|
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 |
United States41936 Posts
On January 24 2025 11:16 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 07:05 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 06:44 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 06:33 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 06:19 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 05:46 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 05:13 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 22:52 KwarK wrote: [quote] Okay but I literally read the text of it and it didn't mandate that and then I linked the text of it and asked you where it said that.
It mandates that by way of saying contractors need to take "affirmative action..." The regulations are written after for what the entails. According to the wikipedia page on Executive Order 11246 some of the things it requires are Federal regulations require affirmative action plans to include an equal opportunity policy statement, an analysis of the current workforce, identification of under-represented areas, the establishment of reasonable, flexible goals and timetables for increasing employment opportunities, specific action-oriented programs to address problem areas, support for community action programs, and the establishment of an internal audit and reporting system. Or on the Code of Federal Regulations website Contents of affirmative action programs.
(1) An affirmative action program must include the following quantitative analyses:
(i) Organizational profile—§ 60-2.11;
(ii) Job group analysis—§ 60-2.12;
(iii) Placement of incumbents in job groups—§ 60-2.13;
(iv) Determining availability—§ 60-2.14;
(v) Comparing incumbency to availability—§ 60-2.15; and
(vi) Placement goals—§ 60-2.16.
(2) In addition, an affirmative action program must include the following components specified in the § 60-2.17 of this part:
(i) Designation of responsibility for implementation;
(ii) Identification of problem areas;
(iii) Action-oriented programs; and
(iv) Periodic internal audits.
(c) Documentation. Contractors must maintain and make available to OFCCP documentation of their compliance with §§ 60-2.11 through 60-2.17. You can go one layer deeper and look at one specific requirement, Placement Goals Where, pursuant to § 60-2.15, a contractor is required to establish a placement goal for a particular job group, the contractor must establish a percentage annual placement goal at least equal to the availability figure derived for women or minorities, as appropriate, for that job group. So federal contractors with 51 or more employees are required to set a placement goal that is the % greater than or equal to the number of available women and minorities qualified for that position. That's just one regulation of many that have been revoked with Trump's action. You can argue the merits of setting placement goals for women and minorities if you want. I'm not really interested in that. I was simply pointing out the bullshit dishonest framing that you originally offered. Will you please, for the love of god, take 5 fucking minutes and just read the EO we’re disagreeing about. Not the Wikipedia summary of it, the EO itself. It’s not that long. It’s fewer words than you’ve spent so far arguing about the contents of a page of words you didn’t read. I provided you a link to the document and stated that after reading it top to bottom I just wasn’t seeing the affirmative action stuff you were upset about. I invited you to copy and paste the sections that upset you so that we could clear up what you were talking about. Right now we’re not arguing about the merits of affirmative action, we’re not there yet, we’re arguing about whether it was even about affirmative action. And only one of us has checked. How is it that you’re completely unwilling to read a page of text but utterly committed to arguing about what is on that page with someone that you know has read it? What’s your end game here? How do you care so much about what is on the page while not caring enough to read what is on the page? From the text of Executive order 11246 The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, You cut off the bit where it specified what the action the contractor had to perform was. It was to act to ensure that they’re not discriminating in employment. contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin Nothing in there about quotas or anything. It’s simple and easily understood English. No racial discrimination and no tolerating racial discrimination. If you see racial discrimination you’re required to take action to address it, you can’t just accept it as part of the organization. I never said anything about quotas. I said it led to a plethora of affirmative action regulations that Trump's EO overturned. Affirmative action regulations in other documents that aren’t the one we’re currently discussing that he repealed? He repealed the civil rights EO because it was fine but a different regulation wasn’t? The affirmative action regulations laid out by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs whom the executive order tasks with enforcing EO 11246. These are not "other documents." They are regulations stemming from this executive order. Here is the webpage from the DoL's website detailing some of the regulations authorized by EO 11246 https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/executive-order-11246/regulations Is your position that Trump couldn’t have changed those regulations? Because if not you’re still missing the link between “affirmative action/DEI” (the idea conservatives have) and dismantling the 1965 requirement that federal contractors desegregate. Why do you find it necessary for him to use a scalpel here when segregation ended decades ago and there's already federal protections against discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, etc. Why would you need an umbrella if you're dry? Because the umbrella is part of why you're dry. Being dry doesn't make it useless.
You can't have it both ways, you can't say that we already have federal protections against discrimination and that they're so good we should reduce them. If you're against protections against discrimination then be against them. If you're for them then be for them. Don't try to find the sweet spot where you're so happy with anti discrimination legislation that you think it should be gutted.
I find it necessary for him to use a scalpel because he's dismantling part of the civil rights movement and I'd rather he leave it as intact as possible. Why do you find it necessary for him to take a chainsaw to the policies that desegregated the workforce? What upside could there be there?
|
On January 24 2025 11:01 BlackJack wrote: By the way I want to point out the last time a discussion along the lines of this one came up Baal made the argument that East Asians were tested to have a higher IQ than Europeans and someone made the response of "Of course if you say white people are more intelligent than black people it's going get challenged" even though literally nobody had said that.
This time I made an argument that Koreans are better than non-Koreans at Starcraft and Magic Powers responds with "the idea that white people are more skilled than black people..." even though literally nobody said that either. I mean you are the one who keeps making an argument that Kentanji Brown Jackson can't possibly be the best pick for supreme court because Biden announced he was hiring a Black Women. So given that you bring it up at least weekly you need to give some people some grace when you make a fairly parallel argument that you are leading towards your go to.
|
On January 24 2025 11:57 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 11:01 BlackJack wrote: By the way I want to point out the last time a discussion along the lines of this one came up Baal made the argument that East Asians were tested to have a higher IQ than Europeans and someone made the response of "Of course if you say white people are more intelligent than black people it's going get challenged" even though literally nobody had said that.
This time I made an argument that Koreans are better than non-Koreans at Starcraft and Magic Powers responds with "the idea that white people are more skilled than black people..." even though literally nobody said that either. I mean you are the one who keeps making an argument that Kentanji Brown Jackson can't possibly be the best pick for supreme court because Biden announced he was hiring a Black Women. So given that you bring it up at least weekly you need to give some people some grace when you make a fairly parallel argument that you are leading towards your go to.
Never said that. It's on brand for you to make things up to win internet arguments.
|
On January 24 2025 10:10 KwarK wrote:https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/23/president-donald-trump-says-hell-demand-that-interest-rates-drop-immediately.htmlShow nested quote +“I’ll demand that interest rates drop immediately,” Trump said
during the presidential campaign Trump indicated that he should get a say in interest rate decisions.
Speaking later in the day to reporters, Trump said he expects the Fed to listen to him and plans to speak to Powell “at the right time.” Inflation is back on the menu boys. This was a very predictable Trump policy, I’ve been saying he was going to do this because of course he’d do this, he did exactly this last time. For those needing an economics refresher, low interest rates move future money into present demand which stimulates the economy by driving up consumer spend. But more money in the economy has a dilutive effect on the money because the supply of goods can’t perfectly mirror the demand for those goods. So it pumps up values and causes big stock market valuations due to cheap cash and stock buybacks but it causes inflation. He was warned last time that the economy was overheating and that interest rates needed to be raised to avoid inflation. He insisted they be lowered and America had a lot of inflation, though stock valuations were good for those who owned them. And Trump bragged about that because he doesn’t understand the difference between the SP500 valuations and the actual economy. Biden spent four years doing the thankless work of getting inflation under control just in time for Trump to come back and do it all over again. More debt, more deficit spending, pump up today, let someone else worry about tomorrow.
Trump's been so focused on destroying civil rights over the past few days, it's really nice that he decided to mix it up a little by accidentally promising to raise inflation rates and re-destroy the economy.
|
On January 24 2025 12:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 11:57 Billyboy wrote:On January 24 2025 11:01 BlackJack wrote: By the way I want to point out the last time a discussion along the lines of this one came up Baal made the argument that East Asians were tested to have a higher IQ than Europeans and someone made the response of "Of course if you say white people are more intelligent than black people it's going get challenged" even though literally nobody had said that.
This time I made an argument that Koreans are better than non-Koreans at Starcraft and Magic Powers responds with "the idea that white people are more skilled than black people..." even though literally nobody said that either. I mean you are the one who keeps making an argument that Kentanji Brown Jackson can't possibly be the best pick for supreme court because Biden announced he was hiring a Black Women. So given that you bring it up at least weekly you need to give some people some grace when you make a fairly parallel argument that you are leading towards your go to. Never said that. It's on brand for you to make things up to win internet arguments.
Oh come on.
|
On January 24 2025 12:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 12:07 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 11:57 Billyboy wrote:On January 24 2025 11:01 BlackJack wrote: By the way I want to point out the last time a discussion along the lines of this one came up Baal made the argument that East Asians were tested to have a higher IQ than Europeans and someone made the response of "Of course if you say white people are more intelligent than black people it's going get challenged" even though literally nobody had said that.
This time I made an argument that Koreans are better than non-Koreans at Starcraft and Magic Powers responds with "the idea that white people are more skilled than black people..." even though literally nobody said that either. I mean you are the one who keeps making an argument that Kentanji Brown Jackson can't possibly be the best pick for supreme court because Biden announced he was hiring a Black Women. So given that you bring it up at least weekly you need to give some people some grace when you make a fairly parallel argument that you are leading towards your go to. Never said that. It's on brand for you to make things up to win internet arguments. Oh come on. I actually spit out my drink on that one!
|
On January 24 2025 10:07 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 05:46 Magic Powers wrote:On January 24 2025 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 04:44 Magic Powers wrote:On January 24 2025 03:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote: You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist. The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. Wtf does that even mean? If your NBA team has an overrepresentation of blacks so you pass over Michael Jordan to select John Stockton then it would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to say "You still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." If the best candidate is in the overrepresented group then the candidate you select in their stead Is. Not. The. Best. Candidate. oBlade made it even more simple for you by using your own analogy. You think Magnus is the best chess player and I agree with you. You're not "still getting the best candidate" if you have to choose Vishy Anand for your chess team because your team already has too many white people. Only the mental gymnastics of wokeism would allow such a contradiction to exist. 20 candidates have a skill that is valued on a scale from 1-10. Ten candidates are in group A, ten are in group B. The two groups have an overal equal value. The individuals in each group are valued at 1, 2, 3... up to 10. You have a bias towards group A. This means that, every time you're presented with a choice between two candidates, you will always pick a candidate from group A. Now you're being asked to pick one of two candidates. Candidate 1 is from group A, candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. Now you're being asked again to pick one of two candidates. Again candidate 1 is from group A and candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. You will repeat this process until you have picked a total of ten candidates. At the end there will be an evaluation of your picks. As you repeat this process, you will end up picking all ten candidates from group A and none from group B, even though the value of the candidates you've been picking has been declining constantly. The value of your ten picks will be 1+2+3... until 10 divided by 10. The average valuation will be 5.5 If you had instead picked candidates from both groups (i.e. without bias), you would've been able to reach a much better total valuation of 8 (edit: I meant to say average valuation). You've missed out on 2.5 out of 8 points of valuation, which means your valuation is 31% worse than the best possible valuation. The solution to this problem is DEI. Every time you pick a candidate from group A, you must next pick a candidate from group B. That way you prevent ending up with a bad valuation resulting from bias. PS: no matter how small your group bias is, you will always end up with a lower valuation when you have a group bias towards A or B (unless one of the two groups has an inherently higher/lower valuation than the other). Sure if you get to arbitrarily declare in your hypothetical that the underrepresented group is equally skilled as the overrepresented group. Let's draft a 1960s-70s era chess team. I'll pick Russian after Russian and you can pick one from group A and one from group B. My team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a 1990s basketball team and I will pick Black American after Black American and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a Starcraft team and I will pick Korean after Korean and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass. The idea that white people are more skilled than black people, or that men are more skilled than women, is... Can you guess it? This is such a flawed argument… you’re giving easy wins to BlackJack with these comments. Of course on average white people are better at engineering than black people in the USA because on average white people have more money and more parents that went to engineering school. It’s not racist to say that. To push it even further, even saying things like « on average, white people are naturally better at xxx than black people » isn’t necessarily racist if it’s backed up by enough scientific data. For example I could say « on average black people are naturally better at running fast than white people » and I don’t think I’d be racist. I have an issue with left leaning people refusing basic facts because I’m left leaning myself and you’re pushing rational people towards the far right with this kind of reasoning.
No, white people are not better at engineering than black people. There's a very simple reason why this is a falsehood. When you receive a diploma after graduation, you're on the same level as your peers because you've passed the same test.
BJ is not being "more rational" with this reasoning. He's regurgitating racist talking points that are flawed on every level, both fundamentally and concretely.
|
On January 24 2025 10:46 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 09:51 Magic Powers wrote:On January 24 2025 06:31 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 06:22 Magic Powers wrote:On January 24 2025 06:13 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 05:56 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 04:44 Magic Powers wrote:On January 24 2025 03:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote: [quote]
The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. Wtf does that even mean? If your NBA team has an overrepresentation of blacks so you pass over Michael Jordan to select John Stockton then it would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to say "You still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." If the best candidate is in the overrepresented group then the candidate you select in their stead Is. Not. The. Best. Candidate. oBlade made it even more simple for you by using your own analogy. You think Magnus is the best chess player and I agree with you. You're not "still getting the best candidate" if you have to choose Vishy Anand for your chess team because your team already has too many white people. Only the mental gymnastics of wokeism would allow such a contradiction to exist. 20 candidates have a skill that is valued on a scale from 1-10. Ten candidates are in group A, ten are in group B. The two groups have an overal equal value. The individuals in each group are valued at 1, 2, 3... up to 10. You have a bias towards group A. This means that, every time you're presented with a choice between two candidates, you will always pick a candidate from group A. Now you're being asked to pick one of two candidates. Candidate 1 is from group A, candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. Now you're being asked again to pick one of two candidates. Again candidate 1 is from group A and candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. You will repeat this process until you have picked a total of ten candidates. At the end there will be an evaluation of your picks. As you repeat this process, you will end up picking all ten candidates from group A and none from group B, even though the value of the candidates you've been picking has been declining constantly. The value of your ten picks will be 1+2+3... until 10 divided by 10. The average valuation will be 5.5 If you had instead picked candidates from both groups (i.e. without bias), you would've been able to reach a much better total valuation of 8 (edit: I meant to say average valuation). You've missed out on 2.5 out of 8 points of valuation, which means your valuation is 31% worse than the best possible valuation. The solution to this problem is DEI. Every time you pick a candidate from group A, you must next pick a candidate from group B. That way you prevent ending up with a bad valuation resulting from bias. PS: no matter how small your group bias is, you will always end up with a lower valuation when you have a group bias towards A or B (unless one of the two groups has an inherently higher/lower valuation than the other). Sure if you get to arbitrarily declare in your hypothetical that the underrepresented group is equally skilled as the overrepresented group. Let's draft a 1960s-70s era chess team. I'll pick Russian after Russian and you can pick one from group A and one from group B. My team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a 1990s basketball team and I will pick Black American after Black American and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a Starcraft team and I will pick Korean after Korean and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass. Koreans aren’t better because they’re Korean, the Koreans who are better are better because they practiced more. Discriminating based on MMR is fine, you’re completely allowed to pick an all Korean team based on picking the highest MMR players. It’d be racial discrimination if you picked a team of low MMR Koreans over higher MMR white guys. The fact that you seem to genuinely be unable to tell the difference between selecting based on competency and racist segregation is troubling. A policy of only selecting ethnic Koreans would be segregation. A policy of only selecting high MMR players with the language skills to engage with Korean language resources would not be. This isn’t very hard for everyone else to understand. I didn't say Koreans were inherently better at Starcraft, did I? I said they are better. They are also "overrepresented." According to Magic Powers They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. The idea that any candidate outside of the over-represented group, i.e. a non-Korean, could still be considered "the best candidate" demands you spit in the face of common sense. That's why I wrote the other comment explaining the mathematics behind group bias leading to a lower overall valuation. It requires that both groups are equal to begin with, which is the case in the instance of white and black people applying for the same job. Surely you wouldn't argue that white people are better at, say, engineering than black people? In your hypothetical world where Koreans and non-Koreans are equally as good as Starcraft it would make sense to pick a team where each group is equally represented. We all agree with your hypothetical world. When you're ready to leave your hypothetical world and have a serious conversation about the real world let me know. You absolutely fail to understand the argument. You're pulling the Korean SC argument not because it's a counter to my explanations, but because you have no response to my explanations. You're sidestepping the argument entirely. Why do you always think your arguments are so deep that nobody understands them? A 5 year old could understand your argument. If you have 2 groups of equal skill but your bias inhibits you from recruiting from one of the groups then you will leave talent on the table, so to speak, that will cause the resulting selection to be inferior to what it could have been. DEI/AA attempts to correct for that. The counter point is that it's not necessarily true that the 2 groups are of equal skill so if you assume an overrepresentation is due to bias then you could end up with an inferior selection after overcorrecting for that bias. Sometimes African-Americans just crush at basketball. Soviets crush at chess. Koreans crush at Starcraft. Your response along the lines of "you must think Koreans are inherently better at Starcraft" is where the conversation veers off course. It's a ridiculous response and ironically it's you that can't understand my argument, not the other way around.
The example of Korean SC skill is absurd and has nothing to do with a racist hiring bias. Honestly I think you don't understand the purpose of education and diplomas.
|
Let me just quickly and completely destroy this "Korean SC supremacy" argument very simply. It's complete nonsense and it should be obvious why it's nonsense.
Anyone was allowed to pass the Kespa courage tournaments that were held to give out progamer licenses to individuals. It didn't matter which country people came from. This ensured that people could join progaming teams and start practicing with the best players.
The hurdle for non-Koreans was greater due to disadvantages in their practice regimen, language, and gaming culture, among other reasons, prior to qualification. But they were all allowed to participate and try to attain a license.
As soon as someone attained a progamer license, they were considered equals to all other rookies who just recently attained a license. The were provided the same practice regimen in the same rooms and they lived together with the other progaming teams. Of course there were differently ranked teams for the top progamers and the lower tier ones, but that was more or less the only important difference.
Now, if someone was given a list of progamers who - just a day earlier - attained their license, and that person argued that the Koreans on that list are better than the foreigners (who likewise just attained a license) with the reasoning that "they're Koreans and Koreans are generally better at SC", then it would be entirely fair to say that that was a racist statement. There is no basis for such a claim because all of the progamers on that list just recently attained a license. There would be no way to tell which one of them was better than the other.
And this is what we're talking about. We're not talking about an unequal field to begin with, we're talking about equal qualification. When the qualification is the same, then a racial bias would be wrong.
BJ deflects and gaslights other people (or perhaps also himself) into thinking that, just because the Korean population has/had a historic advantage up until the moment of attaining a progamer license, it is therefore fair to say that pointing out Korean supremacy in SC isn't racist but strictly an observation of reality.
What he fails to understand is that this has nothing to do with DEI. In the realm of DEI, all individuals in question are already determined to be equally qualified (like progaming licenses attained through courage tournaments). They have the same degrees, the same level of education, the same level of training. DEI is designed to prevent a racial bias within a level playing field.
Pointing to Korean SC supremacy is strictly deflection. It has nothing to do with the argument.
|
On January 24 2025 12:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 12:07 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 11:57 Billyboy wrote:On January 24 2025 11:01 BlackJack wrote: By the way I want to point out the last time a discussion along the lines of this one came up Baal made the argument that East Asians were tested to have a higher IQ than Europeans and someone made the response of "Of course if you say white people are more intelligent than black people it's going get challenged" even though literally nobody had said that.
This time I made an argument that Koreans are better than non-Koreans at Starcraft and Magic Powers responds with "the idea that white people are more skilled than black people..." even though literally nobody said that either. I mean you are the one who keeps making an argument that Kentanji Brown Jackson can't possibly be the best pick for supreme court because Biden announced he was hiring a Black Women. So given that you bring it up at least weekly you need to give some people some grace when you make a fairly parallel argument that you are leading towards your go to. Never said that. It's on brand for you to make things up to win internet arguments. Oh come on.
The problem with repeating your own strawmans so frequently is that you forget what the other person has said and remember the other person's position as your strawman.
In this case that strawman is that someone that is chosen in part for their race/sex, as Kamala Harris and KJB were, it means I think they are unqualified.
On October 29 2024 03:53 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2024 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2024 20:59 oBlade wrote: Trump was not chosen, he was elected; there's a difference. So if Harris gets elected president next week, she can no longer be considered an unqualified DEI hire by BlackJack and Republicans? 1. I didn’t say she was unqualified2. Yes, obviously. Calling Harris a “DEI hire” for being elected President makes as much sense as calling Trump a “DEI hire.” None.
On July 27 2024 05:50 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2024 05:34 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 05:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 05:09 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 04:52 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 04:04 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 03:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 03:18 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 01:23 Elroi wrote: Didn’t Biden say he would choose a black woman for vp before making the choice? That would effectively make it a “diversity hire” by definition (if that were indeed the case, I don’t remember). It seems the best way to shut down the “diversity hire” talk would be to stop going around bragging about how you’re going to hire people for their diversity. Just a thought. Not if Republicans keep bringing it up unprovoked anyway, anytime someone isn't a white man. Not that effective a strat in reality. This ain't complicated. When one group is so outspokenly against diversity, so outspokenly against equity, and so outspokenly against inclusion, they're telling you who they are. Believe them. "I'm only going to consider hiring a black person for this job" "Hey man that's not cool, you shouldn't favor an applicant based on the color of their skin and exclude all other races." "Why are you against hiring a black person you racist fuck" I know you think that makes sense but it doesn't to me. Then I can help. When Biden announced he would be selecting someone of a certain demographic for the Supreme Court if he got the chance, someone with a reasonable amount of skepticism would say "okay, he said X, which makes me worry that Y is going to happen", "Y" being you get an incompetent or under qualified candidate that fits a demographic, and was seemingly chosen only for that trait. At that point in time, I would expect anyone reasonable to hold that position. As surprising as it may be, some people disagree with X and Y. That is, we shouldn't limit a pool of applicants for a job on the basis of skin color, even if the eventual hire of the "chosen skin color" is qualified for the job. And it's the same with Kamala Harris. Knee-jerking with "DEI hire" quips is obviously and obliviously looking past all the real reasons she's a central leader in the Democratic party right now. The real reason she is a central leader in the Democratic party is because she is the VP. A large reason she is the VP is because Biden wanted a running mate that checked certain boxes. Disagree with "X" and "Y" in what way? . That we shouldn't hire/exclude on the basis of skin color. Sorry I can't put it anymore plainly than that. You're just decontextualizing what I said, and repeating what you said at the start. You're being willfully ignorant at this point. A shame. You made the incorrect assumption that I disagreed with hiring on the basis of race because it meant an unqualified person would be hired. When in reality I disagree with hiring on the basis of race, full stop. Period. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. The fact that Kentaji Brown Jackson is qualified for her position is added context but it's completely irrelevant. You seem to think that people only disagree with hiring people for their skin color because they believe it will lead to less qualified people being hired. I'm letting you know that some people disagree with it because it's discriminatory and racist.
Repeatedly calling out this strawman...
On September 13 2024 08:29 BlackJack wrote: I think we've been around this circle a few times already
Biden: I'm going to appoint a black woman to SCOTUS People: Hey you shouldn't appoint someone based on the color of their skin You: Why are you objecting to Biden's decision to appoint a black woman to SCOTUS? You must have an issue with black women or think they are unqualified
See the problem is you think the objection to forming policy around skin color is in itself making a judgement on skin color.
Apparently you have a habitually faulty memory because previously you had accused me of repeatedly calling Kamala/KBJ DEI Hires. Another TL user took it upon himself to search my post history to see if you were telling the truth
On October 30 2024 12:16 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 10:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Cool gaslighting, bro. You've mentioned that phrase over and over again in the past, and aimed it squarely at Harris and KBJ. Maybe stop bringing up their race and sex. I got curious about this so I searched all BlackJack posts. ... I'm not sure where the arguments about KBJ are, but no, BlackJack has not repeatedly used "this phrase" over and over again in the past. That was oBlade. EDIT: To be clear, I'm not invested in defending BlackJack's apparent opinions about Kamala's credentials, I just wanted to see if any gaslighting was going on.
Your memory is not very good. No offense. Don't take my word for it. Take Turbolover's word who checked my search history to determine you are full of shit.
|
Obviously Korean players had a leg up in getting a Korean progamer's license in Korea. Significant missing context is many players joined teams as trainees before passing the Courage and getting a license to join the actual rosters.Which by the way is not a world Starcraft diploma or qualification, there is no international Starcraft tertiary education or trade school standard. Nonkoreans never took the WCG title in a decade of BW. Korean teams that took on Idra or Draco were not correcting a terrible hiring discrimination problem, and teams that didn't keep ret or Nony were not perpetuating an undiverse lack of equality to their own economic, or society's, detriment.
In the US, if you are looking for an engineer, it is more likely that the best candidate would be white, than that they would be black. It is more likely that they would be a man, than a woman.
Despite what people have been taught by the Daily Show, no opponent of "DEI" in this thread believes a black woman can't be qualified or the best at something. Historically "affirmative action" in that case means, for example, programs that train doctors lowered standards for certain applicants on the assumption that if you just get people in the door, they are basically interchangeable and will become identically exceptional once they come out through the other end of the medical school black box - and also the often very real assumption that if they didn't, the federal government would sue them or take away money because they weren't following federal standards for selection of protected characteristics.
|
On January 24 2025 06:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 05:56 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 04:44 Magic Powers wrote:On January 24 2025 03:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote: You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist. The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. Wtf does that even mean? If your NBA team has an overrepresentation of blacks so you pass over Michael Jordan to select John Stockton then it would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to say "You still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." If the best candidate is in the overrepresented group then the candidate you select in their stead Is. Not. The. Best. Candidate. oBlade made it even more simple for you by using your own analogy. You think Magnus is the best chess player and I agree with you. You're not "still getting the best candidate" if you have to choose Vishy Anand for your chess team because your team already has too many white people. Only the mental gymnastics of wokeism would allow such a contradiction to exist. 20 candidates have a skill that is valued on a scale from 1-10. Ten candidates are in group A, ten are in group B. The two groups have an overal equal value. The individuals in each group are valued at 1, 2, 3... up to 10. You have a bias towards group A. This means that, every time you're presented with a choice between two candidates, you will always pick a candidate from group A. Now you're being asked to pick one of two candidates. Candidate 1 is from group A, candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. Now you're being asked again to pick one of two candidates. Again candidate 1 is from group A and candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. You will repeat this process until you have picked a total of ten candidates. At the end there will be an evaluation of your picks. As you repeat this process, you will end up picking all ten candidates from group A and none from group B, even though the value of the candidates you've been picking has been declining constantly. The value of your ten picks will be 1+2+3... until 10 divided by 10. The average valuation will be 5.5 If you had instead picked candidates from both groups (i.e. without bias), you would've been able to reach a much better total valuation of 8 (edit: I meant to say average valuation). You've missed out on 2.5 out of 8 points of valuation, which means your valuation is 31% worse than the best possible valuation. The solution to this problem is DEI. Every time you pick a candidate from group A, you must next pick a candidate from group B. That way you prevent ending up with a bad valuation resulting from bias. PS: no matter how small your group bias is, you will always end up with a lower valuation when you have a group bias towards A or B (unless one of the two groups has an inherently higher/lower valuation than the other). Sure if you get to arbitrarily declare in your hypothetical that the underrepresented group is equally skilled as the overrepresented group. Let's draft a 1960s-70s era chess team. I'll pick Russian after Russian and you can pick one from group A and one from group B. My team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a 1990s basketball team and I will pick Black American after Black American and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a Starcraft team and I will pick Korean after Korean and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass. Koreans aren’t better because they’re Korean, the Koreans who are better are better because they practiced more. Discriminating based on MMR is fine, you’re completely allowed to pick an all Korean team based on picking the highest MMR players. It’d be racial discrimination if you picked a team of low MMR Koreans over higher MMR white guys. The fact that you seem to genuinely be unable to tell the difference between selecting based on competency and racist segregation is troubling. A policy of only selecting ethnic Koreans would be segregation. A policy of only selecting high MMR players with the language skills to engage with Korean language resources would not be. This isn’t very hard for everyone else to understand. I didn't say Koreans were inherently better at Starcraft, did I? I said they are better. They are also "overrepresented." According to Magic Powers Show nested quote +They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. The idea that any candidate outside of the over-represented group, i.e. a non-Korean, could still be considered "the best candidate" demands you spit in the face of common sense.
So Serral and 3 korean retired primary school teachers aged 87,65 and 76 who never touched a computer at home are the only applicants for a job with Hyundai/Kia Europe Starcraft III Team....
|
The idea that any candidate outside of the over-represented group, i.e. a non-Korean, could still be considered "the best candidate" demands you spit in the face of common sense.
Do you want a caste system? Because this is how you end with a caste system.
On January 24 2025 14:01 oBlade wrote: In the US, if you are looking for an engineer, it is more likely that the best candidate would be white, than that they would be black. It is more likely that they would be a man, than a woman.
Sure, except it's not this way because white males are inherently better at engineering but because there simply is a higher number of white male engineers than black or female engineers in the United States. And if you make no concessions to DEI, the overwhelming majority of engineering students will continue to be white males, not because white males actually make better engineers, but because of social expectations, parental guidance, etc. You really don't see how this is problematic?
|
But maybe the Blacks just don't wanna math because they boogie so hard.
|
On January 24 2025 16:59 KT_Elwood wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 06:13 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 05:56 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 04:44 Magic Powers wrote:On January 24 2025 03:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote: You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist. The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. Wtf does that even mean? If your NBA team has an overrepresentation of blacks so you pass over Michael Jordan to select John Stockton then it would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to say "You still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." If the best candidate is in the overrepresented group then the candidate you select in their stead Is. Not. The. Best. Candidate. oBlade made it even more simple for you by using your own analogy. You think Magnus is the best chess player and I agree with you. You're not "still getting the best candidate" if you have to choose Vishy Anand for your chess team because your team already has too many white people. Only the mental gymnastics of wokeism would allow such a contradiction to exist. 20 candidates have a skill that is valued on a scale from 1-10. Ten candidates are in group A, ten are in group B. The two groups have an overal equal value. The individuals in each group are valued at 1, 2, 3... up to 10. You have a bias towards group A. This means that, every time you're presented with a choice between two candidates, you will always pick a candidate from group A. Now you're being asked to pick one of two candidates. Candidate 1 is from group A, candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. Now you're being asked again to pick one of two candidates. Again candidate 1 is from group A and candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. You will repeat this process until you have picked a total of ten candidates. At the end there will be an evaluation of your picks. As you repeat this process, you will end up picking all ten candidates from group A and none from group B, even though the value of the candidates you've been picking has been declining constantly. The value of your ten picks will be 1+2+3... until 10 divided by 10. The average valuation will be 5.5 If you had instead picked candidates from both groups (i.e. without bias), you would've been able to reach a much better total valuation of 8 (edit: I meant to say average valuation). You've missed out on 2.5 out of 8 points of valuation, which means your valuation is 31% worse than the best possible valuation. The solution to this problem is DEI. Every time you pick a candidate from group A, you must next pick a candidate from group B. That way you prevent ending up with a bad valuation resulting from bias. PS: no matter how small your group bias is, you will always end up with a lower valuation when you have a group bias towards A or B (unless one of the two groups has an inherently higher/lower valuation than the other). Sure if you get to arbitrarily declare in your hypothetical that the underrepresented group is equally skilled as the overrepresented group. Let's draft a 1960s-70s era chess team. I'll pick Russian after Russian and you can pick one from group A and one from group B. My team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a 1990s basketball team and I will pick Black American after Black American and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a Starcraft team and I will pick Korean after Korean and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass. Koreans aren’t better because they’re Korean, the Koreans who are better are better because they practiced more. Discriminating based on MMR is fine, you’re completely allowed to pick an all Korean team based on picking the highest MMR players. It’d be racial discrimination if you picked a team of low MMR Koreans over higher MMR white guys. The fact that you seem to genuinely be unable to tell the difference between selecting based on competency and racist segregation is troubling. A policy of only selecting ethnic Koreans would be segregation. A policy of only selecting high MMR players with the language skills to engage with Korean language resources would not be. This isn’t very hard for everyone else to understand. I didn't say Koreans were inherently better at Starcraft, did I? I said they are better. They are also "overrepresented." According to Magic Powers They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. The idea that any candidate outside of the over-represented group, i.e. a non-Korean, could still be considered "the best candidate" demands you spit in the face of common sense. So Serral and 3 korean retired primary school teachers aged 87,65 and 76 who never touched a computer at home are the only applicants for a job with Hyundai/Kia Europe Starcraft III Team....
Ugh. First of all I've never played or followed SC2 so I'm talking only about SC1. I'm not talking in hypotheticals. I'm talking specifically about the top players now. I'm drafting Flash, Soulkey, Light, Hero, Snow or something like that. You can draft some non-Koreans because "representation matters" or whatever. My team would win.
It's in response to Magic Powers post where he says "They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." The point is you can't "still get the best candidate" if you're not picking from the overrepresented group here (Koreans). If you're not picking Flash then you're not getting the best candidate. Period.
It's a very simple point to refute a very nonsensical statement but for whatever reason we have to fight tooth and nail to defend every inch of turf because acknowledging that Koreans dominate the top ranks of SC1 is somehow open for debate.
|
On January 24 2025 04:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 03:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote: You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist. The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. Wtf does that even mean? If your NBA team has an overrepresentation of blacks so you pass over Michael Jordan to select John Stockton then it would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to say "You still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." If the best candidate is in the overrepresented group then the candidate you select in their stead Is. Not. The. Best. Candidate. oBlade made it even more simple for you by using your own analogy. You think Magnus is the best chess player and I agree with you. You're not "still getting the best candidate" if you have to choose Vishy Anand for your chess team because your team already has too many white people. Only the mental gymnastics of wokeism would allow such a contradiction to exist. Have you been on a hiring committee? I’ve been on loads and your imaginary scenario where you’re forced to hire the less qualified candidate due to wokism hasn’t ever come up. As you are an expert on the matter;
Let's say there is a hypothetical situation where we are looking for a "Expert in History". The requirement for the job is "at least masters degree in history". Let's say the company consists of only white people at the moment.
We have a black applicant who has PhD in history We have another applicant who is white and has masters degree
They both go to an interview, and the white person gets picked for the job for whatever reason. Is this wrong? What if we flip around the degrees that the white person had PhD and the black person masters degree?
|
I'm a big fan of classical music and I just watched the National Chopin competition in Miami. Five of the six finalists were East Asians or Asian Americans. And it's the same in all the top competitions now. I have to admit, there is an element of "faceless koreans" here for me (and pianists are so often marketed based on their origin - think of Vikingur Olafsson...). But they were all amazing obviously. Kudos to the jury for not quoting in people, even where there must be very strong subconscious bias to do so.
|
On January 24 2025 18:42 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 04:18 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 03:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote: You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist. The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. Wtf does that even mean? If your NBA team has an overrepresentation of blacks so you pass over Michael Jordan to select John Stockton then it would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to say "You still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." If the best candidate is in the overrepresented group then the candidate you select in their stead Is. Not. The. Best. Candidate. oBlade made it even more simple for you by using your own analogy. You think Magnus is the best chess player and I agree with you. You're not "still getting the best candidate" if you have to choose Vishy Anand for your chess team because your team already has too many white people. Only the mental gymnastics of wokeism would allow such a contradiction to exist. Have you been on a hiring committee? I’ve been on loads and your imaginary scenario where you’re forced to hire the less qualified candidate due to wokism hasn’t ever come up. As you are an expert on the matter; Let's say there is a hypothetical situation where we are looking for a "Expert in History". The requirement for the job is "at least masters degree in history". Let's say the company consists of only white people at the moment. We have a black applicant who has PhD in history We have another applicant who is white and has masters degree They both go to an interview, and the white person gets picked for the job for whatever reason. Is this wrong? What if we flip around the degrees that the white person had PhD and the black person masters degree?
I can confirm what Kwark is saying. You get training to sit in on hiring committees and the DEI part mainly consists of ensuring you avoid discrimination (positive OR negative). One example in the training pack was: "if two candidates score equally on the primary criteria, you can't hire a black person just because they're black, you must look into secondary criteria until you find something that they're not scoring equally and thus ensure you select the best person for the job, regardless of how many rounds this takes".
During the interview process, you must write down your reasons for scoring the candidates. You can't disqualify a candidate because they're pregnant, you must hire the best person for the job.
Having said that, and also as Kwark explained a few pages ago, if a company/university wants to perpetuate biased hiring practices, there's nothing really stopping the hiring committee from just scoring 'unwanted' candidates lower. For instance, we have to score stuff like "fit to the department" and "research excellence" which can be very subjective.
|
On January 24 2025 13:16 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 12:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 24 2025 12:07 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 11:57 Billyboy wrote:On January 24 2025 11:01 BlackJack wrote: By the way I want to point out the last time a discussion along the lines of this one came up Baal made the argument that East Asians were tested to have a higher IQ than Europeans and someone made the response of "Of course if you say white people are more intelligent than black people it's going get challenged" even though literally nobody had said that.
This time I made an argument that Koreans are better than non-Koreans at Starcraft and Magic Powers responds with "the idea that white people are more skilled than black people..." even though literally nobody said that either. I mean you are the one who keeps making an argument that Kentanji Brown Jackson can't possibly be the best pick for supreme court because Biden announced he was hiring a Black Women. So given that you bring it up at least weekly you need to give some people some grace when you make a fairly parallel argument that you are leading towards your go to. Never said that. It's on brand for you to make things up to win internet arguments. Oh come on. The problem with repeating your own strawmans so frequently is that you forget what the other person has said and remember the other person's position as your strawman. In this case that strawman is that someone that is chosen in part for their race/sex, as Kamala Harris and KJB were, it means I think they are unqualified. Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 03:53 BlackJack wrote:On October 28 2024 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2024 20:59 oBlade wrote: Trump was not chosen, he was elected; there's a difference. So if Harris gets elected president next week, she can no longer be considered an unqualified DEI hire by BlackJack and Republicans? 1. I didn’t say she was unqualified2. Yes, obviously. Calling Harris a “DEI hire” for being elected President makes as much sense as calling Trump a “DEI hire.” None. Show nested quote +On July 27 2024 05:50 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 05:34 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 05:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 05:09 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 04:52 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 04:04 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 03:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 03:18 BlackJack wrote: [quote]
It seems the best way to shut down the “diversity hire” talk would be to stop going around bragging about how you’re going to hire people for their diversity. Just a thought. Not if Republicans keep bringing it up unprovoked anyway, anytime someone isn't a white man. Not that effective a strat in reality. This ain't complicated. When one group is so outspokenly against diversity, so outspokenly against equity, and so outspokenly against inclusion, they're telling you who they are. Believe them. "I'm only going to consider hiring a black person for this job" "Hey man that's not cool, you shouldn't favor an applicant based on the color of their skin and exclude all other races." "Why are you against hiring a black person you racist fuck" I know you think that makes sense but it doesn't to me. Then I can help. When Biden announced he would be selecting someone of a certain demographic for the Supreme Court if he got the chance, someone with a reasonable amount of skepticism would say "okay, he said X, which makes me worry that Y is going to happen", "Y" being you get an incompetent or under qualified candidate that fits a demographic, and was seemingly chosen only for that trait. At that point in time, I would expect anyone reasonable to hold that position. As surprising as it may be, some people disagree with X and Y. That is, we shouldn't limit a pool of applicants for a job on the basis of skin color, even if the eventual hire of the "chosen skin color" is qualified for the job. And it's the same with Kamala Harris. Knee-jerking with "DEI hire" quips is obviously and obliviously looking past all the real reasons she's a central leader in the Democratic party right now. The real reason she is a central leader in the Democratic party is because she is the VP. A large reason she is the VP is because Biden wanted a running mate that checked certain boxes. Disagree with "X" and "Y" in what way? . That we shouldn't hire/exclude on the basis of skin color. Sorry I can't put it anymore plainly than that. You're just decontextualizing what I said, and repeating what you said at the start. You're being willfully ignorant at this point. A shame. You made the incorrect assumption that I disagreed with hiring on the basis of race because it meant an unqualified person would be hired. When in reality I disagree with hiring on the basis of race, full stop. Period. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. The fact that Kentaji Brown Jackson is qualified for her position is added context but it's completely irrelevant. You seem to think that people only disagree with hiring people for their skin color because they believe it will lead to less qualified people being hired. I'm letting you know that some people disagree with it because it's discriminatory and racist. Repeatedly calling out this strawman... Show nested quote +On September 13 2024 08:29 BlackJack wrote: I think we've been around this circle a few times already
Biden: I'm going to appoint a black woman to SCOTUS People: Hey you shouldn't appoint someone based on the color of their skin You: Why are you objecting to Biden's decision to appoint a black woman to SCOTUS? You must have an issue with black women or think they are unqualified
See the problem is you think the objection to forming policy around skin color is in itself making a judgement on skin color. Apparently you have a habitually faulty memory because previously you had accused me of repeatedly calling Kamala/KBJ DEI Hires. Another TL user took it upon himself to search my post history to see if you were telling the truth Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 12:16 Turbovolver wrote:On October 30 2024 10:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Cool gaslighting, bro. You've mentioned that phrase over and over again in the past, and aimed it squarely at Harris and KBJ. Maybe stop bringing up their race and sex. I got curious about this so I searched all BlackJack posts. ... I'm not sure where the arguments about KBJ are, but no, BlackJack has not repeatedly used "this phrase" over and over again in the past. That was oBlade. EDIT: To be clear, I'm not invested in defending BlackJack's apparent opinions about Kamala's credentials, I just wanted to see if any gaslighting was going on. Your memory is not very good. No offense. Don't take my word for it. Take Turbolover's word who checked my search history to determine you are full of shit.
I can understand your selective quote mining here, as the sheer quantity of full-context discussions you've had about KBJ and/or about general DEI would be pages upon pages upon pages. And when you bring it all up again in February, and again in March, and again in April, I'm sure that you'll be just as stubborn in insisting that this toooootally hasn't become your modus operandi. Some passion projects are cool, but I'm not sure if this is the hill you want to keep dying on.
|
One of the largest IT companies in my city has this "gender quotas" written in their policy. The HR people have this set as their yearly goal. Thus their yearly review and compenasation depends on achieving the proper ratio between genders. I am sure this has no bearing on their hiring practices and the process is fair...
+ Show Spoiler + That above is sarcasm. I know for a fact that they do discriminate.
|
|
|
|