Grifter Watch

[Dunners]

Anyway, I'm just looking froward the the sequel to Adolescence. Apparently it's about a 13-year old white kid from Liverpool, who drives a transit van into a packed Christmas market in Germany whilst searching for Alan's Snack Bar. It should really shine a light on the threat to society posed by the manosphere.

[Proposition Joe]

The writing was on the wall once Jolyon Maugham got involved...

His hit rate of sensible causes does appear to be plummeting.

[Max B Gold]

The writing was on the wall once Jolyon Maugham got involved...

His hit rate of sensible causes does appear to be plummeting.

Everyone needs a lawyer when they get into employment difficulty.

[Max B Gold]

Anyway, I'm just looking froward the the sequel to Adolescence. Apparently it's about a 13-year old white kid from Liverpool, who drives a transit van into a packed Christmas market in Germany whilst searching for Alan's Snack Bar. It should really shine a light on the threat to society posed by the manosphere.

This from Jason Akuhdaye in yhe Guardian helps put into perspective the real issue without fanning the flames of the racist rights Culture War.

"These are not arguments that progressives should shy away from. Instead, they should own them. There is a real risk of this case being used to undermine black academics and others in positions of seniority.

For all the talk of preferential treatment for black people in academia, it remains true that there are documented, systemic barriers for black students, including in their access to funding to advance their studies."

[MalvoliO]

Anyway, I'm just looking froward the the sequel to Adolescence. Apparently it's about a 13-year old white kid from Liverpool, who drives a transit van into a packed Christmas market in Germany whilst searching for Alan's Snack Bar. It should really shine a light on the threat to society posed by the manosphere.

As long as you don't call it Adolfescence, then some dozy TV exec may green light your pitch.

[Dunners]

Anyway, I'm just looking froward the the sequel to Adolescence. Apparently it's about a 13-year old white kid from Liverpool, who drives a transit van into a packed Christmas market in Germany whilst searching for Alan's Snack Bar. It should really shine a light on the threat to society posed by the manosphere.

This from Jason Akuhdaye in yhe Guardian helps put into perspective the real issue without fanning the flames of the racist rights Culture War.

"These are not arguments that progressives should shy away from. Instead, they should own them. There is a real risk of this case being used to undermine black academics and others in positions of seniority.

For all the talk of preferential treatment for black people in academia, it remains true that there are documented, systemic barriers for black students, including in their access to funding to advance their studies."

The right will always dine out on progressive's f*ck ups. A good way to avoid this is to act responsibly and not to f*ck up by implementing loony iniatiatives.

As for Jason Akuhdaye's article, he finally got there with last two paragraphs; Actually learn from your mistakes, and pursue merit not ideology. Shame it will fall in deaf ears.

"In Arday, those on the right feel that they have found what they are looking for; that is why every drop is being wrung out of this story. His resignation will not end that. The next step will be to make this single case bear the weight of the ideological arguments they pile on it.

How do you resist that? By embracing and learning from the mistakes that were made here, not avoiding them out of discomfort. That means advocating for diversity without tokenism, the celebration of excellent black scholarship without the need for exceptionalism or academic celebrity. If we let only our opponents tell the story, then it becomes a parable about the hazards of striving for progress and equality, rather than about the institutions that reduced equality to a mere PR exercise."

[Hoover Attack]

Girl you know it's true,

Ooh ooh ooh, he fooled C.U.

32btym.jpg (207.28 KiB) Viewed 560 times

[Max B Gold]

Anyway, I'm just looking froward the the sequel to Adolescence. Apparently it's about a 13-year old white kid from Liverpool, who drives a transit van into a packed Christmas market in Germany whilst searching for Alan's Snack Bar. It should really shine a light on the threat to society posed by the manosphere.

This from Jason Akuhdaye in yhe Guardian helps put into perspective the real issue without fanning the flames of the racist rights Culture War.

"These are not arguments that progressives should shy away from. Instead, they should own them. There is a real risk of this case being used to undermine black academics and others in positions of seniority.

For all the talk of preferential treatment for black people in academia, it remains true that there are documented, systemic barriers for black students, including in their access to funding to advance their studies."

The right will always dine out on progressive's f*ck ups. A good way to avoid this is to act responsibly and not to f*ck up by implementing loony iniatiatives.

As for Jason Akuhdaye's article, he finally got there with last two paragraphs; Actually learn from your mistakes, and pursue merit not ideology. Shame it will fall in deaf ears.

"In Arday, those on the right feel that they have found what they are looking for; that is why every drop is being wrung out of this story. His resignation will not end that. The next step will be to make this single case bear the weight of the ideological arguments they pile on it.

How do you resist that? By embracing and learning from the mistakes that were made here, not avoiding them out of discomfort. That means advocating for diversity without tokenism, the celebration of excellent black scholarship without the need for exceptionalism or academic celebrity. If we let only our opponents tell the story, then it becomes a parable about the hazards of striving for progress and equality, rather than about the institutions that reduced equality to a mere PR exercise."

I've been reading more about this geezer and it seems he is a bit of a con man who told a series of big lies that no-one ever checked or challenged. He boosted his Academic credentials to a point where the Uni would have been fools not to appoint him. They failed to check his bonefides.

It appears to be less of a DEI issue and more of a con issue. Which is what Hooves is trying to say in his not in the least bit funny clumsy way in the post above

[Dunners]

This from Jason Akuhdaye in yhe Guardian helps put into perspective the real issue without fanning the flames of the racist rights Culture War.

"These are not arguments that progressives should shy away from. Instead, they should own them. There is a real risk of this case being used to undermine black academics and others in positions of seniority.

For all the talk of preferential treatment for black people in academia, it remains true that there are documented, systemic barriers for black students, including in their access to funding to advance their studies."

The right will always dine out on progressive's f*ck ups. A good way to avoid this is to act responsibly and not to f*ck up by implementing loony iniatiatives.

As for Jason Akuhdaye's article, he finally got there with last two paragraphs; Actually learn from your mistakes, and pursue merit not ideology. Shame it will fall in deaf ears.

"In Arday, those on the right feel that they have found what they are looking for; that is why every drop is being wrung out of this story. His resignation will not end that. The next step will be to make this single case bear the weight of the ideological arguments they pile on it.

How do you resist that? By embracing and learning from the mistakes that were made here, not avoiding them out of discomfort. That means advocating for diversity without tokenism, the celebration of excellent black scholarship without the need for exceptionalism or academic celebrity. If we let only our opponents tell the story, then it becomes a parable about the hazards of striving for progress and equality, rather than about the institutions that reduced equality to a mere PR exercise."

I've been reading more about this geezer and it seems he is a bit of a con man who told a series of big lies that no-one ever checked or challenged. He boosted his Academic credentials to a point where the Uni would have been fools not to appoint him. They failed to check his bonefides.

It appears to be less of a DEI issue and more of a con issue. Which is what Hooves is trying to say in his not in the least bit funny clumsy way in the post above

The DEI issue is relevant though, as it a means by which the left/progressive cause can be "hacked" by such conmen. Arday's claims were so fantastical that, outside of the cult, most ordinary people would instantly have become suspicious of him.

But inside the cult, nobody wanted to question anything because (a) they really wanted their token DEI poster boy, and (b) the risk of being outcast by their peers for not demonstrating their commitment to the cause.

Now, I wonder if there are any other social justice causes where similar may have happened?

[Max B Gold]

I doubt you can classify the Academics/Administrators at Cambridge as being cultists or even part of the progressive establishment.

They had before them a young black academic with outrageously good qualifications, publishing history etc and thought we must appoint him because he's outstanding in his field and it will take the heat off the criticism that our selection system for students and academics is biased against black candidates.

They took it all at face value because there was good PR in it for them. There prime motivation was not a DEI one. If that was the driver explain why the student intake at Cambridge contains so few black people.

[Hoover Attack]

Which is what Hooves is trying to say in his not in the least bit funny clumsy way in the post above

I was merely saying that with his enchanting eyes, heavy eyeliner, braids and pulling a fast one, he reminded me of the Millli Vanilli boys, that's all.

[Max B Gold]

Which is what Hooves is trying to say in his not in the least bit funny clumsy way in the post above

I was merely saying that with his enchanting eyes, heavy eyeliner, braids and pulling a fast one, he reminded me of the Millli Vanilli boys, that's all.

So you are basically saying all black people look the same. It's not something I agree with but it's a free country and I can't stop you saying it.

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Surely he means Milli Vanilli are famous grifters themselves?

[Max B Gold]

Surely he means Milli Vanilli are famous grifters themselves?

Probably.

[Dunners]

If that was the driver explain why the student intake at Cambridge contains so few black people.

Black students make up approximately 4.6% of incoming UK-based undergraduates at Cambridge.

Based on the official 2021 UK censuses and government figures, about 3.7% of the total UK population identifies as Black (or Black British).

It's a cult.

[faldO]

There prime motivation was not a DEI one. If that was the driver explain why the student intake at Cambridge contains so few black people.

That may have been true in the past but it is no longer true, as a simple bit of research would have shown you. Black British students at Cambridge are now fairly equally represented by number as a population percentage as a whole, and that doesn't include black overseas students.

Black academic staff are under represented at Cambridge, which explains why Arday was such an attractive proposition.

Jason Arday is not a con man or a grifter. At best he's a fantasist and at worst a liar. Anyone who thinks that DEI initiatives were not the prime motivator in his appointment is deluding themselves.

[e15O]

If that was the driver explain why the student intake at Cambridge contains so few black people.

Black students make up approximately 4.6% of incoming UK-based undergraduates at Cambridge.

Based on the official 2021 UK censuses and government figures, about 3.7% of the total UK population identifies as Black (or Black British).

It's a cult.

That isn’t the best proxy, you would want the percentage of the population aged 16-21 who are black, as the percentage will be higher amongst young people.

[Max B Gold]

If that was the driver explain why the student intake at Cambridge contains so few black people.

Black students make up approximately 4.6% of incoming UK-based undergraduates at Cambridge.

Based on the official 2021 UK censuses and government figures, about 3.7% of the total UK population identifies as Black (or Black British).

It's a cult.

That isn’t the best proxy, you would want the percentage of the population aged 16-21 who are black, as the percentage will be higher amongst young people.

I wouldnt bother going down the statistical route with him. He doesn't even know what a cult is.

[Dunners]

If that was the driver explain why the student intake at Cambridge contains so few black people.

Black students make up approximately 4.6% of incoming UK-based undergraduates at Cambridge.

Based on the official 2021 UK censuses and government figures, about 3.7% of the total UK population identifies as Black (or Black British).

It's a cult.

That isn’t the best proxy, you would want the percentage of the population aged 16-21 who are black, as the percentage will be higher amongst young people.

Good point. I think the answer is 5.1% which, while still a gap, isn't terrible and wouldn't validate a claim that the student intake at Cambridge contains so few black people. Plus, that gap appears to be used up by students of other ethnic backgrounds.

The white British population of that age group is about 66%. Whereas 39% of undergraduate students at Cambridge are from non-white backgrounds, leaving roughly 61% across all white categories combined.

So, if anything, the question could be; why does the student intake at Cambridge contain so few white people?

And this is the problem with the DEI cult. It ends up backfiring as it's based on mumbo jumbo social science. Rather than the focus on the DEI stuff, we'd have been better off if the focus had always been on ensuring younger people of any background, especially those of an economic disadvantage, are supported to achieve their potential.

[Max B Gold]

There prime motivation was not a DEI one. If that was the driver explain why the student intake at Cambridge contains so few black people.

That may have been true in the past but it is no longer true, as a simple bit of research would have shown you. Black British students at Cambridge are now fairly equally represented by number as a population percentage as a whole, and that doesn't include black overseas students.

Black academic staff are under represented at Cambridge, which explains why Arday was such an attractive proposition.

Jason Arday is not a con man or a grifter. At best he's a fantasist and at worst a liar. Anyone who thinks that DEI initiatives were not the prime motivator in his appointment is deluding themselves.

Con man, grifter, fantasist, liar. Probably all of those and many thanks for confirming the lack of black Academic representation in the UK.

Like I said above DEI was a part in the decision making but it was killing two birds with one stone. As in, academically they thought he ticked all the right boxes and after clearing that hurdle they were happy it helped with their DEI Stats. Cambridge is an elite university they don't just appoint to satisfy DEI.

What happened next is that the media and champions of DEI got hold of it and used it as a sign thar the times were changing and the barriers to black academics achieving status were being broken down. Of course the Fellow in question was all of the things mentioned above and has now been weaponised in the racist "culture war" by the far right and apologists like Dunners.

[Max B Gold]

Black students make up approximately 4.6% of incoming UK-based undergraduates at Cambridge.

Based on the official 2021 UK censuses and government figures, about 3.7% of the total UK population identifies as Black (or Black British).

It's a cult.

That isn’t the best proxy, you would want the percentage of the population aged 16-21 who are black, as the percentage will be higher amongst young people.

Good point. I think the answer is 5.1% which, while still a gap, isn't terrible and wouldn't validate a claim that the student intake at Cambridge contains so few black people. Plus, that gap appears to be used up by students of other ethnic backgrounds.

The white British population of that age group is about 66%. Whereas 39% of undergraduate students at Cambridge are from non-white backgrounds, leaving roughly 61% across all white categories combined.

So, if anything, the question could be; why does the student intake at Cambridge contain so few white people?

And this is the problem with the DEI cult. It ends up backfiring as it's based on mumbo jumbo social science. Rather than the focus on the DEI stuff, we'd have been better off if the focus had always been on ensuring younger people of any background, especially those of an economic disadvantage, are supported to achieve their potential.

Many universities including the elite ones make efforts to recruit more from state schools and not private ones but that isn't the same thing as supporting young people suffering economic disadvantage.

[faldO]

There prime motivation was not a DEI one. If that was the driver explain why the student intake at Cambridge contains so few black people.

That may have been true in the past but it is no longer true, as a simple bit of research would have shown you. Black British students at Cambridge are now fairly equally represented by number as a population percentage as a whole, and that doesn't include black overseas students.

Black academic staff are under represented at Cambridge, which explains why Arday was such an attractive proposition.

Jason Arday is not a con man or a grifter. At best he's a fantasist and at worst a liar. Anyone who thinks that DEI initiatives were not the prime motivator in his appointment is deluding themselves.

Con man, grifter, fantasist, liar. Probably all of those and many thanks for confirming the lack of black Academic representation in the UK.

No problem. You seemed unsure whether it was black students or black academics who were under represented at Cambridge so happy to have clarified that for you.

Like I said above DEI was a part in the decision making but it was killing two birds with one stone. As in, academically they thought he ticked all the right boxes and after clearing that hurdle they were happy it helped with their DEI Stats. Cambridge is an elite university they don't just appoint to satisfy DEI.

Those who approved his appointment could not possibly have thought that "academically he ticked all the right boxes" - his work is littered with errors and spelling mistakes, not to mention the work of others. He ticked only one box, the obvious one, and that was the primary reason they appointed him.

Of course the Fellow in question was all of the things mentioned above and has now been weaponised in the racist "culture war" by the far right and apologists like Dunners.

I disagree. The racism comes from people who have thrown Jason Arday under the bus - "he's a con man, grifter, fantasist, liar" - now that he is no longer of use to the DEI narrative.

[Long slender neck]

What racism?

[Dunners]

"He doesn't even know what a cult is."

A cult is a group centred on a shared devotion to an ideology. It can be defined by authoritarian leadership, intense psychological coercion, isolation from mainstream society, and the exploitation of members' time, money, and emotions.

[Bandy Legs]

Is this Thread about Niggle Fadge &
Tammy Ten names ?