1-in-6 Stars "must be gay or lesbian or disabled by 2020" says BBC

[Grishnaar]

Which is what they do. It is illegal to employ someone on the basis that they are not the right person for the job on racial grounds, whether we are talking about positive discrimination or the traditional kind.

ok.

So why have these "rules" how many people with certain traits we need to have when those traits have NOTHING to do with the job?

[Deleted]

Equality ≠ special treatment.

People should be chosen based on their credentials and ability. Not their fucking sexuality/gender or some other trait (unless you are applying for a very specific job role). We're doomed if this trend sticks.

[Kurioxan]

Why not let talent and merit decide such things, as with popular demand. Forced representation is rather silly.

Then again it reflects the nature of our culture shifting more and more towards an egocentric attitude.
"I must be represented in fiction because I'm unable to emotionally bond with a character unless they are the same skintone as me or have my own issues".

I've grew up watching many different media, a lot of Anime and Asian films, never bothered me that there were no white people in there, or that when there were they were almost invariably either Crazy/Eccentric or Evil (many times both).
The story is what matters, the characters ethnicity or bedroom habits don't unless they are relevant to the story.

Typical mediocre mentality, if one does not find enough of X in what they want, dont watch it, make your own. Using anime/manga as an example again, it was mostly male made, did you see women complain and forcing them to do more female-oriented material? no, they started doing their own damn manga. And this is how it should be.

And what if they cannot find enough "stars" to fill the spots? will they lower the standards and hire mediocre people just because they aren't white or enjoy same sex relations? Great, its an amazing way to make the general population think of ethnic actors in a bad light, because now a lot of the ones "representing" this groups will be talentless "stars" with no merit, and the viewers will only start perceiving ethnic actors as generally bad, and resenting them.

[Deleted]

nailed it with the new top gear crew then.

[unbound]

Daily Mail is the UK equivalent of The Enquirer aimed primarily at conservatives in that country.

[May90]

ok.

So why have these "rules" how many people with certain traits we need to have when those traits have NOTHING to do with the job?

First of all, it is not "rules", it is general directions.

Why? Because they want to attract attention to the problem of discriminated minorities. By employing significant number of them, they want to demonstrate that one belonging to a minority is just as good an employee as anyone else. It is temporary privileged treatment of discriminated groups in one company in order to encourage equal treatment in all companies; it is not something that is intended to become the universal standard for all companies.

It is much like, back when slavery in the US existed, but was dying, many companies demonstratingly hired black people, to make a stand against slavery.

[Yriel]

How will they check if anyone is gay or trans ?
Anyone can say "Um yeah, i'm gay, of course" in an job interview, especially if it is about a high paid media job...

[Deleted]

quotas are fucking stupid.

QFT

What the hell is wrong with people these days.

[May90]

How will they check if anyone is gay or trans ?
Anyone can say "Um yeah, i'm gay, of course" in an job interview, especially if it is about a high paid media job...

These people are actors. If they say they are gay in order to get the job, then the whole country will know they are gay. And if someone knows for a fact they are not, then the media might learn that as well, and the person's career after that will be in trouble. Not the risk I would take, if I were an actor.

[Karrotlord]

Discrimination goes against the principal of fairness regardless of if it's negative or positive.

First you have the potential to ignore a qualified person for one that isn't based on irrelevant qualities thus discriminating against another group. Then you have actually qualified people with said irrelevant quality having the specter hanging over their head of whether they legitimately earned their job or not.

I firmly hold that Affirmative Action and race/sex/orientation/whatever quotas are inherently immoral.

[Grishnaar]

First of all, it is not "rules", it is general directions.

Why? Because they want to attract attention to the problem of discriminated minorities. By employing significant number of them, they want to demonstrate that one belonging to a minority is just as good an employee as anyone else. It is temporary privileged treatment of discriminated groups in one company in order to encourage equal treatment in all companies; it is not something that is intended to become the universal standard for all companies.

It is much like, back when slavery in the US existed, but was dying, many companies demonstratingly hired black people, to make a stand against slavery.

Ok, it's a fair point and I understand it.

Don't you think it would be more....optimal for both sides to keep hiring whoever is more fit for the job, completely disregarding other things and demonstrate againt racism and whatnot with some other means?

Wouldn't that bring more to the company and yet still retain the fight against what's wrong?

[May90]

Ok, it's a fair point and I understand it.

Don't you think it would be more....optimal for both sides to keep hiring whoever is more fit for the job, completely disregarding other things and demonstrate againt racism and whatnot with some other means?

Wouldn't that bring more to the company and yet still retain the fight against what's wrong?

Well, it really depends on the goals. If they want to make a demonstrative public stand against the discrimination, then just disregarding all these things won't achieve the result. Yes, it is the most logical choice to do so normally, but here their goals are a bit different. Just saying in the media, "We do not care about anything but one's ability to do the job", won't mean much, since it is an expected behavior already.

[Deleted]

ok.

So why have these "rules" how many people with certain traits we need to have when those traits have NOTHING to do with the job?

Again there's this thing called the internet where you can check how UK law works...

[Dendrek]

It's incredibly obvious that the people who wrote this article do not know how much 8% is.

1 in 6 is 16.7% (double what the BBC's target actually is). In other words, the person writing this article is either an idiot or a sensationalist. 8% is a reasonable target. 16.7% is not. Learn some fucking math.

[Grishnaar]

Well, it really depends on the goals. If they want to make a demonstrative public stand against the discrimination, then just disregarding all these things won't achieve the result. Yes, it is the most logical choice to do so normally, but here their goals are a bit different. Just saying in the media, "We do not care about anything but one's ability to do the job", won't mean much, since it is an expected behavior already.

Bolded part: Excatly.

So, the way they are doing, it seems to me like they're trying to prove their "innocence" while being innocent. Kinda redundant, don't you think? xD

I mean, it's like I have this company which is working correctly when looked at from all possible angles, yet for some reason I'm trying to do extra to prove that I am what I am. Da fuq?? XD I know who I am and what the company is, there is no need to prove that by doing what this topic's about.
Hopefully I make sense xD

- - - Updated - - -

Again there's this thing called the internet where you can check how UK law works...

I'm not trying to be rude and don't take this the wrong way, but I don't care about the laws. Laws can be wrong and the most important thing: that's not what I'm debating

I'm talking about logic, being optimal and all around working normally. Just check my other posts here

[Raynre Valence]

Hahaha. I can imagine the job interviews.

"So we really like your resume, and we'd like to offer you the role. Just one question though; Are you gay?"

"Um... no?

"Oh. Well, you don't happen to be transgendered then? Maybe a lesbian trapped in a man's body?"

"I... I don't think so."

*sigh* (Pulls out revolver, checks cylinder, slaps it shut) "Ok then, which kneecap would you like it in?"

[Nathreim]

If by disabled they include mentally then they are already way over the quota.

[Karrotlord]

Bolded part: Excatly.

So, the way they are doing, it seems to me like they're trying to prove their "innocence" while being innocent. Kinda redundant, don't you think? xD

I mean, it's like I have this company which is working correctly when looked at from all possible angles, yet for some reason I'm trying to do extra to prove that I am what I am. Da fuq?? XD I know who I am and what the company is, there is no need to prove that by doing what this topic's about.
Hopefully I make sense xD

But in that sense it's counter-productive. "To prove that we don't discriminate, which we haven't been doing anyway, we're going to start doing it!"

[May90]

Bolded part: Excatly.

So, the way they are doing, it seems to me like they're trying to prove their "innocence" while being innocent. Kinda redundant, don't you think? xD

I mean, it's like I have this company which is working correctly when looked at from all possible angles, yet for some reason I'm trying to do extra to prove that I am what I am. Da fuq?? XD I know who I am and what the company is, there is no need to prove that by doing what this topic's about.
Hopefully I make sense xD

- - - Updated - - -



I'm not trying to be rude and don't take this the wrong way, but I don't care about the laws. Laws can be wrong and the most important thing: that's not what I'm debating

I'm talking about logic, being optimal and all around working normally. Just check my other posts here

Yes, but the point is, while it is an expected behavior, it might not be a common behavior. Much like in rape accusations, judges are expected to be unbiased, but everybody knows that's generally not the case. Even if BBC is already employing this expected behavior, other companies might not. To attract attention to the problem, they take the opposite extreme and hire a large number of actors from minorities purposefully, effectively saying, "Look, discrimination against these people makes no sense, because they can work just as well as anyone else".

That's the reasoning, at any rate. I do not necessarily agree with such an action (I think general media awareness campaigns work better than this apparently biased way to approach it), but it might be effective still.

[Deleted]

Ok, it's a fair point and I understand it.

Don't you think it would be more....optimal for both sides to keep hiring whoever is more fit for the job, completely disregarding other things and demonstrate againt racism and whatnot with some other means?

Invariably in threads like these there is the assumption that they hire random gays, blacks, disabled people whatever who turn up. They don't. 95% of the people contrbuting to this thread don't understand the legal system.

It is illegal under UK law to hire someone on any basis other than merit, and unsuccessful applicants have legal recourse to compensation if they feel discrimination, positive or negative has occurred.

The only area in which an employer can express a preference on race, disability and sexual orientation is when the candidates are both of equal merit. Even here they have to be extremely careful that they could substantiate such a claim in court.

Quotas like this are actually filled up by for example, advertising positions in LGBT magazines. There are many ways to encourage and help minority groups without disadvantaging white males or whomever.

All this wonderful information takes thirty seconds to google. But hey, why not rant from a position of ignorance.