You think it is acceptable to take certain identity groups out of the conversation to begin with. I don’t. I’m only bothered about who can do the job. You are more concerned with the skin colour of that person and I don’t think that is relevant.
which cannot be defined other than by circular reasoning. There are as many “white male” perspectives as there are white males.
which you also cannot define other than by circular reasoning.
well at least we’ve established who is favour of racist employment policies.
It is a perfectly fair question. It deals with the suitability of people for certain roles and whether you take identify group membership into account, but I’m not surprised you are unwilling to address it.
Your whole argument rests on the imagined heterogeneity of a mythical “white male” perspective and the unsuitability of anyone in such a group being capable of providing anything than that perspective. I reject that completely as being racist and essentialist.
Despite what Soul Man may have taught you, White men can’t do the job of not being White men.
And none of those are a non-White&male perspective.
I’m not “reasoning” anything other than the Law of Noncontradiction.
Ha ha. “You’re the real racist because you’re intolerant of continuing a racist system”. Looks like we missed one British comedian from consideration… I’ll alert Comedy Central.
Naah, it’s bullshit, and I already explained why. Apples and oranges. Breaking news: broken comparison remains broken, attempted tu quoque still a dud.
Nope, that’s still your strawman version of what I’m saying.
Yes, White males remain incapable of providing a non-White, non-male perspective.
Don’t really care, quite frankly - I mean, if I wanted the bad White male perspective on this, I have Late Night TV, after all…
.
Straight, white men spent a millennium or so building a system to preserve their privilege. It’s the entire structure of our society and its institutions that is founded in racism.
If you are saying, “okay, we will keep everything as it is, but we are going say it can’t be racist any more,” then you are going to guarantee the preservation of a racist system.
You have to break the system somehow.
But, no way, mate, we are not going to accept “Yeah, okay, we are going to keep everything the same, but we will be fair from now on.” That’s bullshit.
We can’t address the “Black men can’t sell or lead [because white people will not buy or follow] problem” until we address the “White men can’t jump” problem.
And before you go all innocently outraged, I’m not saying either of those is true or not racist. The impact on people’s lives is massively different in scale.
One of us is in favour of getting rid of racist employment policies, One of us is in favour of implementing them. I’ll leave it to the good dopers to see if they can see which is which.
That’s not the point that I’m making at all. Levelling the playing field and getting rid of systemic racism will help and inconvenience everyone to some degree.
I’m sure some will think it has superficial relevance without giving a moment’s thought to how it actually relates to the concept of non-discriminatory hiring practices.
Then they are obviously not smart enough to read the part when one person suggests hiring based on sex, sexuality and ethnicity and the other is fundamentally opposed to it.
You’ve made that strange accusation before, I didn’t understand the relevance then, I don’t understand it now. Whatever point I make stands on its own independently of the style in which it is delivered.
Or perhaps they’re smart enough to notice how carefully you frame your position to exclude the significant historical and ongoing systemic contexts for racism.
