President Trump and US politics catchall

[lemonhead]

That's a fair point , you would have hoped that any decent human being would tone down the vitriol - but then again this is Trump we are talking about.

Don Jr rides to the rescue

Her doctorate is in education.

Don Jr is a moron.

And sadly whether he knows or doesn't ain't important.

Dumb or deliberate, it's MAGA catnip.

[Sandstorm]

Plus Stage 5 cancer doesn't exist, except in rare cases of children's kidney cancer. MAGAtts.

[Hal Jordan]

Sleepy Joe GOOOOOO...ing!

Diagnosed with prostate cancer that's spread to his bones.

And that's why it was a risk to persist with him as a presidential candidate at his age.

We might see it with Trump before his term is out but having an incapacitated leader of a superpower is not a great prospect.

Just think, if Biden had won we'd be getting a black woman as President as a result of this.

[Sandstorm]

Just think, if Biden had won we'd be getting a black woman as President as a result of this.

Only way there'll be an American female president is thru a VP getting thru after a death/impeachment of the incumbent. Americans have shown twice already that they don't want a woman in the Oval Office.

[mat the expat]

It's been coming a long time unfortunately. People have become so disengaged from modern democracy that their answer seems to be "elect a tyrant who will only tyrannise the people who are not me".

Yeah, I get a fair amount of flak from friends for being a policy wonk - but at the end of the day if you're "Too busy to bother with Politics", I don't have much sympathy for you

I come from a poor background, but getting a good education was hammered into us as kids

You're literally consigning your children to a worse life if you aren't engaged

This 100%! My Granny, who worked her whole life in the Dundee jute mills, wouldn't allow Maggie Thatcher on her tv and even at the age of 80+ drilled it into all of us her grandkids that we had to vote. She told us in no uncertain terms that if we didn't vote we would end up with a world where things would be no better that she had. She was absolutely clear that a vote for all was hard won and not using it was a crime. She was a very forceful old lady! As a result I have always voted and I have made sure my kids have done the same. If you don't engage and vote then stop the feckin moaning!

What a great person!

And I hate the UK Mentality of not voting but whinging constantly about politics

[Kiwias]

Just think, if Biden had won we'd be getting a black woman as President as a result of this.

Only way there'll be an American female president is thru a VP getting thru after a death/impeachment of the incumbent. Americans have shown twice already that they don't want a woman in the Oval Office.

This X 1,000

[Gumboot]

Just think, if Biden had won we'd be getting a black woman as President as a result of this.

Only way there'll be an American female president is thru a VP getting thru after a death/impeachment of the incumbent. Americans have shown twice already that they don't want a woman in the Oval Office.

This X 1,000

Yep!

And also wot mat and others said...

About 90 million people didn't vote in the last presidential election. That's more than 35% of all eligible voters. Allowing for the many people who had legit reasons for not voting, that still leaves tens of millions who just couldn't be arsed. No sympathy at all for those dumbarses, when they lose their jobs or can't afford eggs.

The Republicans understand the power of the vote. That's why they suppress it whenever they can.

[Niegs]

Is this youth rebellion against 'woke' happening in the UK, Oz, NZ as well? Feels like there's a small movement in Canada.

Warped by influencers ... not unlike Goebbels?

[Paddington Bear]

Is this youth rebellion against 'woke' happening in the UK, Oz, NZ as well? Feels like there's a small movement in Canada.

Warped by influencers ... not unlike Goebbels?

It’s definitely a thing, at least among a sub-set that leans male. Not sure why anyone is surprised, leaving aside the rights and wrongs time is moving on and styles, tastes and attitudes change.

[Niegs]

It does sound like a lot see themselves having less prosperous future than their parents, and even feel attacked by 'DEI' and 'woke'. But, on the latter, I've asked some people... how do these things ACTUALLY affect YOU? Almost never. On the former, we all need to band together to hold politicians of all / most stripes to make corporations pay for the ways they exploit (and I see the conservative parties as least likely to do that ... but even our leftist parties rely on a TON of corporate donations and the votes of people who got theirs and would rather not share, so ... )

[Paddington Bear]

It does sound like a lot see themselves having less prosperous future than their parents, and even feel attacked by 'DEI' and 'woke'. But, on the latter, I've asked some people... how do these things ACTUALLY affect YOU? Almost never. On the former, we all need to band together to hold politicians of all / most stripes to make corporations pay for the ways they exploit (and I see the conservative parties as least likely to do that ... but even our leftist parties rely on a TON of corporate donations and the votes of people who got theirs and would rather not share, so ... )

In an answer to ‘how does it affect you’, there are a lot of younger white men who feel that they don’t get a fair shake at uni admissions/promotions at work etc., and there is some evidence that this is true (and some companies where there is overt and undeniable boosting of people who aren’t white males).

[sockwithaticket]

Is this youth rebellion against 'woke' happening in the UK, Oz, NZ as well? Feels like there's a small movement in Canada.

Warped by influencers ... not unlike Goebbels?

Certainly in the UK we are seeing a bit of backlash against it, but I don't think it's anywhere near as pronounced as the media want it to be and the lads (it's mainly lads) falling for it need to take a good look in the mirror, have a think what they want from life. Because young women, as in the US, are not skewing rightward with them and they are perfectly happy avoid relationships with men whose values don't align with theirs. Being anti-woke is a surefire way to killing your sex life.

[Niegs]

It does sound like a lot see themselves having less prosperous future than their parents, and even feel attacked by 'DEI' and 'woke'. But, on the latter, I've asked some people... how do these things ACTUALLY affect YOU? Almost never. On the former, we all need to band together to hold politicians of all / most stripes to make corporations pay for the ways they exploit (and I see the conservative parties as least likely to do that ... but even our leftist parties rely on a TON of corporate donations and the votes of people who got theirs and would rather not share, so ... )

In an answer to ‘how does it affect you’, there are a lot of younger white men who feel that they don’t get a fair shake at uni admissions/promotions at work etc., and there is some evidence that this is true (and some companies where there is overt and undeniable boosting of people who aren’t white males).

I can only speak to my field(s), but could probably feel aggrieved at that, but don't. I realize the value in equity and have worked hard to ensure I am the best they could ask for. I currently work at a university where the office is largely female and very ethnically diverse. But there are also I think 7 white guys out of the group of about 30 - and two are managers - two of the rest of us probably over-qualifed based on education required for the role. It's a tough market here where a LOT of Canadians get degrees and increasingly grad degrees that aren't essential for jobs that 'require' them based on demands.

My beef with some of these young people - and have heard this from my dad who works in construction - is that a lot are quick to whine but also show little effort / desire to listen and learn. Again, it's a niche anecdotal story, but have heard from teacher friends too that a lot of young people lack drive and resilience. To build their way upward. If you're legitimately aggrieved due to unfair practices, then okay, I feel for you. But if they're not trying and expecting things like cushy, nicely-paid entry level jobs and promotions to be handed out with little effort, I don't have as much.

[Paddington Bear]

It does sound like a lot see themselves having less prosperous future than their parents, and even feel attacked by 'DEI' and 'woke'. But, on the latter, I've asked some people... how do these things ACTUALLY affect YOU? Almost never. On the former, we all need to band together to hold politicians of all / most stripes to make corporations pay for the ways they exploit (and I see the conservative parties as least likely to do that ... but even our leftist parties rely on a TON of corporate donations and the votes of people who got theirs and would rather not share, so ... )

In an answer to ‘how does it affect you’, there are a lot of younger white men who feel that they don’t get a fair shake at uni admissions/promotions at work etc., and there is some evidence that this is true (and some companies where there is overt and undeniable boosting of people who aren’t white males).

I can only speak to my field(s), but could probably feel aggrieved at that, but don't. I realize the value in equity and have worked hard to ensure I am the best they could ask for. I currently work at a university where the office is largely female and very ethnically diverse. But there are also I think 7 white guys out of the group of about 30 - and two are managers - two of the rest of us probably over-qualifed based on education required for the role. It's a tough market here where a LOT of Canadians get degrees and increasingly grad degrees that aren't essential for jobs that 'require' them based on demands.

My beef with some of these young people - and have heard this from my dad who works in construction - is that a lot are quick to whine but also show little effort / desire to listen and learn. Again, it's a niche anecdotal story, but have heard from teacher friends too that a lot of young people lack drive and resilience. To build their way upward. If you're legitimately aggrieved due to unfair practices, then okay, I feel for you. But if they're not trying and expecting things like cushy, nicely-paid entry level jobs and promotions to be handed out with little effort, I don't have as much.

Fully agree with your second paragraph.

Taking some anecdotal examples from my own circle, a few people I know have fairly recently missed out on big promotions due to company ‘positive’ discrimination programmes and it has to a man turned their politics from very middle of the road to really quite radical right. There’s a lot more of this to come I think

[dpedin]

In an answer to ‘how does it affect you’, there are a lot of younger white men who feel that they don’t get a fair shake at uni admissions/promotions at work etc., and there is some evidence that this is true (and some companies where there is overt and undeniable boosting of people who aren’t white males).

I can only speak to my field(s), but could probably feel aggrieved at that, but don't. I realize the value in equity and have worked hard to ensure I am the best they could ask for. I currently work at a university where the office is largely female and very ethnically diverse. But there are also I think 7 white guys out of the group of about 30 - and two are managers - two of the rest of us probably over-qualifed based on education required for the role. It's a tough market here where a LOT of Canadians get degrees and increasingly grad degrees that aren't essential for jobs that 'require' them based on demands.

My beef with some of these young people - and have heard this from my dad who works in construction - is that a lot are quick to whine but also show little effort / desire to listen and learn. Again, it's a niche anecdotal story, but have heard from teacher friends too that a lot of young people lack drive and resilience. To build their way upward. If you're legitimately aggrieved due to unfair practices, then okay, I feel for you. But if they're not trying and expecting things like cushy, nicely-paid entry level jobs and promotions to be handed out with little effort, I don't have as much.

Fully agree with your second paragraph.

Taking some anecdotal examples from my own circle, a few people I know have fairly recently missed out on big promotions due to company ‘positive’ discrimination programmes and it has to a man turned their politics from very middle of the road to really quite radical right. There’s a lot more of this to come I think

Having worked across the public and private sector I have never come across any examples of any organization not picking the best person for the job. They might make mistakes in their selection process but it is not driven by DEI or such like. I have also seen lots of positive effort to avoid discrimination by how application forms are designed, how CVs are requested and reviewed, criteria for selection at each stage are designed, which questions are asked at interview, interviewers are trained to ensure they ask fair questions, scoring criteria and how they are applied to final selections, etc. I have never ever heard of someone being selected before a better candidate because they were needed to meet a 'quota' or such like. I have been involved in interviewing processes at all levels up to and including CEO levels and never has a positive discrimination programme meant the best candidate been refused for a less able candidate. From my professional perspective this type of tosh is just unsubstantiated nonsense usually fueled by bitter unsuccessful candidates! Many 'white men' can never accept that a woman or a person of color for example is more capable than them and gets selected for the senior job above them!

[Paddington Bear]

I can only speak to my field(s), but could probably feel aggrieved at that, but don't. I realize the value in equity and have worked hard to ensure I am the best they could ask for. I currently work at a university where the office is largely female and very ethnically diverse. But there are also I think 7 white guys out of the group of about 30 - and two are managers - two of the rest of us probably over-qualifed based on education required for the role. It's a tough market here where a LOT of Canadians get degrees and increasingly grad degrees that aren't essential for jobs that 'require' them based on demands.

My beef with some of these young people - and have heard this from my dad who works in construction - is that a lot are quick to whine but also show little effort / desire to listen and learn. Again, it's a niche anecdotal story, but have heard from teacher friends too that a lot of young people lack drive and resilience. To build their way upward. If you're legitimately aggrieved due to unfair practices, then okay, I feel for you. But if they're not trying and expecting things like cushy, nicely-paid entry level jobs and promotions to be handed out with little effort, I don't have as much.

Fully agree with your second paragraph.

Taking some anecdotal examples from my own circle, a few people I know have fairly recently missed out on big promotions due to company ‘positive’ discrimination programmes and it has to a man turned their politics from very middle of the road to really quite radical right. There’s a lot more of this to come I think

Having worked across the public and private sector I have never come across any examples of any organization not picking the best person for the job. They might make mistakes in their selection process but it is not driven by DEI or such like. I have also seen lots of positive effort to avoid discrimination by how application forms are designed, how CVs are requested and reviewed, criteria for selection at each stage are designed, which questions are asked at interview, interviewers are trained to ensure they ask fair questions, scoring criteria and how they are applied to final selections, etc. I have never ever heard of someone being selected before a better candidate because they were needed to meet a 'quota' or such like. I have been involved in interviewing processes at all levels up to and including CEO levels and never has a positive discrimination programme meant the best candidate been refused for a less able candidate. From my professional perspective this type of tosh is just unsubstantiated nonsense usually fueled by bitter unsuccessful candidates! Many 'white men' can never accept that a woman or a person of color for example is more capable than them and gets selected for the senior job above them!

Whilst you may go for it being tosh these are people’s direct experiences and as I say if you go on the websites of plenty of large companies you will find a commitment to hiring non white males/radically changing the demographics of C-Suite/partner level, and if you can’t put two and two together as to what needs to happen for that to be achieved then there’s not a lot of helping you.

Then again, you’re probably of an age where you’ve got yours, and so it’s easier to pretend none of this is happening and be self-righteous about it, and of course toeing the party line gets you to retirement faster.

But sure, just yell at people that they’re privileged and don’t deserve anything and should just try harder, why change a winning formula? I’m sure as they get older and they don’t go where they want to in life they’ll fully subscribe to your world view and there won’t be any negative consequences.

And I’m sorry ‘I’ve never seen an organisation pick anyone but the best person for a job’! Do you even believe that? Do you expect any of us who work to believe that?

[shaggy]

It does sound like a lot see themselves having less prosperous future than their parents, and even feel attacked by 'DEI' and 'woke'. But, on the latter, I've asked some people... how do these things ACTUALLY affect YOU? Almost never. On the former, we all need to band together to hold politicians of all / most stripes to make corporations pay for the ways they exploit (and I see the conservative parties as least likely to do that ... but even our leftist parties rely on a TON of corporate donations and the votes of people who got theirs and would rather not share, so ... )

In an answer to ‘how does it affect you’, there are a lot of younger white men who feel that they don’t get a fair shake at uni admissions/promotions at work etc., and there is some evidence that this is true (and some companies where there is overt and undeniable boosting of people who aren’t white males).

Single reason I lost out on a bursary at university was because the only other candidate had great tits. She completely bombed the interview and during a beer afterwards she admitted she used them as leverage. No complaints, she proved to me they were great.

[fishfoodie]

I can only speak to my field(s), but could probably feel aggrieved at that, but don't. I realize the value in equity and have worked hard to ensure I am the best they could ask for. I currently work at a university where the office is largely female and very ethnically diverse. But there are also I think 7 white guys out of the group of about 30 - and two are managers - two of the rest of us probably over-qualifed based on education required for the role. It's a tough market here where a LOT of Canadians get degrees and increasingly grad degrees that aren't essential for jobs that 'require' them based on demands.

My beef with some of these young people - and have heard this from my dad who works in construction - is that a lot are quick to whine but also show little effort / desire to listen and learn. Again, it's a niche anecdotal story, but have heard from teacher friends too that a lot of young people lack drive and resilience. To build their way upward. If you're legitimately aggrieved due to unfair practices, then okay, I feel for you. But if they're not trying and expecting things like cushy, nicely-paid entry level jobs and promotions to be handed out with little effort, I don't have as much.

Fully agree with your second paragraph.

Taking some anecdotal examples from my own circle, a few people I know have fairly recently missed out on big promotions due to company ‘positive’ discrimination programmes and it has to a man turned their politics from very middle of the road to really quite radical right. There’s a lot more of this to come I think

Having worked across the public and private sector I have never come across any examples of any organization not picking the best person for the job. They might make mistakes in their selection process but it is not driven by DEI or such like. I have also seen lots of positive effort to avoid discrimination by how application forms are designed, how CVs are requested and reviewed, criteria for selection at each stage are designed, which questions are asked at interview, interviewers are trained to ensure they ask fair questions, scoring criteria and how they are applied to final selections, etc. I have never ever heard of someone being selected before a better candidate because they were needed to meet a 'quota' or such like. I have been involved in interviewing processes at all levels up to and including CEO levels and never has a positive discrimination programme meant the best candidate been refused for a less able candidate. From my professional perspective this type of tosh is just unsubstantiated nonsense usually fueled by bitter unsuccessful candidates! Many 'white men' can never accept that a woman or a person of color for example is more capable than them and gets selected for the senior job above them!

[Slick]

I can only speak to my field(s), but could probably feel aggrieved at that, but don't. I realize the value in equity and have worked hard to ensure I am the best they could ask for. I currently work at a university where the office is largely female and very ethnically diverse. But there are also I think 7 white guys out of the group of about 30 - and two are managers - two of the rest of us probably over-qualifed based on education required for the role. It's a tough market here where a LOT of Canadians get degrees and increasingly grad degrees that aren't essential for jobs that 'require' them based on demands.

My beef with some of these young people - and have heard this from my dad who works in construction - is that a lot are quick to whine but also show little effort / desire to listen and learn. Again, it's a niche anecdotal story, but have heard from teacher friends too that a lot of young people lack drive and resilience. To build their way upward. If you're legitimately aggrieved due to unfair practices, then okay, I feel for you. But if they're not trying and expecting things like cushy, nicely-paid entry level jobs and promotions to be handed out with little effort, I don't have as much.

Fully agree with your second paragraph.

Taking some anecdotal examples from my own circle, a few people I know have fairly recently missed out on big promotions due to company ‘positive’ discrimination programmes and it has to a man turned their politics from very middle of the road to really quite radical right. There’s a lot more of this to come I think

Having worked across the public and private sector I have never come across any examples of any organization not picking the best person for the job. They might make mistakes in their selection process but it is not driven by DEI or such like. I have also seen lots of positive effort to avoid discrimination by how application forms are designed, how CVs are requested and reviewed, criteria for selection at each stage are designed, which questions are asked at interview, interviewers are trained to ensure they ask fair questions, scoring criteria and how they are applied to final selections, etc. I have never ever heard of someone being selected before a better candidate because they were needed to meet a 'quota' or such like. I have been involved in interviewing processes at all levels up to and including CEO levels and never has a positive discrimination programme meant the best candidate been refused for a less able candidate. From my professional perspective this type of tosh is just unsubstantiated nonsense usually fueled by bitter unsuccessful candidates! Many 'white men' can never accept that a woman or a person of color for example is more capable than them and gets selected for the senior job above them!

You worked in the civil service and can still write that? Amazing.

[Biffer]

I can only speak to my field(s), but could probably feel aggrieved at that, but don't. I realize the value in equity and have worked hard to ensure I am the best they could ask for. I currently work at a university where the office is largely female and very ethnically diverse. But there are also I think 7 white guys out of the group of about 30 - and two are managers - two of the rest of us probably over-qualifed based on education required for the role. It's a tough market here where a LOT of Canadians get degrees and increasingly grad degrees that aren't essential for jobs that 'require' them based on demands.

My beef with some of these young people - and have heard this from my dad who works in construction - is that a lot are quick to whine but also show little effort / desire to listen and learn. Again, it's a niche anecdotal story, but have heard from teacher friends too that a lot of young people lack drive and resilience. To build their way upward. If you're legitimately aggrieved due to unfair practices, then okay, I feel for you. But if they're not trying and expecting things like cushy, nicely-paid entry level jobs and promotions to be handed out with little effort, I don't have as much.

Fully agree with your second paragraph.

Taking some anecdotal examples from my own circle, a few people I know have fairly recently missed out on big promotions due to company ‘positive’ discrimination programmes and it has to a man turned their politics from very middle of the road to really quite radical right. There’s a lot more of this to come I think

Having worked across the public and private sector I have never come across any examples of any organization not picking the best person for the job. They might make mistakes in their selection process but it is not driven by DEI or such like. I have also seen lots of positive effort to avoid discrimination by how application forms are designed, how CVs are requested and reviewed, criteria for selection at each stage are designed, which questions are asked at interview, interviewers are trained to ensure they ask fair questions, scoring criteria and how they are applied to final selections, etc. I have never ever heard of someone being selected before a better candidate because they were needed to meet a 'quota' or such like. I have been involved in interviewing processes at all levels up to and including CEO levels and never has a positive discrimination programme meant the best candidate been refused for a less able candidate. From my professional perspective this type of tosh is just unsubstantiated nonsense usually fueled by bitter unsuccessful candidates! Many 'white men' can never accept that a woman or a person of color for example is more capable than them and gets selected for the senior job above them!

I'm the same. never known of or been involved with any choice around hiring that has had any influence on being from a minority or any gender, sexuality or sex influence. Worked across industry, academia and government.

[Tichtheid]

Positive discrimination is illegal in the UK. It's a very different thing from positive action, which includes fast tracks for under-represented groups, which really only serve to put people from these groups on an equal footing to those who traditionally enjoyed the benefits of positive discrimination in their favour.

Anyone looking at conspiracy theories is, I would suggest, probably unfit for the promotion in the first place.

edit, this is the result of a quick search, the first one I came across is from a law firm called Beswick's

Positive discrimination is unlawful in the UK but positive action isn’t.

What this means is that employers can choose to hire candidates from under-represented groups as long as they are as qualified for the role as other applicants.

You are not allowed to recruit a person purely on the basis of his or her age, disability, gender, race or religion, regardless of their ability to do the job. This would be committing discrimination under the Equality Act. It is also unlawful to set quotas to recruit or promote a specific number of people with a protected characteristic.

There are some exceptions, for example, it would be acceptable for a women’s refuge to require all members of staff to be women (to avoid causing distress to residents), or for a catholic school to require its head teacher and deputy head to be practising Catholics (to maintain the ethos of the school).

Organisations are allowed to take positive action, which could include encouraging people from particular ethnic backgrounds to apply for jobs, but the decision on who to select must be made on merit alone.

The rule of thumb from a legal perspective is that any positive action taken must be proportionate, or appropriate, to achieve what it is setting out to achieve without resulting in people without the relevant characteristic being treated less favourably.

https://www.beswicks.com/legal-advice/w ... it%20alone.

[Biffer]

Positive discrimination is illegal in the UK. It's a very different thing from positive action, which includes fast tracks for under-represented groups, which really only serve to put people from these groups on an equal footing to those who traditionally enjoyed the benefits of positive discrimination in their favour.

Anyone looking at conspiracy theories is, I would suggest, probably unfit for the promotion in the first place.

edit, this is the result of a quick search, the first one I came across is from a law firm called Beswick's

Positive discrimination is unlawful in the UK but positive action isn’t.

What this means is that employers can choose to hire candidates from under-represented groups as long as they are as qualified for the role as other applicants.

You are not allowed to recruit a person purely on the basis of his or her age, disability, gender, race or religion, regardless of their ability to do the job. This would be committing discrimination under the Equality Act. It is also unlawful to set quotas to recruit or promote a specific number of people with a protected characteristic.

There are some exceptions, for example, it would be acceptable for a women’s refuge to require all members of staff to be women (to avoid causing distress to residents), or for a catholic school to require its head teacher and deputy head to be practising Catholics (to maintain the ethos of the school).

Organisations are allowed to take positive action, which could include encouraging people from particular ethnic backgrounds to apply for jobs, but the decision on who to select must be made on merit alone.

The rule of thumb from a legal perspective is that any positive action taken must be proportionate, or appropriate, to achieve what it is setting out to achieve without resulting in people without the relevant characteristic being treated less favourably.

https://www.beswicks.com/legal-advice/w ... it%20alone.

There is definitely an argument that someone who so easily finds themselves pushed towards racist views might have some character flaws that you don't want to promote. Same as if they look at who got a job ahead of them and the first thing the see is skin colour or sex, rather than a bit of critical self examination to ask 'what are they bringing that I don't?'.

[Paddington Bear]

Positive discrimination is illegal in the UK. It's a very different thing from positive action, which includes fast tracks for under-represented groups, which really only serve to put people from these groups on an equal footing to those who traditionally enjoyed the benefits of positive discrimination in their favour.

This only works as ‘not discriminating’ if you assume that white men are a monolith. Instead what it means is white boomers get off scot free and a 20/30 something takes the strain. It isn’t so much a conspiracy theory as a fact that positive action to make your higher echelons less pale and male means that you won’t be promoting so many white men. It’s exactly the outcome you’re saying is good so own it.

[Tichtheid]

Positive discrimination is illegal in the UK. It's a very different thing from positive action, which includes fast tracks for under-represented groups, which really only serve to put people from these groups on an equal footing to those who traditionally enjoyed the benefits of positive discrimination in their favour.

This only works as ‘not discriminating’ if you assume that white men are a monolith. Instead what it means is white boomers get off scot free and a 20/30 something takes the strain. It isn’t so much a conspiracy theory as a fact that positive action to make your higher echelons less pale and male means that you won’t be promoting so many white men. It’s exactly the outcome you’re saying is good so own it.

There is a lot of talent out there that is not pale and male, also from not traditionally highly achieving schools and universities. That talent will not rise to the top purely as a result of positive action, the talent has to be there, only now it stands a chance of being recognised.

Your determination to see this as an age thing is interesting, I would have thought younger people would be less likely to see themselves as entitled.

[Paddington Bear]

Positive discrimination is illegal in the UK. It's a very different thing from positive action, which includes fast tracks for under-represented groups, which really only serve to put people from these groups on an equal footing to those who traditionally enjoyed the benefits of positive discrimination in their favour.

This only works as ‘not discriminating’ if you assume that white men are a monolith. Instead what it means is white boomers get off scot free and a 20/30 something takes the strain. It isn’t so much a conspiracy theory as a fact that positive action to make your higher echelons less pale and male means that you won’t be promoting so many white men. It’s exactly the outcome you’re saying is good so own it.

There is a lot of talent out there that is not pale and male, also from not traditionally highly achieving schools and universities. That talent will not rise to the top purely as a result of positive action, the talent has to be there, only now it stands a chance of being recognised.

Your determination to see this as an age thing is interesting, I would have thought younger people would be less likely to see themselves as entitled.

I haven’t said there isn’t, and fwiw one of the farces of this is that most issues of gender/racial balance will be rectified with time without external assistance as younger generations are more diverse, women work longer and have had better education.

As for ‘entitled’, if this is the attitude you’re really failing to understand what’s happening lower down the food chain, wilfully or otherwise. The disparate impact based on age here is a really interesting one - it seems challenging for people of a certain age to comprehend that the workplace looks entirely different if you entered it later than you.

[Hal Jordan]

If the tiniest challenge to centuries of baked in positive discrimination in your favour make you flee to the arms of the far right or Rapey Tate, then the problem isn't society, it's you.

[Tichtheid]

This only works as ‘not discriminating’ if you assume that white men are a monolith. Instead what it means is white boomers get off scot free and a 20/30 something takes the strain. It isn’t so much a conspiracy theory as a fact that positive action to make your higher echelons less pale and male means that you won’t be promoting so many white men. It’s exactly the outcome you’re saying is good so own it.

There is a lot of talent out there that is not pale and male, also from not traditionally highly achieving schools and universities. That talent will not rise to the top purely as a result of positive action, the talent has to be there, only now it stands a chance of being recognised.

Your determination to see this as an age thing is interesting, I would have thought younger people would be less likely to see themselves as entitled.

I haven’t said there isn’t, and fwiw one of the farces of this is that most issues of gender/racial balance will be rectified with time without external assistance as younger generations are more diverse, women work longer and have had better education.

As for ‘entitled’, if this is the attitude you’re really failing to understand what’s happening lower down the food chain, wilfully or otherwise. The disparate impact based on age here is a really interesting one - it seems challenging for people of a certain age to comprehend that the workplace looks entirely different if you entered it later than you.

Go back to what you said before - "20/30 somethings are taking the strain" (not verbatim, but that's the gist)

These particular 20/30 somethings are white and male, yes? This is the group from which the best traditionally sailed up the ranks without hindrance.

From a "What's best for the organisation?" perspective, you want to draw from the widest pool possible, not 20/30 years from now, but now.

Previously the ones who "took the strain" were the ones from the groups now being helped to show their potential, they were the ones passed over for promotion or even employment in the first place.
They won't get promoted without being able to do the job and if your mates are immediately rushing to right wing politics because they feel they should have got the job over the non white woman, then yes, that does display a level of immature entitlement.

[Tichtheid]

If the tiniest challenge to centuries of baked in positive discrimination in your favour make you flee to the arms of the far right or Rapey Tate, then the problem isn't society, it's you.

A much more succinct way of saying what I was trying to say.

[Biffer]

If the tiniest challenge to centuries of baked in positive discrimination in your favour make you flee to the arms of the far right or Rapey Tate, then the problem isn't society, it's you.

Yep.

[Tichtheid]

Oh and anecdotally, I have three children in the 20-30 age group. One in academia, one in the public sector and one in manual labour. Not one of them or their friends see positive action as a Bad Thing.

It's a wide sample group in terms of professions, levels of seniority and gay/straight/male/female/non-binary

[Paddington Bear]

There is a lot of talent out there that is not pale and male, also from not traditionally highly achieving schools and universities. That talent will not rise to the top purely as a result of positive action, the talent has to be there, only now it stands a chance of being recognised.

Your determination to see this as an age thing is interesting, I would have thought younger people would be less likely to see themselves as entitled.

I haven’t said there isn’t, and fwiw one of the farces of this is that most issues of gender/racial balance will be rectified with time without external assistance as younger generations are more diverse, women work longer and have had better education.

As for ‘entitled’, if this is the attitude you’re really failing to understand what’s happening lower down the food chain, wilfully or otherwise. The disparate impact based on age here is a really interesting one - it seems challenging for people of a certain age to comprehend that the workplace looks entirely different if you entered it later than you.

Go back to what you said before - "20/30 somethings are taking the strain" (not verbatim, but that's the gist)

These particular 20/30 somethings are white and male, yes? This is the group from which the best traditionally sailed up the ranks without hindrance.

From a "What's best for the organisation?" perspective, you want to draw from the widest pool possible, not 20/30 years from now, but now.

Previously the ones who "took the strain" were the ones from the groups now being helped to show their potential, they were the ones passed over for promotion or even employment in the first place.
They won't get promoted without being able to do the job and if your mates are immediately rushing to right wing politics because they feel they should have got the job over the non white woman, then yes, that does display a level of immature entitlement.

So to be clear I am not suggesting that white males should breeze through life on a handshake and a conversation about the rugby. I don’t think they should be passed over when they are the best candidate because of their race and gender either (and whatever you say this is happening), I don’t think past wealth and status *of other people* is at all relevant to a group that are less wealthy and less secure than their parents, and I think it is an exceptionally tough sell politically to claim that they should think that.

Second order consequences seem to be beyond the comprehension of the left these days, even with the example of the States to draw on. Trump’s victory was far from inevitable. You have Hilary’s ‘deplorables’ but the people who got him over the line are a coalition of fairly ordinary people who in the past have listened to and voted for centrist/left messages.

In Britain the situation is more dangerous for the mainstream as a Parliamentary majority used effectively is carte blanche, and a hard right party don’t need to get anywhere near 50% to run the table. So not only do I think what you’re saying is wrong on any number of practical levels, it is also going to be mad politically, though of course you will be able to remain aloof of anything nasty after the electorate once again disappoint you.

[robmatic]

Having worked across the public and private sector I have never come across any examples of any organization not picking the best person for the job.

I have to say, this is nonsense. The UK is absolutely rife with class prejudice but suddenly becomes a pure meritocracy when it comes to other characteristics?

[Tichtheid]

I haven’t said there isn’t, and fwiw one of the farces of this is that most issues of gender/racial balance will be rectified with time without external assistance as younger generations are more diverse, women work longer and have had better education.

As for ‘entitled’, if this is the attitude you’re really failing to understand what’s happening lower down the food chain, wilfully or otherwise. The disparate impact based on age here is a really interesting one - it seems challenging for people of a certain age to comprehend that the workplace looks entirely different if you entered it later than you.

Go back to what you said before - "20/30 somethings are taking the strain" (not verbatim, but that's the gist)

These particular 20/30 somethings are white and male, yes? This is the group from which the best traditionally sailed up the ranks without hindrance.

From a "What's best for the organisation?" perspective, you want to draw from the widest pool possible, not 20/30 years from now, but now.

Previously the ones who "took the strain" were the ones from the groups now being helped to show their potential, they were the ones passed over for promotion or even employment in the first place.
They won't get promoted without being able to do the job and if your mates are immediately rushing to right wing politics because they feel they should have got the job over the non white woman, then yes, that does display a level of immature entitlement.

So to be clear I am not suggesting that white males should breeze through life on a handshake and a conversation about the rugby. I don’t think they should be passed over when they are the best candidate because of their race and gender either (and whatever you say this is happening), I don’t think past wealth and status *of other people* is at all relevant to a group that are less wealthy and less secure than their parents, and I think it is an exceptionally tough sell politically to claim that they should think that.

Second order consequences seem to be beyond the comprehension of the left these days, even with the example of the States to draw on. Trump’s victory was far from inevitable. You have Hilary’s ‘deplorables’ but the people who got him over the line are a coalition of fairly ordinary people who in the past have listened to and voted for centrist/left messages.

In Britain the situation is more dangerous for the mainstream as a Parliamentary majority used effectively is carte blanche, and a hard right party don’t need to get anywhere near 50% to run the table. So not only do I think what you’re saying is wrong on any number of practical levels, it is also going to be mad politically, though of course you will be able to remain aloof of anything nasty after the electorate once again disappoint you.

Yes yes, it'a all the fault of those saying the exact opposite thing. Just like the impact of Brexit, just like selling off council housing stock without replacing it, just like privatising utilities and travel infrastructure etc

Are we really doomed to Farage because some guy three years into a job in middle management saw a brown person get a promotion that they assumed was theirs?

I don’t think they should be passed over when they are the best candidate because of their race and gender either (and whatever you say this is happening),

The appointment can be challenged and the employer would have to demonstrate the reasons why a particular candidate was offered the job. I would wager my Edinburgh bobble hat that it was because they were a better candidate than the guy sulking in the corner, looking up Tommy Robinson.

[Yeeb]

Fully agree with your second paragraph.

Taking some anecdotal examples from my own circle, a few people I know have fairly recently missed out on big promotions due to company ‘positive’ discrimination programmes and it has to a man turned their politics from very middle of the road to really quite radical right. There’s a lot more of this to come I think

Having worked across the public and private sector I have never come across any examples of any organization not picking the best person for the job. They might make mistakes in their selection process but it is not driven by DEI or such like. I have also seen lots of positive effort to avoid discrimination by how application forms are designed, how CVs are requested and reviewed, criteria for selection at each stage are designed, which questions are asked at interview, interviewers are trained to ensure they ask fair questions, scoring criteria and how they are applied to final selections, etc. I have never ever heard of someone being selected before a better candidate because they were needed to meet a 'quota' or such like. I have been involved in interviewing processes at all levels up to and including CEO levels and never has a positive discrimination programme meant the best candidate been refused for a less able candidate. From my professional perspective this type of tosh is just unsubstantiated nonsense usually fueled by bitter unsuccessful candidates! Many 'white men' can never accept that a woman or a person of color for example is more capable than them and gets selected for the senior job above them!

You worked in the civil service and can still write that? Amazing.

Lolz - deluded. In Many organisations ,Plenty of white men wont get a role* if there is a non white and / or male alternative that is say 90% as suitable, or 10% suitable in certain parts of the world. Large firms even deliberately target say Kingston uni for grad recruit events than oxbridge or Bath , just because statistically they will be able to tick more boxes with a hire from there .


* especially if the role is not in a important pillar like HR or Marketing or supply chain. The real good stuff like finance or sales or R&D, then best person is hired irrespective of background

[Paddington Bear]

Go back to what you said before - "20/30 somethings are taking the strain" (not verbatim, but that's the gist)

These particular 20/30 somethings are white and male, yes? This is the group from which the best traditionally sailed up the ranks without hindrance.

From a "What's best for the organisation?" perspective, you want to draw from the widest pool possible, not 20/30 years from now, but now.

Previously the ones who "took the strain" were the ones from the groups now being helped to show their potential, they were the ones passed over for promotion or even employment in the first place.
They won't get promoted without being able to do the job and if your mates are immediately rushing to right wing politics because they feel they should have got the job over the non white woman, then yes, that does display a level of immature entitlement.

So to be clear I am not suggesting that white males should breeze through life on a handshake and a conversation about the rugby. I don’t think they should be passed over when they are the best candidate because of their race and gender either (and whatever you say this is happening), I don’t think past wealth and status *of other people* is at all relevant to a group that are less wealthy and less secure than their parents, and I think it is an exceptionally tough sell politically to claim that they should think that.

Second order consequences seem to be beyond the comprehension of the left these days, even with the example of the States to draw on. Trump’s victory was far from inevitable. You have Hilary’s ‘deplorables’ but the people who got him over the line are a coalition of fairly ordinary people who in the past have listened to and voted for centrist/left messages.

In Britain the situation is more dangerous for the mainstream as a Parliamentary majority used effectively is carte blanche, and a hard right party don’t need to get anywhere near 50% to run the table. So not only do I think what you’re saying is wrong on any number of practical levels, it is also going to be mad politically, though of course you will be able to remain aloof of anything nasty after the electorate once again disappoint you.

Yes yes, it'a all the fault of those saying the exact opposite thing. Just like the impact of Brexit, just like selling off council housing stock without replacing it, just like privatising utilities and travel infrastructure etc

Are we really doomed to Farage because some guy three years into a job in middle management saw a brown person get a promotion that they assumed was theirs?

I don’t think they should be passed over when they are the best candidate because of their race and gender either (and whatever you say this is happening),

The appointment can be challenged and the employer would have to demonstrate the reasons why a particular candidate was offered the job. I would wager my Edinburgh bobble hat that it was because they were a better candidate than the guy sulking in the corner, looking up Tommy Robinson.

This is just silly and of course, we get back to Thatcher. A total refusal to engage with the second order consequences of policies.

[Tichtheid]

This is just silly and of course, we get back to Thatcher. A total refusal to engage with the second order consequences of policies.

The second order of consequences being the lack of self awareness to believe that the brown female candidate might be better than the white guy from the good school who has always had good grades, always got a good job - "totally self made" man?

[Paddington Bear]

This is just silly and of course, we get back to Thatcher. A total refusal to engage with the second order consequences of policies.

The second order of consequences being the lack of self awareness to believe that the brown female candidate might be better than the white guy from the good school who has always had good grades, always got a good job - "totally self made" man?

I don’t know how many more ways I can say that that’s not what I think and that’s not what people are complaining about, suppose it’s easier to create a strawman than look at what’s actually happening

[robmatic]

This is just silly and of course, we get back to Thatcher. A total refusal to engage with the second order consequences of policies.

The second order of consequences being the lack of self awareness to believe that the brown female candidate might be better than the white guy from the good school who has always had good grades, always got a good job - "totally self made" man?

Do we have 'positive action' in the UK or not? It can't just magically not be taking place if someone is aggrieved about the results.

[Tichtheid]

This is just silly and of course, we get back to Thatcher. A total refusal to engage with the second order consequences of policies.

The second order of consequences being the lack of self awareness to believe that the brown female candidate might be better than the white guy from the good school who has always had good grades, always got a good job - "totally self made" man?

Do we have 'positive action' in the UK or not? It can't just magically not be taking place if someone is aggrieved about the results.

As long as you're making a distinction between positive action and positive discrimination (which is illegal) the best way I can probably put it is that positive action can get you into the interview, but it doesn't get you the job.

As for aggrievement, most if not all people who don't get a job they go for are disappointed. Some will externalise it and refuse to think it can be anything to do with them coming up short.

It's commonplace to ask for feedback and reasons why someone didn't get a job. If they re not satisfied they can take it further, especially if they think "positive discrimination" has taken place.

[Biffer]

The second order of consequences being the lack of self awareness to believe that the brown female candidate might be better than the white guy from the good school who has always had good grades, always got a good job - "totally self made" man?

Do we have 'positive action' in the UK or not? It can't just magically not be taking place if someone is aggrieved about the results.

As long as you're making a distinction between positive action and positive discrimination (which is illegal) the best way I can probably put it is that positive action can get you into the interview, but it doesn't get you the job.

As for aggrievement, most if not all people who don't get a job they go for are disappointed. Some will externalise it and refuse to think it can be anything to do with them coming up short.

It's commonplace to ask for feedback and reasons why someone didn't get a job. If they re not satisfied they can take it further, especially if they think "positive discrimination" has taken place.

It is a very male thing to refuse to believe there was a better candidate than them.