What does "diversity is our strength" even mean?

[Tgo01]

Tucker Carlson is apparently in hot water because he asked how diversity is our strength. Rather than someone just explaining to him how diversity is our strength they are instead asking his advertisers to drop him.

Can someone just explain what this even means without accusing me of being a white supremacist Nazi? I see this sort of thing everywhere, or that people are "celebrating our diversity."

I even know people who say shit like "I'm so proud of my company for hiring so many minorities! I love how diverse the workplace is!"

Yet no one can explain what this means.

Can anyone here help?

I don't care if we're diverse or not diverse. I know it somehow makes me the racist but I don't look at a group of people and take note of their skin color or religion and then make a determination of good/bad based on the said racial/religious makeup of said group of people.

[Taernath]

Carlson has been anti-immigration for years, it's kind of his thing. It's a dogwhistle about keeping America white.

[Parkbandit]

Carlson has been anti-illegal-immigration for years, it's kind of his thing. It's a dogwhistle about keeping America white.

I haven't watched him much on TV.. but I'm certain I FTFY

[Parkbandit]

Tucker Carlson is apparently in hot water because he asked how diversity is our strength. Rather than someone just explaining to him how diversity is our strength they are instead asking his advertisers to drop him.

Can someone just explain what this even means without accusing me of being a white supremacist Nazi? I see this sort of thing everywhere, or that people are "celebrating our diversity."

I even know people who say shit like "I'm so proud of my company for hiring so many minorities! I love how diverse the workplace is!"

Yet no one can explain what this means.

Can anyone here help?

I don't care if we're diverse or not diverse. I know it somehow makes me the racist but I don't look at a group of people and take note of their skin color or religion and then make a determination of good/bad based on the said racial/religious makeup of said group of people.

Racist.

Everyone knows you should first judge people on their skin color and then worry about their qualifications.

[Astray]

Racist.

Everyone knows you should first judge people on their skin color and then worry about their qualifications.

If I ever found myself working at one of these companies I'd make up fake Holidays in Mexico (that are probably real) just for paid vacation.

[Taernath]

I haven't watched him much on TV.. but I'm certain I FTFY

Nah. I watch his show sometimes because my dad is always asking me questions about it. It's constant culture war, 'Hispanics are taking over' stuff, almost never phrased as a criticism of illegal immigration.

[Stumplicker]

Tucker Carlson is apparently in hot water because he asked how diversity is our strength. Rather than someone just explaining to him how diversity is our strength they are instead asking his advertisers to drop him.

Can someone just explain what this even means without accusing me of being a white supremacist Nazi? I see this sort of thing everywhere, or that people are "celebrating our diversity."

I even know people who say shit like "I'm so proud of my company for hiring so many minorities! I love how diverse the workplace is!"

Yet no one can explain what this means.

Can anyone here help?

I don't care if we're diverse or not diverse. I know it somehow makes me the racist but I don't look at a group of people and take note of their skin color or religion and then make a determination of good/bad based on the said racial/religious makeup of said group of people.

To preface, I have no idea in what context "diversity is our strength" has been used in the past, and to be perfectly frank, I don't have any idea who Tucker Carlson is, so I'm just going to go by the quote itself.

"Diversity is our strength" draws a contrasting picture to cultures wherein diversity was or is outlawed. Diversity allows us as Americans and America to choose the best person for any given job and let the cream rise to the top in the truest capitalistic sense, without first mashing everyone through a filter of whether or not they are correctly conformed to what we as society deem to be the acceptable race, religion, national origin, et cetera.

With diversity as a baseline, everyone is acceptable and the best and brightest are able to flourish regardless of race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, age, genetic information, military service, or disability.

Diversity is our strength because Capitalism demands that the best person suited to the job is permitted to prosper, because in that, we all prosper to a greater extent.

Finally, Diversity is an old old wooden ship that defeated the British by itself in the war for independence, and without it, Napoleon Bonaparte would own all of America right now.

[Tgo01]

Diversity allows us as Americans and America to choose the best person for any given job and let the cream rise to the top in the truest capitalistic sense

Diversity of thought, skills, etc can indeed be a strength. No doubt about it.

But when people say "diversity is our strength" they are mostly referring to racial diversity although things such as religion, gender/gender nonconforming, sexual orientation are also mixed in sometimes.

[Stumplicker]

Diversity of thought, skills, etc can indeed be a strength. No doubt about it.

But when people say "diversity is our strength" they are mostly referring to racial diversity although things such as religion, gender/gender nonconforming, sexual orientation are also mixed in sometimes.

Fuck it. I don't care if you identify as a Muslim lesbian attack helicopter who was born in Kenya. If you can make me richer or the country better, preferably both, more power to you.

Diversity as a baseline. That's how I see it. Who cares what you are, where you're from, what color your skin is. If you're good for America, you're good for America. Not all other countries even in modern day have that benefit. What if Russia has someone who could make the next iPhone and make a quadrillion dollars, but they never get that chance because they're a homosexual? Russia is poorer for it.

[Fortybox]

To preface, I have no idea what I'm talking about and I am a moron who pretends to be other people on Discord and the PC.

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH INFINITY+1

Duh, we know this already. No need to preface.

[~Rocktar~]

Carlson has been anti-immigration for years, it's kind of his thing. It's a dogwhistle about keeping America white.

So this is a dogwhistle for whiteness yet the left goes crazy when you suggest that their calls for diversity and sensitivity are in fact dog whistles, in the exact same way, for racial/sexual hiring quotas, preferential treatment and racism directed against white people and that the first is bad and the second is good.

[Parkbandit]

Nah. I watch his show sometimes because my dad is always asking me questions about it. It's constant culture war, 'Hispanics are taking over' stuff, almost never phrased as a criticism of illegal immigration.

Do you have any specific quotes where he has stated that he is anti-immigration and not anti-illegal-immigration?

Because there is a world of difference.

[time4fun]

While I genuinely disagree with boiling down the value of diversity in purely economic terms- diversity IS a strength in workplace situations.

There are decades of research on this topic, finding benefits like (https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter):


Striving to increase workplace diversity is not an empty slogan — it is a good business decision. A 2015 McKinsey report on 366 public companies found that those in the top quartile for ethnic and racial diversity in management were 35% more likely to have financial returns above their industry mean, and those in the top quartile for gender diversity were 15% more likely to have returns above the industry mean.

In a global analysis of 2,400 companies conducted by Credit Suisse, organizations with at least one female board member yielded higher return on equity and higher net income growth than those that did not have any women on the board.

In recent years a body of research has revealed another, more nuanced benefit of workplace diversity: nonhomogenous teams are simply smarter. Working with people who are different from you may challenge your brain to overcome its stale ways of thinking and sharpen its performance.


Cloverpop did a huge research project (https://www.cloverpop.com/hacking-diversity-with-inclusive-decision-making-white-paper?utm_campaign=Forbes&utm_source=Forbes&utm_medium=Forbes%20Hacking%20Diversity%20White%20 Paper) on decision making and diversity in teams and found, among other things that:


• Inclusive teams make better business decisions up to 87% of the time.

• Teams that follow an inclusive process make decisions 2X faster with 1/2 the meetings.

• Decisions made and executed by diverse teams delivered 60% better results.

People who question the value of diversity in the workplace likely don't work for truly global companies. If you do- you fundamentally understand why diversity is so important.

Diversity is also important in government- as it makes it easier to draft and pass legislation that incorporates the diverse set of needs from our diverse electorate.

And, finally. no one wants their kids to grow up as a bunch of old, bitter, sexist, racist, and homophobic jerkoffs who post ridiculous threads like "What does diversity is our strength mean?". Having more diversity around us makes our kids a lot less likely to grow up that way- and much more able to handle the realities of an incredibly diverse world instead of cowering in their homes watching Tucker Carlson and fretting over white birth rates.

[Tgo01]

And, finally. no one wants their kids to grow up as a bunch of old, bitter, sexist, racist, and homophobic jerkoffs who post ridiculous threads like "What does diversity is our strength mean?". Having more diversity around us makes our kids a lot less likely to grow up that way- and much more able to handle the realities of an incredibly diverse world instead of cowering in their homes watching Tucker Carlson and fretting over white birth rates.

Ah yes, there it is. Throwing out the "you're racist for even asking!" while at the same time proving that all of the words proceeding this paragraph was just a bunch of empty statistics you scrounged up to fit the narrative. But right here you proved it's not about "diversity" at all, but rather "non-white."

Good job, time4fun. You're doing a grand job in your fight against cwolff for most retarded poster.

[Neveragain]

While I genuinely disagree with boiling down the value of diversity in purely economic terms- diversity IS a strength in workplace situations.

There are decades of research on this topic, finding benefits like (https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter):




Cloverpop did a huge research project (https://www.cloverpop.com/hacking-diversity-with-inclusive-decision-making-white-paper?utm_campaign=Forbes&utm_source=Forbes&utm_medium=Forbes%20Hacking%20Diversity%20White%20 Paper) on decision making and diversity in teams and found, among other things that:



People who question the value of diversity in the workplace likely don't work for truly global companies. If you do- you fundamentally understand why diversity is so important.

Diversity is also important in government- as it makes it easier to draft and pass legislation that incorporates the diverse set of needs from our diverse electorate.

And, finally. no one wants their kids to grow up as a bunch of old, bitter, sexist, racist, and homophobic jerkoffs who post ridiculous threads like "What does diversity is our strength mean?". Having more diversity around us makes our kids a lot less likely to grow up that way- and much more able to handle the realities of an incredibly diverse world instead of cowering in their homes watching Tucker Carlson and fretting over white birth rates.

Wow, it's totally like you can't bring yourself to say that the only beneficial diversity is in the diversity of thought. You were almost there with this "Working with people who are different from you may challenge your brain to overcome its stale ways of thinking and sharpen its performance." but even then it's been worded to avoid saying "your brain is challenged when introduced to other ways of thinking."

[RichardCranium]

It needs to start in the schools, at an elementary level.

[Fortybox]

It needs to start in the schools, at an elementary level.

No it doesn't. Cramming down diversity for the sake of diversity is the problem. The left segments, divides and partitions. Teaching kids to do that is the problem.

[RichardCranium]

No it doesn't. Cramming down diversity for the sake of diversity is the problem. The left segments, divides and partitions. Teaching kids to do that is the problem.

I didn't mean teaching diversity. I meant quality schooling for all races and social classes.

[Parkbandit]

Good job, time4fun. You're doing a grand job in your fight against cwolff for most retarded poster.

Find your own schmuck! I FOUND HER FIRST!

[Astray]

Skills to pay bills.

Not, "Hey this guy is brown, give him a job."

[Methais]

While I genuinely disagree with boiling down the value of diversity in purely economic terms- diversity IS a strength in workplace situations.

There are decades of research on this topic, finding benefits like (https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter):




Cloverpop did a huge research project (https://www.cloverpop.com/hacking-diversity-with-inclusive-decision-making-white-paper?utm_campaign=Forbes&utm_source=Forbes&utm_medium=Forbes%20Hacking%20Diversity%20White%20 Paper) on decision making and diversity in teams and found, among other things that:



People who question the value of diversity in the workplace likely don't work for truly global companies. If you do- you fundamentally understand why diversity is so important.

Diversity is also important in government- as it makes it easier to draft and pass legislation that incorporates the diverse set of needs from our diverse electorate.

And, finally. no one wants their kids to grow up as a bunch of old, bitter, sexist, racist, and homophobic jerkoffs who post ridiculous threads like "What does diversity is our strength mean?". Having more diversity around us makes our kids a lot less likely to grow up that way- and much more able to handle the realities of an incredibly diverse world instead of cowering in their homes watching Tucker Carlson and fretting over white birth rates.

https://i.imgur.com/cCzwT6M.gif

[Jeril]

I didn't mean teaching diversity. I meant quality schooling for all races and social classes.

Well said.

[Jeril]

No it doesn't. Cramming down diversity for the sake of diversity is the problem. The left segments, divides and partitions. Teaching kids to do that is the problem.

You are trying to equate two different things here. Which are what the left says and what they do. A lot of people would be better off having more diversity around them growing up. They'd be exposed to more new and different ideas and are more likely to learn and accept people for who they are, not what they are, in the most bases sense of the words anyway. Richard's comment about schooling just highlights how the left is mostly all talk.

Not that either side seems to do schools the justice they deserve, which would push our country further in the direction that people actually want to go. But that has some vast potential for shifting the power structure of the country and those in power don't wish for things to change.

[Fortybox]

You are trying to equate two different things here. Which are what the left says and what they do. A lot of people would be better off having more diversity around them growing up. They'd be exposed to more new and different ideas and are more likely to learn and accept people for who they are, not what they are, in the most bases sense of the words anyway. Richard's comment about schooling just highlights how the left is mostly all talk.

Not that either side seems to do schools the justice they deserve, which would push our country further in the direction that people actually want to go. But that has some vast potential for shifting the power structure of the country and those in power don't wish for things to change.

The problem is forcing diversity for the sake of having diversity. That's what the left does - they force the requirement for having it when humans naturally move against it. Organizations can actually experience a decrease in talent all in the name of diversity because the most qualified candidates are pushed aside to meet some diversity quota.

The reality is that most of America is segregated. Take a look at any metro area and you'll see pockets of segregation all over the place. It happens on all sides. New and different ideas aren't always better. They can be quite destructive in fact.

[~Rocktar~]

Skills to pay bills.

Not, "Hey this guy is brown, give him a job."

This is correct.

[Fortybox]

This is correct.

https://media.giphy.com/media/SMo7Efre6PwxW/giphy.gif

[cwolff]

The more important question is why the right has such fear of diversity? Why is this such a bothersome issue to the right wingers? It seems that they'll take any opportunity to get upset about people addressing racial or diversity issues. They burn nikes, put KKK hoods on Thomas the Train engines and scream reverse racism everytime someone wants to address imbalances in our society that are the result of past and current prejudice.


https://youtu.be/lMnTNphFCng

[Wrathbringer]

The more important question is why the right has such fear of diversity? Why is this such a bothersome issue to the right wingers? It seems that they'll take any opportunity to get upset about people addressing racial or diversity issues. They burn nikes, put KKK hoods on Thomas the Train engines and scream reverse racism everytime someone wants to address imbalances in our society that are the result of past and current prejudice.


https://youtu.be/lMnTNphFCng

You're stupid.

[Neveragain]

The more important question is why the right has such fear of diversity? Why is this such a bothersome issue to the right wingers? It seems that they'll take any opportunity to get upset about people addressing racial or diversity issues. They burn nikes, put KKK hoods on Thomas the Train engines and scream reverse racism everytime someone wants to address imbalances in our society that are the result of past and current prejudice.


https://youtu.be/lMnTNphFCng

Great news, white people are dying off!

[cwolff]

Great news, white people are dying off!

I assume that you think you're being clever but you're literally giving us an example of what I was talking about in the post you responded to.

[Fortybox]

The more important question is why the right has such fear of diversity? Why is this such a bothersome issue to the right wingers? It seems that they'll take any opportunity to get upset about people addressing racial or diversity issues. They burn nikes, put KKK hoods on Thomas the Train engines and scream reverse racism everytime someone wants to address imbalances in our society that are the result of past and current prejudice.


https://youtu.be/lMnTNphFCng

We need a starting point for our discussions.

Can’t we all just agree that Trump started Hurricane Florence??

[Neveragain]

I assume that you think you're being clever but you're literally giving us an example of what I was talking about in the post you responded to.

You're a fucking loser if you're benching your first string QB because you want to play the 3rd string dude because of his superficial quality.

[Wrathbringer]

You're a fucking loser if you're benching your first string QB because you want to play the 3rd string dude because of his superficial quality.

This is correct.

[cwolff]

You're a fucking loser if you're benching your first string QB because you want to play the 3rd string dude because of his superficial quality.

WTF are you even talking about and how is this relevant?

[Wrathbringer]

WTF are you even talking about and how is this relevant?

You're retarded. It's obvious, to non-retards.

[RichardCranium]

WTF are you even talking about and how is this relevant?

Affirmative action.

[Astray]

Affirmative action.

AKA "Hey brown man, have a job based on your skin, not your skills."

Liberals love that shit.

[cwolff]

That's what you think of when you're talking about diversity or when others do? A black man took your job or something? You've been injured by "reverse racism"?

OH..and the example you recognize is some hysterical posting about QB's being benched in favor of a more diverse but less talented quarterback. You're over reacting and wayyy too defensive about this.

I suppose the unofficial/official right wing position is that there is no racism, America's a level playing field, there is no lingering institutional racism and we're just a straight up meritocracy so no need to ever ever talk about racism again. It's over and so last century.

[Astray]

That's what you think of when you're talking about diversity or when others do? A black man took your job or something? You've been injured by "reverse racism"?

LOL

You're assuming. Diversity is a natural occurrence in the World, you can't force it onto people and expect them to be happy. I'm pretty sure I've been underbid by people that are different from me but it happens. If you want quality, hire the right person. Giving a person a job based off their skin color is not diversity that a workplace needs. Affirmative action and racial quotas are racist. You support a direct form of racism and you're okay with it because you're "helping" a different race by sticking them in a position another person might be hugely qualified for.

"Reverse" racism is racism. There's no reverse about it.

[Methais]

The more important question is why the right has such fear of diversity? Why is this such a bothersome issue to the right wingers? It seems that they'll take any opportunity to get upset about people addressing racial or diversity issues. They burn nikes, put KKK hoods on Thomas the Train engines and scream reverse racism everytime someone wants to address imbalances in our society that are the result of past and current prejudice.


https://youtu.be/lMnTNphFCng

Retards like you are so racist that you convinced yourselves you're anti-racist but your anti-racism is centered completely around your racism and you're stuck too far up your own ass to ever have the capacity to realize it.

"Black people are too poor to get to the DMV to get an ID to be able to vote, that's why they need our help!"

[Stumplicker]

"Black people are too poor to get to the DMV to get an ID to be able to vote, that's why they need our help!"

...Now that you mention it, I'll mention that some poor people are too poor to get to the (insert thing here) to (insert thing here), and a disproportionate number of poor people in our country are ethnic minorities. So that's something that should probably be addressed by someone.

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22 :%22asc%22%7D

[cwolff]

LOL

You're assuming. Diversity is a natural occurrence in the World, you can't force it onto people and expect them to be happy. I'm pretty sure I've been underbid by people that are different from me but it happens. If you want quality, hire the right person. Giving a person a job based off their skin color is not diversity that a workplace needs. Affirmative action and racial quotas are racist. You support a direct form of racism and you're okay with it because you're "helping" a different race by sticking them in a position another person might be hugely qualified for.

"Reverse" racism is racism. There's no reverse about it.

Ok, so I'm getting the picture. When you hear diversity you think of Affirmative Action. Is there no more to it? That's all that comes to mind? Who determines quality of candidates?

I'm not sure how a competitor underbidding you plays into this. I'd assume that the lowest bidder got the work. Maybe if you've underbid others but didn't get the job because of your race then you'd have a complaint or perhaps you misspoke.

[Astray]

Ok, so I'm getting the picture. When you hear diversity you think of Affirmative Action. Is there no more to it? That's all that comes to mind? Who determines quality of candidates?

I'm not sure how a competitor underbidding you plays into this. I'd assume that the lowest bidder got the work. Maybe if you've underbid others but didn't get the job because of your race then you'd have a complaint or perhaps you misspoke.

I hear diversity and I think difference. Not good or bad, just difference. Affirmative action is the act of handing out a position without considering merit or skills of the individual. It's more infantilization and not direct help that a community needs. The determination of candidates for a position is natural selection. When I hire someone, I want to know their work ethic, I want to know what they can bring to the jobs they get put on. I don't prioritize people based on skin color.

My being underbid is typically done by other people out here (mostly other Mexicans) and what winds up happening is they take money and they bounce. Never to be seen from again. I'm willing to be you get the same exact situations with people that are hired due to affirmative action. Undertrained, underdeveloped (skill wise), and completely out of their depth because someone decided race trumps skill.

[cwolff]

I hear diversity and I think difference. Not good or bad, just difference. Affirmative action is the act of handing out a position without considering merit or skills of the individual. It's more infantilization and not direct help that a community needs. The determination of candidates for a position is natural selection. When I hire someone, I want to know their work ethic, I want to know what they can bring to the jobs they get put on. I don't prioritize people based on skin color.

My being underbid is typically done by other people out here (mostly other Mexicans) and what winds up happening is they take money and they bounce. Never to be seen from again. I'm willing to be you get the same exact situations with people that are hired due to affirmative action. Undertrained, underdeveloped (skill wise), and completely out of their depth because someone decided race trumps skill.

Does affirmative action mean giving out positions with no consideration of merit or skills? I don't think it does.

One also has to consider that people give the benefit of the doubt to folks they relate to. It's invisible and not overt but it happens. You may think you're a stone cold objective Dr. Spock when it comes to evaluating talent but that's just not the case for everyone. We all have built in prejudices and since people couldn't fix their shit on their own government tried to do it. It's not ideal but also nothing to get worked up about. Definitely nothing for white people like me to be crying over.

[Astray]

Does affirmative action mean giving out positions with no consideration of merit or skills? I don't think it does.

You should really read the book 'Almost Black' because it outlines the issue with affirmative action pretty goddamn well.


We all have built in prejudices and since people couldn't fix their shit on their own government tried to do it.

I don't trust the government (whoever may be in charge) dipping its toes in and telling me who I should hire.

[cwolff]

You should really read the book 'Almost Black' because it outlines the issue with affirmative action pretty goddamn well.

I understand that there could be problems with affirmative action. it's a complex issue and difficult to regulate. That we have to try to regulate it is the problem of which affirmative action is a symptom. This is why people say things like "diversity is our strength". Maybe it's wishful thinking or a sales pitch. Like saying, "We're #1" or "america's the greatest country ever". It is a positive message highlighting the positive aspects of being a multicultural melting pot. Someday we'll be diverse enough that racial/ethnic in and out groups won't play such a role in everything that the government won't have to step in. Until then (if that day ever happens) we'll be dealing with this stuff the best we can.



I don't trust the government (whoever may be in charge) dipping its toes in and telling me who I should hire.


Of course you don't. No one likes the government when it does something we don't like. It's just a fact of life. What business do you have that the government tells you who to hire? Do you have quotas to meet? How is it enforced?

[Methais]

Ok, so I'm getting the picture. When you hear diversity you think of Affirmative Action. Is there no more to it? That's all that comes to mind? Who determines quality of candidates?

I'm not sure how a competitor underbidding you plays into this. I'd assume that the lowest bidder got the work. Maybe if you've underbid others but didn't get the job because of your race then you'd have a complaint or perhaps you misspoke.

Your problem is you judge people first based on their politics, then their skin color, but not ever the content of their character. Or best case that's the last thing on your list.

Because you're stupid.

And retarded.

And dumb.

And soy.

[Stumplicker]

Affirmative action is a fairly decent example of a set of systems with good intentions but the wrong implementation. It addresses a problem at a level where it already exists as a problem rather than addressing it before it becomes a problem in the first place.

"Oh, you like discrimination, eh? Let's see how you like it after you smoke this whole CARTON OF DISCRIMINATION!!"

It's a chicken or the egg issue really, is what it comes down to.

It poses the question:

Q. How do you give disproportionately poor minorities a chance at socioeconomic equality in the future?

Affirmative action chooses the answer:
A. Give the adults in the households good jobs/education and train them to do those jobs well despite not necessarily being the most qualified candidate, so they can make money to get their children into good schools so their children get good educations and can go to college and get good jobs on their own merit.

I'm sure it was put into place to help solve the problem for the "current generation" and not just future generations, but in practice it just causes problems and animosity over the government meddling in businesses. Politicians don't like implementing systems where it's like "This is gonna cost us X dollars, and 20 years from now it's gonna help.". They like putting stuff into place whose results can be seen immediately, because of course they do.

Access to quality education for all is the real answer to the question Affirmative Action poses, but our educational system is pretty damn big hornet's nest of broken itself on the whole these days.

The other side of the problem, "Racists won't hire minorities even if they're the best candidate!" should kind of be answered with.... "Don't work for racists and they'll have a bunch of incompetent people working for them and go out of business as a result of all their competition having the better people."

[Astray]

I understand that there could be problems with affirmative action. it's a complex issue and difficult to regulate. That we have to try to regulate it is the problem of which affirmative action is a symptom. This is why people say things like "diversity is our strength". Maybe it's wishful thinking or a sales pitch. Like saying, "We're #1" or "america's the greatest country ever". It is a positive message highlighting the positive aspects of being a multicultural melting pot. Someday we'll be diverse enough that racial/ethnic in and out groups won't play such a role in everything that the government won't have to step in. Until then (if that day ever happens) we'll be dealing with this stuff the best we can.

That's because Diversity is a strength, just so long as it happens naturally. I don't want to be told or forced into having to work with someone just because some bleeding heart decided, arbitrarily, that we need more X in the room.




Of course you don't. No one likes the government when it does something we don't like. It's just a fact of life. What business do you have that the government tells you who to hire? Do you have quotas to meet? How is it enforced?

Seriously, read #AlmostBlack. It's incredible what this dude got away with last year.

[time4fun]

Point of clarification: folks, affirmative action is NOT a quota system. It was originally started to add pressure to Federal agencies, contractors, and subcontractors to follow the Civil Rights Act.

All it does is require these entities to put "affirmative" effort into programs to help recruit qualified candidates from underrepresented groups and to have policies and programs in place to help them succeed.

It has never been a policy that required- or even allowed- companies to take less qualified applicants because of their backgrounds. That was always just a cynical political mischaracterization by people who opposed the notion of civil rights being a part of hiring. It was a story told to scare white people (particularly men) into opposing a common sense policy.

[Astray]

It has never been a policy that required- or even allowed- companies to take less qualified applicants because of their backgrounds.

Please, for the love of God, read #AlmostBlack. It proves you're wrong.

[time4fun]

Please, for the love of God, read #AlmostBlack. It proves you're wrong.

Please, for the love of god, read the laws, EOs, and court cases that define the actual policy.

[Wrathbringer]

Please, for the love of god, read the laws, EOs, and court cases that define the actual policy.

Please, for the love of god, shut the fuck up.

[cwolff]

That's because Diversity is a strength, just so long as it happens naturally. I don't want to be told or forced into having to work with someone just because some bleeding heart decided, arbitrarily, that we need more X in the room.





Seriously, read #AlmostBlack. It's incredible what this dude got away with last year.

Nah, I think I get his story. His parents are from India and he was afraid that he'd not get into medical school because of his 3.1 GPA. He represented himself as a black man and eventually got into St. Louis University. He thinks that if the schools thought he was Indian he'd need better grades than if the schools thought he was African.

The whole thing sounds anecdotal and noteworthy mostly because he's Mindy Kaling's brother. He dropped out of Med School. Has anyone considered that he may have fucked over someone else who would have appreciated the opportunity to become a doctor?

BTW: Did you also recommend the book the Bell Curve the other day or were you talking about something else?

P.S.- How does the government tell you who to hire at your business? How is it enforced?

[Astray]

Please, for the love of god, read the laws, EOs, and court cases that define the actual policy.

You don't want to acknowledge that you could be (and are) wrong. That's fine, but again, this is why nobody takes you seriously. You want to argue in laws and 'actual' policy but are vehemently incapable of thinking outside those defined instances. You are either trolling or you're such a coddled little bitch you have no real world experience. Pick one.

[Fortybox]

You don't want to acknowledge that you could be (and are) wrong. That's fine, but again, this is why nobody takes you seriously. You want to argue in laws and 'actual' policy but are vehemently incapable of thinking outside those defined instances. You are either trolling or you're such a coddled little bitch you have no real world experience. Pick one.

She generalizes and opines without any substantive argument. Affirmative action is quite simple. Make sure you include some X in your pool of Y. If you have too much Y you are considered racist. To balance out X you have to by default turn away some Y.

She just wants to throw smoke and mirrors on it because if it’s even true that she is so successful as she says she is, it’s probably due to her being put in front of the line both academically and at work.

Also notice her projection on men, especially white men. The left complains about racism and sexism all the time but they are the ones that exhibit both.

The right just wants to hire the best qualified candidate regardless of who you are.

[time4fun]

I swear reading this stuff makes me wonder if any of you people have actually hired before.

This affirmative action thread runs on four very offensive assumptions:
1) Top talent is usually some white guy
2) That you only ever have one top candidate for a role
3) That having a diverse background doesn't itself have inherent value worth recruiting for
4) There there's really nothing wrong with the fact that white people and men often get preferential treatment in hiring and promotions

My last company was very much a B+ tech company- most people have heard of it, it was a great place to work, but it wasn't FAANG or some equivalent. I had to fight tooth and nail for top talent- like most companies out there. Putting effort into ensuring our pipeline included a wider, more diverse group of people got us MORE well qualified candidates, not fewer.

Apparently this is going to be shocking to people- my top candidates weren't all white men.(Gasp!) And putting a candidate who is a black woman through a panel of all white men means I'm probably going to lose that candidate to another company with a more diverse hiring panel. If the entire team is made up of men, and my top candidates are women- I'm running a VERY high risk of losing them too.

And if you can't show those candidates that you have women and people of color in leadership positions, you're going to lose them to the company that can. Because they're looking to avoid having to deal with daily microaggressions and artificial limits on their careers based on how they look. You all may have the luxury of pretending like those things don't happen, but the rest of the world doesn't.

And you know what- now that I'm at one of those vaunted companies that everyone wants to work for- it turns out I'm still fighting tooth and nail for top talent.

Diversity isn't just the moral thing to do in business- it's the practical thing to do. And anyone who has hired in any sort of competitive industry should know that by now.

[Methais]

You don't want to acknowledge that you could be (and are) wrong. That's fine, but again, this is why nobody takes you seriously. You want to argue in laws and 'actual' policy but are vehemently incapable of thinking outside those defined instances. You are either trolling or you're such a coddled little bitch you have no real world experience. Pick one.

She's not trolling. If she is, she's the ultimate grandmaster best there is best there was and the best there ever will be of all trolls who have ever lived. The Bret Hart of trolling.

[time4fun]

You don't want to acknowledge that you could be (and are) wrong. That's fine, but again, this is why nobody takes you seriously. You want to argue in laws and 'actual' policy but are vehemently incapable of thinking outside those defined instances. You are either trolling or you're such a coddled little bitch you have no real world experience. Pick one.

Sorry, was there something about you making a vague reference to a hashtag that was supposed to qualify as a thoughtful counterargument worthy of contemplation? Did you, in any way, shape, or form provide legitimate evidence that counters the factual account of Affirmative Action as law and policy I gave?

[Astray]

Nah, I think I get his story. His parents are from India and he was afraid that he'd not get into medical school because of his 3.1 GPA. He represented himself as a black man and eventually got into St. Louis University. He thinks that if the schools thought he was Indian he'd need better grades than if the schools thought he was African.

The whole thing sounds anecdotal and noteworthy mostly because he's Mindy Kaling's brother. He dropped out of Med School. Has anyone considered that he may have fucked over someone else who would have appreciated the opportunity to become a doctor?

He basically proved this to be the case. In which posing as a black person netted him a higher acceptance approval at the cost of not being quite as good as say, an Asian person. It's a legitimate issue when you deal with these types of places that hire based solely on race. He also addressed that in an interview. Why should he, a person posing as a black man, let alone any person of color, have an exemption that states he can be below the bar but be accepted anyways? It's completely insane to make exemptions for people of color in a workplace as complex and demanding as a doctor.


BTW: Did you also recommend the book the Bell Curve the other day or were you talking about something else?

Bell curve, data on why men occupy both the board rooms and the warehouses while women cluster closer to middle management with the rare case of higher/lower positions in a business in the absence of discrimination. It explains why men make more than women, not because of gender pay gap issues.


P.S.- How does the government tell you who to hire at your business? How is it enforced?

I think something got crossed here. I'm mostly a solo practitioner but I've been in places where it was, "Hire this person." and I couldn't ask questions or I'd face termination. Maybe that was just a friend of someones but typically telling your employer 'no, I won't hire that person' is just a way to line up crosshairs.

[Astray]

Sorry, was there something about you making a vague reference to a hashtag that was supposed to qualify as a thoughtful counterargument worthy of contemplation? Did you, in any way, shape, or form provide legitimate evidence that counters the factual account of Affirmative Action as law and policy I gave?

No, it was literally the name of the book you should go read that proves you wrong, stupid bitch.

[Wrathbringer]

I swear reading this stuff makes me wonder if any of you people have actually hired before.

This affirmative action thread runs on four very offensive assumptions:
1) Top talent is usually some white guy
2) That you only ever have one top candidate for a role
3) That having a diverse background doesn't itself have inherent value worth recruiting for
4) There there's really nothing wrong with the fact that white people and men often get preferential treatment in hiring and promotions

My last company was very much a B+ tech company- most people have heard of it, it was a great place to work, but it wasn't FAANG or some equivalent. I had to fight tooth and nail for top talent- like most companies out there. Putting effort into ensuring our pipeline included a wider, more diverse group of people got us MORE well qualified candidates, not fewer.

Apparently this is going to be shocking to people- my top candidates weren't all white men.(Gasp!) And putting a candidate who is a black woman through a panel of all white men means I'm probably going to lose that candidate to another company with a more diverse hiring panel. If the entire team is made up of men, and my top candidates are women- I'm running a VERY high risk of losing them too.

And if you can't show those candidates that you have women and people of color in leadership positions, you're going to lose them to the company that can. Because they're looking to avoid having to deal with daily microaggressions and artificial limits on their careers based on how they look. You all may have the luxury of pretending like those things don't happen, but the rest of the world doesn't.

And you know what- now that I'm at one of those vaunted companies that everyone wants to work for- it turns out I'm still fighting tooth and nail for top talent.

Diversity isn't just the moral thing to do in business- it's the practical thing to do. And anyone who has hired in any sort of competitive industry should know that by now.

TR;DR

[cwolff]

He basically proved this to be the case. In which posing as a black person netted him a higher acceptance approval at the cost of not being quite as good as say, an Asian person. It's a legitimate issue when you deal with these types of places that hire based solely on race. He also addressed that in an interview. Why should he, a person posing as a black man, let alone any person of color, have an exemption that states he can be below the bar but be accepted anyways? It's completely insane to make exemptions for people of color in a workplace as complex and demanding as a doctor.



Bell curve, data on why men occupy both the board rooms and the warehouses while women cluster closer to middle management with the rare case of higher/lower positions in a business in the absence of discrimination. It explains why men make more than women, not because of gender pay gap issues.



I think something got crossed here. I'm mostly a solo practitioner but I've been in places where it was, "Hire this person." and I couldn't ask questions or I'd face termination. Maybe that was just a friend of someones but typically telling your employer 'no, I won't hire that person' is just a way to line up crosshairs.

What places hire based solely on race? I don't think anyone's saying to give a black guy his medical license just because he's black. The school may apply weighting to an application from an underrepresented group for many reasons but that person has to graduate. There's no free ride.

I'm not familiar with the data explaining why there are more men in leadership positions. I bet there's more to it than meets the eye though. Can you send a link?

[Astray]

What places hire based solely on race? I don't think anyone's saying to give a black guy his medical license just because he's black. The school may apply weighting to an application from an underrepresented group for many reasons but that person has to graduate. There's no free ride.

I couldn't tell you because nobody ever calls it that. Preference is not a globally stated thing if it breaks the law. The practice of actively lowering the bar because of race is inexcusable. It's insulting and it says that a person of color CANNOT match up to a white candidate. You may as well just drop the N word in there.



I'm not familiar with the data explaining why there are more men in leadership positions. I bet there's more to it than meets the eye though. Can you send a link?


I'll try and find the link. Maybe I misinterpreted the conversation at some point and I referenced it, either way its a good satirical video with factual data sprinkled in.

[cwolff]

I couldn't tell you because nobody ever calls it that. Preference is not a globally stated thing if it breaks the law. The practice of actively lowering the bar because of race is inexcusable. It's insulting and it says that a person of color CANNOT match up to a white candidate. You may as well just drop the N word in there.

Ok, so I think we can agree that the government isn't making people hire solely based on race. If anything you're pointing out some problems with individuals hiring on race because they have a racial preference.

What bars being lowered? Some standardized testing? GPA? Are they best measure of a man? Who says minorities can't compete. Maybe they're saying that statistically african americans are coming from an environment that doesn't lend itself to an 18 year old putting of competitive test scores with some kid from Greenwich, CT. but his life experiences to date have value and are worth being represented on campus.

I could see if the job is to do pull ups and one guy can do 10 and another can do 30 but most jobs or schools aren't that clear cut. Hell, most jobs and schools aren't even that hard that you must screen heavily to find the right genius. It's mostly bullshit that anyone can do with a little instruction.





I'll try and find the link. Maybe I misinterpreted the conversation at some point and I referenced it, either way its a good satirical video with factual data sprinkled in.

Maybe this isn't quite as scientific as I was thinking.

[Astray]

Ok, so I think we can agree that the government isn't making people hire solely based on race. If anything you're pointing out some problems with individuals hiring on race because they have a racial preference.

We can, I think. It has to reach deeper than that, if it doesn't then absolutely get rid of the person doing the hiring.


What bars being lowered? Some standardized testing? GPA? Are they best measure of a man? Who says minorities can't compete. Maybe they're saying that statistically african americans are coming from an environment that doesn't lend itself to an 18 year old putting of competitive test scores with some kid from Greenwich, CT. but his life experiences to date have value and are worth being represented on campus.

By having lowered the acceptance rate, that place is saying that people of color cannot compete on the same level, if not athletically, intellectually. I agree, a person who goes through trauma and maintains a higher education is a powerful addition to a campus. Which gets turned cheap when you give them a handicap that says you can be at a lower GPA than a white person and we'll still take you. That's racism.


I could see if the job is to do pull ups and one guy can do 10 and another can do 30 but most jobs or schools aren't that clear cut. Hell, most jobs and schools aren't even that hard that you must screen heavily to find the right genius. It's mostly bullshit that anyone can do with a little instruction.

I'm hedging my bets on the guy that can lift 100 over the guy that can lift 20. A job is a job until it becomes "I tore something trying to lift that, see you in 3 weeks." A score of 100 is a perfect score and not every person is capable of that perfect score. Now what happens when you give someone a position they aren't mentally prepared to take? Now that person is in charge of something greater. I want to know that the reason that person is there, potentially with lives on the line, that they are qualified on skill and not 'well because his race'.

We have standards and scores to meet because they are what we can accept in this position.


Maybe this isn't quite as scientific as I was thinking.

You can take the bell curve and do it on nearly everything and still produce the same results. Women spiking in the middle while men peak less in the middle and are more rounded at the highs and lows. Fascinating stuff, man.

[cwolff]

We can, I think. It has to reach deeper than that, if it doesn't then absolutely get rid of the person doing the hiring.



By having lowered the acceptance rate, that place is saying that people of color cannot compete on the same level, if not athletically, intellectually. I agree, a person who goes through trauma and maintains a higher education is a powerful addition to a campus. Which gets turned cheap when you give them a handicap that says you can be at a lower GPA than a white person and we'll still take you. That's racism.



I'm hedging my bets on the guy that can lift 100 over the guy that can lift 20. A job is a job until it becomes "I tore something trying to lift that, see you in 3 weeks." A score of 100 is a perfect score and not every person is capable of that perfect score. Now what happens when you give someone a position they aren't mentally prepared to take? Now that person is in charge of something greater. I want to know that the reason that person is there, potentially with lives on the line, that they are qualified on skill and not 'well because his race'.

We have standards and scores to meet because they are what we can accept in this position.

Or buy a forklift. Of course the heavy things probably won't hurt you. It's much more likely that they tweak their back picking up something small and light but using bad technique because it is small and light.

You're premise assumes that its a level playing field by judging people based on grades, SAT's and ACT's. It's not obviously. The playing field is quite unlevel and affirmative action is a cumbersome method to try to level it. It's nothing that bothers me. I get that I'm blessed to be an American white guy and I don't mind my country trying to help other citizens get in the game.

This conversation reminds me of the chapter in Decision Points where Bush talks about getting off the bus with his mind on a full Summer of doing jackshit but play baseball and screw around. His mother was waiting for him and he assumed someone died. No one died. She was there to tell him the good news. He was going to Andover! Yup, George didn't even know he'd applied to Philips Academy but he had and he was accepted.

This is an extreme example but it illuminates the problems with the idea that we live in a mertitocracy. Everyone is basically the same. Everyone's pretty much average. The social status of your folks shouldn't chart your life's trajectory.

[Stumplicker]

Or buy a forklift. Of course the heavy things probably won't hurt you. It's much more likely that they tweak their back picking up something small and light but using bad technique because it is small and light.

You're premise assumes that its a level playing field by judging people based on grades, SAT's and ACT's. It's not obviously. The playing field is quite unlevel and affirmative action is a cumbersome method to try to level it. It's nothing that bothers me. I get that I'm blessed to be an American white guy and I don't mind my country trying to help other citizens get in the game.

This conversation reminds me of the chapter in Decision Points where Bush talks about getting off the bus with his mind on a full Summer of doing jackshit but play baseball and screw around. His mother was waiting for him and he assumed someone died. No one died. She was there to tell him the good news. He was going to Andover! Yup, George didn't even know he'd applied to Philips Academy but he had and he was accepted.

This is an extreme example but it illuminates the problems with the idea that we live in a mertitocracy. Everyone is basically the same. Everyone's pretty much average. The social status of your folks shouldn't chart your life's trajectory.

...Yeah but....what color is the forklift?

[Methais]

Ok, so I think we can agree that the government isn't making people hire solely based on race. If anything you're pointing out some problems with individuals hiring on race because they have a racial preference.

What bars being lowered? Some standardized testing? GPA? Are they best measure of a man? Who says minorities can't compete. Maybe they're saying that statistically african americans are coming from an environment that doesn't lend itself to an 18 year old putting of competitive test scores with some kid from Greenwich, CT. but his life experiences to date have value and are worth being represented on campus.

I could see if the job is to do pull ups and one guy can do 10 and another can do 30 but most jobs or schools aren't that clear cut. Hell, most jobs and schools aren't even that hard that you must screen heavily to find the right genius. It's mostly bullshit that anyone can do with a little instruction.





Maybe this isn't quite as scientific as I was thinking.

The Fire Dept. Tests That Were Found to Discriminate (https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/the-fire-dept-tests-that-were-found-to-discriminate/?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=195266A2BD20A1FCEE14D18E383F339E&gwt=pay)

If you stop the page loading as soon as the article loads up you can stop the paywall from loading. I have little doubt that cwolff has a NYT subscription paid up through at least 2020 though.



When Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of Federal District Court in Brooklyn ruled on Wednesday in a Justice Department lawsuit that New York City had discriminated against black and Hispanic applicants to the Fire Department, he argued that the entrance exams used had little relation to firefighting.

The two tests, administered in 1999 and 2002, involve dozens of multiple-choice questions that appear to evaluate reading comprehension, the ability to look at buildings from one angle and visualize them from others, and specific knowledge about things like in what order firefighters should put on their gear in an alarm.

But lawyers for the Vulcan Society, an organization of black firefighters that is part of the lawsuit, argued successfully that those sorts of questions could not measure the skills necessary to become a good firefighter.

“The specific skills firefighters need cannot be tested in written tests,” one of the lawyers, Richard Levy, said at a news conference outside City Hall, adding that some questions required applicants to read at a level “way too high for the job” and that they were “not conducive to finding out who has certain abilities.”

In addition, he said, the tests used criteria, like reading for comprehension and writing prose analysis, that disfavored minority applicants. Blacks and Hispanics tend to fare worse on those kinds of tests, he said, because they have less practice in school or for other reasons. “When you do test for things like integrity, physicality, teamwork and cooperation, the adverse impact is much reduced,” he said.

Here are the two tests, versions of which were used until 2007, when city officials created a new exam that they have yet to make public but that they say is much different. They point to a higher minority success rate as proof.


https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/the-fire-dept-tests-that-were-found-to-discriminate/?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=195266A2BD20A1FCEE14D18E383F339E&gwt=pay

All that was below that paragraph were the comments, I didn't see the before and after tests.

TLDR: "Need to lower the testing standards because blacks and hispanics are too dumb to read and write."


Tell us about how this commenter is racist though since she thinks it's bullshit too:


hmmm July 23, 2009 · 3:39 pm
As a Black woman, some of these reasons reek of the soft bigotry of low expectations. I think that overall, we have to take responsibility for the academic development of our children from early on. There is nothing that keeps a Black or Hispanic child from learning as quickly or reading as voraciously as a White child. I think the early childhood learning environment of the home is where so many of these problems are born and nurtured.

Many exams are biased, I will conjecture, though I have always fared well. I think that outcome makes me an anomaly, if anecdotal evidence counts for anything. In short, let’s focus on educating children more intelligently and from an earlier age.

[Astray]

...Yeah but....what color is the forklift?

Yeah! Wait, what?

[Methais]

...Yeah but....what color is the forklift?

Asian

[Tgo01]

Please, for the love of god, read the laws, EOs, and court cases that define the actual policy.

Whenever she doesn't understand a subject she just does a Google search and rephrases what she read slightly so she can appear to be smart. Look at her very first post in this very thread. She knows damn well that when people say "Diversity is our strength" it has nothing at all to do with minorities and women holding top positions within a company and this results in increased sales or whatever nonsense she posted. She had no idea how to answer the question so she Googled it and regurgitated the first result she found.

She still has no idea how to answer the original question. She can't be swayed by silly things like facts or logic.

[Tgo01]

Putting effort into ensuring our pipeline included a wider, more diverse group of people got us MORE well qualified candidates, not fewer.

This sentence makes exactly zero sense. How does putting effort into ensuring a wider, more diverse group of people gets you MORE well qualified candidates as opposed to just looking for more well qualified candidates?

It's almost like you're making shit up as usual to prove your point because you have absolutely no moral character whatsoever to speak of.

And once again we have a subject matter being discussed and of course time4fun has personal experience in said subject matter.

I'm still holding out hope that you're just the best troll the world has ever seen because I really hate to think someone as absolutely disgusting as yourself can be real.

[Neveragain]

Sorry, was there something about you making a vague reference to a hashtag that was supposed to qualify as a thoughtful counterargument worthy of contemplation? Did you, in any way, shape, or form provide legitimate evidence that counters the factual account of Affirmative Action as law and policy I gave?

http://www.djtrumpnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Pocahontas-warren-calls-fellow-senator-a-slut.png

[Parkbandit]

I swear reading this stuff makes me wonder if any of you people have actually hired before.

This affirmative action thread runs on four very offensive assumptions:
1) Top talent is usually some white guy
2) That you only ever have one top candidate for a role
3) That having a diverse background doesn't itself have inherent value worth recruiting for
4) There there's really nothing wrong with the fact that white people and men often get preferential treatment in hiring and promotions

My last company was very much a B+ tech company- most people have heard of it, it was a great place to work, but it wasn't FAANG or some equivalent. I had to fight tooth and nail for top talent- like most companies out there. Putting effort into ensuring our pipeline included a wider, more diverse group of people got us MORE well qualified candidates, not fewer.

Apparently this is going to be shocking to people- my top candidates weren't all white men.(Gasp!) And putting a candidate who is a black woman through a panel of all white men means I'm probably going to lose that candidate to another company with a more diverse hiring panel. If the entire team is made up of men, and my top candidates are women- I'm running a VERY high risk of losing them too.

And if you can't show those candidates that you have women and people of color in leadership positions, you're going to lose them to the company that can. Because they're looking to avoid having to deal with daily microaggressions and artificial limits on their careers based on how they look. You all may have the luxury of pretending like those things don't happen, but the rest of the world doesn't.

And you know what- now that I'm at one of those vaunted companies that everyone wants to work for- it turns out I'm still fighting tooth and nail for top talent.

Diversity isn't just the moral thing to do in business- it's the practical thing to do. And anyone who has hired in any sort of competitive industry should know that by now.


https://media.giphy.com/media/2Tn10AXN6B98k/giphy.gifhttps://media.giphy.com/media/2Tn10AXN6B98k/giphy.gifhttps://media.giphy.com/media/2Tn10AXN6B98k/giphy.gifhttps://media.giphy.com/media/2Tn10AXN6B98k/giphy.gif

[time4fun]

No, it was literally the name of the book you should go read that proves you wrong, stupid bitch.

Yeah, coming from the guy who quoted unverifiable anecdotal evidence from one person to make an argument about what Federal Affirmative Action policy is.

You may want to avoid calling someone stupid while you're in the middle of showcasing a third-grade logical fallacy.

[time4fun]

Whenever she doesn't understand a subject she just does a Google search and rephrases what she read slightly so she can appear to be smart. Look at her very first post in this very thread. She knows damn well that when people say "Diversity is our strength" it has nothing at all to do with minorities and women holding top positions within a company and this results in increased sales or whatever nonsense she posted. She had no idea how to answer the question so she Googled it and regurgitated the first result she found.

She still has no idea how to answer the original question. She can't be swayed by silly things like facts or logic.

Yeah, two degrees in Feminist Studies, but it wasn't really until today that I ever read up on Affirmative Action.

You really need to think before you type.

[Fortybox]

You are a truly screwed up piece of work.


I swear reading this stuff makes me wonder if any of you people have actually hired before.

Plenty of people have. I just posted 5 positions this week. You're a racist and sexist so no wonder why you are surprised.


This affirmative action thread runs on four very offensive assumptions:

Of course you are offended. But let's see what you are reacting to.


1) Top talent is usually some white guy

Nobody said this. Because you are racist of course you would assume top talent is usually some white guy. Also because you are sexist you attack white men.


2) That you only ever have one top candidate for a role

Nobody said this.


3) That having a diverse background doesn't itself have inherent value worth recruiting for

Nobody said this.


4) There there's really nothing wrong with the fact that white people and men often get preferential treatment in hiring and promotions

Nobody said anything about white people. Again, you bring up men. You are a racist and sexist.


My last company was very much a B+ tech company- most people have heard of it, it was a great place to work, but it wasn't FAANG or some equivalent. I had to fight tooth and nail for top talent- like most companies out there. Putting effort into ensuring our pipeline included a wider, more diverse group of people got us MORE well qualified candidates, not fewer.

Here you attempt to assume authority by alluding to your work at a tech company. It makes no difference to your point except to attempt to assume intellectual dominance.

Nobody said the pipeline should be restricted, so no idea why you are even bringing up this point other than to again, assert intellectual superiority because you work at a tech company. Hey! guess what? I do too.


Apparently this is going to be shocking to people- my top candidates weren't all white men.(Gasp!) And putting a candidate who is a black woman through a panel of all white men means I'm probably going to lose that candidate to another company with a more diverse hiring panel. If the entire team is made up of men, and my top candidates are women- I'm running a VERY high risk of losing them too.

Again you bring up your racism and hatred of white men, points nobody ever brought up. You contrast this with a black woman, points nobody ever brought up.

Nobody even alluded to this. Nobody even said how the rounds of interviews should be set up. I'll tell you right now that I don't look at it that way. I pick and choose the appropriate interviewers based on team structure and the position posted. The person who will be hired will be working with the people interviewing, so I don't care about manipulating the audience of interviewers.

Again, because you are racist and sexist, you admit to manipulating the interview process.


And if you can't show those candidates that you have women and people of color in leadership positions, you're going to lose them to the company that can. Because they're looking to avoid having to deal with daily microaggressions and artificial limits on their careers based on how they look. You all may have the luxury of pretending like those things don't happen, but the rest of the world doesn't.

This is the difference. You are purposefully admitting that people are in jobs, even leadership positions, because of their sex or race. That is unlawful sex stereotyping and racial profiling. Reverse racial/sex discrimination is a real and thanks for proving you are part of the problem.


And you know what- now that I'm at one of those vaunted companies that everyone wants to work for- it turns out I'm still fighting tooth and nail for top talent.

Diversity isn't just the moral thing to do in business- it's the practical thing to do. And anyone who has hired in any sort of competitive industry should know that by now.

Again, the intellectual superiority comes out again and is not relevant to the discussion. What you propose is just blatant racism and sex stereotyping all in the name of stacking positions in favor of your paradigm (AKA your hatred for white men and conservatives).

Based on your comments there is no way a white male conservative would ever make any progress in the interview process if you were in charge. That's wrong and if you're not just trolling, I hope you eventually get called out on it and legal action is taken against you.

[Neveragain]

Yeah, two degrees in Feminist Studies, but it wasn't really until today that I ever read up on Affirmative Action.

You really need to think before you type.

"I don't give a damn about your degree." ~ Elon Musk, white male.

[Fortybox]

"I don't give a damn about your degree." ~ Elon Musk, white male.

https://media.giphy.com/media/BbafUhsfSu3N6/giphy.gif

[Tgo01]

Hey! guess what? I do too.

Yeah but do you have two degrees in feminists studies? Do you make more than everyone else here? Did you used to work at the UN? Did you evacuate a building in DC on 9/11?

Clearly we should all listen to time4fun's rambling nonsense.

[Fortybox]

Yeah but do you have two degrees in feminists studies? Do you make more than everyone else here? Did you used to work at the UN? Did you evacuate a building in DC on 9/11?

Clearly we should all listen to time4fun's rambling nonsense.

She exhibits symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder. She needs help.

[Methais]

Yeah, two degrees in Being A Fucking Idiot, but it wasn't really until today that I ever read up on what a pathological liar I am.

You really need to think before you type.

Ah, ok.

[cwolff]

The rich white boys that go to religious prep schools & straight into the Ivy League are trained from birth to be callous, smug, entitled pricks. They remain callous, smug, entitled pricks as adults. The country desperately needs to draw from a better, broader pool of talent.

Maybe the most galling aspect of all this is seeing replacement-level white guys cast as uniquely brilliant or indispensable. Somehow, among its beneficiaries, the myth of meritocracy takes stronger hold even as its bankruptcy becomes ever more obvious.

https://twitter.com/drvox/status/1041772434293235712

Diversity isn't such a bad thing. Maybe it's inefficient or cumbersome but is that any worse than a de facto American aristocracy?

[Tgo01]

https://twitter.com/drvox/status/1041772434293235712

Diversity isn't such a bad thing. Maybe it's inefficient or cumbersome but is that any worse than a de facto American aristocracy?

cwolff getting his talking points from racist, sexist "sources." Some things never change.

[~Rocktar~]

https://twitter.com/drvox/status/1041772434293235712

Diversity isn't such a bad thing. Maybe it's inefficient or cumbersome but is that any worse than a de facto American aristocracy?

Diversity for diversities sake when you suppress or oppress others who are better qualified just to meet a government ideal is indeed worse and is simply damaging to America. Stop being a racist and sexist.

[cwolff]

Diversity for diversities sake when you suppress or oppress others who are better qualified just to meet a government ideal is indeed worse and is simply damaging to America. Stop being a racist and sexist.

The thing is, I'm not threatened by talk of diversity. It doesn't bother me one bit and I'm all for finding a better way to utilize ALL americans to their greatest abilities. That's because I'm not racist or sexist. It's the retards who get all bent out of shape about this; the tucker carlsons, the Tg's the rocktards that are. I know this goes without saying, but I felt I had to say it anyway for your own good.

[time4fun]

The world is diverse.

Complaining about diversity is like complaining about learning about and using all of the numbers in math.

[~Rocktar~]

The thing is, I'm not threatened by talk of diversity. It doesn't bother me one bit and I'm all for finding a better way to utilize ALL americans to their greatest abilities. That's because I'm not racist or sexist. It's the retards who get all bent out of shape about this; the tucker carlsons, the Tg's the rocktards that are. I know this goes without saying, but I felt I had to say it anyway for your own good.

If you think that there should be racial and sexual quotas and that there should be weighting in hiring and promotion based on race or sex then you are a racist and a sexist. And you have supported such positions in the past. So, for your own good, wake up and get a fucking mirror.

I am fine with the best person getting the position, job, promotion or college slot. I am not fine when one of the qualifiers is race, sex or sexual orientation.

[Tgo01]

The world is diverse.

Complaining about diversity is like complaining about learning about and using all of the numbers in math.

Nobody is complaining about diversity. Gaslight less and make sense more.

[cwolff]

If you think that there should be racial and sexual quotas and that there should be weighting in hiring and promotion based on race or sex then you are a racist and a sexist. And you have supported such positions in the past. So, for your own good, wake up and get a fucking mirror.

I am fine with the best person getting the position, job, promotion or college slot. I am not fine when one of the qualifiers is race, sex or sexual orientation.

The best person is subjective and grading them is often arbitrary and short sighted.

Is there anything the government can do to equalize things for minorities and woman? Does anything need done or it all ok just the way it is?

[Parkbandit]

The world is diverse.

Complaining about diversity is like complaining about learning about and using all of the numbers in math.


https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/2/24/Funny_wtf_cat.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090211025621

[Methais]

https://twitter.com/drvox/status/1041772434293235712

Diversity isn't such a bad thing. Maybe it's inefficient or cumbersome but is that any worse than a de facto American aristocracy?

https://i.imgur.com/DdcExPi.gif

[RichardCranium]

https://i.imgur.com/DdcExPi.gif

He said diversity, not tolerance.

[drauz]

White pepper is better than black pepper.

[Fortybox]

White pepper is better than black pepper.

https://media.giphy.com/media/RUpQW9jwRO4ow/giphy.gif

[cwolff]

For decades, Brett Kavanaugh has traveled through the ranks of the conservative movement as smoothly as food slides down the gullet of a force-fed foie gras duck. An elite private high school, Yale, Yale Law School, a series of clerkships for conservative judges, a spot on Ken Starr's team during his investigation of Bill Clinton, a gig as a lawyer in George W. Bush's White House, and, thanks to Bush, a federal judgeship. When Donald Trump—or really, the right-wing Federalist Society—nominated Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court this summer, a fleet of shiny legal establishment types gushed over the pick, declaring him a fine legal mind and an upstanding citizen. One of Kavanaugh's old professors, a self-described Hillary Clinton supporter named Akhil Reed Amar, called him a "superb nominee" in a New York Times op-ed.

Those people all look pretty bad right now. The accusation from Christine Blasey Ford that Kavanaugh tried to rape her when they were both teenagers in the early 80s may not derail his ascension to the highest court in the country, pending a Senate hearing that may or may not include her testimony. But in the days since news of that accusation broke, reporting on the milieu from which Kavanaugh emerged has painted an ugly portrait of elite American society as both bacchanalian and banal, a nepotacracy where connections matter far more than any semblance or strain of morality.

Kavanaugh may still be confirmed in the coming days, as many Republican senators care more about creating a conservative majority on the Supreme Court than the accusations against him. At this point, the GOP is well practiced in ignoring or discounting allegations of sexual assault. But let's not forget that the path Kavanaugh has walked to power is designed for people like him—privileged, white, connected, conservative. The system exists to promote his type and to excuse any blemish, past or present. We used to ask how the US got Donald Trump, but the answer seems obvious: We got him the same way we got all these other guys.


From an article titled, Kavanaugh Has Exposed the Savage Amorality of America's Ruling Class (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gynyxx/kavanaugh-has-exposed-the-savage-amorality-of-americas-ruling-class?utm_source=dmfb); How the DC establishment has responded to his confirmation controversy tells us an awful lot. Maybe we could use a little more attention paid to diversity and a little less American style aristocracy.

[Neveragain]

From an article titled, Kavanaugh Has Exposed the Savage Amorality of America's Ruling Class (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gynyxx/kavanaugh-has-exposed-the-savage-amorality-of-americas-ruling-class?utm_source=dmfb); How the DC establishment has responded to his confirmation controversy tells us an awful lot. Maybe we could use a little more attention paid to diversity and a little less American style aristocracy.

"Great news, white people are dying off."~Cwolff

[Methais]

From an article titled, Kavanaugh Has Exposed the Savage Amorality of America's Ruling Class (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gynyxx/kavanaugh-has-exposed-the-savage-amorality-of-americas-ruling-class?utm_source=dmfb); How the DC establishment has responded to his confirmation controversy tells us an awful lot. Maybe we could use a little more attention paid to diversity and a little less American style aristocracy.

Every opinion piece you post is overflowing with estrogen and WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! No wonder you act like such a crybaby bitch all the time.

WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/LkPAiKmaHuA/maxresdefault.jpg

[Wrathbringer]

From an article titled, Kavanaugh Has Exposed the Savage Amorality of America's Ruling Class (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gynyxx/kavanaugh-has-exposed-the-savage-amorality-of-americas-ruling-class?utm_source=dmfb); How the DC establishment has responded to his confirmation controversy tells us an awful lot. Maybe we could use a little more attention paid to diversity and a little less American style aristocracy.

You're a huge whining retard.

[Astray]

TAGGED:VICE US LAW DONALD TRUMP SUPREME COURT CONSERVATIVES OPINION ELITES BRETT KAVANAUGH


The tags for that 'article' (opinion piece).

[cwolff]

The tags for that 'article' (opinion piece).

You guys say this often. Why does that matter? Is this the Lebowski defense, "That's just like your opinion man." Need I point out that you called the Whelan conspiracy compelling if true?

Besides that, what is it about what the author is saying that you take issue with?

[Tgo01]

Need I point out that you called the Whelan conspiracy compelling if true?

You having anything but a subpar IQ would be compelling if true.

[Astray]

You guys say this often. Why does that matter? Is this the Lebowski defense, "That's just like your opinion man." Need I point out that you called the Whelan conspiracy compelling if true?

I'm not sure if you're aware of this but we say this because you consistently post opinion pieces and not news. A person can find an opinion informative if they treat it as opinion and not fact. I did find that compelling, on the caveat that if it were true.


Besides that, what is it about what the author is saying that you take issue with?


I have nothing against the author. I don't know the person and I'm not familiar with their work. I just pointed out that it's an opinion piece.

[cwolff]

I'm not sure if you're aware of this but we say this because you consistently post opinion pieces and not news. A person can find an opinion informative if they treat it as opinion and not fact. I did find that compelling, on the caveat that if it were true.



I have nothing against the author. I don't know the person and I'm not familiar with their work. I just pointed out that it's an opinion piece.

Weaksauce

[Astray]

Weaksauce

I'll take that as your inability to respond properly and leave it at that.

For someone who dislikes trolls, you try to troll a lot.

[cwolff]

Check out the Ted Cruz twitter attack on Beto. It's a video of Beto speaking at a church full of African American Texans about the man who got killed in his own apartment by the confused police officer. Now ask yourself how or why is this a negative on Beto. It makes no sense unless you're racist in which case it means you better vote for Ted.

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1043278255740973058

[Androidpk]

Did you see the debate between them? Cruz (unsurprisingly) came across as a smarmy asshole, wining about Hillary Clinton, George Soros, and radical left wing politicians.

[Tgo01]

Check out the Ted Cruz twitter attack on Beto. It's a video of Beto speaking at a church full of African American Texans about the man who got killed in his own apartment by the confused police officer. Now ask yourself how or why is this a negative on Beto. It makes no sense unless you're racist in which case it means you better vote for Ted.

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1043278255740973058

Probably because Beto is a scumbag of a human being using the death of a young black man to push his political narrative so he can get elected into office.

The only facts that came out was he had a small amount of marijuana? That's just 100% false, much more facts than that have been released.

Not to mention the police from the very beginning were not defending the officer and immediately wanted her charged with manslaughter, she might even face higher charges.

This was not a coverup. This was not someone killed by an officer while the officer was conducting official police duties.

But you've ignored most of the people who challenged your racist and backwards way of thinking so maybe someone can go ahead and quote me so you can realize what a useless human being your parents raised.

[cwolff]

I'll take that as your inability to respond properly and leave it at that.

For someone who dislikes trolls, you try to troll a lot.

Really? You're going that route? I'll ask you again, why does it matter if it's opinion? What about this article are you resistant too?

Are you seriously going to tell us that you simply responded with a PC Public Service Announcement to tell all the other readers that this quote and link are from an opinion piece? Just doing your duty? Then you want to call me a troll, while you're the one avoiding, dissembling and pushing back on me because you got a little emotionally triggered (which is evidenced by your desire to push back even without making a logical argument)

BTW: you still owe me an apology or retraction from accusing me of supporting doxing. Either that or post a link of me saying it.

[Astray]

Now ask yourself how or why is this a negative on Beto.

It's not a negative, it's a guy speaking passionately about the incident and asking why the general public doesn't receive more than scraps.


It makes no sense unless you're racist in which case it means you better vote for Ted.

Yes, there's the straw man. Cruz (that creepy fuck) doesn't appear to be bashing Beto, rather agreeing with him "in his own words".

[cwolff]

Did you see the debate between them? Cruz (unsurprisingly) came across as a smarmy asshole, wining about Hillary Clinton, George Soros, and radical left wing politicians.

Didn't see it because I was at work but saw some twitter play by play. Did you watch it?

Was he really talking about Clinton and Soros? Ben Carson trotted that out yesterday too telling people "you have to understand what's going on" then using his position as a cabinet secretary to spread a conspiracy theory about the Fabian society or some shit. It's a bizarro world we're living in right now.

[cwolff]

It's not a negative, it's a guy speaking passionately about the incident and asking why the general public doesn't receive more than scraps.



Yes, there's the straw man. Cruz (that creepy fuck) doesn't appear to be bashing Beto, rather agreeing with him "in his own words".

No strawman here. You're trying to sound educated and failing.

Let me get this straight though because I'm not sure what you're actually saying. It seems like you're saying that Cruz posted Beto speaking at the church because he agrees with Beto and is telling this to his supporters? He's posting this because Beto's words reflect what Cruz believe too?

[Astray]

Really? You're going that route? I'll ask you again, why does it matter if it's opinion? What about this article are you resistant too?

I'm resistant to the very blatant side choosing inherent in much of the articles you post and swear by. It matters greatly when you attempt to pass opinion off as news. There is a huge difference and if you can't see that, well I'm not surprised.


Are you seriously going to tell us that you simply responded with a PC Public Service Announcement to tell all the other readers that this quote and link are from an opinion piece? Just doing your duty? Then you want to call me a troll, while you're the one avoiding, dissembling and pushing back on me because you got a little emotionally triggered (which is evidenced by your desire to push back even without making a logical argument)

Yes. Nope. You are a troll because you're still using things like 'triggered' and believe I am anything but level headed when speaking to you. Like I said, man. Nobody here occupies my emotional state off the boards. I read these things with curiosity because sometimes what people says interests me and I want to know their stance. Now what you're doing is deflecting and, when you lack a response, you try to play it off.

That's fine. I mean, I'm pretty sure it's why people don't take you seriously and lump you in with PK.


BTW: you still owe me an apology or retraction from accusing me of supporting doxing. Either that or post a link of me saying it.

Oh, right. One sec and I'll go find it again. I gotta dig through Methais' posting of it because I want you to deflect and prove me right.

[Androidpk]

Didn't see it because I was at work but saw some twitter play by play. Did you watch it?

Was he really talking about Clinton and Soros? Ben Carson trotted that out yesterday too telling people "you have to understand what's going on" then using his position as a cabinet secretary to spread a conspiracy theory about the Fabian society or some shit. It's a bizarro world we're living in right now.

He mentioned Hillary multiple times then went on to say democrats were obsessed with Trump.. :lol:

[Astray]

No strawman here. You're trying to sound educated and failing.

There's the personal insult, I was kinda waiting for it.


Let me get this straight though because I'm not sure what you're actually saying. It seems like you're saying that Cruz posted Beto speaking at the church because he agrees with Beto and is telling this to his supporters? He's posting this because Beto's words reflect what Cruz believe too?

That's my interpretation and it appears to line up with what others are saying in comment to the Tweet. I mean, is it a stretch to think as much?

[cwolff]

I'm resistant to the very blatant side choosing inherent in much of the articles you post and swear by. It matters greatly when you attempt to pass opinion off as news. There is a huge difference and if you can't see that, well I'm not surprised.



Yes. Nope. You are a troll because you're still using things like 'triggered' and believe I am anything but level headed when speaking to you. Like I said, man. Nobody here occupies my emotional state off the boards. I read these things with curiosity because sometimes what people says interests me and I want to know their stance. Now what you're doing is deflecting and, when you lack a response, you try to play it off.

That's fine. I mean, I'm pretty sure it's why people don't take you seriously and lump you in with PK.



Oh, right. One sec and I'll go find it again. I gotta dig through Methais' posting of it because I want you to deflect and prove me right.

You're obviously not "level headed" because you're using expressions like "swear by". Who said I swear by that? The other day you also mentioned my standards or something about Kavanaugh I believe but when I asked you to let me know what those standards were you changed the subject. Can you see how you've got me labelled and that's clouding your judgement about what I post?

Ya, you get triggered. Its why you spend effort trying to correct me on trivial shit but give a pass to your troll buddies. You make this personal. You take my posts personally and then you react.

[cwolff]

There's the personal insult, I was kinda waiting for it.



That's my interpretation and it appears to line up with what others are saying in comment to the Tweet. I mean, is it a stretch to think as much?

Yes it is a stretch to think that Cruz would post a positive message about Beto who's trying to put Cruz out of work. It's a HUGE stretch.

[RichardCranium]

There's the personal insult, I was kinda waiting for it.



That's my interpretation and it appears to line up with what others are saying in comment to the Tweet. I mean, is it a stretch to think as much?

It isn't worth it. He's just going to keep deflecting and projecting.

[Androidpk]

Yes it is a stretch to think that Cruz would post a positive message about Beto who's trying to put Cruz out of work. It's a HUGE stretch.

At the end of the debate both of them were asked to say nice things about each other. Cruz couldn't even do that without attacking Beto.

[cwolff]

He mentioned Hillary multiple times then went on to say democrats were obsessed with Trump.. :lol:

It's f'ing nuts man. Just nuts. I always have to admire their message machine. It's like a call and response in church. More dogma than policy. Its almost rote repetition at this point.

Leader: CNN
Flock: Fake News!

Leader: Hillary
Flock: Crooked! or Lock her up!

[cwolff]

It isn't worth it. He's just going to keep deflecting and projecting.

You accuse me of this shit but you don't support it. Like Astray, you're a conservative, pretending to objectivity, but still personally triggered by my posts.

[Neveragain]

Didn't see it because I was at work but saw some twitter play by play. Did you watch it?

Was he really talking about Clinton and Soros? Ben Carson trotted that out yesterday too telling people "you have to understand what's going on" then using his position as a cabinet secretary to spread a conspiracy theory about the Fabian society or some shit. It's a bizarro world we're living in right now.

"How do we deprogram 1/3 of the country?" ~ Cwolff

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/04/09/article-2600294-1CF3C9F700000578-923_634x423.jpg

[Astray]

You take my posts personally and then you react.

You lack the capacity to trigger me though. You are literally nobody in my life. Perhaps if you were somehow connected to me through more than a forum and some posts you could do something. But I doubt it.


Yes it is a stretch to think that Cruz would post a positive message about Beto who's trying to put Cruz out of work. It's a HUGE stretch.

Is it? I think many people would agree that this is an endorsement.

[RichardCranium]

"Anyone on the PC who doesn't agree with me is literally a conservative."

[Astray]

Like Astray, you're a conservative

Ah, wrong. I'm not a conservative. I share Liberal and Conservative views. It's weird how people are multi-faceted.

[Astray]

"Anyone on the PC who doesn't agree with me is literally a conservative."

In the words of a great man.


Any idiot can choose a side, it takes a person to understand them both.

[cwolff]

You lack the capacity to trigger me though. You are literally nobody in my life. Perhaps if you were somehow connected to me through more than a forum and some posts you could do something. But I doubt it.



Is it? I think many people would agree that this is an endorsement.

You talk the talk but don't walk it. It's evidenced in the inconsistency of your criticisms.

As for the Cruz tweet I want to be perfectly clear. You're saying Cruz posted the video of Beto as an endorsement of Beto? Ted Cruz is supporting Beto O'Rourke by posting a positive message about him on twitter?

[cwolff]

You accuse me of this shit but you don't support it. Like Astray, you're a conservative, pretending to objectivity, but still personally triggered by my posts.


"Anyone on the PC who doesn't agree with me is literally a conservative."

You're proving my point.

[Astray]

You talk the talk but don't walk it. It's evidenced in the inconsistency of your criticisms.

As for the Cruz tweet I want to be perfectly clear. You're saying Cruz posted the video of Beto as an endorsement of Beto? Ted Cruz is supporting Beto O'Rourke by posting a positive message about him on twitter?

You will say anything to get under someones skin but you lack the penetrating power of scrubbing bubbles, friend. I'll be moving on.

That's what it appears to be. There is nothing but those words and if it's not an endorsement, it came off as one. Any particular reason you're saying it's not? Other than blanket hatred for conservatives and (understandably) Cruz.

[Tgo01]

You talk the talk but don't walk it. It's evidenced in the inconsistency of your criticisms.

One side (yours) is currently losing it's damned mind. Why would someone have to criticize both sides equally?

I'm not saying Republicans are perfect but they typically come together to force out the absolute crazies of the party (David Duke, that "it's not a legitimate rape" guy, Roy Moore), whereas your side lately has not only been defending the crazies but actively promoting them. Your side is filled with people who openly say the most racist, sexist, anti-Christian rhetoric I've ever seen in my life. Can you find something even remotely equal coming from the right at the moment? Without having to do some serious stretching by saying anytime someone flashes the "okay" sign they are a white supremacist or claiming everything is just a "dog whistle."

You can't which is why you started blocking everyone because it's much easier to console yourself that you're the "good guy" if most of the voices you hear are ones agreeing with you.

[Androidpk]

Cruz isn't endorsing Beto, he's attacking him.

[Astray]

Cruz isn't endorsing Beto, he's attacking him.

That's a really pathetic attack then. Par the course for Ted, I suppose.

[Neveragain]

One side (yours) is currently losing it's damned mind. Why would someone have to criticize both sides equally?

I'm not saying Republicans are perfect but they typically come together to force out the absolute crazies of the party (David Duke, that "it's not a legitimate rape" guy, Roy Moore), whereas your side lately has not only been defending the crazies but actively promoting them. Your side is filled with people who openly say the most racist, sexist, anti-Christian rhetoric I've ever seen in my life. Can you find something even remotely equal coming from the right at the moment? Without having to do some serious stretching by saying anytime someone flashes the "okay" sign they are a white supremacist or claiming everything is just a "dog whistle."

You can't which is why you started blocking everyone because it's much easier to console yourself that you're the "good guy" if most of the voices you hear are ones agreeing with you.

I'm just waiting for him to write his own version of Mein Kampf.

[cwolff]

You will say anything to get under someones skin but you lack the penetrating power of scrubbing bubbles, friend. I'll be moving on.

That's what it appears to be. There is nothing but those words and if it's not an endorsement, it came off as one. Any particular reason you're saying it's not? Other than blanket hatred for conservatives and (understandably) Cruz.

Because Cruz has made their differing responses a wedge issue in their race painting Beto as anti-police while Ted is a "blue lives matters" guy. Don't you live in Texas? This can't be news to you.

[Methais]

You guys say this often. Why does that matter? Is this the Lebowski defense, "That's just like your opinion man." Need I point out that you called the Whelan conspiracy compelling if true?

Besides that, what is it about what the author is saying that you take issue with?

He's retarded like you.

[Astray]

Because Cruz has made their differing responses a wedge issue in their race painting Beto as anti-police while Ted is a "blue lives matters" guy. Don't you live in Texas? This can't be news to you.

No, I moved. I lived in Texas for 2 years, most of it was physical therapy so I wasn't preoccupied with politics. I'll say again though, it was a piss poor attack. Ted Cruz is a fucking idiot.

[Astray]

He's retarded like you.

HEY! You know that post with Cwolff you brought up about PK? You remember what page number it was on?

[cwolff]

Race is coming to the forefront in this election cycle and we're seeing outright pushback on the dog whistle messaging of the right. Here's the most recent example from Arizona.


https://youtu.be/1N-m83vYr-Y

And the response from @DrPaulGosar the candidate:

US House candidate, AZ-4
Not one of my siblings lives in Arizona and my opponent's policies are out of sync with what Arizona wants and the country needs. I will not be deterred from fighting for our conservative values regardless of these attacks. #az04

My siblings who chose to film ads against me are all liberal Democrats who hate President Trump. These disgruntled Hillary suppporters are related by blood to me but like leftists everywhere, they put political ideology before family. Stalin would be proud. #Az04 #MAGA2018

You can’t pick your family. We all have crazy aunts and relatives etc and my family is no different. I hope they find peace in their hearts and let go all the hate.

To the six angry Democrat Gosars—see you at Mom and Dad’s house! #AZ04 #MAGA2018

94,000 Arizonans in my district just voted for me. I got the highest vote total for any congressional House race in Arizona last month. #AZ04 #MAGA2018

[Astray]

Arizona needs to legalize pot and not let Canadians come down and register to vote for shit when they only spend the fucking winter down here.

[cwolff]

This isn't new news (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2378023118801096)but it bears repeating. Racial resentment drives the right and this topic, as put forward by Tucker Carlson, is a perfect example.


The graph tells a compelling story, one that echoes research documenting the increasing racialization of U.S. politics. First, racial resentment has been a consistently significant force in U.S. politics, net of other factors, for at least 30 years. Consistent with previous research, there is a notable spike in this association in 1994, perhaps attributable to partisan realignment and the racialization of opposition to President Clinton (Sears, Valentino, and Cheleden 1999). Second, the recent increase in the role of racial resentment in political identity long preceded the emergence of Donald Trump. That increase is more rightly situated concurrently with the election of Barack Obama in 2008.

This graph suggests, among other things, that what it means to identify with the liberal or conservative “team” for U.S. Whites is increasingly bound up with one’s racial politics. Even after considering economic measures, political ideology is increasingly driven by racial resentment in the modern United States. The trend represented in this graph invites troubling questions in an increasingly racially diverse society that is also riven by growing political polarization.

[Fortybox]

This isn't new news (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2378023118801096)but it bears repeating. Racial resentment drives the right and this topic, as put forward by Tucker Carlson, is a perfect example.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DT1DRFeWkAA1iEg.jpg

[Tgo01]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DT1DRFeWkAA1iEg.jpg

An entire white team of programmers gave us No Man's Sky?

Maybe cwolff is onto something after all.

[Methais]

Really? You're going that route? I'll ask you again, why does it matter if it's opinion? What about this article are you resistant too?

Are you seriously going to tell us that you simply responded with a PC Public Service Announcement to tell all the other readers that this quote and link are from an opinion piece? Just doing your duty? Then you want to call me a troll, while you're the one avoiding, dissembling and pushing back on me because you got a little emotionally triggered (which is evidenced by your desire to push back even without making a logical argument)

All you post are opinion pieces + your estrogen fueled reaction to it as if it's real news.


BTW: you still owe me an apology or retraction from accusing me of supporting doxing. Either that or post a link of me saying it.

You owe the entire PC an apology for acting like a mentally unstable overly emotional estrogen soy queen racist every day.

Your unfettered arrogance and lack of self awareness is fucking amazing.

[Methais]

HEY! You know that post with Cwolff you brought up about PK? You remember what page number it was on?


Maybe and maybe there is no legal case to be made. I don't know. We'd have to consult attorneys. I can see though that the cyber stalking is a real thing here. For example; I've ignored four of five of the trolls yet they can and do still stalk my inbox. This is a failing by Kranar and whoever else is in charge here. It should be addressed, its not being addressed and litigation may be the only way to compel action.

This is exactly what litigation is for. You can't just go and kill someone who keeps harassing you. That's a form of vigilantism that is anti-thetic to our laws. Litigation is the proper way to address this. If I had the $$$ to burn, I'd bring a case myself but it's not worth it so I don't.

^

I like how he thinks the reputation panel = inbox :lol:

[Tgo01]

^

Jesus Christ. I've been skipping a lot of posts lately but cwolff really is getting more and more retarded and becoming more and more of a victim with each passing day. He's just a parody at this point except he's not trying to be a parody.

"The trolls are stalking my inbox! This is a failing by Kranar and it should be addressed!"

The guy cries about people "stalking" his inbox yet is best friends with Androidpk who actually engaged in cyber stalking and bragged about it.

[Methais]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DT1DRFeWkAA1iEg.jpg

No Man's Soy

[Methais]

Jesus Christ. I've been skipping a lot of posts lately but cwolff really is getting more and more retarded and becoming more and more of a victim with each passing day. He's just a parody at this point except he's not trying to be a parody.

"The trolls are stalking my inbox! This is a failing by Kranar and it should be addressed!"

The guy cries about people "stalking" his inbox yet is best friends with Androidpk who actually engaged in cyber stalking and bragged about it.

I like this one from like 2 pages back...


You talk the talk but don't walk it. It's evidenced in the inconsistency of your criticisms.

This fucking guy here :lol:

How can someone be this self unaware and maintain a straight face?

[Tgo01]

I like this one from like 2 pages back...



This fucking guy here :lol:

How can someone be this self unaware and maintain a straight face?

Must be a lifetime of practice.

[Fortybox]

No Man's Soy

:lol:

[Fortybox]

Jesus Christ. I've been skipping a lot of posts lately but cwolff really is getting more and more retarded and becoming more and more of a victim with each passing day. He's just a parody at this point except he's not trying to be a parody.

"The trolls are stalking my inbox! This is a failing by Kranar and it should be addressed!"

The guy cries about people "stalking" his inbox yet is best friends with Androidpk who actually engaged in cyber stalking and bragged about it.

You can turn off your inbox ... and if this place was as bad as he says it is he can always leave.

Honestly, if soy4pk left the forums this place would be boring.

[Astray]

You can turn off your inbox ... and if this place was as bad as he says it is he can always leave.

If he did that he wouldn't know what people were saying about him. He has to defend himself from all you trolls.

/s

[Candor]

You can turn off your inbox ... and if this place was as bad as he says it is he can always leave.

Honestly, if soy4pk left the forums this place would be boring.

Ignoring specific users isn't that hard. Wrathbringer has been harassing me with his posts and reps for years and I just ignore him. Too bad I can't block his reps, but's it's not that big a deal.

[Astray]

Too bad I can't block his reps, but's it's not that big a deal.

I've been looking into that and outside of an extension, it's largely a moot endeavor.

[Fortybox]

Ignoring specific users isn't that hard. Wrathbringer has been harassing me with his posts and reps for years and I just ignore him. Too bad I can't block his reps, but's it's not that big a deal.

You can also limit who sends you a private message.

[Methais]

:lol:

:lol:

[Fortybox]

:lol:

https://media.giphy.com/media/qPat65afGM17a/giphy.gif

[Methais]

https://media.giphy.com/media/qPat65afGM17a/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/rQEcJ8fheOfbG/giphy.gif

[Neveragain]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzOTig8_hLs

https://grrrgraphics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/red_wave_trump_tina.jpg