate the weaker population.

I fully accept that treating economics as a problem and giving advantage based upon that will elevate the less advantaged population and make give uni positions or possibly even jobs to less qualified people.

Its not stealing a job from a whiteman.
The blaclwoman must be qualified.
If you say the blackwoman is unqualified, for no other reasin, well you racist.

So you try hide away from the fact that it is stealing a job by accusing anyone who suggests otherwise of being racist.

Firstly it is not simply a binary.
These days merely being "qualified" is not enough.
It is about who is the MOST qualified.
And that is reallly where the issue is, taking away jobs from more qualified white people to give them to less qualified diversity candicates.
When that is done on the basis of race it is blatant racism and it is stealing a job from someone on the basis of their race.
Even more so when standards are lowered to try to improve diversity.

I even provided an example of a tribunal decision showing that.

And if you want to suggest otherwise, then that requires saying such policies are entirely unneeded as even without such policies in place the non-white person would still get the job.
Because otherwise the policy is taking a job from someone and giving it to someone else, i.e. stealing their job, and doing so on the basis of race.

If you think the policy in itself is racist  without extra context and just generalizing then youre right!
It is but it isnt.
Youre resource guarding.
The individual whiteman will be ok.
The whiteman population will also be ok.
The economy will level itself out.

The extra context doesn't magically remove the racism.
The individual white men will not necessarily be okay. Not when they are having jobs taken from them.

Pathetic dismissal from me?  You are literally defending obvious racism directed personally at work colleagues.

Even IF such a scheme existed to help some people, you’re saying it’s fine to assume a colleague has benefited from it based on the colour of their skin and then question their ability to do their job?  Does that really sound reasonable to you?

It’s not acceptable to do this to white people either.  I wouldn’t dream of doing it anybody.  It’s a disgraceful thing to do to someone.  If you think that’s what “people like me” are saying, then you fundamentally don’t understand the basic argument.

If the race debate has turned too partisan, then just ask yourself the simple question- “is this treating someone with basic respect, or is it being a total arsehole?”

Yes, pathetic dismissal, as you are yet again dismissing valid objections as racism.
You don't bother dealing with any of the reasoning for these objections; including entirely ignoring a tribunal decision that shows at the very least elsewhere in the UK racism is being used to put lower quality candidates into jobs on the basis of diversity.
Instead, you want to see it as just people randomly saying that black people aren't qualified and only got the job because they were black, with no possible justification at all.

It isn't a question of if such schemes exist, they do.

As for your question, if it based purely upon the colour of their skin, with nothing else contributing to the allegation, then no, it isn't.
However if it isn't like that. These schemes do exist.
Would it be unfair to ask if someone got to where they were based upon schemes which exist which they are eligible to use, which are you not eligible for, with that eligibility being based upon something entirely separate to your ability to do your job? I would say at that point it is borderline. And the people who bare the vast majority of the blame are those who implement such racist schemes.
However, if there are other factors at play, such as the person appears incompetent, or you know that they have used such schemes, then it is not racist.

This discussion also has nothing to do with if someone being an asshole or not. The question is about racism.
Someone being an asshole to everyone, including black people, doesn't make them racist, it makes them an asshole.

But for police officers, there is the question of if they have a moral obligation to ask such things. If they believe standards have been lowered to the point where people are becoming police officers who shouldn't be, then they should be raising objections to it, including any policies which cause this, especially policies which discriminate on factors which do not affect ones ability to be a police officer.