Trump administration has ordered every government agency to shut down their DEI offices by tomorrow at 5 PM.
https://x.com/Breaking911/status/1881894468280012911
We're back baby!!! America is back!!!!!
https://x.com/Breaking911/status/1881894468280012911
We're back baby!!! America is back!!!!!
Because hiring people based on skin color is what? Yes, racist, you got it.
shareThis goes both ways then correct? Hiring someone because they are white is racist as well?
shareIt is, but that should only be banned for the government. The government, as the sole legal wielder of force, should not discriminate. What people do in private is their business.
shareSo it's ok for a private business to be racist then? Funny then why do I hear conservatives moan about Hollywood not casting as many whites? I hear they should be forced to put whites in films. If it's private aren't they free to be racist if they want?
shareFirst, I didn't say it was "okay", I said it shouldn't be banned. Banning it would violate property rights (a person has the right to decide who gets to use their property, even if such a decision is racist). Second, I'm not a conservative. Yes, Hollywood can cast whoever they want.
shareThat doesn’t happen. And we established that was wrong decades ago.
shareWhat doesn't happen?
shareNo one in today’s age is hired because they are white. We put an end to that decades ago. It goes the other direction now (or at least until a few days ago).
shareSure about that? Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily in Pan. Boom your bullshit got debunked quick. So no it wasn't stopped decades ago you idiot.
shareShow me evidence that her being white is the only reason she got the part.
Also film is different because sometimes for the part a person of a certain ethnicity just makes sense. Would you cast an Asian person to black MLK Jr.? How about a black person to play Ronald Regan? That doesn’t mean that racism had anything to do with the decision, it’s more along the lines they wanted someone who could accurately portray the character.
Wait hold on? If a normally white role gets portrayed different than that then it's ok to assume it was for racial reasons but if it's the other way proof has to be provided? Double standard wouldn't you say?
shareI never said that and I don’t know where you’re getting that from. Please try harder next time. Derp derp.
You are dismissed. You are ok if race swaps happen for whites but not the other way. Your concession is noted. You can kindly fuck off now. Scoreboard me 1 you bitch boi!
shareWTF is wrong with you? You seem like a butthurt Trump hater and I’m sure it’s very hard for you to cope right now but you need to get a grip. I’m sorry you were unable to answer my very straightforward questions but that’s your own problem.
You seem to be a very miserable person, you know seeing everything through the prism of race. I feel sorry for you.
I don't like Trump or Biden. So another assumption of yours is dismissed. You made a bullshit statement and got called on it. Chew on that and eat it bitch boi!
shareI didn’t make a bullshit statement. In fact all I did was ask you to demonstrate that she got the part only because she was white which is what you stated and instead you went into a juvenile temper tantrum. Keep coping you loser.
shareYou said whites haven't been taking spots for other races for decades. Boom I was able to prove otherwise. Read it and weep bitch boi! Scoreboard me 3 you 0!
shareFirst of all I’m not exactly sure what makes the part a non-white “spot”, secondly “whites” didn’t take anything, an actress just got cast in a role, third I have yet to see any evidence that she got the role because she was white (which is what you stated), finally if that bothers you so badly then just consider black Ariel cancelling it out.
What is wrong with you, like seriously? You’re like an anonymous version of Joy Reid and believe me that is the biggest insult anyone can ever give you.
Also on a side note you’re now arguing something completely different from what you initially were. Initially you were arguing that white people were getting jobs that were rightfully earned by black candidates because they were white. Now you’re just arguing that in some cases white people have gotten positions over minorities for reasons that may or may not be because of skin color. I said that no one is hired over a black person because they are white, I never said that a white person was never hired over a black person you fucking idiot. In the case of film, Dennis Quaid was hired because he could accurately portray the character, not because of his skin color. It’s the same reason why a black person would be hired to portray MLJ Jr.
Oh please if it was reversed you wouldn't stop bitching about how a white's role got taken away. You would dismiss any evidence away that is the game you idiots play. It doesn't bother me I just use it to counter anytime you idiots bitch about a swap. So whatever bullshit you use to ignore that swap use that same thing when a white is swapped and you will be fine.
I got tired of being polite. I made that mistake before and it slapped me in the face. I don't do that anymore to you idiots. You deserve nothing but the worst treatment and I'm here to gladly dish it out bitch boi!
So then you had no issue with Zoe Kravitz as Catwoman right? Remember Catwoman in the past was played by Eartha Kitt and was not white in the year one comic book. You said not a thing about that right?
OK first of all I don’t see roles as “white roles” or “black roles” or whatever. Secondly I never “bitched about a white roles getting taken away”. I find it irritating however that it’s apparently OK to discriminate against white people but not the other way. You shouldn’t discriminate against anyone based on the concept of skin color. I mean this is literally what the Civil Rights movement was about.
You however have reversed yourself quite often. First you claimed that minorities were losing positions because they were minorities yet your “evidence” was a white person getting a job instead of a minority. Do tell me: Did a minority audition for the role? How was their screen test? Was it better than the person who got the role? If so how do you know they didn’t get the role because of skin color? Maybe they rejected the role? The point is you immediately concluded it was racism based on evidence that doesn’t confirm it was racism.
Yes I had an issue with Zoe Kravitz but it was because I thought she gave a terrible performance. She wasn’t a good Catwoman. If it makes you feel any better I thought Jeffrey Wright as Commissioner Gordon was a good pick.
If you legitimately believe the bullshit you are spewing out then you have problems. You need serious help, bud. DEI is dead, and it should be dead. Now you’re going to have to actually prove you are qualified for the job and I know that’s hard for someone who’s probably had everything handed to them in like like that loser slut Kamala Harris. Trump won the election fair and square, you’re gonna have to find a way to deal with it and suck on it. 312-226, pretty decisive. Now go take a stress pill and find a safe space you loser.
Whites are not discriminated against in Hollywood. That's bullshit! They get the most roles and on average make the most money. So I'm not buying that bullshit, you can huff sand.
Nope I said race flipping occurs for minorities as well. Funny isn't that what you morons do? If you see a flipped role that is usually white you automatically assume it is discrimination against whites.
Nope you are wrong. Zoe Kravitz is the best Catwoman in my book. Yes you heard me she's better than Pfeiffer. The batman was a critical success and a hit with audiences. We are getting a sequel and you can choke on it bitch boi!
Just like how Biden won the 2020 election right? Funny you guys constantly claimed voter fraud and lived in delusion. I don't give a shit if that orange bitch is president my life won't change. I'm glad I'm getting my batman sequel. The fact that guys hate it makes me love it even more. Kindly fuck yourself you piece of human trash.
Show me one shred of evidence that first of all A) They get the most roles (keep in mind whites outnumber blacks by a factor of at least 6 in our population) and B) That it’s because of race. Also whether you are using racism to cancel out past racism or not, you’re still being racist.
As for your second paragraph please show me where I said whites were being discriminated against because I clearly said from your own viewpoint race swapping from black to white is apparently discrimination but not the other way. It’s the double standard that I have a problem with you liar.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, well good for you, I’m glad you liked Zoe Kravitz, you’ve still not proven that I don’t like her because of her skin color. Eh, make as many sequels as you want, I might watch them I might not. They made the Acolyte and I didn’t watch it and it didn’t hurt me one bit.
Oh so now we’re talking about 2020? Because I seem to remember if you even questioned the election you were called a conspiracy theorist, a traitor and UnAmerican. Funny how not respecting elections is apparently OK now, but I get it, it’s (D)ifferent.
NAZIS = LOSERS
Confederates = LOSERS
Kamala = LOSER
Democrats = LOSERS
DEI = LOSER
See a pattern developing? Now go virtue signal to someone who gives a fuck.
You seriously ask that? Look at the majority of movies heroes and roles. Most of them are white. Want to compare superheroes for a moment? The most popular genre right now? This is obvious. I didn't say it was because of race i said they get most the roles. Your twisting of my words is dismissed.
Nope I never said that. You said that race flips don't occur from minority to white anymore. I was able to disprove that. I don't give a shit it's you folks who bitch and moan not me.
I never said you disliked her because of skin color. You do however take issue with her because let's face it you wanted a white person in that role. Warner Bros didn't she the Acolyte dipshit, that was Disney.
I didn't care either way. What's funny is now you have the respect the results when that was not the case before. You are the one who has a double standard.
Good, it's about time. Up next, Pedowood.
shareIt's about time!
shareExactly, and I don’t know why it’s so hard for the left to comprehend the idea of actually hiring people based on qualifications and merit and not skin color. They are a bunch of demented, racist individuals and I’m glad that their entire worldview is collapsing before their eyes.
Liberal tears taste the sweetest.
Yep, an America which, in a return to its past, disowns equality, diversity and inclusion. That is sure to be a stronger nation than before.
shareAnd anyone that opposes BLM insinuates that black lives don't matter. Mmm yeah.
Fuck off with these words traps. Even the masses aren't playing along anymore.
And anyone that opposes BLM insinuates that black lives don't matter
Fuck off
In regards to what and in what context? You might as well have framed the question with a nebulous term such as "good."
shareThe same questions might be applied to your BLM example. See how it works?
If you think DEI does matter, try and think of different contexts and to what, off your own bat. It will be a useful exercise. As a start I would suggest such ideals would be applied most sensibly to the public sphere (ie not in one's private life).
You might as well have framed the question with a nebulous term such as "good."
I do see how these semantic traps work. That's why I brought up the absurdity in the context of BLM. Are you confused there?
"Feel free to say why DEI matters as a nebulous bad thing."
Assuming that was intended as "is," sure:
DEI matters is a nebulous, and potentially, bad thing.
the absurdity in the context of BLM. Are you confused there?
DEI matters is a nebulous, and potentially, bad thing.
"If everyone is included equally in public life then by definition no one is missing out." If by "public" you mean the government then I agree. The government should not discriminate.
shareWell I meant generally outside private life, more than just the government. Trump argues that DEI brings discrimination against whites. He obviously has no idea what 'equality' and 'inclusion' imply.
share"Well I meant generally outside private life, more than just the government." I don't understand. There is the public sector (the government) and the private sector (individuals and businesses). What is meant by "outside private life, more than just the government"? If you're implying businesses, they are part of private life.
sharebusinesses, they are part of private life.
"A business commonly provides a service to the general public." Yes, and the owners are private individuals whose rights, including property rights, should not be violated. If it's my property, I have a right to decide who will use it. If my decision is irrational, e.g., based on race, that is wrong, but it does not violate the rights of others. (You do not have the right to use others' property against their will.)
When I speak of rights, I am talking about the rights that are innate to human beings, regardless of what existing government policy says. Individual rights are not gifts from government.
Yes, and the owners are private individuals whose rights, including property rights, should not be violated. If it's my property, I have a right to decide who will use it.
If my decision is irrational, e.g., based on race, that is wrong, but it does not violate the rights of others.
I am talking about the rights that are innate to human beings, regardless of what existing government policy says.
"You here seem to be confusing notions of trespassing and offering a service." Just because you offer a service does not mean you give up your property rights.
"Race discrimination in the public sphere does not violate the rights of others?" Again, if by "public" you're referring to government discrimination, then that should be outlawed. But otherwise, there is no right not to be discriminated against by private individuals, so long as such discrimination is not in the form of coercion. This is true regardless of what existing laws say.
"As already said total personal freedom does not exist in society and you implicitly accept that everyday. Try going to work naked." Nudity in work is a private matter, not up to government. As for what you said about "total personal freedom", yes, individual rights are violated all the time. That does not make it right.
Just because you offer a service does not mean you give up your property rights.
here is no right not to be discriminated against by private individuals
Nudity in work is a private matter, not up to government.
As for what you said about "total personal freedom", yes, individual rights are violated all the time. That does not make it right.
this is true regardless of what existing laws say.
"I am afraid discrimination is not a 'property right' for reasons already outlined. Property rights refer to tenancy, trespassing. etc etc. Please stop. (Lack of) discrimination is a human right." Property rights, abstractly, mean that an individual has the right to decide how they will use their property and who they will allow to use it. Humans have such rights because they have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Now, me as a business owner discriminating against someone does not violate their right to pursue their own happiness. They are free not to associate with me and find someone who doesn't discriminate. Again, discrimination is morally wrong, but it is not right for the government to violate individual rights in order to abolish it. The ends do not justify the means. The government has no right to FORCE people to be rational if their irrationality is not coercive.
"And again: such discrimination is illegal in the public sphere. In your own private life do what you want." The "public" sphere you refer to consists of private individuals. You are interfering with their private right to pursue their happiness when you violate their rights. You can call it "public" all you want, rights are rights.
"Nudity, in any public place is covered by public statutes over indecency etc." It should be a private matter decided by the private individuals who own a space that happens to be in the public. So-called "publicly owned" spaces, i.e., spaces that are funded by taxes, should not exist. Collective ownership of property should not exist.
"The point is that you acquiesce to the loss of freedom in, say, not being allowed to drive on the wrong side of the road quite readily." There is no right to drive in an unsafe manner, therefore there is no loss of freedom.
(1/2)
"perhaps we are approaching notions similar to those put out by the "freeman on the land" movement (a group of people who believe they are only bound by laws and contracts they consent to)". You mean sov cits? I'm not one of those lunatics. I obey the law, I'm saying the law can be wrong.
"that is all from me". Cheers.
"I see clearly enough that you are against notions of social justice."
Not necessarily. What sort of social justices are you referring to?
"You will have to be less nebulous and give specifics."
You are asking me to provide specifics about something that I identified as vague; you may as well be asking me to identify what is black about something I just labeled white.
If you intended to request that I explain the problem with your reasoning, I can do that instead.
The OP here is:
"Trump administration has ordered every government agency to shut down their DEI offices by tomorrow at 5 PM."
You responded with:
"Yep, an America which, in a return to its past, disowns equality, diversity and inclusion."
You are both conflating "DEI offices" with abstract values of "equality, diversity and inclusion" and extending that conflation to an implication that anyone that opposes one necessarily opposes the other.
What sort of social justices are you referring to?
You are asking me to provide specifics about something that I identified as vague;
You are both conflating "DEI offices" with abstract values of "equality, diversity and inclusion" and extending that conflation to an implication that anyone that opposes one necessarily opposes the other.
abstract values of "equality, diversity and inclusion"
Anyone who is against equality is a piece of human garbage. You have shown that you aren't about equality so you are human trash. You also aren't with listening to.
shareSo anyone that opposes DEI also opposes equality universally? You swallowed that hook.
You are right though about my perspective on equality to some extent. I don't believe that everybody "is" equal.
Your strawman is dismissed.
I do believe everyone is equal because I'm not a piece of shit. You think whites are superior to blacks which is rather vile and disgusting.
I don't believe that everybody "is" equal.
No, DEI is more about equality of outcome. If you place an unqualified black person in a position of power simply to meet a quota, that's equality of outcome. You’re essentially giving them the same position and pay as a qualified white person. That’s what equality of outcome looks like.
shareAdvocates of DEI (and older, related concepts) usually put it this way: "If two candidates are equally qualified for a job and one is Black while the other is White, hire the Black guy". The problem with this is 1) Two candidates are rarely equally qualified, and 2) it isn't the government's business whether there is racial discrimination in a private business. Private property rights mean a business owner can decide who they want to hire, even if the decision is race-based. Racial discrimination is abhorrent, but so is the government violating property rights.
shareMoreover, you are racially discriminating against the white individual, who, by the way, should always be prioritized, given that this is a country founded by Europeans for Europeans. Unfortunately, we made the mistake of opening our nation to non-Whites and granting them equal rights, driven by our desire to see the best in people. The consequence of this naive belief is that now, Whites are forced to take a back seat in their own country, watching as their culture and homeland are slowly eroded.
share"discriminating against the white individual, who, by the way, should always be prioritized, given that this is a country founded by Europeans for Europeans" Aaaaand you lost me.
shareYou may not be familiar with our history, but this country was founded by White Europeans for Europeans. This principle was enshrined in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which restricted naturalization to 'free white persons.' We didn’t open up our country to non-Whites until the mid-20th century, after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Before that, even though non-Whites were present in the country, White people were always prioritized in terms of legal rights and opportunities.
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
” (March 26, 1790):
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
Non-white people have equal rights regardless of the history of racist laws.
shareYes, unfortunately. It was a mistake on our part. Now, our population is being replaced by non-Whites who don't belong here. Perhaps we should have been more racist. Maybe, then, we wouldn’t be on the path to becoming a minority in our own country, watching our children's birthright stolen and destroyed before their very eyes. White Guilt is a mental disorder.
share"Yes, unfortunately. It was a mistake on our part." You misunderstand. Non-white people have equal rights regardless of what the laws say. Rights are not a gift from government, they derive from human nature. Making the laws more racist won't change the fact that these rights exist in everyone.
shareThey don't have the right to be in this country. Also equality is not a right.
sharePeople have the right to go where they want, it's governments that unjustly infringe on this right. And what about the non-White people who were here before us? Do they not have rights? And I didn't mean "equality" in the leftist sense of "equality of outcome". By "equality", I mean "equal before the law".
shareNo, people do not have the right to go wherever they please. We have borders, and this is our land. This is our home. We decide who enters and who stays. If we allow someone to stay, they must respect our rules, and if they don't, they must leave.
I agree that, while they are here, they should be treated equally under the law — within reason. But that does not mean they should have the same privileges as citizens. And Only White people should be granted citizenship in a White country.
As for the natives, this land never truly belonged to them. They were nomads with no concept of property or land ownership. We came, we conquered, and we founded the country, and built it from the ground up. We established a government, a legal system, and a nation. It was only through our generosity and compassion, that we didn’t eradicate them completely and instead allowed them to live on reservations.
"We decide who enters and who stays." By what right?
"If we allow someone to stay, they must respect our rules, and if they don't, they must leave." I would agree that if an immigrant breaks a law (and by law I mean OBJECTIVE law, law that protects individual rights which immigration law is not), particularly a very serious law like murder or rape, and they do not have citizenship, then they should be deported.
"But that does not mean they should have the same privileges as citizens." I would not use the word "privileges", so what RIGHTS do citizens have that non-citizens do not? I agree that, for example, non-citizens shouldn't be allowed to vote.
"Only White people should be granted citizenship in a White country." Why?
"As for the natives, this land never truly belonged to them. They were nomads with no concept of property or land ownership. We came, we conquered, and we founded the country, and built it from the ground up. We established a government, a legal system, and a nation." I'm with you in the sense that the natives had no concepts of individual rights, rule of law, etc., therefore the land was free for anyone to come in. However, we didn't have the right to kill them which we did.
"It was only through our generosity and compassion, that we didn’t eradicate them completely". Why how generous of us! (eyeroll)
"We decide who enters and who stays." By what right?
Because this is our country, our land, our home. Just as we have the right to decide who enters our house, we similarly possess the authority to determine who may enter and remain within our borders. I fail to see how this could be made any clearer. If this concept eludes you, then there is little more to discuss. Are you really unfamiliar with the principle of sovereignty?
"what RIGHTS do citizens have that non-citizens do not?"
Citizenship grants individuals a range of rights and privileges that non-citizens do not enjoy. For instance, only citizens have the right to run for public office, holding positions of authority and governance that are otherwise inaccessible to non-citizens. Similarly, federal employment, particularly in high-security roles that require clearance, is typically reserved for citizens. Citizens also benefit from the automatic acquisition of citizenship for their children, a privilege that non-citizens do not have. In many cases, citizens have greater access to public benefits, including social security and healthcare, while non-citizens often face limitations or are excluded from these programs. Serving on a jury is another right reserved for citizens. Moreover, citizens are protected from deportation, unlike non-citizens, who risk removal from the country if they fall out of legal status. Citizens can travel with the security and ease of a national passport, and they hold priority when sponsoring family members for immigration. Most significantly, citizens have the unrestricted right to live and work permanently within their country, while non-citizens face limitations on their residence and employment opportunities. In essence, citizenship provides full participation in the nation's legal, social, and economic systems, while non-citizens are subject to various constraints and exclusions.
"Just as we have the right to decide who enters our house, we similarly possess the authority to determine who may enter and remain within our borders". There is no such thing as collective ownership of land. You can claim the land belongs to "us", that doesn't make it true. Again, I have no problem with deporting non-citizen immigrants when they break serious laws, but as to whom we should let in, that's not the proper purpose of government. Outside of, say, criminals who are on the lam from other countries, everyone should be allowed.
"Are you really unfamiliar with the principle of sovereignty?" Having sovereignty doesn't mean you have the right to keep people out arbitrarily.
"For instance, only citizens have the right to run for public office, holding positions of authority and governance that are otherwise inaccessible to non-citizens. Similarly, federal employment, particularly in high-security roles that require clearance, is typically reserved for citizens. Citizens also benefit from the automatic acquisition of citizenship for their children, a privilege that non-citizens do not have." Agreed with this.
"In many cases, citizens have greater access to public benefits, including social security and healthcare, while non-citizens often face limitations or are excluded from these programs." Public benefits should be abolished. No one, not citizens or immigrants, has a claim on the income of others. Those who can work should support themselves and those who can't can rely on private charity.
"Serving on a jury is another right reserved for citizens. Moreover, citizens are protected from deportation, unlike non-citizens, who risk removal from the country if they fall out of legal status." Agreed with this.
1/2
"Are you really unfamiliar with the principle of sovereignty?" Having sovereignty doesn't mean you have the right to keep people out arbitrarily.
Public benefits should be abolished. No one, not citizens or immigrants, has a claim on the income of others. Those who can work should support themselves and those who can't can rely on private charity.
"Yes it does. And of course you can have collective ownership of land." No, it doesn't. Again, you can SAY that "we" own the land, that doesn't make it true. Only individuals can own property BY RIGHT.
"No benefits should be expanded — we should implement Medicare for All, free at the point of service providing universal healthcare to everyone. Alongside this, a Universal Basic Dividend (UBD) must be established, reflecting the principle of collective ownership of resources, to guarantee every citizen a baseline income. Housing should be a right, not a privilege, ensuring that even those who cannot afford it have a roof over their heads. Food stamps must be available to those who lack the means to adequately feed themselves and their children. And, of course, Social Security should remain robust to ensure that the elderly and disabled can live with dignity and security." By what right does the government get to seize wealth from some and distribute it to others?
"It’s remarkable that I, a White Nationalist Nazi, can display more compassion for my fellow citizens than the average libertarian zealot." I don't identify as libertarian, but if you find it convenient to label me as such, go ahead. It's not about having "compassion". There is nothing "compassionate" about seizing wealth from those who produce it and distributing it to those who don't. No one is stopping you or anyone else from helping the poor. There are plenty of private charities around.
By what right does the government get to seize wealth from some and distribute it to others?
I agree with everything you say here but note that
When wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of a few while others struggle to survive, it fractures society,
I agree. I have no issue with the concept of equality, as long as we’re discussing a White, homogeneous, high-trust society. By equality, I don’t mean literal equality in the sense of the same outcomes, but rather the opportunity to find a role where one can be most productive to society, fulfilled, and at the very least, earn a living wage.
This idea, however, doesn't apply to a multicultural, multi-racial society because we are not equal. We don’t share the same values, nor are we the same peoples. In such societies, one race will inevitably outcompete another, and the disadvantaged will be forced to rely on the welfare state, which breeds resentment and division. Those on welfare, whom the working class supports, will be seen not as fellow brothers and sisters, but as 'the other.' This fosters strife.
One other thing I would like to add, while there should be no laws preventing women from performing the same jobs as men, I believe it should be a societal norm that women focus on raising and educating children. Men and women are different, and we are not equal, but we complement each other. A woman’s primary role should be in the home, and women should only work among men if they are exceptional and extraordinary, capable of outperforming their male counterparts.
"Citizens can travel with the security and ease of a national passport, and they hold priority when sponsoring family members for immigration. Most significantly, citizens have the unrestricted right to live and work permanently within their country, while non-citizens face limitations on their residence and employment opportunities." This is where I disagree. There should be no privileges granted to certain would-be immigrants (i.e., those who are related to citizens) over other types of immigrants. Non-citizens shouldn't have limitations on residence and employment opportunities.
shareAdvocates of DEI (and older, related concepts) usually put it this way: "If two candidates are equally qualified for a job and one is Black while the other is White, hire the Black guy". The problem with this is 1) Two candidates are rarely equally qualified,
"If two candidates are equally qualified for a job and one is Black while the other is White, hire the Black guy.".
it isn't the government's business whether there is racial discrimination in a private business.
Private property rights mean a business owner can decide who they want to hire, even if the decision is race-based.
If you place an unqualified black person in a position of power simply to meet a quota, that's equality of outcome.
The reality is that, in the real world today, the most qualified people are not the ones hired for the job. Instead, people of color are often hired to meet diversity quotas — people who are not qualified but are chosen to avoid potential lawsuits over discrimination. This is happening in academia, in the HR departments of many companies, and, of course, in Hollywood.
This practice is detrimental to society. It's one of the key reasons our culture has deteriorated to the point it has. Back when White people were prioritized, from the 1930s to the 1970s, we were the most productive and successful nation on Earth, the shining beacon on the sea. Our country was 90% White. And then, diversity happened...
The reality is that, in the real world today, the most qualified people are not the ones hired for the job. Instead, people of color are often hired to meet diversity quotas
Our country was 90% White. And then, diversity happened...
"There is simply no incentive for companies to accept second best..."
The incentive is the fear of being sued for discrimination. I've heard from numerous business people who were compelled to hire unqualified minorities simply because there weren't enough qualified candidates to fill the positions. They made these decisions not out of merit, but because they were vulnerable to potential lawsuits.
The incentive is the fear of being sued for discrimination.
compelled to hire unqualified minorities simply because there weren't enough qualified candidates to fill the positions.
Apologies, I should have been more precise:
"[They were] compelled to hire unqualified minorities simply because there weren't enough qualified minority candidates to fill the positions."
In other words, while there are plenty of qualified White candidates to fill these positions, companies are compelled to hire minorities to meet quotas. Initially, they may hire a few qualified individuals, which is reasonable, but once those positions are filled, they are forced to hire additional minorities to satisfy the quotas — even when no more qualified candidates are available. As a result, they end up hiring unqualified minorities, because opting to hire more qualified White candidates instead would expose them to potential lawsuits.
Thank your for entirely anecdotal evidence.
As already said, I don't doubt there can be issues, and examples. but I don't think they are sufficiently widespread to condemn DEI, or policies to counter unconscious racism, out of hand. In any case there could just as well be a reverse argument made, that there are companies so unconsciously (or otherwise) biased against certain groups that their recruitment is skewed and so they end up with a less qualified and unskilled workforce. This would have happened to Musk (for instance) if he had not made the decision to look to India for many of his skilled vacancies. Here the argument is just as strong for, what is in effect, strong DEI policies.
Equality, diversity, and inclusion are good things, but having the government force such things into existence is not compatible with freedom. Forcing people to not be prejudiced only results in brooding anti-government resentment, it does not cure prejudice.
shareSo then what does cure prejudice then?
shareThe closest thing is education, but that only goes so far. If a kid is raised by racists, it's very difficult for a teacher to penetrate that mindset (unless the kid doesn't like his parents).
shareRight but most these parents don't want certain things taught in schools. Such as they don't like MLK being celebrated but are fine with Columbus being praised to the ends of the earth. So um yeah I have no faith in that working either champ. America's education system ranks low for a reason.
shareI did say that it only went so far.
shareForcing people to not be prejudiced only results in brooding anti-government resentment, it does not cure prejudice.
"Actually psychology shows the opposite, that obliging people to act in a certain way helps change minds over time." In other words, using government force is okay because the ends justify the means, and people will just passively accept it. This is not a mentality compatible with freedom.
shareIn any society the abstract notion of 'total freedom' is circumscribed by a range of things we accept across a range of activities. These are usually in place through a range of things, ranging from custom, courtesy, common sense, social mores to law and as I say we all accept most of these. You have no need to exercise DEI in your own home; live as you want in private and have who you want at your table. DEI applies the the public sphere for good reason and it is important to get a sense of proportion and perspective.
share"You have no need to exercise DEI in your own home". And what about your own business? I don't WANT businesses to discriminate, but I also don't want the government forcing them not to.
shareAnd what about your own business? I don't WANT businesses to discriminate,
And if someone doesn't want to include certain people for various reasons their property rights should be violated? Should we also ban hate speech? Is freedom of speech sacred but property rights are not? What I am against is the government initiating force, no matter whether the desired outcome is good or not.
shareAnd if someone doesn't want to include certain people for various reasons their property rights should be violated?
Should we also ban hate speech?
What I am against is the government initiating force,
"If by 'force' you mean legal sanctions then I am sure there of plenty of things proscribed by your democratically elected government that you happily go along with everyday - road safety laws for instance." Someone driving unsafely is not the same thing as a business owner who discriminates. One is an act of force (the driver will likely cause an accident if they're not stopped), the other isn't (you are free to not deal with a business that discriminates).
"As already said there no such thing as 'total freedom' in normal regulated society." Nice use of "normal" to justify the unjustifiable.
Someone driving unsafely is not the same thing as a business owner who discriminates.
The purpose of government is to outlaw initiation of force in order to protect individual rights (i.e., use their power of force to retaliate against those who initiate). An unsafe driver is initiating force. A discriminatory business owner is not.
shareI am not sure where you have got this strained definition of government from. And a discriminatory business goes against an individual's right to be equal, under the Constitution,.
share"strained definition of government". If by "strained" you mean "limited", I accept that.
"discriminatory business goes against an individual's right to be equal, under the Constitution". There is no right to be treated equally by private individuals. The Constitution guarantees equality BEFORE THE LAW, i.e., when dealing with government, not in private dealings with others. Even if the Constitution DID guarantee that, that wouldn't make it right. Not everything in the Constitution is right (for instance, the commerce clause).
There is no right to be treated equally by private individuals
Even if the Constitution DID guarantee that, that wouldn't make it right. Not everything in the Constitution is right
"I already drew the obvious line between freedoms at home and freedom outside". You do not lose your rights when you leave your house.
"Then it is your right to agitate to change it and make, say, not everyone created equal after all. Perhaps you can slip it in when Trump tries to remove the birthright of immigrant children?" Nice strawman attack, but I despise Trump. For the record, I support the birthright of immigrant children.
You do not lose your rights when you leave your house.
Nice strawman attack, but I despise Trump.
For the record, I support the birthright of immigrant children.
Im glad you recognize racism when you see it. Hiring based on skin color is the very definition of racism.
shareIt is more that, all other things being equal, it is perfectly reasonable that a company will simply act to (or ought to be responsible enough to) ensure its workforce is diverse and inclusive. Also, 'racism' usually refers to the negative treatment of minorities not their equitable and inclusive treatment. I am aware of the affirmative action debate in the US, of course, but there is a way to stay on the right side of the law and still recruit, while being alert to the right principles and with the weaknesses of a workforce profile in mind.
share"It is more that, all other things being equal, it is perfectly reasonable that a company will simply act to (or ought to be responsible enough to) ensure its workforce is diverse and inclusive."
I'm not comprehending what's innately reasonable about the practice of a company acting to "ensure its workforce is diverse and inclusive." Can you help me understand?
Unrelatedly, I'm glad you're not spamming source mined articles anymore, flimflam. It has improved the quality of your posts.
I'm not comprehending what's innately reasonable about the practice of a company acting to "ensure its workforce is diverse and inclusive." Can you help me understand?
Unrelatedly, I'm glad you're not spamming source mined articles anymore, flimflam. It has improved the quality of your posts.
This is fantastic news. This is the result of years of tireless agitation, and it's a direct consequence of our efforts. Your willingness to speak out and spread our message has made this possible. Never forget: your voice matters. Even on these seemingly obscure websites, you are changing hearts and minds. You may not know who’s listening or reading your words, but one of your comments could have reached someone with a large following, someone who amplified your message. And now, those in power are hearing us. Well done, frens.
Don't stop fighting! Don't stop agitating until the woke mind virus is completely eradicated and wiped off the face of the earth.
And remain vigilant. While this is a victory of sorts, the war is far from over. The enemy will simply retreat for a time, rethink their strategy, and come back with a new set of weapons, just you watch. So we can celebrate for now, but never let your guard down.
shareAbsolutely. This is a victory, no doubt, but it’s just the first battle in a war that will rage on for years. We will fight relentlessly until every last woke retard is removed from society and their toxic, degenerate ideology is eradicated once and for all.
shareIt took the left more than a century to complete the long march through the institutions. Gird your loins because rolling back their insanity will take just as long.
shareWe need a dose of old school style fascism to speed up the process.
shareCareful. That's a slippery slope, and we can't afford to be living down to our enemies' expectations.
shareI don't know, but I think it could be beneficial for us. Every 80 years or so, we need to clear out the trash. In our liberal democracy, trash accumulates over time, and it reaches a point where the system can no longer function properly. Our culture deteriorates, our social bonds weaken, and life becomes intolerable. In times like these, we need a strong leader to step in, pause our liberal democracy for a moment, and use the full power of the state to clear out the trash and correct the wrongs. Sometimes, we have to step outside the system because it's incapable of repairing itself when things have gone too far. This period wouldn’t need to last long — usually just a few years to clean up the mess, after which we could return to being a liberal democracy. Think of it as a reset.
And don’t worry — people like you, good people, are not the trash I’m talking about. You are a valued member of the community. But the degenerates? They’re the ones who need to worry. They are the ones who will be purged and pushed to the margins of society where they belong, forced to live in the shadows like rats.
Yeah, but it's way too easy for people cleaning up society's trash to lose sight of what they're doing and forget to go back to normal once the dust is cleared. Some people can calm down after the riot act is completed, but others forget and stay crazy.
shareNo, it's true. But just as fascism can be seen as a correction to liberal democracies, there is also a correction for fascism when it goes unchecked or becomes too extreme. Nothing happens in a vacuum — it occurs because society itself is calling for it. Hitler didn’t seize power in Germany by force; he was elected, and the people embraced him. That’s how fascism takes root.
However, those in power remain so only as long as the people allow it. If they begin to act against the will of the people, becoming too repressive and oppressive, leading to a decline in the quality of life for the masses, then the people will eventually rise up, overthrow the fascists, and replace them with someone less oppressive. It’s a cycle. Societies are dynamic. Even in America we have period with weak leaders and strong leaders. Where the government is more repressive or more permissive. It's an ebb and flow.
I heard a quote recently that applies very well to the cycle of civilizations rising and falling:
Hard times create hard men. Hard men create easy times. Easy times create weak men. Weak men create hard times.share
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
I've been enjoying your quotes lately, btw.
Oh thanks. I know many because they're so useful in a number of situations ;)
shareThis is so refreshing to hear. Now people will actually have to demonstrate that they are competent and able to complete the job and won’t just be handed opportunities that they aren’t qualified for because of their skin color or gender. People like KJP are actually going to have to put forth the work.
shareand won’t just be handed opportunities that they aren’t qualified for because of their skin color or gender.