Libertarianism - the perpetual motion machine of U.S. politics thread

[Commodore]

As a senior manager at the BBC I can assure you that we attempt to recruit the right person regardless of background.

If hiring is merit based, why aren't you achieving target diversity levels currently?

[TerraPrime]

If hiring is merit based, why aren't you achieving target diversity levels currently?

Because there are structurally ingrained biases in assessing the competency and merits of candidates where non-white candidates are held at an unfair disadvantage so that despite objectively equal merits, non-white candidates get ranked lower and thus are hired at a lower rate than it should be.

[IheartIheartTesla]

If hiring is merit based, why aren't you achieving target diversity levels currently?

Because its not yet 2017.

[Aemon Stark]

I'm sorry, but it really seems that getting upset over "Dr. Who" is just silliness. Who cares about such a thing on a science fiction program where a lot of it is set in the future, and who knows what the racial make-up of the UK or anyplace else on the planet will really be in a few centuries?

Problematically, the complaint can also be boiled down to concern over there being "too many" black actors on Doctor Who.

Which isn't a comfortable viewpoint.

[The Killer Snark]

It isn't a comfortable viewpoint, and it isn't one I want to make, but I'm not afraid of voicing unpopular opinions if, whether I'm right or wrong, it feels to me as if I'm following a proper moral standpoint. I hate discrimination in all its forms. Unfortunately, "positive" discrimination is still discrimination. The only proper basis for assessing candidate compatibility with a role is really, within logical reason, basing this independently of colour, cultural background or gender. That is fair. There's no reason for me to think that regular casting on Nu Who is the product of anything other than agenda. Out of every female assistant in the programme, only one of them, Karen Gillan's, has not been in a relationship with a black man. That's a total of four interracial relationships almost in a row, all following the black man/ white woman paradigm. In order to highlight the show's deliberate 'progressive' agenda in these matters, there is even a relationship between two females who are different species as well, even though at least people of two different colours are still humans. But anyway, the one occasion they could have swung things the other way with Martha seeing a white guy, they paired her off with a black guy because they take the possible whining of black Leftists more seriously than they do the feelings of white guys. On an episode I remember with a White House scene, I don't think their was a single extra playing a senator who was a white guy. Entire episodes, aside from the Doctor and a few of his assistants, have featured casts made up exclusively of black extras and actors. And there's increasingly one of them shoehorned into a resolution of the plot where they wind up saving the world. It is blatant pandering. Also, as with tokenism in general, their parts are underwritten to avoid possible negative portrayals and a lot of the people picked can't act. It is not equal opportunities but equal outcomes casting, and I'd prefer a system of fairer natural proprtional representation based purely on merit according to colour-blind casting where black actors were also getting better written roles.

[Ormond]

Unfortunately, unless you can link to some interview or other information from the producers of the show that indicates that your interpretations for why there have been many non-white actors on it lately are correct, I prefer to believe that they ARE simply hiring the best actors possible and that your view that they must have some sort of racist affirmative action agenda and are not casting on merit is simply your own prejudice showing.

[The Killer Snark]

It isn't personal prejudice. As stated, I've seen non white people online also picking up on something that isn't particularly subtle. Some think it's a good thing, and others think it's self-satisfied PC pandering. The subject doesn't make me angry; the main reason I prefer classic series Who is I prefer its more otherwordly off the wall quality and prefer its sense of pace and writing. I still do catch up on the new series; I just wish it wasn't so preachily PC.

[felice]

Out of every female assistant in the programme, only one of them, Karen Gillan's, has not been in a relationship with a black man. That's a total of four interracial relationships almost in a row, all following the black man/ white woman paradigm.

Rose (white) dumps Mickey (black) in the first episode; she's subsequently interested in Adam (white), Jack (white), and the Doctor (white), and ends up with a version of the latter. Martha (black) has a crush on the Doctor (white), gets engaged to Tom (white), then marries Mickey (black). Donna (white) is involved with Lance (black) in her first appearance. Amy (white) is married to Rory (white) and has a crush on the Doctor (white). River (white) is involved with the Doctor (white). Clara (white) was involved with Danny (black), the only black/man white/woman relationship to appear in more than one episode. There's no shortage of white/white relationships in the show!

[Aemon Stark]

I don't watch Doctor Who, but your concerns are absolutely ridiculous. And it strikes me that you've overthought the racial mix of various relationships on the show to an absurd degree.

[Horza]

This has been a fascinating reading experience, I want to thank all concerned.

[Jo498]

It's actually "amamus", not amamis. As in: Libertam amamus, sed non amamus libertarianos ;)

[Horza]

It's actually "amamus", not amamis. As in: Libertam amamus, sed non amamus libertarianos ;)

InstaLyrics.net.ru or whatever has failed me. Thank you for the correction. Did you check out the song?

[The Killer Snark]

Bonitas non est pessimis esse meliorum. ;)

Aemon Stark - If you don't watch the show, you can't comment on whether my views are ridiculous or not. felice has provided data. I'll counter it slightly, though, by simplifying things without attempting to cherry-pick, which is a debative strategy I can't tolerate in others so I won't fall into it myself. So...

Felice - Rose starts off with Mickey, all well and good. I quite liked Mickey as a character and there seemed to be no agenda going on. I am not against miscegenation, I'm just against the implied suggestion it is somehow healthier than same race relationships. She does wind up with a version of the Doctor, but a lot later in the series after Donna has been jilted at the altar by a black guy and eventually gets married to a replacement black guy. The producers knew they might cause offence among the Left by having her wind up with a more reliable white guy, so they'd wrote themselves into a logically improbable corner. Martha winds up in the end with a black guy. If the producers were truly being non-favouritist, she would have wound up with a white guy. Amy provides a sole exception. River doesn't really count, as she's a Time Lord. Clara is with a black guy. You can't deny an obvious agenda here; this sort of thing simply doesn't happen through a process of colour-blind casting, especially with the very bizarre and very politically blatant same sex relationiship between one of the characters and a Silurian going on (and the characters aren't even the same species), which suggests that the producers are indeed making a comment regarding how they are making political choices in the relationiships in the show. The crushes the assistants have had on white characters or on the Doctor don't count, as those are not examples of relationiships. I count the following:

Rose: White woman/ black guy relationship.

Donna: Same, but twice.

Martha: Winds up with a black guy.

Clara: As above.

Rose: Eventually winds up with a white guy, a version of the Doctor.

River: A Time Lord, but is with the original version of the same white guy.

Amy: With a white guy.

That's five for the former instance, and three for the latter, and the Doctor himself just counts as one person, and in any case isn't human. I'm not denying the healthiness of portraying miscegenative relationships on TV, but there's no evidence of a black woman/ white man relationship because the producers know there are a small number of black men, whose opinions they'd prioritrize over those of white men on the subject, who might consider that inflammatory, and the percentages of occurrence of the reverse in the programme are not credible in terms of real life. White woman/ black male relationships do exist and that's perfectly healthy, but it's an exception, not a norm.

[Jo498]

I didn't know about a connection to a song, but although my Latin is very rusty I will spot such an obvious typo/error. The text at youtube has the same typo. It should really be pronounced like "ah-mah-moos" (but with a short "oo" sound), in the song the English accent is pretty strong, therefore probably the mistake in transcription by some ignotus.

(For whatever reason my grammar back then used "laudare" (to praise) as paradigm not "amare")

[Hereward]

*blinks*

Have I stumbled into some of kind of Philip Larkin surrealist performance art?

[Horza]

No, we're all quite happily discussing Libertarianism using the medium of affirmative action in Dr Who's choice of companions and the eminently tappable 'S. P. Q. R.' by popular 80s beat combo This Heat. Do keep up.

[The Killer Snark]

Hereward - No, although Philip Larkin, Tory supporting old bigot though he was, only served to extend the general rule of thumb that, since poetry is an individualist and not a collectivist enterprise, there are almost no good or great poets who have ever gravitated to the Left. Horza was being partly facetious, I reckon, but the question of affirmative action in the media is relevant to the discussion, because libertarianism is always anti affirmative action even where a centrist and someone further right may differ enough on taxation and social services they accuse the other of not being libertarian enough. Modern Dr Who is actually a fairly good example of what happens when political persuasion is allowed to become too obvious, in a blandly establishmentarian manner, without questioning its own support. I'm extending my argument beyond proportional racial representation. The show has become bludgeoningly Left Wing. In the classic series there was an equal opportunities of targets; it satirised both Left and Right establishmentarian perspectives in a subtle and creative way. Take The Happiness Patrol, for instance, which was ostensibly a satire upon Thatcherism, but it wasn't so much a satire on protectionist state capitalism so much as on the PC, dissidence suppressing policies against expression that actually were instituted first by Thatcher and not, as some would have it, Tony Blair. As a critique upon what happens in a society ruled by Political Correctness, it was uncannily ahead of its time. Even in a bad story like The Dominators, the dangers of falsely utopian communised societies was explored. In the new series, we've had more critiques upon the exploitations and injustices deemed inherent in free market societies than you can count.

[Commodore]

13 pages and no discussion of bitcoin?

[DanteGabriel]

It's actually "amamus", not amamis. As in: Libertam amamus, sed non amamus libertarianos ;)

I'm glad somebody pointed that out. I wasn't absolutely sure, but I thought so. I learned that conjugation roughly 25 years ago (it was taught to us as a song) and it's stuck with me all this time.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Hereward - No, although Philip Larkin, Tory supporting old bigot though he was, only served to extend the general rule of thumb that, since poetry is an individualist and not a collectivist enterprise, there are almost no good or great poets who have ever gravitated to the Left.

Hmmm. Blake, Ginsberg, PB Shelley, Maya Angenlou, Neruda...