• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

arthwollipot said:
View attachment 59409
Click to expand...
No. Musk is right. Suicidal empathy / pathological altruism is the road to ruin. Being overly nice to people who exploit you and wish you harm is just a really bad idea. (Hello Americans! Who remembers the Jerry Springer show where abused women just couldn't end the relationship with their abusers because they loved them and were sure they'd change?)
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
When you find yourself saying something like this, it's time to take a good hard look at yourself and reconsider your life choices.
Click to expand...
When you think that emphathy for people who wish you harm makes you morally right, you should consider how you ever to got to such a ridiculous position.
 
Here is a brilliant socratic exercise on the topic of merit vs. DEI. If you are looking for a balanced discussion, you can't do better than this.

From the introduction: "We began...by discussing whether colleges should abolish Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. Some people see it as a complex issue, one that forces us to confront questions about merit and fairness, societal values, the purpose of education, “ideal” levels of racial representation, etc. Are there DEI programs that are actually beneficial? Or have we witnessed more harm than good in their implementation (increased racial division, the eroding of the meritocracy, systemic racism against Asians, totalitarian enforcement mechanism, punishment for WrongThink, lack of freedom of speech, the forced acceptance of scientific falsehoods, etc.)?

 
Trausti said:
No. Musk is right. Suicidal empathy / pathological altruism is the road to ruin. Being overly nice to people who exploit you and wish you harm is just a really bad idea. (Hello Americans! Who remembers the Jerry Springer show where abused women just couldn't end the relationship with their abusers because they loved them and were sure they'd change?)
Click to expand...
I thought America was a Christian country?
 
TomB said:
And no, getting permission from the tribal council would not be enough. If it was outside work, rivers and drainage ditches yes, but we are talking about private property.
Click to expand...
Coordinating with BIA and Navajo Nation Tribal Council is pretty much required. Chances are you'd end up having your (who gives a crap what color they are) scientist paired with either Tribal Police or a Council Member who would accompany them. The scientist doesn't need to be "indian", they don't even need to be Navajo - they *do* absolutely need to have approval and cooperation of the council.
 
Susheel said:
Responding to your points one-by-one:
-Perhaps
-You are mistaken, Marsha P Johnson, and
-This is just a figment of your imagination...
Click to expand...
Dude, there's literally video of Malcolm Michaels being very, very, very clear that they were a gay male, not a female, did not identify as a "woman". By their own on-video testimony, they weren't even a transvestite - they were a drag performer with a specific drag personal of Marsha P. Johnson. They were a male, who identified as a male their entire life - and they themself spoke out against being branded as "transgender" because they were NOT.

THEY THEMSELF pushed back against this retconned narrative, clarifying that they were not present at the start of the riots and didn't even show up until it was wound down.

And seriously, do you not have even an ounce of awareness of how ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ insulting it is to have a male highlighted for applause at the National Women's History Museum? What, they couldn't find any actual females to focus on, they had to find a male to show how great females are? And even then they had to make up a false story about that male "identifying as a woman" in order to shift focus away from actual female human beings.
 
Susheel said:
This is a typical right-wing strategy. Pick up something they don’t really care about, use it to pit them against another group they don’t really care about and then make out like the defenders. Ultimately the aim is to undermine the lot. It gets old after a while.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you might want to reconsider whether or not Manger Douse and I actually care about this. I've got about a decade's worth of discussion that demonstrates that we - as well as several others - do actually care about females and lesbians.

Don't you dare think you know what I care about, and you sure as hell shouldn't have the gall to believe you can *dicktate* to me that I don't actually care about what I care about. Who the hell do you think you are?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Programs that are discriminatory and violate existing civil rights laws.
Click to expand...
This is just false, as a factual matter. Trump's executive orders would not have been enjoined if all they did was require federal contractors to give assurances that they were not violating Title VII.

Asking employers to go through their programs and ensure compliance with existing anti-discrimination laws might have been reasonable. But if you understand the meaning of the word purge, you understand why it's incompatible with thoughtful, evidence-based evaluations.
 
Last edited:
steenkh said:
And yet, when a colored person or a woman is holding a high position, the default opinion of MAGA is to think that they are incompetent.
Click to expand...
Which is totally why females are represented at a higher proportion in Trump's cabinet than in board rooms across the nation - because MAGA totally just thinks all females are incompetent, right? And the minorities so far appointed are what, traitors of some sort?
 
Aridas said:
First linked to in another thread, but still relevant to this one -

DOD Will No Longer Prohibit Contractors from Running Segregated Facilities

Goodbye, directive that's been around since 1965. Yet another part of the Republican push to pave the way for discrimination.
Click to expand...
You realize that such language is no longer needed, given that civil rights laws have been enacted AFTER 1965 that make them completely unnecessary, right?

What's next... someone going to lament that some document somewhere is no longer required to explicitly state that the company isn't allowed to own slaves?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom