Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[SemperEadem]

The lack of original chants from our support from the 80's and 90's is poor. 

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

4 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Says Mark Lawrenson without a hint of irony...

 you got me there! 

[DennisNedry]

On 01/03/2018 at 16:17, Jon the Hat said:

What, even if you are a housing association?

Well no, because they are not-for-profit organisations.

[ScouseFox]

4 hours ago, murphy said:

I don't like Great British Bake Off.  I don't get it's popularity.

 

Why watch somebody make a cake?  It's just a chore isn't it?  May as well watch someone wash their car or do the washing up.

 

What's next?  The Great Celebrity Ironing Challenge?

would 100% watch 

[fuchsntf]

On 1.3.2018 at 09:08, Buce said:

 

I've never believed in an afterlife, and have always lived my life accordingly.

I went over a Couple of Times,but I didnt understand If If was the short before the after,or

the short after,the before....

The Whitelight and the flickering Ring of flames, Not being able to

distinguish,between the 2, plus the misty images appearing, with beckoning fingers...

one  Side Rachel Riley,the other Side ,

Elizabeth Hurley.....

Edited 2 March 2018 by fuchsntf

[Rogstanley]

4 hours ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

The BBC in their quest for equality and fairness through race and gender are now discriminating against white English males. Take sports reporting as an example it’s mainly women reporting now, it should always be the best person for the job whatever the gender or race.

Positive discrimination does work though. It means a few white males get discriminated against and you have to put up with Garth Crooks for a while, but without that short term hit you probably wouldn't get the long term gain of the likes of Thierry Henry coming through. Society is always going to be better off for having a larger pool of talent to choose from. 

[lifted*fox]

white males ain't all they're cracked up to be tbh. 

[Wymsey]

The police deserve more pay in general.

[murphy]

47 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Positive discrimination does work though. It means a few white males get discriminated against and you have to put up with Garth Crooks for a while, but without that short term hit you probably wouldn't get the long term gain of the likes of Thierry Henry coming through. Society is always going to be better off for having a larger pool of talent to choose from. 

We have a winner.

 

That certainly tops any other 'unpopular opinions' I've read in this thread.

 

[Facecloth]

12 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

Positive discrimination does work though. It means a few white males get discriminated against and you have to put up with Garth Crooks for a while, but without that short term hit you probably wouldn't get the long term gain of the likes of Thierry Henry coming through. Society is always going to be better off for having a larger pool of talent to choose from. 

Not having that. Henry was one of the best players of his generation, one of the greatest players to grace our league. There's huge respect for him, he could have got any job in football, he didn't need the likes of Crooks getting a job. Are you saying a black ex player could only get a job because someone like Crooks was a trend setter? So who opened up the path for Crooks? 

 

Your last line contradicts your first. We have a larger pool of talent because on a whole people are being judged by their talent not their race or sex. Positive discrimination makes a smaller pool of talent because you're forcing people to pick people from a certain demographic and ignoring another. Basically if a show is looking for a new pundit and the choice is Gary Neville and Jermaine Jenas, with no positive discrimination you can pick Neville, but with positive discrimination you might have to pick Jenas, and then we're not getting the best and the talent pool is smaller.

Edited 3 March 2018 by Facecloth

[Fox92]

16 hours ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

The BBC in their quest for equality and fairness through race and gender are now discriminating against white English males. Take sports reporting as an example it’s mainly women reporting now, it should always be the best person for the job whatever the gender or race.

I heard a woman commentator other day, it might have been on Match of the Day, and it was awful. It was as if she just got given the role because of the whole equality thing.

 

But I don't want to disrespect women who are actually good at it. I think Kelly Dalglish is the best presenter for Sky Sports football and Jackie Oakley for BBC Sport is brilliant too.

[Rogstanley]

13 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Not having that. Henry was one of the best players of his generation, one of the greatest players to grace our league. There's huge respect for him, he could have got any job in football, he didn't need the likes of Crooks getting a job. Are you saying a black ex player could only get a job because someone like Crooks was a trend setter? So who opened up the path for Crooks? 

 

Your last line contradicts your first. We have a larger pool of talent because on a whole people are being judged by their talent not their race or sex. Positive discrimination makes a smaller pool of talent because you're forcing people to pick people from a certain demographic and ignoring another. Basically if a show is looking for a new pundit and the choice is Gary Neville and Jermaine Jenas, with no positive discrimination you can pick Neville, but with positive discrimination you might have to pick Jenas, and then we're not getting the best and the talent pool is smaller.

It's a complex subject and I can't be bothered to write an essay. But essentially where you've got situations where people of certain race/gender/etc are effectively excluded from certain positions, positive discrimination is an effective method by which to take that group from being excluded to not. Positive discrimination remains in place only during the transition. Once equality of opportunity has been achieved it is removed and at that point you have a larger talent pool to choose from than you did before.

 

I don't know if Crooks/Henry in football punditry is necessarily the best example of this in action, but I don't think it's difficult to grasp the principle of an incumbent from a previously excluded minority background smoothing the path for future minorities to reach the same position.

[Dr The Singh]

Turbans on men make them more sexy

[Facecloth]

3 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

It's a complex subject and I can't be bothered to write an essay. But essentially where you've got situations where people of certain race/gender/etc are effectively excluded from certain positions, positive discrimination is an effective method by which to take that group from being excluded to not. Positive discrimination remains in place only during the transition. Once equality of opportunity has been achieved it is removed and at that point you have a larger talent pool to choose from than you did before.

 

I don't know if Crooks/Henry in football punditry is necessarily the best example of this in action, but I don't think it's difficult to grasp the principle of an incumbent from a previously excluded minority background smoothing the path for future minorities to reach the same position.

But I don't think it does achieve the goal of equal opporunities. Forcing people into an action rather than attempting to try and educate and change ways of thinking only masks the problem. Forcing someone to employ a certain demographic, but don't challenge the thinking that stopped them doing so in the first place means they'll just revert back once the equality your are after is seemingly reached. Also it's punishing the talented people of the supposedly undiscriminated demographic when they've done nothing wrong. You could be a white male looking to be an mp, and get overlooked for a woman who is shite, just for quotas. How is that giving the public the best available? If people are good enough, I genuinely believe they'll make it, I honestly think there's less discrimination than people think.

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

But I don't think it does achieve the goal of equal opporunities. Forcing people into an action rather than attempting to try and educate and change ways of thinking only masks the problem. Forcing someone to employ a certain demographic, but don't challenge the thinking that stopped them doing so in the first place means they'll just revert back once the equality your are after is seemingly reached. Also it's punishing the talented people of the supposedly undiscriminated demographic when they've done nothing wrong. You could be a white male looking to be an mp, and get overlooked for a woman who is shite, just for quotas. How is that giving the public the best available? If people are good enough, I genuinely believe they'll make it, I honestly think there's less discrimination than people think.

 

Education can help with openly discriminatory attitudes but they are only part, and probably not a very big part, of the problem.

 

The bigger parts of the problem are unconscious bias, and lack of confidence from groups with minority representation in applying for and really thinking they can get certain positions. If nobody ever sees say female engineers, then women are going to question whether becoming an engineer is possible, and employers are going to exhibit unconcious bias when considering whether or not to employ them. Both of those problems can be solved by getting a more representative number of the minority group into those positions.

 

While positive discrimination is being applied you might get the occasional situation where a more talented white male engineer is overlooked in favour of a less talented female. But before positive discrimination more talented females aren't even applying and so your talent pool is half the size it could be. That too isn't giving the public the best available.

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

2 hours ago, Fox92 said:

I heard a woman commentator other day, it might have been on Match of the Day, and it was awful. It was as if she just got given the role because of the whole equality thing.

 

But I don't want to disrespect women who are actually good at it. I think Kelly Dalglish is the best presenter for Sky Sports football and Jackie Oakley for BBC Sport is brilliant too.

Agreed, if they’re good then they should get the job, whatever their race, gender, or (I’ll throw this in) what they look like, this I’m directing at Sky as they mainly employ women who are easy on the eye.

[Samilktray]

4 hours ago, Fox92 said:

I heard a woman commentator other day, it might have been on Match of the Day, and it was awful. It was as if she just got given the role because of the whole equality thing.

 

But I don't want to disrespect women who are actually good at it. I think Kelly Dalglish is the best presenter for Sky Sports football and Jackie Oakley for BBC Sport is brilliant too.

You disrespected women straight off the bat with this sentence tbh

[bovril]

5 hours ago, Fox92 said:

I heard a woman commentator other day, it might have been on Match of the Day, and it was awful. It was as if she just got given the role because of the whole equality thing.

How did Garth Crooks and Alan Shearer get their roles, because it sure as hell isn't for their intellect and football knowledge. 

[the fox]

17 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

Positive discrimination does work though. It means a few white males get discriminated against and you have to put up with Garth Crooks for a while, but without that short term hit you probably wouldn't get the long term gain of the likes of Thierry Henry coming through. Society is always going to be better off for having a larger pool of talent to choose from. 

isn't that what the railroad "owners" said about negro men and immigrants when they made them work like mules  in the 1800's?

[the fox]

There is no such thing as "positive" Discrimination! Discrimination is Discrimination! The moment you start taking from people's rights to cater to others is the moment you lose the plot!

Edited 3 March 2018 by the fox

[Jon the Hat]

22 hours ago, DennisNedry said:

Well no, because they are not-for-profit organisations.

Right!  So it is fine for a housing association to make sure it covers it cost of financing a property at probably 5-7% on average, but not for someone with some equity to make a 3-4% return on a property?

[ajthefox]

2 hours ago, bovril said:

How did Garth Crooks and Alan Shearer get their roles, because it sure as hell isn't for their intellect and football knowledge. 

This seems to be forgotten a lot of the time when it comes to women in football.

 

A woman who makes a mistake will often incur criticism for all women (see above) which is just bollocks really. No-one is suggesting Garth Crooks or any of the other number of shit pundits or commentators are shit because of their penis are they? They're just shite.

[Richard]

Positive discrimination in favour of non-white males is needed because throughout everyday life white men gain numerous small advantages (so-called white privilege/male privilege) compared to others. An example would be not being immediately judged by someone based on your appearance like a woman may, or having someone assume you are in a position of inferiority because of your gender or ethnicity. I think it’s often very difficult to notice these things as a white man (myself included) because you aren’t used to such everyday discrimination. 

 

Anyway ironically I actually came in this thread to say that Thierry Henry is a vastly overrated pundit who rarely says anything of worth

[Steven]

I think Claude Puel is doing a super job as Manager of Leicester City with his exciting brand of football.

[Fox92]

3 hours ago, bovril said:

How did Garth Crooks and Alan Shearer get their roles, because it sure as hell isn't for their intellect and football knowledge. 

Probably because they were footballers, as bad as that sounds.