• 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

Trausti said:
I don't know if you're new to American politics, but merit very rarely applies to political appointees. Pete Buttigeg - Secretary of Transportation??? Jennifer Granholm - Secretary of Energy??? And let's not forget: "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie."
Click to expand...

In area that require specific expertise, merit most certainly applies.

In the specific example I cited, someone with an advanced degree and years of experience in the applicable field was fired and replaced with a white guy with zero knowledge or experience of any kind in that field.

And of course the most egregious example is the white guy put in charge of public health who not only holds no medical degrees, has no experience in the medical field of any kind, but is also an anti-vaxxer who is so much of a lunatic he took his own grandchildren swimming in sewage.

Obviously, you won’t make any attempt to defend the utter incompetence and lack of qualifications that is the common theme in Trump’s cabinet, because you can’t.

But again, if you’ve got a theory for why they are overwhelmingly white people, the floor is yours.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
If they're so committed to science, why did they vote for an obviously science-hostile administration?
Click to expand...
First of all, I don’t think Trump is hostile to science, and I doubt they do either. But that said, you are aware that there were other issues in that election, aren’t you?
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
First of all, I don’t think Trump is hostile to science, and I doubt they do either. But that said, you are aware that there were other issues, aren’t you?
Click to expand...

I would love to see you explain how putting an anti-vaxxer in charge of public health isn’t hostile to science. You won’t, of course, but it would be fun to see.

Also curious to know what “other issues” take precedence over preventing a scourge of infectious diseases from spreading through the populace. But I doubt you’ll elaborate on that, either.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
First of all, I don’t think Trump is hostile to science, and I doubt they do either. But that said, you are aware that there were other issues in that election, aren’t you?
Click to expand...
Obviously science hostile, I said. And anyone who isn't fully bought into the Trumpian propaganda can see it. They're hostile to health science, they're hostile to climate science, they're hostile to gender science, they're hostile to social science - all kinds of science. It quite frankly baffles me how anybody can think otherwise. Especially people who are otherwise quite intelligent. It's all so damn obvious.
 
johnny karate said:
In area that require specific expertise, merit most certainly applies.

In the specific example I cited, someone with an advanced degree and years of experience in the applicable field was fired and replaced with a white guy with zero knowledge or experience of any kind in that field.

And of course the most egregious example is the white guy put in charge of public health who not only holds no medical degrees, has no experience in the medical field of any kind, but is also an anti-vaxxer who is so much of a lunatic he took his own grandchildren swimming in sewage.

Obviously, you won’t make any attempt to defend the utter incompetence and lack of qualifications that is the common theme in Trump’s cabinet, because you can’t.

But again, if you’ve got a theory for why they are overwhelmingly white people, the floor is yours.
Click to expand...
Damn. You really hate White guys.
 
johnny karate said:
I would love to see you explain how putting an anti-vaxxer in charge of public health isn’t hostile to science. You won’t, of course, but it would be fun to see.

Also curious to know what “other issues” take precedence over preventing a scourge of infectious diseases from spreading through the populace. But I doubt you’ll elaborate on that, either.
Click to expand...
Putting an unrepentant rapist in power so he can protect "their" women, maybe? Installing him to save the economy from being too strong, again? Alternatively, putting him in power so he can tip the economic scales to favor the billionaires and screw over the hard working people of the US even more, again? To save the lives of Ukrainians by betraying them and helping those who seek to commit genocide against them as he was promising? To save the children from education by indoctrinating them with Republican propaganda?
Trausti said:
Damn. You really hate White guys.
Click to expand...
Damn, you really love incompetence.
 
Last edited:
Trausti said:
No, I'm against DEI.
Click to expand...

So, to review -

johnny karate said:
In the specific example I cited, someone with an advanced degree and years of experience in the applicable field was fired and replaced with a white guy with zero knowledge or experience of any kind in that field.

And of course the most egregious example is the white guy put in charge of public health who not only holds no medical degrees, has no experience in the medical field of any kind, but is also an anti-vaxxer who is so much of a lunatic he took his own grandchildren swimming in sewage.
Click to expand...

And you chose to respond to those examples of extreme opposition to actual merit with -

Trausti said:
Damn. You really hate White guys.
Click to expand...

Fine. If you're not in love with incompetence, there's only one other actually reasonable explanation other than generalized extreme foolishness. To borrow a quote -

If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Obviously science hostile, I said. And anyone who isn't fully bought into the Trumpian propaganda can see it. They're hostile to health science, they're hostile to climate science, they're hostile to gender science, they're hostile to social science - all kinds of science. It quite frankly baffles me how anybody can think otherwise. Especially people who are otherwise quite intelligent. It's all so damn obvious.
Click to expand...
Trump is not hostile to “health science.” His director of HHS is an antivax loon with a variety of nutty ideas.

Trump may be hostile to climate science, but the field has been politicized to a degree you literally wouldn’t believe. A lot of that research is funded to produce politically correct messages and thus deserves to be defunded.

I don’t think Trump is opposed to social science. He is anti-woke, and huge swaths of the social sciences have been captured by leftist ideologues, such that the output from those fields is not scientific, but ideological. So, good riddance, if Trump can mange to improve that situation, which I doubt he can (he has little leverage over it because it receives little federal funding).

“All kinds of science”? Hardly. I see no hint of opposition to the real basic sciences, namely, physics, chemistry, and biology, or to mathematics or engineering. And Trump has explicitly stated that he wants to strengthen research in computer science, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing.

So, no, Trump is not anti-science.
 
johnny karate said:
No, just the ones who are gifted with important jobs that they aren’t qualified for that they do so poorly it harms innocent people.
Click to expand...
You seem obsessed with the race of Trump's appointees; especially if they've got that skin hue you find so disgusting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom