|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 14 2025 06:37 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2025 02:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 07:50 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 02:16 BlackJack wrote:RIP to the LA fire victims but let’s be honest, if they need to be rescued from a fire they got themselves in the wrong place https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1877458240050446339In all seriousness, imagine smugly blaming a fire victim for being in the wrong place. An experienced firefighter should know that not everyone has the capability to flee a fire. Is she unaware of people with mobility issues and disabilities? The audacity to say something on a prerecorded interview and not edit that out is astounding. Nevermind if you will rescue me from the fire, what’s the gender of the person you sleep with? I’ll feel better dying from smoke inhalation if I know my first responder is LGBTQIA+. I think the right-wing media ecosystem crawling through public statements and messaging to find any way to blame the tragedies on DEI is fucking vile, and frankly dude, I’m pretty disappointed to see you trading in it. Wrt the specific quote, I imagine the person’s point is something like “carrying fire victims out of burning buildings is a very small percentage of a firefighter’s job, we strive to keep people out of situations where that would be necessary in the first place,” and meanwhile, presumably, “in the extreme circumstance a victim needed to be carried to safety and was too heavy for me (as could also happen to a male firefighter), I would get another firefighter to help me do it.” Probably stupidly phrased, definitely defensive because the person is responding to an imagined sexist who says they’re not biologically qualified to do their job, but whatever, you anti-woke activists think everybody needs to chill out and stop getting offended so easily anyway. The only reason we’re talking about this is because right-wing influencers saw a bunch of death and destruction in LA as a result of a natural disaster and thought “saying this is their fault because DEI will probably get a bunch of clicks.” And they were right! I think they’re fucking ghouls, though, and I’d hoped you’d have more decency than that. Instead you thought a flippant “RIP to the victims but…” prefix was sufficient. Sorry to everyone for coming out of months of silence to scold someone’s tone before probably disappearing again but, well, here we are. I think if you want to get on the high horse and scold the DEI critics then at a bare minimum you shouldn’t have the person who heads DEI for the department blaming people that die in a fire for finding themselves in that situation. I don’t “have the person who heads DEI for the department” doing anything, I know you know I’m not in charge of that. I also don’t know where that clip is even from, because accounts like @EndWokeness generally won’t cite sources, because they are, fundamentally, propagandists. But I assume it’s from some video or commercial the FD put together for recruitment or something, presumably *not* to be put out in the midst of a massive humanitarian disaster. If you tell me your motivation here is that you just feel strongly that fire departments need to be more sensitive to the feelings of victims in their public messaging, I won’t believe you. Rescuing people from fires is a pretty core competency to being a firefighter. Stated as broadly as that, sure, that’s the mission statement. In the context of wildfires, though, you’re mostly talking about tracking fires, evacuating people in the path of danger, and containing the fire when you can. For someone to be inside a burning building they’d probably have to have ignored an evacuation warning, which is stubborn but, of course, I still hope the fire department will be able to save them. Again, I don’t think it’s a very good response to a sexist saying “women shouldn’t be firefighters because they won’t be able to carry a 250-lb man out of a burning building” to say “well he shouldn’t be in that burning building anyway” but fundamentally, the sexist is still wrong. It’s pretty rare for that to be what the job demands, and there’s no reason every member of the department needs to be able to do it (and indeed, many white men also can’t). If you want to smugly scoff at people that need rescuing like they are personally inconveniencing you then you shouldn’t be immune to criticism. Not insisting anyone be immune to criticism, but I think a post like the tweet you linked is exploiting news about a humanitarian disaster to grind an axe about DEI, despite there being absolutely no reason to think it has any relevance to the ongoing disaster. I think that’s ghoulish and vile. I’m half-inclined to pull “I know people in LA I’m worried about” for rhetorical weight but honestly I shouldn’t have to. Last I’ve heard my LA friends are fine (thank God) but you don’t need to know I have a personal connection to know the people losing their homes are human beings and this is probably not a great time to make what I think you’re thinking of as “jokes” about it. The “jokes” are bad, the political point they’re making is bad, and the motivation behind it is fundamentally craven. I know you’re inclined to follow those kinds of accounts but I thought you might have a little more common sense and decency than they do. This shit sucks, dude. You’re right that the video wouldn’t have came in front of me if not for right-wing activists with a political axe to grind using the spotlight light of the LA fires to dig stuff up. I just don’t really care about stuff like that. What’s the response I’m supposed to have? “Well that’s a really deplorable defense of DEI but I wouldn’t have heard it if not for the likes of Breitbart so I’ll let it slide”? Faulting victims for dying in a fire is a shitty thing to say and right-wing grifters didn’t make anyone say it. I think my post does a good job at addressing a recurrent theme offered here that the only reason to oppose DEI is because you are against Diversity or Equity or Inclusion, ergo you’re a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever. If the response to someone’s concern about DEI lowering standards/competency for firefighters is “if you need to be rescued from a fire then it’s probably your fault” then you can’t really blame them for their concern. Lol at “deplorable.” I mean, “how should I react when I know I’m being propagandized” is an interesting and difficult question but right now you seem to be at “I should like, share, and subscribe” so it might be more useful to first focus on whether that’s the right response, and why/why not. I mean, I honestly feel like if anti-cancel culture BJ has been at the wheel instead of anti-woke BJ you would already have started from “we need the full context”/“has the accused had a chance to respond”/“isn’t everybody being oversensitive/jumping to conclusions” by default. But because the propagandists’ axe to grind happens to also be an axe you’re always looking to grind, we bypassed all those cautious/contrarian impulses and went straight to valueless mockery. I think the statement sucks but is of absolutely no importance. You think the statement sucks but also seem to think it’s important and relevant to the fires somehow. If I wrote down a list of the top 100 skills I think an assistant chief of the fire brigade should have, I don’t think “make smart statements about the importance of DEI” would have made my list. But weirdly, I don’t think it would make your list either, which is why it seems strange that you think this person’s apparent lack of that skill is of grave public import. Possibly you’re taking all this at face value and you really believe that the assistant chief of the LAFD thinks married men trapped in burning buildings deserve to die. That would be troubling, I suppose. “Big if true” as they say. But to me that just doesn’t pass a basic plausibility test. Maybe when she’s done fighting some of the worst fires in LA’s history we could ask her to clarify if she really believes that before erecting the gallows?
I dont think it has any relevance to the fires actually. I also don’t think she should be fired or “cancelled” for that comment. I think it’s a deplorable thing to say and the audacity of saying that out loud is what I find most outrageous. Also not sure how this counts as propaganda simply because the right-wing outrage machine drummed it up. Most of this thread is just shit that has come through someone’s algorithm to be outraged over. It’s just most of the time it’s about Joe Rogan or Alex Jones or whoever.
|
On January 14 2025 09:00 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2025 07:03 Billyboy wrote:On January 14 2025 06:37 BlackJack wrote:On January 14 2025 06:24 Billyboy wrote:On January 14 2025 06:08 BlackJack wrote:On January 14 2025 04:07 WombaT wrote:On January 14 2025 02:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 07:50 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 05:57 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
I think the right-wing media ecosystem crawling through public statements and messaging to find any way to blame the tragedies on DEI is fucking vile, and frankly dude, I’m pretty disappointed to see you trading in it.
Wrt the specific quote, I imagine the person’s point is something like “carrying fire victims out of burning buildings is a very small percentage of a firefighter’s job, we strive to keep people out of situations where that would be necessary in the first place,” and meanwhile, presumably, “in the extreme circumstance a victim needed to be carried to safety and was too heavy for me (as could also happen to a male firefighter), I would get another firefighter to help me do it.” Probably stupidly phrased, definitely defensive because the person is responding to an imagined sexist who says they’re not biologically qualified to do their job, but whatever, you anti-woke activists think everybody needs to chill out and stop getting offended so easily anyway.
The only reason we’re talking about this is because right-wing influencers saw a bunch of death and destruction in LA as a result of a natural disaster and thought “saying this is their fault because DEI will probably get a bunch of clicks.” And they were right! I think they’re fucking ghouls, though, and I’d hoped you’d have more decency than that. Instead you thought a flippant “RIP to the victims but…” prefix was sufficient.
Sorry to everyone for coming out of months of silence to scold someone’s tone before probably disappearing again but, well, here we are. I think if you want to get on the high horse and scold the DEI critics then at a bare minimum you shouldn’t have the person who heads DEI for the department blaming people that die in a fire for finding themselves in that situation. I don’t “have the person who heads DEI for the department” doing anything, I know you know I’m not in charge of that. I also don’t know where that clip is even from, because accounts like @EndWokeness generally won’t cite sources, because they are, fundamentally, propagandists. But I assume it’s from some video or commercial the FD put together for recruitment or something, presumably *not* to be put out in the midst of a massive humanitarian disaster. If you tell me your motivation here is that you just feel strongly that fire departments need to be more sensitive to the feelings of victims in their public messaging, I won’t believe you. Rescuing people from fires is a pretty core competency to being a firefighter. Stated as broadly as that, sure, that’s the mission statement. In the context of wildfires, though, you’re mostly talking about tracking fires, evacuating people in the path of danger, and containing the fire when you can. For someone to be inside a burning building they’d probably have to have ignored an evacuation warning, which is stubborn but, of course, I still hope the fire department will be able to save them. Again, I don’t think it’s a very good response to a sexist saying “women shouldn’t be firefighters because they won’t be able to carry a 250-lb man out of a burning building” to say “well he shouldn’t be in that burning building anyway” but fundamentally, the sexist is still wrong. It’s pretty rare for that to be what the job demands, and there’s no reason every member of the department needs to be able to do it (and indeed, many white men also can’t). If you want to smugly scoff at people that need rescuing like they are personally inconveniencing you then you shouldn’t be immune to criticism. Not insisting anyone be immune to criticism, but I think a post like the tweet you linked is exploiting news about a humanitarian disaster to grind an axe about DEI, despite there being absolutely no reason to think it has any relevance to the ongoing disaster. I think that’s ghoulish and vile. I’m half-inclined to pull “I know people in LA I’m worried about” for rhetorical weight but honestly I shouldn’t have to. Last I’ve heard my LA friends are fine (thank God) but you don’t need to know I have a personal connection to know the people losing their homes are human beings and this is probably not a great time to make what I think you’re thinking of as “jokes” about it. The “jokes” are bad, the political point they’re making is bad, and the motivation behind it is fundamentally craven. I know you’re inclined to follow those kinds of accounts but I thought you might have a little more common sense and decency than they do. This shit sucks, dude. You’re right that the video wouldn’t have came in front of me if not for right-wing activists with a political axe to grind using the spotlight light of the LA fires to dig stuff up. I just don’t really care about stuff like that. What’s the response I’m supposed to have? “Well that’s a really deplorable defense of DEI but I wouldn’t have heard it if not for the likes of Breitbart so I’ll let it slide”? Faulting victims for dying in a fire is a shitty thing to say and right-wing grifters didn’t make anyone say it. I think my post does a good job at addressing a recurrent theme offered here that the only reason to oppose DEI is because you are against Diversity or Equity or Inclusion, ergo you’re a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever. If the response to someone’s concern about DEI lowering standards/competency for firefighters is “if you need to be rescued from a fire then it’s probably your fault” then you can’t really blame them for their concern. You aren’t forced to abandon the reasonable skepticism you employ to all sorts of other forms of topics just because your personal bugbear of wokeness is attached. You just choose to do so and get pissy when people point it out. While also doing the ‘you can’t say anything about DEI without being called an …ist’ shtick despite on this and many other occasions nobody in here calling you that. Can you elaborate on what skepticism I’m abandoning here? Also there’s plenty of examples of calling people racists or sexists for opposing DEI initiatives. Nobody calls me an -ist here purely out of a matter of decorum. There’s plenty of examples such as “you must not think black women are qualified to be SCOTUS justices if you disagree with Biden declaring he will select a black woman.” Then it’s simply a matter of reading between the lines. I'm not sure why you bring this up over and over and over again. It is not remotely the dunk you think it is. When Dana White says that he is picking an exchampion for the next Main event, does that mean that he only considered ex Champions? Nope he is teasing the result and building suspense by teasing the answer. It dunks the opposite way that you seem to have never considered the possibility that a black women was simply the best choice. Except that’s not the same as what happened. Biden didn’t have KBJ pre-picked before declaring he would nominate a black woman. Instead he said he would nominate a black woman and then went out looking for a black woman to pick. Can you source that claim? Because it sounds awfully naïve to me to think that this is not looked at consistently. It is you belief that Trump has no one lined up right now if one of them drops dead? And then also, why no anger about Trumps identity politics? He boasted that he picked his two based on age first qualification second. But that kind of identity is OK, no tears for all the older, more qualified people passed over? Sure https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-nears-supreme-court-pick-interviews-short-list/story?id=83047608If you already have your pick selected you don’t have to interview a bunch of candidates, all whom happen to be black women.
How completely uncynical of you. Strange though to in this specific situation all the sudden trust that the Democrats are doing exactly what they say they are and doing a completely fair process, while you main argument is that the democrats did not do a fair process.
|
On January 14 2025 11:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2025 06:37 ChristianS wrote:On January 14 2025 02:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 07:50 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 02:16 BlackJack wrote:RIP to the LA fire victims but let’s be honest, if they need to be rescued from a fire they got themselves in the wrong place https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1877458240050446339In all seriousness, imagine smugly blaming a fire victim for being in the wrong place. An experienced firefighter should know that not everyone has the capability to flee a fire. Is she unaware of people with mobility issues and disabilities? The audacity to say something on a prerecorded interview and not edit that out is astounding. Nevermind if you will rescue me from the fire, what’s the gender of the person you sleep with? I’ll feel better dying from smoke inhalation if I know my first responder is LGBTQIA+. I think the right-wing media ecosystem crawling through public statements and messaging to find any way to blame the tragedies on DEI is fucking vile, and frankly dude, I’m pretty disappointed to see you trading in it. Wrt the specific quote, I imagine the person’s point is something like “carrying fire victims out of burning buildings is a very small percentage of a firefighter’s job, we strive to keep people out of situations where that would be necessary in the first place,” and meanwhile, presumably, “in the extreme circumstance a victim needed to be carried to safety and was too heavy for me (as could also happen to a male firefighter), I would get another firefighter to help me do it.” Probably stupidly phrased, definitely defensive because the person is responding to an imagined sexist who says they’re not biologically qualified to do their job, but whatever, you anti-woke activists think everybody needs to chill out and stop getting offended so easily anyway. The only reason we’re talking about this is because right-wing influencers saw a bunch of death and destruction in LA as a result of a natural disaster and thought “saying this is their fault because DEI will probably get a bunch of clicks.” And they were right! I think they’re fucking ghouls, though, and I’d hoped you’d have more decency than that. Instead you thought a flippant “RIP to the victims but…” prefix was sufficient. Sorry to everyone for coming out of months of silence to scold someone’s tone before probably disappearing again but, well, here we are. I think if you want to get on the high horse and scold the DEI critics then at a bare minimum you shouldn’t have the person who heads DEI for the department blaming people that die in a fire for finding themselves in that situation. I don’t “have the person who heads DEI for the department” doing anything, I know you know I’m not in charge of that. I also don’t know where that clip is even from, because accounts like @EndWokeness generally won’t cite sources, because they are, fundamentally, propagandists. But I assume it’s from some video or commercial the FD put together for recruitment or something, presumably *not* to be put out in the midst of a massive humanitarian disaster. If you tell me your motivation here is that you just feel strongly that fire departments need to be more sensitive to the feelings of victims in their public messaging, I won’t believe you. Rescuing people from fires is a pretty core competency to being a firefighter. Stated as broadly as that, sure, that’s the mission statement. In the context of wildfires, though, you’re mostly talking about tracking fires, evacuating people in the path of danger, and containing the fire when you can. For someone to be inside a burning building they’d probably have to have ignored an evacuation warning, which is stubborn but, of course, I still hope the fire department will be able to save them. Again, I don’t think it’s a very good response to a sexist saying “women shouldn’t be firefighters because they won’t be able to carry a 250-lb man out of a burning building” to say “well he shouldn’t be in that burning building anyway” but fundamentally, the sexist is still wrong. It’s pretty rare for that to be what the job demands, and there’s no reason every member of the department needs to be able to do it (and indeed, many white men also can’t). If you want to smugly scoff at people that need rescuing like they are personally inconveniencing you then you shouldn’t be immune to criticism. Not insisting anyone be immune to criticism, but I think a post like the tweet you linked is exploiting news about a humanitarian disaster to grind an axe about DEI, despite there being absolutely no reason to think it has any relevance to the ongoing disaster. I think that’s ghoulish and vile. I’m half-inclined to pull “I know people in LA I’m worried about” for rhetorical weight but honestly I shouldn’t have to. Last I’ve heard my LA friends are fine (thank God) but you don’t need to know I have a personal connection to know the people losing their homes are human beings and this is probably not a great time to make what I think you’re thinking of as “jokes” about it. The “jokes” are bad, the political point they’re making is bad, and the motivation behind it is fundamentally craven. I know you’re inclined to follow those kinds of accounts but I thought you might have a little more common sense and decency than they do. This shit sucks, dude. You’re right that the video wouldn’t have came in front of me if not for right-wing activists with a political axe to grind using the spotlight light of the LA fires to dig stuff up. I just don’t really care about stuff like that. What’s the response I’m supposed to have? “Well that’s a really deplorable defense of DEI but I wouldn’t have heard it if not for the likes of Breitbart so I’ll let it slide”? Faulting victims for dying in a fire is a shitty thing to say and right-wing grifters didn’t make anyone say it. I think my post does a good job at addressing a recurrent theme offered here that the only reason to oppose DEI is because you are against Diversity or Equity or Inclusion, ergo you’re a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever. If the response to someone’s concern about DEI lowering standards/competency for firefighters is “if you need to be rescued from a fire then it’s probably your fault” then you can’t really blame them for their concern. Lol at “deplorable.” I mean, “how should I react when I know I’m being propagandized” is an interesting and difficult question but right now you seem to be at “I should like, share, and subscribe” so it might be more useful to first focus on whether that’s the right response, and why/why not. I mean, I honestly feel like if anti-cancel culture BJ has been at the wheel instead of anti-woke BJ you would already have started from “we need the full context”/“has the accused had a chance to respond”/“isn’t everybody being oversensitive/jumping to conclusions” by default. But because the propagandists’ axe to grind happens to also be an axe you’re always looking to grind, we bypassed all those cautious/contrarian impulses and went straight to valueless mockery. I think the statement sucks but is of absolutely no importance. You think the statement sucks but also seem to think it’s important and relevant to the fires somehow. If I wrote down a list of the top 100 skills I think an assistant chief of the fire brigade should have, I don’t think “make smart statements about the importance of DEI” would have made my list. But weirdly, I don’t think it would make your list either, which is why it seems strange that you think this person’s apparent lack of that skill is of grave public import. Possibly you’re taking all this at face value and you really believe that the assistant chief of the LAFD thinks married men trapped in burning buildings deserve to die. That would be troubling, I suppose. “Big if true” as they say. But to me that just doesn’t pass a basic plausibility test. Maybe when she’s done fighting some of the worst fires in LA’s history we could ask her to clarify if she really believes that before erecting the gallows? I dont think it has any relevance to the fires actually. I also don’t think she should be fired or “cancelled” for that comment. I think it’s a deplorable thing to say and the audacity of saying that out loud is what I find most outrageous. Also not sure how this counts as propaganda simply because the right-wing outrage machine drummed it up. Most of this thread is just shit that has come through someone’s algorithm to be outraged over. It’s just most of the time it’s about Joe Rogan or Alex Jones or whoever.
Christ, dude, at least Horst Wessel was an actual guy that was killed.
A couple years ago the CEO of my company made a couple comments during a town hall meeting about not liking work from home because he thinks women just want to be home to take care of their kids instead of working or something. A bunch of women complained to HR so he made a big apology email and the company announced that everyone, including the management team, was going to be assigned a mandatory training on sexism in the workplace as a response. Stupid, but whatever, we already do like 20 of these trainings a year on anti-phishing or ladder safety or GDPR compliance or whatever, one more didn’t really matter.
I don’t remember if that was the one, but I think one of these trainings made the argument that the organization is more effective with diverse teams because, for example, women are better at multitasking so they’ll bring unique strengths. Now this obviously isn’t my area but if I’m not mistaken that multitasking thing is totally unsupported by the research. Everybody seems to think it’s true but it mostly functions to justify women taking more of the domestic labor even though they work full time just like their husbands, there’s no good evidence for it.
It’s a stupid argument they’re making, in other words, but it doesn’t actually matter at all. I don’t go into HR’s anti-sexism training expecting to read a well-crafted meta-analysis of the latest research, or hear sharp and incisive arguments that cut straight to the heart of the issue. I expect to have a bunch of mealy-mouthed sentiments vaguely gesturing at an ethic of professionalism and then I’ll take an extremely obvious quiz I only have to get 80% correct to pass.
None of this shit actually matters. The only significance of this story is as a propaganda tool for anti-woke grifters to tie the LA fires to DEI for clicks.
|
On January 14 2025 11:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2025 06:37 ChristianS wrote:On January 14 2025 02:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 07:50 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 02:16 BlackJack wrote:RIP to the LA fire victims but let’s be honest, if they need to be rescued from a fire they got themselves in the wrong place https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1877458240050446339In all seriousness, imagine smugly blaming a fire victim for being in the wrong place. An experienced firefighter should know that not everyone has the capability to flee a fire. Is she unaware of people with mobility issues and disabilities? The audacity to say something on a prerecorded interview and not edit that out is astounding. Nevermind if you will rescue me from the fire, what’s the gender of the person you sleep with? I’ll feel better dying from smoke inhalation if I know my first responder is LGBTQIA+. I think the right-wing media ecosystem crawling through public statements and messaging to find any way to blame the tragedies on DEI is fucking vile, and frankly dude, I’m pretty disappointed to see you trading in it. Wrt the specific quote, I imagine the person’s point is something like “carrying fire victims out of burning buildings is a very small percentage of a firefighter’s job, we strive to keep people out of situations where that would be necessary in the first place,” and meanwhile, presumably, “in the extreme circumstance a victim needed to be carried to safety and was too heavy for me (as could also happen to a male firefighter), I would get another firefighter to help me do it.” Probably stupidly phrased, definitely defensive because the person is responding to an imagined sexist who says they’re not biologically qualified to do their job, but whatever, you anti-woke activists think everybody needs to chill out and stop getting offended so easily anyway. The only reason we’re talking about this is because right-wing influencers saw a bunch of death and destruction in LA as a result of a natural disaster and thought “saying this is their fault because DEI will probably get a bunch of clicks.” And they were right! I think they’re fucking ghouls, though, and I’d hoped you’d have more decency than that. Instead you thought a flippant “RIP to the victims but…” prefix was sufficient. Sorry to everyone for coming out of months of silence to scold someone’s tone before probably disappearing again but, well, here we are. I think if you want to get on the high horse and scold the DEI critics then at a bare minimum you shouldn’t have the person who heads DEI for the department blaming people that die in a fire for finding themselves in that situation. I don’t “have the person who heads DEI for the department” doing anything, I know you know I’m not in charge of that. I also don’t know where that clip is even from, because accounts like @EndWokeness generally won’t cite sources, because they are, fundamentally, propagandists. But I assume it’s from some video or commercial the FD put together for recruitment or something, presumably *not* to be put out in the midst of a massive humanitarian disaster. If you tell me your motivation here is that you just feel strongly that fire departments need to be more sensitive to the feelings of victims in their public messaging, I won’t believe you. Rescuing people from fires is a pretty core competency to being a firefighter. Stated as broadly as that, sure, that’s the mission statement. In the context of wildfires, though, you’re mostly talking about tracking fires, evacuating people in the path of danger, and containing the fire when you can. For someone to be inside a burning building they’d probably have to have ignored an evacuation warning, which is stubborn but, of course, I still hope the fire department will be able to save them. Again, I don’t think it’s a very good response to a sexist saying “women shouldn’t be firefighters because they won’t be able to carry a 250-lb man out of a burning building” to say “well he shouldn’t be in that burning building anyway” but fundamentally, the sexist is still wrong. It’s pretty rare for that to be what the job demands, and there’s no reason every member of the department needs to be able to do it (and indeed, many white men also can’t). If you want to smugly scoff at people that need rescuing like they are personally inconveniencing you then you shouldn’t be immune to criticism. Not insisting anyone be immune to criticism, but I think a post like the tweet you linked is exploiting news about a humanitarian disaster to grind an axe about DEI, despite there being absolutely no reason to think it has any relevance to the ongoing disaster. I think that’s ghoulish and vile. I’m half-inclined to pull “I know people in LA I’m worried about” for rhetorical weight but honestly I shouldn’t have to. Last I’ve heard my LA friends are fine (thank God) but you don’t need to know I have a personal connection to know the people losing their homes are human beings and this is probably not a great time to make what I think you’re thinking of as “jokes” about it. The “jokes” are bad, the political point they’re making is bad, and the motivation behind it is fundamentally craven. I know you’re inclined to follow those kinds of accounts but I thought you might have a little more common sense and decency than they do. This shit sucks, dude. You’re right that the video wouldn’t have came in front of me if not for right-wing activists with a political axe to grind using the spotlight light of the LA fires to dig stuff up. I just don’t really care about stuff like that. What’s the response I’m supposed to have? “Well that’s a really deplorable defense of DEI but I wouldn’t have heard it if not for the likes of Breitbart so I’ll let it slide”? Faulting victims for dying in a fire is a shitty thing to say and right-wing grifters didn’t make anyone say it. I think my post does a good job at addressing a recurrent theme offered here that the only reason to oppose DEI is because you are against Diversity or Equity or Inclusion, ergo you’re a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever. If the response to someone’s concern about DEI lowering standards/competency for firefighters is “if you need to be rescued from a fire then it’s probably your fault” then you can’t really blame them for their concern. Lol at “deplorable.” I mean, “how should I react when I know I’m being propagandized” is an interesting and difficult question but right now you seem to be at “I should like, share, and subscribe” so it might be more useful to first focus on whether that’s the right response, and why/why not. I mean, I honestly feel like if anti-cancel culture BJ has been at the wheel instead of anti-woke BJ you would already have started from “we need the full context”/“has the accused had a chance to respond”/“isn’t everybody being oversensitive/jumping to conclusions” by default. But because the propagandists’ axe to grind happens to also be an axe you’re always looking to grind, we bypassed all those cautious/contrarian impulses and went straight to valueless mockery. I think the statement sucks but is of absolutely no importance. You think the statement sucks but also seem to think it’s important and relevant to the fires somehow. If I wrote down a list of the top 100 skills I think an assistant chief of the fire brigade should have, I don’t think “make smart statements about the importance of DEI” would have made my list. But weirdly, I don’t think it would make your list either, which is why it seems strange that you think this person’s apparent lack of that skill is of grave public import. Possibly you’re taking all this at face value and you really believe that the assistant chief of the LAFD thinks married men trapped in burning buildings deserve to die. That would be troubling, I suppose. “Big if true” as they say. But to me that just doesn’t pass a basic plausibility test. Maybe when she’s done fighting some of the worst fires in LA’s history we could ask her to clarify if she really believes that before erecting the gallows? I dont think it has any relevance to the fires actually. I also don’t think she should be fired or “cancelled” for that comment. I think it’s a deplorable thing to say and the audacity of saying that out loud is what I find most outrageous. Also not sure how this counts as propaganda simply because the right-wing outrage machine drummed it up. Most of this thread is just shit that has come through someone’s algorithm to be outraged over. It’s just most of the time it’s about Joe Rogan or Alex Jones or whoever.
When Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, Elon Musk or Trump lie or say dumb shit, it's the boy who cried wolf. It's a pattern of behavior by one single person. Not just a person, but an abusive person in some instances such as AJ, Trump and Elon. Only JR is not known to be abusive, however he knowingly hosts harmful people on his podcast. They create an entire culture of harm.
Meanwhile right-wingers find one person making one inflammatory statement. One. And that receives attention why exactly? Is that one person relevant in the grand scheme of things? Where's the comparable culture of harm?
|
On January 14 2025 12:57 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2025 11:36 BlackJack wrote:On January 14 2025 06:37 ChristianS wrote:On January 14 2025 02:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 07:50 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 02:16 BlackJack wrote:RIP to the LA fire victims but let’s be honest, if they need to be rescued from a fire they got themselves in the wrong place https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1877458240050446339In all seriousness, imagine smugly blaming a fire victim for being in the wrong place. An experienced firefighter should know that not everyone has the capability to flee a fire. Is she unaware of people with mobility issues and disabilities? The audacity to say something on a prerecorded interview and not edit that out is astounding. Nevermind if you will rescue me from the fire, what’s the gender of the person you sleep with? I’ll feel better dying from smoke inhalation if I know my first responder is LGBTQIA+. I think the right-wing media ecosystem crawling through public statements and messaging to find any way to blame the tragedies on DEI is fucking vile, and frankly dude, I’m pretty disappointed to see you trading in it. Wrt the specific quote, I imagine the person’s point is something like “carrying fire victims out of burning buildings is a very small percentage of a firefighter’s job, we strive to keep people out of situations where that would be necessary in the first place,” and meanwhile, presumably, “in the extreme circumstance a victim needed to be carried to safety and was too heavy for me (as could also happen to a male firefighter), I would get another firefighter to help me do it.” Probably stupidly phrased, definitely defensive because the person is responding to an imagined sexist who says they’re not biologically qualified to do their job, but whatever, you anti-woke activists think everybody needs to chill out and stop getting offended so easily anyway. The only reason we’re talking about this is because right-wing influencers saw a bunch of death and destruction in LA as a result of a natural disaster and thought “saying this is their fault because DEI will probably get a bunch of clicks.” And they were right! I think they’re fucking ghouls, though, and I’d hoped you’d have more decency than that. Instead you thought a flippant “RIP to the victims but…” prefix was sufficient. Sorry to everyone for coming out of months of silence to scold someone’s tone before probably disappearing again but, well, here we are. I think if you want to get on the high horse and scold the DEI critics then at a bare minimum you shouldn’t have the person who heads DEI for the department blaming people that die in a fire for finding themselves in that situation. I don’t “have the person who heads DEI for the department” doing anything, I know you know I’m not in charge of that. I also don’t know where that clip is even from, because accounts like @EndWokeness generally won’t cite sources, because they are, fundamentally, propagandists. But I assume it’s from some video or commercial the FD put together for recruitment or something, presumably *not* to be put out in the midst of a massive humanitarian disaster. If you tell me your motivation here is that you just feel strongly that fire departments need to be more sensitive to the feelings of victims in their public messaging, I won’t believe you. Rescuing people from fires is a pretty core competency to being a firefighter. Stated as broadly as that, sure, that’s the mission statement. In the context of wildfires, though, you’re mostly talking about tracking fires, evacuating people in the path of danger, and containing the fire when you can. For someone to be inside a burning building they’d probably have to have ignored an evacuation warning, which is stubborn but, of course, I still hope the fire department will be able to save them. Again, I don’t think it’s a very good response to a sexist saying “women shouldn’t be firefighters because they won’t be able to carry a 250-lb man out of a burning building” to say “well he shouldn’t be in that burning building anyway” but fundamentally, the sexist is still wrong. It’s pretty rare for that to be what the job demands, and there’s no reason every member of the department needs to be able to do it (and indeed, many white men also can’t). If you want to smugly scoff at people that need rescuing like they are personally inconveniencing you then you shouldn’t be immune to criticism. Not insisting anyone be immune to criticism, but I think a post like the tweet you linked is exploiting news about a humanitarian disaster to grind an axe about DEI, despite there being absolutely no reason to think it has any relevance to the ongoing disaster. I think that’s ghoulish and vile. I’m half-inclined to pull “I know people in LA I’m worried about” for rhetorical weight but honestly I shouldn’t have to. Last I’ve heard my LA friends are fine (thank God) but you don’t need to know I have a personal connection to know the people losing their homes are human beings and this is probably not a great time to make what I think you’re thinking of as “jokes” about it. The “jokes” are bad, the political point they’re making is bad, and the motivation behind it is fundamentally craven. I know you’re inclined to follow those kinds of accounts but I thought you might have a little more common sense and decency than they do. This shit sucks, dude. You’re right that the video wouldn’t have came in front of me if not for right-wing activists with a political axe to grind using the spotlight light of the LA fires to dig stuff up. I just don’t really care about stuff like that. What’s the response I’m supposed to have? “Well that’s a really deplorable defense of DEI but I wouldn’t have heard it if not for the likes of Breitbart so I’ll let it slide”? Faulting victims for dying in a fire is a shitty thing to say and right-wing grifters didn’t make anyone say it. I think my post does a good job at addressing a recurrent theme offered here that the only reason to oppose DEI is because you are against Diversity or Equity or Inclusion, ergo you’re a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever. If the response to someone’s concern about DEI lowering standards/competency for firefighters is “if you need to be rescued from a fire then it’s probably your fault” then you can’t really blame them for their concern. Lol at “deplorable.” I mean, “how should I react when I know I’m being propagandized” is an interesting and difficult question but right now you seem to be at “I should like, share, and subscribe” so it might be more useful to first focus on whether that’s the right response, and why/why not. I mean, I honestly feel like if anti-cancel culture BJ has been at the wheel instead of anti-woke BJ you would already have started from “we need the full context”/“has the accused had a chance to respond”/“isn’t everybody being oversensitive/jumping to conclusions” by default. But because the propagandists’ axe to grind happens to also be an axe you’re always looking to grind, we bypassed all those cautious/contrarian impulses and went straight to valueless mockery. I think the statement sucks but is of absolutely no importance. You think the statement sucks but also seem to think it’s important and relevant to the fires somehow. If I wrote down a list of the top 100 skills I think an assistant chief of the fire brigade should have, I don’t think “make smart statements about the importance of DEI” would have made my list. But weirdly, I don’t think it would make your list either, which is why it seems strange that you think this person’s apparent lack of that skill is of grave public import. Possibly you’re taking all this at face value and you really believe that the assistant chief of the LAFD thinks married men trapped in burning buildings deserve to die. That would be troubling, I suppose. “Big if true” as they say. But to me that just doesn’t pass a basic plausibility test. Maybe when she’s done fighting some of the worst fires in LA’s history we could ask her to clarify if she really believes that before erecting the gallows? I dont think it has any relevance to the fires actually. I also don’t think she should be fired or “cancelled” for that comment. I think it’s a deplorable thing to say and the audacity of saying that out loud is what I find most outrageous. Also not sure how this counts as propaganda simply because the right-wing outrage machine drummed it up. Most of this thread is just shit that has come through someone’s algorithm to be outraged over. It’s just most of the time it’s about Joe Rogan or Alex Jones or whoever. Christ, dude, at least Horst Wessel was an actual guy that was killed. A couple years ago the CEO of my company made a couple comments during a town hall meeting about not liking work from home because he thinks women just want to be home to take care of their kids instead of working or something. A bunch of women complained to HR so he made a big apology email and the company announced that everyone, including the management team, was going to be assigned a mandatory training on sexism in the workplace as a response. Stupid, but whatever, we already do like 20 of these trainings a year on anti-phishing or ladder safety or GDPR compliance or whatever, one more didn’t really matter. I don’t remember if that was the one, but I think one of these trainings made the argument that the organization is more effective with diverse teams because, for example, women are better at multitasking so they’ll bring unique strengths. Now this obviously isn’t my area but if I’m not mistaken that multitasking thing is totally unsupported by the research. Everybody seems to think it’s true but it mostly functions to justify women taking more of the domestic labor even though they work full time just like their husbands, there’s no good evidence for it. It’s a stupid argument they’re making, in other words, but it doesn’t actually matter at all. I don’t go into HR’s anti-sexism training expecting to read a well-crafted meta-analysis of the latest research, or hear sharp and incisive arguments that cut straight to the heart of the issue. I expect to have a bunch of mealy-mouthed sentiments vaguely gesturing at an ethic of professionalism and then I’ll take an extremely obvious quiz I only have to get 80% correct to pass. None of this shit actually matters. The only significance of this story is as a propaganda tool for anti-woke grifters to tie the LA fires to DEI for clicks.
while i won’t present an argument on the multitasking front it is true that an organization is more effective AND more profitable as a result of diversity in their workforce and there are numerous studies on it. things i was forced to read in uni courses to be credentialed for a management position in my company. 😑 though as unsolicited now as it was then, it was enlightening. could just be the woke liberal education cabal brainwashing me.
sounds like we’ve attended the same HR classes though.
|
On January 14 2025 22:28 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2025 12:57 ChristianS wrote:On January 14 2025 11:36 BlackJack wrote:On January 14 2025 06:37 ChristianS wrote:On January 14 2025 02:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 07:50 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 02:16 BlackJack wrote:RIP to the LA fire victims but let’s be honest, if they need to be rescued from a fire they got themselves in the wrong place https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1877458240050446339In all seriousness, imagine smugly blaming a fire victim for being in the wrong place. An experienced firefighter should know that not everyone has the capability to flee a fire. Is she unaware of people with mobility issues and disabilities? The audacity to say something on a prerecorded interview and not edit that out is astounding. Nevermind if you will rescue me from the fire, what’s the gender of the person you sleep with? I’ll feel better dying from smoke inhalation if I know my first responder is LGBTQIA+. I think the right-wing media ecosystem crawling through public statements and messaging to find any way to blame the tragedies on DEI is fucking vile, and frankly dude, I’m pretty disappointed to see you trading in it. Wrt the specific quote, I imagine the person’s point is something like “carrying fire victims out of burning buildings is a very small percentage of a firefighter’s job, we strive to keep people out of situations where that would be necessary in the first place,” and meanwhile, presumably, “in the extreme circumstance a victim needed to be carried to safety and was too heavy for me (as could also happen to a male firefighter), I would get another firefighter to help me do it.” Probably stupidly phrased, definitely defensive because the person is responding to an imagined sexist who says they’re not biologically qualified to do their job, but whatever, you anti-woke activists think everybody needs to chill out and stop getting offended so easily anyway. The only reason we’re talking about this is because right-wing influencers saw a bunch of death and destruction in LA as a result of a natural disaster and thought “saying this is their fault because DEI will probably get a bunch of clicks.” And they were right! I think they’re fucking ghouls, though, and I’d hoped you’d have more decency than that. Instead you thought a flippant “RIP to the victims but…” prefix was sufficient. Sorry to everyone for coming out of months of silence to scold someone’s tone before probably disappearing again but, well, here we are. I think if you want to get on the high horse and scold the DEI critics then at a bare minimum you shouldn’t have the person who heads DEI for the department blaming people that die in a fire for finding themselves in that situation. I don’t “have the person who heads DEI for the department” doing anything, I know you know I’m not in charge of that. I also don’t know where that clip is even from, because accounts like @EndWokeness generally won’t cite sources, because they are, fundamentally, propagandists. But I assume it’s from some video or commercial the FD put together for recruitment or something, presumably *not* to be put out in the midst of a massive humanitarian disaster. If you tell me your motivation here is that you just feel strongly that fire departments need to be more sensitive to the feelings of victims in their public messaging, I won’t believe you. Rescuing people from fires is a pretty core competency to being a firefighter. Stated as broadly as that, sure, that’s the mission statement. In the context of wildfires, though, you’re mostly talking about tracking fires, evacuating people in the path of danger, and containing the fire when you can. For someone to be inside a burning building they’d probably have to have ignored an evacuation warning, which is stubborn but, of course, I still hope the fire department will be able to save them. Again, I don’t think it’s a very good response to a sexist saying “women shouldn’t be firefighters because they won’t be able to carry a 250-lb man out of a burning building” to say “well he shouldn’t be in that burning building anyway” but fundamentally, the sexist is still wrong. It’s pretty rare for that to be what the job demands, and there’s no reason every member of the department needs to be able to do it (and indeed, many white men also can’t). If you want to smugly scoff at people that need rescuing like they are personally inconveniencing you then you shouldn’t be immune to criticism. Not insisting anyone be immune to criticism, but I think a post like the tweet you linked is exploiting news about a humanitarian disaster to grind an axe about DEI, despite there being absolutely no reason to think it has any relevance to the ongoing disaster. I think that’s ghoulish and vile. I’m half-inclined to pull “I know people in LA I’m worried about” for rhetorical weight but honestly I shouldn’t have to. Last I’ve heard my LA friends are fine (thank God) but you don’t need to know I have a personal connection to know the people losing their homes are human beings and this is probably not a great time to make what I think you’re thinking of as “jokes” about it. The “jokes” are bad, the political point they’re making is bad, and the motivation behind it is fundamentally craven. I know you’re inclined to follow those kinds of accounts but I thought you might have a little more common sense and decency than they do. This shit sucks, dude. You’re right that the video wouldn’t have came in front of me if not for right-wing activists with a political axe to grind using the spotlight light of the LA fires to dig stuff up. I just don’t really care about stuff like that. What’s the response I’m supposed to have? “Well that’s a really deplorable defense of DEI but I wouldn’t have heard it if not for the likes of Breitbart so I’ll let it slide”? Faulting victims for dying in a fire is a shitty thing to say and right-wing grifters didn’t make anyone say it. I think my post does a good job at addressing a recurrent theme offered here that the only reason to oppose DEI is because you are against Diversity or Equity or Inclusion, ergo you’re a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever. If the response to someone’s concern about DEI lowering standards/competency for firefighters is “if you need to be rescued from a fire then it’s probably your fault” then you can’t really blame them for their concern. Lol at “deplorable.” I mean, “how should I react when I know I’m being propagandized” is an interesting and difficult question but right now you seem to be at “I should like, share, and subscribe” so it might be more useful to first focus on whether that’s the right response, and why/why not. I mean, I honestly feel like if anti-cancel culture BJ has been at the wheel instead of anti-woke BJ you would already have started from “we need the full context”/“has the accused had a chance to respond”/“isn’t everybody being oversensitive/jumping to conclusions” by default. But because the propagandists’ axe to grind happens to also be an axe you’re always looking to grind, we bypassed all those cautious/contrarian impulses and went straight to valueless mockery. I think the statement sucks but is of absolutely no importance. You think the statement sucks but also seem to think it’s important and relevant to the fires somehow. If I wrote down a list of the top 100 skills I think an assistant chief of the fire brigade should have, I don’t think “make smart statements about the importance of DEI” would have made my list. But weirdly, I don’t think it would make your list either, which is why it seems strange that you think this person’s apparent lack of that skill is of grave public import. Possibly you’re taking all this at face value and you really believe that the assistant chief of the LAFD thinks married men trapped in burning buildings deserve to die. That would be troubling, I suppose. “Big if true” as they say. But to me that just doesn’t pass a basic plausibility test. Maybe when she’s done fighting some of the worst fires in LA’s history we could ask her to clarify if she really believes that before erecting the gallows? I dont think it has any relevance to the fires actually. I also don’t think she should be fired or “cancelled” for that comment. I think it’s a deplorable thing to say and the audacity of saying that out loud is what I find most outrageous. Also not sure how this counts as propaganda simply because the right-wing outrage machine drummed it up. Most of this thread is just shit that has come through someone’s algorithm to be outraged over. It’s just most of the time it’s about Joe Rogan or Alex Jones or whoever. Christ, dude, at least Horst Wessel was an actual guy that was killed. A couple years ago the CEO of my company made a couple comments during a town hall meeting about not liking work from home because he thinks women just want to be home to take care of their kids instead of working or something. A bunch of women complained to HR so he made a big apology email and the company announced that everyone, including the management team, was going to be assigned a mandatory training on sexism in the workplace as a response. Stupid, but whatever, we already do like 20 of these trainings a year on anti-phishing or ladder safety or GDPR compliance or whatever, one more didn’t really matter. I don’t remember if that was the one, but I think one of these trainings made the argument that the organization is more effective with diverse teams because, for example, women are better at multitasking so they’ll bring unique strengths. Now this obviously isn’t my area but if I’m not mistaken that multitasking thing is totally unsupported by the research. Everybody seems to think it’s true but it mostly functions to justify women taking more of the domestic labor even though they work full time just like their husbands, there’s no good evidence for it. It’s a stupid argument they’re making, in other words, but it doesn’t actually matter at all. I don’t go into HR’s anti-sexism training expecting to read a well-crafted meta-analysis of the latest research, or hear sharp and incisive arguments that cut straight to the heart of the issue. I expect to have a bunch of mealy-mouthed sentiments vaguely gesturing at an ethic of professionalism and then I’ll take an extremely obvious quiz I only have to get 80% correct to pass. None of this shit actually matters. The only significance of this story is as a propaganda tool for anti-woke grifters to tie the LA fires to DEI for clicks. while i won’t present an argument on the multitasking front it is true that an organization is more effective AND more profitable as a result of diversity in their workforce and there are numerous studies on it. things i was forced to read in uni courses to be credentialed for a management position in my company. 😑 though as unsolicited now as it was then, it was enlightening. could just be the woke liberal education cabal brainwashing me. sounds like we’ve attended the same HR classes though.
This is absolutely true.
There tends to be increased success when diversity, equity, and inclusion are also considered as additional criteria, no matter how much Republicans detest the concept of DEI or pretend that other non-identity qualifications aren't still being used. Republicans think this is just a bunch of liberals hating on white men, and they ignore all the studies supporting DEI because Republicans are not interested in learning anything that might affect their preconceived notions. If women or people of color or the LGBTQ+ community are perceived as competent and competitive in certain industries, then it'd be harder for Republicans to rationalize removing their rights, criminalizing people based on race, or calling groups *inferior* and *pedophiles* and *ungodly*.
It's why Joe Biden picking an "eminently qualified" black woman (representing diversity, equity, and inclusion) with "impressive experience in roles at all levels of the justice system, her character and her legal brilliance" - to directly quote BlackJack's own ABC article - matters, and is a good thing. KBJ is not just some random, arbitrary person being gifted the seat.
"Diversity is a key driver of innovation and is a critical component of being successful on a global scale. Senior executives are recognizing that a diverse set of experiences, perspectives, and backgrounds is crucial to innovation and the development of new ideas. ...
A diverse and inclusive workforce is crucial for companies that want to attract and retain top talent. ...
The business case for diversity and inclusion is intrinsically linked to a company’s innovation strategy. Multiple and varied voices have a wide range of experiences, and this can help generate new ideas about products and practices. ...
This is particularly true for the largest companies. Among companies with more than $10 billion in annual revenues, 56% strongly agreed that diversity helps drive innovation. “Because of our diverse workforce, we’ve experienced a boost in productivity. When you can move people to contribute to their fullest, it has a tremendous impact,” noted Rosalind Hudnell, director of global diversity and inclusion at chip maker Intel. ...
Respondents in Asia also were more likely to see a link between diversity and innovation. In the APAC region, 56% “strongly agreed” with this notion, compared to 48% in the Americas and 41% in EMEA. “In Asia Pacific, we’re focused on leveraging diverse skills in growth markets and getting better gender representation in senior management,” explained Niki Kesglou, head of diversity and inclusion, Asia Pacific, for financial services firm Credit Suisse. ...
In the fight for global talent, diversity and inclusion policies are being designed specifically as recruiting and retention tools, helping to broaden the pool of talent a company can recruit from, while also helping to build an employment brand that is seen as fully inclusive. “If you want to attract the best talent, you need to be reflective of the talent in that market,” said Eileen Taylor, Deutsche Bank’s global head of diversity. ...
“The recruitment of diverse talent for our organization is critical to our ability to build our business and drive future growth,” said Sumita Banerjee, vice president, talent recruitment at L’Oréal USA.
https://images.forbes.com/forbesinsights/StudyPDFs/Innovation_Through_Diversity.pdf
"Companies in the top quartile for racial and ethnic diversity are 35 percent more likely to have financial returns above their respective national industry medians. Companies in the top quartile for gender diversity are 15 percent more likely to have financial returns above their respective national industry medians. ...
Companies in the bottom quartile both for gender and for ethnicity and race are statistically less likely to achieve above-average financial returns than the average companies in the data set (that is, bottom-quartile companies are lagging rather than merely not leading).
In the United States, there is a linear relationship between racial and ethnic diversity and better financial performance: for every 10 percent increase in racial and ethnic diversity on the senior-executive team, earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) rise 0.8 percent.
In the United Kingdom, greater gender diversity on the senior-executive team corresponded to the highest performance uplift in our data set: for every 10 percent increase in gender diversity, EBIT rose by 3.5 percent."
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/why-diversity-matters
"In numerous studies, diversity — both inherent (e.g., race, gender) and acquired (experience, cultural background) — is associated with business success. For example, a 2009 analysis of 506 companies found that firms with more racial or gender diversity had more sales revenue, more customers, and greater profits. A 2016 analysis of more than 20,000 firms in 91 countries found that companies with more female executives were more profitable. In a 2011 study management teams exhibiting a wider range of educational and work backgrounds produced more-innovative products. These are mere correlations, but laboratory experiments have also shown the direct effect of diversity on team performance. In a 2006 study of mock juries, for example, when black people were added to the jury, white jurors processed the case facts more carefully and deliberated more effectively."
https://hbr.org/2016/09/diverse-teams-feel-less-comfortable-and-thats-why-they-perform-better
"Homogenous Teams Feel Easier — but Easy Is Bad for Performance
A revealing 2009 study of fraternity and sorority members published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin offers a remarkable window into the workings of diverse and homogenous teams. Fraternity and sorority membership conveys a powerful group identity, much like political or religious affiliation, and consequently can create a strong sense of similarity (or dissimilarity) with others. In the experiment, teams were asked to solve a murder mystery. First, students were individually given 20 minutes to study the clues and pinpoint the likely suspect. Next, they were placed into teams of three with fellow members from the same Greek house and given 20 minutes to discuss the case together and provide a joint answer. Five minutes into the discussion, however, they were joined by a fourth team member, someone from either their own house or another one.
After collectively naming their suspect, members individually rated aspects of the discussion. More diverse groups — those joined by someone from outside their own fraternity or sorority — judged the team interactions to be less effective than did groups joined by insiders. They were also less confident in their final decisions.
Intuitively, this makes sense: On a homogenous team, people readily understand each other and collaboration flows smoothly, giving the sensation of progress. Dealing with outsiders causes friction, which feels counterproductive.
But in this case their judgments were starkly wrong. Among groups where all three original members didn’t already know the correct answer, adding an outsider versus an insider actually doubled their chance of arriving at the correct solution, from 29% to 60%. The work felt harder, but the outcomes were better.
In fact, working on diverse teams produces better outcomes precisely because it’s harder.
This idea goes against many people’s intuitions. There’s a common bias that psychologists call the fluency heuristic: We prefer information that is processed more easily, or fluently, judging it to be truer or more beautiful. The effect partially explains that we gain greater appreciation of songs or paintings when they become familiar because they’re more easily processed. The fluency heuristic leads many people to study incorrectly; they often simply reread the material. The information becomes more familiar without much effort, and so they feel that they’re learning. But in a 2011 study students performed better on a test after studying the text once and then trying to recall as much as they could, a strenuous task, than they did by repeatedly going over the text, even though they predicted that rereading was the key to learning. Similarly, confronting opinions you disagree with might not seem like the quickest path to getting things done, but working in groups can be like studying (or exercising): no pain, no gain."
https://hbr.org/2016/09/diverse-teams-feel-less-comfortable-and-thats-why-they-perform-better
|
On January 14 2025 21:05 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2025 11:36 BlackJack wrote:On January 14 2025 06:37 ChristianS wrote:On January 14 2025 02:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 07:50 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 02:16 BlackJack wrote:RIP to the LA fire victims but let’s be honest, if they need to be rescued from a fire they got themselves in the wrong place https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1877458240050446339In all seriousness, imagine smugly blaming a fire victim for being in the wrong place. An experienced firefighter should know that not everyone has the capability to flee a fire. Is she unaware of people with mobility issues and disabilities? The audacity to say something on a prerecorded interview and not edit that out is astounding. Nevermind if you will rescue me from the fire, what’s the gender of the person you sleep with? I’ll feel better dying from smoke inhalation if I know my first responder is LGBTQIA+. I think the right-wing media ecosystem crawling through public statements and messaging to find any way to blame the tragedies on DEI is fucking vile, and frankly dude, I’m pretty disappointed to see you trading in it. Wrt the specific quote, I imagine the person’s point is something like “carrying fire victims out of burning buildings is a very small percentage of a firefighter’s job, we strive to keep people out of situations where that would be necessary in the first place,” and meanwhile, presumably, “in the extreme circumstance a victim needed to be carried to safety and was too heavy for me (as could also happen to a male firefighter), I would get another firefighter to help me do it.” Probably stupidly phrased, definitely defensive because the person is responding to an imagined sexist who says they’re not biologically qualified to do their job, but whatever, you anti-woke activists think everybody needs to chill out and stop getting offended so easily anyway. The only reason we’re talking about this is because right-wing influencers saw a bunch of death and destruction in LA as a result of a natural disaster and thought “saying this is their fault because DEI will probably get a bunch of clicks.” And they were right! I think they’re fucking ghouls, though, and I’d hoped you’d have more decency than that. Instead you thought a flippant “RIP to the victims but…” prefix was sufficient. Sorry to everyone for coming out of months of silence to scold someone’s tone before probably disappearing again but, well, here we are. I think if you want to get on the high horse and scold the DEI critics then at a bare minimum you shouldn’t have the person who heads DEI for the department blaming people that die in a fire for finding themselves in that situation. I don’t “have the person who heads DEI for the department” doing anything, I know you know I’m not in charge of that. I also don’t know where that clip is even from, because accounts like @EndWokeness generally won’t cite sources, because they are, fundamentally, propagandists. But I assume it’s from some video or commercial the FD put together for recruitment or something, presumably *not* to be put out in the midst of a massive humanitarian disaster. If you tell me your motivation here is that you just feel strongly that fire departments need to be more sensitive to the feelings of victims in their public messaging, I won’t believe you. Rescuing people from fires is a pretty core competency to being a firefighter. Stated as broadly as that, sure, that’s the mission statement. In the context of wildfires, though, you’re mostly talking about tracking fires, evacuating people in the path of danger, and containing the fire when you can. For someone to be inside a burning building they’d probably have to have ignored an evacuation warning, which is stubborn but, of course, I still hope the fire department will be able to save them. Again, I don’t think it’s a very good response to a sexist saying “women shouldn’t be firefighters because they won’t be able to carry a 250-lb man out of a burning building” to say “well he shouldn’t be in that burning building anyway” but fundamentally, the sexist is still wrong. It’s pretty rare for that to be what the job demands, and there’s no reason every member of the department needs to be able to do it (and indeed, many white men also can’t). If you want to smugly scoff at people that need rescuing like they are personally inconveniencing you then you shouldn’t be immune to criticism. Not insisting anyone be immune to criticism, but I think a post like the tweet you linked is exploiting news about a humanitarian disaster to grind an axe about DEI, despite there being absolutely no reason to think it has any relevance to the ongoing disaster. I think that’s ghoulish and vile. I’m half-inclined to pull “I know people in LA I’m worried about” for rhetorical weight but honestly I shouldn’t have to. Last I’ve heard my LA friends are fine (thank God) but you don’t need to know I have a personal connection to know the people losing their homes are human beings and this is probably not a great time to make what I think you’re thinking of as “jokes” about it. The “jokes” are bad, the political point they’re making is bad, and the motivation behind it is fundamentally craven. I know you’re inclined to follow those kinds of accounts but I thought you might have a little more common sense and decency than they do. This shit sucks, dude. You’re right that the video wouldn’t have came in front of me if not for right-wing activists with a political axe to grind using the spotlight light of the LA fires to dig stuff up. I just don’t really care about stuff like that. What’s the response I’m supposed to have? “Well that’s a really deplorable defense of DEI but I wouldn’t have heard it if not for the likes of Breitbart so I’ll let it slide”? Faulting victims for dying in a fire is a shitty thing to say and right-wing grifters didn’t make anyone say it. I think my post does a good job at addressing a recurrent theme offered here that the only reason to oppose DEI is because you are against Diversity or Equity or Inclusion, ergo you’re a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever. If the response to someone’s concern about DEI lowering standards/competency for firefighters is “if you need to be rescued from a fire then it’s probably your fault” then you can’t really blame them for their concern. Lol at “deplorable.” I mean, “how should I react when I know I’m being propagandized” is an interesting and difficult question but right now you seem to be at “I should like, share, and subscribe” so it might be more useful to first focus on whether that’s the right response, and why/why not. I mean, I honestly feel like if anti-cancel culture BJ has been at the wheel instead of anti-woke BJ you would already have started from “we need the full context”/“has the accused had a chance to respond”/“isn’t everybody being oversensitive/jumping to conclusions” by default. But because the propagandists’ axe to grind happens to also be an axe you’re always looking to grind, we bypassed all those cautious/contrarian impulses and went straight to valueless mockery. I think the statement sucks but is of absolutely no importance. You think the statement sucks but also seem to think it’s important and relevant to the fires somehow. If I wrote down a list of the top 100 skills I think an assistant chief of the fire brigade should have, I don’t think “make smart statements about the importance of DEI” would have made my list. But weirdly, I don’t think it would make your list either, which is why it seems strange that you think this person’s apparent lack of that skill is of grave public import. Possibly you’re taking all this at face value and you really believe that the assistant chief of the LAFD thinks married men trapped in burning buildings deserve to die. That would be troubling, I suppose. “Big if true” as they say. But to me that just doesn’t pass a basic plausibility test. Maybe when she’s done fighting some of the worst fires in LA’s history we could ask her to clarify if she really believes that before erecting the gallows? I dont think it has any relevance to the fires actually. I also don’t think she should be fired or “cancelled” for that comment. I think it’s a deplorable thing to say and the audacity of saying that out loud is what I find most outrageous. Also not sure how this counts as propaganda simply because the right-wing outrage machine drummed it up. Most of this thread is just shit that has come through someone’s algorithm to be outraged over. It’s just most of the time it’s about Joe Rogan or Alex Jones or whoever. When Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, Elon Musk or Trump lie or say dumb shit, it's the boy who cried wolf. It's a pattern of behavior by one single person. Not just a person, but an abusive person in some instances such as AJ, Trump and Elon. Only JR is not known to be abusive, however he knowingly hosts harmful people on his podcast. They create an entire culture of harm. Meanwhile right-wingers find one person making one inflammatory statement. One. And that receives attention why exactly? Is that one person relevant in the grand scheme of things? Where's the comparable culture of harm?
Over the years I've posted hundreds of examples of things becoming shittier because of wokeism run amok. It's easy to zoom in on any one example and say "That's one little thing, what's the big deal."
If you want to talk about harm it's when the only supermarket in a historically black neighborhood closes down after 4 decades in business due to rampant theft and safety concerns ushered in by soft on crime policies that give shoplifters carte blanche to take what they want. Or the only pharmacy in a historically black district in Oakland closing for similar reasons creating a pharmacy desert for vulnerable seniors. Of course among the hardcore woke it's impossible that their soft-on-crime progressive politics led to these store closures. It's easier to just blame greedy corporations that don't want their merchandise walking out the door and then propose common sense solutions like allowing people to sue grocery stores for closing lol
Grocery deserts, pharmacy deserts, rampant crime and car break-ins, prolonged school closures from COVID lockdowns, homeless encampments, fentanyl overdoses, the decimation of small businesses. No. No, no no. The real harm is the controversial thing that Joe Rogan said. It's why Trump gained black and hispanic voters in 2024. The Democrat stronghold is becoming the white college educated liberal that has the privilege to care more about what Joe Rogan says than all the shit around them that's making their life harder.
+ Show Spoiler +Credit where credit is due, California voters overwhelmingly passed a proposition to crackdown on shoplifting by making stiffer penalties, Gavin Newsom has ordered cities to clean up their homeless encampments, Newsom has used the California Highway Patrol to surge into cities dealing with high levels of crime and refused to offer the CHP surge to another city unless they hire more local police. Newsom has also advocated changing pursuit policies that prohibit police from chasing bad guys. Of course I don't credit any of this to wokeists seeing the light, more like Newsom gearing up for a 2028 Presidential run as a moderate.
|
On January 15 2025 02:27 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2025 21:05 Magic Powers wrote:On January 14 2025 11:36 BlackJack wrote:On January 14 2025 06:37 ChristianS wrote:On January 14 2025 02:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 07:50 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 02:16 BlackJack wrote:RIP to the LA fire victims but let’s be honest, if they need to be rescued from a fire they got themselves in the wrong place https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1877458240050446339In all seriousness, imagine smugly blaming a fire victim for being in the wrong place. An experienced firefighter should know that not everyone has the capability to flee a fire. Is she unaware of people with mobility issues and disabilities? The audacity to say something on a prerecorded interview and not edit that out is astounding. Nevermind if you will rescue me from the fire, what’s the gender of the person you sleep with? I’ll feel better dying from smoke inhalation if I know my first responder is LGBTQIA+. I think the right-wing media ecosystem crawling through public statements and messaging to find any way to blame the tragedies on DEI is fucking vile, and frankly dude, I’m pretty disappointed to see you trading in it. Wrt the specific quote, I imagine the person’s point is something like “carrying fire victims out of burning buildings is a very small percentage of a firefighter’s job, we strive to keep people out of situations where that would be necessary in the first place,” and meanwhile, presumably, “in the extreme circumstance a victim needed to be carried to safety and was too heavy for me (as could also happen to a male firefighter), I would get another firefighter to help me do it.” Probably stupidly phrased, definitely defensive because the person is responding to an imagined sexist who says they’re not biologically qualified to do their job, but whatever, you anti-woke activists think everybody needs to chill out and stop getting offended so easily anyway. The only reason we’re talking about this is because right-wing influencers saw a bunch of death and destruction in LA as a result of a natural disaster and thought “saying this is their fault because DEI will probably get a bunch of clicks.” And they were right! I think they’re fucking ghouls, though, and I’d hoped you’d have more decency than that. Instead you thought a flippant “RIP to the victims but…” prefix was sufficient. Sorry to everyone for coming out of months of silence to scold someone’s tone before probably disappearing again but, well, here we are. I think if you want to get on the high horse and scold the DEI critics then at a bare minimum you shouldn’t have the person who heads DEI for the department blaming people that die in a fire for finding themselves in that situation. I don’t “have the person who heads DEI for the department” doing anything, I know you know I’m not in charge of that. I also don’t know where that clip is even from, because accounts like @EndWokeness generally won’t cite sources, because they are, fundamentally, propagandists. But I assume it’s from some video or commercial the FD put together for recruitment or something, presumably *not* to be put out in the midst of a massive humanitarian disaster. If you tell me your motivation here is that you just feel strongly that fire departments need to be more sensitive to the feelings of victims in their public messaging, I won’t believe you. Rescuing people from fires is a pretty core competency to being a firefighter. Stated as broadly as that, sure, that’s the mission statement. In the context of wildfires, though, you’re mostly talking about tracking fires, evacuating people in the path of danger, and containing the fire when you can. For someone to be inside a burning building they’d probably have to have ignored an evacuation warning, which is stubborn but, of course, I still hope the fire department will be able to save them. Again, I don’t think it’s a very good response to a sexist saying “women shouldn’t be firefighters because they won’t be able to carry a 250-lb man out of a burning building” to say “well he shouldn’t be in that burning building anyway” but fundamentally, the sexist is still wrong. It’s pretty rare for that to be what the job demands, and there’s no reason every member of the department needs to be able to do it (and indeed, many white men also can’t). If you want to smugly scoff at people that need rescuing like they are personally inconveniencing you then you shouldn’t be immune to criticism. Not insisting anyone be immune to criticism, but I think a post like the tweet you linked is exploiting news about a humanitarian disaster to grind an axe about DEI, despite there being absolutely no reason to think it has any relevance to the ongoing disaster. I think that’s ghoulish and vile. I’m half-inclined to pull “I know people in LA I’m worried about” for rhetorical weight but honestly I shouldn’t have to. Last I’ve heard my LA friends are fine (thank God) but you don’t need to know I have a personal connection to know the people losing their homes are human beings and this is probably not a great time to make what I think you’re thinking of as “jokes” about it. The “jokes” are bad, the political point they’re making is bad, and the motivation behind it is fundamentally craven. I know you’re inclined to follow those kinds of accounts but I thought you might have a little more common sense and decency than they do. This shit sucks, dude. You’re right that the video wouldn’t have came in front of me if not for right-wing activists with a political axe to grind using the spotlight light of the LA fires to dig stuff up. I just don’t really care about stuff like that. What’s the response I’m supposed to have? “Well that’s a really deplorable defense of DEI but I wouldn’t have heard it if not for the likes of Breitbart so I’ll let it slide”? Faulting victims for dying in a fire is a shitty thing to say and right-wing grifters didn’t make anyone say it. I think my post does a good job at addressing a recurrent theme offered here that the only reason to oppose DEI is because you are against Diversity or Equity or Inclusion, ergo you’re a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever. If the response to someone’s concern about DEI lowering standards/competency for firefighters is “if you need to be rescued from a fire then it’s probably your fault” then you can’t really blame them for their concern. Lol at “deplorable.” I mean, “how should I react when I know I’m being propagandized” is an interesting and difficult question but right now you seem to be at “I should like, share, and subscribe” so it might be more useful to first focus on whether that’s the right response, and why/why not. I mean, I honestly feel like if anti-cancel culture BJ has been at the wheel instead of anti-woke BJ you would already have started from “we need the full context”/“has the accused had a chance to respond”/“isn’t everybody being oversensitive/jumping to conclusions” by default. But because the propagandists’ axe to grind happens to also be an axe you’re always looking to grind, we bypassed all those cautious/contrarian impulses and went straight to valueless mockery. I think the statement sucks but is of absolutely no importance. You think the statement sucks but also seem to think it’s important and relevant to the fires somehow. If I wrote down a list of the top 100 skills I think an assistant chief of the fire brigade should have, I don’t think “make smart statements about the importance of DEI” would have made my list. But weirdly, I don’t think it would make your list either, which is why it seems strange that you think this person’s apparent lack of that skill is of grave public import. Possibly you’re taking all this at face value and you really believe that the assistant chief of the LAFD thinks married men trapped in burning buildings deserve to die. That would be troubling, I suppose. “Big if true” as they say. But to me that just doesn’t pass a basic plausibility test. Maybe when she’s done fighting some of the worst fires in LA’s history we could ask her to clarify if she really believes that before erecting the gallows? I dont think it has any relevance to the fires actually. I also don’t think she should be fired or “cancelled” for that comment. I think it’s a deplorable thing to say and the audacity of saying that out loud is what I find most outrageous. Also not sure how this counts as propaganda simply because the right-wing outrage machine drummed it up. Most of this thread is just shit that has come through someone’s algorithm to be outraged over. It’s just most of the time it’s about Joe Rogan or Alex Jones or whoever. When Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, Elon Musk or Trump lie or say dumb shit, it's the boy who cried wolf. It's a pattern of behavior by one single person. Not just a person, but an abusive person in some instances such as AJ, Trump and Elon. Only JR is not known to be abusive, however he knowingly hosts harmful people on his podcast. They create an entire culture of harm. Meanwhile right-wingers find one person making one inflammatory statement. One. And that receives attention why exactly? Is that one person relevant in the grand scheme of things? Where's the comparable culture of harm? Over the years I've posted hundreds of examples of things becoming shittier because of wokeism run amok. It's easy to zoom in on any one example and say "That's one little thing, what's the big deal." If you want to talk about harm it's when the only supermarket in a historically black neighborhood closes down after 4 decades in business due to rampant theft and safety concerns ushered in by soft on crime policies that give shoplifters carte blanche to take what they want. Or the only pharmacy in a historically black district in Oakland closing for similar reasons creating a pharmacy desert for vulnerable seniors. Of course among the hardcore woke it's impossible that their soft-on-crime progressive politics led to these store closures. It's easier to just blame greedy corporations that don't want their merchandise walking out the door and then propose common sense solutions like allowing people to sue grocery stores for closing lol Grocery deserts, pharmacy deserts, rampant crime and car break-ins, prolonged school closures from COVID lockdowns, homeless encampments, fentanyl overdoses, the decimation of small businesses. No. No, no no. The real harm is the controversial thing that Joe Rogan said. It's why Trump gained black and hispanic voters in 2024. The Democrat stronghold is becoming the white college educated liberal that has the privilege to care more about what Joe Rogan says than all the shit around them that's making their life harder. + Show Spoiler +Credit where credit is due, California voters overwhelmingly passed a proposition to crackdown on shoplifting by making stiffer penalties, Gavin Newsom has ordered cities to clean up their homeless encampments, Newsom has used the California Highway Patrol to surge into cities dealing with high levels of crime and refused to offer the CHP surge to another city unless they hire more local police. Newsom has also advocated changing pursuit policies that prohibit police from chasing bad guys. Of course I don't credit any of this to wokeists seeing the light, more like Newsom gearing up for a 2028 Presidential run as a moderate.
The subject is now being changed from your original anti-DEI posts (firefighters and SCJs) to a general anti-wokeness / we-shouldn't-go-easy-on-shoplifters position. Do you acknowledge that DEI is generally good and smart and tends to be beneficial for businesses that implement it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
