The Charlie Kirk Shuffle: false idol

Damocles said:
I would wonder if they do it based on the criteria used to choose them. If their race was among that criteria, that would be a DEI hire.

Let's say I have a checklist. And one item is more important than any of the rest. The person must be a Martian to get this position because Martians are not represented enough....

This discounts every other qualified candidate. Only Martians will be considered.

This would be a DEI hire. Even if the Martian would have gotten the job if every other race of being was considered, the fact that they were not would signify that it was DEI. Even if they do not announce it, the fact that they chose intersectionally rather than experientially would make it a DEI hire.

I would wonder that. I am not answering for them. She was certainly qualified, every American born citizen above the age of 35 is "qualified", the constitution says so. That doesn't mean I want someone like my next door neighbor to be President, only that he's as qualified as she if you go by that minimalist interpretation.
Click to expand...
Race isn't the only criterion that falls under DEI. "Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce in characteristics such as race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, age, culture, class, veteran status, or religion."

Right off the bat this makes all women DEI hires, since there are always fewer women than men working full time... even though there are slightly more women than men in the population. The deck's always been stacked in favor of white men.
 
FastLane said:
She was VP for FOUR YEARS the people knew exactly who she was. Her highest approval ratings occurred at the beginning of her campaign and fell the more she avoided interviews. And the few that she did she spoke in word salads. Trump got 312 electoral votes and Harris got 226. All Harris did was blow 1.5 billion of Democrat money in 107 days. She sucked as a candidate . I'm OK with that.
Click to expand...
No matter what you, personally, think of her, she was orders of magnitude more qualified that what's in office now.
 
christiefan915 said:
Race isn't the only criterion that falls under DEI. "Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce in characteristics such as race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, age, culture, class, veteran status, or religion."

Right off the bat this makes all women DEI hires, since there are always fewer women than men working full time... even though there are slightly more women than men in the population. The deck's always been stacked in favor of white men.
Click to expand...
Pretending that saying "Diversity" gives you deniability is pretense. Folks on the left make it clear, saying things like Biden's "I will appoint a black woman" then calling it "diversity" is simply a disconnect in messaging vs reality and does not change the reality. Race was the binding factor in who he picked, this made that choice a DEI hire (I believe). If no other race need apply, and if such other resumes are only cursorily viewed to give yourself deniability, then what you have is a DEI hire.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
We've had some reasonable conservatives here in the past. The problem is most civil, reasonable people don't care for the personal attacks and vile language here (Yep, I'm sometimes guilty of that myself.) There seem to be plenty of them on more tightly-moderated forums.
Click to expand...
I'm used to it now. I dish it out as well as I take it. I could come back to Debate Politics as a sock if I wanted to. Not going to do it - those people there all turned their back on me when the going got a little rough.

Got some new friends here, now.
 
Damocles said:
Pretending that saying "Diversity" gives you deniability is pretense. Folks on the left make it clear, saying things like Biden's "I will appoint a black woman" then calling it "diversity" is simply a disconnect in messaging vs reality and does not change the reality. Race was the binding factor in who he picked, this made that choice a DEI hire (I believe). If no other race need apply, and if such other resumes are only cursorily viewed to give yourself deniability, then what you have is a DEI hire.
Click to expand...
<yawn> And I bet that back in the day that era's magas thought RBG was a DEI hire.

White men will always find a reason to consider someone different a DEI hire.
 
Damocles said:
Pretending that saying "Diversity" gives you deniability is pretense. Folks on the left make it clear, saying things like Biden's "I will appoint a black woman" then calling it "diversity" is simply a disconnect in messaging vs reality and does not change the reality. Race was the binding factor in who he picked, this made that choice a DEI hire (I believe). If no other race need apply, and if such other resumes are only cursorily viewed to give yourself deniability, then what you have is a DEI hire.
Click to expand...
So, I guess what you're saying is you're comfortable the 3 justices trump appointed, all white, Christians were the "most qualified" trump could pick?

So I guess, here's the deal: You're pissed because Democrats said the quiet part out loud, that they hired someone based on race first, qualifications second.

I think it interesting you don't complain much about trump's appontements. I guess if he had said, "all I'm going to hire are white Christians I know will vote to overturn Rowe", you'd have complained?

I just can't resist pointing out your double standards.
 
Damocles said:
Pretending that saying "Diversity" gives you deniability is pretense. Folks on the left make it clear, saying things like Biden's "I will appoint a black woman" then calling it "diversity" is simply a disconnect in messaging vs reality and does not change the reality. Race was the binding factor in who he picked, this made that choice a DEI hire (I believe). If no other race need apply, and if such other resumes are only cursorily viewed to give yourself deniability, then what you have is a DEI hire.
Click to expand...
Btw Damo, how about this? No different from Biden, ay?

"On July 7, 1981, Reagan – who had pledged during his 1980 presidential campaign to appoint the first woman to the Court – announced he would nominate O'Connor as an associate justice of the Supreme Court to replace the retiring Potter Stewart."
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Guno,

Kirk was a racist.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but he was a Christian racist much like Abraham Lincoln was a Christian racist. Both believed people of color were inferior to Caucasians, but also believed in trying to help them.

MAGAts, OTOH, favor a return to slavery.

Lumping all racists in one big shitbag isn't always in the best interests of those seeking a more tolerant America. MAGAts, being self-serving mammon-worshipers, are evil, often stupid and clearly unpersuadable. Racist Christians can be appealed to through their Christianity and turned against the Satanic mammon-worshipers. Exploiting the difference is a key to breaking MAGAt traitors.
 
christiefan915 said:
<yawn> And I bet that back in the day that era's magas thought RBG was a DEI hire.

White men will always find a reason to consider someone different a DEI hire.
Click to expand...
If she was only considered because they were only going to hire a woman then she would be a DEI hire. I don't think that this would be difficult, even if you are yawning. If the goal is to hire from a specific group, or to exclude a specific group you think is over represented, then you have yourself a DEI hire.

Now... What I would propose is removing the names, etc. from resumes and hiring by qualifications. If you get RBG at that point, that would not be a DEI hire and it removes any supposed privilege one might have.

If you are making decisions based on melanin content to either include or exclude folks from your hiring, you are making a DEI hire, and one I would surmise is racist and/or sexist to boot.

I think you make a poor assumption about my ancestry if you claim to know what I think because I am "white"... I'm exactly as white as Barack Obama.
 
If the primary reason for a hire or selection is that the person checks Predetermined boxes and fills the quota , it's a DEI hire... Kam was a perfect example...
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Thank you. What an excellent, well-written takedown of the fake "teacher." I was going to reply something similar but I"d already given the obsessed cunt her attention crumbs for the day. Besides, you did it better.

Iit's interesting that these bigoted MAGAT haters don't seem to understand that their constant attacks on DEI labels them far better than someone else pointing a finger at them and saying "BIGOT!" They wear the scarlet letter proudly. In the 21st Century, it stands for "asshole."
Click to expand...
^ It's their "online resume." :D
 
christiefan915 said:
I read a bio of Johnson and it sure seemed like 90% of Texans in those days were crude racist F****.
Click to expand...
It's the nature of the times. As mentioned elsewhere, even Abraham Lincoln was a racist.

Understanding is not the same as condoning. :)

Example:
www.nprillinois.org

Lincoln & Race: The Great Emancipator didn't advocate racial equality. But was he a racist?

Was Abraham Lincoln, the “Great Emancipator,” a racist?In recent years, some writers and scholars have argued that he was. They have reduced the…
www.nprillinois.org www.nprillinois.org
to address the question of whether Lincoln was a racist, we need to understand the historical context of race. We need to make a distinction between evaluating historical actors on their own terms and evaluating them in terms of our own modern perceptions. We need to understand not only how Lincoln the politician understood race, but also how Lincoln the man responded to it in the context of the society in which he lived.

Understanding race within its historical context is the only way to get to the truth. Such current research projects as the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency’s Papers of Abraham Lincoln make available documentary evidence of Lincoln’s interactions with blacks, and an examination of that evidence enhances our understanding of Lincoln and his era....

....Most whites throughout the country held views of racial superiority over blacks. Public discourse of the period justified these racial constructs with biological, religious, legal, social and political rhetoric. Race determined the opportunities available to people in antebellum America, and only a small number of white individuals — such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Charles Sumner, John Brown, and William Lloyd Garrison — envisioned, to varying degrees, a free society that included blacks as the legal, political and social equals of whites. At no time in American history had political and legal institutions recognized blacks as fully enfranchised citizens.

That racial reality is the context in which Abraham Lincoln lived, practiced law and politics, and served as president of the United States....

...Lincoln the politician did not recognize blacks as his social or political equals and, during his years as a lawyer and office seeker living in Illinois, his opinion on this did not change. Lincoln was opposed to the institution of slavery during his entire lifetime but, like most white Americans, he was not an abolitionist. In ante-bellum America, abolitionists were a marginal, radical group, and most white Americans did not participate in or endorse abolitionist activities...

...For some modern-day observers, this is simple math: Lincoln lived in a racist society; he did not view blacks as socially or politically equal to whites; and he was not an abolitionist. Therefore, Lincoln was a racist. But is there more to Lincoln than this equation?
 
FastLane said:
You didn't answer my question Foulwoman. Any nurse worth her salt would know there are some surgeons that are barely adequate and some that are truly gifted. For me and my family I would prefer a truly gifted one. I worked with a Cardio-thoracic surgeon once that we called 007 because he was licensed to kill. I would not have sent my dog to him. If you weren't a Nursing Home LPN you might know that a few people have to have bad outcomes before hospitals revoke privileges for incompetence.

Now go eat a road kill rodent or something.
Click to expand...
What was wrong with your hospital that they let a "007" continue to operate? Was the hospital involved in a cover-up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top