New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
"Nazis are fine as long as there's a profit!" isn't an attitude that's always worked, but I commend all forms of experimentation and I wish you the best of British
Personally I wouldn't want to drink in a pub with Nazi's. I was merely commenting that it might not be a bad business decision which was the root of the assertion
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
I mean, that's essentially what anti racism is, with just that extra step of trying to not let it get to harassment first by intervening slightly earlier if you're aware there is potential for an issue. No one is asking you to go around moralising or trying to brainwash people.
Just if you see it, sort it. Say it, see it, sort it. (Political Betting has always been in alliance with ConservativeHome against 538)
That's not all it is according to Ibram X. Kendi, author of "How to Be an Antiracist" who defines it as an ongoing process of active discrimination:
The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.
Against racists and racism - so it isn't enough not to participate in racism, or to ignore racism, but to engage with racism and tell it "no". So if @Sean_F is saying he'd step in if someone were racially harassing someone, that is anti-racism. Barring someone from a pub due to racist actions in the pub would be anti-racism (and indeed discrimination against racists)
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
"Nazis are fine as long as there's a profit!" isn't an attitude that's always worked, but I commend all forms of experimentation and I wish you the best of British
Personally I wouldn't want to drink in a pub with Nazi's. I was merely commenting that it might not be a bad business decision which was the root of the assertion
With Nazis in the pub, the important thing to remember is which fingers to hold up when ordering beers, surely?
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.
HR is there to protect the company. That may create an environment that looks "woke" but only because businesses have a duty to their workers to not have a hostile work environment. As long as a workplace can show that they made people do training and took complaints seriously, they can save not being sued for constructive dismissal.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. Sometimes people say racist comments at social gatherings. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
I guess you either don't have any friends or relatives from a minority, or don't think you owe it to them to stand up for them against bigots?
You assume wrong.
What clients will get from me is a professional job. What they won't get from me is a critique of their beliefs, however absurd, contemptible, or worthless I may privately believe those beliefs to be.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
This is just such boring Woke drivel. Take it elsewhere
You're asking for a safe space and to stifle the debate, you snowflake. Cancel culture!
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
I mean, that's essentially what anti racism is, with just that extra step of trying to not let it get to harassment first by intervening slightly earlier if you're aware there is potential for an issue. No one is asking you to go around moralising or trying to brainwash people.
Just if you see it, sort it. Say it, see it, sort it. (Political Betting has always been in alliance with ConservativeHome against 538)
That's not all it is according to Ibram X. Kendi, author of "How to Be an Antiracist" who defines it as an ongoing process of active discrimination:
The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.
The full context of the quote is also pretty clear:
The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. As President Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in 1978, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”
The racist champions of racist discrimination engineered to maintain racial inequities before the 1960s are now the racist opponents of antiracist discrimination engineered to dismantle those racial inequities. The most threatening racist movement is not the alt right’s unlikely drive for a White ethnostate but the regular American’s drive for a “race-neutral” one. The construct of race neutrality actually feeds White nationalist victimhood by positing the notion that any policy protecting or advancing non-White Americans toward equity is “reverse discrimination.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.
HR certainly a lot of it is a woke waste of space. These box ticking courses they send you on do nothing to change minds. You just click the expected answer and go back to work. You click them to keep your job not because people think the answers are right. I doubt any racist/sexist/transphobe/homophobe ever got their mind changed by them.
I was commenting more that certain groups still seem to think they can push their lifestyle/religous/political opinions....without any comeback. Examples I have experienced for example....a christian test manager that would get in early every morning and ensure everyone had a religous pamphlet on their desk waiting for them and a manager that was vegan and would email reports on the evils of bacon/videos of slaughterhouses to her entire team on an almost daily basis
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. Sometimes people say racist comments at social gatherings. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
I guess you either don't have any friends or relatives from a minority, or don't think you owe it to them to stand up for them against bigots?
My adopted daughter is afro caribbean if that counts? I am not sean_f but I have the same thought pattern. She feels I have always looked out for her enough
I don't know, my wife is Asian so I don't feel like I have the luxury of just sitting back if someone starts talking about "p*kis". If you care about people who face bigotry and discrimination and know how much it has affected their life I just don't see how you can not want to challenge people who hold and express those views.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.
HR certainly a lot of it is a woke waste of space. These box ticking courses they send you on do nothing to change minds. You just click the expected answer and go back to work. You click them to keep your job not because people think the answers are right. I doubt any racist/sexist/transphobe/homophobe ever got their mind changed by them.
I was commenting more that certain groups still seem to think they can push their lifestyle/religous/political opinions....without any comeback. Examples I have experienced for example....a christian test manager that would get in early every morning and ensure everyone had a religous pamphlet on their desk waiting for them and a manager that was vegan and would email reports on the evils of bacon/videos of slaughterhouses to her entire team on an almost daily basis
Those box ticking exercises don't exist to change your mind. They exist to say "we sent our workers on training, so don't sue us if you've been harassed at work, we've done all these things to try and prevent that"
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
I mean, that's essentially what anti racism is, with just that extra step of trying to not let it get to harassment first by intervening slightly earlier if you're aware there is potential for an issue. No one is asking you to go around moralising or trying to brainwash people.
Just if you see it, sort it. Say it, see it, sort it. (Political Betting has always been in alliance with ConservativeHome against 538)
That's not all it is according to Ibram X. Kendi, author of "How to Be an Antiracist" who defines it as an ongoing process of active discrimination:
The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.
The full context of the quote is also pretty clear:
The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. As President Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in 1978, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”
The racist champions of racist discrimination engineered to maintain racial inequities before the 1960s are now the racist opponents of antiracist discrimination engineered to dismantle those racial inequities. The most threatening racist movement is not the alt right’s unlikely drive for a White ethnostate but the regular American’s drive for a “race-neutral” one. The construct of race neutrality actually feeds White nationalist victimhood by positing the notion that any policy protecting or advancing non-White Americans toward equity is “reverse discrimination.
Bizarrely, it doesn't offer the single feature which made Twitter so useful - being able to see all the tweets from those you follow, as they happen.
Instead the algo decides what it thinks you should see. No thanks.
That sounds bizarrely stupud...maybe too much time living in the metaverse.
It's understandable given that the way Instagram works. Twitter still looks unassailable, no matter how much some people want to hang the failure around Elon Musk's neck.
Does it?
It's lost its advertisers, and it's become increasingly unreliable.
Personally, I think Musk fucked up - not by letting people back on the platform - but by prioritising getting to profitability above becoming "the everything app". And while I am sure there were layers of fat at Twitter, it's very hard to cut yourself to greatness.
And we shouldn't underestimate the upcoming legal challenges to Twitter. They've become the absolute hub for pirated content. YouTube has clamped down very hard on people using it to share the new Spider Man. But Twitter? Now, that's the place to go to stream pirated movies. There's a tsunami of DMCA takedowns arriving at Twitter, and it has no way of effectively dealing with it right now, because it's cut those costs to the bone.
I've owned two Teslas (and will no doubt buy a third in time). I think SpaceX is absolutely amazing. But there's a reason why Fidelity - which invested alongside Musk in the takeover - has cut the value of its stake by two thirds. And there's a reason why Twitter's debt is trading at around 50 cents in the dollar.
It's because - so far - Musk's stewardship has destroyed value.
I hope he can turn it around, and I suspect if he invested money and time in it he could. But right now, it's not looking so great.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.
HR is there to protect the company. That may create an environment that looks "woke" but only because businesses have a duty to their workers to not have a hostile work environment. As long as a workplace can show that they made people do training and took complaints seriously, they can save not being sued for constructive dismissal.
Exactly - and also avoid being sued by the customers. Though there are other issues there as well. obviously.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.
HR certainly a lot of it is a woke waste of space. These box ticking courses they send you on do nothing to change minds. You just click the expected answer and go back to work. You click them to keep your job not because people think the answers are right. I doubt any racist/sexist/transphobe/homophobe ever got their mind changed by them.
I was commenting more that certain groups still seem to think they can push their lifestyle/religous/political opinions....without any comeback. Examples I have experienced for example....a christian test manager that would get in early every morning and ensure everyone had a religous pamphlet on their desk waiting for them and a manager that was vegan and would email reports on the evils of bacon/videos of slaughterhouses to her entire team on an almost daily basis
It's just an arse covering exercise. The employer can say they've done everything possible to educate their staff, it ain't their fault if racists gonna race. Racists will take the course and sign the pledge. It keep HR happy and no one takes it seriously. Sign it, move on.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. Sometimes people say racist comments at social gatherings. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
I guess you either don't have any friends or relatives from a minority, or don't think you owe it to them to stand up for them against bigots?
You assume wrong.
What clients will get from me is a professional job. What they won't get from me is a critique of their beliefs, however absurd, contemptible, or worthless I may privately believe those beliefs to be.
You don't stop being someone's friend or relative just because you are at work. I'm not talking about absurd but essentially harmless beliefs like flat earthism, I am talking about views that actively harm people you care about. If these people are never challenged, they will never change. I am not always great at this as I hate confrontation but saying nothing in the most blatant scenarios is in my opinion tantamount to endorsing the views.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
I mean, that's essentially what anti racism is, with just that extra step of trying to not let it get to harassment first by intervening slightly earlier if you're aware there is potential for an issue. No one is asking you to go around moralising or trying to brainwash people.
Just if you see it, sort it. Say it, see it, sort it. (Political Betting has always been in alliance with ConservativeHome against 538)
That's not all it is according to Ibram X. Kendi, author of "How to Be an Antiracist" who defines it as an ongoing process of active discrimination:
The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.
The full context of the quote is also pretty clear:
The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. As President Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in 1978, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”
The racist champions of racist discrimination engineered to maintain racial inequities before the 1960s are now the racist opponents of antiracist discrimination engineered to dismantle those racial inequities. The most threatening racist movement is not the alt right’s unlikely drive for a White ethnostate but the regular American’s drive for a “race-neutral” one. The construct of race neutrality actually feeds White nationalist victimhood by positing the notion that any policy protecting or advancing non-White Americans toward equity is “reverse discrimination.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.
HR certainly a lot of it is a woke waste of space. These box ticking courses they send you on do nothing to change minds. You just click the expected answer and go back to work. You click them to keep your job not because people think the answers are right. I doubt any racist/sexist/transphobe/homophobe ever got their mind changed by them.
I was commenting more that certain groups still seem to think they can push their lifestyle/religous/political opinions....without any comeback. Examples I have experienced for example....a christian test manager that would get in early every morning and ensure everyone had a religous pamphlet on their desk waiting for them and a manager that was vegan and would email reports on the evils of bacon/videos of slaughterhouses to her entire team on an almost daily basis
It's just an arse covering exercise. The employer can say they've done everything possible to educate their staff, it ain't their fault if racists gonna race. Racists will take the course and sign the pledge. It keep HR happy and no one takes it seriously. Sign it, move on.
Human Resources.
If you start treating people as resources you have already lost.
Bizarrely, it doesn't offer the single feature which made Twitter so useful - being able to see all the tweets from those you follow, as they happen.
Instead the algo decides what it thinks you should see. No thanks.
That sounds bizarrely stupud...maybe too much time living in the metaverse.
It's understandable given that the way Instagram works. Twitter still looks unassailable, no matter how much some people want to hang the failure around Elon Musk's neck.
Does it?
It's lost its advertisers, and it's become increasingly unreliable.
Personally, I think Musk fucked up - not by letting people back on the platform - but by prioritising getting to profitability above becoming "the everything app". And while I am sure there were layers of fat at Twitter, it's very hard to cut yourself to greatness.
And we shouldn't underestimate the upcoming legal challenges to Twitter. They've become the absolute hub for pirated content. YouTube has clamped down very hard on people using it to share the new Spider Man. But Twitter? Now, that's the place to go to stream pirated movies. There's a tsunami of DMCA takedowns arriving at Twitter, and it has no way of effectively dealing with it right now, because it's cut those costs to the bone.
I've owned two Teslas (and will no doubt buy a third in time). I think SpaceX is absolutely amazing. But there's a reason why Fidelity - which invested alongside Musk in the takeover - has cut the value of its stake by two thirds. And there's a reason why Twitter's debt is trading at around 50 cents in the dollar.
It's because - so far - Musk's stewardship has destroyed value.
I hope he can turn it around, and I suspect if he invested money and time in it he could. But right now, it's not looking so great.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.
HR certainly a lot of it is a woke waste of space. These box ticking courses they send you on do nothing to change minds. You just click the expected answer and go back to work. You click them to keep your job not because people think the answers are right. I doubt any racist/sexist/transphobe/homophobe ever got their mind changed by them.
I was commenting more that certain groups still seem to think they can push their lifestyle/religous/political opinions....without any comeback. Examples I have experienced for example....a christian test manager that would get in early every morning and ensure everyone had a religous pamphlet on their desk waiting for them and a manager that was vegan and would email reports on the evils of bacon/videos of slaughterhouses to her entire team on an almost daily basis
It's just an arse covering exercise. The employer can say they've done everything possible to educate their staff, it ain't their fault if racists gonna race. Racists will take the course and sign the pledge. It keep HR happy and no one takes it seriously. Sign it, move on.
Human Resources.
If you start treating people as resources you have already lost.
The worst are those that get offended on others peoples behalf and go squealing to hr. Had it happen to me and it was a most unpleasant experience
Former U.S. officials have held secret Ukraine talks with prominent Russians The aim of the discussions is to lay the groundwork for potential negotiations to end the war, people briefed on the talks tell NBC News.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.
HR certainly a lot of it is a woke waste of space. These box ticking courses they send you on do nothing to change minds. You just click the expected answer and go back to work. You click them to keep your job not because people think the answers are right. I doubt any racist/sexist/transphobe/homophobe ever got their mind changed by them.
I was commenting more that certain groups still seem to think they can push their lifestyle/religous/political opinions....without any comeback. Examples I have experienced for example....a christian test manager that would get in early every morning and ensure everyone had a religous pamphlet on their desk waiting for them and a manager that was vegan and would email reports on the evils of bacon/videos of slaughterhouses to her entire team on an almost daily basis
It's just an arse covering exercise. The employer can say they've done everything possible to educate their staff, it ain't their fault if racists gonna race. Racists will take the course and sign the pledge. It keep HR happy and no one takes it seriously. Sign it, move on.
Human Resources.
If you start treating people as resources you have already lost.
The worst are those that get offended on others peoples behalf and go squealing to hr. Had it happen to me and it was a most unpleasant experience
What did they allege?
They put in a complaint on my behalf after hearing a comment to me from a colleague. I ended up telling them to drop the complaint else I would resign
Rob Ford @robfordmancs · 4h Replying to @robfordmancs Just as 2010-15 saw UKIP mobilise support among voters who wanted a more radical approach on the core issue which exercised them most, could 2024-29 see Greens achieve the same kind of breakthrough among young grads exercised by the climate emergency?
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. Sometimes people say racist comments at social gatherings. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
I guess you either don't have any friends or relatives from a minority, or don't think you owe it to them to stand up for them against bigots?
You assume wrong.
What clients will get from me is a professional job. What they won't get from me is a critique of their beliefs, however absurd, contemptible, or worthless I may privately believe those beliefs to be.
You don't stop being someone's friend or relative just because you are at work. I'm not talking about absurd but essentially harmless beliefs like flat earthism, I am talking about views that actively harm people you care about. If these people are never challenged, they will never change. I am not always great at this as I hate confrontation but saying nothing in the most blatant scenarios is in my opinion tantamount to endorsing the views.
Context is everything. If someone is in my presence being threatening or abusive to others, then I have a duty to intervene.
If someone is in my presence, and makes some racist ,or otherwise offensive, remark, but is not actually being threatening or abusive, I see it as none of my business. Unless, we are in the process of having a political argument.
In general, I don't consider it my business to "challenge or change" people. Saying that' s the same as endorsing their opinions is just emotional blackmail.
He's very prone to injury. Bowling at more than 90mph is completely unnatural.
But was he injured before this Test (genuine question). He could have made the difference in Tests 1 and 2 playing like this
Perhaps. But it he'd bowled in the first two and broken down, this would have been an unfortunate match: ...Robinson has sustained a back spasm. He will remain off the field for the rest of today’s play....
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.
HR certainly a lot of it is a woke waste of space. These box ticking courses they send you on do nothing to change minds. You just click the expected answer and go back to work. You click them to keep your job not because people think the answers are right. I doubt any racist/sexist/transphobe/homophobe ever got their mind changed by them.
I was commenting more that certain groups still seem to think they can push their lifestyle/religous/political opinions....without any comeback. Examples I have experienced for example....a christian test manager that would get in early every morning and ensure everyone had a religous pamphlet on their desk waiting for them and a manager that was vegan and would email reports on the evils of bacon/videos of slaughterhouses to her entire team on an almost daily basis
It's just an arse covering exercise. The employer can say they've done everything possible to educate their staff, it ain't their fault if racists gonna race. Racists will take the course and sign the pledge. It keep HR happy and no one takes it seriously. Sign it, move on.
Human Resources.
If you start treating people as resources you have already lost.
The worst are those that get offended on others peoples behalf and go squealing to hr. Had it happen to me and it was a most unpleasant experience
What did they allege?
They put in a complaint on my behalf after hearing a comment to me from a colleague. I ended up telling them to drop the complaint else I would resign
What I mean is, what was the nature of the comment they alleged you made?
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. Sometimes people say racist comments at social gatherings. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
I guess you either don't have any friends or relatives from a minority, or don't think you owe it to them to stand up for them against bigots?
You assume wrong.
What clients will get from me is a professional job. What they won't get from me is a critique of their beliefs, however absurd, contemptible, or worthless I may privately believe those beliefs to be.
You don't stop being someone's friend or relative just because you are at work. I'm not talking about absurd but essentially harmless beliefs like flat earthism, I am talking about views that actively harm people you care about. If these people are never challenged, they will never change. I am not always great at this as I hate confrontation but saying nothing in the most blatant scenarios is in my opinion tantamount to endorsing the views.
Context is everything. If someone is in my presence being threatening or abusive to others, then I have a duty to intervene.
If someone is in my presence, and makes some racist ,or otherwise offensive, remark, but is not actually being threatening or abusive, I see it as none of my business. Unless, we are in the process of having a political argument.
In general, I don't consider it my business to "challenge or change" people. Saying that' s the same as endorsing their opinions is just emotional blackmail.
Do you feel your "duty", as you say, goes only as far as the extent of the law and no further? (genuine question, not trying to sound arsy)
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.
HR certainly a lot of it is a woke waste of space. These box ticking courses they send you on do nothing to change minds. You just click the expected answer and go back to work. You click them to keep your job not because people think the answers are right. I doubt any racist/sexist/transphobe/homophobe ever got their mind changed by them.
I was commenting more that certain groups still seem to think they can push their lifestyle/religous/political opinions....without any comeback. Examples I have experienced for example....a christian test manager that would get in early every morning and ensure everyone had a religous pamphlet on their desk waiting for them and a manager that was vegan and would email reports on the evils of bacon/videos of slaughterhouses to her entire team on an almost daily basis
It's just an arse covering exercise. The employer can say they've done everything possible to educate their staff, it ain't their fault if racists gonna race. Racists will take the course and sign the pledge. It keep HR happy and no one takes it seriously. Sign it, move on.
Human Resources.
If you start treating people as resources you have already lost.
The worst are those that get offended on others peoples behalf and go squealing to hr. Had it happen to me and it was a most unpleasant experience
What did they allege?
They put in a complaint on my behalf after hearing a comment to me from a colleague. I ended up telling them to drop the complaint else I would resign
What I mean is, what was the nature of the comment they alleged you made?
Rob Ford @robfordmancs · 4h Replying to @robfordmancs Just as 2010-15 saw UKIP mobilise support among voters who wanted a more radical approach on the core issue which exercised them most, could 2024-29 see Greens achieve the same kind of breakthrough among young grads exercised by the climate emergency?
No. The Greens just don't have the coherent messaging or leadership to achieve that. They have co-leaders for a start.
UKIP were led by the (hateful but charismatic) Farage. The Greens would need something similar. Unlike the Lib Dems they don't have the local power base or second places in constituencies to build up from the base either.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.
HR certainly a lot of it is a woke waste of space. These box ticking courses they send you on do nothing to change minds. You just click the expected answer and go back to work. You click them to keep your job not because people think the answers are right. I doubt any racist/sexist/transphobe/homophobe ever got their mind changed by them.
I was commenting more that certain groups still seem to think they can push their lifestyle/religous/political opinions....without any comeback. Examples I have experienced for example....a christian test manager that would get in early every morning and ensure everyone had a religous pamphlet on their desk waiting for them and a manager that was vegan and would email reports on the evils of bacon/videos of slaughterhouses to her entire team on an almost daily basis
It's just an arse covering exercise. The employer can say they've done everything possible to educate their staff, it ain't their fault if racists gonna race. Racists will take the course and sign the pledge. It keep HR happy and no one takes it seriously. Sign it, move on.
Human Resources.
If you start treating people as resources you have already lost.
The worst are those that get offended on others peoples behalf and go squealing to hr. Had it happen to me and it was a most unpleasant experience
What did they allege?
They put in a complaint on my behalf after hearing a comment to me from a colleague. I ended up telling them to drop the complaint else I would resign
What I mean is, what was the nature of the comment they alleged you made?
It was comment to me not one I made
I see, I misunderstood.
I was also involved in a racial discrimination case however as lead interviewer when a candidate claimed we didnt employ him because he was black. The reason we didn't employ him was he was shit. It helped that the candidate I did offer the job to was not only black but a woman
Former U.S. officials have held secret Ukraine talks with prominent Russians The aim of the discussions is to lay the groundwork for potential negotiations to end the war, people briefed on the talks tell NBC News.
In some respects the US's policy is pretty feeble.
The UK and Poland should issue a joint ultimatum to Russia to respect the Budapest memorandum and withdraw from all of Ukraine or we would actively help evict them.
Zelensky said in Bulgaria that Sofia had agreed to cooperate more actively in the defence sector, as Kyiv seeks to shore up support among Nato members for its ongoing counteroffensive. Bulgaria has a large stockpile of Soviet-era weapons… https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1676979015716945922
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.
HR certainly a lot of it is a woke waste of space. These box ticking courses they send you on do nothing to change minds. You just click the expected answer and go back to work. You click them to keep your job not because people think the answers are right. I doubt any racist/sexist/transphobe/homophobe ever got their mind changed by them.
I was commenting more that certain groups still seem to think they can push their lifestyle/religous/political opinions....without any comeback. Examples I have experienced for example....a christian test manager that would get in early every morning and ensure everyone had a religous pamphlet on their desk waiting for them and a manager that was vegan and would email reports on the evils of bacon/videos of slaughterhouses to her entire team on an almost daily basis
It's just an arse covering exercise. The employer can say they've done everything possible to educate their staff, it ain't their fault if racists gonna race. Racists will take the course and sign the pledge. It keep HR happy and no one takes it seriously. Sign it, move on.
Human Resources.
If you start treating people as resources you have already lost.
The worst are those that get offended on others peoples behalf and go squealing to hr. Had it happen to me and it was a most unpleasant experience
What did they allege?
They put in a complaint on my behalf after hearing a comment to me from a colleague. I ended up telling them to drop the complaint else I would resign
What I mean is, what was the nature of the comment they alleged you made?
It was comment to me not one I made
Seems odd to get you involved (other than as a potential witness, maybe?). I would have thought that if someone is heard saying something (about someone or otherwise) against company policies then that's a matter between the company and the accused.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.
HR certainly a lot of it is a woke waste of space. These box ticking courses they send you on do nothing to change minds. You just click the expected answer and go back to work. You click them to keep your job not because people think the answers are right. I doubt any racist/sexist/transphobe/homophobe ever got their mind changed by them.
I was commenting more that certain groups still seem to think they can push their lifestyle/religous/political opinions....without any comeback. Examples I have experienced for example....a christian test manager that would get in early every morning and ensure everyone had a religous pamphlet on their desk waiting for them and a manager that was vegan and would email reports on the evils of bacon/videos of slaughterhouses to her entire team on an almost daily basis
It's just an arse covering exercise. The employer can say they've done everything possible to educate their staff, it ain't their fault if racists gonna race. Racists will take the course and sign the pledge. It keep HR happy and no one takes it seriously. Sign it, move on.
Human Resources.
If you start treating people as resources you have already lost.
The worst are those that get offended on others peoples behalf and go squealing to hr. Had it happen to me and it was a most unpleasant experience
What did they allege?
They put in a complaint on my behalf after hearing a comment to me from a colleague. I ended up telling them to drop the complaint else I would resign
What I mean is, what was the nature of the comment they alleged you made?
It was comment to me not one I made
A comment to you and about you, or just to you?
Both to me and about me, the comment was not offensive to me in any way
Via @DeltapollUK , 29 Jun-3 Jul (+/- vs 23-26 Jun)
The REFCON combined score of 30% is the lowest I think I've seen. That's the right wing core vote - absolute baseline. The totals add to 97% so with Plaid in the mix too that doesn't leave much for unprompted "UKIP" or other right wing parties either.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. Sometimes people say racist comments at social gatherings. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
I guess you either don't have any friends or relatives from a minority, or don't think you owe it to them to stand up for them against bigots?
You assume wrong.
What clients will get from me is a professional job. What they won't get from me is a critique of their beliefs, however absurd, contemptible, or worthless I may privately believe those beliefs to be.
You don't stop being someone's friend or relative just because you are at work. I'm not talking about absurd but essentially harmless beliefs like flat earthism, I am talking about views that actively harm people you care about. If these people are never challenged, they will never change. I am not always great at this as I hate confrontation but saying nothing in the most blatant scenarios is in my opinion tantamount to endorsing the views.
Context is everything. If someone is in my presence being threatening or abusive to others, then I have a duty to intervene.
If someone is in my presence, and makes some racist ,or otherwise offensive, remark, but is not actually being threatening or abusive, I see it as none of my business. Unless, we are in the process of having a political argument.
In general, I don't consider it my business to "challenge or change" people. Saying that' s the same as endorsing their opinions is just emotional blackmail.
I do think that if you don't speak up then you are tacitly endorsing their opinion, or at the very least giving them the impression that it is a reasonable and harmless position to hold. If I told my wife that some bloke at work had said that he hated p*kis and that I'd not said or done anything because he wasn't being abusive I think she'd wonder why she married me.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.
HR certainly a lot of it is a woke waste of space. These box ticking courses they send you on do nothing to change minds. You just click the expected answer and go back to work. You click them to keep your job not because people think the answers are right. I doubt any racist/sexist/transphobe/homophobe ever got their mind changed by them.
I was commenting more that certain groups still seem to think they can push their lifestyle/religous/political opinions....without any comeback. Examples I have experienced for example....a christian test manager that would get in early every morning and ensure everyone had a religous pamphlet on their desk waiting for them and a manager that was vegan and would email reports on the evils of bacon/videos of slaughterhouses to her entire team on an almost daily basis
It's just an arse covering exercise. The employer can say they've done everything possible to educate their staff, it ain't their fault if racists gonna race. Racists will take the course and sign the pledge. It keep HR happy and no one takes it seriously. Sign it, move on.
Human Resources.
If you start treating people as resources you have already lost.
The worst are those that get offended on others peoples behalf and go squealing to hr. Had it happen to me and it was a most unpleasant experience
What did they allege?
They put in a complaint on my behalf after hearing a comment to me from a colleague. I ended up telling them to drop the complaint else I would resign
What I mean is, what was the nature of the comment they alleged you made?
It was comment to me not one I made
Seems odd to get you involved (other than as a potential witness, maybe?). I would have thought that if someone is heard saying something (about someone or otherwise) against company policies then that's a matter between the company and the accused.
I got involved because the complaint was about something said to me so I got hauled in by hr to confirm the comment was made, it was. But it also wasn't a comment that was offensive to me or was intended to cause offence and I refused to engage in the we must do something in case culture.
The comment was religous in nature, it was from a colleague of a different faith but one who had asked and been invited to attend a ceremony or two of my faith. It was his way of saying have a good night when I was off as he knew that night to attend a ceremony
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.
HR certainly a lot of it is a woke waste of space. These box ticking courses they send you on do nothing to change minds. You just click the expected answer and go back to work. You click them to keep your job not because people think the answers are right. I doubt any racist/sexist/transphobe/homophobe ever got their mind changed by them.
I was commenting more that certain groups still seem to think they can push their lifestyle/religous/political opinions....without any comeback. Examples I have experienced for example....a christian test manager that would get in early every morning and ensure everyone had a religous pamphlet on their desk waiting for them and a manager that was vegan and would email reports on the evils of bacon/videos of slaughterhouses to her entire team on an almost daily basis
It's just an arse covering exercise. The employer can say they've done everything possible to educate their staff, it ain't their fault if racists gonna race. Racists will take the course and sign the pledge. It keep HR happy and no one takes it seriously. Sign it, move on.
Human Resources.
If you start treating people as resources you have already lost.
The worst are those that get offended on others peoples behalf and go squealing to hr. Had it happen to me and it was a most unpleasant experience
What did they allege?
They put in a complaint on my behalf after hearing a comment to me from a colleague. I ended up telling them to drop the complaint else I would resign
What I mean is, what was the nature of the comment they alleged you made?
It was comment to me not one I made
A comment to you and about you, or just to you?
Both to me and about me, the comment was not offensive to me in any way
I can see why that would be aggravating to you, but can also understand why someone might also report it anyway.
Like, if my best mate called me "a big fairy" or "queerboy" (a thing he occasionally does) - not a problem to me, I've known him over a decade and get the context. But if someone overheard that, and they themselves were also gay and didn't know my friend, they might just hear the comment and feel unsafe themselves. Or if they have a gay kid whose been bullied and therefore has a strong reaction to those kinds of things.
These kind of interactions aren't always easy, and sometimes require patience and context.
Former U.S. officials have held secret Ukraine talks with prominent Russians The aim of the discussions is to lay the groundwork for potential negotiations to end the war, people briefed on the talks tell NBC News.
There should be no discussions without Russian withdrawal.
If this is true though, Russia is just about out of reserves in the South.
this may be the reason why all the crazy talk about the nuke plant. russians are scared. russian media is saying they have located and IDed the 9th and 10th corps of the ukr army and are openly saying they have nothing to stop them when they kick off. right near the nuke plant.
here is what rybar is posting. in the area behind the plant they have no combat firepower, and on the entire line they only have the 36th RU brigade as a res force... everything from the 19th and 42nd div is engaged. the 20the div was supposed to block but they moved it to bakhmut last month.
the ONLY units i can see moving are some of the TD battalions or brigades to try to block and buy time for ????. the most probable is the 214th tank... and they are equipped with a mix of T62s and T55s... soooooo https://twitter.com/secretsqrl123/status/1676973765815590912?s=20
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.
HR certainly a lot of it is a woke waste of space. These box ticking courses they send you on do nothing to change minds. You just click the expected answer and go back to work. You click them to keep your job not because people think the answers are right. I doubt any racist/sexist/transphobe/homophobe ever got their mind changed by them.
I was commenting more that certain groups still seem to think they can push their lifestyle/religous/political opinions....without any comeback. Examples I have experienced for example....a christian test manager that would get in early every morning and ensure everyone had a religous pamphlet on their desk waiting for them and a manager that was vegan and would email reports on the evils of bacon/videos of slaughterhouses to her entire team on an almost daily basis
It's just an arse covering exercise. The employer can say they've done everything possible to educate their staff, it ain't their fault if racists gonna race. Racists will take the course and sign the pledge. It keep HR happy and no one takes it seriously. Sign it, move on.
Human Resources.
If you start treating people as resources you have already lost.
The worst are those that get offended on others peoples behalf and go squealing to hr. Had it happen to me and it was a most unpleasant experience
What did they allege?
They put in a complaint on my behalf after hearing a comment to me from a colleague. I ended up telling them to drop the complaint else I would resign
What I mean is, what was the nature of the comment they alleged you made?
It was comment to me not one I made
A comment to you and about you, or just to you?
Both to me and about me, the comment was not offensive to me in any way
I can see why that would be aggravating to you, but can also understand why someone might also report it anyway.
Like, if my best mate called me "a big fairy" or "queerboy" (a thing he occasionally does) - not a problem to me, I've known him over a decade and get the context. But if someone overheard that, and they themselves were also gay and didn't know my friend, they might just hear the comment and feel unsafe themselves. Or if they have a gay kid whose been bullied and therefore has a strong reaction to those kinds of things.
These kind of interactions aren't always easy, and sometimes require patience and context.
I put in a complaint to hr about the reporter creating a hostile work environment. People should keep their noses out when they don't know the context
Right. I'm switching off the Test Match and PB. Following England's reply this evening on whatever platform will just be too nerve wracking. I'll catch up with the score after close of play. Cheerio.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.
HR certainly a lot of it is a woke waste of space. These box ticking courses they send you on do nothing to change minds. You just click the expected answer and go back to work. You click them to keep your job not because people think the answers are right. I doubt any racist/sexist/transphobe/homophobe ever got their mind changed by them.
I was commenting more that certain groups still seem to think they can push their lifestyle/religous/political opinions....without any comeback. Examples I have experienced for example....a christian test manager that would get in early every morning and ensure everyone had a religous pamphlet on their desk waiting for them and a manager that was vegan and would email reports on the evils of bacon/videos of slaughterhouses to her entire team on an almost daily basis
It's just an arse covering exercise. The employer can say they've done everything possible to educate their staff, it ain't their fault if racists gonna race. Racists will take the course and sign the pledge. It keep HR happy and no one takes it seriously. Sign it, move on.
Human Resources.
If you start treating people as resources you have already lost.
The worst are those that get offended on others peoples behalf and go squealing to hr. Had it happen to me and it was a most unpleasant experience
What did they allege?
They put in a complaint on my behalf after hearing a comment to me from a colleague. I ended up telling them to drop the complaint else I would resign
What I mean is, what was the nature of the comment they alleged you made?
It was comment to me not one I made
Seems odd to get you involved (other than as a potential witness, maybe?). I would have thought that if someone is heard saying something (about someone or otherwise) against company policies then that's a matter between the company and the accused.
You get hard core HR botherers. Anything for a bit of reporting of “wrong” opinions.
Some give the strong impression that they’d have the email address of the Gestapo Part Deux in their favourites.
Rob Ford @robfordmancs · 4h Replying to @robfordmancs Just as 2010-15 saw UKIP mobilise support among voters who wanted a more radical approach on the core issue which exercised them most, could 2024-29 see Greens achieve the same kind of breakthrough among young grads exercised by the climate emergency?
No. The Greens just don't have the coherent messaging or leadership to achieve that. They have co-leaders for a start.
UKIP were led by the (hateful but charismatic) Farage. The Greens would need something similar. Unlike the Lib Dems they don't have the local power base or second places in constituencies to build up from the base either.
I also think, more then that, the Green just have a message that no one with a microphone has any reason to amplify. The Green Party of England and Wales are actively anti growth, actively anti capitalist, actively pro wealth redistribution - that doesn't benefit anyone who owns a paper or a tv network. And talking about them, even negatively, gives them too much press. Better off not reporting on them and focussing on people it's easier to paint as trouble makers - protesters.
Farage and his position doesn't harm capital, and if anything pushes the Overton window further rightwards, so is actively helpful to the status quo. So it's fine to amplify him or any other right wing clown show that turns up.
Rob Ford @robfordmancs · 4h Replying to @robfordmancs Just as 2010-15 saw UKIP mobilise support among voters who wanted a more radical approach on the core issue which exercised them most, could 2024-29 see Greens achieve the same kind of breakthrough among young grads exercised by the climate emergency?
No. The Greens just don't have the coherent messaging or leadership to achieve that. They have co-leaders for a start.
UKIP were led by the (hateful but charismatic) Farage. The Greens would need something similar. Unlike the Lib Dems they don't have the local power base or second places in constituencies to build up from the base either.
I also think, more then that, the Green just have a message that no one with a microphone has any reason to amplify. The Green Party of England and Wales are actively anti growth, actively anti capitalist, actively pro wealth redistribution - that doesn't benefit anyone who owns a paper or a tv network. And talking about them, even negatively, gives them too much press. Better off not reporting on them and focussing on people it's easier to paint as trouble makers - protesters.
Farage and his position doesn't harm capital, and if anything pushes the Overton window further rightwards, so is actively helpful to the status quo. So it's fine to amplify him or any other right wing clown show that turns up.
Correcting for you "he Green just have a message that no one has any reason to amplify" and "The Green Party of England and Wales are actively anti growth, actively anti capitalist, actively pro wealth redistribution - that doesn't benefit anyone"
Former U.S. officials have held secret Ukraine talks with prominent Russians The aim of the discussions is to lay the groundwork for potential negotiations to end the war, people briefed on the talks tell NBC News.
There should be no discussions without Russian withdrawal.
If this is true though, Russia is just about out of reserves in the South.
this may be the reason why all the crazy talk about the nuke plant. russians are scared. russian media is saying they have located and IDed the 9th and 10th corps of the ukr army and are openly saying they have nothing to stop them when they kick off. right near the nuke plant.
here is what rybar is posting. in the area behind the plant they have no combat firepower, and on the entire line they only have the 36th RU brigade as a res force... everything from the 19th and 42nd div is engaged. the 20the div was supposed to block but they moved it to bakhmut last month.
the ONLY units i can see moving are some of the TD battalions or brigades to try to block and buy time for ????. the most probable is the 214th tank... and they are equipped with a mix of T62s and T55s... soooooo https://twitter.com/secretsqrl123/status/1676973765815590912?s=20
Ukraine cannot take Moscow so at some point there will have to be a negotiated settlement, and back-channel negotiations are a welcome development. However, the article talks about April which is a long time ago.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.
HR certainly a lot of it is a woke waste of space. These box ticking courses they send you on do nothing to change minds. You just click the expected answer and go back to work. You click them to keep your job not because people think the answers are right. I doubt any racist/sexist/transphobe/homophobe ever got their mind changed by them.
I was commenting more that certain groups still seem to think they can push their lifestyle/religous/political opinions....without any comeback. Examples I have experienced for example....a christian test manager that would get in early every morning and ensure everyone had a religous pamphlet on their desk waiting for them and a manager that was vegan and would email reports on the evils of bacon/videos of slaughterhouses to her entire team on an almost daily basis
It's just an arse covering exercise. The employer can say they've done everything possible to educate their staff, it ain't their fault if racists gonna race. Racists will take the course and sign the pledge. It keep HR happy and no one takes it seriously. Sign it, move on.
Human Resources.
If you start treating people as resources you have already lost.
The worst are those that get offended on others peoples behalf and go squealing to hr. Had it happen to me and it was a most unpleasant experience
What did they allege?
They put in a complaint on my behalf after hearing a comment to me from a colleague. I ended up telling them to drop the complaint else I would resign
What I mean is, what was the nature of the comment they alleged you made?
It was comment to me not one I made
A comment to you and about you, or just to you?
Both to me and about me, the comment was not offensive to me in any way
I can see why that would be aggravating to you, but can also understand why someone might also report it anyway.
Like, if my best mate called me "a big fairy" or "queerboy" (a thing he occasionally does) - not a problem to me, I've known him over a decade and get the context. But if someone overheard that, and they themselves were also gay and didn't know my friend, they might just hear the comment and feel unsafe themselves. Or if they have a gay kid whose been bullied and therefore has a strong reaction to those kinds of things.
These kind of interactions aren't always easy, and sometimes require patience and context.
I put in a complaint to hr about the reporter creating a hostile work environment. People should keep their noses out when they don't know the context
HR policy where I work says you should do exactly what that person did, not to rely on the "victim" putting in a complaint.
Via @DeltapollUK , 29 Jun-3 Jul (+/- vs 23-26 Jun)
The REFCON combined score of 30% is the lowest I think I've seen. That's the right wing core vote - absolute baseline. The totals add to 97% so with Plaid in the mix too that doesn't leave much for unprompted "UKIP" or other right wing parties either.
And yet, I don't think it's the case that a right wing country has suddenly become a left wing country.
I think what this shows is that most people don't fit into a category of right wing or left wing but simply vote for whoever they think is best, or least bad. (Though I'd say that isn't true of most people on here, who are more interested in ideas than most people are.)
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.
HR certainly a lot of it is a woke waste of space. These box ticking courses they send you on do nothing to change minds. You just click the expected answer and go back to work. You click them to keep your job not because people think the answers are right. I doubt any racist/sexist/transphobe/homophobe ever got their mind changed by them.
I was commenting more that certain groups still seem to think they can push their lifestyle/religous/political opinions....without any comeback. Examples I have experienced for example....a christian test manager that would get in early every morning and ensure everyone had a religous pamphlet on their desk waiting for them and a manager that was vegan and would email reports on the evils of bacon/videos of slaughterhouses to her entire team on an almost daily basis
It's just an arse covering exercise. The employer can say they've done everything possible to educate their staff, it ain't their fault if racists gonna race. Racists will take the course and sign the pledge. It keep HR happy and no one takes it seriously. Sign it, move on.
Human Resources.
If you start treating people as resources you have already lost.
The worst are those that get offended on others peoples behalf and go squealing to hr. Had it happen to me and it was a most unpleasant experience
What did they allege?
They put in a complaint on my behalf after hearing a comment to me from a colleague. I ended up telling them to drop the complaint else I would resign
What I mean is, what was the nature of the comment they alleged you made?
It was comment to me not one I made
A comment to you and about you, or just to you?
Both to me and about me, the comment was not offensive to me in any way
I can see why that would be aggravating to you, but can also understand why someone might also report it anyway.
Like, if my best mate called me "a big fairy" or "queerboy" (a thing he occasionally does) - not a problem to me, I've known him over a decade and get the context. But if someone overheard that, and they themselves were also gay and didn't know my friend, they might just hear the comment and feel unsafe themselves. Or if they have a gay kid whose been bullied and therefore has a strong reaction to those kinds of things.
These kind of interactions aren't always easy, and sometimes require patience and context.
I put in a complaint to hr about the reporter creating a hostile work environment. People should keep their noses out when they don't know the context
HR policy where I work says you should do exactly what that person did, not to rely on the "victim" putting in a complaint.
She had been there less than 2 years she was gone
But this is the problem with the whole anti thing.....you can't have any friendly banter between colleagues in case some nosy third party inserts themselves.
I hope Wood isn't a flash in the pan. That was an impressive 5-for, at very good economy rate, but he does look very liable to injury.
We get this in England football all the time, when a much heralded but strangely excluded player finally gets into the team and immediately changes things, but usually too little too late. Like John Barnes in 1986 v Argentina and many other examples since.
Rob Ford @robfordmancs · 4h Replying to @robfordmancs Just as 2010-15 saw UKIP mobilise support among voters who wanted a more radical approach on the core issue which exercised them most, could 2024-29 see Greens achieve the same kind of breakthrough among young grads exercised by the climate emergency?
No. The Greens just don't have the coherent messaging or leadership to achieve that. They have co-leaders for a start.
UKIP were led by the (hateful but charismatic) Farage. The Greens would need something similar. Unlike the Lib Dems they don't have the local power base or second places in constituencies to build up from the base either.
I also think, more then that, the Green just have a message that no one with a microphone has any reason to amplify. The Green Party of England and Wales are actively anti growth, actively anti capitalist, actively pro wealth redistribution - that doesn't benefit anyone who owns a paper or a tv network. And talking about them, even negatively, gives them too much press. Better off not reporting on them and focussing on people it's easier to paint as trouble makers - protesters.
Farage and his position doesn't harm capital, and if anything pushes the Overton window further rightwards, so is actively helpful to the status quo. So it's fine to amplify him or any other right wing clown show that turns up.
Correcting for you "he Green just have a message that no one has any reason to amplify" and "The Green Party of England and Wales are actively anti growth, actively anti capitalist, actively pro wealth redistribution - that doesn't benefit anyone"
You're so edgy and clever
You think most people want the greens agenda...points to actual votes in elections. Evidence says otherwise. 148grss was trying to frame it as only people who own papers object....no most sane people object
Via @DeltapollUK , 29 Jun-3 Jul (+/- vs 23-26 Jun)
The REFCON combined score of 30% is the lowest I think I've seen. That's the right wing core vote - absolute baseline. The totals add to 97% so with Plaid in the mix too that doesn't leave much for unprompted "UKIP" or other right wing parties either.
That excludes DK however. 34% approve of Sunak's record as PM however, 9% higher than the Tory voteshare and 36% still back Brexit. That is 6% higher than the combined REFCON score
I hope Wood isn't a flash in the pan. That was an impressive 5-for, at very good economy rate, but he does look very liable to injury.
We get this in England football all the time, when a much heralded but strangely excluded player finally gets into the team and immediately changes things, but usually too little too late. Like John Barnes in 1986 v Argentina and many other examples since.
True, but if he just wins this one Test, that's fantastic
Anyway, I'm like @Stark_Dawning - this is all to nerve-wracking and distracting. I have to go do some work!
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.
HR certainly a lot of it is a woke waste of space. These box ticking courses they send you on do nothing to change minds. You just click the expected answer and go back to work. You click them to keep your job not because people think the answers are right. I doubt any racist/sexist/transphobe/homophobe ever got their mind changed by them.
I was commenting more that certain groups still seem to think they can push their lifestyle/religous/political opinions....without any comeback. Examples I have experienced for example....a christian test manager that would get in early every morning and ensure everyone had a religous pamphlet on their desk waiting for them and a manager that was vegan and would email reports on the evils of bacon/videos of slaughterhouses to her entire team on an almost daily basis
It's just an arse covering exercise. The employer can say they've done everything possible to educate their staff, it ain't their fault if racists gonna race. Racists will take the course and sign the pledge. It keep HR happy and no one takes it seriously. Sign it, move on.
Human Resources.
If you start treating people as resources you have already lost.
The worst are those that get offended on others peoples behalf and go squealing to hr. Had it happen to me and it was a most unpleasant experience
What did they allege?
They put in a complaint on my behalf after hearing a comment to me from a colleague. I ended up telling them to drop the complaint else I would resign
What I mean is, what was the nature of the comment they alleged you made?
It was comment to me not one I made
A comment to you and about you, or just to you?
Both to me and about me, the comment was not offensive to me in any way
I can see why that would be aggravating to you, but can also understand why someone might also report it anyway.
Like, if my best mate called me "a big fairy" or "queerboy" (a thing he occasionally does) - not a problem to me, I've known him over a decade and get the context. But if someone overheard that, and they themselves were also gay and didn't know my friend, they might just hear the comment and feel unsafe themselves. Or if they have a gay kid whose been bullied and therefore has a strong reaction to those kinds of things.
These kind of interactions aren't always easy, and sometimes require patience and context.
I put in a complaint to hr about the reporter creating a hostile work environment. People should keep their noses out when they don't know the context
HR policy where I work says you should do exactly what that person did, not to rely on the "victim" putting in a complaint.
She had been there less than 2 years she was gone
But this is the problem with the whole anti thing.....you can't have any friendly banter between colleagues in case some nosy third party inserts themselves.
Goodness yes. Banter must be protected at all costs.
Most people are quite capable of complaining if its offensive, work has become a much more joyless place now you have to look round to see which squealer might be in earshot and misunderstand
Via @DeltapollUK , 29 Jun-3 Jul (+/- vs 23-26 Jun)
The REFCON combined score of 30% is the lowest I think I've seen. That's the right wing core vote - absolute baseline. The totals add to 97% so with Plaid in the mix too that doesn't leave much for unprompted "UKIP" or other right wing parties either.
And yet, I don't think it's the case that a right wing country has suddenly become a left wing country.
I think what this shows is that most people don't fit into a category of right wing or left wing but simply vote for whoever they think is best, or least bad. (Though I'd say that isn't true of most people on here, who are more interested in ideas than most people are.)
I think it probably does indicate the base level of truly right wing nationalist / traditionalist support is around the 30% mark, like the base level of proper class warrior Corbynish or eco leftism is somewhere around 30%. Add on perhaps 3-4% of people who are truly Scottish or Welsh separatist above all (rather than just say anti-Tory and opting tactically for the SNP or Plaid) and 5-6% who are true ideological liberals, and that leaves you around 30% or a bit more of the moderately centre-left or centre-right who are potential floating voters. It seems that 30% is almost entirely opting for Labour, Lib Dems or SNP currently.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
I'm wondering why it is necessary to ask employers to sign up to an 'anti racist pledge'. I mean if they weren't signed up would that have made it ok then? I can think of a whole host of stuff that I would expect employers not to do, that I wouldn't think it necessary for them to sign a pledge not to do. Are we going to get them to sign a pledge not to do all of those as well? The employers of York must be a rum lot if you need to get them to make these sorts of promises.
I would not sign such a pledge.
Why?
Because (a) I don't want to let myself be policed by York council and (b) while I will always fulfil my legal and professional obligations, I feel no duty to be proactively anti-racist.
On A, if you're based in York certain things will be policed by York council, if you're not - it doesn't look like they're asking you to. As for B, why do you not feel a duty to be proactively anti-racist? I would imagine, depending on your business, it would be better for your employees and customers (unless they are racists)
Some of my clients and suppliers occasionally say racist things. I don't consider I have any obligation to challenge their attitudes.
Nor do I consider myself under any obligation to accept the world outlook of organisations like Black Lives Matter.
So, looking at the article, this is part of a strategy to tackle increased hate crimes in York based on race. I think it is reasonable to look at the causes of that increase. If part of that includes "there is too accepting an environment for racism", which I would suggest is likely to be the case, then part of tackling increases in hate crimes will be tackling that environment. So, for example, if you're a cafe owner and overhear some customers using slurs for people based on race, and you go "hey, I don't think that language is very appropriate, do you?" and you have a conversation with those customers how will that change your cafe? Maybe those customers will change their mind, maybe they won't come back, maybe they will keep the same beliefs but just act different in the cafe, maybe nothing will happen. But if you make the environment less welcome for those smaller acts of racism, it will be less likely foster escalation. Whereas if you let someone say it unchallenged, they feel welcome and able to escalate their behaviour.
In general, I couldn't give a toss what my customers say if I'm running a cafe. I'd intervene if they were harassing staff or other customers, but apart from that, their opinions are their own.
But this is a well known "Nazi pub" problem. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Bar Problem) If you let one Nazi in your pub, they come back with more Nazis and slowly your pub becomes a Nazi pub. Which is not just bad because Nazis are bad, but bad for business because most people don't want to hang out with Nazis and most people aren't Nazis and so you have fewer customers, and the Nazis are bad customers anyway. Kinda like the Always Sunny episode where they decide to have no rules, and their pub becomes awful.
It is only bad business if Nazi's drink less beer than the clientele they displaced and the profits go down
In that case, the issue is whether they're causing a nuisance to other customers.
I don't doubt that among some of the people I've worked for in the past there are racists, anti-semites, and even the occasional Nazi.
Sure I have too, they however never aired those thoughts to me. The ones I work with that have been the most problem are vegans, christians, and lefties of the Corbyn type. Seen many of them getting the hr bootheel on their neck for not keeping their views to themselves.
Hmm, notably contrary to the common view expressed on here that HR is a woke waste of space.
Edit: I don't agree with the common view either.
HR certainly a lot of it is a woke waste of space. These box ticking courses they send you on do nothing to change minds. You just click the expected answer and go back to work. You click them to keep your job not because people think the answers are right. I doubt any racist/sexist/transphobe/homophobe ever got their mind changed by them.
I was commenting more that certain groups still seem to think they can push their lifestyle/religous/political opinions....without any comeback. Examples I have experienced for example....a christian test manager that would get in early every morning and ensure everyone had a religous pamphlet on their desk waiting for them and a manager that was vegan and would email reports on the evils of bacon/videos of slaughterhouses to her entire team on an almost daily basis
It's just an arse covering exercise. The employer can say they've done everything possible to educate their staff, it ain't their fault if racists gonna race. Racists will take the course and sign the pledge. It keep HR happy and no one takes it seriously. Sign it, move on.
Human Resources.
If you start treating people as resources you have already lost.
The worst are those that get offended on others peoples behalf and go squealing to hr. Had it happen to me and it was a most unpleasant experience
What did they allege?
They put in a complaint on my behalf after hearing a comment to me from a colleague. I ended up telling them to drop the complaint else I would resign
What I mean is, what was the nature of the comment they alleged you made?
It was comment to me not one I made
A comment to you and about you, or just to you?
Both to me and about me, the comment was not offensive to me in any way
I can see why that would be aggravating to you, but can also understand why someone might also report it anyway.
Like, if my best mate called me "a big fairy" or "queerboy" (a thing he occasionally does) - not a problem to me, I've known him over a decade and get the context. But if someone overheard that, and they themselves were also gay and didn't know my friend, they might just hear the comment and feel unsafe themselves. Or if they have a gay kid whose been bullied and therefore has a strong reaction to those kinds of things.
These kind of interactions aren't always easy, and sometimes require patience and context.
I put in a complaint to hr about the reporter creating a hostile work environment. People should keep their noses out when they don't know the context
HR policy where I work says you should do exactly what that person did, not to rely on the "victim" putting in a complaint.
That sounds like a hostile work environment to me. I wouldn't want to work there.
Rob Ford @robfordmancs · 4h Replying to @robfordmancs Just as 2010-15 saw UKIP mobilise support among voters who wanted a more radical approach on the core issue which exercised them most, could 2024-29 see Greens achieve the same kind of breakthrough among young grads exercised by the climate emergency?
No. The Greens just don't have the coherent messaging or leadership to achieve that. They have co-leaders for a start.
UKIP were led by the (hateful but charismatic) Farage. The Greens would need something similar. Unlike the Lib Dems they don't have the local power base or second places in constituencies to build up from the base either.
I also think, more then that, the Green just have a message that no one with a microphone has any reason to amplify. The Green Party of England and Wales are actively anti growth, actively anti capitalist, actively pro wealth redistribution - that doesn't benefit anyone who owns a paper or a tv network. And talking about them, even negatively, gives them too much press. Better off not reporting on them and focussing on people it's easier to paint as trouble makers - protesters.
Farage and his position doesn't harm capital, and if anything pushes the Overton window further rightwards, so is actively helpful to the status quo. So it's fine to amplify him or any other right wing clown show that turns up.
Correcting for you "he Green just have a message that no one has any reason to amplify" and "The Green Party of England and Wales are actively anti growth, actively anti capitalist, actively pro wealth redistribution - that doesn't benefit anyone"
You're so edgy and clever
Anti-growth, anti-capitalist, and pro-wealth redistribution, is a very niche political viewpoint.
Rob Ford @robfordmancs · 4h Replying to @robfordmancs Just as 2010-15 saw UKIP mobilise support among voters who wanted a more radical approach on the core issue which exercised them most, could 2024-29 see Greens achieve the same kind of breakthrough among young grads exercised by the climate emergency?
No. The Greens just don't have the coherent messaging or leadership to achieve that. They have co-leaders for a start.
UKIP were led by the (hateful but charismatic) Farage. The Greens would need something similar. Unlike the Lib Dems they don't have the local power base or second places in constituencies to build up from the base either.
I also think, more then that, the Green just have a message that no one with a microphone has any reason to amplify. The Green Party of England and Wales are actively anti growth, actively anti capitalist, actively pro wealth redistribution - that doesn't benefit anyone who owns a paper or a tv network. And talking about them, even negatively, gives them too much press. Better off not reporting on them and focussing on people it's easier to paint as trouble makers - protesters.
Farage and his position doesn't harm capital, and if anything pushes the Overton window further rightwards, so is actively helpful to the status quo. So it's fine to amplify him or any other right wing clown show that turns up.
Correcting for you "he Green just have a message that no one has any reason to amplify" and "The Green Party of England and Wales are actively anti growth, actively anti capitalist, actively pro wealth redistribution - that doesn't benefit anyone"
You're so edgy and clever
Anti-growth, anti-capitalist, and pro-wealth redistribution, is a very niche political viewpoint.
Isn't that a very Tory policy? So long as the wealth is redistributed in the right way obvs.
Duckett looking uncertain, and Crawley.... is Crawley.
This is the sort of session we used to have to survive through during the 1990s. We'd get the Australians out cheaply and then settle in with a sense of dread as more often than not we'd get skittled out for even less. Or we would make a strong start and be 105 for 0, before ending up all out for 200.
Duckett looking uncertain, and Crawley.... is Crawley.
This is the sort of session we used to have to survive through during the 1990s. We'd get the Australians out cheaply and then settle in with a sense of dread as more often than not we'd get skittled out for even less. Or we would make a strong start and be 105 for 0, before ending up all out for 200.
Rob Ford @robfordmancs · 4h Replying to @robfordmancs Just as 2010-15 saw UKIP mobilise support among voters who wanted a more radical approach on the core issue which exercised them most, could 2024-29 see Greens achieve the same kind of breakthrough among young grads exercised by the climate emergency?
No. The Greens just don't have the coherent messaging or leadership to achieve that. They have co-leaders for a start.
UKIP were led by the (hateful but charismatic) Farage. The Greens would need something similar. Unlike the Lib Dems they don't have the local power base or second places in constituencies to build up from the base either.
I also think, more then that, the Green just have a message that no one with a microphone has any reason to amplify. The Green Party of England and Wales are actively anti growth, actively anti capitalist, actively pro wealth redistribution - that doesn't benefit anyone who owns a paper or a tv network. And talking about them, even negatively, gives them too much press. Better off not reporting on them and focussing on people it's easier to paint as trouble makers - protesters.
Farage and his position doesn't harm capital, and if anything pushes the Overton window further rightwards, so is actively helpful to the status quo. So it's fine to amplify him or any other right wing clown show that turns up.
Correcting for you "he Green just have a message that no one has any reason to amplify" and "The Green Party of England and Wales are actively anti growth, actively anti capitalist, actively pro wealth redistribution - that doesn't benefit anyone"
You're so edgy and clever
Anti-growth, anti-capitalist, and pro-wealth redistribution, is a very niche political viewpoint.
Isn't that a very Tory policy? So long as the wealth is redistributed in the right way obvs.
Trying to work out what actually motivates the modern Parliamentary Conservative Party (other than a desire to enjoy the fruits of office) is pretty difficult.
I hope Wood isn't a flash in the pan. That was an impressive 5-for, at very good economy rate, but he does look very liable to injury.
We get this in England football all the time, when a much heralded but strangely excluded player finally gets into the team and immediately changes things, but usually too little too late. Like John Barnes in 1986 v Argentina and many other examples since.
Virtually every bowler who bowls regularly over 90mph is injury prone.
Comments
Though to be fair, I’ve bought tickets to some anti-metal stuff over the years.
*she discovered that she really like Master of Puppets.
Edit: Yes!
What clients will get from me is a professional job. What they won't get from me is a critique of their beliefs, however absurd, contemptible, or worthless I may privately believe those beliefs to be.
(I am a baaaad person
The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. As President Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in 1978, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”
The racist champions of racist discrimination engineered to maintain racial inequities before the 1960s are now the racist opponents of antiracist discrimination engineered to dismantle those racial inequities. The most threatening racist movement is not the alt right’s unlikely drive for a White ethnostate but the regular American’s drive for a “race-neutral” one. The construct of race neutrality actually feeds White nationalist victimhood by positing the notion that any policy protecting or advancing non-White Americans toward equity is “reverse discrimination.
Or, as Malcolm X said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cReCQE8B5nY
I was commenting more that certain groups still seem to think they can push their lifestyle/religous/political opinions....without any comeback. Examples I have experienced for example....a christian test manager that would get in early every morning and ensure everyone had a religous pamphlet on their desk waiting for them and a manager that was vegan and would email reports on the evils of bacon/videos of slaughterhouses to her entire team on an almost daily basis
1. The Mermaids / LGBA one
2. The judgment rejecting the government's attempt to deny the Covid inquiry information it had asked for.
Both misconceived applications and both with wider consequences than the immediate issue.
Also both highly amusing to watch the level of denials by those who lost.
It's lost its advertisers, and it's become increasingly unreliable.
Personally, I think Musk fucked up - not by letting people back on the platform - but by prioritising getting to profitability above becoming "the everything app". And while I am sure there were layers of fat at Twitter, it's very hard to cut yourself to greatness.
And we shouldn't underestimate the upcoming legal challenges to Twitter. They've become the absolute hub for pirated content. YouTube has clamped down very hard on people using it to share the new Spider Man. But Twitter? Now, that's the place to go to stream pirated movies. There's a tsunami of DMCA takedowns arriving at Twitter, and it has no way of effectively dealing with it right now, because it's cut those costs to the bone.
I've owned two Teslas (and will no doubt buy a third in time). I think SpaceX is absolutely amazing. But there's a reason why Fidelity - which invested alongside Musk in the takeover - has cut the value of its stake by two thirds. And there's a reason why Twitter's debt is trading at around 50 cents in the dollar.
It's because - so far - Musk's stewardship has destroyed value.
I hope he can turn it around, and I suspect if he invested money and time in it he could. But right now, it's not looking so great.
Cheerio Cheerio Cheerio
CHEERIO!
The idea that Australia are all over us, and obviously much better, is total bollocks
It's day one, and already this test has more twists than the minotaur's labyrinth.
When I checked cricinfo and saw Murphy and Carey were batting, I though for a moment I had the wrong match.
If you start treating people as resources you have already lost.
https://twitter.com/polinaivanovva/status/1676916922699374592?s=20
Former U.S. officials have held secret Ukraine talks with prominent Russians
The aim of the discussions is to lay the groundwork for potential negotiations to end the war, people briefed on the talks tell NBC News.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/former-us-officials-secret-ukraine-talks-russians-war-ukraine-rcna92610
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1676959542704508929?s=20
🗳️ Labour lead by 23pts (-)
🔴 LAB 48% (+1)
🔵 CON 25% (+1)
🟠 LD 10% (-2)
🟢 GRN 5% (+1)
🟣 REF 5% (-2)
🟡 SNP 4% (-)
Labour majority of 402 seats
Via
@DeltapollUK
, 29 Jun-3 Jul (+/- vs 23-26 Jun)
@robfordmancs
·
4h
Replying to
@robfordmancs
Just as 2010-15 saw UKIP mobilise support among voters who wanted a more radical approach on the core issue which exercised them most, could 2024-29 see Greens achieve the same kind of breakthrough among young grads exercised by the climate emergency?
https://twitter.com/robfordmancs
If someone is in my presence, and makes some racist ,or otherwise offensive, remark, but is not actually being threatening or abusive, I see it as none of my business. Unless, we are in the process of having a political argument.
In general, I don't consider it my business to "challenge or change" people. Saying that' s the same as endorsing their opinions is just emotional blackmail.
But it he'd bowled in the first two and broken down, this would have been an unfortunate match:
...Robinson has sustained a back spasm. He will remain off the field for the rest of today’s play....
UKIP were led by the (hateful but charismatic) Farage. The Greens would need something similar. Unlike the Lib Dems they don't have the local power base or second places in constituencies to build up from the base either.
The UK and Poland should issue a joint ultimatum to Russia to respect the Budapest memorandum and withdraw from all of Ukraine or we would actively help evict them.
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1676979015716945922
If I told my wife that some bloke at work had said that he hated p*kis and that I'd not said or done anything because he wasn't being abusive I think she'd wonder why she married me.
The comment was religous in nature, it was from a colleague of a different faith but one who had asked and been invited to attend a ceremony or two of my faith. It was his way of saying have a good night when I was off as he knew that night to attend a ceremony
Like, if my best mate called me "a big fairy" or "queerboy" (a thing he occasionally does) - not a problem to me, I've known him over a decade and get the context. But if someone overheard that, and they themselves were also gay and didn't know my friend, they might just hear the comment and feel unsafe themselves. Or if they have a gay kid whose been bullied and therefore has a strong reaction to those kinds of things.
These kind of interactions aren't always easy, and sometimes require patience and context.
If this is true though, Russia is just about out of reserves in the South.
this may be the reason why all the crazy talk about the nuke plant.
russians are scared. russian media is saying they have located and IDed the 9th and 10th corps of the ukr army and are openly saying they have nothing to stop them when they kick off. right near the nuke plant.
here is what rybar is posting. in the area behind the plant they have no combat firepower, and on the entire line they only have the 36th RU brigade as a res force... everything from the 19th and 42nd div is engaged. the 20the div was supposed to block but they moved it to bakhmut last month.
the ONLY units i can see moving are some of the TD battalions or brigades to try to block and buy time for ????. the most probable is the 214th tank... and they are equipped with a mix of T62s and T55s... soooooo
https://twitter.com/secretsqrl123/status/1676973765815590912?s=20
Some give the strong impression that they’d have the email address of the Gestapo Part Deux in their favourites.
Farage and his position doesn't harm capital, and if anything pushes the Overton window further rightwards, so is actively helpful to the status quo. So it's fine to amplify him or any other right wing clown show that turns up.
I think what this shows is that most people don't fit into a category of right wing or left wing but simply vote for whoever they think is best, or least bad. (Though I'd say that isn't true of most people on here, who are more interested in ideas than most people are.)
We get this in England football all the time, when a much heralded but strangely excluded player finally gets into the team and immediately changes things, but usually too little too late. Like John Barnes in 1986 v Argentina and many other examples since.
https://deltapoll.co.uk/polls/voteint230703-2
Anyway, I'm like @Stark_Dawning - this is all to nerve-wracking and distracting. I have to go do some work!
There is no such thing as an offensive comment.
There are comments that are offensive dependent on the person saying them and the context they are saying them in.
Agree/disagree?
For 4.
Crawley living dangerously.