I can be empathetic to people but that does not equate to allowing them to make negative inferences about what I say or my character, and it certainly does not mean I have to agree with all their points. I haven't made any personal attacks on anyone on this thread, although the same cannot be said of my opposition. So as far as I'm concerned, I've done nothing foul
I didn't need to ask what you meant. I knew you meant disabled applicants on one hand and non-disabled on the other. There is nothing to settle, I merely pointed that the way I distinguished between the two characteristics was the way to do so without using ableist language. You are trying to engage in a debate about diversity and discrimination yet cannot acknowledge when your own language continues to perpetuate discriminatory beliefs.
This is literally what you are implying when you call someone uneducated or ignorant for not agreeing with your view. You are essentially gatekeeping on what ideas can be questioned. I never claimed that I know everything about racism and I still don't understand why you keep spewing personal insults when every here has been relatively respectful to one another. You don't have to be condescending just because someone disagrees with you. Be tolerant of opposing viewpoints and who knows, someone might actually change your mind or have their mind changed by you.
I also did mention that I'm not responsible for how other people feel. Again, if other people don't understand me or need to clarify all they need to do is ask. As you mentioned, you never thought I meant to cause offence and if that's how the lay man sees it I don't see what I need to police my speech
But if you accept that he’s also a minority, then aren’t you also dismissing his experience? This seems quite hypocritical.
Yeah I mean there are definitely instances of individual racism, but there are always going to be bad people everywhere you go. Just need to make sure it doesn't distract you from your end game
However you are responsible for the words you chose to put on the internet. I fail to understand how on the one hand you are calling a law firm discriminatory for guaranteeing interviews yet do not feel the need to not use discriminatory language yourself.
It's because he thinks all minorities have a hive mind and if you don't echo the chamber then you aren't worth listening to
I'm all for this discussion but can you have it on this thread (quoted above) rather than populate the VS thread. Makes it difficult for others to understand what is happening even if they are following...
Well one reason is because of how subjective language can be. I mean you only have to look at what words were considered offensive a year ago and now are completely fine. Words like 'queer' etc. Where I come from people are more concerned with what you meant than what you write. And as long as that's settled everything's fine.
RS is coming out either tmr or within a few days of tmr. Forsters not sure
ah np - I know a guy irl with the same name and exactly the same worldview who writes like you from the same minority background so I got suspicious lmao, would've been funny.
Other SC firms, private client like Withers, Forsters etc
