Muncey wrote:
It'd be a pretty strong message if the Government came out and said companies could be openly racist, homophobic and sexist.
To go full genevieve, I think it'd be a good one. Let the market decide. And going back to that first point, at least they're OPEN about it then, and we could decide for ourselves where we wanna spend our dollar.
Haha it'd be a bit paradoxical though, which is why it'd be a strong message to come out with. Government as an institution is there to stop that sort of discrimination that supposedly the free markets would allow.. whether you believe the free market would ultimately fix the problem or it wouldn't be an issue is besides the point, its (one of) the roles of Government to stop these things, so to come out and say that would be pretty paradoxical and ultimately would be like coming out and going full Genevieve and saying there should be no Government.
I don't buy into letting the market decide anyway, theres no such thing as free markets in this society. Free markets may work very well in theory but in the real world they don't exist. Communism probably worked fantastic in theory, probably the biggest experimental failure in human history in reality.. imo neoliberalism and free markets weren't a whole lot more successful.
Last edited by Muncey on Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lye Form wrote:I am for freedom of speech tho, the whole getting nicked for saying racist things is bullshit, law should be changed to if someone says something racist you are legally aloud to punch them.
Didn't someone get arrested for saying something racist on twitter about the footballer who had a heart attack? that was a bit scary and close to the thought police.
Agree with this though. Like when you get people who are sentenced much much worse because of a hate crime as opposed to the regular crime.. I don't agree with that. Whether you killed a person because they're black, gay or because you wanted to kill a guy shouldn't come into the verdict, the act is the crime not the motive.
garethom wrote:Tbf, I think they should, and it's up to people to decide whether they wanna shop there based on that.
That'd be fine if companies released the real reasons for not employing people to the public so we can decide if we want to shop there with that information... but we just don't have that information and relying on the media to provide it isn't very useful either. I bet a lot of companies do discriminate when they employ people, its clear sales people for high end stores don't employ fugly people but thats no excuse for giving them the right to.
It'd be a pretty strong message if the Government came out and said companies could be openly racist, homophobic and sexist.
So you wanna live in a world where 'perfect' people can have a decent job and where ppl who don't have those opportunities should be unemployed or having shit jobs like cleaning toilets? Nah, man. Someone's skills and education should be the only criterion that should matter, not someone's looks or someone's position in the world.
Muncey wrote:
Lye Form wrote:I am for freedom of speech tho, the whole getting nicked for saying racist things is bullshit, law should be changed to if someone says something racist you are legally aloud to punch them.
Didn't someone get arrested for saying something racist on twitter about the footballer who had a heart attack? that was a bit scary and close to the thought police.
Agree with this though. Like when you get people who are sentenced much much worse because of a hate crime as opposed to the regular crime.. I don't agree with that. Whether you killed a person because they're black, gay or because you wanted to kill a guy shouldn't come into the verdict, the act is the crime not the motive.
But i'm also agreeing with this. There's a quota system here in Belgium that demands that every board of directors should at least consist 1/3 of the board women. But that's just fucking bullshit. Ppl should get a place there based on their skills and experience, not because they're part of a minority. 'Cause at the end of the day, that's also discrimination.
garethom wrote:Tbf, I think they should, and it's up to people to decide whether they wanna shop there based on that.
That'd be fine if companies released the real reasons for not employing people to the public so we can decide if we want to shop there with that information... but we just don't have that information and relying on the media to provide it isn't very useful either. I bet a lot of companies do discriminate when they employ people, its clear sales people for high end stores don't employ fugly people but thats no excuse for giving them the right to.
It'd be a pretty strong message if the Government came out and said companies could be openly racist, homophobic and sexist.
So you wanna live in a world where 'perfect' people can have a decent job and where ppl who don't have those opportunities should be unemployed or having shit jobs like cleaning toilets? Nah, man. Someone's skills and education should be the only criterion that should matter, not someone's looks or someone's position in the world.
Huh? Which part are you replying to because I can't work out what you think I said. I agree with that last part, I dunno where you thought I said the opposite?
Nihilism wrote:But i'm also agreeing with this. There's a quota system here in Belgium that demands that every board of directors should at least consist 1/3 of the board women. But that's just fucking bullshit. Ppl should get a place there based on their skills and experience, not because they're part of a minority. 'Cause at the end of the day, that's also discrimination.
Yeah I've heard stories over here about people in public services being turned away because they need an ethnic balance, like the police force and stuff. Doctors and surgeons are a good example of when not to use a quota system or aim for ethnic balance... these people train for like a decade to be the best and make sure theres no room for error.. so to pick a sub-standard person just so theres ethnic balance is ridiculous to me.
Last edited by Muncey on Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Agent 47 wrote:in a sales position at a high end fashion store it makes sense to me to employ good looking fashionable people?
i dont get how thats cunty
i mean its cunty as an industry and culture in general, but it makes sense to me that they would hire with that criteria
am i prick? fuk
I dunno about this m7. Fashionable should be the only criteria that matters imo because it shows that someone has an interest in clothing. Fuck corporations, (and on a shop floor level probably some creepy midddle aged man,) deciding who is good looking enough to work in their shop. Its kinda disgusting
Agent 47 wrote:in a sales position at a high end fashion store it makes sense to me to employ good looking fashionable people?
i dont get how thats cunty
i mean its cunty as an industry and culture in general, but it makes sense to me that they would hire with that criteria
am i prick? fuk
I dunno about this m7. Fashionable should be the only criteria that matters imo because it shows that someone has an interest in clothing. Fuck corporations, (and on a shop floor level probably some creepy midddle aged man,) deciding who is good looking enough to work in their shop. Its kinda disgusting
Not too different to deciding which chick is worth taking home at the end of a night out imo. Or better yet, hiring chicks to do porn. Or prostitutes, if you're into it.
You'd have to revise a lot to get that far. And while I don't discourage reform for a greater social good, I don't think all the implications are clear.
Yes yes! Even more awkward question would be will she be allowed to stay if the UK leaves the EU? I bet most UKIP voters know that, I certainly didn't...
Yes yes! Even more awkward question would be will she be allowed to stay if the UK leaves the EU? I bet most UKIP voters know that, I certainly didn't...
The thing is, I just watched that interview on the news and he specifically says something close to "we're not trying to close immigration completely but CONTROL it. My wife is a very highly skilled, educated etc etc who puts in an amount of hours nobody but my wife would be prepared to do" etc. That's an easy attack; but in my opinion he has a valid response to it.
Yeah but his supporters don't really think like that, do they? It appears a lot of them are just stuck up versions of BNP fans... UKIP's funny though, they have self-professed left wingers and socialists in there as well (e.g. pro-nationalisation).
Do you really think that people that support UKIP know Farage has a German wife? Either way, she's a bloody secretary. For all people like him rip on people for 'being lazy', he'd be able to find plenty of people to do the work in the current climate and he can't deny that. It's not a valid response because it doesn't address whether she is replaceable or not, and she is so fuck him on his own mandate hahahahaha
wirez wrote:
The thing is, I just watched that interview on the news and he specifically says something close to "we're not trying to close immigration completely but CONTROL it. My wife is a very highly skilled, educated etc etc who puts in an amount of hours nobody but my wife would be prepared to do" etc. That's an easy attack; but in my opinion he has a valid response to it.
She's subject to legal protections as an employee, the amount of hours an employee can work is ordinarily restricted to 48. What he's essentially saying is that his wife is prepared to work under terms that British employees wouldn't. That she is prepared to opt out of the maximum working week of 48 hours. Having non british nationals take jobs that british employees wouldn't due to them opting out of legal restrictions placed on employers is precisely the type of employment migration that they are trying to put a stop to.
jesslem wrote:
Not too different to deciding which chick is worth taking home at the end of a night out imo. Or better yet, hiring chicks to do porn. Or prostitutes, if you're into it.
Yeah cos if porn and pimps do it then it must be cool
jesslem wrote:You'd have to revise a lot to get that far. And while I don't discourage reform for a greater social good, I don't think all the implications are clear.
Basically what you're saying is its long so fuck it?! Good one
jesslem wrote:
Not too different to deciding which chick is worth taking home at the end of a night out imo. Or better yet, hiring chicks to do porn. Or prostitutes, if you're into it.
Yeah cos if porn and pimps do it then it must be cool
jesslem wrote:You'd have to revise a lot to get that far. And while I don't discourage reform for a greater social good, I don't think all the implications are clear.
Basically what you're saying is its long so fuck it?! Good one
And going back to that first point, at least they're OPEN about it then, and we could decide for ourselves where we wanna spend our dollar.
