[Politics] The Mail Woke List…..

[Seasider78]

 

[Bakero]

Merit says that poor people deserve to suffer. Lazy and feckless you see.

This

Thats what meritocracy is about.

The meritocracy myth is just a justification for inequality. Even with the utopian ideal of equal opportunities, a system of deserving winners and losers is corrosive.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

This


The meritocracy myth is just a justification for inequality. Even with the utopian ideal of equal opportunities, a system of deserving winners and losers is corrosive.

Its not a myth but its not perfect, judging and rewarding people on immutable characteristics will turn the UK into a kleptocracy. We can already see this in the young with so many identifying as non-binary. Inequality is a universal even in communist countries so a meritocratic liberal West is the only game in town.

 

[The Clamp]

Its not a myth but its not perfect, judging and rewarding people on immutable characteristics will turn the UK into a kleptocracy. We can already see this in the young with so many identifying as non-binary. Inequality is a universal even in communist countries so a meritocratic liberal West is the only game in town.

Sorry, how do you relate judging and rewarding immutable characteristics to kleptocracy and how do you involve non binary identity in this?

Genuine question.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That's exactly how DE & I should work. Diversity and inclusion mean that you don't throw out cvs for people with obviously black, Asian or female names or fail to hire the best interviewee just because they identify as 'they'.

BUT it does also mean you don't throw out the cvs of every white, straight male over 45 and I assure you that is happening, particularly where applications have to be online and are passed through an system where a junior programmer has tried to write an inclusion algorithm. It's also happening in my wife's employer right now where they are not allowed to advertise any vacancy internally because the current employees are deemed too white and too old.

However, that's not 'woke' or even positive discrimination. In the first instance it's big companies trying to save money on recruitment and implementing one part of it particularly badly. In the other it's a misunderstanding of what DEI is. A senior executive wanting to change how the organisation looks right now rather than organically over time, while still being fair to current employees.

Inclusion includes older white people. When it doesn't do that things morph into the ridiculous conspiracy allegations of the alt-right and become rife for the likes of Crawley Dingo to consume and shit back out all over the internet. As a society we need to understand that sometimes implementing a concept poorly has dangerous repercussions.

Yep. Implementing a concept poorly........

I may have posted this before. My professional society (which is a registered charity not a professional body like the British Medical Council) wanted to rename a prize after the pharma sponsor pulled out. I am on the membership and awards (M&A) committee (which has women and ethnic minorities on it). The idea was to name the prize after someone who had made a major contribution to our field. I recommended a bloke (who died recently) who is a legend with an 'h' factor of more than 250 (which means he has published at least 250 original research papers (not counting reviews) that have each been cited more than 250 times; for comparison my h factor is 39). It was unanimously accepted. Then the recommendation went to 'Council' (the body that governs the society). These are all volunteers (like the M&A committee). Council bounced it because one very loud voice objected on the grounds of DEI. I mean, FFS.

OK. So let's take this objection seriously. One problem here is partly that there are only a small number of deceased women who have been luminaries, and we have already named prizes after most of them. Another issue is we are naming a research prize, not promoting or employing someone.

This person on council suggested a female of non Caucasian heritage (who happens to be 10 years younger than me, and although well known, is a bit of a grifter). She's very much alive and kicking and would have cringed had she been told of this wheeze. Her CV looks pitiful compared with the original nominee. The society president, chair of the M&A committee, a mild mannered and considered man (and a Knight of the Realm for services to our discipline) was livid. Council was undermining the work of our committee. The rest of council looked out of the window, quietly whistling mournful sea shanties.

The D&A committee tried very hard to identify a non-white non-bloke as the person to name the prize after. We could not find anyone remotely as good as my suggestion. We all agreed,

It was therefore agreed to invite the whole membership to nominate names. We have thousands of members.

After a year (!) we were given a shortlist. It had two names on it. One was nominated by me and several others. It was the bloke I originally nominated. The other had one nominee. I mean, what the actual f***?

Council have yet to agree our recommendation. The non white and female members of the M&A committee are as cross as me about this.

This is basically what happens when the misguided are allowed to pursue tomfoolery. The members of council include too many characters who want to be on council to boost their CV. And they just sit there like grinning mannequins when decision need to be made. The DEI hawk is a lay member of the committee, co-opted to bring some DEI knowhow.

What the hawk doesn't know is that the man whose name we chose to use is not only a luminary, but is of working class heritage, worked off his balls to get where is was, and selflessly devoted himself to furthering the careers of others. She didn't ask us about this, and wasn't in any case interested when we tried to explain his luminosity.

And I say all that as a wokey lefty who supported RAR and went on the UK's biggest ever antinuclear march. Oh, and am a member of the labour party.

ALL that said, I reiterate GB's point that diversity and inclusion mean that you don't throw out cvs for people with obviously black, Asian or female names or fail to hire the best interviewee just because they identify as 'they'. It is ALL ABOUT THE BEST CANDIDATE.

And......exhale.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Haha Harry, I like your analogy. I couldn’t be arsed to trawl through the whole thread so just posted what I wanted, leaving the more intellectual side of the discussion /argument to my morally and intellectually superior fellow posters on NSC, like yourself! I know my place
I might be old, but not quite that old! Anyway, I have a ‘muso’ wife younger than me and she keeps me in touch with all that kind of thing, but perhaps not the more obscure musical tastes that you seem to favour!
Grandson is only four so is not entirely familiar with Blur or Oasis, let alone the Mail or the Guardian.

Thank you for not taking umbrage at my florid analogy. I'm fond of a florid analogy, but it takes a proper grown up to not see it as a criticism. I salute you

 

[Jim in the West]

Yep. Implementing a concept poorly........

I may have posted this before. My professional society (which is a registered charity not a professional body like the British Medical Council) wanted to rename a prize after the pharma sponsor pulled out. I am on the membership and awards (M&A) committee (which has women and ethnic minorities on it). The idea was to name the prize after someone who had made a major contribution to our field. I recommended a bloke (who died recently) who is a legend with an 'h' factor of more than 250 (which means he has published at least 250 original research papers (not counting reviews) that have each been cited more than 250 times; for comparison my h factor is 39). It was unanimously accepted. Then the recommendation went to 'Council' (the body that governs the society). These are all volunteers (like the M&A committee). Council bounced it because one very loud voice objected on the grounds of DEI. I mean, FFS.

OK. So let's take this objection seriously. One problem here is partly that there are only a small number of deceased women who have been luminaries, and we have already named prizes after most of them. Another issue is we are naming a research prize, not promoting or employing someone.

This person on council suggested a female of non Caucasian heritage (who happens to be 10 years younger than me, and although well known, is a bit of a grifter). She's very much alive and kicking and would have cringed had she been told of this wheeze. Her CV looks pitiful compared with the original nominee. The society president, chair of the M&A committee, a mild mannered and considered man (and a Knight of the Realm for services to our discipline) was livid. Council was undermining the work of our committee. The rest of council looked out of the window, quietly whistling mournful sea shanties.

The D&A committee tried very hard to identify a non-white non-bloke as the person to name the prize after. We could not find anyone remotely as good as my suggestion. We all agreed,

It was therefore agreed to invite the whole membership to nominate names. We have thousands of members.

After a year (!) we were given a shortlist. It had two names on it. One was nominated by me and several others. It was the bloke I originally nominated. The other had one nominee. I mean, what the actual f***?

Council have yet to agree our recommendation. The non white and female members of the M&A committee are as cross as me about this.

This is basically what happens when the misguided are allowed to pursue tomfoolery. The members of council include too many characters who want to be on council to boost their CV. And they just sit there like grinning mannequins when decision need to be made. The DEI hawk is a lay member of the committee, co-opted to bring some DEI knowhow.

What the hawk doesn't know is that the man whose name we chose to use is not only a luminary, but is of working class heritage, worked off his balls to get where is was, and selflessly devoted himself to furthering the careers of others. She didn't ask us about this, and wasn't in any case interested when we tried to explain his luminosity.

And I say all that as a wokey lefty who supported RAR and went on the UK's biggest ever antinuclear march. Oh, and am a member of the labour party.

ALL that said, I reiterate GB's point that diversity and inclusion mean that you don't throw out cvs for people with obviously black, Asian or female names or fail to hire the best interviewee just because they identify as 'they'. It is ALL ABOUT THE BEST CANDIDATE.

And......exhale.

I feel your pain!! A great read, though

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I feel your pain!! A great read, though

Hope you're OK Jim. Been a while.

 

[zefarelly]

Yep. Implementing a concept poorly........

I may have posted this before. My professional society (which is a registered charity not a professional body like the British Medical Council) wanted to rename a prize after the pharma sponsor pulled out. I am on the membership and awards (M&A) committee (which has women and ethnic minorities on it). The idea was to name the prize after someone who had made a major contribution to our field. I recommended a bloke (who died recently) who is a legend with an 'h' factor of more than 250 (which means he has published at least 250 original research papers (not counting reviews) that have each been cited more than 250 times; for comparison my h factor is 39). It was unanimously accepted. Then the recommendation went to 'Council' (the body that governs the society). These are all volunteers (like the M&A committee). Council bounced it because one very loud voice objected on the grounds of DEI. I mean, FFS.

OK. So let's take this objection seriously. One problem here is partly that there are only a small number of deceased women who have been luminaries, and we have already named prizes after most of them. Another issue is we are naming a research prize, not promoting or employing someone.

This person on council suggested a female of non Caucasian heritage (who happens to be 10 years younger than me, and although well known, is a bit of a grifter). She's very much alive and kicking and would have cringed had she been told of this wheeze. Her CV looks pitiful compared with the original nominee. The society president, chair of the M&A committee, a mild mannered and considered man (and a Knight of the Realm for services to our discipline) was livid. Council was undermining the work of our committee. The rest of council looked out of the window, quietly whistling mournful sea shanties.

The D&A committee tried very hard to identify a non-white non-bloke as the person to name the prize after. We could not find anyone remotely as good as my suggestion. We all agreed,

It was therefore agreed to invite the whole membership to nominate names. We have thousands of members.

After a year (!) we were given a shortlist. It had two names on it. One was nominated by me and several others. It was the bloke I originally nominated. The other had one nominee. I mean, what the actual f***?

Council have yet to agree our recommendation. The non white and female members of the M&A committee are as cross as me about this.

This is basically what happens when the misguided are allowed to pursue tomfoolery. The members of council include too many characters who want to be on council to boost their CV. And they just sit there like grinning mannequins when decision need to be made. The DEI hawk is a lay member of the committee, co-opted to bring some DEI knowhow.

What the hawk doesn't know is that the man whose name we chose to use is not only a luminary, but is of working class heritage, worked off his balls to get where is was, and selflessly devoted himself to furthering the careers of others. She didn't ask us about this, and wasn't in any case interested when we tried to explain his luminosity.

And I say all that as a wokey lefty who supported RAR and went on the UK's biggest ever antinuclear march. Oh, and am a member of the labour party.

ALL that said, I reiterate GB's point that diversity and inclusion mean that you don't throw out cvs for people with obviously black, Asian or female names or fail to hire the best interviewee just because they identify as 'they'. It is ALL ABOUT THE BEST CANDIDATE.

And......exhale.

I have a friend who didn't get a sniff of gigs at a few festivals this year. He was specifically told they already have too many white male artists.

I love music, I don't give a f*** who makes it, it either sounds good or it doesn't.

This really does get a bit silly at times.

as I've said several times here, I had to look up woke . . . Turns out it's normal . . . So why don't people in certain places and scenarios behave like it.

 

[Guinness Boy]

@Crawley Dingo has been busy phoning in to talk shows.

 

[Mr Bridger]

I have a friend who didn't get a sniff of gigs at a few festivals this year. He was specifically told they already have too many white male artists.

I love music, I don't give a f*** who makes it, it either sounds good or it doesn't.

This really does get a bit silly at times.

as I've said several times here, I had to look up woke . . . Turns out it's normal . . . So why don't people in certain places and scenarios behave like it.

I read somewhere that this years Glastonbury headliners were described as male, pale & stale.

 

[Jim in the West]

I often think it would be interesting to have (say) 20 years of anti-white, anti-male prejudice (with all the issues that most people of colour and women faced/face). It should help even things up a bit. Of course, most white males (I’m one of them) wouldn’t cope. We wouldn’t just get on with things (as the vast majority of women and people of colour have had to do). We’d basically down tools and/or resort to civil disobedience. And no doubt absolutely demand some form of positive discrimination.
But we’d certainly get to see life from a different perspective.

 

[Stato]

I read somewhere that this years Glastonbury headliners were described as male, pale & stale.

How relieved everybody must be that the bookies favourites to headline next year are.....

Coldplay.... Yet again.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

@Crawley Dingo has been busy phoning in to talk shows.

Nice attempt at projection, this is what I have actually been watching. About 40 minutes long but brings all the disparate threads of the arguments together.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Nice attempt at projection, this is what I have actually been watching. About 40 minutes long but brings all the disparate threads of the arguments together.

Even easier to link to a video than copy and paste a Google. I hope you’re using the time saved valuably. Might I suggest Googling “satire”?

 

[BadFish]

Nice attempt at projection, this is what I have actually been watching. About 40 minutes long but brings all the disparate threads of the arguments together.

I am absolutely astounded that you are getting your information from YouTube. This revaluation has utterly utterly floored me.

I will post again once I have recovered from my giddy dizzy catatonia.

Amazing.

 

[BadFish]

Even easier to link to a video than copy and paste a Google. I hope you’re using the time saved valuably. Might I suggest Googling “satire”?

I found one review of his work.

Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in 'Apocalypse Never' by Michael Shellenberger » Yale Climate Connections

A new book that critiques environmentalism is deeply and fatally flawed.

yaleclimateconnections.org

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Nice attempt at projection, this is what I have actually been watching. About 40 minutes long but brings all the disparate threads of the arguments together.

I'm going to suggest that those 40minutes may be better spent drinking beer and masturbating.
Although I accept that what works for me may not be for everyone.

 

[The Clamp]

Nice attempt at projection, this is what I have actually been watching. About 40 minutes long but brings all the disparate threads of the arguments together.

That guy is held in such low esteem by his peers, it’s almost funny.

I mean, he really is dismissed as a crank.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

I'm going to suggest that those 40minutes may be better spent drinking beer and masturbating.
Although I accept that what works for me may not be for everyone.

They may not be as politicly lazy as you which begs the question why are you are in this thread? Don't tell me it is curiosity as your above answer failed that as well.