With this trend for naming your kids after luxury goods, Dior, Mercedes, will we soon have a generation of little Gas and Electrics?
Maybe it will be forced on us. All children to be named EoN or NPower as advertising for the energy suppliers to part fund year 10 of Sir Keirs cap freeze.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Yes, the West - especially America, but the UK and elsewhere as well - is economically handicapping itself, and this at a time when we can least afford it. We will see the dire results in 10-15 years?
To return to American education, I can see it collapsing in prestige, influence and income, unless they reverse gear very soon
It will be very difficult to undo this because it comes from very a deep-seated ideological commitment to how the world ought to be, which prevents people questioning whether the solution is worse than the cure.
With this trend for naming your kids after luxury goods, Dior, Mercedes, will we soon have a generation of little Gas and Electrics?
Maybe it will be forced on us. All children to be named EoN or NPower as advertising for the energy suppliers to part fund year 10 of Sir Keirs cap freeze.
Yes, and much needed for the country, but the trouble is we have tickets for day 1 of the Lords test tomorrow. Really good seats, very expensive, birthday treat for me, been looking forward to it for ages - and now it looks certain to be either a total washout (which perversely I'm hoping for since we don't have to bother going and we get the price of the tickets back) or (worse) ALMOST a washout. Either way, the whole thing is going to be totally spoiled. If there really were a God this sort of thing wouldn't happen to me.
Summer’s back to normal, we’re complaining about the rain again.
Some commenters may want to read more carefully before they reply. I wrote that: "you lose so much heat through your head." I did not give a number, since it would depend on circumstances (including baldness), nor did I say "most".
If you have scientific evidence that people lose no heat, or very little heat, through their heads -- even when their heads are uncovered, unlike most of their bodies -- feel free to present it.
With this trend for naming your kids after luxury goods, Dior, Mercedes, will we soon have a generation of little Gas and Electrics?
Maybe it will be forced on us. All children to be named EoN or NPower as advertising for the energy suppliers to part fund year 10 of Sir Keirs cap freeze.
Yes, and much needed for the country, but the trouble is we have tickets for day 1 of the Lords test tomorrow. Really good seats, very expensive, birthday treat for me, been looking forward to it for ages - and now it looks certain to be either a total washout (which perversely I'm hoping for since we don't have to bother going and we get the price of the tickets back) or (worse) ALMOST a washout. Either way, the whole thing is going to be totally spoiled. If there really were a God this sort of thing wouldn't happen to me.
Summer’s back to normal, we’re complaining about the rain again.
This morning I had the surreal experience of an hour long call about the impact of the drought with some colleagues and clients while looking out of my window at the pouring rain outside.
Since some are worried about staying warm there this winter, I'll repeat the advice I have given before: Synthetic underwear is amazingly warming; with an outer layer or two, it has kept me warm outdoors, when the temperature was 10 degrees Centigrade below zero and even colder. And when it is cold in the winter mornings, I will often put on a knit cap until my apartment warms up, since you lose so much heat through your head.
The head thing is urban myth.
No it isn't. It started life as you lose most heat through your head *if you are otherwise dressed for the weather, but hatless.* Which is pretty obviously true.
In extreme arctic conditions, yes;
“The myth is thought to have arisen through a flawed interpretation of a vaguely scientific experiment by the US military in the 1950s. In those studies, volunteers were dressed in Arctic survival suits and exposed to bitterly cold conditions. Because it was the only part of their bodies left uncovered, most of their heat was lost through their heads.“
Yet taking one's hat on or off is absolutely standard as a way of keeping the right Goldilocks temperature when out walking: it's one of the layers of clothing that one can adjust for that purpose.
Yes, and much needed for the country, but the trouble is we have tickets for day 1 of the Lords test tomorrow. Really good seats, very expensive, birthday treat for me, been looking forward to it for ages - and now it looks certain to be either a total washout (which perversely I'm hoping for since we don't have to bother going and we get the price of the tickets back) or (worse) ALMOST a washout. Either way, the whole thing is going to be totally spoiled. If there really were a God this sort of thing wouldn't happen to me.
Summer’s back to normal, we’re complaining about the rain again.
Charles I was an arse. "Whenever it is raining anywhere in my kingdom it is raining in Tavistock." Actually Tavistock remains bone dry while superstrength rainstorms pass by 5 miles away in all directioons.
Since some are worried about staying warm there this winter, I'll repeat the advice I have given before: Synthetic underwear is amazingly warming; with an outer layer or two, it has kept me warm outdoors, when the temperature was 10 degrees Centigrade below zero and even colder. And when it is cold in the winter mornings, I will often put on a knit cap until my apartment warms up, since you lose so much heat through your head.
The head thing is urban myth.
No it isn't. It started life as you lose most heat through your head *if you are otherwise dressed for the weather, but hatless.* Which is pretty obviously true.
In extreme arctic conditions, yes;
“The myth is thought to have arisen through a flawed interpretation of a vaguely scientific experiment by the US military in the 1950s. In those studies, volunteers were dressed in Arctic survival suits and exposed to bitterly cold conditions. Because it was the only part of their bodies left uncovered, most of their heat was lost through their heads.“
I tend to use a hat on/off for temperature moderation in normal cold conditions outdoors rather than as an essential item but you absolutely have to keep your core warm.
In extreme conditions obviously a hat becomes essential and a balaclava can be useful to avoid your ears dropping off but if there's no wind then even -20C isn't actually that bad.
[The conditions where you are most likely to get hypothermia outdoors in the UK are probably +2C and heavy rain]
It really isn't that hard to stay warm indoors with a few extra layers of clothing if the room temperature is above 10C.
I have the thermostat at 18C and that's definitely overdoing it.
The main thing to avoid indoors is damp. Permanently damp conditions will damage health.
Long range winter forecasts will move the market, even at this range where skill scores are low.
For the UK, early indications suggest a drier than average and benign winter.
"Drier than average and benign."
Ah.
So, we manage to get through the dark months without a mass cull of the poor and the elderly by hypothermia - and then we get to next Summer, it's roasting hot again and out come the standpipes.
Fucking joy.
EDIT: if anything is going to turn a Tory rout at the next election into a Canada '93 style massacre, it's folk having to queue in the streets (during yet another bloody heatwave) to collect water in a bucket. Clacton would go Labour. Count on it.
After all Leon's complaints about us having a good summer with some glorious sunshine and hot weather to enjoy, are we really going to follow that up with complaints about a benign and pleasant winter while gas is at an all time high for heating?
Some people really aren't happy unless they're complaining about the weather.
I'm in a Primrose Hill pub full of parents, especially loud wealthy boring fathers talking about their investments and/or their cricketing trips to Australia, and every single annoying small boy seems to be called "Leo" or "Theo"
I sometimes understand why the world hates north Londoners
Yeah I know that one - it makes you want to execute a few rabbit punches doesn't it.
Really does. I’m close to chucking my drink over one of them. Obnoxious mixture of arrogance and tediousness
If you’re going to talk REALLY LOUDLY at least make it interesting. Not just vapid boasting badly disguised as conversation. Pity his wife
Are they drowning out your conversation about all the locations you've been to recently?
My sympathies.
I don't SHOUT LOUDLY ABOUT MY EXTENSIVE TRAVELS in London pubs. But if I was so minded, I could really make this guy look like a parochial twat
Allocating both positions and contracts by ethnic groups was standard in most big city political machines in the US, decades ago. And is still found in weaker versions, almost everywhere.
In 1976, the great Chicago columnist Mike Royko summarized the system there by saying "[Mayor Richard J.] Daley Always a Quota Man".
Might be an idea to stock up on warm clothes, now. Demand and prices could go up considerably this winter, throughout Europe.
Even with fairly robust supply chains and retail purchasing managers overbuying, 450m people, all looking to buy warm clothes at the same time could send prices sky high.
"UK ministers who backed sending asylum seekers to Rwanda were warned by their own adviser that its government tortures and kills political opponents. The warning came weeks before the British government tried to send asylum seekers to the African nation. The adviser raised concerns about the tone and accuracy of an official note on Rwanda's human rights record."
Well I am too old for fighting in the streets now but in my student days I ended up both in the cells and in hospital for fighting the NF in London. Indeed my dear uncle had a couple of his friends break all my fingers because I was a traitor siding with the blacks.
Maybe I should have just stayed quiet and let others do the protesting on my behalf.
No, well done you.
I think the Mosley marches through Jewish areas and similar NF activities do count as deliberate actions to cause public disorder, and should not be protected under free speech laws.
Well, here we are - 8 pages in - and for at least 6 of them the comments have stayed on topic. Amazing.
Also - and I will probably jinx this now - there has not been the descent into a description of @Leon's sex life, which happens with alarming frequency when I write headers.
Personally I think he should shout about it loudly in that Primrose Hill pub he's ensconced in. That'll show them!
"UK ministers who backed sending asylum seekers to Rwanda were warned by their own adviser that its government tortures and kills political opponents. The warning came weeks before the British government tried to send asylum seekers to the African nation. The adviser raised concerns about the tone and accuracy of an official note on Rwanda's human rights record."
Whether the policy is lawful or not it just doesn't seem right. I know the refrain is 'well, how would you solve the problem, smart guy?', but if an option is bad you don't always have to wait for another before weighing in.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Yes, the West - especially America, but the UK and elsewhere as well - is economically handicapping itself, and this at a time when we can least afford it. We will see the dire results in 10-15 years?
To return to American education, I can see it collapsing in prestige, influence and income, unless they reverse gear very soon
It will be very difficult to undo this because it comes from very a deep-seated ideological commitment to how the world ought to be, which prevents people questioning whether the solution is worse than the cure.
Indeed. It took 70 years for communists to admit it was all a disaster when that was already apparent after about 20-30 years
However, impoverishment has a tendency to focus the mind. If I’m right, the American education system is going to lose shitloads of money quite soon, as clever and wealthy foreign students flee
Yes, and much needed for the country, but the trouble is we have tickets for day 1 of the Lords test tomorrow. Really good seats, very expensive, birthday treat for me, been looking forward to it for ages - and now it looks certain to be either a total washout (which perversely I'm hoping for since we don't have to bother going and we get the price of the tickets back) or (worse) ALMOST a washout. Either way, the whole thing is going to be totally spoiled. If there really were a God this sort of thing wouldn't happen to me.
That's really bad luck. Especially with Anderson playing at the age of 40. I hope it stays dry however unlikely that is.
Since some are worried about staying warm there this winter, I'll repeat the advice I have given before: Synthetic underwear is amazingly warming; with an outer layer or two, it has kept me warm outdoors, when the temperature was 10 degrees Centigrade below zero and even colder. And when it is cold in the winter mornings, I will often put on a knit cap until my apartment warms up, since you lose so much heat through your head.
The head thing is urban myth.
No it isn't. It started life as you lose most heat through your head *if you are otherwise dressed for the weather, but hatless.* Which is pretty obviously true.
In extreme arctic conditions, yes;
“The myth is thought to have arisen through a flawed interpretation of a vaguely scientific experiment by the US military in the 1950s. In those studies, volunteers were dressed in Arctic survival suits and exposed to bitterly cold conditions. Because it was the only part of their bodies left uncovered, most of their heat was lost through their heads.“
I tend to use a hat on/off for temperature moderation in normal cold conditions outdoors rather than as an essential item but you absolutely have to keep your core warm.
In extreme conditions obviously a hat becomes essential and a balaclava can be useful to avoid your ears dropping off but if there's no wind then even -20C isn't actually that bad.
[The conditions where you are most likely to get hypothermia outdoors in the UK are probably +2C and heavy rain]
It really isn't that hard to stay warm indoors with a few extra layers of clothing if the room temperature is above 10C.
I have the thermostat at 18C and that's definitely overdoing it.
The main thing to avoid indoors is damp. Permanently damp conditions will damage health.
Not sure where we have got to in the great hat debate. I think we are agreed that if you are cold it is good to wear a hat because it makes you warmer, and that hats have a special built in feature that you can take them off and put them on again for temperature adjustment.
By way of further dull anecdote on Friday last week I was on a morning ferry in the western isles of Scotland. By the time I got to England later that day it was a trillion degrees in the shade, but at 10.30am that morning approaching Oban people were on deck wearing jumpers, anoraks, and, crucially, woolly hats because it was so cold, wet and windy.
For myself I keep a large collection of woolly hats for use in winter, mostly black or very dark grey.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
. . . meanwhile back at the ranch, we've got (as Ed Sullivan would say) two reeeealy big shewws lined up for your entertainment . . .
WYOMING PRIMARY polls close 7pm Tue local = 2am Wed London > Will Liz Cheney survive her vote to impeach Trump and be renominated for her US House seat, as sole Representative of Cowboy State and heir to her father's political legacy? Don't bet on it.
ALASKA PRIMARY voting locations close 8pm Tue local = 5am Wed London > How well will incumbent Republican US Sen. Lisa Murkowski (another daughter of a politically successful father (like Liz Cheney AND Nancy Pelosi) fare in the Top 4 primary; and ditto re: her opponents? Esp. considering likely turnout AND vote transfer scenarios for the RCV general election? > Will GOP former Gov, VP nominee and 24/7 stormy petrel Sarah Palin, win today's very special RCV special election for remainder of US House term of late, longtime Republican US Rep. Don Young? My guess being No, that winner will be fellow Republican Nick Begich, the GOP black sheep of an Alaska Democratic political dynasty. > AND how will Sarah Palin fair in the Top Four REGULAR primary for the full US House term beginning January of 2023? And ditto her opponents, including the two who are also with her on today's special election ballot?
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Yeah - or if an "artist" started trying to "entertain" people in Aberfan by employing "mockery" of the Aberfan disaster and the children who died in it and the bereaved families they left behind.
Of course some things are beyond mockery or entertainment.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
Since some are worried about staying warm there this winter, I'll repeat the advice I have given before: Synthetic underwear is amazingly warming; with an outer layer or two, it has kept me warm outdoors, when the temperature was 10 degrees Centigrade below zero and even colder. And when it is cold in the winter mornings, I will often put on a knit cap until my apartment warms up, since you lose so much heat through your head.
The head thing is urban myth.
No it isn't. It started life as you lose most heat through your head *if you are otherwise dressed for the weather, but hatless.* Which is pretty obviously true.
In extreme arctic conditions, yes;
“The myth is thought to have arisen through a flawed interpretation of a vaguely scientific experiment by the US military in the 1950s. In those studies, volunteers were dressed in Arctic survival suits and exposed to bitterly cold conditions. Because it was the only part of their bodies left uncovered, most of their heat was lost through their heads.“
I tend to use a hat on/off for temperature moderation in normal cold conditions outdoors rather than as an essential item but you absolutely have to keep your core warm.
In extreme conditions obviously a hat becomes essential and a balaclava can be useful to avoid your ears dropping off but if there's no wind then even -20C isn't actually that bad.
[The conditions where you are most likely to get hypothermia outdoors in the UK are probably +2C and heavy rain]
It really isn't that hard to stay warm indoors with a few extra layers of clothing if the room temperature is above 10C.
I have the thermostat at 18C and that's definitely overdoing it.
The main thing to avoid indoors is damp. Permanently damp conditions will damage health.
Not sure where we have got to in the great hat debate. I think we are agreed that if you are cold it is good to wear a hat because it makes you warmer, and that hats have a special built in feature that you can take them off and put them on again for temperature adjustment.
By way of further dull anecdote on Friday last week I was on a morning ferry in the western isles of Scotland. By the time I got to England later that day it was a trillion degrees in the shade, but at 10.30am that morning approaching Oban people were on deck wearing jumpers, anoraks, and, crucially, woolly hats because it was so cold, wet and windy.
For myself I keep a large collection of woolly hats for use in winter, mostly black or very dark grey.
Yeah, dull maybe. I was just taking a long winded way to agree that you don't actually need a hat to avoid getting cold and that the 50% thing is nonsense.
Not sure I've ever been on a ferry out of Oban when it has been warm on deck.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
Yes.
Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
No.
You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
OK
I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.
OK
I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.
However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
OK
if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.
And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
There is no concept of causation here. The deaths would not have occurred but for twisted individuals that think their beliefs are so sacred that they can kill those they dislike. We need to fight that belief, and provoking them is part of that fight.
'this "excuse" shit' is you claiming that 'provocation' causes deaths, rather than killers causing deaths. People should be able to take provocation without leading to murder and if they can't, its not the provocateurs fault. The provocateur has no shared responsibility under any circumstances.
I have to agree with Ishmael having briefly caught up.
The ultimate responsibility for the act is the one who carries it out but there is still a responsibility of the “provocateur” in certain situations.
If for example the Charlie Hebdo cartoons had been so so important to publish, that they exposed some absolutely heinous crime that was being carried out by islamists unknown to the world then it could be argued that publishing them was so important that the consequential murders were a price “worth paying” by society (although not likely for the victims and their families).
The fact is that virtually everyone who would ever see the cartoons already had a perception of Islamic issues that the cartoons depicted or would declare them as blasphemy. So the cartoons whilst satirical didn’t actually achieve anything worthwhile except the deaths in revenge. Publishing was pure provocation without any great benefit to society.
If it had been a German cartoonist publishing cartoons which exposed Auschwitz et al before anyone else knew it and a band of Hitler Youth had gone on a murderous rampage then the publication would be brave and necessary and the consequences less on the “provocateur” and more on the actors.
If you decided today to join the Ukrainian Army and had discovered that the families of Brits who have been captured by the Russians and identified were being tracked down and poisoned by the Russians in the UK (despite the preposterousness of this) and then you were captured, identified and your family killed do you not think that, despite your good motives, you would carry some of the blame for causing deaths by doing something you did not absolutely need to do?
Would you, afterwards, not feel that had you not carried out your actions knowing the potential consequences/backlash, that maybe you should not have done what you did?
No.
The cartoons did produce something worthwhile, they provoked discussion and engaged in free speech. That is a good in its own right. See my post at 12:54 which brought Hebdo into the conversation.
Free speech isn't only valuable when its what you deem to be "important" because "reasons" it is always important. It is a good thing in and of itself, and people provoking discussions and pushing the boundaries are doing a good thing by doing so.
In your example where Russia is murdering the families of Brits that all the more justifies people volunteering to go fight that evil, it doesn't mean that those who do so are doing the wrong thing because of any potential backlash.
You and Ishmael seem to be saying that in the face of evil we should do nothing that might provoke that evil. That is repugnant to me, we should be provoking and fighting that evil, not surrendering to it.
It amuses me when Billy Big Balls talk about “fighting evil and not surrendering to it” from their home office where they have never had to actually face an evil, deal with an evil and take personal risks in defeating an evil.
There are people who fight these evils every day, people who do it quietly and do it well at great risk who would likely rather the likes of Charlie Hebdo didn’t stir matters up further and make their job harder. They didn’t “provoke a discussion” because that discussion had already been going on for a long time (see Salman Rushdie) and a pissant magazine publishing these was not going to change the views of the west in any way.
How did you fight Islamist or Russian evil today? Or over the last ten years even?
Well I am too old for fighting in the streets now but in my student days I ended up both in the cells and in hospital for fighting the NF in London. Indeed my dear uncle had a couple of his friends break all my fingers because I was a traitor siding with the blacks.
Maybe I should have just stayed quiet and let others do the protesting on my behalf.
Good essay Cyclefree. Every couple of years I get four emails from my establishment (which I love) requiring me to read their teaching modules on things like web security etc, and take a little associated test. I find it easiest to just try the test, note their responses, and then retake it if necessary. But the "woke-ish" one was pretty strange, along the lines of Cyclefree her essay, and written with ill-constructed grammar. Rather than commenting on that as feedback. however, I was so happy to get the damn things done, I flew off to get on with my life.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
It is attacking at the wrong level. It would probably work bootifully if you had positive discrimination for entrance to decent primary schools.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
But there's the thing, they have been at it since 1978. The children of that cohort are past undergraduate age now. if it worked they should be getting in on merit because of their parents' improved life chances.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
I disagree, its harmful to all including successful applicants from a minority that fully deserve their role but are dismissed as an inferior 'quota' hire rather than being worthy of respect.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
LOL, seconds after posting this, I get an email from Herschel Walker bemoaning the fact he is 2 pts down on Warnock and begging for cash.
I recall reading the Dems are relatively optimistic about the Senate now but the House is a write off - fair assessment?
Definitely feeling that way with the Senate. Have not been focussing that much on House races, so don't have much of a feel. But it is the House where gerrymandering has an impact, the the USSC has been helpful to the GOP in rejecting challenges to new maps this round.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
But there's the thing, they have been at it since 1978. The children of that cohort are past undergraduate age now. if it worked they should be getting in on merit because of their parents' improved life chances.
Things have improved a lot over that time, so happy to accept that any positive discrimination offered now should be different and generally more targeted at specific problems than it was at the start.
Good essay Cyclefree. Every couple of years I get four emails from my establishment (which I love) requiring me to read their teaching modules on things like web security etc, and take a little associated test. I find it easiest to just try the test, note their responses, and then retake it if necessary. But the "woke-ish" one was pretty strange, along the lines of Cyclefree her essay, and written with ill-constructed grammar. Rather than commenting on that as feedback. however, I was so happy to get the damn things done, I flew off to get on with my life.
Not necessarily assosciated with that type of module alone, but I hate when such things have a 'what do you think X is important/positive about y?' or similarly framed questions, when you have to get a correct answer which you may not personally agree with (perhaps I don't think X is important). So something like 'X is important because [select answers]' rather than 'Why do you think X is important'.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
I disagree, its harmful to all including successful applicants from a minority that fully deserve their role but are dismissed as an inferior 'quota' hire rather than being worthy of respect.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
How are businesses run by men only going to successfully make it an environment that women are going to flourish in equally? And that is even if they want to in the first place. File under - fine if you have the magic beans to make it happen - otherwise short cuts are indeed required.
LOL, seconds after posting this, I get an email from Herschel Walker bemoaning the fact he is 2 pts down on Warnock and begging for cash.
I recall reading the Dems are relatively optimistic about the Senate now but the House is a write off - fair assessment?
Definitely feeling that way with the Senate. Have not been focussing that much on House races, so don't have much of a feel. But it is the House where gerrymandering has an impact, the the USSC has been helpful to the GOP in rejecting challenges to new maps this round.
I think it will be a difficult one to call until much closer to the time, in that it is hard to know the full impact of Jan 6 and other Trump investigations on voting until we know more precisely where those investigations are going and how far advanced they'll be come voting day. We know both the Trump base and the anti-Trumpers will both be energized, but which way will the Independents vote (or how many will abstain)? In the normal course of events, they'd be swinging against Biden both because of incumbency and because he is trying to implement what is viewed in this country as a fairly left-wing agenda. But this is not a normal year in US politics.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
I disagree, its harmful to all including successful applicants from a minority that fully deserve their role but are dismissed as an inferior 'quota' hire rather than being worthy of respect.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
How are businesses run by men only going to successfully make it an environment that women are going to flourish in equally? And that is even if they want to in the first place. File under - fine if you have the magic beans to make it happen - otherwise short cuts are indeed required.
By listening to women and treating them with the respect they deserve, rather than making 'token' appointments then ignoring them.
WA State 2022 Primary results are being certified today by county canvassing boards, but all but a handful of votes have been counted.
Politico.com - A new, powerful signal that Dems’ midterm hopes aren’t lost Primary results in Washington state track with general election results — and Democrats did much better in 2022 than 2010 or 2014, though not as well as 2018.
The last two times Democrats suffered catastrophic midterm losses, an early warning of the coming earthquake came out of the Pacific Northwest.
This year, the indication from Washington state suggests something very different: a more middle-of-the-road outcome in the general election, instead of the red wave Republicans have been hoping to build.
Poor Democratic results in Washington’s August all-party primaries reflected the broader malaise that hit the party statewide and nationally in 2010 and 2014, and Republicans’ troubles in November 2018 were obvious in the August primary returns that year. Now, the 2022 primary vote out of Washington is the latest new data point — along with a number of promising Senate polls and a slight lead for Democrats in the average generic House ballot polling — suggesting Democrats’ performance in November may not be as catastrophic as previous midterm elections when their party held the White House.
This year, the aggregate Democratic vote across the state’s House primaries was more than 5 percentage points worse than Democrats’ performance in the 2018 “blue wave” year. But it was also more than 5 percentage points better than Democrats performed in either 2010 or 2014, two Republican wave years.
The party vote shares in Washington primaries have been a reliable indicator of general election outcomes there over the past decade — and while Washington leans more toward Democrats than the U.S. as a whole, swings in the states’ margins over the past decade have largely mirrored the rest of the country, according to a POLITICO analysis of the results.
“Nationally, we expected the low approval rating of Joe Biden to create a Republican wave,” said Alex Hays, a Washington-based Republican consultant. “In Washington state, the election results were closer to neutral.”
Republicans still have potential pickup opportunities in Washington, including the closely divided 8th Congressional District. But the results do not align with the collapses in Democratic support in 2010 and 2014 that previewed the GOP waves both years. . . .
LOL, seconds after posting this, I get an email from Herschel Walker bemoaning the fact he is 2 pts down on Warnock and begging for cash.
I recall reading the Dems are relatively optimistic about the Senate now but the House is a write off - fair assessment?
Definitely feeling that way with the Senate. Have not been focussing that much on House races, so don't have much of a feel. But it is the House where gerrymandering has an impact, the the USSC has been helpful to the GOP in rejecting challenges to new maps this round.
I think it will be a difficult one to call until much closer to the time, in that it is hard to know the full impact of Jan 6 and other Trump investigations on voting until we know more precisely where those investigations are going and how far advanced they'll be come voting day. We know both the Trump base and the anti-Trumpers will both be energized, but which way will the Independents vote (or how many will abstain)? In the normal course of events, they'd be swinging against Biden both because of incumbency and because he is trying to implement what is viewed in this country as a fairly left-wing agenda. But this is not a normal year in US politics.
Repeal of Roe v Wade says "Yo!"
BTW, did you get yourself on Hershel Walker's mailing list, because you gave $50 to Gov. Larry Hogan?
LOL, seconds after posting this, I get an email from Herschel Walker bemoaning the fact he is 2 pts down on Warnock and begging for cash.
I recall reading the Dems are relatively optimistic about the Senate now but the House is a write off - fair assessment?
Definitely feeling that way with the Senate. Have not been focussing that much on House races, so don't have much of a feel. But it is the House where gerrymandering has an impact, the the USSC has been helpful to the GOP in rejecting challenges to new maps this round.
I think it will be a difficult one to call until much closer to the time, in that it is hard to know the full impact of Jan 6 and other Trump investigations on voting until we know more precisely where those investigations are going and how far advanced they'll be come voting day. We know both the Trump base and the anti-Trumpers will both be energized, but which way will the Independents vote (or how many will abstain)? In the normal course of events, they'd be swinging against Biden both because of incumbency and because he is trying to implement what is viewed in this country as a fairly left-wing agenda. But this is not a normal year in US politics.
Repeal of Roe v Wade says "Yo!"
BTW, did you get yourself on Hershel Walker's mailing list, because you gave $50 to Gov. Larry Hogan?
IF so, talk about unintended consequences!
I think I am on all the GOP mailing lists, including the absolute nutters', because I used to be a talking head on Fox News. I have never contributed to the GOP or any of its candidates, nor have I ever been eligible to vote in any federal or State election.
LOL, seconds after posting this, I get an email from Herschel Walker bemoaning the fact he is 2 pts down on Warnock and begging for cash.
I recall reading the Dems are relatively optimistic about the Senate now but the House is a write off - fair assessment?
Definitely feeling that way with the Senate. Have not been focussing that much on House races, so don't have much of a feel. But it is the House where gerrymandering has an impact, the the USSC has been helpful to the GOP in rejecting challenges to new maps this round.
I think it will be a difficult one to call until much closer to the time, in that it is hard to know the full impact of Jan 6 and other Trump investigations on voting until we know more precisely where those investigations are going and how far advanced they'll be come voting day. We know both the Trump base and the anti-Trumpers will both be energized, but which way will the Independents vote (or how many will abstain)? In the normal course of events, they'd be swinging against Biden both because of incumbency and because he is trying to implement what is viewed in this country as a fairly left-wing agenda. But this is not a normal year in US politics.
Repeal of Roe v Wade says "Yo!"
BTW, did you get yourself on Hershel Walker's mailing list, because you gave $50 to Gov. Larry Hogan?
IF so, talk about unintended consequences!
I think I am on all the GOP mailing lists, including the absolute nutters', because I used to be a talking head on Fox News. I have never contributed to the GOP or any of its candidates, nor have I ever been eligible to vote in any federal or State election.
But if Liz Cheney decides to run for President, I'll chip in something just for shits and giggles.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
I disagree, its harmful to all including successful applicants from a minority that fully deserve their role but are dismissed as an inferior 'quota' hire rather than being worthy of respect.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
How are businesses run by men only going to successfully make it an environment that women are going to flourish in equally? And that is even if they want to in the first place. File under - fine if you have the magic beans to make it happen - otherwise short cuts are indeed required.
By listening to women and treating them with the respect they deserve, rather than making 'token' appointments then ignoring them.
If there are no women in senior roles or even in the business at all, then it is generally not going to happen.
What steps could the Government take to reduce energy consumption this winter? Street lighting off after midnight? Thermostats turned down in public buildings? Prohibition of Christmas light displays, evening sport? Cancellation of off-peak train and tube services? No TV or streaming after 11pm? Mothballing of steel plants that receive state support? Reducing by 15% can’t be impossible.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
I disagree, its harmful to all including successful applicants from a minority that fully deserve their role but are dismissed as an inferior 'quota' hire rather than being worthy of respect.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
How are businesses run by men only going to successfully make it an environment that women are going to flourish in equally? And that is even if they want to in the first place. File under - fine if you have the magic beans to make it happen - otherwise short cuts are indeed required.
By listening to women and treating them with the respect they deserve, rather than making 'token' appointments then ignoring them.
If there are no women in senior roles or even in the business at all, then it is generally not going to happen.
If you eliminate the barriers to hiring good women, then there will be, even without making 'token' appointments.
Its condescending and demeaning to women to suggest the only reason they're good enough to get to the top is by making token appointments. That's not going to make the women you hire be taken seriously.
What steps could the Government take to reduce energy consumption this winter? Street lighting off after midnight? Thermostats turned down in public buildings? Prohibition of Christmas light displays, evening sport? Cancellation of off-peak train and tube services? No TV or streaming after 11pm? Mothballing of steel plants that receive state support? Reducing by 15% can’t be impossible.
What steps could the Government take to reduce energy consumption this winter? Street lighting off after midnight? Thermostats turned down in public buildings? Prohibition of Christmas light displays, evening sport? Cancellation of off-peak train and tube services? No TV or streaming after 11pm? Mothballing of steel plants that receive state support? Reducing by 15% can’t be impossible.
You know how to achieve all that and more in one go, pretty much?
Sorry folks, this new covid variant is much more dangerous than we thought. Lockdown, nov to march.
Fwiw i have republicans picking up in Arizona, Nevada and Georgia, most likely drops North Carolina and Ohio. New Hampshire might be interesting. Republicans on 52 i think, and they take the House handily
What steps could the Government take to reduce energy consumption this winter? Street lighting off after midnight? Thermostats turned down in public buildings? Prohibition of Christmas light displays, evening sport? Cancellation of off-peak train and tube services? No TV or streaming after 11pm? Mothballing of steel plants that receive state support? Reducing by 15% can’t be impossible.
Has the UK switched over to LED light bulbs yet?
A long time ago.
A lot of easy wins like that or heavy industry that uses a lot of electricity has already been driven away.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
I disagree, its harmful to all including successful applicants from a minority that fully deserve their role but are dismissed as an inferior 'quota' hire rather than being worthy of respect.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
How are businesses run by men only going to successfully make it an environment that women are going to flourish in equally? And that is even if they want to in the first place. File under - fine if you have the magic beans to make it happen - otherwise short cuts are indeed required.
Anyone can set up a business. Therefore women can set up businesses if they don't like the ones being run by men.
Dundee city council. that's period as in menstrual cycle.
What man would accept the role? Not to demean the role itself, but because what man would think himself at all appropriate to it?
click the link. He looks quite cheerful about it
"Mr Grant, a former personal trainer, has been given the job of promoting access to free sanitary products in schools and colleges across the Tay region."
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
I disagree, its harmful to all including successful applicants from a minority that fully deserve their role but are dismissed as an inferior 'quota' hire rather than being worthy of respect.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
How are businesses run by men only going to successfully make it an environment that women are going to flourish in equally? And that is even if they want to in the first place. File under - fine if you have the magic beans to make it happen - otherwise short cuts are indeed required.
By listening to women and treating them with the respect they deserve, rather than making 'token' appointments then ignoring them.
If there are no women in senior roles or even in the business at all, then it is generally not going to happen.
If you eliminate the barriers to hiring good women, then there will be, even without making 'token' appointments.
Its condescending and demeaning to women to suggest the only reason they're good enough to get to the top is by making token appointments. That's not going to make the women you hire be taken seriously.
I have never made such a suggestion. I believe some people and organisations have conscious and unconscious biases, because it is blatantly obviously the case. So some good enough candidates don't get a fair crack or as in the past can be completely excluded.
Re: Alaska, one key factor in today's very special US House special election, conducted among three candidates via Ranked Choice Voting, is this - which of the three will be eliminated first?
My hypothesis (based on polling) is that Democrat Mary Statler Peltola will finish in first place in initial count of 1st preferences; but she will NOT have a majority, thus third-place candidate will be eliminated, and votes transferred to 2nd preferences IF the voter gave their 2nd choice.
> IF Sarah Palin ends up in third place when 1st preferences are tabulated, and is thus eliminated, would reckon bulk of her transfers would flow to fellow Republican Nick Begich over Democrat Mary Peltola, allowing him to overtake Peltola in the final count and thus win the special election.
> IF Nick Begich is in third place in the initial count, then his transfers will be split much more evenly, giving Peltola the advantage, albeit a slender one.
These hypothetical results (though ones tested by polling) are predicated on belief that Sarah Palin's potential vote is limited (albeit to so-far unknown extent) because even conservative Alaskans who voted for her previously are still put off by her abandoning the governor's office to cash in on her national celebrity.
Another X factor is, to what extent will differential turnout by key Alaska voting groups - natives, Christians, suburbanites (Last Frontier style), regional blocs - affect the voting, both first preferences AND transfers?
What steps could the Government take to reduce energy consumption this winter? Street lighting off after midnight? Thermostats turned down in public buildings? Prohibition of Christmas light displays, evening sport? Cancellation of off-peak train and tube services? No TV or streaming after 11pm? Mothballing of steel plants that receive state support? Reducing by 15% can’t be impossible.
You know how to achieve all that and more in one go, pretty much?
Sorry folks, this new covid variant is much more dangerous than we thought. Lockdown, nov to march.
New variant that quadruples in severity when exposed to ambient temperature higher than 18c
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
I disagree, its harmful to all including successful applicants from a minority that fully deserve their role but are dismissed as an inferior 'quota' hire rather than being worthy of respect.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
How are businesses run by men only going to successfully make it an environment that women are going to flourish in equally? And that is even if they want to in the first place. File under - fine if you have the magic beans to make it happen - otherwise short cuts are indeed required.
By listening to women and treating them with the respect they deserve, rather than making 'token' appointments then ignoring them.
If there are no women in senior roles or even in the business at all, then it is generally not going to happen.
If you eliminate the barriers to hiring good women, then there will be, even without making 'token' appointments.
Its condescending and demeaning to women to suggest the only reason they're good enough to get to the top is by making token appointments. That's not going to make the women you hire be taken seriously.
I have never made such a suggestion. I believe some people and organisations have conscious and unconscious biases, because it is blatantly obviously the case. So some good enough candidates don't get a fair crack or as in the past can be completely excluded.
If organisations have biases then tackle those for everyone, not for one or two Tokens.
@ wooliedyed I think the Dems will hold Georgia, and will also gain PA (although low confidence in the latter). NH has been trending away from the GOP for a while, and it is somewhere where Roe vs Wade might have an outsized impact (against the GOP).
What steps could the Government take to reduce energy consumption this winter? Street lighting off after midnight? Thermostats turned down in public buildings? Prohibition of Christmas light displays, evening sport? Cancellation of off-peak train and tube services? No TV or streaming after 11pm? Mothballing of steel plants that receive state support? Reducing by 15% can’t be impossible.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
I disagree, its harmful to all including successful applicants from a minority that fully deserve their role but are dismissed as an inferior 'quota' hire rather than being worthy of respect.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
How are businesses run by men only going to successfully make it an environment that women are going to flourish in equally? And that is even if they want to in the first place. File under - fine if you have the magic beans to make it happen - otherwise short cuts are indeed required.
Anyone can set up a business. Therefore women can set up businesses if they don't like the ones being run by men.
For me womens football would be a good example. Womens crowds were bigger than some of the top flight mens matches in the 1920s. So the men in charge of the FA did not think lets get some more women on the board and we can almost double our industry. They banned women from playing at mens grounds. Of course women could still have, and did, seek out new small grounds that they could keep the game alive with. But it has taken almost a century to recover from a decision that would have been very different if there were women on the FA board.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
I disagree, its harmful to all including successful applicants from a minority that fully deserve their role but are dismissed as an inferior 'quota' hire rather than being worthy of respect.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
How are businesses run by men only going to successfully make it an environment that women are going to flourish in equally? And that is even if they want to in the first place. File under - fine if you have the magic beans to make it happen - otherwise short cuts are indeed required.
By listening to women and treating them with the respect they deserve, rather than making 'token' appointments then ignoring them.
If there are no women in senior roles or even in the business at all, then it is generally not going to happen.
If you eliminate the barriers to hiring good women, then there will be, even without making 'token' appointments.
Its condescending and demeaning to women to suggest the only reason they're good enough to get to the top is by making token appointments. That's not going to make the women you hire be taken seriously.
I have never made such a suggestion. I believe some people and organisations have conscious and unconscious biases, because it is blatantly obviously the case. So some good enough candidates don't get a fair crack or as in the past can be completely excluded.
If organisations have biases then tackle those for everyone, not for one or two Tokens.
How if they don't want to? Like the golf clubs that voted to keep women out but still want to be part of mainstream golf?
@ wooliedyed I think the Dems will hold Georgia, and will also gain PA (although low confidence in the latter). NH has been trending away from the GOP for a while, and it is somewhere where Roe vs Wade might have an outsized impact (against the GOP).
I'd forgotten PA, yes i agree thats a poss to prob Dem gain. 51 Republican for me then with the range 52 Rep to 51 Dem. NH is just a feeling, im still on it staying Dem but i think its tighter than assumed. I just think turnout will get the GOP over the line. Im not backing it with lucre, its too uncertain however
What steps could the Government take to reduce energy consumption this winter? Street lighting off after midnight? Thermostats turned down in public buildings? Prohibition of Christmas light displays, evening sport? Cancellation of off-peak train and tube services? No TV or streaming after 11pm? Mothballing of steel plants that receive state support? Reducing by 15% can’t be impossible.
You know how to achieve all that and more in one go, pretty much?
Sorry folks, this new covid variant is much more dangerous than we thought. Lockdown, nov to march.
New variant that quadruples in severity when exposed to ambient temperature higher than 18c
If you keep your home below 15c, you’re much less likely to catch it.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
I disagree, its harmful to all including successful applicants from a minority that fully deserve their role but are dismissed as an inferior 'quota' hire rather than being worthy of respect.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
How are businesses run by men only going to successfully make it an environment that women are going to flourish in equally? And that is even if they want to in the first place. File under - fine if you have the magic beans to make it happen - otherwise short cuts are indeed required.
By listening to women and treating them with the respect they deserve, rather than making 'token' appointments then ignoring them.
If there are no women in senior roles or even in the business at all, then it is generally not going to happen.
If you eliminate the barriers to hiring good women, then there will be, even without making 'token' appointments.
Its condescending and demeaning to women to suggest the only reason they're good enough to get to the top is by making token appointments. That's not going to make the women you hire be taken seriously.
I have never made such a suggestion. I believe some people and organisations have conscious and unconscious biases, because it is blatantly obviously the case. So some good enough candidates don't get a fair crack or as in the past can be completely excluded.
If organisations have biases then tackle those for everyone, not for one or two Tokens.
How if they don't want to? Like the golf clubs that voted to keep women out but still want to be part of mainstream golf?
Take your business elsewhere, if they don't want it.
I don't see how appointing a Token to the Board will change the culture of a Board that doesn't want to change. Solving the whole culture is harder yet far more important than just appointing one demeaning Token and if you do that you'll end up with more than just one on the Board in the end.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
I disagree, its harmful to all including successful applicants from a minority that fully deserve their role but are dismissed as an inferior 'quota' hire rather than being worthy of respect.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
How are businesses run by men only going to successfully make it an environment that women are going to flourish in equally? And that is even if they want to in the first place. File under - fine if you have the magic beans to make it happen - otherwise short cuts are indeed required.
By listening to women and treating them with the respect they deserve, rather than making 'token' appointments then ignoring them.
If there are no women in senior roles or even in the business at all, then it is generally not going to happen.
If you eliminate the barriers to hiring good women, then there will be, even without making 'token' appointments.
Its condescending and demeaning to women to suggest the only reason they're good enough to get to the top is by making token appointments. That's not going to make the women you hire be taken seriously.
I have never made such a suggestion. I believe some people and organisations have conscious and unconscious biases, because it is blatantly obviously the case. So some good enough candidates don't get a fair crack or as in the past can be completely excluded.
Partly the solution is recognition of bias, but addressing unconscious bias is more difficult.
There has been good work on the compounding effect on even small unconscious bias and how this affects appointment and promotion.
1% bias at multiple stages on the path to the board room is trivial at each step, indeed barely perceptible, but is significant bias after 50 steps along the way.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
I disagree, its harmful to all including successful applicants from a minority that fully deserve their role but are dismissed as an inferior 'quota' hire rather than being worthy of respect.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
How are businesses run by men only going to successfully make it an environment that women are going to flourish in equally? And that is even if they want to in the first place. File under - fine if you have the magic beans to make it happen - otherwise short cuts are indeed required.
By listening to women and treating them with the respect they deserve, rather than making 'token' appointments then ignoring them.
If there are no women in senior roles or even in the business at all, then it is generally not going to happen.
If you eliminate the barriers to hiring good women, then there will be, even without making 'token' appointments.
Its condescending and demeaning to women to suggest the only reason they're good enough to get to the top is by making token appointments. That's not going to make the women you hire be taken seriously.
I have never made such a suggestion. I believe some people and organisations have conscious and unconscious biases, because it is blatantly obviously the case. So some good enough candidates don't get a fair crack or as in the past can be completely excluded.
If organisations have biases then tackle those for everyone, not for one or two Tokens.
How if they don't want to? Like the golf clubs that voted to keep women out but still want to be part of mainstream golf?
Take your business elsewhere, if they don't want it.
I don't see how appointing a Token to the Board will change the culture of a Board that doesn't want to change. Solving the whole culture is harder than just appointing one demeaning Token.
Has anyone in the history of this debate ever suggested appointing one demeaning Token to a board will magically solve the whole culture?
Personally all I am saying is positive discrimination is sometimes appropriate in a limited and temporary capacity. There are good and bad examples of its application.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
I disagree, its harmful to all including successful applicants from a minority that fully deserve their role but are dismissed as an inferior 'quota' hire rather than being worthy of respect.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
How are businesses run by men only going to successfully make it an environment that women are going to flourish in equally? And that is even if they want to in the first place. File under - fine if you have the magic beans to make it happen - otherwise short cuts are indeed required.
By listening to women and treating them with the respect they deserve, rather than making 'token' appointments then ignoring them.
If there are no women in senior roles or even in the business at all, then it is generally not going to happen.
If you eliminate the barriers to hiring good women, then there will be, even without making 'token' appointments.
Its condescending and demeaning to women to suggest the only reason they're good enough to get to the top is by making token appointments. That's not going to make the women you hire be taken seriously.
I have never made such a suggestion. I believe some people and organisations have conscious and unconscious biases, because it is blatantly obviously the case. So some good enough candidates don't get a fair crack or as in the past can be completely excluded.
If organisations have biases then tackle those for everyone, not for one or two Tokens.
How if they don't want to? Like the golf clubs that voted to keep women out but still want to be part of mainstream golf?
Take your business elsewhere, if they don't want it.
I don't see how appointing a Token to the Board will change the culture of a Board that doesn't want to change. Solving the whole culture is harder than just appointing one demeaning Token.
Has anyone in the history of this debate ever suggested appointing one demeaning Token to a board will magically solve the whole culture?
Personally all I am saying is positive discrimination is sometimes appropriate in a limited and temporary capacity. There are good and bad examples of its application.
Unfortunately yes, most who embrace Tokenism end up leaving that as the solution. If you embrace Tokenism then you superficially appear to have fixed your problems but if the problems are still there all you've done is demean the women (or minorities etc) you've hired and so on.
Being open to finding biases and eliminating them works, Tokenism doesn't. Tokenism is disrespectful most of all to the minorities that find themselves still biased against unless 'lucky' enough to be the Token hire, but then the Token is known as simply the Token rather than being their on their own merits.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
I disagree, its harmful to all including successful applicants from a minority that fully deserve their role but are dismissed as an inferior 'quota' hire rather than being worthy of respect.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
How are businesses run by men only going to successfully make it an environment that women are going to flourish in equally? And that is even if they want to in the first place. File under - fine if you have the magic beans to make it happen - otherwise short cuts are indeed required.
By listening to women and treating them with the respect they deserve, rather than making 'token' appointments then ignoring them.
If there are no women in senior roles or even in the business at all, then it is generally not going to happen.
If you eliminate the barriers to hiring good women, then there will be, even without making 'token' appointments.
Its condescending and demeaning to women to suggest the only reason they're good enough to get to the top is by making token appointments. That's not going to make the women you hire be taken seriously.
I have never made such a suggestion. I believe some people and organisations have conscious and unconscious biases, because it is blatantly obviously the case. So some good enough candidates don't get a fair crack or as in the past can be completely excluded.
If organisations have biases then tackle those for everyone, not for one or two Tokens.
How if they don't want to? Like the golf clubs that voted to keep women out but still want to be part of mainstream golf?
Take your business elsewhere, if they don't want it.
I don't see how appointing a Token to the Board will change the culture of a Board that doesn't want to change. Solving the whole culture is harder than just appointing one demeaning Token.
Has anyone in the history of this debate ever suggested appointing one demeaning Token to a board will magically solve the whole culture?
Personally all I am saying is positive discrimination is sometimes appropriate in a limited and temporary capacity. There are good and bad examples of its application.
Unfortunately yes, most who embrace Tokenism end up leaving that as the solution. If you embrace Tokenism then you superficially appear to have fixed your problems but if the problems are still there all you've done is demean the women (or minorities etc) you've hired and so on.
Being open to finding biases and eliminating them works, Tokenism doesn't. Tokenism is disrespectful most of all to the minorities that find themselves still biased against unless 'lucky' enough to be the Token hire, but then the Token is known as simply the Token rather than being their on their own merits.
Well argue with them then if you can find one who believes that. Maybe there is someone on the twittersphere who is so silly but it is certainly not an argument I have heard from anyone on here.
Positive discrimination is a small part of a wider toolkit that takes time and hard work, not a magic bullet that solves the whole problem.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
I disagree, its harmful to all including successful applicants from a minority that fully deserve their role but are dismissed as an inferior 'quota' hire rather than being worthy of respect.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
How are businesses run by men only going to successfully make it an environment that women are going to flourish in equally? And that is even if they want to in the first place. File under - fine if you have the magic beans to make it happen - otherwise short cuts are indeed required.
By listening to women and treating them with the respect they deserve, rather than making 'token' appointments then ignoring them.
If there are no women in senior roles or even in the business at all, then it is generally not going to happen.
If you eliminate the barriers to hiring good women, then there will be, even without making 'token' appointments.
Its condescending and demeaning to women to suggest the only reason they're good enough to get to the top is by making token appointments. That's not going to make the women you hire be taken seriously.
I have never made such a suggestion. I believe some people and organisations have conscious and unconscious biases, because it is blatantly obviously the case. So some good enough candidates don't get a fair crack or as in the past can be completely excluded.
If organisations have biases then tackle those for everyone, not for one or two Tokens.
How if they don't want to? Like the golf clubs that voted to keep women out but still want to be part of mainstream golf?
Take your business elsewhere, if they don't want it.
I don't see how appointing a Token to the Board will change the culture of a Board that doesn't want to change. Solving the whole culture is harder than just appointing one demeaning Token.
Has anyone in the history of this debate ever suggested appointing one demeaning Token to a board will magically solve the whole culture?
Personally all I am saying is positive discrimination is sometimes appropriate in a limited and temporary capacity. There are good and bad examples of its application.
But long term, they will put members of the groups they purport to help in an invidious position, because the ease of their path will not only be counted against them by their contemporaries, it may also actively diminish their potential to be excellent, because they have less need to be. That's human nature.
Eliminating unfair barriers to opportunity, then allowing pure meritocracy, isn't 'too slow' - it's the perfect speed. To suggest that it won't allow woman or ethnic minorities to flourish is to acknowledge that those people have less to offer to potential employers than their white or male counterparts. It is a racist and/or sexist belief.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
I disagree, its harmful to all including successful applicants from a minority that fully deserve their role but are dismissed as an inferior 'quota' hire rather than being worthy of respect.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
How are businesses run by men only going to successfully make it an environment that women are going to flourish in equally? And that is even if they want to in the first place. File under - fine if you have the magic beans to make it happen - otherwise short cuts are indeed required.
By listening to women and treating them with the respect they deserve, rather than making 'token' appointments then ignoring them.
If there are no women in senior roles or even in the business at all, then it is generally not going to happen.
If you eliminate the barriers to hiring good women, then there will be, even without making 'token' appointments.
Its condescending and demeaning to women to suggest the only reason they're good enough to get to the top is by making token appointments. That's not going to make the women you hire be taken seriously.
I have never made such a suggestion. I believe some people and organisations have conscious and unconscious biases, because it is blatantly obviously the case. So some good enough candidates don't get a fair crack or as in the past can be completely excluded.
If organisations have biases then tackle those for everyone, not for one or two Tokens.
How if they don't want to? Like the golf clubs that voted to keep women out but still want to be part of mainstream golf?
Take your business elsewhere, if they don't want it.
I don't see how appointing a Token to the Board will change the culture of a Board that doesn't want to change. Solving the whole culture is harder than just appointing one demeaning Token.
Has anyone in the history of this debate ever suggested appointing one demeaning Token to a board will magically solve the whole culture?
Personally all I am saying is positive discrimination is sometimes appropriate in a limited and temporary capacity. There are good and bad examples of its application.
Unfortunately yes, most who embrace Tokenism end up leaving that as the solution. If you embrace Tokenism then you superficially appear to have fixed your problems but if the problems are still there all you've done is demean the women (or minorities etc) you've hired and so on.
Being open to finding biases and eliminating them works, Tokenism doesn't. Tokenism is disrespectful most of all to the minorities that find themselves still biased against unless 'lucky' enough to be the Token hire, but then the Token is known as simply the Token rather than being their on their own merits.
Well argue with them then if you can find one who believes that. Maybe there is someone on the twittersphere who is so silly but it is certainly not an argument I have heard from anyone on here.
Positive discrimination is a small part of a wider toolkit that takes time and hard work, not a magic bullet that solves the whole problem.
Its not even a small part.
The problem with positive discrimination is it masks your problems but the problems are still there. If you superficially have your quota 'met' then that ticks the box as saying that the problem is gone, but if the quota is the only reason its met then what's been changed?
Instead what you need to do is far harder which is addressing the 1% biases each step of the way, like @Foxy mentions, rather than relying upon bodges like quotas to mask your problems.
Why is it that the party of All Women Shortlists has never had any women beat any man in any leadership contest, while the party without them is either having its third female PM or first non-white PM?
Eliminating the barriers to women and minorities succeeding and treating those in the jobs as worthy of respect who got their on their own merits and not as the Token to be suffered works far better.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
I disagree, its harmful to all including successful applicants from a minority that fully deserve their role but are dismissed as an inferior 'quota' hire rather than being worthy of respect.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
How are businesses run by men only going to successfully make it an environment that women are going to flourish in equally? And that is even if they want to in the first place. File under - fine if you have the magic beans to make it happen - otherwise short cuts are indeed required.
By listening to women and treating them with the respect they deserve, rather than making 'token' appointments then ignoring them.
If there are no women in senior roles or even in the business at all, then it is generally not going to happen.
If you eliminate the barriers to hiring good women, then there will be, even without making 'token' appointments.
Its condescending and demeaning to women to suggest the only reason they're good enough to get to the top is by making token appointments. That's not going to make the women you hire be taken seriously.
I have never made such a suggestion. I believe some people and organisations have conscious and unconscious biases, because it is blatantly obviously the case. So some good enough candidates don't get a fair crack or as in the past can be completely excluded.
If organisations have biases then tackle those for everyone, not for one or two Tokens.
How if they don't want to? Like the golf clubs that voted to keep women out but still want to be part of mainstream golf?
Take your business elsewhere, if they don't want it.
I don't see how appointing a Token to the Board will change the culture of a Board that doesn't want to change. Solving the whole culture is harder than just appointing one demeaning Token.
Has anyone in the history of this debate ever suggested appointing one demeaning Token to a board will magically solve the whole culture?
Personally all I am saying is positive discrimination is sometimes appropriate in a limited and temporary capacity. There are good and bad examples of its application.
Unfortunately yes, most who embrace Tokenism end up leaving that as the solution. If you embrace Tokenism then you superficially appear to have fixed your problems but if the problems are still there all you've done is demean the women (or minorities etc) you've hired and so on.
Being open to finding biases and eliminating them works, Tokenism doesn't. Tokenism is disrespectful most of all to the minorities that find themselves still biased against unless 'lucky' enough to be the Token hire, but then the Token is known as simply the Token rather than being their on their own merits.
Well argue with them then if you can find one who believes that. Maybe there is someone on the twittersphere who is so silly but it is certainly not an argument I have heard from anyone on here.
Positive discrimination is a small part of a wider toolkit that takes time and hard work, not a magic bullet that solves the whole problem.
Its not even a small part.
The problem with positive discrimination is it masks your problems but the problems are still there. If you superficially have your quota 'met' then that ticks the box as saying that the problem is gone, but if the quota is the only reason its met then what's been changed?
Instead what you need to do is far harder which is addressing the 1% biases each step of the way, like @Foxy mentions, rather than relying upon bodges like quotas to mask your problems.
Why is it that the party of All Women Shortlists has never had any women beat any man in any leadership contest, while the party without them is either having its third female PM or first non-white PM?
Eliminating the barriers to women and minorities succeeding and treating those in the jobs as worthy of respect who got their on their own merits and not as the Token to be suffered works far better.
There is a problem with Labour and women. Extrapolating that from one political party which is nothing like most businesses or organisations makes no sense to me.
Since some are worried about staying warm there this winter, I'll repeat the advice I have given before: Synthetic underwear is amazingly warming; with an outer layer or two, it has kept me warm outdoors, when the temperature was 10 degrees Centigrade below zero and even colder. And when it is cold in the winter mornings, I will often put on a knit cap until my apartment warms up, since you lose so much heat through your head.
The head thing is urban myth.
No it isn't. It started life as you lose most heat through your head *if you are otherwise dressed for the weather, but hatless.* Which is pretty obviously true.
In extreme arctic conditions, yes;
“The myth is thought to have arisen through a flawed interpretation of a vaguely scientific experiment by the US military in the 1950s. In those studies, volunteers were dressed in Arctic survival suits and exposed to bitterly cold conditions. Because it was the only part of their bodies left uncovered, most of their heat was lost through their heads.“
I tend to use a hat on/off for temperature moderation in normal cold conditions outdoors rather than as an essential item but you absolutely have to keep your core warm.
In extreme conditions obviously a hat becomes essential and a balaclava can be useful to avoid your ears dropping off but if there's no wind then even -20C isn't actually that bad.
[The conditions where you are most likely to get hypothermia outdoors in the UK are probably +2C and heavy rain]
It really isn't that hard to stay warm indoors with a few extra layers of clothing if the room temperature is above 10C.
I have the thermostat at 18C and that's definitely overdoing it.
The main thing to avoid indoors is damp. Permanently damp conditions will damage health.
Not sure where we have got to in the great hat debate. I think we are agreed that if you are cold it is good to wear a hat because it makes you warmer, and that hats have a special built in feature that you can take them off and put them on again for temperature adjustment.
By way of further dull anecdote on Friday last week I was on a morning ferry in the western isles of Scotland. By the time I got to England later that day it was a trillion degrees in the shade, but at 10.30am that morning approaching Oban people were on deck wearing jumpers, anoraks, and, crucially, woolly hats because it was so cold, wet and windy.
For myself I keep a large collection of woolly hats for use in winter, mostly black or very dark grey.
I currently have four knitted hats. One is yellow and purple and pointy. Relatively thin. Another is much thicker, but mostly on a hideous shade of orange. I also have another warm one with randomly-coloured stripes and cables. The fourth features daleks from a pattern called, "Insulate!".
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
I disagree, its harmful to all including successful applicants from a minority that fully deserve their role but are dismissed as an inferior 'quota' hire rather than being worthy of respect.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
How are businesses run by men only going to successfully make it an environment that women are going to flourish in equally? And that is even if they want to in the first place. File under - fine if you have the magic beans to make it happen - otherwise short cuts are indeed required.
By listening to women and treating them with the respect they deserve, rather than making 'token' appointments then ignoring them.
If there are no women in senior roles or even in the business at all, then it is generally not going to happen.
If you eliminate the barriers to hiring good women, then there will be, even without making 'token' appointments.
Its condescending and demeaning to women to suggest the only reason they're good enough to get to the top is by making token appointments. That's not going to make the women you hire be taken seriously.
I have never made such a suggestion. I believe some people and organisations have conscious and unconscious biases, because it is blatantly obviously the case. So some good enough candidates don't get a fair crack or as in the past can be completely excluded.
If organisations have biases then tackle those for everyone, not for one or two Tokens.
How if they don't want to? Like the golf clubs that voted to keep women out but still want to be part of mainstream golf?
Take your business elsewhere, if they don't want it.
I don't see how appointing a Token to the Board will change the culture of a Board that doesn't want to change. Solving the whole culture is harder than just appointing one demeaning Token.
Has anyone in the history of this debate ever suggested appointing one demeaning Token to a board will magically solve the whole culture?
Personally all I am saying is positive discrimination is sometimes appropriate in a limited and temporary capacity. There are good and bad examples of its application.
Unfortunately yes, most who embrace Tokenism end up leaving that as the solution. If you embrace Tokenism then you superficially appear to have fixed your problems but if the problems are still there all you've done is demean the women (or minorities etc) you've hired and so on.
Being open to finding biases and eliminating them works, Tokenism doesn't. Tokenism is disrespectful most of all to the minorities that find themselves still biased against unless 'lucky' enough to be the Token hire, but then the Token is known as simply the Token rather than being their on their own merits.
Well argue with them then if you can find one who believes that. Maybe there is someone on the twittersphere who is so silly but it is certainly not an argument I have heard from anyone on here.
Positive discrimination is a small part of a wider toolkit that takes time and hard work, not a magic bullet that solves the whole problem.
Its not even a small part.
The problem with positive discrimination is it masks your problems but the problems are still there. If you superficially have your quota 'met' then that ticks the box as saying that the problem is gone, but if the quota is the only reason its met then what's been changed?
Instead what you need to do is far harder which is addressing the 1% biases each step of the way, like @Foxy mentions, rather than relying upon bodges like quotas to mask your problems.
Why is it that the party of All Women Shortlists has never had any women beat any man in any leadership contest, while the party without them is either having its third female PM or first non-white PM?
Eliminating the barriers to women and minorities succeeding and treating those in the jobs as worthy of respect who got their on their own merits and not as the Token to be suffered works far better.
There is a problem with Labour and women. Extrapolating that from one political party which is nothing like most businesses or organisations makes no sense to me.
I imagine Labour men won because they were the best candidates, which is surely what we should be looking for. That makes more sense than a boast which is effectively "we foisted Theresa May and Liz Truss on you".
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
I disagree, its harmful to all including successful applicants from a minority that fully deserve their role but are dismissed as an inferior 'quota' hire rather than being worthy of respect.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
How are businesses run by men only going to successfully make it an environment that women are going to flourish in equally? And that is even if they want to in the first place. File under - fine if you have the magic beans to make it happen - otherwise short cuts are indeed required.
By listening to women and treating them with the respect they deserve, rather than making 'token' appointments then ignoring them.
If there are no women in senior roles or even in the business at all, then it is generally not going to happen.
If you eliminate the barriers to hiring good women, then there will be, even without making 'token' appointments.
Its condescending and demeaning to women to suggest the only reason they're good enough to get to the top is by making token appointments. That's not going to make the women you hire be taken seriously.
I have never made such a suggestion. I believe some people and organisations have conscious and unconscious biases, because it is blatantly obviously the case. So some good enough candidates don't get a fair crack or as in the past can be completely excluded.
If organisations have biases then tackle those for everyone, not for one or two Tokens.
How if they don't want to? Like the golf clubs that voted to keep women out but still want to be part of mainstream golf?
Take your business elsewhere, if they don't want it.
I don't see how appointing a Token to the Board will change the culture of a Board that doesn't want to change. Solving the whole culture is harder than just appointing one demeaning Token.
Has anyone in the history of this debate ever suggested appointing one demeaning Token to a board will magically solve the whole culture?
Personally all I am saying is positive discrimination is sometimes appropriate in a limited and temporary capacity. There are good and bad examples of its application.
Unfortunately yes, most who embrace Tokenism end up leaving that as the solution. If you embrace Tokenism then you superficially appear to have fixed your problems but if the problems are still there all you've done is demean the women (or minorities etc) you've hired and so on.
Being open to finding biases and eliminating them works, Tokenism doesn't. Tokenism is disrespectful most of all to the minorities that find themselves still biased against unless 'lucky' enough to be the Token hire, but then the Token is known as simply the Token rather than being their on their own merits.
Well argue with them then if you can find one who believes that. Maybe there is someone on the twittersphere who is so silly but it is certainly not an argument I have heard from anyone on here.
Positive discrimination is a small part of a wider toolkit that takes time and hard work, not a magic bullet that solves the whole problem.
Its not even a small part.
The problem with positive discrimination is it masks your problems but the problems are still there. If you superficially have your quota 'met' then that ticks the box as saying that the problem is gone, but if the quota is the only reason its met then what's been changed?
Instead what you need to do is far harder which is addressing the 1% biases each step of the way, like @Foxy mentions, rather than relying upon bodges like quotas to mask your problems.
Why is it that the party of All Women Shortlists has never had any women beat any man in any leadership contest, while the party without them is either having its third female PM or first non-white PM?
Eliminating the barriers to women and minorities succeeding and treating those in the jobs as worthy of respect who got their on their own merits and not as the Token to be suffered works far better.
There is a problem with Labour and women. Extrapolating that from one political party which is nothing like most businesses or organisations makes no sense to me.
Labour currently has 104 female MPs out of 199 (52%).
Conservatives currently have 87 female MPs out of 357 (24%).
Not too shabby for Labour, though I accept the criticism of no permanent female leader.
Perhaps the Tories need a bit of positive discrimination, though? Females clearly heavily underrepresented as Tory MPs.
"EXCLUSIVE: The RAF has effectively paused making job offers to white male recruits in favour of women & ethnic minorities to meet "impossible" diversity targets, sources claim. The head of @RoyalAirForce recruitment has resigned in protest, they said"
The madness spreads. It really isn't getting better, it's getting worse
I’m puzzled by these increasingly insane variations on affirmative action. How can they even be legal?
It’s racism against whites and Asians. And even if it is legal, surely it will be sent to the SCOTUS and struck down?
Thatcher of course was said to have expected the backlash against 'Thatcherism' to be much stronger, much earlier. This is the opposite of that
If nothing else, the market will make this race madness uneconomic quite shortly
Take education, which is big business in America. I read recently that a black applicant to a top US med school is about ten times more likely to get in than an Asian applicant. That's great for black students, and, who knows, maybe it is justice after all these years, but it is really quite crap for Asian candidates, and this process is getting WORSE, with evermore discrimination against whites/Asians across all aspects of American education
Maybe the white students will meekly accept it, as they feel so guilty about the slavery their, erm, great great great great gandparents did, or something, but why should a Chinese student give a scintilla of a fuck about slavery?
They don't and they won't. So all the really bright Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc etc STEM students will no longer apply to American universities (especially as the Wokeness infests the curriculum too), they will either go to Europe, or, increasingly to unis in East Asia (see how their colleges are rising in the table). So American universities will lose TONS of student money, most of the best students, and their STEM departments will collapse, thus fucking up America's future, royally. And this process is being repeated in so many areas
America urgently needs the SCOTUS to strike down the nonsense
The same thing keeps happening all over the place; it isn't just race. Essentially, it is the death of meritocracy. In the workplace, gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. In my last job, there was a push to get women in to highly paid roles because of the 'gender pay gap'. The companies need to show that the management is gender balanced. This is going on right across the industry in both the private and the public sector.
This was a contributory factor to me dropping out and becoming self employed, and working as a contractor. It is more meritocratic. I think ultimately that where recruitment decisions are being driven by quotas based on physical chacteristics then it has to be bad for business and will lead to a correction. That won't happen in the civil service and military though, without political intervention.
Hilarious to read that gender and race are becoming very significant factors in determining who gets hired and promoted. They have been key factors throughout our lives and that of all recent ancestors.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
Indeed it was a factor in the past, and that was a bad thing which we should be striving to eliminate.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
Positive discrimination should not be permanent, agree with that, but it has a temporary and limited purpose.
I disagree, its harmful to all including successful applicants from a minority that fully deserve their role but are dismissed as an inferior 'quota' hire rather than being worthy of respect.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
How are businesses run by men only going to successfully make it an environment that women are going to flourish in equally? And that is even if they want to in the first place. File under - fine if you have the magic beans to make it happen - otherwise short cuts are indeed required.
By listening to women and treating them with the respect they deserve, rather than making 'token' appointments then ignoring them.
If there are no women in senior roles or even in the business at all, then it is generally not going to happen.
If you eliminate the barriers to hiring good women, then there will be, even without making 'token' appointments.
Its condescending and demeaning to women to suggest the only reason they're good enough to get to the top is by making token appointments. That's not going to make the women you hire be taken seriously.
I have never made such a suggestion. I believe some people and organisations have conscious and unconscious biases, because it is blatantly obviously the case. So some good enough candidates don't get a fair crack or as in the past can be completely excluded.
If organisations have biases then tackle those for everyone, not for one or two Tokens.
How if they don't want to? Like the golf clubs that voted to keep women out but still want to be part of mainstream golf?
Take your business elsewhere, if they don't want it.
I don't see how appointing a Token to the Board will change the culture of a Board that doesn't want to change. Solving the whole culture is harder than just appointing one demeaning Token.
Has anyone in the history of this debate ever suggested appointing one demeaning Token to a board will magically solve the whole culture?
Personally all I am saying is positive discrimination is sometimes appropriate in a limited and temporary capacity. There are good and bad examples of its application.
Unfortunately yes, most who embrace Tokenism end up leaving that as the solution. If you embrace Tokenism then you superficially appear to have fixed your problems but if the problems are still there all you've done is demean the women (or minorities etc) you've hired and so on.
Being open to finding biases and eliminating them works, Tokenism doesn't. Tokenism is disrespectful most of all to the minorities that find themselves still biased against unless 'lucky' enough to be the Token hire, but then the Token is known as simply the Token rather than being their on their own merits.
Well argue with them then if you can find one who believes that. Maybe there is someone on the twittersphere who is so silly but it is certainly not an argument I have heard from anyone on here.
Positive discrimination is a small part of a wider toolkit that takes time and hard work, not a magic bullet that solves the whole problem.
Its not even a small part.
The problem with positive discrimination is it masks your problems but the problems are still there. If you superficially have your quota 'met' then that ticks the box as saying that the problem is gone, but if the quota is the only reason its met then what's been changed?
Instead what you need to do is far harder which is addressing the 1% biases each step of the way, like @Foxy mentions, rather than relying upon bodges like quotas to mask your problems.
Why is it that the party of All Women Shortlists has never had any women beat any man in any leadership contest, while the party without them is either having its third female PM or first non-white PM?
Eliminating the barriers to women and minorities succeeding and treating those in the jobs as worthy of respect who got their on their own merits and not as the Token to be suffered works far better.
There is a problem with Labour and women. Extrapolating that from one political party which is nothing like most businesses or organisations makes no sense to me.
Labour currently has 104 female MPs out of 199 (52%).
Conservatives currently have 87 female MPs out of 357 (24%).
Not too shabby for Labour, though I accept the criticism of no permanent female leader.
Perhaps the Tories need a bit of positive discrimination, though? Females clearly heavily underrepresented as Tory MPs.
(Afternoon all)
So called 'Positive discrimination' is discrimination, and is a terrible, terrible idea.
Rather than respecting the finding, Blair, Harman & Co went full steam ahead, and left their existing sex discrimination in place.
Then they introduced a legal loophole, and we still have that shameful little clause in our law that permits sex discrimination when political parties select candidates.
It's all unnecessary as there are plenty of practises to promote quality which do not involve direct discrimination, such as the LD approach of 'zipping'.
One of the problems is that it makes backbenchers beholden to a centrally run process, and undermines their independence. I wonder if Blair would have got so many authoritarian laws through Parliament had his backbenchers been less beholden?
Comments
It's only 5.30 and the vagrants have already bagged their doorways for the night here in rainy Barnstaple.
Proud to be a British patriot.
If you have scientific evidence that people lose no heat, or very little heat, through their heads -- even when their heads are uncovered, unlike most of their bodies -- feel free to present it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-62493219
In extreme conditions obviously a hat becomes essential and a balaclava can be useful to avoid your ears dropping off but if there's no wind then even -20C isn't actually that bad.
[The conditions where you are most likely to get hypothermia outdoors in the UK are probably +2C and heavy rain]
It really isn't that hard to stay warm indoors with a few extra layers of clothing if the room temperature is above 10C.
I have the thermostat at 18C and that's definitely overdoing it.
The main thing to avoid indoors is damp. Permanently damp conditions will damage health.
Some people really aren't happy unless they're complaining about the weather.
In 1976, the great Chicago columnist Mike Royko summarized the system there by saying "[Mayor Richard J.] Daley Always a Quota Man".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62566194
Maybe I should have just stayed quiet and let others do the protesting on my behalf.
No, well done you.
I think the Mosley marches through Jewish areas and similar NF activities do count as deliberate actions to cause public disorder, and should not be protected under free speech laws.
Also - and I will probably jinx this now - there has not been the descent into a description of @Leon's sex life, which happens with alarming frequency when I write headers.
Personally I think he should shout about it loudly in that Primrose Hill pub he's ensconced in. That'll show them!
However, impoverishment has a tendency to focus the mind. If I’m right, the American education system is going to lose shitloads of money quite soon, as clever and wealthy foreign students flee
Not sure where we have got to in the great hat debate. I think we are agreed that if you are cold it is good to wear a hat because it makes you warmer, and that hats have a special built in feature that you can take them off and put them on again for temperature adjustment.
By way of further dull anecdote on Friday last week I was on a morning ferry in the western isles of Scotland. By the time I got to England later that day it was a trillion degrees in the shade, but at 10.30am that morning approaching Oban people were on deck wearing jumpers, anoraks, and, crucially, woolly hats because it was so cold, wet and windy.
For myself I keep a large collection of woolly hats for use in winter, mostly black or very dark grey.
Reductions in meritocracy are far more driven by asset price inflation and an education system tailored to protect the middle class both in state and private sector than by any incorrect adjustments from equality legislation.
WYOMING PRIMARY polls close 7pm Tue local = 2am Wed London
> Will Liz Cheney survive her vote to impeach Trump and be renominated for her US House seat, as sole Representative of Cowboy State and heir to her father's political legacy? Don't bet on it.
ALASKA PRIMARY voting locations close 8pm Tue local = 5am Wed London
> How well will incumbent Republican US Sen. Lisa Murkowski (another daughter of a politically successful father (like Liz Cheney AND Nancy Pelosi) fare in the Top 4 primary; and ditto re: her opponents? Esp. considering likely turnout AND vote transfer scenarios for the RCV general election?
> Will GOP former Gov, VP nominee and 24/7 stormy petrel Sarah Palin, win today's very special RCV special election for remainder of US House term of late, longtime Republican US Rep. Don Young? My guess being No, that winner will be fellow Republican Nick Begich, the GOP black sheep of an Alaska Democratic political dynasty.
> AND how will Sarah Palin fair in the Top Four REGULAR primary for the full US House term beginning January of 2023? And ditto her opponents, including the two who are also with her on today's special election ballot?
Of course some things are beyond mockery or entertainment.
Striving to institutionalise and make permanent the problems of the past but in reverse isn't a good idea.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/15/gop-slashes-ads-in-key-senate-battlegrounds-00051969
Not sure I've ever been on a ferry out of Oban when it has been warm on deck.
Every couple of years I get four emails from my establishment (which I love) requiring me to read their teaching modules on things like web security etc, and take a little associated test. I find it easiest to just try the test, note their responses, and then retake it if necessary. But the "woke-ish" one was pretty strange, along the lines of Cyclefree her essay, and written with ill-constructed grammar. Rather than commenting on that as feedback. however, I was so happy to get the damn things done, I flew off to get on with my life.
If there are barriers to minorities succeeding then find and eliminate those, don't try and take short-cuts.
The party that has had "all women shortlists" for decades has not only never had a female leader, its never had any female finish ahead of any male in any leadership contest. The party that hasn't is about to have its third female PM (or first non-white PM).
Politico.com - A new, powerful signal that Dems’ midterm hopes aren’t lost
Primary results in Washington state track with general election results — and Democrats did much better in 2022 than 2010 or 2014, though not as well as 2018.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/16/democrats-midterms-hopes-washington-00052049
The last two times Democrats suffered catastrophic midterm losses, an early warning of the coming earthquake came out of the Pacific Northwest.
This year, the indication from Washington state suggests something very different: a more middle-of-the-road outcome in the general election, instead of the red wave Republicans have been hoping to build.
Poor Democratic results in Washington’s August all-party primaries reflected the broader malaise that hit the party statewide and nationally in 2010 and 2014, and Republicans’ troubles in November 2018 were obvious in the August primary returns that year. Now, the 2022 primary vote out of Washington is the latest new data point — along with a number of promising Senate polls and a slight lead for Democrats in the average generic House ballot polling — suggesting Democrats’ performance in November may not be as catastrophic as previous midterm elections when their party held the White House.
This year, the aggregate Democratic vote across the state’s House primaries was more than 5 percentage points worse than Democrats’ performance in the 2018 “blue wave” year. But it was also more than 5 percentage points better than Democrats performed in either 2010 or 2014, two Republican wave years.
The party vote shares in Washington primaries have been a reliable indicator of general election outcomes there over the past decade — and while Washington leans more toward Democrats than the U.S. as a whole, swings in the states’ margins over the past decade have largely mirrored the rest of the country, according to a POLITICO analysis of the results.
“Nationally, we expected the low approval rating of Joe Biden to create a Republican wave,” said Alex Hays, a Washington-based Republican consultant. “In Washington state, the election results were closer to neutral.”
Republicans still have potential pickup opportunities in Washington, including the closely divided 8th Congressional District. But the results do not align with the collapses in Democratic support in 2010 and 2014 that previewed the GOP waves both years. . . .
BTW, did you get yourself on Hershel Walker's mailing list, because you gave $50 to Gov. Larry Hogan?
IF so, talk about unintended consequences!
Dundee city council. that's period as in menstrual cycle.
Its condescending and demeaning to women to suggest the only reason they're good enough to get to the top is by making token appointments. That's not going to make the women you hire be taken seriously.
Sorry folks, this new covid variant is much more dangerous than we thought. Lockdown, nov to march.
A lot of easy wins like that or heavy industry that uses a lot of electricity has already been driven away.
"Mr Grant, a former personal trainer, has been given the job of promoting access to free sanitary products in schools and colleges across the Tay region."
My hypothesis (based on polling) is that Democrat Mary Statler Peltola will finish in first place in initial count of 1st preferences; but she will NOT have a majority, thus third-place candidate will be eliminated, and votes transferred to 2nd preferences IF the voter gave their 2nd choice.
> IF Sarah Palin ends up in third place when 1st preferences are tabulated, and is thus eliminated, would reckon bulk of her transfers would flow to fellow Republican Nick Begich over Democrat Mary Peltola, allowing him to overtake Peltola in the final count and thus win the special election.
> IF Nick Begich is in third place in the initial count, then his transfers will be split much more evenly, giving Peltola the advantage, albeit a slender one.
These hypothetical results (though ones tested by polling) are predicated on belief that Sarah Palin's potential vote is limited (albeit to so-far unknown extent) because even conservative Alaskans who voted for her previously are still put off by her abandoning the governor's office to cash in on her national celebrity.
Another X factor is, to what extent will differential turnout by key Alaska voting groups - natives, Christians, suburbanites (Last Frontier style), regional blocs - affect the voting, both first preferences AND transfers?
NH is just a feeling, im still on it staying Dem but i think its tighter than assumed.
I just think turnout will get the GOP over the line.
Im not backing it with lucre, its too uncertain however
I don't see how appointing a Token to the Board will change the culture of a Board that doesn't want to change. Solving the whole culture is harder yet far more important than just appointing one demeaning Token and if you do that you'll end up with more than just one on the Board in the end.
There has been good work on the compounding effect on even small unconscious bias and how this affects appointment and promotion.
1% bias at multiple stages on the path to the board room is trivial at each step, indeed barely perceptible, but is significant bias after 50 steps along the way.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/16/us-russia-nuclear-war-global-hunger/
A US-Russia nuclear war could starve 5bn to death.
Personally all I am saying is positive discrimination is sometimes appropriate in a limited and temporary capacity. There are good and bad examples of its application.
Being open to finding biases and eliminating them works, Tokenism doesn't. Tokenism is disrespectful most of all to the minorities that find themselves still biased against unless 'lucky' enough to be the Token hire, but then the Token is known as simply the Token rather than being their on their own merits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGEKFNKtJnM (Telegraph)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liEEdZJDTM4 (Mail)
Positive discrimination is a small part of a wider toolkit that takes time and hard work, not a magic bullet that solves the whole problem.
Eliminating unfair barriers to opportunity, then allowing pure meritocracy, isn't 'too slow' - it's the perfect speed. To suggest that it won't allow woman or ethnic minorities to flourish is to acknowledge that those people have less to offer to potential employers than their white or male counterparts. It is a racist and/or sexist belief.
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1559585117261152256
The problem with positive discrimination is it masks your problems but the problems are still there. If you superficially have your quota 'met' then that ticks the box as saying that the problem is gone, but if the quota is the only reason its met then what's been changed?
Instead what you need to do is far harder which is addressing the 1% biases each step of the way, like @Foxy mentions, rather than relying upon bodges like quotas to mask your problems.
Why is it that the party of All Women Shortlists has never had any women beat any man in any leadership contest, while the party without them is either having its third female PM or first non-white PM?
Eliminating the barriers to women and minorities succeeding and treating those in the jobs as worthy of respect who got their on their own merits and not as the Token to be suffered works far better.
Conservatives currently have 87 female MPs out of 357 (24%).
Not too shabby for Labour, though I accept the criticism of no permanent female leader.
Perhaps the Tories need a bit of positive discrimination, though? Females clearly heavily underrepresented as Tory MPs.
So called 'Positive discrimination' is discrimination, and is a terrible, terrible idea.
At the time Lab went with All Women Shortlists the practice was declared unlawful in an Industrial Tribunal.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/labour-blow-as-allwomen-lists-outlawed-1323046.html
Rather than respecting the finding, Blair, Harman & Co went full steam ahead, and left their existing sex discrimination in place.
Then they introduced a legal loophole, and we still have that shameful little clause in our law that permits sex discrimination when political parties select candidates.
And they have just been told again that their use of these shortlists is unlawful:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-party-legal-advice-all-women-shortlists-unlawful-general-election_uk_61924548e4b04e5bdfd2b3a4
It's all unnecessary as there are plenty of practises to promote quality which do not involve direct discrimination, such as the LD approach of 'zipping'.
One of the problems is that it makes backbenchers beholden to a centrally run process, and undermines their independence. I wonder if Blair would have got so many authoritarian laws through Parliament had his backbenchers been less beholden?