[deleted]
There is a class of aspirational people who absorb all the correct views from media, schools, business, in hopes of climbing the ladder. Antifa is indistinguishable from a Walmart Human Resources manual. They would be the first to tell you you are "voting against your own interests". It's funny that the NPC meme has been banned on social media while the Russian bot meme remains. It proves which of the two was really correct.
share[deleted]
Interesting how you're race baiting while falsely accusing the DNC of doing this. Anyway your comment is full of lies in the following ways:
Nobody said to not hire White males. The email said there were a majority of white males already in tech. jobs therefore to diversify Data Services Manager Madeleine Leader personally preferred to consider other candidates.
The complete email:
"As you may have heard, we are rebuilding the Technology Team into a robust well-oiled machine that can tackle all elections from the Presidential down to Dog Catcher and School Board. What’s more important is that we are focused on hiring an maintaining a staff of diverse voices and life experiences, something that we desperately need if we hope to secure the future of our country.
We are building a distributed Tech Team so most of our positions can be based wherever you happen to live. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns and feel free to forward on to your contacts. I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, since they’re already in the majority."
The other lie is to say that it was the DNC when in fact it was only one person's views and not the DNC. DNC National Press Secretary Michael Tyler's response:
"The email in question was not authorized by the DNC nor was it authorized by senior leadership. All hiring decisions at the DNC are made consistent with the DNC’s commitment to equal employment opportunity and hiring an inclusive and talented staff that reflects the coalition of the Democratic Party, because our diversity is our greatest strength."
Without the sensationalism and lies, there is no story. Move along.
[deleted]
Diversity means to treat all people equally no matter what their race is, which includes white people. By opposing diversity, you're admitting you stand against equality. You who stand for inequality only call the other side racist to take the heat off yourselves because there's no way to rationally defend inequality.
share[deleted]
"I stand of equality of all which means hiring the BEST candidate regardless of race, religion, or gender."
Institutions in diverse areas are not always hiring regardless of race though. Whether it's in white areas or minority areas, the high-ranking positions favor white people automatically against highly qualified minority candidates. If you truly stood for equality, you would oppose that. It sounds like you don't, simply because the favoritism is going toward the people of your race.
Imo, some take diversity too far in terms of equality when the science proves otherwise. I'm all for diversity just not forced diversity for the sake of diversity. To me this just sounds like they want to meet quotas. For true diversity, one should be interviewing people in some blindfolded setting and only showing the skill/performance of said person. Then we can truly see how this plays out. But hey, that might be racist/sexist in some way since it's not meeting 'quotas'.
Thing is, whites still make up about 60% (white alone) to 76% (Hispanic origin) of the population so of course you'll see more whites.
[deleted]
Mind you, I'm speaking of high-ranking positions in diverse communities. If we're talking about all-white communities, the rules for diversity change since diversity is merely a representation of a specified community. In all-white communities, the high-ranking jobs are all white. No problem there because those jobs reflect the community. In racially diverse communities, the high-ranking jobs are still all or nearly all white. These are the places where the issue of "diversity" begins to appear (because democrats listen to the people that vote in their districts), and is essentially there to counter nepotism. Nepotism is the number one factor for the hiring of people in high-ranking positions. If it was all skill-based hiring practices, then I'd be right there with ya. Unfortunately, it isn't. It's primarily nepotism and tribalism, and skill-based is secondary.
The problem you have is that when diverse communities fight for equality, republican politicians trick you into thinking that it will apply to your non-diverse community which will replace you with an immigrant who doesn't yet live in your community. Republicans play this trick on you because you are gullible enough to believe it, and keeps you voting for the red team.
[deleted]
Being ignorant of something doesn't mean it's nonexistent. It just means you're ignorant. All societies are hierarchical. The American society has used mainly race as an excuse to create its hierarchy with white men on top from the beginning up to the present.
"I love how a white person can work hard for decades for a company, work their way up the ladder, and somehow that is "white privilege" or favoritism.
"The following link is an example of what happened when blacks work hard:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidberri/2018/06/11/the-disappearance-of-the-african-american-jockey/#448453403e13
In a hierarchy, those on top will do whatever they can to remain there.
A white mob killed 300 black people, burnt and destroyed 35 blocks of black homes and businesses for two days in one of the wealthiest black neighborhoods in the country called Greenwood, nickname Black Wall Street. It was only one of thousands of sundown towns in the United States. I doubt if you heard of a "sundown town" and its ugly history. You may be living in one.
I really suggest you open up books and begin reading them to learn the truth about racism and how it continues today.
[deleted]
Your faux ignorance about white racism doesn't change reality. Obviously, I have shown you proof that "working hard" means nothing if an oppressor is ready to destroy any achievements made through discrimination, suppression, theft, destruction and murder.
Your fictitious statistics from Breitbart or whichever white nationalist site you frequent is nonsense, too.
"...liberal..."
Evidence that you're an ideologue too!
[deleted]
Trump just declared that he was a nationalist. Hitler was one, too. So are his white nationalist supporters. I'm sure you're familiar with the latter.
White nationalists don't work hard. They attack successful people (ex. jockeys and sundown townsfolk) out of jealousy or blame others for their own failures like all the losers who presently fear a few Honduran women and children seeking asylum.
Your personal attacks in an attempt to deflect away from the evidence that was provided doesn't work with me.
BTW, I find your elitist snobbery against jockeys reprehensible. It's an honest living. What other jobs and/or people do you believe are inferior to you?
Love the introduction of "hatred" into the convo. Pubs love to disrespect Dems at every turn then cry "Hate" at how innocent they are. Effing deplorable.
shareCredible (non-Fox, non-Breitbart, non-Alex Jones) link to back up your DNC claims?
shareIf you favor people based on their skin, its racism. Clear as it is, that is what racism means. Affirmative action is also racism, weather you think its good or bad. Thats just what the word means. Quotas based on race is also racism.
I like diversity in ideas and character, because that is what being human is all about. That is what Martin Luther King wanted. For people of all colors to be judged by their contents of their character, NOT by their skin. If you hire people and you take race into decision making, you are being racist. Even if you have the best intentions (like furthering a group that is underrepresented). If you keep hiring colored people because you think there are too many whites, you are being a racist.
If you keep hiring white people because you think they are better than colored people, you are being a racist. You can't force individuals to stop being racist. You have to educate them. But for a government or company to enforce laws (like quotas) that mention race is just taking it too far.
Keep focusing on race and racism will never end..
[deleted]
"If you hire people and you take race into decision making, you are being racist."
Which is why high-ranking jobs are primarily held by white people. Nepotism and tribalism are the main determining factor of who gets those top positions. That's fine in white communities, but in mixed communities those positions are still held primarily by white people.
With Affirmative Action, the worst we see is a white person in a lower position leaving, then being replaced by a black person, until he/she leaves and is replaced by another white or black person. Affirmative Action does not prevent a company from firing someone for negligence, and we never see a systematic refusal to hire white people in favor of less-skilled black people. Also, whenever you see any person of color in a high-ranking job, he/she has the resume to back it up just as much, if not more than the white people considered for the job.
It's not about focusing on race as much as it is about focusing on countering nepotism and tribalism. Unfortunately, in order to counter nepotism and tribalism, race will have to be in the conversation, and that causes a lot of people on the right to snowflake out.
[deleted]
Proof that high ranking jobs are primarily held by white people? You want proof of that?
Trumps inner circle at the White House.
Unless you count orange as a minority.
What does the word "weather" mean? You lost me right from the jump.
Your argument is all over the map. To me, if White People are always making decisions, White people will always get preferred treatment unless some Brakes are built in.
Do you think that if all White Decision Makers are More Accomplished and Smarter than the rest of the World, the World will be a Better Place? Then I agree. It will be a better World for White People.
But if we introduce Diversity -- versus I'm White and I Want What I Deserve -- into the mix, we'll get a better read on what's going on in the World as opposed to the Idiot Trump proclaiming I'm a Nationist = Nazi w/o a shred of self doubt.
weath·er
/ˈweT͟Hər/Submit
noun
1.
the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.
"if the weather's good, we can go for a walk"
synonyms: forecast, outlook; More
verb
1.
wear away or change the appearance or texture of (something) by long exposure to the air.
"his skin was weathered almost black by his long outdoor life"
synonyms: weather-beaten, worn; More
2.
come safely through (a storm).
Well sorry, English is not my native language. Doesn't change the argument.
shareThe democrats use hatred against whites the way hitler used hatred against the Jews. It's purely a political tactic. Just look at the democratic frontrunners for 2020 -- Joe Biden? Bernie? Liz Warren (maybe not so much after the DNA-test debacle). There are a couple of token "minorities," but for the most part, it's a bunch of old white people. I don't like the republicans, but at least they don't hide who they really are.
sharelol! Yeah, the Dems hate blacks so much the first black president was a Republican. Oops! That’s not right. The first Black President was a Democrat!
See how misinformed you Fox & Friends viewers are?
"Misinformed" implies there's at least SOME information. That's not this group.
They are happily, blissfully, consciously UNinformed.
Democrat's aren't anti-white, Thrillhouse.
There is no evidence to support that claim, Thrillhouse.
The only people I've ever seen make that accusation seem racist themselves, Thrillhouse. Particularly Alt-Right people, Thrillhouse.
It's an age old tactic by Republican operatives to accuse the other side of what they know they're guilty of doing.
What's amazing is how GOP rank and file ignorant of history and the facts actually fall for it and run with it. Republican operatives can pull it off because their base is so susceptible to believing it and lack the independent thought to see through the propagandistic tactic.
When the editor of one of Kushner's New Jersey papers criticized to Kushner his father in law's racist edged birtherism Kushner's response was that Trump's just doing that because he knows the republican base are stupid enough to fall for it. That sums up the dichotomy between cynical GOP leaders and their gullible base better than anything else.
Then why are democrats always calling out white people? It's 24/7 on Twitter and it always opens with "Dear white people..."
https://twitter.com/KirstenPowers/status/1054824232444743681
Why the need to highlight the importance of someone's skin colour? Unless you're trying to identify a criminal to the police, I don't see how it's important. They also had Brie Larson recently referring to film critics as "old white men". I'm not American but from a European perspective, it's pretty clear the democrats don't exactly tolerate whites.
Uh, your link to a Kirsten Powers tweet doesn't call out all white people. She calls out the subset of whites racially insensitive to dressing as a different race on Halloween and upset that they can't without being ostracized.
Do you really not recognize the difference?
Are you really trying to claim with a straight face that Powers' criticism is anti-white because she's calling out racially insensitive whites? Seriously? That's a real reach to claim anti-white victimization.
My post wasn't worded harshly or intended as bait. There's no need to condescend, regardless of any political indifference I don't see why we can't have a pleasant exchange. That Tweet was just one recent example of the patronising tone addressing white people she was clearly talking down to people as if they were infants, there's a plethora of similarly worded posts out there.
There was also a similar backlash from the left against a young lady wearing a Chinese dress to prom, calling her racist and insensitive. Many Chinese users then defended her choice to wear what she likes. I'm sorry, but I struggle to see how such harsh criticism comes from tolerant people. It's almost as if everything white people do is inherently evil, wearing the wrong clothes, addressing someone with the wrong pronouns, waving the American flag, not being vegan. Nobody wants to be made to feel like the bad guy, Americans like any nation of people want to feel pride, not shame.
We should do as the The Beatles said and "Let it be".
Fair enough and to be honest I agree that the over-sensitivity and reflex to ostracize about political correctness on the left is overboard. But it's hardly the entire left that engage in this, there is healthy pushback from those like Bill Maher, Sam Harris, and other left leaning intellectuals against the reflex by some on the left to do this.
However I am sensitive to why Kirsten Powers makes this critique given the history of blackface which many blacks DO find offensive. Are you familiar with that history and why it's legitimately offensive to many African Americans?
I'm aware of the history, but I can't see how her tweet would deter people who've already made their mind up on where they stand. Most people reading her tweets with an inkling of common sense wouldn't contemplate such a thing in the first place, unless their intention was to offend. It seemed to me like another attempt to further divide the left and right, it wasn't what Mrs. Powers was saying but how she said it and it certainly worked as the replies to the Tweet are rather combative. I wasn't trying to undermine the issue at all.
shareI believe the context of Ms Powers tweet was in direct response to Megyn Kelly's comments on her own show that led to her firing.
Ms Kelly exemplifies the contingent of white Americans who continue to be ignorant and insensitive to this issue who Ms Powers was addressing. So I ask this now as a genuine question, not intended to condescend or patronize; but seeing how Ms Powers herself is white and how you yourself have said you would never contemplate such a thing in the first place, why would you even think she's addressing or lecturing white Americans generally, or trying to "divide", instead of the white Americans who desperately need a history lesson on blackface because of their cultural insensitivity and ignorance on the subject which you are not a part of? I guess I'm a little confused as to why you take it so personally as a criticism of the white race when she's white herself and since you don't fall into that subset.
I just see the message and context as justifiably superseding any concerns about sensitivity to white Americans because it's specifically addressing the subset of white Americans insensitivity to black Americans. So who cares about being sensitive to their insensitivity? When in the end I don't know how she could have tweeted that wouldn't have come across as condescending to that subset, yet they're in sore need of that lecture.
It's not the values she's expressing, it's the caustic nature of the tweet. If I replaced white with any colour, it would still seem that way.
"Dear green people who do this, what you're doing is insensitive. In fact, it's wrong. [spiel of why it's wrong]. Show some decency." If I saw this on a notice board, I'd think the person writing it has an attitude problem.
Anyone wearing a costume deliberately with the aim to offend is unlikely to change their mind, they're politically challenged trouble makers looking to upset people. So we're just left with the people doing it unintentionally, who again are unlikely to change their mind or even realise unless they stumbled across Ms. Kelly's message. If anything, what I've learnt is that bringing up colour regardless of your own, does more harm than good. Unless I'm giving a description of an individual in an urgent police matter, I don't see the necessity to separate black/white/other even if you are addressing a subset of offenders. Never give trolls an identity.
"If anything, what I've learnt is that bringing up colour regardless of your own, does more harm than good. Unless I'm giving a description of an individual in an urgent police matter, I don't see the necessity to separate black/white/other even if you are addressing a subset of offenders. Never give trolls an identity."
You know, I actually do recognize the hard earned wisdom you've embedded here and see it as sage advice. I appreciate you sharing it. I'm wondering if there's any way Ms Powers could have written her tweet without coming across as offensive or divisive or do you think her message is better left unsaid?
Sometimes I sound overly preachy, I apologise if that's how that came across.
The tweet attracted a lot of attention, so it worked in a sense. If only she made the tone sound more polite the people in the replies might be more sympathetic instead of frothing at the mouth.
You make it sound like all democrats do this. This would be like me saying "all republicans are racist" or "all republicans love David Duke" or "all republicans own guns".
shareNot all, but many are like this on social media. Then again, social media brings out the extremes in everyone and everything.
shareWell said. It reminds me of how Trumpers defend the KKK being part of the republican party today by stating: "They were part of the Democratic party first".
And you're right--independent thought seems lost on most Trumpers. Just look at how they flocked to Kim Jong-Un just because Trump sang his praises. I saw Trumpers calling those opposed to Kim "Un-American" for refusing to accept Trump's partnership with him. Kim Jong-Un--the guy who murdered family members, murders his own citizens--fed some uncle or whomever to the dogs, runs concentration camps...and those of us opposed to that guy are called "Un-American".
Same with the Russian summit. Trump threw our country's intelligence agencies under the bus and essentially told the world: "I trust Vladimir Putin more than our own US intelligence officials".
We BOTH know that if an democratic president had said that they would be calling for his head--immediate impeachment. But since this is Trump, all the Trumpers were defending both what Trump said and Putin himself.
When Trump says "jump" his followers say: "How high?".
I believe Trump's base would follow him to the gates of hell if he led them there.
You're a bland racist sock troll, so many of your ilk on this board.
You're a worthless ignoramus.
He's Thrillhouse. Has to be. He shows up in EVERY thread Thrillhouse does and defends any remark against him.
It's like IMDB all over again.
What's funny is this troll Jonaroth nodding in agreement with everything Thrillhouse says.
I wonder if he has any idea how insane the kid is.
Regardless, as they say ... birds of a feather.
It's Thrillhouse's split personality. Only instead of Jekyll and Hyde it's "Dumb and Dumber".
shareHaha! Great point.
Had a good chuckle over that. You're right though, Jonaroth really is on par with Thrillhouse's intellect which is scary bleak. The difference is, Jonorath cops attitude completely oblivious to his own idiocy which is always a dangerous combination sort of like the president. Probably why he resorts to idolatry with Trump.
Trump's supporters seem to have morphed their personalities into something resembling Trump. I'm not even joking--I believe this. I read Trump's tweets and think: "Wow, this sounds like how the Trumpers speak online".
They really do act like cult followers. It's unnerving, really.