Current Events > UK firms given 4 years to increase # of ethnic minority director numbers.

(+) Yeah! (+)

AffligemFR posted...

@pinky0926

In a nutshell, would you say that this directive is for the following?

That the diversity being encouraged isn't aimed at reducing these 'Eton types' in the boardroom?
And not to be replaced with 'non Eton' background British culturally identifying people - but simply those from other cultural backgrounds?

Because your main argument thus far seems to be more focused on lessening the impact and influence that the 'Eton types currently enjoy.

You make a good point but the problem comes from how race and class has been interwoven in the UK. Do I foresee a problem of say, white people from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds potentially losing out because of this? Yes, it's possible. I didn't come into this argument to say the solution is a perfect one. Only to say that the problem is a real one.
---

pls posted...

No, I was provided evidence to show proportions of demographics in positions. That data does not in itself tell us anything. It has to be interpreted. And I want to know why your interpretation is that it is evidence that we need anti-white race quotas in hiring.

No one has said they want anti white quotas. They just want to expand the hiring pool to include others.
---

pinky0926 posted...

You don't see how the literal rape and pillaging of other countries could possibly have any negative consequences for some people? Really dude, really...

It could have had negative consequences for the people then and the communities then, sure. But what about the education, medicine, and technology that the British empire took to the places it colonized? Tremendous advancements were made.

It's arguable that the wealth of nations grew with the wealth of Britain.

pinky0926 posted...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/chances-becoming-millionaire-education-race-2016-1

And here's a US stat for you:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/300528/us-millionaires-race-ethnicity/

You're coming at me like I'm just pulling all this out my ass and as if there's not already a wealth of literature on this subject.

I'm looking at your first link and here's what it says:

That's not to say that the discouraging findings are necessarily a predictor of the future, or any kind of guarantee of wealth or lack thereof.

After all, everyone is facing some odds: CNBC reports that there were about 10.1 million US households in 2014 with investable assets of $1 million or more minus the value of their primary residence. That's just 3%, a tiny slice, of the 318.9 million population.

Did you read that part? Because it seems you're not even questioning the reason behind the stats, and just assuming that it's "colonialism." No different than how rad fems spout off about "patriarchy" as the boogeyman behind every evil.pinky0926 posted...

No, I want to include people who have been completely excluded for hundreds of years.

By excluding people if they're white and including people if they're not white. That's racist. It's also saying that you don't think minorities are capable of being educated and successful without your help.

pls posted...

For the last time, pinky - your fucking anecdotes don't matter. YES, I firmly believe I'd have a fair time in Asia or any other country on earth regardless of my skin color. That's because I'm confident in my skills and experiences. There's my anecdote. See now why anecdotes aren't evidence? You and @Funkydog need to stop with the anecdotes.

My anecdotes matter because they help explain what is already a well documented issue. Like there's not already a wealth of literature on systematic racism.

And yes I'm telling you your credentials will not help you alone in Asia, it's laughably naive if you think that's how things work over there.

pinky0926 posted...

Evidence? How do you quantify "evil power" and how do you measure its effect? How do you know it has benefited white people more? If there's X number of white people in a company, is that because of racism against minorities? Is that because "evil power" benefited white people? At what number of white people in a company or in a circle of friends does the effect of the "evil power" diminish?

It has literally benefited white people more, I can't believe you would even try to argue that.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/chances-becoming-millionaire-education-race-2016-1

pinky0926 posted...

Colonialism is not in itself responsible for the world's woes. Provide evidence! kthxbai

It is responsible for so many of them though. Are we really at the point where you're going to be this obtuse? Like you can't understand the concept that colonialism wasn't swell for everyone?
---

pls posted...

I was a minority where I grew up. You have no evidence so far. Telling someone to envision hypotheticals is nonsense, especially when you're hoping to have primed their thought process to already presuppose that you're right.

What kind of minority? Because I've never had to explain this issue to anyone non-white. It's almost exclusively white men who struggle to understand how systematic racism is a different thing that personal prejudice based on race, which is what you're talking about.
---

Funkydog posted...

pls posted...

No, I was provided evidence to show proportions of demographics in positions. That data does not in itself tell us anything. It has to be interpreted. And I want to know why your interpretation is that it is evidence that we need anti-white race quotas in hiring.

No one has said they want anti white quotas. They just want to expand the hiring pool to include others.

By making it okay to not hire someone solely because of their white skin. By making it okay to hire someone solely because of their non-white skin. Where do you draw the line between inclusion and what is actually exclusion?

And tell me again why it's your business who someone wants to hire? Should every company at all times ensure they have X% black, Y% brown, and Z% white in their company? What about the percentage of men/women? What about all the other genders? What about religions? What about other immutable characteristics?

If a company loses an employee and suddenly the odds tip in the White Man's favor because the company became X + Y% white instead of just X% white, should the company fire the white person or immediately look for just non-white candidates?

Forced diversity never ends well

Yeah, the white man may have colonised all those countries and all that all those years ago but doing this kind of stuff won't undo anything. It's not today's white people's fault that that happened

Equal oppurtunity, it works both ways. Stunting white people to propel minorities just imbalances inequality the other way
---

pinky0926 posted...

pls posted...

I was a minority where I grew up. You have no evidence so far. Telling someone to envision hypotheticals is nonsense, especially when you're hoping to have primed their thought process to already presuppose that you're right.

What kind of minority? Because I've never had to explain this issue to anyone non-white. It's almost exclusively white men who struggle to understand how systematic racism is a different thing that personal prejudice based on race, which is what you're talking about.

What a racist shit post, dude. Unbelievable. Screenshotting this.

What kind of minority? Are you fucking kidding me? And generalizing about white men? Awful. You're seeking to minimize someone's experiences by running some purity test on whether or not they're the "right" kind of minority? Is there some SJW totem pole that you use to figure out some order of oppression when deciding who is oppressed and who cannot be oppressed?

pls posted...

By making it okay to not hire someone solely because of their white skin. By making it okay to hire someone solely because of their non-white skin. Where do you draw the line between inclusion and what is actually exclusion?

And tell me again why it's your business who someone wants to hire? Should every company at all times ensure they have X% black, Y% brown, and Z% white in their company? What about the percentage of men/women? What about all the other genders? What about religions? What about other immutable characteristics?

If a company loses an employee and suddenly the odds tip in the White Man's favor because the company became X + Y% white instead of just X% white, should the company fire the white person or immediately look for just non-white candidates?

No one should be hired because of their skin colour. The issue remains, as we've repeatedly said, is that non whites just aren't given a chance - and they should be more welcomed. This likely means cutting down the "rich toff social circle" and as a result some whites may lose out from it, yes. But it comes from a result of making the playing field more level, not a direct act of denying them because they are white.
---

awesome999 posted...

Equal oppurtunity, it works both ways. Stunting white people to propel minorities just imbalances inequality the other way

They don't care, because in today's political climate it's okay to generalize about white people.

pls posted...

It could have had negative consequences for the people then and the communities then, sure. But what about the education, medicine, and technology that the British empire took to the places it colonized? Tremendous advancements were made.

It's arguable that the wealth of nations grew with the wealth of Britain.

This is the most patent example of white saviour complex you could have put to text. The British did not overwhelm countries around the globe through extensive military conflict just to help them all out a bit. Don't be dishonest and pretend it was ever about that.

pinky0926 posted...

I'm looking at your first link and here's what it says:

That's not to say that the discouraging findings are necessarily a predictor of the future, or any kind of guarantee of wealth or lack thereof.

After all, everyone is facing some odds: CNBC reports that there were about 10.1 million US households in 2014 with investable assets of $1 million or more minus the value of their primary residence. That's just 3%, a tiny slice, of the 318.9 million population.

Did you read that part? Because it seems you're not even questioning the reason behind the stats, and just assuming that it's "colonialism." No different than how rad fems spout off about "patriarchy" as the boogeyman behind every evil.

So you read "Race isn't a guarantor of wealth" and took that to mean "see! Racism doesn't exist and race doesn't matter"? Really dude?

pinky0926 posted...

By excluding people if they're white and including people if they're not white. That's racist. It's also saying that you don't think minorities are capable of being educated and successful without your help.

When white people start having issues getting a job because they're white and it becomes a large societal problem even remotely comparable to the actual real life problem of minorities having this issue right now, you can get back to me on this.
---

pls posted...

pinky0926 posted...

pls posted...

I was a minority where I grew up. You have no evidence so far. Telling someone to envision hypotheticals is nonsense, especially when you're hoping to have primed their thought process to already presuppose that you're right.

What kind of minority? Because I've never had to explain this issue to anyone non-white. It's almost exclusively white men who struggle to understand how systematic racism is a different thing that personal prejudice based on race, which is what you're talking about.

What a racist shit post, dude. Unbelievable. Screenshotting this.

What kind of minority? Are you fucking kidding me? And generalizing about white men? Awful. You're seeking to minimize someone's experiences by running some purity test on whether or not they're the "right" kind of minority? Is there some SJW totem pole that you use to figure out some order of oppression when deciding who is oppressed and who cannot be oppressed?

No, I'm asking you an honest question to explain your background, because I've literally never met a black person who doesn't get it and I'm curious to know more about you and your experiences.
---

Funkydog posted...

pls posted...

By making it okay to not hire someone solely because of their white skin. By making it okay to hire someone solely because of their non-white skin. Where do you draw the line between inclusion and what is actually exclusion?

And tell me again why it's your business who someone wants to hire? Should every company at all times ensure they have X% black, Y% brown, and Z% white in their company? What about the percentage of men/women? What about all the other genders? What about religions? What about other immutable characteristics?

If a company loses an employee and suddenly the odds tip in the White Man's favor because the company became X + Y% white instead of just X% white, should the company fire the white person or immediately look for just non-white candidates?

No one should be hired because of their skin colour. The issue remains, as we've repeatedly said, is that non whites just aren't given a chance - and they should be more welcomed. This likely means cutting down the "rich toff social circle" and as a result some whites may lose out from it, yes. But it comes from a result of making the playing field more level, not a direct act of denying them because they are white.

You are a walking contradiction.

You claim you don't want to hire someone just because of their skin color...but then say that as a consequence of your views, some whites will lose out after their "rich social circle" is cut off. You might as well just come out and say that you don't actually care if some whites are held back due to being white and that you actually are advocating that we hire based on skin color.

Because what you define as "creating a more level playing field" IS being defined solely in terms of how much representation skin colors have.

pinky0926 posted...

pls posted...

pinky0926 posted...

pls posted...

I was a minority where I grew up. You have no evidence so far. Telling someone to envision hypotheticals is nonsense, especially when you're hoping to have primed their thought process to already presuppose that you're right.

What kind of minority? Because I've never had to explain this issue to anyone non-white. It's almost exclusively white men who struggle to understand how systematic racism is a different thing that personal prejudice based on race, which is what you're talking about.

What a racist shit post, dude. Unbelievable. Screenshotting this.

What kind of minority? Are you fucking kidding me? And generalizing about white men? Awful. You're seeking to minimize someone's experiences by running some purity test on whether or not they're the "right" kind of minority? Is there some SJW totem pole that you use to figure out some order of oppression when deciding who is oppressed and who cannot be oppressed?

No, I'm asking you an honest question to explain your background, because I've literally never met a black person who doesn't get it and I'm curious to know more about you and your experiences.

No, you're trying to weasel your way into minimizing someone's experiences if they don't fit the preconceived mold you have in your head. Your anecdotes don't matter. How many times does that need to be repeated in this topic? Your anecdotes about black people or white people are not evidence for anything.

pls posted...

No, you're trying to weasel your way into minimizing someone's experiences if they don't fit the preconceived mold you have in your head. Your anecdotes don't matter. How many times does that need to be repeated in this topic? Your anecdotes about black people or white people are not evidence for anything.

But they help me to understand where you're personally coming from, because you're clearly triggered to fuck right now and I want to understand why.

Also you can stop acting like evidence doesn't exist simply because I haven't placed it right under your nose in this topic. Again, there's a wealth of literature on the subject of systematic racism and colonialism throughout the 21st century. It shouldn't be hard to do a little reading on it yourself instead of presuming that I'm just copy/pasting from my tumblr account.
---

pinky0926 posted...

AffligemFR posted...

@pinky0926

In a nutshell, would you say that this directive is for the following?

That the diversity being encouraged isn't aimed at reducing these 'Eton types' in the boardroom?
And not to be replaced with 'non Eton' background British culturally identifying people - but simply those from other cultural backgrounds?

Because your main argument thus far seems to be more focused on lessening the impact and influence that the 'Eton types currently enjoy.

You make a good point but the problem comes from how race and class has been interwoven in the UK. Do I foresee a problem of say, white people from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds potentially losing out because of this? Yes, it's possible. I didn't come into this argument to say the solution is a perfect one. Only to say that the problem is a real one.

Ok, so we can safely make a fair assumption that class and titles have brought unrivalled privilege over many, many years.
That during this long time, the national demographic was by and large white.
So the winners for a long long time have been titled and well connected whites. The right schools, family background etc.
And the losers for a long long time have mostly, been the poor unconnected, poorly educated or wrong school educated white person.

So the real inequality surely that needs addressing, isn't the increase of ethnic demographics into directorships etc, but those above.
---

pinky0926 posted...

This is the most patent example of white saviour complex you could have put to text. The British did not overwhelm countries around the globe through extensive military conflict just to help them all out a bit. Don't be dishonest and pretend it was ever about that.

You are being a hypocrite, because you're actually the one who is offering an example of white savior complex. By advocating for race quotas on the behalf of minorities, and by justifying it as if they need your help in order to have a fair shot at the world.

The British took over in order to help themselves. In doing so, they brought education, technology, and wealth to their colonies. That is why colonies they had tend to have prospered and grown. Is that always the case? No. But it's generally true that building sustainable and growing colonies requires that the colonies function. And that entails protection, wealth, technology, medicine, education, etc.

To say that colonizing was all bad is just not true.

pinky0926 posted...

So you read "Race isn't a guarantor of wealth" and took that to mean "see! Racism doesn't exist and race doesn't matter"? Really dude?

No. I took that as an example of why you need to explain what those stats mean, not simply refer to those stats as if they agree with your point. Statistics are data points. They require interpretation.

pinky0926 posted...

When white people start having issues getting a job because they're white and it becomes a large societal problem even remotely comparable to the actual real life problem of minorities having this issue right now, you can get back to me on this.

That's already the case in places where race quotas are even more of a thing. And you really want to wait until discrimination becomes a big problem rather than nip it in the bud? Truly awful and hateful.

AffligemFR posted...

pinky0926 posted...

AffligemFR posted...

@pinky0926

In a nutshell, would you say that this directive is for the following?

That the diversity being encouraged isn't aimed at reducing these 'Eton types' in the boardroom?
And not to be replaced with 'non Eton' background British culturally identifying people - but simply those from other cultural backgrounds?

Because your main argument thus far seems to be more focused on lessening the impact and influence that the 'Eton types currently enjoy.

You make a good point but the problem comes from how race and class has been interwoven in the UK. Do I foresee a problem of say, white people from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds potentially losing out because of this? Yes, it's possible. I didn't come into this argument to say the solution is a perfect one. Only to say that the problem is a real one.

Ok, so we can safely make a fair assumption that class and titles have brought unrivalled privilege over many, many years.
That during this long time, the national demographic was by and large white.
So the winners for a long long time have been titled and well connected whites. The right schools, family background etc.
And the losers for a long long time have mostly, been the poor unconnected, poorly educated or wrong school educated white person.

So the real inequality surely that needs addressing, isn't the increase of ethnic demographics into directorships etc, but those above.

haha boom

pinky0926 posted...

pls posted...

No, you're trying to weasel your way into minimizing someone's experiences if they don't fit the preconceived mold you have in your head. Your anecdotes don't matter. How many times does that need to be repeated in this topic? Your anecdotes about black people or white people are not evidence for anything.

But they help me to understand where you're personally coming from, because you're clearly triggered to fuck right now and I want to understand why.

Also you can stop acting like evidence doesn't exist simply because I haven't placed it right under your nose in this topic. Again, there's a wealth of literature on the subject of systematic racism and colonialism throughout the 21st century. It shouldn't be hard to do a little reading on it yourself instead of presuming that I'm just copy/pasting from my tumblr account.

Just reverse the races involved and you'll trigger yourself when you realize that what you said was actually offensive and racist. Imagine telling someone who is black that they're not the "right kind" of minority in order for their experience to actually matter, or that black males are incapable of comprehending what you mean about systematic racism and that white males tend to just understand it.

The wealth of literature you're referring to, tends to be polluted by radical feminism and marxism. It's rabid and hateful on many levels, and interprets data points in a way that reaffirms notions the writers already had. As far as I've seen, you're really just being a Tumblr account on CE.

pls posted...

Just reverse the races involved and you'll trigger yourself when you realize that what you said was actually offensive and racist.

Or, you know, try to imagine what mandatory workplace quotas would do to the NBA.

pls posted...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/27/violent-rising-england-wales-police-figures-ons

you are dangerously dishonest and a threat to freedom and peace. you realize that? maybe stop peddling nonsense

What part of the post was dangerously dishonest?

AffligemFR posted...

Ok, so we can safely make a fair assumption that class and titles have brought unrivalled privilege over many, many years.
That during this long time, the national demographic was by and large white.
So the winners for a long long time have been titled and well connected whites. The right schools, family background etc.
And the losers for a long long time have mostly, been the poor unconnected, poorly educated or wrong school educated white person.

So the real inequality surely that needs addressing, isn't the increase of ethnic demographics into directorships etc, but those above.

If this divide helped create a social structure that allowed discrimination based on race as well as class (and if class and race are intermingled) then it's a two part problem. I do think your solution is decent, though.

This actually already happens, by the way. Even 13 years ago when I was applying to universities many of them wanted more state school applicants than private school applicants.

pls posted...

You are being a hypocrite, because you're actually the one who is offering an example of white savior complex. By advocating for race quotas on the behalf of minorities, and by justifying it as if they need your help in order to have a fair shot at the world.

The British took over in order to help themselves. In doing so, they brought education, technology, and wealth to their colonies. That is why colonies they had tend to have prospered and grown. Is that always the case? No. But it's generally true that building sustainable and growing colonies requires that the colonies function. And that entails protection, wealth, technology, medicine, education, etc.

To say that colonizing was all bad is just not true.

I never said that everything that ever happened because of colonizing is all bad. I said you need to acknowledge that the wealth and good times didn't trickle down to everyone, which is something you've been taking great steps to avoid throughout this entire discussion.

pinky0926 posted...

No. I took that as an example of why you need to explain what those stats mean, not simply refer to those stats as if they agree with your point. Statistics are data points. They require interpretation.

Can I refer you to the literature on the subject then?
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/matthewclair/files/clair_denis_2015.pdf?m=1450142918

pinky0926 posted...

That's already the case in places where race quotas are even more of a thing. And you really want to wait until discrimination becomes a big problem rather than nip it in the bud? Truly awful and hateful.

It's literally not a thing, show me a society where white people are - as a group - losing out in either America or the UK, and by your own admission anecdotes don't count.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

pls posted...

Just reverse the races involved and you'll trigger yourself when you realize that what you said was actually offensive and racist.

Or, you know, try to imagine what mandatory workplace quotas would do to the NBA.

That doesn't count because proportions are only relevant whenever they show that whites have "too much" representation in something.

pls posted...

Just reverse the races involved and you'll trigger yourself when you realize that what you said was actually offensive and racist. Imagine telling someone who is black that they're not the "right kind" of minority in order for their experience to actually matter, or that black males are incapable of comprehending what you mean about systematic racism and that white males tend to just understand it.

The wealth of literature you're referring to, tends to be polluted by radical feminism and marxism. It's rabid and hateful on many levels, and interprets data points in a way that reaffirms notions the writers already had. As far as I've seen, you're really just being a Tumblr account on CE.

Ok so we're literally talking about reverse racism now like it's something anyone takes seriously. And you're going to toss out all the literature on systematic racism because you heard a few radfems say crazy shit?

Your race matters because if you are a white man I doubt you've ever experienced the kind of systematic racism I'm talking about here in America. And no, someone saying something mean towards because you're white you is not systematic racism.

Maybe learn the difference between prejudice and systematic racism, that's the real key here for us to understand each other.
---

pinky0926 posted...

I never said that everything that ever happened because of colonizing is all bad. I said you need to acknowledge that the wealth and good times didn't trickle down to everyone, which is something you've been taking great steps to avoid throughout this entire discussion.

How do you quantify how much wealth trickled down and who benefited from it? How do you measure that throughout the decades?

pinky0926 posted...

Can I refer you to the literature on the subject then?
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/matthewclair/files/clair_denis_2015.pdf?m=1450142918

Who is the writer and why should I care about their claims? What are their credentials and what's the tl;dr of what they said?

pinky0926 posted...

It's literally not a thing, show me a society where white people are - as a group - losing out in either America or the UK, and by your own admission anecdotes don't count.

It's happening in Zimbabwe and South Africa. And it's starting to happen at top companies in America where hiring managers get bonuses that are directly tied to how many diverse (aka non white) hires they make.

White participation in college has also been declining, with white males affected the most.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/why-men-are-the-new-college-minority/536103/

White males in particular are not doing as good as you seem to think. And in general hiring white people, especially white males, is becoming considered a bad thing because of diversity initiatives.

pinky0926 posted...

pls posted...

Just reverse the races involved and you'll trigger yourself when you realize that what you said was actually offensive and racist. Imagine telling someone who is black that they're not the "right kind" of minority in order for their experience to actually matter, or that black males are incapable of comprehending what you mean about systematic racism and that white males tend to just understand it.

The wealth of literature you're referring to, tends to be polluted by radical feminism and marxism. It's rabid and hateful on many levels, and interprets data points in a way that reaffirms notions the writers already had. As far as I've seen, you're really just being a Tumblr account on CE.

Ok so we're literally talking about reverse racism now like it's something anyone takes seriously. And you're going to toss out all the literature on systematic racism because you heard a few radfems say crazy shit?

Your race matters because if you are a white man I doubt you've ever experienced the kind of systematic racism I'm talking about here in America. And no, someone saying something mean towards because you're white you is not systematic racism.

Maybe learn the difference between prejudice and systematic racism, that's the real key here for us to understand each other.

Your worldview is toxic and depraved, and I encourage you to spend time in meditation before you continue to tell anyone you know personally these types of things. You've bought into a religion that has indoctrinated people into a framework that is simply incoherent and indefensible. You minimize people's experiences if they're white and justify that by referring to some boogeyman that you have not provided evidence for, and that you've only asserted as being true and as being the reason for the world's woes.

There is no meaningful difference between the flavor of racism you're peddling and the racism that black people face. It's all racism. The only difference is that unless you're in Zimbabwe or South Africa, there isn't yet a large enough majority of non-white people to start legislating even harsher racism.

pls posted...

How do you quantify how much wealth trickled down and who benefited from it? How do you measure that throughout the decades?

Once again, saying something that appears to be smart but is completely devoid of substance and presumes that such a thing is not actively studied and researched. You're carrying on like people don't do exactly that.

pinky0926 posted...

Who is the writer and why should I care about their claims? What are their credentials and what's the tl;dr of what they said?

The writers are PhD researcher at Harvard.

The TL;DR is systematic racism is a real thing.

pinky0926 posted...

It's happening in Zimbabwe and South Africa. And it's starting to happen at top companies in America where hiring managers get bonuses that are directly tied to how many diverse (aka non white) hires they make.
White participation in college has also been declining, with white males affected the most.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/why-men-are-the-new-college-minority/536103/

White males in particular are not doing as good as you seem to think. And in general hiring white people, especially white males, is becoming considered a bad thing because of diversity initiatives.

Ok so you realise that comparing the situation in Zimbabwe to the situation in the UK doesn't make a lick of sense, right? As in the context is totally and utterly different?

Once again, this discussion is not about all white people being evil and rich, all black people being poor and oppressed. The conversation is about racial power dynamics as they have evolved in particular societies.
---

pls posted...

Your worldview is toxic and depraved, and I encourage you to spend time in meditation before you continue to tell anyone you know personally these types of things. You've bought into a religion that has indoctrinated people into a framework that is simply incoherent and indefensible. You minimize people's experiences if they're white and justify that by referring to some boogeyman that you have not provided evidence for, and that you've only asserted as being true and as being the reason for the world's woes.

There is no meaningful difference between the flavor of racism you're peddling and the racism that black people face. It's all racism. The only difference is that unless you're in Zimbabwe or South Africa, there isn't yet a large enough majority of non-white people to start legislating even harsher racism.

Ok, I think we're done here.
---

Let me summarize pinky's views.

If you're white and you've experienced racism before, it was not actually racism in a meaningful sense because white people can't experience that. It's only systematic racism that matters, and colonialism affected only minorities. It never benefited colonies and it never hurt white people.

Because of that, we need to legislate laws that allow hiring someone based on just the color of their skin. This is to create a "fair" system where fairness is defined as everyone getting the same exact outcome in life. The same exact pay, the same exact job, the same exact education and resource allotment.

Any discrepancies in the proportions of various demographics is evidence that this colonialism and systematic racism really existed in the capacity that pinky says. Unless the discrepancies are in places where it's the white person that is actually underrepresented. In that case, pinky's framework of fairness need not apply.

There's a wealth of literature that interprets statistics on pinky's behalf. We don't need to question those stats or ask about their interpretation because experts have already done all of that for us. If there's a stat that suggests minorities are less wealthy than majorities, it's because of systematic racism.

If you're white, don't bother contesting pinky's framework because in that framework, only specific skin colors can truly understand what he's talking about. Anyone who is white or the wrong kind of minority will simply be incapable of understanding, at least in pinky's experience. This is just more evidence of systematic racism, and the only solution is just to build up laws that take opportunities from white people and give them to non-white people.

Don't mind any internal inconsistencies or logistical nightmares that arise from the application of this religious framework. Pinky will just find some article online that does the interpretation for him, and he'll make sure to consult with his rad fem high priests and social justice activist brothers and sisters to ensure that his view is correct.

pinky0926 posted...

Ok, I think we're done here.

I'm surprised you lasted as long as you did tbh.
---

pls posted...

Let me summarize pinky's views.

If you're white and you've experienced racism before, it was not actually racism in a meaningful sense because white people can't experience that. It's only systematic racism that matters, and colonialism affected only minorities. It never benefited colonies and it never hurt white people.

Because of that, we need to legislate laws that allow hiring someone based on just the color of their skin. This is to create a "fair" system where fairness is defined as everyone getting the same exact outcome in life. The same exact pay, the same exact job, the same exact education and resource allotment.

Any discrepancies in the proportions of various demographics is evidence that this colonialism and systematic racism really existed in the capacity that pinky says. Unless the discrepancies are in places where it's the white person that is actually underrepresented. In that case, pinky's framework of fairness need not apply.

There's a wealth of literature that interprets statistics on pinky's behalf. We don't need to question those stats or ask about their interpretation because experts have already done all of that for us. If there's a stat that suggests minorities are less wealthy than majorities, it's because of systematic racism.

If you're white, don't bother contesting pinky's framework because in that framework, only specific skin colors can truly understand what he's talking about. Anyone who is white or the wrong kind of minority will simply be incapable of understanding, at least in pinky's experience. This is just more evidence of systematic racism, and the only solution is just to build up laws that take opportunities from white people and give them to non-white people.

Don't mind any internal inconsistencies or logistical nightmares that arise from the application of this religious framework. Pinky will just find some article online that does the interpretation for him, and he'll make sure to consult with his rad fem high priests and social justice activist brothers and sisters to ensure that his view is correct.

Lol, not one of these is my views. It's actually incredible now that I read this that this is your take on what I've said so far.
---

pinky0926 posted...

Once again, saying something that appears to be smart but is completely devoid of substance and presumes that such a thing is not actively studied and researched. You're carrying on like people don't do exactly that.

I asked you very simple questions. Why can't you answer them? I'll ask again. How do you quantify how much wealth trickled down and who benefited from it? How do you measure that throughout the decades?

If you have no measurements, why are you even posting?

pinky0926 posted...

The writers are PhD researcher at Harvard.

The TL;DR is systematic racism is a real thing.

So if I can find PhD researchers are reputable academic institutions that say that your entire framework is a crock of shit, you'll agree with them?

pinky0926 posted...

Ok so you realise that comparing the situation in Zimbabwe to the situation in the UK doesn't make a lick of sense, right? As in the context is totally and utterly different?

It's a valid comparison. Race dynamics need to be considered as a whole, especially since you borrowed liberally from other countries' situations when you referenced colonialism. Don't run from examples that disprove your narrative. If you're going to shitpost about Britain's influence abroad, accept all examples from abroad.

pinky0926 posted...

Once again, this discussion is not about all white people being evil and rich, all black people being poor and oppressed. The conversation is about racial power dynamics as they have evolved in particular societies.

Then why are you justifying hiring quotas based on race?

pinky0926 posted...

Lol, not one of these is my views. It's actually incredible now that I read this that this is your take on what I've said so far.

would you like me to add next to each paragraph your word-for-word statements that prove that you actually believe those things? I agree that it was a little embellished for comedy, but it's pretty much what you've been saying.

You pretend there's nuance to what you believe, but there isn't nuance - there's just vagueness that is a result of you not having real answers. Don't confuse the two.

Funkydog posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Ok, I think we're done here.

I'm surprised you lasted as long as you did tbh.

This is the part where you pretend that you've got some moral highground even though none of your posts gained you that credibility, isn't it?

pls posted...

Funkydog posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Ok, I think we're done here.

I'm surprised you lasted as long as you did tbh.

This is the part where you pretend that you've got some moral highground even though none of your posts gained you that credibility, isn't it?

You'll think that no matter what I say, so not sure why I am even responding.
---

pls posted...

Let me summarize pinky's views.

Skimming through this topic and noticing that you've done it more than once, I just hope you know that nobody serious is reading more than two sentences of your "break the fourth wall by addressing a general audience while dumbing down the other poster's point" posts

That tactic stopped being effective like 10 years ago on this board
---

MacadamianNut3 posted...

Skimming through this topic

oh so nothing you say matters because you don't even have the attention span to do your due diligence?

Funkydog posted...

pls posted...

Funkydog posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Ok, I think we're done here.

I'm surprised you lasted as long as you did tbh.

This is the part where you pretend that you've got some moral highground even though none of your posts gained you that credibility, isn't it?

You'll think that no matter what I say, so not sure why I am even responding.

I'd think what you say matters if it was evidence and not either anecdotes or unsubstantiated interpretations of statistics. Do you understand the difference between those things?

pls posted...

MacadamianNut3 posted...

Skimming through this topic

I'm still trying hard coach. Put me in to play

This is how it's done
---

This topic blew up
---