hypochondriac

Obviously. That's my point.

Poor white people are excluded as well.

You normally have stinking rich parents.

Great Post. Agree completely.

There's all sorts of reasons for one particular race being underrepresented in a profession, just as there's differing levels of representation across a host of jobs for men, women, straight people, gay people, Jewish people etc etc. I don't think it's particularly helpful to talk about unconscious bias being the problem just because a section of society is underrepresented in a particular profession. Do you not think there are other factors that could mean that a race is underrepresented that have nothing to do with so called unconscious bias? What do you mean by jobs of this kind? It seems like you're ranking the jobs market based solely on pay rates and then claiming unconscious bias because black people are underrepresented in higher paid jobs. I'm not sure how useful it is to lump all sorts of disparate jobs together purely based on pay level. There's a ton of lower paid jobs where lots of groups including black people are underrepresented. So is that due to unconscious bias as well or is there something else at play? It sounds like you don't really have any answers with regards to unconscious bias either than. So if there's a debate about its existence and certainly whether it improves things to actually 'discover' it then why are people expending so much energy trying to find it? Surely those energies would be better used elsewhere doing things that would actually make a tangible positive impact on the black community? Improving education would be a good idea as would dealing with the crisis of high levels of fatherlessness and the glamourosation of black culture. Dealing with those things just a little bit would do loads more to improve outcomes for black people than any amount of unconscious bias training ever could. In my opinion and from experience, the biggest problems affecting long term outcomes is apathy from parents and a lack of proper guidance and abdication of parental responsibility. If we improve education for those who are lower class, tackle fatherlessnes and start to emphasise parental responsibility in the lives of children for all races then you're going to raise outcomes for all children but in particular children from black households. If we put all our energy into that then I'm confident that there would be greater levels of BAME representation but it's not going to happen and it's a better sticking plaster from a companies point of view to employ a quick fix and stick a few token black people onto their board, apologise for their unconscious racism that they didn't even know they had until five minutes ago and tick the diversity box. Be honest, what's easier? For society to collectively recognise the part we all have to play in bringing up young people properly and taking the proper steps to actually do that? Or for every company to mandate that their employees take unconscious bias training to identify their hidden original sin and learn about how they were always racist all along they just didn't know it yet? Thank you for replying in a civil manner.

I don't doubt he's got ability. The problem is when he has a bit of adversity he seems to really go off the boil.

Ah unconscious bias. The implicit association test is terribly flawed. For a start it's not repeatable and gives different results if the same subject repeats the test. Secondly there's no evidence whatsoever that pointing out so called unconscious bias (if that's actually what it is) has a demonstrably positive impact on behaviour and some evidence that it actually makes things worse. So for those who believe in unconscious racism, firstly how do we identify it? How can we say for certain that a 'bias' a test has identified is actually a bias? How do we prove that this bias affects the behaviour of the individual (bearing in mind there's some evidence to suggest there's not a correlation) and how do we measure to what extent a group being underrepresented in a profession is as a result of unconscious bias and not other factors such as different choices or a difference in competence among candidates? How come it's only the prestigious jobs that anyone seems to care about as well? You don't see anyone all over the media bemoaning for example the lack of female rubbish collectors or the proportionally lower number of black park keepers or male childcare workers. Presumably these disparities are also due to unconscious bias so why isn't there a more mainstream push to counter problems like that?

Hard to argue with that. Like many wingers he's maddeningly inconsistent and I don't know how strong he is mentally. I'd like to see us bring in another winger if we can offload some of our other players to maybe compete with him.

That's interesting because I can't recall any of your posts beyond this conversation. Good to know I occupy your thoughts offline though. Maybe try to write something more memorable.

I only know what he told me. I wasn't physically present as I already pointed out. Again, really odd you'd think I'd go to the trouble of inventing it. He does work in an incredibly "woke" area so it's hardly the world's most unexpected or outlandish behaviour from the types of people he has to deal with.

Not even close.

I can't see why he'd feel the need to lie about it or why you think I'd bother to make up something like that. One of the people involved cited this pledge apparently:.

How should the meeting have been divided then in your eyes? What if they had a mixed race individual on the call, is that sufficient? What if you're a lighter skinned black, presumably you'd get a higher diversity score if you're much darker skinned like someone from Kenya? How about if they had the correct number of black people but not enough women? What if there wasn't enough gay representation? Or trans? What about older people? Surely you'd want the proper amount of representation from the overweight contingent too? And vegans, can't forget about them. Should all meetings be put on hold until a sufficient amount of representation is sought for all meetings or is it just black people?

I didn't say I meant anything, I only told you exactly what I had posted. It was crystal clear what I said in my post and its jot my fault if you've misunderstood it. Be a man for once and own up to your mistake. What I was actually saying was that there's been a a lot of examples of so called cancel culture recently where someone doesn't like what someone has said and so seeks to get them fired or removed from whatever they are doing. It's a phenomenon most recently observed by the likes of those well known right wingers jk Rowling and noam chomsky.

My father was on a zoom call this week to discuss some government proposals and they actually had to cancel the meeting and reconvene at a later date because there weren't enough black people on the call. Some of the people on the call actually asked if anyone knew a black person who could join just so they could continue with the meeting.

No I didn't. I said "some of this idiocy" which if you read the post I responded to was clearly referring to people calling for things to be cancelled for ridiculous reasons. I wasn't referring specifically to the guardian (which I've never wanted to be cancelled anyway.) although I believe there was a petition started to have it cancelled.

"We know James Ward-Prowse is a very safe penalty shooter but I always have a problem with the guy who is fouled and picks up the ball. We have a clear ranking and we will not discuss this. As long as Danny Ings has goals in his game and we win, we are happy." Naughty boy.

Which state? Texas?

Are you seriously going to get me to dredge up the multitude of examples of where stupid people have called for someone to be cancelled for normally trifling reasons and often find success with what they're calling for? Did you see the letter on cancel culture releases this week?

I agree with that but some of this idiocy is taken seriously which is a problem.

Maybe you should delve into your family lineage and when you discover something unsavoury maybe you should pay reparations.

Surely ings to keep him in the hunt for the golden Boot?

Why would they bother making any statements if it's such an unimportant and irrelevant minority of thick people? Really odd way for multi millionaire companies to behave- pandering to a tiny minority of dummies. Really makes you think.

I'm saying there's enough ambiguity there to be a cause for concern. It's also clear that "black lives matter" has been synonymous with the black lives matter organisation virtually since its inception. One of the founders is a self described Marxist who has described how the organisation has an ideological foundation. To pretend that black lives matter is actually nothing to do with the organisation of the same name that has been operating almost since it started is dishonest.

And like I already explained to you, having the exact same name as an extremist group that's been around for over a decade means that the confusion will persist all the time that they use the exact same name. There will be a sizable percentage of people who won't have viewed this clarifications. My guess is they will quietly drop it in a few weeks like I said. It was obviously a bad idea to call it the same thing in the first place. Your desperate to downplay it, can't think why.