United States Corrupt Twattery

[Scouse]

They would never have been voted in @DaGaffer.

Political correctness took a real hold when me and you were still young. In the decades since it's set us against each other - it's disunited us on religious, racial and sexual grounds - and ended up in culture war bullshit and ridiculously partisan politics.

Trump and this current shitshow is simply a natural end point of decades of "leftist" bullshit.

Big picture thinking. Not current politics as performance bullshit. Trump was right when he said it makes "great TV" - I've been inundated by whatsapps on a middle eastern work group this morning. They've all seen it and the trending emotiin is "what did zelensky expect? 350bn for free?"

But it's all sideshow in terms of what's important. Ukraine, Russia - they don't matter. The Trump phenomenom in the US is happening in the US - but we've a parallel in Europe. And although Vance is a giant opportuniistic thundercunt with ulterior motives - when he struck out at the EU for subverting free speech and the political elites running in fear from tgeir own voters - he was just using the weapon that would be most effective.

It's true.

The messenger is a wanker. But whilst we're looking at the US and Russia we're not fighting to preserve our entire way of life at home.

Home is where our important battle is. But, like ze Germans in the 1920s and 30's we're utterly blind, no, complicit in our problems.

Principles underpin everything.

 

[Gwadien]

They would never have been voted in @DaGaffer.

Political correctness took a real hold when me and you were still young. In the decades since it's set us against each other - it's disunited us on religious, racial and sexual grounds - and ended up in culture war bullshit and ridiculously partisan politics.

Trump and this current shitshow is simply a natural end point of decades of "leftist" bullshit.

Big picture thinking. Not current politics as performance bullshit. Trump was right when he said it makes "great TV" - I've been inundated by whatsapps on a middle eastern work group this morning. They've all seen it and the trending emotiin is "what did zelensky expect? 350bn for free?"

But it's all sideshow in terms of what's important. Ukraine, Russia - they don't matter. The Trump phenomenom in the US is happening in the US - but we've a parallel in Europe. And although Vance is a giant opportuniistic thundercunt with ulterior motives - when he struck out at the EU for subverting free speech and the political elites running in fear from tgeir own voters - he was just using the weapon that would be most effective.

It's true.

The messenger is a wanker. But whilst we're looking at the US and Russia we're not fighting to preserve our entire way of life at home.

Home is where our important battle is. But, like ze Germans in the 1920s and 30's we're utterly blind, no, complicit in our problems.

Principles underpin everything.

The irony of invoking inter war Germany, the reason the Nazis got to power is because they were free to chat shit and aired their support for freedom fo speech but once in power immediately removed it.

Is it because Trump has been in power before and the response was exaggerated? People are more worried now because of the people he's appointed to power, they all want to melt existing structures to the ground and rebuild them in the MAGA way, and most importantly, they're all yes men.

You're right though - Ukraine is absolutely a distraction from the real damage being done, to USAID for instance, it's a great time to invest your crypto into people smuggling.

 

[Scouse]

The Nazi's removed freedom of speech because it's the only protection against tyrrany.

You might be right about Trump's motives - but you're ignoring the fact that we're rapidly losing the small amojnts of free speech we ever had at home and are now arresting people for jokes, bantz, peaceful protest and standing still.

We're becoming tyrannical - and it's with public collaboration.

What is going on in the US is a distraction. Vance should be ignored, but his message to Europe shouldn't be.

 

[Ormorof]

Trump and this current shitshow is simply a natural end point of decades of "leftist" bullshit.

I feel like this is a common theme but personally I feel it's completely bullshit, the idea that censorship is a lefty thing is dumb, Conservative Party in the UK happier than anyone to shut down anyone and any org that disagrees, to put protesters in jail. The right win billionaire class run media organisations are the first to call for boycotts (notice how it's boycotts when the right calls for it but "cancel culture " when they get called out for being assholes). Freedom of speech is a myth in the US no matter how much they harp on about it, spend 5 minutes looking it up and you will be watching how brutally protests are handled, how people making their voice heard are dragged out of town halls, have cars smashed into protests, have "militias" show up and shoot people. Or just plain intimidated into silence.

The reason (in my humble opinion) popupations are embracing the far right is because the political class have been focused entirely on surface issues, so that's what's become the only thing that divides them. Who gives a fuck about pronouns. The climate is on fire, western civilization is on verge of a population crash due to an ageing population, the economic model we have relied on for decades is failing, the autocratic, frankly evil, regimes are at the door, have invaded Ukraine, are fighting proxy wars in Africa, and we have no answer, no discussions on how to deal with any of this. The far right don't have the answers either, but they play on people's frustration and anger at a world slipping away and give an easy scapegoat.

People who go on about "woke" or "DEI" causing problems have just swallowed this crap whole and haven't bothered to actually think about it.

DEI ranting being a particular bug bear of mine, in the history of companies anywhere no one has ever, EVER, sat and had a conversation "nope we can't hire this candidate who is better we have to hire this minority person" that's not how any of it works and if you think it does it will assume you have never actually taken part in hiring or recruitment in any kind of serious way

 

[Lamp]

I think Vance is more dangerous than Trump.

 

[Scouse]

no one has ever, EVER, sat and had a conversation "nope we can't hire this candidate who is better we have to hire this minority person" that's not how any of it works and if you think it does it will assume you have never actually taken part in hiring or recruitment in any kind of serious way

I've been involved and seen it happen. But regardless of whether you believe me or not - even if that was "never how it worked" how did it make any fucking difference then?

It's a massive sexual and racial selection bias - or it doesn't work. How do you get a massive uptick in women and ethnic minorities unless you're biased towards ethnic minorities? If you want more women and ethnic minorities you have to pick them over other candidates, based on their sex or race. It's inherently racist - and if you can't see that you're just in denial.

Again, and I clearly have to say this repeatedly, I agree there are problems with representation. But more racism isn't the answer.


Edit: And the whole "left/right" thing is utter horse-shit. We know it's bunkum but we use it as shorthand. If people are actually using left/right to distil politics down rather than just simplify conversation then they're fekking eejits.

 

[DaGaffer]

in the history of companies anywhere no one has ever, EVER, sat and had a conversation "nope we can't hire this candidate who is better we have to hire this minority person"

Ooh, no. Everyone talks in elliptical terms, but it is definitely happening, and happening a lot. The normal approach would be to simply not interview "the better candidate" (if he happens to be a young white male) at all, or the HR dept screens your shortlist before you ever see them. In my last job I got a new boss (female, mixed-race, South African) and one by one as the department churned (innovation team so lots of young uns) the men all disappeared (permies anyway, contractors were all Indian). I was the last to leave and last time I looked the entire department is now female, and mostly not Irish either. It was interesting to me that even a lot of the innovation projects we were working on became glorified HR/Ways of Working ideas rather than commercial stuff; that was the main reason I left because it was completely tedious.

Maybe it's not happening in Finland (yet), but it's definitely happening in Ireland.

 

[Gwadien]

Ooh, no. Everyone talks in elliptical terms, but it is definitely happening, and happening a lot. The normal approach would be to simply not interview "the better candidate" (if he happens to be a young white male) at all, or the HR dept screens your shortlist before you ever see them. In my last job I got a new boss (female, mixed-race, South African) and one by one as the department churned (innovation team so lots of young uns) the men all disappeared (permies anyway, contractors were all Indian). I was the last to leave and last time I looked the entire department is now female, and mostly not Irish either. It was interesting to me that even a lot of the innovation projects we were working on became glorified HR/Ways of Working ideas rather than commercial stuff; that was the main reason I left because it was completely tedious.

Maybe it's not happening in Finland (yet), but it's definitely happening in Ireland.

Yeah, but isn't this due to companies going after more mickey-mouse 'Investors in People' things because big corp seems to operate on that way, especially if you want juicy government contracts.

It's not actually mandated by law?

 

[Scouse]

especially if you want juicy government contracts.

So, if you don't act in a sexist and racist manner you can't get government contracts?

And America is the problem?

 

[DaGaffer]

Yeah, but isn't this due to companies going after more mickey-mouse 'Investors in People' things because big corp seems to operate on that way, especially if you want juicy government contracts.

It's not actually mandated by law?

No not really, it definitely seems to be more of a groupthink thing. My last company was a retail bank; not particularly into juicy government contracts. There's definitely a cynical financial element, and an element of genuine "don't be dicks" (especially around the LGB bit of LGBAlphabetsoup), but there's also a massive element of just really not thinking this shit through.

You know the one segment of any society, at any time in history, that you really didn't want underemployed and with time on their hands? Young men. It never ends well.

 

[Gwadien]

So, if you don't act in a sexist and racist manner you can't get government contracts?

And America is the problem?

As Gaffer said - it's more about not thinking this shit through and having good intentions.

I'd much rather have that then not having contracts because you're not loyal to the political party of the day which is the alternative.

Which yeah is an American issue, but we've never had something like this in the White House before and I believe it'll ripple across the Atlantic. The first test will be Macron I suspect.

 

[Gwadien]

The hard left are just as dumb as the right tho.

Pro-Ukraine protests across US after Trump-Zelensky clash

I'm going to show my support for Ukraine by taking my trans flag out.

This is the root cause for all the issues, it's about camps, not discourse on individual topics.

 

[Scouse]

Which yeah is an American issue, but we've never had something like this in the White House before and I believe it'll ripple across the Atlantic. The first test will be Macron I suspect.

No "ripples" - my UK,HQ'd company ditched DEII as fast as Amazon. As did all the competitors.

I noticed you still haven't answered whether discrimination against whites and men is sexist and racist.

 

[Gwadien]

No "ripples" - my UK,HQ'd company ditched DEII as fast as Amazon. As did all the competitors.

I noticed you still haven't answered whether discrimination against whites and men is sexist and racist.

Missed my point.

Having far right parties elected here where businesses and people have to pledge their allegiance to the party.

So yeah it's sexist and racist but it's the lesser of two evils to the above.

 

[Scouse]

So yeah it's sexist and racist but it's the lesser of two evils to the above.

Yeah, it's sexist and racist but you don't care. Fair enough.

 

[MYstIC G]

View: https://youtu.be/0aI8fOsX3T4

 

[Ormorof]

Yeah, it's sexist and racist but you don't care. Fair enough.

The whole point is not to put lower qualified non-white men in, it's to prevent lower qualified white men from taking the place of someone better. The whole point is to be less racist and exist, not "hur dur men bad"

 

[Scouse]

The whole point is not to put lower qualified non-white men in, it's to prevent lower qualified white men from taking the place of someone better. The whole point is to be less racist and exist, not "hur dur men bad"

Sounds like you fell for the the cool-aid. It was pitched like that in theory, but it never worked like that in practice.

For example, if you're a woman who wants to work in IT you're already a rareity. In the UK just 1 in 5 people taking GCSE Computer Science at school are girls. Girls say it's because they just don't enjoy it - computer theory, coding and programming put girls off.

We had a wanky situation in the UK because of the diversity targets - we dumbed down GCSE computing and engagement from girls went up. But the course was not much more than how to use word, excel and powerpoint - in an effort to drive female engagement we nerfed the course so it was useless and nobody was getting an education in what was needed. So it was scrapped and coding and programming and theory was back on the course - and guess what? - girls stopped attending again.

However, you go into an IT-heavy company like mine and 64% of young hires are women. From a GCSE-level 1-in-5 pool. It means you're a shoe-in for a job if you're a girl because we wanted to hit the targets.

This is bullshit discrimination plain and simple. It focusses on equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.


As long as we're offering the same opportunities that is the end of it. And if people naturally don't gravitate towards the jobs, then fine. Girls! ICT! Really good for your job prospects and earning potential! - but you need to know how to code and understand IT architecture - we'd fucking love you to take it!

Most girls: "Nah. Not for me"
Insular boys: "I'm already coding at home in my spare time"
Most girls: "Geek".

Loonie Lefties: Mwaaaah! Girls aren't shaping the future. We're all the same!! It's the fucking patriarchy!

 

[Ormorof]

Look if your company hires shit candidates then DEI or otherwise won't matter. Blaming crappy leadership on initiatives intended to level playing fields is exactly the problem I mentioned above, it's an easy target.

Why do companies, that do this properly, want variety? Because they make more money when they hire the best people 💰

In that sense we agree, arbitrary targets and forced hiring is stupid and those companies will suffer (they arguably would anyway because stupidity is rarely confined to a single thing in these cases)

 

[Scouse]

Why do companies, that do this properly, want variety? Because they make more money when they hire the best people 💰

These two sentences don't make sense together.

Do companies want variety OR do want to hire the best people.

DEI gives you the first, it doesn't give you the second. It is indeed "arbitrary targets and forced hiring". Arbitrary targets and forced hiring = DEI.

 

[Ormorof]

These two sentences don't make sense together.

Do companies want variety OR do want to hire the best people.

DEI gives you the first, it doesn't give you the second. It is indeed "arbitrary targets and forced hiring". Arbitrary targets and forced hiring = DEI.

Nope, DEI is actually useful, if you use it properly. If you have morons in charge doesn't matter what hiring policy is you will end up in the shit, easier to blame woke or DEI than admit there's an actual problem

 

[Scouse]

Nope, DEI is actually useful, if you use it properly. If you have morons in charge doesn't matter what hiring policy is you will end up in the shit, easier to blame woke or DEI than admit there's an actual problem

I've already said multiple times there are problems with representation - but I guess it's easier to ignore the fact DEI is inherently it's own problem than try to find different solutions.

 

[DaGaffer]

The whole point is not to put lower qualified non-white men in, it's to prevent lower qualified white men from taking the place of someone better. The whole point is to be less racist and exist, not "hur dur men bad"

Then blind-screen candidates; no names or ages just experience and qualifications until they get to at least interview. I guarantee you wouldn't end up with the the profile you see in the NatWest infographic above; absolutely guarantee it.

 

[Gwadien]

Then blind-screen candidates; no names or ages just experience and qualifications until they get to at least interview. I guarantee you wouldn't end up with the the profile you see in the NatWest infographic above; absolutely guarantee it.

Why isn't this already a thing?

Edit - Answered my own question - I suppose it's because it'll just have the same problems at the interview stage picking woman over man at interview stage due to one being able to get pregnant and the other can't. (edit and remove for other examples, muslims wanting fridays off etc)

Plus if you're going by 'experience' I guess that's unfair because blokes over the age of say 50odd are going to have more experience than women.

 

[DaGaffer]

Why isn't this already a thing?

Because it wouldn't give the inclusion scores they want.

 

[Gwadien]

Because it wouldn't give the inclusion scores they want.

Yeah, so who/what is pushing this? Shareholders? Cos I'd imagine the vast majority of them are white men, I guess it explains why they were so happy to drop it when Trump got into power.

 

[Scouse]

People like you are pushing it @Gwadien. And silly people in woke-mob society can hurt the bottom / share price of companies - regardless if what they're ranting about makes any sense - so companies adjust.

You don't really care if it's racist or sexist - and neither do corporations - they just want a healthy bottom line. When Trump ditched it politically some of them breathed a sigh of relief as it marked a potential turning point in public perception. However, our company ditched it officially but gave a very clear "don't be a dick" message to staff - which is what DEI really should be anyway, without targets.

Plus if you're going by 'experience' I guess that's unfair because blokes over the age of say 50odd are going to have more experience than women

Oh fucking hell. You check their experience next to the job they applied for.

And it wouldn't be "unfair to women" - if someone hasn't got the experience they're not suitable for the job. What's unfair is not hiring someone with experience (someone who in no way culpable for 'structural inequalities in the global workforce') and instead just hiring a woman because: woman.


If you're moaning about over-50's men - age discrimination is a huge thing in the workplace. It's a lot harder to get a job when you're over 50 because many companies think you just want to coast until retirement - that you lack drive. I mean, it ain't true - I've seen lazy wastrel 20, 30, 40 year olds and really hard working ones too. But perception eh?

 

[Gwadien]

shut the fuck up please

 

[Raven]

Personally, I cringe whenever I hear the word "woke"

 

[Scouse]

I don't love it myself, but I didn't invent it...