So, question for the libs.
You support DEI, supposedly you think DEI is thus GOOD.
Yet, you get very offended if any specific person is considered to be a DEI hire.
If DEI is GOOD, then wouldn't being a DEI hire also be GOOD?
That makes sense. But your reactions seem to show that that is NOT the case.
Please explain this discrepancy.
Didn't
Earn
It
Any destructive thing the establishment bootlickers support can't be discussed by non-believers. That's been the rule for some time now.
Liberals contradict themselves at every turn...
they are feminists and pro-gay yet bow down to islam.
they spent years telling us about feminism, how men were evil, women victims.. just to turn around and say "ahh no, genders aren't real"
these "people" don't have ideas, thoughts... they will use different logic for different things if it suits their argument.
the democrat party now isn't the party of JFK, it's bribing people with free stuff and trying to shut people up by calling them some "ism"
how do they ever get any grounds to do anything? non-stop nonsene they push. who is listening to them, giving them ANY teeth?? I just dont get it
shareIt is a good thing, but like anything else policy-wise, it can be taken too far. It hasn't. It won't.
We all know that Biden selected Ketanji Brown Jackson as the first African American woman to serve on the Supreme Court, and he said in advance that his pick would be based on diversity. This is great. She's a non-legacy Harvard grad with as extensive a background as anyone else in the running and is still fully qualified. Her reasoning skills and arguments will, no doubt, be influenced by having different experiences in her formative years that may have been previously underrepresented in public service.
Consider this hypothetical. What if during the course of Biden's term, all nine Supreme Court justices died or were otherwise forced to retire due to some debilitating illness? Then, what if Biden had appointed all nine replacements as all black women? That's when it goes too far. Diversity means variety. The goal is that an administrative body, whether an Executive Cabinet or court, or something else, has the possibility of bringing a wide range of worldviews. This all falls in with the theme of "democracy" as well. The possibility of this scenario with nine justices of such narrow ethnic range is so absurd that we wisely can conclude that using "DEI" as a buzzword to generate fear-based backlash is quite a sophomoric strategy.
So, DEI and affirmative action is entirely an embracable idea, and should be welcomed.
Was Kamala Harris a DEI hire? Perhaps, yes, to some extent. In order to drive policy, one must first GET ELECTED to begin with. Biden mobilized his voters with such a game-changing pick, and they are now in positions of power because of it. She was more than this, though! If you follow Democratic Party politics closely, it was clear Biden and Harris had good chemistry and complimentary outlooks from their early primary debates. Harris was a fantastic politician who went on the attack and prosecuted a lofty case against Biden, and he respected her zeal. He wanted her as a campaigner. Harris destroyed Mike Pence during the 2020 debate. He was so demolished that he began to decompose before our eyes and a fly tried to feast on the forehead of his carcass.
President Joe Biden's endorsement of Kamala Harris is quite satisfactory in my eyes, and I'm a proud white man. It's clear that MAGA Trumpists are using "DEI" to sow the seeds of implicit racist disillusionment among their constituencies. Democrats must combat these attitudes.
I often get accused of parroting mainstream media talking points, but as you can see, this is NOT the case. The media doesn't have a liberal bias... they have a sensationalism bias. Spectacle = Ratings & viewership = Ad revenue. If the media were like the DNC... like me... they could soundly eradicate your right-wing talking points with crystal clear logic and reason. The media doesn't want to do so, because this lays the issue to rest in a common sense manner instead of letting it fester in the weak-minded of the populace. (i.e. MAGA)
The mainstream media is therefore RIGHT-WING, or right-wing-enablers, in practice.
Only the Democratic Party of America, along with what someone like you might called the "Deep State" (non-partisan public servants) are actually known for their astute and measured analysis. Commentators in the limelight are play-acting for their big-dolla payday$$$.
it's never a good thing.
if you hire and don't hire someone based on their race, then you are racist.
you people have gone so far way from that MLK thing of judging people on the content of their character and not on their color of their skin that it's insane.
you hire people because they are the best, thats it. you're talking down to blacks, you're saying "hey stupid, you'll never get anywhere without whitey"
"nice" racism is still racism.
"colour" are you from the US?
shareRussian bot with translation error. British English instead of American English.
His argument is weak and racist. DEI doesn't mean to select Tyrone Biggums from da hood for the highest court in the land & paying him in wages that he can put in his crack pipe. This is how MAGA sees the world. Besides checks-and-balances will prevent this from happening due to the Congressional confirmation process.
If BigMike thinks Kentaji Brown Jackson will fail MLK's character content test just because she's black, then he's racist and incorrect. Diversity is not for the sake of the selectee anyhow. It's for the American public who follow in civics and value our nation it's melting pot stature. Those who are unwelcome to this are segregationist white supremacists who want to Make America the 19th Century Again.
Ask yourself this, all. How is it possible that President Obama could be divisive enough that a candidate would come along and rise to prominence by challenging Obama's citizenship and origin of birth? Nobody in 2012 or 2016 could possibly say that they were worse off than they were in 2008 in the midst of the Global Financial Crisis and housing market collapse. He was a success, along with his diverse administration. (By "diverse" I also mean there were Republicans... ideologically diverse, because Obama didn't fear contrary viewpoints.) Why the hate!? For the most rabid of MAGA deplorables, it definitely had something to do with race. That's really all there is to it, and that's despicable. This was the genesis of identity politics. Most Democrats, except the very young and confused nowadays, are more than willing to judge a person by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, but the Right are going to project their biases onto their opponents.
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/710rfYbXWPL._AC_SL1500_.jpg
when you can't argue, call everyone "racist"
which is ironic, coming from someone who wants to hire and not hire people based on race.
An Executive cabinet post, a district-represented Congressional seat, or a Supreme Court Justice position are not entrepreneurial positions. If you're NOT racist, then this is why you seem to be confused and are stirring the pot. These picks are supposed to set a tone, and exemplify the fabric of the American character. You are on a Politics board so you should know this.
If, as the manager of Cracker Barrel®, you want to hire the "best applicant" to be your "LittleMike" and avoid DEI or affirmative action, that's you're right. If you fire someone due to their race, however, you better be able to provide sufficient justification, as doing so discriminately will violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
MAGA are cultish sheeps. They think when Democrats like me are talking about Federal Gov't confirmation processes that we are giving authoritarian Trumpie dictates to the American populace that businesses in Tennessee must be as strictly diverse as the modern Supreme Court.
You are seeing MY party through the veil of a Trumpian worldview. Please stop doing so. You have Trump Derangement Syndrome and it's whiff is offensive.
you want to hire or not hire people based on race. theres a word for that...
but i know, i know, when in doubt just keep repeating "but trump..."
Kentaji Brown Jackson graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and was the first African-American appointment to the court since 1991.
Click here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump
Notice who's really hiring people based on their race... their majority race.
Repeat after me... "I'm sorry, YYZ, for trolling you. The facts haven't been on my side. We're all lucky to have Barack Obama, Joseph R Biden, Kamala Harris and Kentaji Brown Jackson... and the content of their character at this pivotal moment in American history."
either you're high or have serious mental health problems. how embarrassing.
shareAny casual reader here perusing our back-and-forth can see that you are thoroughly beneath me intellectually. It's them I'm really writing to anyhow, and the OP.
Perhaps you should brush up on your Politics knowledge... and maybe add some DIVERSITY to your life.
you're right, i'll go and loot me some air jordans and do a bit or raping.
share"Any casual reader here perusing our back-and-forth can see that you are thoroughly beneath me intellectually. It's them I'm really writing to anyhow, and the OP."
You lost the argument as soon as you started with the personal attacks, you lose. Cant have a sane discussion when already insanely offended. Your judgment has been compromised.
Calling a person less smart or informed is not a personal attack unless you demonstrate that I hold hatred against those less fortunate.
I already put in the time and effort here to educate thoughtful opinions where they so rarely appear in this troll-infested playground.
Once it was suggested that I was mentally ill or on drugs, despite my cogency, the comparison of intellect was the only natural course of evolution for this particular discussion.
I don’t have a problem with dummies, but they should VOTE BLUE even if they don’t understand why our nation is GREATER than it’s ever been… right now.
MAGA are cultish sheep(s)
I read your hypothesis (the first link) and kudos for laying out such a scholarly and academic analysis. I conclude that your attempt is noble, but you seem to have an altered perception of actual reality that feeds into your conclusions.
When esteemed representatives (in a unofficial status in my case) of the Democratic Party talk about our values and the direction of this nation, we very rarely are speaking in terms of wokeness... and trannies... and George Floyd the hero defunds the police... or Antifa... and so forth. Pick up a voter pamphlet on state and local elections and see for yourself if they actual forge their platform in this manner. I don't even care about abortion, and would never suggest to elect a pro-choice Republican over a pro-life Democrat. I see GOP as having fostered a culture of wedge issues and lack of civility and compromise.
Nobody is saying the young libs cannot be indoctrinated in an irrationally "progressive" cult. However, I would argue that the progressive powers-that-be of the last century until today have not instituted a negativity culture that would enable groupthink. Their opponents have, and it's culminated in Trumpism.
I liked Bernie Sanders, the candidate, but the Bernie Bro's of 2016 that cost Hillary the election were emblematic of cultish behavior amongst individuals on the left. Trump even tried to assimilate them, as he recognized them as weakminded and malleable to the superficial nature of political theater, and he may have been successful in many cases on election night in 2016—despite his values and lifestyle being wildly dissimilar to Sanders. If they want to trend towards that team out of spite, well, he can have them. I much rather persuade smart libertarians and conscientious greens to coalesce under the Big Tent of the Democratic Party and away from MAGA extremism. In fact, that's already happened. How often do you hear Rand Paul on the stump for the Trump campaign? Why isn't Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Ralph Nader mounting challenges to the Biden/Harris administration any longer? MAGA is the only cult left in town to be weary of.
It's just a complete false dichotomy that assumes the entire wider left/progressive population all march in lockstep and think the same thing about everything.
shareKetanji Brown Jackson was a horrible pick. A perfect example of why you shouldn't pick someone just to fill a diversity quota.
shareThank you for admitting that she was a DEI hire.
What do you think of the fact that many of your fellow libs can't bring themselvse to do that? Do they not understand DEI as well as you?
Oh, and the way you assume or project racism? Can you just drop that? It is a clear and obvious tactic of the left to try to turn every discussion into "are you a bad person, yes you are" circle jerk.
I gave you more than enough to work with, but you don't want to have a nuanced discussion—only a simplistic bias talking-point fueled one that's fitting of the Sean Hannity hour. It's not about what my "fellow libs" fail to understand about DEI... they're just responding to how the deplorables are using it as a weapon and issue of cultural divisiveness. The goal is clear.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that people seem to thirst for a fresh and new perspective on the National scene—in our country, the value is placed on We The People. Not only does it increase voter turnout to have a woman, or person of color, in a position of leadership, but it is even stimulative for the economy—the cornerstone of political issues. This even worked for John McCain during his campaign when he threw the hail mary pass by running with Sarah Palin, obscure governor of Alaska, at the time.
The difference is, when liberals and progressives insert DEI, we are not entirely based on a superficial mindset, our candidates have been fully qualified, thoroughly vetted, proven successes, and earth-shaking optimists. Barack, Joe, Hillary and Kamala were all friends and colleagues, and their love of each other and mutual respect showed their character and epitomized family values! This is why I was so offended by BigMike bringing up MLK's "I Have a Dream" themes as some attack-line AGAINST Dems for goodness' sake. To the Republicans, by contrast, Sarah Palin and Mike Pence were just props for "hockey moms or evangelicals" and were nowhere near intellectually capable of properly wielding the awesome responsibilities of the presidency. Especially Palin! She needed a crash course on what the Axis Powers were in WWII and the importance of NATO. During the debate prep, she failed to learn and eventually was just told to memorize lines to use against Joe Biden. Where is she now? Hiberating with the polar bears—most likely. JD Vance is such an embarrassment that even Trump acknowledges that he brings nothing to the ticket. If that's how he feels about his #2, then imagine his disconnect with an individual citizen, whether white working-class or otherwise, within his supposed constituency!
1. I apologize for the shortness of my previous post. I had to go to work but did not want you to have to wait another whole day for my response.
2. And most of your post was not really addressing my topic. It expressed your support of dei, which I can see being relevant as the discussion moving forward, and of course, you had to accuse us of racism, the accusation of which I do think is important. but perhaps not on topic.
3. If we are to judge DEI, then is it not... needed that we know who is one so we can judge it? Or are we to just assume that every non white in a serious role is an example of dei, that no non-white can make it based on their merit or against the huge amount of white racists in our society?
Slavery existed after the constitution was written. So it's dumb to assume that because of an agreement racism went away.
share"So it's dumb to assume that because of an agreement racism went away."
Not only did it not go away its still happening in certain parts of the world.
OK. Sooooo, no one said that "racism went away".
An agreement?
The question is, if DEI is good, then why is calling someone a DEI hire, considered BAD?
Do certain groups create buzzwords? Who is it considered bad by?
shareCNN for one.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/23/politics/kamala-harris-burchett-dei-hire-backlash/index.html
They clearly consider calling Harris a dei hire, to be a racist attack.
So, like I said, libs support the idea of dei, but get offended if anyone is CALLED a dei hire.
This is a contradiction.
And the right doesn't create buzzwords also? Who made dei a negative buzzword? Sounds to me like woke also. It's been changed from it's original meaning by the right.
shareit's not a "buzzword", it's a policy that effects some people. We want to discuss whether or not specific people were effected.
We aren't about just smearing them with a slur, but discussing the raminifications of the policy.
And if liberals support the policy why are they offended at discussing the policy?
It is a buzzword. If it wasn't why do I hear it thrown at movies that aren't even woke? I heard constant insults about how Furiosa a mad max saga was woke. Plenty of the idiots never even saw it and labeled it as such before even watching it. When you prove them wrong do they own up to their mistake or wrong assumption? Nope! They immediately move onto to their next target of attack.
You admitted that in order for certain roles to be casted a certain form of discrimination has to take place. For instance you are casting a young hero, that means you are discriminating against older people. Not every casting change is done for a political reason. Just because that's your assumption does it mean I need to have that assumption like you do. Get over it.
I'm not offended at discussing it. I don't have respect though when people like you can't own up to being wrong. So are the people wrong about Furiosa being woke?
DEI is not a buzzword. DEI stands for DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION. The casting of Furiosa is considered woke because a female protagonist has replaced Mad Max, one of the greatest cinematic heroes of all time. I even noticed that Fury Road involved a strong female lead taking over for Mad Max. Hollyweird has implemented DEI standards with regard to casting that mandate certain percentages of underrepresented groups AND those underrepresented groups don't include straight white males. I linked a few standards below.
https://www.oscars.org/awards/representation-and-inclusion-standards * Oscar DEI Standards *
https://reimaginetomorrow.disney.com/assets/ABC-INCLUSION-STANDARDS-ONE-PAGER-6-16-21.pdf *Disney DEI *
https://press.aboutamazon.com/2021/6/amazon-studios-releases-inclusion-policy-and-playbook-to-strengthen-ongoing-commitment-to-diverse-and-equitable-representation * Amazon Inclusion Playbook *
I'm not as concerned about DEI casting in Hollywood because I don't have to watch their crappy propaganda. I'm more worried about DEI hiring of doctors, engineers, maintenance men, soldiers and police officers. The most qualified person should be hired without considering their supposed ethnicity, gender or sexuality. If I'm in an emergency room after a car crash, I want the most qualified person operating on me and I don't care about their skin color or gender.
Woke is a buzzword. No she hasn't replaced mad Max. The plan was to make a wasteland film which continues Max's story. The box office performance though might have pumped the brakes on future mad Max installments. Also no in Fury Road it just happened to have Furiosa in it. She became an iconic action female heroine in cinema. Much like Ripley or even Sarah Connor. Mad Max bested her and ended up saving her in the end. See that isn't good enough though for folks like you. The mere thought of another hero alongside Max that's female freaks you out. Was Furiosa poorly written? Nope! Was she a marry sue? Nope! Was the actress lacking? No I would say Theron is one of the best in the business.
So no Mad Max was not replaced. Making a spinoff from an iconic character in a film you created is not out of the question. If he said she's the new Max and forgot about him then yes, but that's not what occurred. It was a prequel which led right into Fury Road. Wasteland as I said earlier was coming next which again centered around Max. So no you are wrong. Also so is a race swap unacceptable period? Because I find it might interesting if there is a race swapped character that turns to white not a word is said. So if it's unacceptable to do it to whites it's unacceptable to do it to other races. I can list plenty of examples of whitewashing which occurs in films.
That's fine. However you really think the politicians from either side are the best qualified and it doesn't boil down to money? If you believe that I got a bridge to sell you. Just like how you complain about dei, money has made many people bypass others who are more qualified for a job. So don't ignore that either.
Woke is not a buzzword. The term woke has expanded to awareness of social justice as it relates to race, gender, sexuality and many other issues. Wokeness includes several philosophies like critical race theory, DEI, EQUITY, intersectionality, anti-corporate activism, body positivity, environmental justice, racial justice, postmodernism, postcolonialism, queer theory, gender theory, anti-racism and restorative justice.
The article below presents both sides of the argument and covers the basics.
https://helpfulprofessor.com/woke-examples/
Furiosa has replaced Mad Max. You can't have a Mad Max movie without Mad Max. I'm sure Mad Max would have been Furiosa's sidekick in the next installment. Furiosa is a Mary Sue. Theron is too old to be an action hero and I've never seen any of her movies.
Significant/iconic cultural, historical and religious characters should not be race-swapped or gender-swapped AND their portrayals should remain faithful to the original source material. There have been plenty of objections to whitewashing in the modern era. Johnny Depp was criticized for his portrayal of Tonto, a character that was usually portrayed by Native American actors.
I'm from the USA and US politicians are elected. They have to win their elections and they usually lose the election if they perform poorly or become embroiled in a scandal. There are also term limits for many politicians. Politicians are not always the most qualified but they do need to convince people to vote for them.
No it's a buzzword. The right has turned it into what they want it mean while ignoring it's original meaning. Anything which has a diverse cast is now considered woke by them. If Aliens were released today it would be considered woke.
No she has not. She just got her own spinoff film. You can have a mad max movie without Max. That's the artist's call not yours. Since George Miller created the Mad Max universe he is free to do what he wants with it. You don't own it he does. Also nope you have no idea what the wasteland was going to be you are now making blind assumptions because of your incel brain. Theron too old? She's was the same age as Sigourney Weaver in Aliens or even Uma Therman in Kill Bill when she did Fury Road. So um yeah bullshit! Haven't seen a Theron movie? Figures morons like yourself don't usually have taste. Also explain how Furiosa is a Mary Sue. This will be rich.
Historical or religious sure. If the character is fictional and the race isn't essential then it's no issue. Nick Fury originally was white and us now black. Is that racist? There has been more whitewashing then just that. Idiots of your group say nothing about it.
Boom not always most qualified. So why don't I hear you complain about that?
Wokeness concerns more than just casting. The story, setting and characters can also be created in a way that advances various social justice causes or philosophies. There are certainly good movies that are woke BUT requiring every movie to be woke is bad business and bad art.
It's funny you mention Aliens because that's a James Cameron movie and he is probably one of the wokest filmmakers in Hollyood history. Cameron makes good movies but he does engage in woke casting and woke storytelling. James Cameron's woke movies are damn good because he's a genius. Aliens is full of themes about anti-corporate activism and Avatar is a movie with themes promoting anti-corporate activism and postcolonialism. The Terminator films addressed intersectionality by promoting strong female characters and there was probably an anti-corporate activism theme due to the destructive nature of Skynet. The article below show Cameron criticizing the Wonder Woman movie.
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/james-cameron-called-wonder-woman-an-objectified-icon
George Miller should have listened to the fans who wanted to see more of Mad Max. Miller made a Furiosa movie and it bombed. This is a DEI discussion so I will not be sidetracked by a Furiosa/Mad Max discussion.
It's bad business to gender/race swap a significant/iconic character. I wouldn't consider it a racist decision unless there is proof that the decision was motived by racial bias. David Hasselhoff will always be the true live-action Nick Fury. Samuel L. Jackson is just a bald and ugly variant.
Politicians are not hired; they are elected by the people. I cannot complain about an unqualified politician who was elected by the people. I just pray that the politician will be forced out by term limits, impeachment or an election loss. The DEI debate centers around hiring quotas. I want the best person to be hired based on merit instead of ethniticy, gender or sexuality. The article below shows that United Airlines planned to require 50% of their pilot trainees to be minorities or women. That means qualified straight white males will be turned away after 50% of the class has been filled and I consider that to be discriminatory.
https://www.flightglobal.com/strategy/united-will-train-5000-pilots-by-2030-half-to-be-women-or-minorities/143185.article
And money gives them exposure and likelihood to be hired. Just because they are elected by people doesn't mean they can't be elected unnecessarily.
Also I'm not addressing any other things until you backup the claims about Furiosa being a Mary Sue and Theron being too old to be an action hero. You are full of shit.
[–] Corbell (10821) 12 hours agoI guess our wee bit of dialog didn't satisfy your DEI itch, or are you just attempting to find a consensus? share
OK. Sooooo, no one said that "racism went away".
An agreement?
The question is, if DEI is good, then why is calling someone a DEI hire, considered BAD?
It's a big issue, and we need to talk about it. in the real world, even daring to DISCUSS the issue, is an issue.
A consensus? NO. That's not going to happen. I guess I want to draw attention to the fragmented and completely irrational position liberals have on this issue and how insane it is to have a national policy that is at the same time celebrated and yet taboo to even discuss.
Yep and we also need to talk about the failings of the republicans. You only want to talk about short comings of your opponent because you are a partisan hack.
share1. I'm happy to discuss the STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES of republican candiates.
2. THis thread is about the dems wanting to CELEBRATE a policy while pretending that discussing that policy is ...racist? Taboo? That is not something you see on this side of the aisle. We don't do that kind of stupid.
3. So, you admit we need to be able to discuss this issue? Good. Quick check, are you a. FOR DEI and b. do you think harris is a dei hire?
No you aren't that's a lie from you. Even if I started a thread you couldn't do it.
Wait so hold on. So do you think money ever factored into certain people getting jobs over prole that were more qualified?
1. Grift, you are a fucking moron. I have no problem discussing the strenghts and weaknesses of republican candidates. That you claim i do is you being a fag.
2. "Money"? This thread is about dei. That I started a thread about a certain problem is not me claiming that there are no other problems. No one thinks that way. That is something that really dishonest leftard fags say, when they are really, really out of ideas or hope.
3. My question stands. Are you for DEI and do you think Harris is a dei hire?
I don't believe you.
So then was Obama also a dei hire then? Since you claim Harris is.
1. iF you really believed that, you would cite a weakness to show that I cannot or will not discuss it. You instead just keep spouting your shit like a fag.
2. My question stands. Are you for DEI and do you think Harris is a dei hire?
Also bullshit! I've brought up the drug war plenty of times and you flat out refuse to discuss it.
My point stands you won't discuss the faults of he right. Prove me wrong.
1. Errr, I've discussed it with you dozens of times. WTF are you talking about? YOu faggot liar.
2. My question stands. Are you for DEI and do you think Harris is a dei hire?
No you haven't! You move onto another topic quickly. You do that because you know you can't win the debate.
My point stands.
1. Yes, I do. I disagree with you on that policy and you want to use your opinon of it as fact. In that regard, you can shove it up your ass. BUT, I am happy to discuss it, and I don't pretend as we have seen that it is not a policy or not an anti-drug policy.
2. YOu made no point, you asked a question to dodge my questions, do you support dei and do you think that harris is one.
You don't just disagree I can prove you factually wrong. So then let's discuss it then. Debate it in good faith. You just saying I disagree isn't refuting facts. Learn that bitch.
My point stands. I think lots of things needs retooling. Dei but also money makes plenty of people get opportunities that others who are poor are more qualified for a job but the rich person gets it. We need a class based system. Money shouldn't get you to the front of the line and it does.
1. YOu are going to prove me wrong on a matter of opinion? LOL. What has happened in the past is your state your opinion than insist it is fact and then you act like a fag.
2. ok. That's great. Love to get to your solutions. But first, are you stating that you do NOT support DEI? Also, do you think that HARRIS is a dei hire?
Opinions can be wrong. If someone has an opinion that the sun is cold could you prove that wrong? I don't just state my opinion. I give facts which you have no rebuttal to. Go ahead explain to me why the drug war is good and go over it's positive impact on society. I want numbers and facts no opinions.
Nope I just stated my position. I want to hear why the drug war is good then I'd be glad to share my solutions to improve it.
1. Except your "Facts" are actually your opinions, you are just too much of a fag to admit it.
2. LOL. Go fuck yourself troll boi.
Nope the facts I share are facts not opinions. The drug war has negatively impacted society. That's not an opinion it's a fact. Plenty of non violent criminals who only have drug charges have done more time than violent criminals, that's a fact. Lives destroyed over not just other drugs but from weed alone. Fact. Go ahead refute those facts.
Go fuck yourself bitch.
Any policy has negative and positive effects.
You are a mindles faggot.
Yep but you weigh out out the positive vs the negative. The drug war has far more negative than positive. That was your rebuttal? Dude honestly you were better off farting as your defense. You got schooled.
shareYou have consistent refused to do that, indeed, you mostly have pretended to be too retarded to understand the concept.
I have had to explain it to you several times.
I am heartened by you seeming to have learned something.
HAHAHAHAHA. Just kidding. I know that you are just learing to be a better liar.
Um no. I asked you to provide the positives that the drug war has provided. It's you who won't ante up. So go ahead provide the positives of the drug war. I will pummel you with how much more negatives the drug war causes. You know this and it's why you don't provide the positives of it. Little secret there is very little positive which comes from the drug war.
shareI think I admitted/agreed that the WAY we are doing the drug war is poorly done and full of stupid half measures.
I mean the OBVIOUS first step is to SEAL THE FUCKING BORDER.
But that would interfer with the flow of third world voters that the dems depend on. So, that's off the table politically.
Still you aren't providing positives. Tell me the positives coming from the drug war.
If you end the drug war it would make other countries not be so third world. Which would then decrease immigration. Take the cartels power away.
1. Punish the vile monsters that bring drugs into the country and sell them to people. That is justice.
2. Maintain somewhat the social disproval of drugs to discourage some people from drug use.
3. Third world countries are shit holes because of their shitty cultures and ideas. Much like you dems are trying to do to US.
Finally there you go. See that's how debating works. You punish them worse by taking away their power though. By making a black market it gives them more power and stronger reach.
This can be done by ending the war on drugs. I don't condone drug use but I don't believe in the drug war. Scaring people is not effective. We saw that with those terrible anti marijuana commercials in the early 2000s. Remember how awful those were and how it was propaganda? How about we treat drug abuse as a mental health issue rather than a legal issue? Rehabilitation rather than incarceration?
Lots of it has to do with the drug war. Not all but lots of it. I don't want the cartel living in mansions. I want the cartels power to go away.
YOu ready to instituationalize people with that "mental illness" or is that just talk while you let them walk out of the er to go buy more drugs so that they can die?
share
You Corbell, posted the following:
DEII responded that DEI is neither Good nor Bad and asked YOU what DEI is and thought needlessly, that you would answer in "Good Faith".
posted 10 days ago by Corbell (10874)
83 replies | jump to latest
So, question for the libs.
You support DEI, supposedly you think DEI is thus GOOD.
Yet, you get very offended if any specific person is considered to be a DEI hire.
If DEI is GOOD, then wouldn't being a DEI hire also be GOOD?
That makes sense. But your reactions seem to show that that is NOT the case.
Please explain this discrepancy.
DEI stinks. The acronym stands for diversity, equity and inclusion. The website below is helpful since it provide info about DEI and it presents both sides of the argument. DEI means identifying underrepresented groups and developing policies that will accommodate underrepresented groups and strive for equal outcomes for underrepresented groups. The problem is that white males are always identified as overrepresented. I argue that each individual is unique with their own background so every person is DIVERSE.
https://helpfulprofessor.com/diversity-and-inclusion-examples/
https://helpfulprofessor.com/equity-vs-equality-examples/
The bad effects of DEI are listed below.
Hollywood movies and shows now stink due to DEI.
https://www.oscars.org/awards/representation-and-inclusion-standards * Oscar DEI Standards *
https://reimaginetomorrow.disney.com/assets/ABC-INCLUSION-STANDARDS-ONE-PAGER-6-16-21.pdf *Disney UGH *
https://press.aboutamazon.com/2021/6/amazon-studios-releases-inclusion-policy-and-playbook-to-strengthen-ongoing-commitment-to-diverse-and-equitable-representation * Amazon Inclusion Playbook *
White business owners discriminated against by Biden administration EQUITY policies for covid business loans.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2021/06/03/federal-appellate-court-rules-that-biden-administration-cant-deny-covid-relief-funds-to-white-restaurant-owners/
https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/court-rules-biden-admin-discriminate-racesmall-business-loans-stake-heart-dei
White people discriminated against by Biden equity guidance on covid treatments.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-administration-guidance-prioritizes-race-administering-covid-drugs
Kids no longer suspended from school due to Obama equity policy
https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2018-12-18/white-house-scrap-obama-era-school-discipline-guidance
White farmers discriminated against due to Biden equity policies concerning farm debt relief.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ginaheeb/2021/04/29/white-farmers-sue-biden-administration-alleging-racial-discrimination-in-stimulus-package/
I responded and addressed your points. That you disagreed, does not mean that my response ceased to exist.
DEI has the goal of a "diverse" workforce, yet you deny that it is about hiring.
That is not sane of you.
I want to be help them. You just want to lock them up. With rehabilitation it gives them a chance to integrate back into society and be productive. With your method it makes it a much easier to relapse into selling or using drugs because your life is ruined by all the legal repercussions and fees. Is it right that someone's life can be destroyed by smoking pot or simply using any drug?
shareSO, you are not serious about treating it as a mental illness. That is just something you say to justify NOT cracking down on this the way it makes sense to do so.
I would be willing to discuss treating it as a "mental illlness" if we actually DID THAT, and instituationalized peoplet there were clearly unable to stop taking drugs that were likely to kill them.
BUt I know that in reality, that policy path would just be, allowing and accepting the status quo that we are seeing develop in the west coast and other really big cities of mass drug addiction, and homelessness and basically the collaspe of our civilization so that lefties can refashion it, into something more like stalinistic russia, which they always loved.
Um....? I just said yes I want to help them! Am I speaking another language? Institutionalize them I agree with yes! Not the throw them in jail and throw away the key bullshit you guys peddle. Then when out you have laundry list a mile long of legal fees and repercussions. Which then makes it easier to relapse.
You never answers my question. Is it right someone gets there lives destroyed for smoking pot or any other drug? Locked up for 20 years or more just for using a drug, is that right?
If it is "mental illness" than the dealers need to face serious, serious jail time.
The "mentally ill" people should be registered and required to get their fixes from pharmacies. They should also not be allowed to drive or vote.
I don't believe that very many people got their lives "destroyed for smoking pot". I think a lot of drug dealers plead down to possession and then served slap on the wrist jail time, and were then left out of jail to keep selling.
Again where did I say there shouldn't be consequences? We aren't just talking about dealers though now are we? We are talking about users as well. If you end the drug war it takes the dealers power away and therefore there wouldn't be nearly as many to begin with. You can grow your own tomatoes right? Why don't most people do it? Because it's way more convenient to go to the store and buy them. If someone sells prescription drugs on the side isn't that already a crime? I'm staring with the users. You help the users out and it will weaken the dealers. No black market equals a loss of power for cartels and dealers.
You not believing it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. That doesn't answer the question. Do you think it's right that people get their lives destroyed for smoking pot? You side stepped and downplayed it yet again. It doesn't matter if it's one person which trust me I've gone over the numbers it's far more than you realize. Anyway is it right if a person gets their lives destroyed for smoking pot? Yes or no?
1. What are the "consequences" that you would support for users or dealers?
2. Destroying a life for smoking pot? NO.
Plenty. You should get treatment. Dealers are covered under the regular laws we have now, thing is if you end this war you realize their power goes away correct? You ever see Breaking Bad? If you have a villain like Gustavo Fring would cease to exist. It gives us actually more control over who gets the drugs. Perfect control no but more control on who gets them since there would be less dealers. It's funny cause you guys have double standards. Do you think if you make guns illegal it stops criminals? Or does it make a black market for the criminals to sell guns? Why is it any different with drugs?
Yet it happens. It's why it's good pot is being legalized in certain states. The right tries to use propaganda all the time like those awful anti marijuana commercials back in the day. Those were awful.
1. The "laws we have now" are ineffective. That you are fine with that, is you not being serious.
2. What consequences for users?
3. What consequences for dealers?
4. I'm willing to punish anyone that commits a crime with a gun. What are you talking about?
I said I'm fine with a law against dealing, not the results of that law. That's part of the reason I want to end the war. The law isn't obviously effective. Therefore a different approach would help attack them and that's by taking their power away.
You have to seek help and be institutionalized. I said this already.
You should be charged with distributing. Like the law is now. Thing is money shouldn't get you out of it. A dealer should be treated like anyone else.
Any gun laws or talks the right rejects. School shootings have increased much more than when Columbine happened. What's the solution to try and stop school shootings from increasing?
1. if you were serious, you would be advocating for overdoes to be instituatlized against their will, as they are clearly a danger to themselves.
2. So, serous jail time for dealers? Good enough. I would suggest death in extreme circumstances, but long, long prison sentences would be good enough.
3. Stop drugging our kids. Start institutionalizing crazy people. Armed guards. Armed teachers. End sealed records for students. Get the crazy or violent ones out of the regular schools.
You don't even know if I want that. So your bullshit is again dismissed.
And if the war ends we cut the power supply the point stands.
Aren't crazy people already institutionalized? Armed guards I'm fine with. What about teachers that have no interest in firing or owning a gun? Should it be a requirement that a teacher has to know how to use a gun? So no medication for kids?
1. People with mental illness who are a threat to themselves can be legally institutionalized for their own good. If you are serious about treating it as a mential illness than you should be ready to see people in ers, for overdoses being committed to mental instiatutions against their will.
I am taking your policy suggesting seriously and considering what would really happen if it were implemented.
2. Maybe. Somehow I doubt it would be that clean.
3. Not nearly enough. We over medicate right now,imo.
Show where I opposed that? If you can't than that's an assumption by you.
Oh it would help. Would it completely eliminate them no, but it would cut down on their power significantly.
You didn't answer my question about teachers and guns.
1. So, are you agreeing that that would happen in your policy scenario then? And that you would support it?
2. OK. Fine. Would you allow sell of crack to children? What about pregnant women? Would pregnant addicts be allowed to get crack from the pharmacy with the knowledge that they are addicting their baby?
3. Oh, yes. That was too retarded. Of course teachers who don't want to carry would not be required to carry. Try to be more serious.
I am yes. You assumed like an asshole that I was against it. I meant what I said about treating it like a mental illness.
Do we allow minors to drink even though alcohol is legal for adults? If there are less drug dealers it means less likely kids or other people that shouldn't have them get their hands on them. Try to ask serious questions please. Obviously you have regulations within reasons. Do you honestly think I advocate for drug use or kids getting their hands on drugs?
So if they aren't required to carry then how do they protect themselves?
1. Good for you. In practice I doubt that it would happen. Do you have any examples from places that do it this way that that is actually done?
2. My point was that the drug dealers are people not blocks of wood. THey are going to take steps to protect their businesses. If that means targetting children or others that are barred from the pharmaccies they will. IMO, the answer needs to be police force.
3. They don't. THey depend on others and hope for the best.
4. You know, it occurrs to me that govrnment policy isn't needed to start your scenario. DOCTORS could start treating drug use as a mental illness tommorrow all by themselves.
So you assumed like an asshole I was against that. Why now should I give you the courtesy of an explanation or example? Own up to being an asshole and assuming and I can provide examples.
They target kids even with the war going on. You end the war and it gives more power and control to us rather than them. You have the mentality typical conservatives do. If it's not totally perfect then don't do it. Stay with the status quo. If something isn't perfect but is better overall you should go with the best option.
Ok.
It starts with the police force and law. Doctors aren't the ones locking people up for drug abuse.
1. Listen fucktard. YOU focused repeatedly on people SEEKING help. That was you defining your position, not me. So take your little high horse and shove it up your ass.
2. I said nothing like that. Stop assuming you asshole.
4. They could declare drug addiction an mental illness and start committing people AGAINST THEIR WILL, tomorrow.
Correct but you assumed I didn't want people be sent to an institution. That was an assumption and you were wrong.
Oh kind of like you did? If you can assume then I can do it as well. Annoying isn't it?
And our leaders could end the drug war tomorrow. You don't support that though. You want the law involved and to lock them in prison. Why is drug abuse treated different than being an alcoholic?
1. And what was the cost that that justifies you whining like a fag?
2. Except if I make an assumption or misunderstand something and you correct it, that's fine and we move on. You have one of various type of hissy fits, like a fag, TO THE PURPOSE OF DERAILING THE DISCUSSION. Becasue youi know that you cannot defend your positions honestly.
3. Our leaders don't agree with you. Supposedly our doctors, or at least the leftard controlled medical organizations do. So, what's the hold up?
Had I done that to you, you would drone on for days about it. So cut the bullshit and spare me your garbage. All I hear from you is wah the left did this to me wah! You are debating me I don't give a shit about your past experiences with other people. You do that to derail. You do it because it gives you in your mind justification to be an asshole. I have had bad experiences with conservatives but I don't put words in your mouth or hold you to stuff you never said. Your brain can't work without generalizing. I know for idiots it's easier to do that rather than analyze what's being said or judge things individually.
You tell me to stop assuming but are free to do it yourself? No not how it works. So how about we both don't assume? Sound good?
Not what we were discussing. If the drug war ended tomorrow it could lead into my cause. Oh and the law is the holdup bud. Drug abusers being locked up isn't due to doctors, it's due to them being busted by police and then incarcerated.
1. Mmm, are you referring to the times that you insist on an assumption you made, and I have to spend days listening to you whine like a fag about it? That is a YOU problem, not a me problem.
2. Go fuck yourself. You made a point, I made a counter point. You said that I got your position wrong. Stop being a fag. Go fuck yourself.
3. It is not what we were discussing. It occurred t me that your policy could be started immediatey without any input from people like me, I stated that clearly and brought it up. That at this point you are acting like that was wrong, is you being a fag. Go fuck yourself.
You are the one who assumes. That is your gig not mine.
Nope you assumed my position. When you asked me and I said what makes you think I oppose that you inserted your own answer. You did that. Go fuck yourself.
Um a law can't be overruled easily now can it? I wish it could be done over night but as you know it can't. How long did it take to get weed legal in certain states? If it were that easy it would have been done already. Fuck yourself.
1. Every assumes in absence of data. Real people adjust with new information. Leftards have hissy fits.
2. I ACCEPTED YOUR CORRECTION. GET OVER YOURSELF YOU FAG.
3. What law? Some druggie overdoes, have the doctors declare is a mental illness and commit them. NOTHING IS STOPPING YOU LEFTIES FROM DOING THAT.
You assumed even when I provided data. You didn't adjust you kept on with your assumption.
Yep so back to my original point. You don't put words in my mouth by answering for me and I won't do it to you.
Um... If someone gets arrested for drug use or possession they go to jail. No doctor has the authority to overrule those legal charges or fees. Are you honestly this dumb? Or you just playing dumb?
1. You are whining like a fag over nothing.
2. You are whining like a fag over nogthing.
3. I gave you the scenario I was discussing. Why are you ignoring it and acting like I said something completely different? YOu fag.
Nope I am calling you out for being an asshole.
If you accepted the correction then admit you were wrong.
Your scenario was dumb and debunked easily. I directly addressed it. Either offer or a retort or concede.
I can't claim to agree with everything that you said, but you're the first Left leaning poster I've seen here that has presented their ideas and explained their rationale thoroughly in some time.
Thanks for that.
I don't think you can guarantee that DEI wouldn't go too far. RBG wanted an all-female supreme court. In a nightmare scenario, underrepresented groups could decide to purge straight white males from society.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/30/justice-ginsburg-all-female-supreme-court * All female supreme court *
I actually think KBJ has done a good job BUT I don't agree with Biden's promise to only hire black women. The worst EEO/DEI hire in history has to be Clarence Thomas. He was only hired to replace Thurgood Marshall and there were other SA victims who wanted to testify against him.
Each individual person is unique and distinct. Using ethnicity to establish diversity is flawed since each individual's life experiences are so different. Trump is a trust fund baby who became a millionaire in middle school while JD Vance was supposedly a hillbilly who grew up in poverty. They both have white skin but their life experiences are radically different.
Both DEI and affirmative action discriminate against white males so these policies will only divide the nation.
Kamala Harris was a DEI hire since Biden promised to pick a woman VP. He also only considered black women. Harris might make a good prosecutor but she is a horrible politician who has never run anything.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/joe-biden-four-black-women-vice-president/index.html
Democrats have always been racist. DEI just provides some cover.
Harris was hired for one reason, she’s brown. Any questions?
You're projecting. If you weren't racist and had an ounce of intellectual curiousity, then you would easily identify Kamala as a seasoned politician that debated well in the 2020 primaries and instantly forged both a contentious stance against frontrunner, Biden's positions, while simultaneously establishing remarkable chemistry and cameraderie in the same instant. No easy task. When he picked her as running mate, we Democrats immediately understood. She'll be a terrific POTUS.
A more blatant diversity hire to buy battleground votes would have been Stacey Abrams of Georgia, but Biden didn't do so. He narrowly won Georgia anyhow, thankfully, but Abrams would have made his path-to-victory much easier. Kamala Harris was from California which was in-the-bag as a Blue State.
He liked Harris. I can't wait to vote for her on-or-before November 5th.
Also, don't forget to go out on November 7th to cast your vote for Donald Trump... not a moment sooner or he'll disperse his Proud Boys brownshirts to stomp you. F'kn' chump.
Border Czar Kamala failed at her one job, and only got there from a blow job.
She is the epitome of DEI Hire.
The border issue is a matter of funding which needs to originate in the Halls of the Republican-led Congress for President Biden to sign. Why don't they vote to hire and double the amount of ICE officers or Immigration officials instead of slashing funding? Kamala Harris was tasked with research on the migrant crisis, not with a daily grind otherwise reserved for Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of the Dept. of Homeland Security. The Democrats do not approve of the position known as authoritarian-esque "czars." This is a term of Russian venacular.
Homeland Security has been as successful as it's ever been, and Biden deserves credit. No more 9/11s! Clear communication between departments. No "American Carnage" outside of the January 6th insurrection led by domestic terrorists and secessionists from the prior administration. When you hear Trump speak with negativity-laced language usually reserved only for a George Orwell dystopian novel, it may be hard to comprehend that violent crime is down even if refugees are up.
I have no doubt that VP Kamala Harris has indeed fulfilled her responsibilities researching into the evolution of the migrant crisis at the Southern border. When she holds her nominating convention, and debates her opponent... we will all learn (big shock!) that freedom-loving refugees flee from dictatorial rule. When Maduro in Venezuela stays in power despite losing an election, they flee North to a country that had an authoritarian ruler try to do the same without success. The J6 Capitol rioters and lawyers/architects of the fake electoral scheme should be deported to Venezuala and the migrants at the border should be granted amnesty, and then both groups will all be happy in their environment.
Trump's actions and rhetoric, enabling others to follow suit in the Western Hemisphere, along the posture of his allies in the mainstream media were responsible for the "border crisis."
As soon-to-be President-Elect, Kamala Harris will work with Congress for Immigration Reform which will be fair, structurally-sound and economically stimulative in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California and elsewhere.
VOTE BLUE!
[–] Gd5150 (11542) 8 days agoThere were 114 Supreme Court Justices and 108 have been white males. It wasn't until 1920 that Women gained the right to participate in voting. If DEI had been adopted sooner there would NOT have been 108/114 white males. America was a sexist county DEI just pulled back the cover. share
Democrats have always been racist. DEI just provides some cover.
Harris was hired for one reason, she’s brown. Any questions?
Same reason fat is beautiful but if you tell a woman she's fat, it's ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t6yt4h6iyk
They are nothing without hypocrisy.
shareposted 9 hours ago by Corbell (10596)Here is the framework that forms the foundation for the answer you seek. Let's pick something simple to use as an example and the term is "Double Meaning",
23 replies | jump to latest
So, question for the libs.
You support DEI, supposedly you think DEI is thus GOOD.
Yet, you get very offended if any specific person is considered to be a DEI hire.
If DEI is GOOD, then wouldn't being a DEI hire also be GOOD?For you DEI is a pejorative and is equivalent to Affirmative Action which you think to mean Reverse Discrimination or just plain old Discrimination against White Males.
That makes sense.No, it doesn't make sense, but it does when YOU take offense to DEI and want to use it to denigrate the program/the initiative/and the results that come from DEI. A stronger workforce.
But your reactions seem to show that that is NOT the case.DEI is Bad. Your attempt to reframe DEI is bad.😉
Please explain this discrepancy.Already did that. 🗽
Is the issue really one of disagreement over the MEANING of the word?
I think both of us and both sides, have a pretty good understand that DEI, means hiring non-white people, especialy non-white males, over whites or white males to increase "DEI".
When I say DEI, i am referring to the act of hiring someone based on a decision to increase DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION. i believe that is what libs mean when they say it.
It is not that we disagree about what is happening, it is whether or not we think it is a good idea.
Yes, I have a negative opinion on DEI. But that misses my point.
THose who SUPPORT dei, want us to HAVE dei, but get offended when we point to anyone and suggest that they are a DEI HIRE.
If they think that DEI is a good thing, then someone BEING a DEI should be fine. They might disagree, but the disagreement should be a very relaxed disagreement.
[–] Corbell (10631) 13 hours agoAbsolutely it is. You personally promulgate a “meaning” of the word that doesn’t exist, EXCEPT as a weapon to highlight a grievance that also doesn’t exist.
Is the issue really one of disagreement over the MEANING of the word?
I think both of us and both sides, have a pretty good understand that DEI, means hiring non-white people,It is you that wants to equate DEI to Affirmative Action when the EEOC has gender as one of the protective classes. That would mean “White” women. 🤣
especialy non-white males, over whites or white males to increase "DEI".We’ve already shown that DEI doesn’t mean what you think it means and Affirmative Action includes “White Women” and “Hispanics”.
When I say DEI, i am referring to the act of hiring someone based on a decision to increase DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION. i believe that is what libs mean when they say it.Then you would be correct. A DEI Hire is a ”Reverse Assimilation” expert. 🗽You’re going to find it is near impossible to find HR policies that have a DEI hiring component based on your ill-defined meaning.
It is not that we disagree about what is happening, it is whether or not we think it is a good idea.You can surely advocate for your definition of DEI as being a “Bad” idea but you don’t know what DEI is. Do you?
Yes, I have a negative opinion on DEI. But that misses my point.That IS your point. You’re going to have to make a harder attempt in ”Confirmation Bias” by finding examples who are DEI victims, negative DEI outcomes, and DEI injuries.
THose who SUPPORT dei, want us to HAVE dei, but get offended when we point to anyone and suggest that they are a DEI HIRE.Those who support DEI know the benefits and demonstrate the advantages of an inclusive and diversified workforce and workplace environment.
If they think that DEI is a good thing, then someone BEING a DEI should be fine.Except that DEI isn’t about hiring so no person can champion something that doesn’t exist.
They might disagree, but the disagreement should be a very relaxed disagreement.That’s like asking a yes or no question of a single man, “Have you stopped beating your wife”?
So, the end result you are aiming for with DEI, is a "diversified workforce and workforce environment", BUT, DEI, is "NOT ABOUT HIRING".
ok. Norrin, the issue here is that our policy as a country, our BI-PARTISAN policy for over 60 years now, has been to try to help blacks (and other nonwhites) by discriminating in favor of them, without discriminating against whites.
(yes, WOMEN, were included along the way as an additional "minority")
This is of course, impossible. You CAN'T give a job to one guy based on skin over another, without it being discrimination against the guy that didn't get it.
This paradox has led to the various NAMES of the policy getting a bad rap over time as the clear... unfairness and bad results of it, become associated with the policy.
So, people have been trying new ways of doing it, and giving it new names, and ever increasing the amount of word salad justifications and excuses.
IF a job is filled, not with a candidate picked because they were the best candidate for the job, but because they were an ”Reverse Assimilation expert",
that is still hiring the non-white person, perhaps female, over the white person, perhaps male, based on being a non-white (male).
Your denial of what the policy is, and has been for generations now, is becasue on some level you know that the policy is indefensible.
It is insanely unjust, and unfair and divisive and leads to worse outcomes because of less, if not UNqualified people doing the jobs. And, furthermore the very idea of NOT being about doing the task but checking boxes, leads to a culture of not focusing on the task properly. imo.
Now, liberals who are in touch with reality, will admit this and then try to justify that this is needed to balance out the generations of anti-black discrimination and oppression before the 60s, and the secret, hidden anti-black (ect) discrimination that is still ongoing in our "white supremacist society".
[–] Corbell (10802) 2 days agoNo Corbell, I am not aiming for anything with DEI. I tried to allow the use of a mirror to explain that you have no idea what DEI means but you are sure you are right or even aggrieved. 😉
So, the end result you are aiming for with DEI, is a "diversified workforce and workforce environment", BUT, DEI, is "NOT ABOUT HIRING".
ok. Norrin, the issue here is that our policy as a country, our BI-PARTISAN policy for over 60 years now, has been to try to help blacks (and other nonwhites) by discriminating in favor of them, without discriminating against whites.The Bi-Partisan policy was to enforce laws AGAINST discrimination The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the EEOC: The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency that was established via the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to administer and enforce civil rights laws against workplace discrimination.[3]: 12, 21 The EEOC investigates discrimination complaints based on an individual's race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including sexual orientation, pregnancy, and gender identity), age, disability, genetic information, and retaliation for participating in a discrimination complaint proceeding and/or opposing a discriminatory practice.
(yes, WOMEN, were included along the way as an additional "minority")Really, where did you come up with that little non-factoid? Here allow Wikipedia to assist you:
This is of course, impossible. You CAN'T give a job to one guy based on skin over another, without it being discrimination against the guy that didn't get it.Again, Don Quixote you are railing at faux problems and non-injured “White Males” have been attacking any and all remedies that fight discrimination, along with Age-ism, Sex-ism, Crony-ism, Nepot-ism, and of course Race-ism.
This paradox has led to the various NAMES of the policy getting a bad rap over time as the clear... unfairness and bad results of it, become associated with the policy.To this day you cannot point to any group of “White Males” that were actually injured by any Affirmative Action Goals, Contracts or Set-Asides even though the EEOC was used to attack those very programs under the hand-grenade of Reverse-Discrimination.
So, people have been trying new ways of doing it, and giving it new names, and ever increasing the amount of word salad justifications and excuses.Tsk, tsk, tsk that is NO excuse for you not understanding the issue or the remedies. That is the height of ”Intellectual Dishonesty” and hubris by so many like yourself arguing, "I don’t know what DEI is or isn’t", “I just don’t like it, because I don’t understand it”.
IF a job is filled, not with a candidate picked because they were the best candidate for the job, but because they were an ”Reverse Assimilation expert", that is still hiring the non-white person, perhaps female, over the white person, perhaps male, based on being a non-white (male).You need to see Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. share
1. And since 1964 the PRACTICE of showing "discrimination" has been applied repeatedly as assuming discrimination from ANY discrepancy in representation. Thus, putting employers in the positive of having to try to get proportional representation or face government attack.
2. AND, that bill was not the whole of the policy. You had quotas, that slowly morphed to other types of racial discrimination, today manifesting as "diversity".
3. The idea that "white males" have not been harmed by massive, nearly universal discrimination against them is madness.
4. What happened in the Regents of California case?
When did a "Reverse Assimilation Expert" become a real job title that had to be filled by unqualified non-whites?? 🤣 You’re too busy being pre-occupied battling the non-existent DEI ogres in your nightmares that you don’t even recognize what you are typing.
Your denial of what the policy is, and has been for generations now, is becasue on some level you know that the policy is indefensible.What you THINK the Affirmative Action, EEOC, and DEI policies are the problem.
It is insanely unjust, and unfair and divisive and leads to worse outcomes because of less, if not UNqualified people doing the jobs.Again, YOU can produce no such data that supports your injury to the American society or the business foundation that companies are striving towards. The American workforce was NEVER built on a ”Meritocracy”. Large swaths of the American populace have always (now to a lesser extent) systematically excluded for those that felt entitled.
And, furthermore the very idea of NOT being about doing the task but checking boxes, leads to a culture of not focusing on the task properly. imo.DJT had codes (checkboxes) on their housing leases that denied housing to POCs. This was something that they actually engaged in, unfair housing discrimination. There is nothing that screams bias more than insisting that EEOC, Affirmative Action, and DEI is about the task of unqualified box-checking. That is on you, imo. 🗽
Now, liberals who are in touch with reality, will admit this and then try to justify that this is needed to balance out the generations of anti-black discrimination and oppression before the 60s, and the secret, hidden anti-black (ect) discrimination that is still ongoing in our "white supremacist society".You used the term “Word Salad” but I’m not sure why you have these raisins; “Anti-Black Discrimination”, “Anti-Black”, “White Supremacist Society” in what sounds like a Mein Kampf screed. 🤔
1. "Reverse Assimilation Expert" was YOUR word salad defense of the practice of "diversity". I was qouting you in addressing your point. IF it sounds absurd to you now, maybe that is something for you to discuss with yourself. Because I agree. It is absurd.
2. i am not defending past anti-black discrimination. I am opposing the practice of anti-white discrimination. You seem to be hinting at justifying current anti-white discrimination because of past anti-black discriination. BUt you don't want to say it clearly because you k now that that idea does not stand up to close scrutiny. But IMPLYING it, undermines my case, while making it hard for me to respond AND appeals to pro-black discrimination supporters, people want those jobs they don't deserve or just PAYBACK. Well played.
3. Oops. Mentioning "anti-black discrimination" or "white supremacy" hardly justifies a Hitler referance. You lose points for that one. My point stands. Justifying current anti-white discrimination because of past anti-black discrimination is common on the left. You are sort of doing it, but... sneakily, by just harping on it, when no one here is defending or pushing for that.
Question for progressives:
What are some good things that pursuing DEI has done for business that couldn't have been done without pursuing it?
The last progressive who tried to answer this question to me didn't give a very lovely answer.
I think you need to phrase your question with more specificity to get a satisfactory answer. For instance, the first example that came to my mind is if two candidates for an Ivy League college admission have similar grades, extra-curriculars and scores on standardized qualifiers, but one is from a poor black community with less public-funding and more crime, etc... and the other is from the whitest, richest Martha's Vineyard-type district in the nation... then it's clear who should receive the opportunity. The African-American ftw!
Nobody has to make a big deal about it or rebuff the white kid letting him know he lost the opportunity, etc, but the diverse placement will be valuable and instructive to both the individual and the institution. Call it affirmative action or DEI in a derogatory manner all you want, it's a simple proactive choice that represents the American Dream to it's fullest. You are providing hope and a positive-as-hell role model to the poor community. Public figures in Government do similar morale and esteem boosting on a larger level, particularly with children.
Your question was about business. What are you talking about? Small businesses? Benefits to corporate shareholders? I doubt DEI is being enforced by fiat in the manner you think. Business owners who get many applicants, but don't want to hire blacks, or women, or asians, or the disabled, or really, anyone but rural good ol' boy football star, Chad Wilson, or similar applicants, could probably get away with it without facing litigation. But the larger the corporation fighting for their market-share, you're gonna find they will enforce diversity hiring in-house of their own volition. Why? I guess perception of empathy and a good reputation in culture... is better for business than the inverse. It's all about the bottom-line.
There may come a time, hopefully, in the course of the country's future where this will be thoroughly unnecessary because of diminished discriminatory outlooks. Many of us thought we were close to it already during the Obama years—but then Trump and Dinesh D'Souza came along questioning the legitimacy of Barack Obama as an American, a capitalist, a benefactor, a Christian, and even as a natural-born citizen. Trump, an obvious criminal narcissist who even has nieces and nephews in his immediate family calling him a racist sociopath, was elected Obama's successor in one of the most despicable campaigns in American history. Clearly this derailed our progressive path. In my estimation, in order for a melting pot nation (founded by immigrants) to succeed spiritually and financially while harboring a white supremacist outlook of outsiders "poisoning the blood of our country" there would almost necessarily have to be bloodshed and crimes against humanity on our own soil before a return to business-as-usual. Long before such time, though, I'm sure America would have ceased as a superpower in the world.
So, MAGA in it's current iteration is simply EVIL, corrupt, undemocratic, unpatriotic, and this is the MOST important election of our lifetimes. I'm bewildered. It's seems obvious that the Republican Party could return to it's folksy and optimistic roots of Reagan and Bush with a great stable celebratory welcoming... but these modern deplorables have been nauseatingly uncompromising in favor of their reality-show cult leader who has a knack for bankrupting business.
Shouldn't the "white kid" have the right to know that he has lost out on an opportunity because of DEI?
After all, to judge a policy, we need to know the costs. Hiding the costs is not the act of someone who is confident in the value of the policy they support.
That seems satisfactory to me, I suppose. I know college applicants receive notification regardless—fat envelope or thin envelope. There should always be a path for a qualified individual going forward, and I would assume even in the thin envelope, there would be suggestions and opportunities provided to proceed towards alternate institutions of learning, including a disclosure of DEI policies.
When I said "nobody needs to make a big deal about it" I was mainly concerned with issues of privacy for individuals, whether applicants or administrators. It's not like institutions of learning need to run advertisements and public relations campaigns as if they were St. Jude's Children's Hospital. This isn't charity. I just believe it's patriotic to say, hey, every year lets take some effort to ensure we don't take in every single legacy at the expense of the underdogs who's only difference may have been six points lower on an SAT exam or something. It doesn't even need to be white versus colored either. I applaud JD Vance's selection to Yale Law School and student loan grants as well, and he was certainly an atypical choice since he was a former Marine, doesn't sound like an intellectual, was a hillbilly of his own accord with addiction and family turmoil in his home, etc. However, he appears to be a two-faced scoundrel who turned this opportunity into a path that allowed him to prey on others with his venture capitalism and righteous indignation. If he thinks he'll get ahead by calling Trump "America's Hitler" he'll do it... if he thinks the tide turns about-face, he'll kiss the ring of Trump. He has no integrity. Makes one wonder if he was the one who contributed to his guardian "Mamaw" living in fear thinking she needed to have a gun within reach in every room of the house.
How can one have these experiences and yet decide that some individual voters (who aren't "childless cat-ladies") need to count more than others when he instead could have used it towards credibility with an underclass? It's like they try to lose. Maybe they do. I'm not even sure Trump wanted or expected to win in 2016. It was all a publicity stunt that snowballed.
If that sounds stupid of them... imagine what it says about their faithful followers.
1. i'M glad it would be satisfactory to you. But it's not to the vast majority of libs. It is not the policy to be honest with people who lose out on a job or an admission due to DEI and by and large it never will be.
2. But it is a big deal, to the person that didn't get the slot or the job. You characterize the white person as a rich legacy, but in reality the rich and powerful take care of themselves. They will find a way. It is the POOR or MIDDLE CLASS white kid, that actually is the one to losee the job or the slot, and that might have been the one shot he had to turn his life around.
3. Privacy for administrators or employers who are purposefully not admitting or hiring white people becausue they are white? I would respectfully disagree. I think that the rights of their victims, and the public are to know about their actions, far outweight any "right to privacy" that they have.
The first problem with your Ivy league example is that poverty and other hardships are not exclusive to any race and skin color. There ARE poor white people who come from poor homes and cities. If you were to choose between a poor white kid and a rich black kid, then you find yourself in a no win scenario. Either you choose the poor white kid because he earned it through his hardships, or you keep pursuing the black kid because, for all of his advantages, OTHERS who look like him have it harder. You screw the truly poor kid just because of his skin color.
If you favored students by their hardships, and not for the color of their skin, that's an improvement, but it's still controversial in its own right.
As for the rest of what you said about business, unfortunately it's not very different from the answer I got earlier. It's just protection racket and blackmail. You're not racist/sexist, but you're still being forced to do something at your own expense, either to prove it to your accusers, or to ward off future accusers.
And as for what you said about Trump and MAGA, sorry but I don't know what I'm supposed to take away from that. If it's an important point to make, can you please write a tl;dr version?