Jury awards $10M to former exec who said he was fired because he is white male

No I think communism is bad just not everything about it, nor is it the root of all our problems. You also have to distinguish between different kinds of commie regimes.

Because the modern conception of equality is basically a gateway drug to (liberal ) communism. You can largely thank Rawls (among many others) for that: he basically laid the theoretical conversion for liberalism to communism.

Not really. The modern concept of equality, at least in the UK, has existed for a good 4-5 decades but we are no where near to communism. If anything, our economy has become more capitalist over time.

This is a ridiculous settlement. White people can’t be victims of racism because racism is prejudice plus power. White people have institutional power, BAME people don’t, so even if a white person is fired because of their race, it isn’t racism and they shouldn’t receive any compensation.

This is a ridiculous settlement. White people can’t be victims of racism because racism is prejudice plus power. White people have institutional power, BAME people don’t, so even if a white person is fired because of their race, it isn’t racism and they shouldn’t receive any compensation.

This is without a doubt the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen. It is so dumb that I’m genuinely surprised you were able to navigate the sign-up process in order to post such stupidity in the first place.

How do white people have institutional power?

This is without a doubt the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen. It is so dumb that I’m genuinely surprised you were able to navigate the sign-up process in order to post such stupidity in the first place.

I do struggle to believe sometimes that people can genuinely convince themselves of such nonsense, but evidently, some are quite capable of it - even excel at it.

I said 'consider', not 'hire'. It would be good from both a company point of view to at least try to genuinely interview candidates who haven't been referred as a buddy by an existing employee, and from a wider society point of view.

"Equality of opportunity" is just backdoor communism

Agreed.

I guess that then makes you backdoor Nazis.

Wait I thought you said we were the same as Antifa? Make your mind up man

They're probably a troll. New accounts that write stuff like that usually serve only to bait people.

Ironically, you do share the same cognitive distortion on this front (out of many in general - in fact, almost all of them) in your shared loathing of liberal democracy and rationality.

Far right: equal opportunity is commie
Far left: equal opportunity is fash

Theres not really any meaningful difference between the words there. If you're putting peoples foot in the door simply by dint of their skin colour it is patently racist. Especially as the example you gave in comparison hardly ever occurs these days. Can you name any people you know who got their jobs from the old boys network?

If you think that an 'unusual' candidate would be more likely to succeed at interview should they be considered alongside 'usual' candidates, then perhaps you agree with me that it is a good idea to deliberately consider such candidates? It doesn't need to be specifically due to skin colour or gender, but some variety is bound to be beneficial. It is more effort for HR to do so, of course, and a company can be stuck in a locally optimum comfort zone, so it can take government intervention. That intervention is generally justified by increasing opportunity available to everyone, which I agree with in principle. It can go too far, but I don't think having to consider a variety of candidates is at all too far.

At my company, I know several who have got the job (or left for another) primarily due to knowing someone. If you want someone famous then the House of Commons has a lot of examples.

Im not sure what you mean by the first point?
Suffice it to say io believe no one should be given preferential treatment, ber it simply consideration or actively hiring, because they come from a so called marginalised community people should only be hired based on their competence and nothing else. Job hunting is a zero sum game and giving people an advantage because of some quirk of fate is absurd.
People should be considered only in that they put their cv on someones desk, as it were, nothing more. The way the civil service do it is relatively good in that they make you remove identifying traits from your resume so you dont know if theyre black, gay, white etc.

The long and the short of it is i dislike rascist or other bigoted hiring practices, whichever way the current flows.

You said there isn't any meaningful difference between considering and hiring an unusual candidate, as if you would expect them to generally be the best option for hiring? That is how I understood what you said, though it seems now like you see any preferential treatment as unacceptable.

I can understand that point of view, and ideally that would be fine. But it is the case that if a workforce is dominated by people of a certain skin colour, gender, ethnicity etc, it can be off-putting or intimidating to those who aren't. If a company has to consider 'outsiders', then at the very least they have to work on their image to be more inviting.

What exactly do we mean by 'unusual' here sorry? Are we talking about minorities or something else?
Indeed i do, i see that jobs should be given to the best candidate, not on some pointless box ticking exercise. Hiring someone based solely on race, gender, sex is by definition bigotry.

Given that Britain is a white country's the workforce will always be majority white though.. plus i see no particular benefit to hiring a minority simply because theyre a minority. If theyre the best candidate then brilliant, hire them by all means but it makes no sense to hire someone who isnt the best candidate simply to appease some stupid HR diktat on having 'diversity' for diversity's sake. It harms the company, it harms the candidates and at the end of the day, when thew racist hiring is shown to the public and company employees (after all, hiring someone because of their ethnicity is racist) will hardly reflect well on the person who got the job where theyre shown to be there for no other reason than they tick a box. They might well appreciate having a job but personally, if i were in that position , id find it grossly demeaning in that i had to rely on my supposed marginalisation to get a job and not on my skills.

What exactly do we mean by 'unusual' here sorry? Are we talking about minorities or something else?

Indeed i do, i see that jobs should be given to the best candidate, not on some pointless box ticking exercise. Hiring someone based solely on race, gender, sex is by definition bigotry.

Given that Britain is a white country's the workforce will always be majority white though.. plus i see no particular benefit to hiring a minority simply because theyre a minority. If theyre the best candidate then brilliant, hire them by all means but it makes no sense to hire someone who isnt the best candidate simply to appease some stupid HR diktat on having 'diversity' for diversity's sake. It harms the company, it harms the candidates and at the end of the day, when thew racist hiring is shown to the public and company employees (after all, hiring someone because of their ethnicity is racist) will hardly reflect well on the person who got the job where theyre shown to be there for no other reason than they tick a box. They might well appreciate having a job but personally, if i were in that position , id find it grossly demeaning in that i had to rely on my supposed marginalisation to get a job and not on my skills.