General > General Technical Chat

'Master' and 'slave': Tech terms face scrutiny amid anti-racism efforts

<< < (325/352) > >>

MK14:
I somewhat remember, a similar thing, to the theme of this thread (challenging master/slave), something around 25 to 35+ years ago. It was an attempt to make things much more inclusive (around male/female terms), a sort of women/female-movement.
E.g. Renaming of Firemen, Policeman, Postman, Binman, etc. As well as many other things, to 'balance out', the mix of sexes (male/female), across jobs, and make it much fairer, for women.

E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Elimination_of_All_Forms_of_Discrimination_Against_Women
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_equality

So, around 1980 I guess, so approximately 40 years ago.

What you want/need here, is equal opportunity, to do the different jobs, regardless of disability, age, male/female, weight, height, background, race, religion, etc etc. With (hopefully) obvious exceptions.

But what you don't want/need, is to force each job type, to have a mixture/balance, EXACTLY the same level as in the general population. Because if you force it, it can mean that unsuitable people are given the job, who are not really interested in it. Which can be damaging for that job function.

I.e. If you are suited to be an Electronics Engineer, then you can be, even if you are different to the normal profile of an Electronics Engineer.
But, forcing, e.g. 50% of them to be female, could mean that you end of with people, who are not interested in engineering, and it could damage the quality of the items, or lead to sky high salaries, in order to attract, the few, genuine engineers, from that category.

I.e. Equal opportunity, not forced percentages, imposed on employees.
Get the job(s), because of your merits for doing the job, not because you tick the population mix percentage tick boxes.

Ed.Kloonk:

--- Quote from: MK14 on July 26, 2020, 03:06:42 pm ---I somewhat remember, a similar thing, to the theme of this thread (challenging master/slave), something around 25 to 35+ years ago. It was an attempt to make things much more inclusive (around male/female terms), a sort of women/female-movement.
E.g. Renaming of Firemen, Policeman, Postman, Binman, etc. As well as many other things, to 'balance out', the mix of sexes (male/female), across jobs, and make it much fairer, for women.

E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Elimination_of_All_Forms_of_Discrimination_Against_Women
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_equality

So, around 1980 I guess, so approximately 40 years ago.

What you want/need here, is equal opportunity, to do the different jobs, regardless of disability, age, male/female, weight, height, background, race, religion, etc etc. With (hopefully) obvious exceptions.

But what you don't want/need, is to force each job type, to have a mixture/balance, EXACTLY the same level as in the general population. Because if you force it, it can mean that unsuitable people are given the job, who are not really interested in it. Which can be damaging for that job function.

I.e. If you are suited to be an Electronics Engineer, then you can be, even if you are different to the normal profile of an Electronics Engineer.
But, forcing, e.g. 50% of them to be female, could mean that you end of with people, who are not interested in engineering, and it could damage the quality of the items, or lead to sky high salaries, in order to attract, the few, genuine engineers, from that category.

I.e. Equal opportunity, not forced percentages, imposed on employees.
Get the job(s), because of your merits for doing the job, not because you tick the population mix percentage tick boxes.

--- End quote ---

You've got to understand that the agenda is so sinister that it doesn't care about consequences you mention.

MK14:

--- Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on July 26, 2020, 03:17:47 pm ---You've got to understand that the agenda is so sinister that it doesn't care about consequences you mention.

--- End quote ---

I hope the agenda, is to make society, a nicer, fairer, happier, environment, for everyone.
But, sometimes, the way they try and achieve this (politically), ends up being unfair, to many other people.
(Difficult to give examples, without creating political discussion, so I'll stop here, and not give examples).

Zero999:

--- Quote from: MK14 on July 26, 2020, 03:06:42 pm ---I somewhat remember, a similar thing, to the theme of this thread (challenging master/slave), something around 25 to 35+ years ago. It was an attempt to make things much more inclusive (around male/female terms), a sort of women/female-movement.
E.g. Renaming of Firemen, Policeman, Postman, Binman, etc. As well as many other things, to 'balance out', the mix of sexes (male/female), across jobs, and make it much fairer, for women.

E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Elimination_of_All_Forms_of_Discrimination_Against_Women
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_equality

So, around 1980 I guess, so approximately 40 years ago.

What you want/need here, is equal opportunity, to do the different jobs, regardless of disability, age, male/female, weight, height, background, race, religion, etc etc. With (hopefully) obvious exceptions.

But what you don't want/need, is to force each job type, to have a mixture/balance, EXACTLY the same level as in the general population. Because if you force it, it can mean that unsuitable people are given the job, who are not really interested in it. Which can be damaging for that job function.

I.e. If you are suited to be an Electronics Engineer, then you can be, even if you are different to the normal profile of an Electronics Engineer.
But, forcing, e.g. 50% of them to be female, could mean that you end of with people, who are not interested in engineering, and it could damage the quality of the items, or lead to sky high salaries, in order to attract, the few, genuine engineers, from that category.

I.e. Equal opportunity, not forced percentages, imposed on employees.
Get the job(s), because of your merits for doing the job, not because you tick the population mix percentage tick boxes.

--- End quote ---
That's true. The biggest problem with quotas an so-called positive discrimination is it doesn't result in the best people for the job being chosen. Suppose an organisation has a target for employing a certain percentage from a minority group: how would a person from said minority's colleagues feel if the know they got the job, purely for being from a minority? This doesn't promote respect or tolerance, just more bigotry.



--- Quote from: madires on July 26, 2020, 02:21:37 pm ---The whites are blacks who lost their dark skin color. ;) We all have our roots in Africa. It's called evolution.

Almost all living people outside of Africa trace back to a single migration more than 50,000 years ago:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/almost-all-living-people-outside-africa-trace-back-single-migration-more-50000-years

And there are more facts which are ignored or not talked about. Black people can be racists too. Ask black-white couples!

We could be happy humans if we would treat each other with respect, no matter which skin color, religion, walking barefoot or driving a Ferrari. Words aren't the problem. The problem is in your mind!

--- End quote ---
True and skin colour is only one physical attribute, along with eye and hair colour. White supremacists like to think humans became more advanced, as they migrate away from Africa and became lighter skinned, but human brain size has actually decreased since the stone age, as we evolved complex civilisations, yet skin colour can change much more rapidly than that.

It's not known why human brains shrank and whether we've gotten less intelligent as a result.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/if-modern-humans-are-so-smart-why-are-our-brains-shrinking

coppice:

--- Quote from: MK14 on July 26, 2020, 03:06:42 pm ---What you want/need here, is equal opportunity, to do the different jobs, regardless of disability, age, male/female, weight, height, background, race, religion, etc etc. With (hopefully) obvious exceptions.

But what you don't want/need, is to force each job type, to have a mixture/balance, EXACTLY the same level as in the general population. Because if you force it, it can mean that unsuitable people are given the job, who are not really interested in it. Which can be damaging for that job function.

--- End quote ---
Its worse that just getting unsuitable people. Its a recipe for greater human misery, as people get bullied into doing things they don't want to do, and prevented from doing things they do want to do. Many studies show that Western women have been getting less and less satisfied with their lives since the 1960s, so the current course doesn't seen to be bringing them any joy.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod