“But despite that [her years of experience]”, the lady said, “I still had to get re-certified. It started with an equality and diversity test, and I got the first question wrong.”
“Everyone does”, said the other lady. “They ask you what equality means and the first answer in the list is ‘Equal treatment’ but the right answer is ‘Equal outcomes’. If you question it, they tell you that if you give two women the same leaflet in English but one of them speaks English and the other speaks Farsi then that’s equal treatment but not equal outcomes.”
Many retired doctors or nurses offered to help during the pandemic, only to discover there were bureaucratic hoops to jump through before they would be allowed to do so. Arguably, this was a pity from the point of view of health in the UK, but as a man once said, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste – whereas time in a crisis apparently isn’t.
The lesson I took from this conversation is that the politically correct are trained to see you coming, so have their put-downs ready. Diversity training for us commoners may include being on the receiving end of those put-downs. Diversity training for the trainers includes being ready with them.
“I prefer questions that cannot be answered to answers that cannot be questioned.” (Richard Feynman)
On the road from the culture of free speech to that of
“Shut Up”, he explained
there is a country of answers we’re being trained not to question through the use of put-downs they’re trained to use if we dare to.
Commenters are invited to report any such put-downs they’ve met, any pithy rejoinders to such would-be-conversation-ending put-downs that they know of, and of course their thoughts.
Number one here is “well, I follow the science” said in a haughty tone, in response any statement regarding Covid that annoys them. (They don’t follow the science, of course.)
Another is the “if it was important, we’d cover it” response given by the MSM when questioned about their coverage decisions.
I’ve not seen much if any coverage of the planned Australian truckers’ strike, and when I ask about it, I’m told “if it was news – if it had happened – you’d see it.” Which, of course, is the rejoinder whenever the proper media decide to quash a story. (See Hunter Biden.)
Of course, I then see the Rolling Stone’s debacle today with the fabricated doctor telling the world that Ivermectin users are clogging his hospital with OD cases and so gunshot victims can’t get treatment – spread all over the MSM. This was apparently the “news that happened” that I get to see. Repeated all over the MSM.
Even though the doc turned out not to be working at that hospital, and the hospital said “nope, no Ivermectin patients here at all, and we had 9 assaults in the entire county so far this year so no gunshot victims lining up for care.”
But, “if it was important, we’d tell you” seems to be the response I get most often.
One riposte to these types is a legal one and saying ‘Have you got any case law on that?‘ and then constructing a discrimination case against them for imposing a requirement that is discriminatory and tormenting them with legal claims against them individually as personally liable for perpetuating discrimination against you as a job candidate. My dilemma is whether it would be moral to hoist them by their own pétards?
Some people whine when I point out that the “Diversity and Inclusion” (i.e. Uniformity and Exclusion) Agenda is from Frankfurt School Marxism – but see the objective EQUAL OUTCOMES, equality. From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs – text book Communism, that is “equal outcomes”.
As for all the rich people and vast Corporations that back this Frankfurt School Marxist – well when your friends rob and murder you, why should anyone care?
You are wealthy yet you support people who want “equal outcomes” – and it is not that they do not tell you, they shout it from the roof tops. OF COURSE they are going to rob and murder you – and your families. Again – why should anyone care when your “friends” (the people you support – in spite of being warned many times) turn on you?
You are obviously more moral than I. Subjecting someone to their own standards doesn’t even get into my top ten moral concerns. 😉
“My dilemma is whether it would be moral to hoist them by their own pétards?”
Watching someone’s kharma catching up with them in real time is a joy to behold.
“If you question it, they tell you that if you give two women the same leaflet in English but one of them speaks English and the other speaks Farsi then that’s equal treatment but not equal outcomes.”
How is giving one woman a leaflet written in her native tongue but giving the other one written in a foreign language “equal treatment”?
In my part of the world there is a sign which the “Woke” place in their yards, or in the windows of their homes. It always makes me grin to see it, since every line of it is either a strawman or just gibberish.
https://www.amazon.com/pingpi-Believe-Garden-Vertical-Outdoor/dp/B07VW9PR3M/
And don’t you f*cking Nazi Trumptards forget it, either …
Equal treatment is setting the same rules for everybody. Equal outcomes is making sure that the homeless guy standing on the street corner with the “I’ll be honest – I just want beer” sign gets his chance to perform open-heart surgery next week.
Ferox (September 5, 2021 at 8:28 pm), I offer
I welcome any improvements – or just information on what glossaries of this text people in your part of the world provide.
@Sam Duncan
How is giving one woman a leaflet written in her native tongue but giving the other one written in a foreign language “equal treatment”?
I only found about this from our mandatory training. It could be interpreted as Indirect Discrimination (e.g. not employing someone for a call centre in England because English is not their first language)
That’s a BAD thing and is an act of Positive Discrimination. Not to be confused with Positive Action (giving special priviliges, extra recruitment/facilities/training/promotion to someone because they have a protected characteristic) which is GOOD.
Well, yes, or course, it is confusing, and maybe by design. If we (an individual) decide to do it, it’s BAD, but if the State or a MSM / transnational organisation does it, it’s GOOD.
I can elaborate on them if that’s interesting to anyone. But I would guess it’s the same here as anyplace.
Black Lives Matter – The premise is that killings by police should be in proportion to the general population rather than the criminal population. This is of course absurd – otherwise we would all be shouting “Men’s Lives Matter” due to that enormous disparity.
Women’s Rights Are Human Rights – The premise is that women are still an oppressed class. This is of course absurd … there is no oppression in an overall wage differential between someone working 35 hours per week and someone working 43 hours per week.
No Human Is Illegal – The premise is that somewhere, some bad people are saying that those whose immigration status is “Illegal Alien” are somehow fundamentally illegal people, as though their mere existence was in violation of the law? This is of course absurd – absolutely nobody is claiming that anyone’s existence is inherently illegal.
Science Is Real – The premise is that if someone wears a white coat and says things that support their politics, they will believe them. That empiricism doesn’t need or even allow for “belief” doesn’t deter them a moment. This is of course absurd – they are adherents not of science, but of Scientism.
Love Is Love – All I will say about this is: go look up the meaning of MAP in the context of LBGQTIXZY++ and see what they mean by Love Is Love. This is not only absurd but in dire need of a vigorous application of tar and feathers.
Kindness Is Everything – Agree with us or we will punch you and ban you from the marketplace, Nazi.
Bobby:
For me, subjecting people to their own standards is not a concern: it is a moral obligation.
A parody of that yard sign is available here: https://www.etsy.com/shop/designsjustice/
“In this house, we believe that simplistic platitudes, trite tautologies, and semantically overloaded aphorisms are poor substitutes for respectful and rational discussions about complex issues.”
An observation: While walking in various areas of my city, I’ve only ever seen the “woke” version of that sign in affluent, mostly-white neighborhoods; I’ve yet to see it in low-income or mostly minority neighborhoods. I savor the irony that I’ve never seen a lawn sign saying “No human is illegal” in a neighborhood where undocumented immigrants reside (although to be fair, most of them don’t have lawns).
One assumes that everyone who took the test got the same outcome.
As Jerry Pournelle (pbuh) used to say, free men are not equal, equal men are not free.
In a situation where they need you and you don’t need them, why not just walk? There is a story from the US where a hospital sacked half of their nurses because they refused the Covid vaccine and then ended up desperately short of nurses.
https://tennesseestar.com/2021/08/23/commentary-massive-nurse-shortage-hits-houston-weeks-after-150-unvaccinated-nurses-and-hospital-workers-fired/
They openly say “Equal Outcomes” (i.e. Communism – the definition of the term) and still people treat it as a joke.
When they are cutting our heads off will the last words be “you can not be serious” – they are serious, and they openly and repeatedly say what their aim is.
I am reminded of the utterly pathetic “Conservative” response to the growth of Frankfurt School Marxism in Britain in the 1980s (oh yes – it was growing in power even then), it was “Political Correctness gone mad” and lots of weak jokes, whilst the left just carried on taking over the universities, the schools and-so-on.
“Political Correctness” (although first used by Stalin in an attack against Frankfurt School Marxism) has been for decades just another term term for Frankfurt School Marxism. What is the “gone mad”?
The “right” (or what passes for the righteous in most of the West) appears to have a DEATH WISH – they will not fight the enemy, they keep trying to make deals with the enemy, go along with them to “have a quiet life”.
The left intend to rob and murder you – and to rob and murder your families. They intend to use the institutions of state to do this – overwhelming force. Which is why they are taking over the bureaucracy of so many Western nations. There can be no long term compromise or accommodation – they want you dead.
Yet the “right”, the “conservatives”, in most Western countries just do not seem to grasp this basic fact.
Marxist academics were “advising” the British Home Office as far back as the 1970s – so the idea that the genocidal totalitarians are “just a few nutters on Twitter” is wrong.
Some people ask me why so much money is spent on “Diversity Officers” and so on, when people are dying of diseases from which, with Early Treatment, they could be saved.
The honest answer “because the Marxists do not care about individual human lives – they care only about destroying “capitalism” (Civilisation) and establishing full Collectivism, even if that means a hill of human skulls” just gets a shocked look and the people asking the question running away.
“Tell people the truth” – I do, but people do not wish to hear the truth (it scares them – and they blame-the-messenger).
One chap the other day said I seemed like an “Old Testament Prophet” and speculated that it might be something to do with my Jewish blood. I was not offended – he may be correct. Jewish culture, for good and for ill (for some people choose to follow evil ideas – where there is choice some people, of any group, will choose evil), takes ideas seriously – it also understands that people CHOOSE between good and evil and that many people choose evil KNOWING it is evil. I am a Christian in religion – but these basic “Jewish” points are clearly true.
Look, just look, at what the Marxists who have taken over much of the institutions (via the “Democratic Party”) have done to so many American cities – look what they have done.
It is not an accident – this economic and cultural collapse in the cities (including the vast numbers of murders) is WHAT THEY WANTED.
Cloward and Piven (and other Marxist academics) said what they were going to do – they said so as far back as the 1960s.
Stop saying to yourselves “they can not mean this” – they DO mean it.
“Saul Alinsky said humour was very effective – we should use their own weapons against them!”
It does not work that way. The tactics of Saul Alinsky and other totalitarians are designed to undermine society – they, generally, can not be used to defend it.
“Rules for Radicals” is for Radicals (the clue is in the title) – it is not for people trying to defend (rather than destroy) civilisation.
There may be elements of his tactics that one can use – but NOT most of it.
For example, the central approach of Saul Alinsky and the rest of them is LYING, although they do not use the word “lying” – it is clear that this is what they mean.
Those who serve the truth (who serve civilisation) will not find that lies are of good service to them – at least not normally.
Although an atheist Saul Alinsky dedicated his book to Satan.
He did not actually believe that such a being existed – it was a statement of his ethical position.
Mr Alinsky was EVIL – he was fighting for EVIL. He was a serious person (under the fake humour) – he was not a muddle head, unlike so many people he dealt with.
The totalitarians know what they are – they know they are evil, and they rejoice in that. If you seek Mr Alinsky’s monument – then look at Chicago right now. This is the first part of what he wanted – the start of the destruction of everything good.
It is “the right” (the “conservatives”) who do not grasp what they are up against.
Perhaps there was some excuse for not understanding this in the 1960s (although I still believe that Pope Paul VI and others were idiots for believing that the totalitarian left wanted to “help the poor” – even in the 1950s Saul Alinsky had identified the man who would one day be Pope Paul VI as a Useful Idiot who could be manipulated – sadly there were many useful idiots, of all religions and no religion).
There is no excuse, none, for not understanding this now.
What has been done to most of the major cities of the United States is not an accident – this destruction is what the totalitarian left WANTED, it was their conscious intention.
Again it is not “just a few nutters on Twitter” – this is what they are really like. How they write on “Twitter” (and anywhere where they can hide behind fake names) is a window into their souls.
They wish to destroy what is left of civilisation – and the only reason they would keep their opponents alive is to torment them. It really is that bad.
And they are LEGION – they increasingly dominate many Western nations.
Ferox:
I saw somebody suggest the car bumper sticker, “In this car, we believe in turn signals.”
In this house we believe
four legs good
two legs baaaaaaaahd
If given that ‘Equality and Diversity’ test and gotten that first question wrong, the proper response would be, “So everyone passes this test, no matter how they answer, right? Because that’s Equality of Outcome!” Then see what happens. 😈
The example was not chosen quite as carelessly as you might think. Although many a low-level diversity trainer may lack the subtlety for it, be ready for the PC judo flip if you try your rebuttal on one of their trainers, who might reply,
See their second-iteration put-downs coming if you can. The middle grades of them have been trained in those too.
I see no dilemma here. They need hoisting good and hard.
Joe and Fred live next to each other in houses which have mortgages. Joe works 5 or 6 days a week, while Fred sits on the lawn outside his house drinking beer all day. Joe has to give Fred money from his wages every month so that both mortgages can be paid. Equal outcome, but equal treatment?
>any pithy rejoinders
“Some children are born with incurable conditions which will inevitably prove fatal in infancy. Do you propose to execute
every infant who doesn’t have such a condition?”
If they say no, then they have proven they do not believe in absolute equality of outcomes. If they say yes, they have shown themselves to be insane by any reasonable standard.
At a recent event at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London I noticed they were displaying copies of the Economist magazine – editions for several weeks (as if this vile Corporate State Keynesi9an rag was a free market publication).
But PERHAPS IT HAS CHANGED – after all the front cover had “The threat from the illiberal left” (or some such) written upon it. So yesterday I had a look at that lead article.
There was nothing much on the despicable Biden-Harris regime in the United States, not the rigged election that brought them to power, nor much on the Marxist Critical Race Theory that is being pushed in the American military and general government and Corporate bureaucracy – indeed I do not remember the words “Marxist” or “Frankfurt School” being mentioned in the article (although I could be mistaken).
“Progressive” (i.e. Collectivist) was used as if it was a positive world. And readers were informed that Progressives once believed in freedom – that would have come as news to Richard Ely and the other semi totalitarian thinkers who created Progressive movement (anyone want to read “The State” by Woodrow Wilson, or “Phillip Dru: Administrator” by his “other self” Colonel House – if the Economist magazine think these basic works of the Progressive movement were pro liberty, then I have a nice bridge to sell them).
There was an attack on the government of Hungary in the article (Hungary – “illiberal left”???), and .. well I could not carry on reading the lead article, it was garbage (like everything else in the magazine of Walter Bank Bailout Bagehot – “concede whatever is safe to concede”).
If this is what passes for a pro liberty publication in the modern West – then the West is doomed.
It is not fighting Frankfurt School Marxist P.C. (as the title of the article implied) – it is going along with it, just begging for it to be more “moderate” and “tolerant”.
Good luck with that – you fools.
“…the first answer in the list is ‘Equal treatment’ but the right answer is ‘Equal outcomes.”
I play the piano a bit. I’m not very good but I play for my own amusement and it gives me a certain amount of enjoyment. I sometimes daydream about playing the Emperor Concerto or the Rach 3 in front of a packed audience at the Albert Hall. But wait, with this newly defined reality my dream can come true. I don’t get equal treatment with pianists who started playing at four years old, had masses of talent and got a scholarship to go to some elite music academy. No, I get equal outcome, Albert Hall here I come.
Actually I think that I can run with this one, I’m a mediocre triathlete and like to take part in 24 hour endurance races too. So now I can have equal outcome with the guy who did the Ironman in seven and a half hours and the guy who ran 191 miles in twenty four hours.