Originally posted by Denny Crane
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Bad beat/Moaning/Venting thread - Wordle Gummidge
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by SatNav View Post2 hours googling more or less fancy /designer face masks. Jesus what has life become... On the upside the saggy jaw line will be fixed for a measly 12 euro instead of the 10 k facelift that was to happen in June
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To... View PostPopped into cardiac A&E. Two nurses, a doc, and a doc intern, immediately assigned. Not out of a sense of urgence, just that that's what they do. Seen a fair few people in worse shape being wheeled by and they've the same immediate attachment of nurse and doc support. ECG, echocardigram, blood tests, a few other minor tests done in about 10 minutes. Waiting on bloods now.
Stroke care setup is even more impressive. If they think you may be having a stroke they will bring you straight to a special area right at the door where the ambulance can bring you to tests and XRay will be done and results available within 15 minutes if the stroke specialist is not on site, they will call in a specialist via video link that is all set up in the room and they will decide the type of stroke and whether the clot busting treatment is appropriate.
When I saw it in action a couple of years ago IIRC it was 70 minuted between the time we called the ambulance and he got the clotbuster.
Turning millions into thousands
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lao Lao View Post
Was wondering how long it would take for you to ride into the thread on horseback, fully suited up in a new shiny suit of armour, ready to leave these shores to fight a battle in a foreign country many miles away.
Sticking my penis in a cheese grater seems uncomfortable to me - Would that be equality for my mickey or the cheese grater or both?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Denny Crane View Post
Why are you so concerned about social justice? I'm not saying its a bad thing but it went from nearly none of your posts to nearly all your posts now?
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Guest
Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
Why so hostile? You didn't even pretend to address the point.
- Likes 5
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
Everyone changes. Some people turn into climate change denying trump supporters, others become more socially conscious."I can’t find anyone who agrees with what I write or think these days, so I guess I must be getting closer to the truth." - Hunter S. Thompson
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by AndyFatBastard View Post
Some people join cultsAttached FilesGone full 'Glinner' since June 2022.
- Likes 7
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lao Lao View Post
I'm watching celebrity Masterchef and while I'm all for diversity, equality and all that jazz, they've a bleedin' blind lad on this episode. They are currently in a professional kitchen, how would they even get insurance from a production point of view for that.
I'm sorry Masterchef, you've gone too far, just too far.
I think he's a great role model for people with disability and I hope he might change the perspective of some people who aren't so exposed to what life is like when you are blind or, indeed, what is possible.
- Likes 12
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To... View Post
Ah. Excellent. I must admit that thankfully my only knowledge of Irish healthcare is from news coverage. I'd assumed therefore that everything was like downtown Baghdad with doctors having to use their kids toy stethoscopes to diagnose patients. Which doesn't really make any sense, I suppose, as Irish healthcare outcomes are brilliant.
Maybe I'm just finding hospitals fascinating then. It's amazing how everything just works.
A friend of mine got a nasty cut on his head a couple of weeks ago and was brought to the A&E for stitches about noon, after sitting there for 6 hours he realised that he had cover for one of the private minor injuries clinics so he rang them and asked them would they be able to see him. No bother they say we'll see you straight away where are you now? Like a eejit he told them he was waiting at Naas hospital and they cut him off saying that since he's been inside a hospital they wouldn't see him because Covid. He eventually got stitched up and sent home after 3AMTurning millions into thousands
- Likes 4
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
Nope, that's a very narrow view on equality, narrow to the point of being incorrect.
Or what correct definition of equality means we should ignore relevant ability.Last edited by Mellor; 16-07-20, 14:09.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Really liking that Slow March In Bpm Hectorjelly ! Sounds great on a pair of headphones. Enjoying the reads also!airport, lol
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mellor View PostWhy part of that definition do you think was incorrect?
Or what correct definition of equality means we should ignore relevant ability.
I don't think HJ is saying ignore relevant ability outright. I would imagine he is expressing (albeit a little more belligerently than necessary) the view that the only effective way to correct historic advantages is to bestow, for a short period, a converse advantage on the previously marginalised group. This helps to address more in-built biases. For example, Harvard Business School conducted a study that showed that minority candidates, particularly black ones, fared far better in getting interviews when they "whitened" their resumes. In another study it was shown that when two sets. of 1,000 resumes were sent to employers that were identical in every way except for the racial connotation of the name (James for one, DeShaun for another), the "white" names got the interviews at a rate of (I think) 10 to 1 over black names.
Now, if America (since the example comes from there) disproportionately advanced black people in HR and management roles for a while, do you think that the same issue would continue? Or would the new, diverse workplace then equalise out that bias and give everyone a fair shot?
Let's look at the "relevant ability" issue another way. If 100 black people and 100 white people with absolutely identical abilities apply for 100 jobs and we remove every other variable save for race; what do you think the hiring breakdown is likely to be? Honestly. Your instinctive answer to that issue just proves why "relevant ability" without any other mechanisms for equalisation just leads to continued discrimination. The head start was built-in before any of the contestants got there. So the ones who benefited from it need to come back to the starting line. That means they need to move backwards. It will feel unfair. But it is actually just everyone getting put back on a level playing field overall. It'll mean some people miss out on opportunities they should otherwise have gotten. But if we did it on the "relevant ability" idea then the same thing happens except only to the people it's always happened to.You are technically correct...the best kind of correct
World Record Holder for Long Distance Soul Reads: May 7th 2011
- Likes 7
Comment
-
Originally posted by zuutroy View Post
Are you really surprised that when you go around calling everyone that doesn't agree with you racist, or racist by association, or conflate their views with racism, that they become hostile?
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by ArmaniJeans View Post
I always think the opposite, seems to me to be genuine camaraderie between lots of them.
Coupled with genuine amazement that they can move their shtick via about 15 different shows on BBC2, C4 and Dave and earn a fortune in the process.
Give an example of a few who hate each other, and I'll look out for it.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
It was and yes.
Originally posted by Hectorjelly
Everyone changes. Some people turn into climate change denying trump supporters, others become more socially conscious.
Anyhow, carry on at a gallop speed on your high horse.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
If I fall victim to a societal minority rebalancing fix will I not then begrudge the specific rebalancing process and could it instill in me a sense of injustice that frankly and personally I dont deserve . THis rebalancing is inherently WRONG . To achieve the change required we have to engage the young . Pissing off one side to right the wrongs is the worst approach imo. The reason we still have issues today is that lack of tolerance and this comes from a lack of respect and a dose of fear. The schools should have this as a subject. The approach suggested above could make division more commonplace . For the record I always thought white folk lagged behind most other races , especially in sport. . I guess that makes me racist .
Fk whitepower imo.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
Lao Lao started his post by stating, I'm all for equality but... And then had an example showing his actual intolerance for equality. This is identical to the well known "I'm not a racist..." trope I'm sure everyone has experienced in a taxi. Maybe I wasn't clear.
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity, but I know none, therefore am no beast.
- Likes 5
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kayroo View Post
Imagine you're on a running track. 8 runners in this heat. 4 of them get a 50 metre head start. The other 4 complain and are told "it's not about who started where, it's about who is the best runner. Everyone is in the same heat, now show us what you've got"
I don't think HJ is saying ignore relevant ability outright. I would imagine he is expressing (albeit a little more belligerently than necessary) the view that the only effective way to correct historic advantages is to bestow, for a short period, a converse advantage on the previously marginalised group. This helps to address more in-built biases. For example, Harvard Business School conducted a study that showed that minority candidates, particularly black ones, fared far better in getting interviews when they "whitened" their resumes. In another study it was shown that when two sets. of 1,000 resumes were sent to employers that were identical in every way except for the racial connotation of the name (James for one, DeShaun for another), the "white" names got the interviews at a rate of (I think) 10 to 1 over black names.
Now, if America (since the example comes from there) disproportionately advanced black people in HR and management roles for a while, do you think that the same issue would continue? Or would the new, diverse workplace then equalise out that bias and give everyone a fair shot?
Let's look at the "relevant ability" issue another way. If 100 black people and 100 white people with absolutely identical abilities apply for 100 jobs and we remove every other variable save for race; what do you think the hiring breakdown is likely to be? Honestly. Your instinctive answer to that issue just proves why "relevant ability" without any other mechanisms for equalisation just leads to continued discrimination. The head start was built-in before any of the contestants got there. So the ones who benefited from it need to come back to the starting line. That means they need to move backwards. It will feel unfair. But it is actually just everyone getting put back on a level playing field overall. It'll mean some people miss out on opportunities they should otherwise have gotten. But if we did it on the "relevant ability" idea then the same thing happens except only to the people it's always happened to.
i read the above and I think that in theory they have a 50% chance because if I was the interviewer then all that would matter is ability. Then I correct myself and say well actually that’s not quite true because if they all had identical abilities then I would probably pick the person that I felt fit in best with team so it would come down to what I thought (or we if it was a committee interview) of whatever personality they presented me with during the interview. Which may or may not represent how they actually are in a working environment.
The dissonance occurs because rationally, once I’ve taken time to think about it, I understand that not everybody thinks like me and therefore in reality both white and and black candidates would be disadvantages respectively depending on the feeling of the interviewer that doesn’t believe or practice equality. The same applies obviously for men, women, trans or non-binary interviewees that may apply for a job. Some of that will be bias on the part of the interviewer, some of it will be an attempt to keep an environment ‘comfortable’ for those who are there already...these are both terrible reasons not to hire someone.
So my instinctive reaction is to rail against any implication that I might be anything other than fully supportive of equality and opportunity, and to be frank, a maybe misguided view that people across the board feel the same. My own personal world doesn’t have intolerant people in it so I’m bubbled somewhat but when Intake time to think about it outside my bubble I can clearly see that we don’t yet live in a utopia where it doesn’t exist.
I think this also places a weighing on people thinking it’s ‘overblown’ because it doesn’t happen in their personal circles. Which then leads to the argument that if it’s equal ability then there shouldn’t be push back when there is a lower number of (insert marginalized segment here) in (insert job here) when really, as Kayroo has articulated beautifully, there is an inherent disadvantage overall and until that is corrected there needs to a disadvantage in the opposite direction.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by Solksjaer! View PostIf I fall victim to a societal minority rebalancing fix will I not then begrudge the specific rebalancing process and could it instill in me a sense of injustice that frankly and personally I dont deserve . THis rebalancing is inherently WRONG . To achieve the change required we have to engage the young . Pissing off one side to right the wrongs is the worst approach imo. The reason we still have issues today is that lack of tolerance and this comes from a lack of respect and a dose of fear. The schools should have this as a subject. The approach suggested above could make division more commonplace . For the record I always thought white folk lagged behind most other races , especially in sport. . I guess that makes me racist .
Fk whitepower imo.
For exaggerated example, a single body/group that was simultaneously campaigning for more female engineers, more male teachers, more trans athletes and more non-binary politicians.
instead we have various groups all chasing more representation for their specific subsection of the population at, what is perceived to be, the expense of all others regardless of ability.
I know I don’t have even the beginnings of an answer but surely people far smarted than me can come up with something. Maybe it’s just a case of time, after all in the last 100 years we have probably made more progress in equality than in all human history beforehand. Yes, we still have a long way to go, and yes it can seem too slow for people but this is not something that will be fixed overnight no matter how much we wish it could be.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
I've always urged my boss when hiring to favour immigrants over Irish people.
It generally takes drive, ambition and a strong work ethic to sacrifice your loved ones, friends and familiarity and emigrate for a better life.
We have guys from Mauritius working with us that are each worth about 5 Irish guys.
If I was hiring in Mauritius I would have the same thinking and favour hiring Irish guys and foreigners.
I hold silver in tit for tat, and I love you for that
Comment
-
Guest
Originally posted by Lazare View PostI've always urged my boss when hiring to favour immigrants over Irish people.
It generally takes drive, ambition and a strong work ethic to sacrifice your loved ones, friends and familiarity and emigrate for a better life.
We have guys from Mauritius working with us that are each worth about 5 Irish guys.
If I was hiring in Mauritius I would have the same thinking and favour hiring Irish guys and foreigners.
Comment
-
Guest
Hectorjelly would probably think if a blind carpenter was refused a job it would be discriminatory. The fact that dangers lie everywhere imagine a blind worker in a kitchen busy placed simply you have to be able see what you are doing. Smug bollox.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lazare View PostI've always urged my boss when hiring to favour immigrants over Irish people.
It generally takes drive, ambition and a strong work ethic to sacrifice your loved ones, friends and familiarity and emigrate for a better life.
We have guys from Mauritius working with us that are each worth about 5 Irish guys.
If I was hiring in Mauritius I would have the same thinking and favour hiring Irish guys and foreigners.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lao Lao View Post
No, it wasn't. I am fully aware of the tone and intent of the messages that I post.
I love how Denny asks you a simple question with no malice whatsoever to it, and you respond with a sly dig - You seem to be great and lightning fast to dish out judgement to others but don't seem to hold yourself to such high standards at times.
Anyhow, carry on at a gallop speed on your high horse.
The tone of every post you've made, including this one, has been hostile. Maybe I deserve it, but talking about high horses and your mickey is hostile. It's a shame I don't have the tact or powers of speech as Kayroo as Benny Hi Fi as they made basically the same point as me but in a much more approachable manner. You're shocked by a blind man working in a kitchen, but given it is happening and they did get insurance for it, perhaps its an opportunity to challenge your assumptions.
As for Denny, I asked him a simple question a few weeks ago, and he responded in precisely the same manner as I did. Also, at this stage, I don't think it's worth responding thoughtfully to people who support Trump or don't believe in climate change. I'm not going to convince them of anything. I don't think you can describe this as a "sly" dig.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sickpuppy View Post
That is discriminatory though. If you set up an office in Mauritius and Irish travellers applies for a job I’m sure you would hire them. Is the job well paid ? It can be hard to find people with drive and ambition if it’s a min wage job with little chance of progress.
I think it's acceptable though. Hiring is effectively making a purchase, an investment in the best interest of the business. Immigrants in general are a better investment than locals, imo.
That's not to say we haven't hired some really great locals though.
In fact, I got a lesson in my own prejudices a couple of years ago. A stereotypical Finglas girl rocked up for an interview one day. Hair and nails, thick Dub accent.
I wasn't interviewing, but I didn't think she suited it, purely based on nothing but how she looked and talked.
She's still with us now and is absolutely amazing, probably the best hire we've made. So competent, calm under pressure, naturally gifted at customer service. A diamond.
Still feel bad for how I first thought of her.
I hold silver in tit for tat, and I love you for that
- Likes 5
Comment
-
Originally posted by zuutroy View Post
Are you really surprised that when you go around calling everyone that doesn't agree with you racist, or racist by association, or conflate their views with racism, that they become hostile?
In a recent discussion I made the point that passing around racist jokes is a racist act. You might not agree with this (and you'd be wrong), but this is not the same as me calling someone a racist. I don't understand your defensiveness on this topic.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ArmaniJeans View PostRandom question on the WSOP Main Event being played on ggpoker.
Will it be names playing or pseudonyms? Like will we definitively know how say Phil Ivey has got on, or could he be playing as ladypokerfish4 and its only afterwards (if ever) that it's revealed who it is?
Best of luck against the lady fish.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kayroo View Post
Imagine you're on a running track. 8 runners in this heat. 4 of them get a 50 metre head start. The other 4 complain and are told "it's not about who started where, it's about who is the best runner. Everyone is in the same heat, now show us what you've got"
I know it's just a gross simplification, but that kinda of sloppy language is not something I'd associate with you,
I don't think HJ is saying ignore relevant ability outright. I would imagine he is expressing (albeit a little more belligerently than necessary) the view that the only effective way to correct historic advantages is to bestow, for a short period, a converse advantage on the previously marginalised group. This helps to address more in-built biases.
For example, Harvard Business School conducted a study that showed that minority candidates, particularly black ones, fared far better in getting interviews when they "whitened" their resumes. In another study it was shown that when two sets. of 1,000 resumes were sent to employers that were identical in every way except for the racial connotation of the name (James for one, DeShaun for another), the "white" names got the interviews at a rate of (I think) 10 to 1 over black names.
Now, if America (since the example comes from there) disproportionately advanced black people in HR and management roles for a while, do you think that the same issue would continue? Or would the new, diverse workplace then equalise out that bias and give everyone a fair shot?
In order to correct history, we should overcompensate for disadvantaging marginalised group? I'm not sure if that is actually HJ's view, but lets go with it for now.
I can see the logic there. There is merit to that approach. But that's not equality, by definition it's still inequality to the opposite side of the spectrum. As you say, it's still a disproportionate bias. A bias in order to compensate for previous bias.
So while it has merits, presenting it as "true equality" or some other label is fundamentally wrong. It's short term offset inequality, in order to achieve long term equality. I think we can agree on that. That said, my question was about HJ's definition of equality. Not the best method to equalize society. So, I don't think that question is answered by the above.
The assumption that we need to correct history should probably be challenged also. Where you are talking about hiring people to an existing pool of people. Then yes, past biases should be corrected in order to achieve a equal pool today. If a company with a 50:50 male female split, has a 70:30 split at management level. Then they should probably focus on promoting from the female staff pool next. As they are correcting their current bias.
However, not every position relates to an existing pool or current bias . Many exist in isolation, and biasing future candidates to atone for past inequality would be extremely flawed. There have been 9 presidents of Ireland. Seven men and two women. In order to correct historic disadvantages, should female candidate be given an advantage? I don't so, that would be silly. Historic problems that exist entirely in the past should be left in the past. There is no existing pool of current presidents that should be correct. So it makes more sense to approach it as a clean slate, gender blind process from here onwards.
(FWIW, the Presidents is just an example. A little more complex than male v feamle)
Let's look at the "relevant ability" issue another way. If 100 black people and 100 white people with absolutely identical abilities apply for 100 jobs and we remove every other variable save for race; what do you think the hiring breakdown is likely to be?
If the assessment was made on ability, and only ability? The split would be 50:50 -/+ what variance comes out.
If you playing on my instinctively thinking of white advantage. That's a instinctive response based on historic inequality, not ability only assessment. You are using historically bias to criticise hypothetical equality hiring. You know is a flawed argument.
But if we did it on the "relevant ability" idea then the same thing happens except only to the people it's always happened to.
Some people might say this is a manifestation of you racist subconscious.
Certainly if you think that continuing as per previous passes for "ability based assessment" then you missed the brief somewhere.
Last edited by Mellor; 17-07-20, 08:16.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
The tone of every post you've made, including this one, has been hostile. Maybe I deserve it, but talking about high horses and your mickey is hostile. It's a shame I don't have the tact or powers of speech as Kayroo as Benny Hi Fi as they made basically the same point as me but in a much more approachable manner. You're shocked by a blind man working in a kitchen, but given it is happening and they did get insurance for it, perhaps its an opportunity to challenge your assumptions.
As for Denny, I asked him a simple question a few weeks ago, and he responded in precisely the same manner as I did. Also, at this stage, I don't think it's worth responding thoughtfully to people who support Trump or don't believe in climate change. I'm not going to convince them of anything. I don't think you can describe this as a "sly" dig.
If my posts are hostile, your posts are at best condescending. I've explained already that they weren't hostile but twice now, you've decided to tell me what my posts were meant to be. You've also taken something out of my initial post that I didn't say or mean but sure look it, you've a narrative to spout so whatever works for you.
Tapping out of this one as to paraphrase yourself, it's no longer worth responding, I'm not going to convince you of anything.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mellor View Post
If 4 people have a headstart, they are running a shorter race, therefore they aren't "in the same heat", it's more like a different race altogether. So no, it's not about who is the best runner. It's about who can win the race while the best runners are handicapped.
I know it's just a gross simplification, but that kinda of sloppy language is not something I'd associate with you,
The classic error of the metaphor. Instead of engaging with the point you argue about the accuracy of the metaphor. It's intended to paint a mental picture later on Mellor when I talk about having to move backwards to create parity in starting positions, it was not an exposition on the nature of competitive track events. You also seem to have entirely missed the point that the race being different depending on where you start was, in fact, the point.
Originally posted by Mellor View Post
In order to correct history, we should overcompensate for disadvantaging marginalised group? I'm not sure if that is actually HJ's view, but lets go with it for now.
I can see the logic there. There is merit to that approach. But that's not equality, by definition it's still inequality to the opposite side of the spectrum. As you say, it's still a disproportionate bias. A bias in order to compensate for previous bias.
So while it has merits, presenting it as "true equality" or some other label is fundamentally wrong.
Originally posted by Mellor View PostIt's short term offset inequality, in order to achieve long term equality. I think we can agree on that.
Originally posted by Mellor View PostHowever, not every position relates to an existing pool or current bias . Many exist in isolation, and biasing future candidates to atone for past inequality would be extremely flawed. There have been 9 presidents of Ireland. Seven men and two women. In order to correct historic disadvantages, should female candidate be given an advantage? I don't so, that would be silly. Historic problems that exist entirely in the past should be left in the past. There is no existing pool of current presidents that should be correct. So it makes more sense to approach it as a clean slate, gender blind process from here onwards.
(FWIW, the Presidents is just an example. A little more complex than male v female)
Originally posted by Mellor View PostIf the assessment was made on ability, and only ability? The split would be 50:50 -/+ what variance comes out.
If you playing on my instinctively thinking of white advantage. That's a instinctive response based on historic inequality, not ability only assessment. You are using historically bias to criticise hypothetical equality hiring. You know is a flawed argument.
Originally posted by Mellor View PostYou'll have to explain the logic there.
If we did nothing other than said "the person with the best qualifications gets the job" then we are accepting racial and gender biases as being the norm. Not because we ourselves are racist or misogynist necessarily, but because the advantages, systemic and otherwise, are factored in before qualifications are obtained. It is much harder for someone from a low-income background with no family buy-in to education to go on and get an undergraduate degree. There are all sorts of factors that play into that. If they do manage to get that degree and they happen to be a member of a minority group then they will find it harder to get interviews, get jobs, get promotions, get elected, get the contracts, get funding, just to get ahead.
So a bland platitude about "sure, just base it on ability, that's true equality" is nonsense Mellor. That's accepting the status quo as acceptable when it clearly isn't to anyone other than the historically advantaged. So, to explain my logic, saying it is only about "relevant ability" means you will get far more candidates who come from the historically advantaged group because they have been given the chance to demonstrate that ability and to hone it, and then once in the workforce they are more likely to have been selected for an interview to discuss that ability and thus get the job. Then their kids will have better opportunities because the parent has the better job and the cycle perpetuates itself.
The only way to address this problem that has any sort of realistic chance of success is to start equalising the advantages, either by removing them from one group, which you cannot actually do, or by giving them to the other, which you can. If you don't do that. If you choose to leave the advantages in place and simply say "let the best man win" then you are tacitly accepting the in-built advantages and perpetuating them.You are technically correct...the best kind of correct
World Record Holder for Long Distance Soul Reads: May 7th 2011
- Likes 6
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lao Lao View Post
Talking about my mickey is hostile? Genuine LOL at that one - I'm now split 50/50 whether you're just trolling or whether you are actually on a misplaced moral/social justice crusade.
If my posts are hostile, your posts are at best condescending. I've explained already that they weren't hostile but twice now, you've decided to tell me what my posts were meant to be. You've also taken something out of my initial post that I didn't say or mean but sure look it, you've a narrative to spout so whatever works for you.
Tapping out of this one as to paraphrase yourself, it's no longer worth responding, I'm not going to convince you of anything.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
The political system doesn't give us enough women in positions of power. They are a little over 50% of the population and make up 22.5% of the Dail. It isn't about giving advantages to women, or minorities, or anyone else. It is about removing advantages that are already there for people who have not earned those advantages.
I'm open to changing my mind on it, but it seems like complaining about the gender divide in WSOP winners. maybe it's just that fewer women are interested in entering politics?
I could understand complaining about minorities not having proper representation. If you're a recent immigrant, there maybe be social and cultural barriers to entering politics, there's more work required in building up a network and getting to know Irish parish pump politics. But being the majority in a modern liberal democracy and complaining about your representation? Suggests it's not really a salient issue.Last edited by Denny Crane; 17-07-20, 11:04.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
...Last edited by Hitchhiker's Guide To...; 17-07-20, 11:43."We're not f*cking Burundi" - Big Phil
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kayroo View PostThe classic error of the metaphor. Instead of engaging with the point you argue about the accuracy of the metaphor. It's intended to paint a mental picture later on Mellor when I talk about having to move backwards to create parity in starting positions, it was not an exposition on the nature of competitive track events. You also seem to have entirely missed the point that the race being different depending on where you start was, in fact, the point.
As I read further, I seen that you were making a point that didn't answer my question. Which makes the point equally bad, but for a different reason.
I never said it was true equality. I was making the point that a correction is required to achieve equality.
and didn't answer the question that I asked HJ then. And as far as I can see, that question is still unanswered.
Given this is my exact point, yes we can agree on that.
Additional, sneering at others for wanting treating everyone equally, is pretty arrogant, and the above in no way justifies that imo.
This is a superb example of terrible thinking on this issue. You are choosing one bad example (which you do admit, in fairness) which is a total outlier in the overall scheme of things. You have inadvertently hit on a great argument against yourself. The political system doesn't give us enough women in positions of power. They are a little over 50% of the population and make up 22.5% of the Dail. It isn't about giving advantages to women, or minorities, or anyone else. It is about removing advantages that are already there for people who have not earned those advantages.
I have no issue with knocking down all unfair advantages in the political system. We should strive for balance in the current pool. But operating a 100% bias in the opposite direction until all historical balance is equalised would be a terrible approach. I very much doubt you disagree with that.
I have zero issue with gender equal appointment going forward. Which could be a plus/minus for one groups of another based on the field.
It would be if the hypothetical I posed said ability, and only ability. But it didn't. It said ability plus race. When you factor in race it is simply a fact that the hiring split breaks, beyond variance, against minorities. I called on your instincts because you knew that without me having to tell you.
I answered it would be 50:50 as race is not a factor for my opinion when assessing an applicant, genuinely I didn't have that "more white instinct you hinted at.
Mainly because it went over my head that I was supposed adopt a biased position when answering. Why would I do that?
We are supposed to be discussing what should happen, not what does happen.
If we did nothing other than said "the person with the best qualifications gets the job" then we are accepting racial and gender biases as being the norm. Not because we ourselves are racist or misogynist necessarily, but because the advantages, systemic and otherwise, are factored in before qualifications are obtained. It is much harder for someone from a low-income background with no family buy-in to education to go on and get an undergraduate degree. There are all sorts of factors that play into that. If they do manage to get that degree and they happen to be a member of a minority group then they will find it harder to get interviews, get jobs, get promotions, get elected, get the contracts, get funding, just to get ahead.
Those example of people not getting funding, not getting interviews are examples of inequality. You are arguing against the inequality of the system. Nobody has said it is ok.
So a bland platitude about "sure, just base it on ability, that's true equality" is nonsense Mellor. That's accepting the status quo as acceptable when it clearly isn't to anyone other than the historically advantaged.
So, to explain my logic, saying it is only about "relevant ability" means you will get far more candidates who come from the historically advantaged group because they have been given the chance to demonstrate that ability and to hone it, and then once in the workforce they are more likely to have been selected for an interview to discuss that ability and thus get the job. Then their kids will have better opportunities because the parent has the better job and the cycle perpetuates itself.
The only way to address this problem that has any sort of realistic chance of success is to start equalising the advantages, either by removing them from one group, which you cannot actually do, or by giving them to the other, which you can. If you don't do that. If you choose to leave the advantages in place and simply say "let the best man win" then you are tacitly accepting the in-built advantages and perpetuating them.
I don't disagree that the people you describe have a massive leg up. And the cycle perpetuates. Impossible to avoid it.
But there's no reason that gender bias has to be enforced in interview process. I can't see any justification for that.
Deciding ahead of time an upcoming set of 10 positions will be split 5 male/5 female is an equal hire. Or, as I suggested before. The split may be biased to women to balance current pool of staff. I already said that's perfectly reasonable. But it's a very different situation where historically bias is no longer affecting the current pool.
Neither of those examples are gender blind.
But we're getting off track tbh. As I said, my question wasn't about how to fix the system. By pointing out the injustice in the system, and asking "what would the racist system do?" You are strawmanning.
I asked a really straightforward question as I was curious where the attitude was coming from. I'm still curious.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Denny Crane View Post
Complaining about the participation of women in politics in Ireland seems like a funny one to me. It's a democracy. If female participation is such an issue, then more people should vote along gender lines. More women should take over their local organisations and get women on the ticket. There's no great structural barrier here.
That's what all the male politicians say, I hear the women saying otherwise.
Turning millions into thousands
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To... View PostGone full 'Glinner' since June 2022.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
“Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn"I can’t find anyone who agrees with what I write or think these days, so I guess I must be getting closer to the truth." - Hunter S. Thompson
Comment
-
Originally posted by hotspur View PostCan anyone give the cliffs on the equality debate that's going on here (not reading these long multiquoted posts, no offence to anyone posting)?
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by hotspur View PostCan anyone give the cliffs on the equality debate that's going on here (not reading these long multiquoted posts, no offence to anyone posting)?
”You are a racist”
“Equality should be about treating people equally”
”thats a narrow incorrect view”
”Equality is about treating people differently”
”Thats your hostile mickey talking”Last edited by Mellor; 17-07-20, 12:15.
- Likes 8
Comment
-
Originally posted by Denny Crane View Post
Complaining about the participation of women in politics in Ireland seems like a funny one to me. It's a democracy. If female participation is such an issue, then more people should vote along gender lines. More women should take over their local organisations and get women on the ticket. There's no great structural barrier here.
I'm open to changing my mind on it, but it seems like complaining about the gender divide in WSOP winners. maybe it's just that fewer women are interested in entering politics?
I could understand complaining about minorities not having proper representation. If you're a recent immigrant, there maybe be social and cultural barriers to entering politics, there's more work required in building up a network and getting to know Irish parish pump politics. But being the majority in a modern liberal democracy and complaining about your representation? Suggests it's not really a salient issue.
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment