|
Post by see2 on Nov 23, 2022 12:40:58 GMT
A divisive generational gap is emerging where young students between 18-25 are sceptical of freedom of speech, democracy and tolerance. These young indoctrinated self-loathers prefer censorship and this just about sums up the view of the Wokerati. Worrying but not surprising: Using the common vernacular your post is almost as woke as one can get. It suggests a know all and a fixed opinion approach. I could be wrong of course. Modern educational trends might be inappropriate but education about the human condition should be a necessity and would be a far more appropriate approach. i.e., it could begin with the understanding that not everyone fits into either an XX or an XY chromosome category. Pluss the fact that Humans are to the largest extent who they learn to be.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 23, 2022 12:49:06 GMT
Modern educational trends might be inappropriate but education about the human condition should be a necessity and would be a far more appropriate approach. i.e., it could begin with the understanding that not everyone fits into either an XX or an XY chromosome category. Pluss the fact that Humans are to the largest extent who they learn to be. For lessons on the human condition, that sounds like a very narrow, constructed starting point to me. Perhaps a better starting point would be examining well regarded, long-standing literature that deals with the human condition.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 23, 2022 13:10:34 GMT
Modern educational trends might be inappropriate but education about the human condition should be a necessity and would be a far more appropriate approach. i.e., it could begin with the understanding that not everyone fits into either an XX or an XY chromosome category. Pluss the fact that Humans are to the largest extent who they learn to be. For lessons on the human condition, that sounds like a very narrow, constructed starting point to me. Perhaps a better starting point would be examining well regarded, long-standing literature that deals with the human condition. It depends on how "long standing", ideas and understanding in this area change as increasing knowledge arrives on the scene.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 23, 2022 13:16:51 GMT
It depends on how "long standing", ideas and understanding in this area change as increasing knowledge arrives on the scene. I specify long standing because, while fashion changes, the human condition is stationary. If something is still well regarded after a century or more, the chances are it contains some of that stationary truth. This approach is also a bulwark against a short-term ideological hijacking.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 23, 2022 15:53:52 GMT
It depends on how "long standing", ideas and understanding in this area change as increasing knowledge arrives on the scene. I specify long standing because, while fashion changes, the human condition is stationary. If something is still well regarded after a century or more, the chances are it contains some of that stationary truth. This approach is also a bulwark against a short-term ideological hijacking. You have gone off track from my original suggestion. The human condition is not stationary. There was a time when humans used to hang old women because they were perceived as witches. WE have learnt since that there are no witches as perceived in the days old ladies were being hung. Progress in this area can only be made by understanding both the medical and the emotional side of the human condition.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 23, 2022 16:01:06 GMT
The human condition is not stationary. There was a time when humans used to hang old women because they were perceived as witches. WE have learnt since that there are no witches as perceived in the days old ladies were being hung. You are conflating beliefs and ideologies with the human condition Progress in this area can only be made by understanding both the medical and the emotional side of the human condition. The human condition and human nature is to all intents and purposes fixed. There is no progress.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 23, 2022 16:06:17 GMT
The human condition is not stationary. There was a time when humans used to hang old women because they were perceived as witches. WE have learnt since that there are no witches as perceived in the days old ladies were being hung. You are conflating beliefs and ideologies with the human condition No, you might be I am not. Progress in this area can only be made by understanding both the medical and the emotional side of the human condition. The human condition and human nature is to all intents and purposes fixed. There is no progress.[/quote] [/quote]Absolute not true. Your opinion shows a lack of understanding which is exactly what my original post was about.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 23, 2022 16:21:16 GMT
On the contrary I am applying the logic that supposedly underpins the whole inclusivity agenda. Inclusivity means everyone is included but that means they are included within society as equal citizens not as people with special rights to employment or opportunity. It is the timeless question as regards racial discrimination and the argument is always unfair racial discrimination is bad. That then begs the question what is unfair. In simple terms it is making a judgement and a selection based on a person's assumed belonging to a particular racial or ethnic group. Positive action makes that judgement and that selection by assuming advantage to one candidate based on their race or ethnicity and rejecting them becasue of it. Could you explain the adverts again please as I am at a loss as to why the proportional discrepancy is so large. If inclusivity is the goal as per proportionality in society then advertisers are not meeting that goal at all with white men. Sadly Sandy I think you have let your racial prejudices cloud your judgement. To be clear employers are not allowed to reject people because of their colour skin - whether that skin is white or brown. That's the law. All positive action is doing is recognising that if your area has 20% black people but your workforce has 0% black people, it is suggestive that you are fishing in a smaller pond for your new recruits and therefore suggestive that you are not getting the best possible people for your company. It may not be of course - it may be statistical coincedance, there may be some factor that makes white people in your are more qualified for the jobs than black people or it may be that your workforce is too small for the sample to nbe statistically significant. Positive action just gives you the right to try to address the issue if your company feels it is missing out on the best recruits. I am surprised we are having to go over race in TV advertisements again. Its pretty obvious. An advertiser, lets say Fairy Liquid, has perhaps 30 seconds to sell its product to as many people in the UK that it can. A typical ad will have perhaps two characters. They want the viewing public to buy into the characters and their story and hence be like them using the product. To do so the advertiser wants the character to be cheery, approachable, reasonably attractive and as much like the viewers as possible. If there is one character they will almost invariably by white skinned as they look like most viewers, if there are two characters the second character will often be blackskinned as nothing to be gained by having a second white skinned person and the second black skinned person can subconsciously appear more like them to the ethnic monority audience. Its not about making political statements - its all about selling bottles of fairy liquid. Of course they are allowed to if they are seeking to increase diversity. If one selects a person becasue of their colour then one is also rejecting another person because of their colour; especially if one is choosing between two equally qualified candidates and if one is selecting only BAME individuals for training. Public organisations, who employ over 150 people have an Equality duty whereby they must keep records to show they are considering all protected characteristics as being included and in that respect must consider, and if necessary assign, protected characteristics of all employees whether the employee wishes them to or not. So if you are fishing in a pond too small and you extend it to areas with greater black candidates why would you need additional help in selection by being allowed (actually expected) to racially discriminate in favour of an underrepresented group. If race is largely unimportant why would the race of a person advertising a product be of any consequence unless you are saying, and you certainly seem to be, that white people will want a white person and black people will want a white person and each will identify with each only and so the screen has to be a mix which it frequently is not as family portrayals tend to be black or Asian or mixed but rarely white despite white families being the overwhelming majority.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 23, 2022 16:36:24 GMT
A divisive generational gap is emerging where young students between 18-25 are sceptical of freedom of speech, democracy and tolerance. These young indoctrinated self-loathers prefer censorship and this just about sums up the view of the Wokerati. Worrying but not surprising: Using the common vernacular your post is almost as woke as one can get. It suggests a know all and a fixed opinion approach. I could be wrong of course. Modern educational trends might be inappropriate but education about the human condition should be a necessity and would be a far more appropriate approach. i.e., it could begin with the understanding that not everyone fits into either an XX or an XY chromosome category. Pluss the fact that Humans are to the largest extent who they learn to be. Humans. like most animals are largely controlled by their genes. Nurture only determines how limited the gene pressures will be, what genes are switched on and how one behaves within society (which will always be subject to immense gene pressure to behave either contrarily or positively) Racism is an obvious example of how genes tend to favour similar or related genes. Families, tribes, countries are all examples of this selection process.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 23, 2022 16:59:41 GMT
Using the common vernacular your post is almost as woke as one can get. It suggests a know all and a fixed opinion approach. I could be wrong of course. Modern educational trends might be inappropriate but education about the human condition should be a necessity and would be a far more appropriate approach. i.e., it could begin with the understanding that not everyone fits into either an XX or an XY chromosome category. Pluss the fact that Humans are to the largest extent who they learn to be. Humans. like most animals are largely controlled by their genes. Nurture only determines how limited the gene pressures will be, what genes are switched on and how one behaves within society (which will always be subject to immense gene pressure to behave either contrarily or positively) Our genes are designed for our survival. One of the few innate gene inherited reactions is fear. Humans like all animals are hard wired in their sensory system, not the logical thinking part of the brain, to be wary of danger, which is why different people can have different learnt fear levels to the same perceived danger. LEARNT likes and dislikes along with other experiences come together to produce individual personalities. Genes do not make decisions, but they make decision making possible.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 23, 2022 17:13:30 GMT
Humans. like most animals are largely controlled by their genes. Nurture only determines how limited the gene pressures will be, what genes are switched on and how one behaves within society (which will always be subject to immense gene pressure to behave either contrarily or positively) Our genes are designed for our survival. One of the few innate gene inherited reactions is fear. Humans like all animals are hard wired in their sensory system, not the logical thinking part of the brain, to be wary of danger, which is why different people can have different learnt fear levels to the same perceived danger. LEARNT likes and dislikes along with other experiences come together to produce individual personalities. Genes do not make decisions, but they make decision making possible. That assumes they are learnt. Genes are what pressure you to behave in certain ways. Learning is overcoming those pressures to greater or lesser degrees of success and fear is no exception. Most people are born with a personality learning is what develops it. Viking groups always tried to ensure they had members of berserk families in their fighting groups to take advantage of the gene that made them on occasion lose control and become vicious fighters. That was not learned that was genetics at work.
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 23, 2022 18:09:10 GMT
Sandy this is getting a little tedious. I have explained to you that companies may employ positive action to seek to encourage more applications from communities under-represented in their workforce but when it comes to selecting a new employee, it is illegal to ban applications from one or other sex, sexual orientation or race and it is illegal to award the job to say a woman where a man is better suited to the job. If you want to believe the law is otherwise to fit in with your racial paranoia well you crack on. You are factually wrong though.
Similarly I have explained to you why people get selected for tv adverts. If however you want instead to see convoluted conspiracies, well everyone needs a hobby.
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Nov 23, 2022 18:12:28 GMT
P&G design their ad to whatever they think will sell them the most bottles of Fairy Liquid. And i suppose, similarly, an employer will , through self interest, theoretically select the candidate he feels will provide the most economically effective employment for him. Which makes me now wonder why we have substantial laws against racial discrimination for employers. Theoretically, these laws aren't / weren't needed because the self interest of employer answers the question. Would they dare to feature a whitey and a person of colour in a bleach advert?
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 23, 2022 18:55:48 GMT
Sandy this is getting a little tedious. I have explained to you that companies may employ positive action to seek to encourage more applications from communities under-represented in their workforce but when it comes to selecting a new employee, it is illegal to ban applications from one or other sex, sexual orientation or race and it is illegal to award the job to say a woman where a man is better suited to the job. If you want to believe the law is otherwise to fit in with your racial paranoia well you crack on. You are factually wrong though. Similarly I have explained to you why people get selected for tv adverts. If however you want instead to see convoluted conspiracies, well everyone needs a hobby. Well go back to basics if a company is seeking the best they do not need positive action they advertise in areas and in publications where they will get what they want. If you are looking for Rocket Scientists you advertise in Rocket Science weekly , if you want Labourers you advertise in the nearest job centre to you or in the local newsagents with a flyer. That is not Rocket Science. Companies, if they are worth their salt will always endeavour to find the best and largely will not care who is under or over represented they are only seeking the best. They do not need positive action and since it is a choice between two equally suited candidates they do not need positive action to make that decision, they make that decision. They do not need to decide to train candidates selected on race they train candidates they think will do the best job. Your explanation is a nonsense scenario that is already covered by effeicent working of companies, if companies do not work efficiently they go under. As regards TV adverts does it matter what colour any person is who is trying to sell you soemthing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2022 20:48:39 GMT
I WOKE up in the middle of the night wondering how many pages of drivel have been written debating the ins and outs of a cats arse on this thread. I do hope this thread gets to 100 pages but I have to admit I have not read every post. What a waste of bandwidth.
|
|