Based on the recency of this Breitbart article, I’m going to assume that you read it here, or from some blog that linked to it from here. Note that it’s the exact same story as the one I linked to from May 2016, just updated with a new job listing and recycled to keep the readers angry, lest they forget how persecuted they are.
Unlike your characterization, Breitbart at least hits all of the correct facts. This is classic Breitbart; one of the things that Steve Bannon did to give the propaganda site an air of legitimacy. Delivery well-researched content, but with enough of an emotional spin to still have the desired effect. I mean, that headline, the overall tenor of the article. The comments section…
I didn’t say that the BBC had banned “All white people” I simply said that they had banned white people from specific roles within the company. In this case it is an Internships. I also do not care through what organisation they do it, they are responsible for their business relationships, profit or non-profit.
What about a Serbian, or a Romanian? There are eastern European countries that have GDPs lower than China. And we all know that a lot of these countries were subject to awful slavery in the past amongst endless wars and invasions. Yet we are not letting these people apply purely because of their skin colour?. In this advert, they are banned from applying, that is quite frankly - racist.
My point is that unless you have hard line principals in place for dealing with the effects of past racism (IE, not using racism again) then you will just end up re-arranging racism to another community.
When dealing with things like this, I think that opportunities to remove the disadvantages for this people should be available to anyone from a disadvantaged background for whatever reason regardless of their skin colour, which an individual can provide evidence for (preferably from the state, and without telling the person they suck).
Therefore if blacks are over-represented in being disadvantaged, they will be able to get out of this disadvantaged proportionally to every other disadvantaged group.
So if there are 2 Serbians and 8 Blacks, I believe that we should aim to give roles to 4 Blacks for every 1 Serbian. In this case, the BBC would provide the role to all 8 blacks, and screw the Serbians because they’re white - they can wait until last.
The mainstream media will always attempt to make a flashy headline whatever the case. Whether it’s left or right wing. Just like the left media makes stuff up about Trump all the time (I don’t support Trump fyi).
Also, saying “whites are under attack” (in some form) as a headline is going to entice an awful lot more readers than simply just “white nationalists”. Or are you saying that every white person that may feel even the slightest bit threatened by the content is immediately branded a white nationalist and hates immigrants in your eyes?
Apologies if it seems like the thread is moving off-topic btw - perhaps this belongs in a new thread.
But I do feel like it is quite relevant, since white people in Europe are increasingly feeling under attack, that’s a large part of what has driven the rise in nationalist parties all across Europe in recent years. and the “It’s OK to be white” was by no means limited to the USA.
I’m saying that this story was brought to your attention as a result of white nationalists. You may not have read it at a white nationalist website, heck, the Breitbart author might not have been a white nationalist, but I’ll all but guarantee that it bubbled up to the alt-right/right wing news sphere from a white nationalist source. And by sharing it here in the manner that you did, you’ve helped spread white nationalist propaganda.
Consider that the actual story here is that a non-profit in the UK is using legal racial discrimination to attempt to correct for racial inequality in certain industries. This is a subject that intelligent people can debate about, and I myself am not sure it’s the right way to go about solving the problem, but I also don’t feel that it’s an indication that white people are under attack. However, the way that it’s framed, on alt-right blogs, Breitbart, and in your own retelling, that “white people are banned from certain jobs at the BBC,” has the effect of a) spreading a white nationalist message, b) recruiting new white nationalists, and c) convincing people who don’t otherwise consider themselves to be white nationalists to nevertheless vote in a manner that benefits white nationalist causes.
So are you saying that “white people” are actually under attack, or merely that these “white people” feel like they’re under attack? Because there’s little substantive evidence of the former, which means that the latter would be an irrational position for which the originators of the white nationalist propaganda driving those feelings are to blame.
I actually read it from the daily express newspaper (conservative) which was left on a bus seat, which was why I hadn’t cited a source in the first place. We could sit here back and forth all day debating about “where news comes from” and going “hurr durr evil white nationalist sources”
But I don’t believe that any news should be discredited based on "where it came from”. I believe it should be judged solely on the content of the news itself provided the content is factually correct and can stand up to scrutiny. If ISIS or Boko Haram make a video showing 5 people being beheaded, should media outlets not report on it because it was leaked to them by an extreme source?
Also, news flash! Pretty much all news is “Propaganda” since it’s what sells and gets views. I don’t mind this title below, since it’s factually correct, but I can just imagine how the lefty guardian fanboys would think when they read ““Revealed: Britain’s most powerful elite is 97% white | Inequality |”, especially when it’s topped off with the “Inequality” at the end just to stir it up more.
I agree with you where you said you don’t think it’s the right way to go about solving the problem, I hold that same opinion too. But can you define “attack”? I put a lot on this in the bottom of this post.
Also, don’t you think news outlets should be able to continue to report on the same story? If something is exposed that is wrong and then isn’t dealt with, don’t they have every right to report on it again. “Oh, Apple didn’t pay their tax last year either, but we reported it then too… so we had better not report on it this year!”.
I don’t see why the “effects” that news could have should implicate what they can or can’t report or what I can or cannot also recite. (within reason, I obviously wouldn’t advocate a newspaper saying, “EVERY MUSLIM IN THE UK IS A TERRORIST AND THEY’RE GOING TO COMMIT WHITE GENOCIDE TODAY”).
But really, I only care that it is the truth, and whatever spin they want to put on it to fit a narrative (which pretty much always happens, and I just accept) I will happily decipher for myself.
Like in this case: “The BBC has banned white people from certain jobs” seems quite a realistic way to put it in 9 words, I’d be interested to see how you would sum it up in 9 words or similar too.
They have an agreement with an organisation called Creative Access
Creative Access specifically aim to secure careers for people fromnon-white BAME (British. Black, Asian, and minority ethnic) backgrounds.
The BBC are a nation-wide organisation, and people from BAME backgrounds are already over-represented in the organisation.
White-British people are also under-represented in the BBC.
And the BBC has continued to exclude white people from certain roles for an extended period of time with this being the case (As you stated, Breitbart reported on this over a year ago as well) despite them being under-represented.
This responsibility ultimately falls on the BBC, not on Creative Access
As far as I was aware, I simply summed it up in factual terms. Ironically, I believe Breitbart did as well in this case.
If you like, I can word similarly to how you did before.
"a national, effectively tax-payer funded organisation in the UK is using another organisation that uses legal racial discriminationto ensure that BAME staff are over-represented within their organisation, and to ensure that whites are under-represented.
I really, really, don’t think that sounds much better at all. In fact, I think it sounds worse, because it sounds much more institutionalised.
Interesting, I haven’t read the book yet, but I read some summaries, I have bought it just now. I think it’s true. Since the first time in history some humans are attempting to abolish all remnants of cultural racism has come at a time when whites were on top (at least in the west), It’s of no surprise to me that whites aren’t used to feeling as though they are under attack.
But I also think it’s important that we all continue to dissect facts from faction on these topics and form objective opinions, even when we think we’re already right, instead of spoutinghurr durr buzzwords to justify your opinion on a debate.
I could give you a list of situations like this as long as you’d be able to read, but I chose this specific example for a reason:
Here is an official UK government study showing that whites are significantly under-represented in UK universities from November 2015 (and trends would suggest that number would be even lower now), and that whites from poor working-class backgrounds are by far the least likely to go to university.
This is shaping our future, and this is what I meant by it’s hard to put the brakes onto reverse racism - here you can clearly see that in an attempt to push more ethnic minorities into UK universities, we have made whites severely under-represented.
Now the problem is also that these institutions are heavily left-leaning (over 85% of our university professors are left wing, and over 90% have banned some free-speech in some form that is considered fine outside of their institutions). So because they don’t represent an even balance of the current UK political opinions, it’s going to take even longer to step on the brakes with these institutions. (I’m aware that Universities have always tended to the left, but never quite to this extent).
Regardless, I’m sure you can now see how hard it could potentially be to “reverse the effects of reverse-racism” (if that’s how the government wants to continue to play it), and increase the numbers of white working class citizens into our universities with the current political climate of those institutions where “It’s OK to be white” posters are considered deeply offensive by many (compared to outside, where it would not).
Now of course, we could argue why the lack of white people in universities is the case, and what other factors that might be at play here. But I don’t think it would be right to do that with a white minority in our universities now, when we didn’t do it with the minorities beforehand and just went “hurr durr obviously institutional systemic racism despite some people like Thomas Sowell displaying strong evidence-backed arguments against a lot of it (at least in the US).”
Some people might consider this lackluster number of whites going to Universities to be “whites are under attack”.
I don’t, because I don’t think anybody can really know whether whites are “under attack” or not without knowing the future outcomes of situations like the University scenario I just provided.
So yes, I would say that you are correct in that it is just a"feeling" for the most part (Innocent until proven guilty principle). But I believe this is only because it’s impossible to have an accurate estimation of how certain aspects of the legal racial discrimination systems being used are going to translate into outcomes such as happiness, job satisfaction, safety, and prosperity later down the line. It could very well have been an “attack”, but we will never know until it would be too late to do anything about it – plus there are an incalculable amount of variations.
For example, white British people might be Richer on average, but they currently pay 40% inheritance tax over here. What if the Labour (left wing) party forms a government, and increases it to 60%? What if a new Government gets voted in and abolishes it all together? All of these things would affect it drastically. The Chinese over here have significantly more degrees than average, but how valuable will certain degrees be in the future? And which professions will end up being most affected by the development of robotics?
There is way too many factors at play here, and this is exactly why I think it is very important (although maybe it’s just my hurr durr “White Fragility” at play) that we deal with the effects of systemic racism very carefully, in order to not potentially send more fragments of it spiralling off in another direction in the future.
Are you under the impression that repeating strawman versions of other people’s arguments prefaced with “hurr durr” is a particularly convincing approach to discussion?
Whoa!
There is not a ‘white minority’ in UK universities now, and those cites do not say that there is. There are still many more white people than others in the UK, and even though they are under-represented, they still make up the majority of people in higher education.
Note as well that it is still the case that white people are more likely to be offered places than people from other ethnic groups, and that link acknowledges that fact. The reason that more people from other ethnic groups get proportionally more places, is that they apply for more places. From your link;
They get more places because they apply for more places. There are a number of active programs that encourage people from ethnic minorities to apply, and they are successful. You seem to be complaining about something that is a success story
You are right in that I mis-used the term white minority, and I should have worded it as under-represented. However, regardless of that, the way you are putting it is coming across as completely advocating having whites be under-represented simply because there are more white people in the first place? How does demographics justify discrimination?
(To confirm, I don’t actually advocate this kind of “social justice” in the first place, so I don’t actually think this, I’m just playing by the current rules for the sake of debate).
So why are less whites applying? Well there are going to be an absolute ton of factors to consider there, which; to be honest, I don’t particularly have the time to dissect, and I couldn’t care less about because I don’t believe in Social Justice, but perhaps those who advocate it should.
We’re already seeing the government over here talk about trying to tackle the under-representation of white working class people in Universities across the UK, while we also, like you stated - have active private and public programs specifically pushing their agenda for the non-white BAME community, specifically targeting only non-white BAME people to encourage them to do the same as well.
If I am not mistaken, is that not the government already trying to implement reverse-reverse racism to counteract the effects of the discriminatory use of legislation in order to specifically only attempt to improve the future prospects of people from black and ethnic minority, disadvantaged backgrounds, instead of simply everyone from a disadvantaged background regardless of race/skin? If these organisations also aimed to also help people from poor white backgrounds instead of specifically excluding them, then the government wouldn’t have had to step in to and stop this racism again.
It seems very unproductive to me, and a highly probable outcome when you try and fix the effects of past discrimination simply by allowing more discrimination.
Next over here they are focusing on getting more and more people from BAME backgrounds into top universities such as Oxford and Cambridge, and they are also focusing not just on diversity at specific universities, but diversity in specific subjects at universities (Although they are quite passive on whites being massively under-represented in Law, Medicine, and Dentistry over here, 3 of the most well paid degrees).
The more I read, the more it just really increases my distaste for the whole concept of “Social Justice”.
Serious question, where do you think these discrimination laws should stop being bolstered in your opinion? Equal pay for people of differing shoe sizes? Height? Equal representation of names across universities? Should the government start boosting the amount of Gay Sikh Men in teaching and decline Straight Hindu Women with better qualifications in order to make sure that every institution has an exact representation of the countries demographics in every area?
And when should we stop planting more of these seeds? Or do you think the government should permanently be fiddling with peoples life choices based on whatever factors they see fit?
slightly off-topic, but we’re already seeing young women now earn more than their young male counterparts, as well as being WAY over-represented in Universities compared to their male counterparts as well. Can you not see how this is likely to simply reverse the gender pay gap roles in future? (Plenty of sources online regarding this feel free to take your own pick). If so, don’t you see how this same situation could end up being applied in regards to whites?
Also, should another aspect of social justice take priority over any other? What about if Chinese women start becoming under-represented in universities at some point in the future again? Will women from non-Chinese backgrounds get priority over any type of man, simply to have diverse genders, while sacrificing ethnicity diversity?
I’m just trying to understand what peoples opinions are on the principle foundations of social justice, because to me it seems like it is going to end up shooting itself in the foot.
I firmly believe that the statistics show that we have already planted the seeds for the next generations to have good opportunities and we now need to wait for them to grow.
But instead, I believe we are continuing to plant more in some areas of “Social Justice”, and it won’t be until the first ones have all bloomed, in 20, 30, 40 years time, that we realise that we actually planted too many - and it could quite easily have negative impacts for whole generations on specific communities.
And you mention this because a six-word flippant comment is somehow comparable to a multi-screen-filling screed which purports to raise actual serious points, points which have already been addressed?
What do you want me to say? That it’s obvious that you need to strawman your opponents’ arguments because of the evident weaknesses in your own? That your “all sides do it” point ignores the fact that there are significant differences in degree between the various sides? That the “affirmative action is reverse racism” claim - which has been hashed and rehashed for decades including here - requires one to maintain a narrow focus on current practice without considering the historical practices AA and equivalent programs are specifically attempting to rectify? That this idea that we can only redress longstanding endemic racism and sexism as long as it doesn’t impact white men in any way - the same bullshit that drove the #notallmen and #alllivesmatter nonsense - is an ongoing example of the whole “white fragility” point?
Of course there are problems with programs designed to increase minority and female inclusion in education and all forms of employment which previously favoured white men (deliberately or by default), and there will be individuals who are disadvantaged by these programs. But the problems the programs are attempting to rectify are far greater - and disadvantage a much larger number of people - than the problems these programs have, and if sometimes the programs get it wrong the answer is to fix them, not to scrap them. And the answer certainly isn’t to whine about how unfair it is to the majority that every now and then the minority get a helping hand up.
Mind you, much of this whole debate pitting sensitive white people against minoritiesis the intended outcome of the white nationalist propaganda designed to stir the shit (as has also been pointed out to you already). The real way to get rid of these programs is to work to stop the bigotry that they are designed to counter, not to enable it.
I just stumbled on this horrifying video. Anybody who thinks the U.S. is not unusually racist for a developed country would do well to watch it. I have witnessed episodes similar to those depicted here.
One woman screams at someone speaking a foreign language on the grounds that “we fought for Freedom Speech.” Can anyone explain that non sequitur?
You’re talking in generalities to excuse the behavior of a sinister movement.
Imagine if a Grand Wizard of the KKK, circa 1953 in Alabama, made a habit of combing through local police blotters, and tipped off a sympathetic reporter to stories like an African-American with a criminal record for petty theft was caught trying to steal a car. The reporter would run headlines like, “Degenerate Negro Thief at it Again.” Imagine the KKK ensured that stories like this ran on a weekly basis.
Each story is factually accurate, each headline is only lightly sensationalized, but the effect is exactly what the KKK wants – to create a false reality (black people are thieves and this is a major problem) to replace the real reality (petty theft is a fact of life).
So yes, I absolutely think we should question the motivations behind news in general, and specifically this story about a harmless diversity program for media interns in the UK being spread around as though it’s an affront to white people should be should be revealed for what it is, an article of white nationalist propaganda.
The vast majority of responses here are just basically claiming that everything (including the reason my opinion is prevalent) is “white nationalist propaganda”. I could say the same back… but that’s not what I’m here to do. I’m here to get informed responses to legitimate scrutinizing I am doing of diversity programs (which by the way, is a big part of the reason “it’s OK to be white” has even surfaced, which is what this thread is about). But it’s not surprising to be honest, I suppose it’s a lot easier just to point out some racist past events and scream white nationalist propaganda & white fragility, in a desperate attempt to justify your side of the debate. I mean it’s only legal racial discrimination after all, absolutely not a delicate area of politics at all, what could possibly go wrong. Anyways… in my long and so far relatively unfruitful attempt to try and find meaningful debates regarding the actual performance of diversity programs, on the net; I will continue here.
Didn’t comment on “affirmative action”, but lets go with it. I like your choice of word… “impact”. I don’t mind at all that it has an “impact” on “whites” overall as long as it doesn’t leave specific ethnic/class groupsseverely disadvantaged in our society. You know, like the working class white community over here in the UK, who have been completely left in the dirt in terms of equal opportunities because they aren’t getting a fair share of the opportunities available aimed at dealing with it (such as entry level jobs and equal school funding).
Also I liked “requires one to maintain a narrow focus on current practice without considering the historical practices”. When a lot of my previous post was actually based on the future effects of these practices. - Which so far has had zero response (since I kind of think that might just be a touch more important).
But of course it’s fair; right? Because without the lingering effects of systemic racism primarily between the 16th to 19th centuries, we know for certain, 110%, that working class whites in Britain would definitely be the most disadvantaged in our country (who of course were never enslaved here right? while you’re on the topic of history).
It’s also interesting how you simply responded with “White Fragility” again. It’s ironic that on a thread about discrimination you are literally using my own skin colour as a means of attempting to justify your side of the debate, perhaps if it was my Nigerian fiancée posting you would have said something else.
First of all, the vast majority of political disasters in history have all happened when politicians employ the idea that the ends justifies the means - I strongly advise you don’t do the same. Anyway, you once again took the stance of majority vs minority instead of under-representation vs over-representation. if 80% of a country is one ethnicity, and 20% of it is another ethnicity, do you think the aim of racial discrimination laws should be to ensure 80%/20% representation, or 50%/50% representation? I’m just trying to get a hold of your basic principles here -
because it seems like nobody has any.
I am by no means “excusing the behavior of a sinister movement”. In your example, the perpetrator should 110% be punished for inciting racism if it can be proved in a court of law. And like I said, I don’t agree with any Propaganda either, but I accept that as a member of the public, I have to be able to filter through it, since it isn’t practical to have 100% unbiased, objective media from *any *political viewpoint. (Even the BBC over here which is tax-payer funded of sorts is significantly biased, probably due to 55% of journalists over here openly being lefties).
However, that also doesn’t mean that the black man who committed an act of theft should be let off for committing a crime just because he’s black. If someone breaks your leg while robbing a bank, it’s assessed whether breaking your leg was reasonable self defence separately, and meanwhile your leg gets treated, and then you go to jail for trying to rob the bank.
That’s pretty ridiculous, idiot racists. And yeah for sure the USA is more racist on average than most western countries. Perhaps I’d get different response if I was posting on a UK political forum, since the UK is years ahead of the US when it comes to progressive policies. I think people in the states could learn a lot about the future of progressive policies from the current political climate in Europe right now, although it seems the nationalism kicked in a bit earlier over there on the 8th November 2016 lol.
