Jump to content

mrfahaji

Members
  • Content Count

    4,047
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That's fine, totally understand that argument and of course in isolation I agree with the sentiment. However, what if a highly qualified black woman doesn't get a job because clubs DON'T have to fill a quota and therefore give it to someone else - because even though she appears to be qualified, is she really going to fit in with the 'culture' in the office? She might have the grades, but she doesn't sound that intelligent with that accent... Sounds like she has read up on the club, but (being a woman) it all sounds a bit forced, she doesn't come across as a 'natural' follower of the industry
  2. Absolutely, but if "virtue signalling" encourages other people to be better, is it something to feel particularly nauseous about? More nauseous that the original problem? It seems common nowadays to dismiss anyone trying to raise awareness about issues as "virtue signalling". While it no doubt exists and some examples are irritating, there's also a lot of people out there doing a lot more (even if it is 'just words') than others - including me! - to improve other people's lives, and writing them off as do-gooders or virtue signallers is just a comfort to one's own laziness, apathy or prejudice
  3. Could you not argue that because of their quotas, even though they took a dip for a while, that positive discrimination led to more black kids being interested in the sport (because they saw more people from their backgrounds playing, and therefore didn't assume it was off limits to them), and eventually leading to an even better team in future? Because now they have a bigger/better talent pool as a result of black people playing rugby? I'm not a follower of rugby but you said they are current world champions, so it hasn't really done them any harm in the long run has it? While I do under
  4. Sure, I was thinking even as I was writing it that maybe people imagine that it's discrimination and not a repeated error etc, but my aim/point was to try and take those possibilities out of the equation, because while I'm sure there are plenty of examples of people exaggerating discrimination, I also think it's far too easy for people to CLAIM it's all made up! Those made me laugh btw, thanks I am definitely the type of person who would judge based on spelling/grammar and lament that so many people seem to think it's not important anymore (I have a pet peeve of people writing "with rega
  5. Depends. But not if it's there to combat negative discrimination, which exists. Like all these things I could put myself in either situation and find fault with it. Would I be annoyed if I went for a job at Southampton FC and didn't get it because while I was the best qualified and performed best at interview, they had to take on someone else who was female or an ethnic minority? Of course I would, might even make me feel a bit racist/sexist! However, if I had a foreign sounding name, and thought I was cut out for jobs (or at least knew I was good enough for an interview) that I kept on being
  6. I am surprised (maybe I shouldn't be) that the aims specify "hires" rather than "interviews". I can totally see how someone with an unusual name might not get an interview because someone is either prejudice or subconciously biased, but you'd like to think that a face to face interview would give an opportunity to overcome that discrimination (supposing of course that the person hiring isn't a massive racist). To enforce that you actually have to HIRE a % of a certain type of person rather suggests the best people for the job won't necessarily get it. I'd be interested to hear a counter a
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})