Are we all becoming woke snowflakes?

[Bungle]

I've heard it called a Fry. Because 'English' triggers the millennials

Not even allowed black pudding with it now either

 

[chrismpw]

OK, butcarentvyou basing this opinion that the decisions of casting by those responsible for it in the BBC are doing so from a point of discrimination, is it not possible that they are doing so on capability and as a result there is now more diversity regardless of percentages?

The Beeb in the recent past have been openly signalling their virtue about how they are positively discriminating to meet certain (arbitrary inhouse) quotas. Now they MAY have found equally capable contributers amongst their minority applicants for jobs... but if their targets for percentages don't reflect those percentages from the society they represent and exceed them then they're guilty of discriminating against the majority. That's not right.

My impression is that standards and quality in the BBC have absolutely crashed in the last decade - reporting and writing in the news app as well as the breadth and depth of content - so it would appear that something isn't right with recruitment. I'm not suggesting in any way that this is down to any particular minority cohort being less talented than any other - I'm suggesting that they're not looking at the right things from an applicant, as they simply focus on meeting arbitrary targets and representation for the hell of it.

 

[The Legend of Southall]

Yet when men justify their horrifically obscene levels of pay, they point to the money the game collects from viewers. The same argument absolutely cannot be made currently from the few thousand screaming schoolkids and their mums who constitute the bulk of the crowds at the women's games I've attended. The same money isn't there - so why should they be paid the same? Why aren't cricketers paid the same as footballers? Same argument. But what women want they get in this brave new world, because there are so many labels invented to throw at anybody who stands in their way with rational arguments and the snowflakes melt away.

Yeah, it makes no sense to me.

On the broader subject of women's pay, I'd say, as usual, the problem lies with those without a voice. It's the part-time single mum being overlooked for a pay rise, because she's part time, that needs equal pay. Not some millionaire actress for whom it's a drop in the ocean.

In that regards, equality certainly doesn't trickle down

 

[Death]

I've heard it called a Fry. Because 'English' triggers the millennials

Fry is wayyyyyy to close to fried chicken for me.

Just call it a full irish. Its safe and includes an oppressed minority. And let's face it that's what it is before the English stole it.

 

[Goat]

Not even allowed black pudding with it now either

BLOOD SAUSAGE YOU NAZI

 

[degsy]

There just appears to be a que, in all walks of life, of people waiting to be offended !!

Some people are offended at the drop of a hat...even if they have to order it from Amazon, wait 3 weeks, get it, open the packet, then throw it on the floor themselves

 

[davids]

I've heard it called a Fry. Because 'English' triggers the millennials

Although for balance even back in the 60s my old Mick dad would order a fry up in a caff.

 

[Rita_Poon]

The Beeb in the recent past have been openly signalling their virtue about how they are positively discriminating to meet certain (arbitrary inhouse) quotas. Now they MAY have found equally capable contributers amongst their minority applicants for jobs... but if their targets for percentages don't reflect those percentages from the society they represent and exceed them then they're guilty of discriminating against the majority. That's not right.

My impression is that standards and quality in the BBC have absolutely crashed in the last decade - reporting and writing in the news app as well as the breadth and depth of content - so it would appear that something isn't right with recruitment. I'm not suggesting in any way that this is down to any particular minority cohort being less talented than any other - I'm suggesting that they're not looking at the right things from an applicant, as they simply focus on meeting arbitrary targets and representation for the hell of it.

Oh it very very much is, Dorries and the other tumours parasitically thieving a living.

 

[davids]

Some people are offended at the drop of a hat...even if they have to order it from Amazon, wait 3 weeks, get it, open the packet, then throw it on the floor themselves

The same Amazon who won't sell LGBTQ products in the Middle East??

 

[Everstone]

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm pointing out where the woke bbc in using positive discrimination is discriminating on the grounds of race, rather than choosing the best persons fir the job. Any such form of discrimination is surely bad, but they, the ciffee bar chattering, virtue signalling, brainless dolts running the institution, apparently, are oblivious to this.

A meritocracy would be a good start.

 

[PKwalnuts]

Now they  may have found  equally capable contributers amongst their  minority applicants for jobs...

Think this is where I am struggling with your POV

Your choice of words here is intentional, and would suggest you have doubt that what you termed applicants that are, of your view, minority, are only equally and not more capable for these roles, and this is intentional on the part of the BBC to hit a target, rather than, there being potentially less bias now than historically where such capability was ignored on the basis of actual discrimination, under the new guise of trying to be virtue signalling.

Or am I wrong?

 

[Bungle]

Hey, remember when fried chicken was the first thing that used to pop into our heads when we thought of Lukaku? Hahahaha

No me neither.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

Chris absolutely 100% has been sacked by the BBC. Nea. Possibly from head of diversity and inclusion.

 

[Rita_Poon]

Nah wasn't really a fan. That was back then when it was soley an artistic choice. Wasn't chosen solely cause he was black. I like the new ones where that's the one and only reason. It's about the message.

Trading places was just incidental. They don't get any points from me for that.

Someone with shoulder pads and a puce complexion ran his 'nervousness' past the head man in the room about an African American headlining their latest big budget film... "think about the furore around blazing saddles boss" "and and and Richard Prior is in the news again" "we dont want a media backlash" etc.
Some smarmy spiv that had arse-licked his way into the boardroom.

 

[ClausThomsen]

Read it all and dont pick out points to suit your narrative. You sound more like the problem than the solution.
Freedom of speech is for all. Not just me.

OK - I've numbered them (bold) for the purpose of replying.

1 - Restrictive speech on the internet is just a symptom of the deeper lying issues in society. Im sure if you lived in post world war one germany you might understand the consequences of a slippery slope.
2 - Its all good and well writing about historical incidents and comparing them to the current situation. However, i live in the now and the last 20 years in Scotland have demonstrated a decline in many positive factors. One of which is the usage of words.
3 - I like that we are all different, i dont like that being different gives you power over others.
4 - Perhaps it would have been prudent of me to mention that with freedom of speech comes responsibility.
5 - A joke however is only a joke, unless of course you can prove malice.
6 - What do you think of the cinemas banning films in the uk?
7 - All because of fear…
8 - Dont forget history has a habit of repeating itself. Maybe we should be free to discuss everything.
And thanks for your well thought out and frankly fair opinion.

1 - That's the point I previously "picked" out.
2 - It is all good and well writing about historical incidents and comparing as you did so in point 1. So I'm not massively sure why you then refute that illustrative technique with 'However I live in the now...."
3 - I also like how varied people can be. I don't like that those difference can be weaponised either for or against people. Not sure what it's got to do with the subject at hand but I'm happy we're in agreement.
4 - Maybe. And if someone is completely irresponsible do you think other's should have the same freedom to challenge their words with different words? And in certain circumstances should the owner of a privately ran website, establishment or similar have the freedom to say take your words and express them elsewhere?
5 - Not sure what you're talking about if I'm honest. A joke is a joke, malice is malice and malicious jokes are both malice and jokes.
6 - Depends on the film and the reasons why. If a particular cinema chain decides not to show a film then that's on them. Sometimes the financial benefits are outweighed by the drawbacks and cinemas are privately owned commercial entities at heart. But in the end many of these things find a larger audience outside the cinema and will likely hugely benefit from the publicity caused by the decisions not to show.
7 - What is? The cinema chain thing? It likely is.
8 - It does repeat itself. And you are free to discuss everything. Whether here, Mumsnet, 4Chan, Guardian comments section, Stormfront or even that Dutch canal barge website that @chrismpw mentioned a while back. Some things will go down better on some of these sites than others but you're certainly free to discuss pretty much anything if you look around.