BBC axe award-winning comedian of 18 years for being 'white and male'
52 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Kylel999;51140331]Getting real tired of this kind of shit. Why are trying to manipulate this kind of shit anyway? To please the human trash that are SJW's?[/QUOTE]
According to many, SJWs are not real.
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51140329]Seems like I was born in the wrong time period. Hate being white now[/QUOTE]
Right? And the black community wants to bitch it's oppressed, meanwhile they're literally getting handouts because someone can't handle the coincidence that a white dude might be doing the job better
[editline]2nd October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51140334]According to many, SJWs are not real.[/QUOTE]
....what
[editline]2nd October 2016[/editline]
I know for a fact that they're real
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51140158]Not exactly a good reason to fire him. Surely there is someone shite on Radio 4 they could replace if they wanted more diversity? Isn't the BBC usually good about that anyway?
Seems like a bizarre case. I feel as if there is more to it? Whatever the reason, frankly it's bizarre as fuck.[/QUOTE]
why did he have to loose his job because of it? they could just ADD some cast to it, plus this is fucking radio, unless blacks and asians speek heavily accented, how would anyone know the difference
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;51140144]I don't really see a problem. It's a fact that minorities are underrepresented in media, so removing an 18-year veteran to give someone from a different background a chance doesn't seem racist to me. It's not like the BBC is short of white male comedians[/QUOTE]
So if you were told you are losing your job so that it can be given to someone who is black, you would be totally ok with that?
[QUOTE=Sableye;51140695]why did he have to loose his job because of it? they could just ADD some cast to it, plus this is fucking radio, unless blacks and asians speek heavily accented, how would anyone know the difference[/QUOTE]
That's true, I hadn't considered that. I was mainly speaking from a point of view that they seem to want to merely replace someone rather than add to the amount of speakers they have. It is idiotic though.
As for noticing the difference... that's also not something I considered.
Radioland is a very weird place it seems.
i guess there's reason they're called BBC
Remember when race had no bearing on decisions?
I don't either.
And so continues the downward spiral of BBC by fucking up in every way imaginable. This always seems to happen with big companies nowadays. Just being so out of touch with what people actually want and care about.
This is so hilariously pathetic. These deliriously stupid marketing management people are going to be baffled as:
Being seen as more [i]diverse[/i] =/= talent + having a show worth watching or listening to.
Merit wins the day, that's how it should be. Race, gender, completely irrelevant.
Contriving diversity leads to mediocrity and all round [i]crap[/i] in which no one is happy.
[QUOTE=bitches;51139541]it's pretty common to end up choosing between two equally qualified candidates
i'm not saying that this is what happened to the dude in the OP, but just generally speaking it's a good tie breaker[/QUOTE]
There [i]is[/i] no-one more qualified than this guy, to be on this show.
He's been on it for 18 years for a reason, because he was really good at it.
[QUOTE=Thlis;51139300]I don't think you understand.
They aren't firing him because he's white and male.
They are firing him because he isn't any other race or sex.
Completely different.[/QUOTE]
That's the same as saying "it's not a potato, it's a potatoe"
Intention means jackshit when the results are the goddamn same.
[editline]2nd October 2016[/editline]
"road to hell is paved with good intentions"
Someone speculated that this is just a power grab by whatever executive was in charge of the decision so they can tick the box of "having the most diverse BBC" so as to climb the greasy ladder better. Knowing the kind of slimeballs that is the BBC board of directors I would wager this is probably the case, he wasn't axed to bolster diversity he was axed to fill a checkbox so some suit can look good.
Enforcing diversity is completely against the ideas and happy feelings that having diversity is trying to promote in the first place.
For example: Say charity is mandated by law, then eventually you will have people who see charity as like paying taxes and the action loses all meaning and good will as people become cynical towards it.
You can't fuck with this kind of thing in this manner and still maintain this vision of a happy utopia. It doesn't hold together outside of your head. The only thing you can do is make sure there are as little restrictions as possible for diversity to happen, and if it doesn't happen on it's own then it's not meant to happen.
[QUOTE=bitches;51139286]these are the moves of callous marketing and management teams that see dollar signs in marketing hard towards demographics they now see as more profitable to market to
it is racist/sexist in effect, but not motivation
then there's the second half of the issue, which is a debate over "affirmative action", when talking about introducing diversity in behind the scenes office roles
[editline]1st October 2016[/editline]
my point is that if you want to be constructive about preventing something like this that you see as wrong, you need to understand why it happened, or else you'll be having an argument over something as unrelated as chalking it up to "pc culture"
opening a cultural dialog questioning diversifying hiring practices (or more importantly, firing practices) would be a lot more useful than stopping at "this is racist"[/QUOTE]
Why would the state run and funded media give a shit about dollar signs? It's just the BBC being excessively PC again.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;51140144]I don't really see a problem. It's a fact that minorities are underrepresented in media, so removing an 18-year veteran to give someone from a different background a chance doesn't seem racist to me. It's not like the BBC is short of white male comedians[/QUOTE]
A man was fired for being white and male, for the end goal of "fixing" racism and sexism
go to your corner, look up "equality of outcome" and "equality of opportunity", and you can come back when you understand why that's an awful opinion
Also i don't even think this is the Beeb's fault. They said "government mandated quotas", which means people like Jess Phillips is the ones behind this
[video]https://youtu.be/8XX6ATwQv7Q[/video]
Sorry about the sensationalized title, there weren't any better alternatives
Edit:
[QUOTE]It comes as the BBC's new diversity targets aim to ensure that women will make up half of its staff by 2020 and the number of black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds will increase to 15 per cent.
A BBC spokesperson said: “While the Government's new charter for the BBC does set us diversity targets, we always hire presenters on merit.
[/QUOTE]
What.
It isn't right to force people out of a job because of their race or sex. What happens if they can't find a job because they aren't diverse enough? How is this fair to them?
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51142919]government mandated quotas[/QUOTE]
this is pretty much what the academy awards are doing as well. they completely missed the point of why there were oscar boycotts in the first place.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51140158]Not exactly a good reason to fire him. Surely there is someone shite on Radio 4 they could replace if they wanted more diversity? Isn't the BBC usually good about that anyway?
Seems like a bizarre case. I feel as if there is more to it? Whatever the reason, frankly it's bizarre as fuck.[/QUOTE]
While I agree it's a wrong reason - it's important to note they did [b]not[/b] fire him. His contract was time limited and they chose not to renew it.
Somewhat different.
[QUOTE=Wii60;51139348]isnt this illegal in UK law[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is.
But the thing is this is the BBC, a government ran body that did it.
It's pretty fucking hard to lawsuit the government.
If it was me I would try to build a case against them but pretty much any lawyer won't take this type of case because again, government body.
[editline]3rd October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=wraithcat;51146586]While I agree it's a wrong reason - it's important to note they did [b]not[/b] fire him. His contract was time limited and they chose not to renew it.
Somewhat different.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't matter, under UK law the reason they provided for not renewing the contract is not valid.
They should have never mentioned quotas or the fact they wish to recast with a different background.
They should have legally just stated, we're not renewing the contract as we're changing our focus.
That is perfectly valid and basically means exactly the same as what they've said, but without directly specifying that they ain't renewing it because you're a white male and we don't want you anymore so fuck off.
He wasn't fired, they didn't renew his contract...
The only way to get racism to end is to stop pretending skin color in itself is an issue.
That doesn't mean firing an 18 year old veteran who happens to be a white male.
Fucking dumbass backwards logic is gonna kill us one day or another
[QUOTE=bitches;51139541]it's pretty common to end up choosing between two equally qualified candidates
i'm not saying that this is what happened to the dude in the OP, but just generally speaking it's a good tie breaker[/QUOTE]
[B][I]No.[/I][/B] If you truly want hiring to be fair and undiscriminating, you shouldn't do this since it favors one candidate over the other for no other reason than their skin color or gender.
If a white guy has a rather common skillset, applies for a bunch of companies who enforce the policy you propose, and gets tied with some form of minority every time, he'll end up jobless. Whereas if he was a minority and was matched up against white males of equal skill, he'd land a job after the first interview. How is that fair? That's literally affirmative action applied to a specific case, how does that make it any better?
If you need a good tie breaker, just roll a die.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.