Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Jorge wrote:I'll give B shit for being conditioned to perceive all criticism of Disney films as an -ism, but he wasn't wrong to block his cousin.

I wish LV was still around. He'd have something to say about this toxic "family above all forever" bullshit.

I’m curious if this outlooks presumes that B is simultaneously blocking any sort of anti-Trump sentiments that his conservative cousin might call toxic (or if that even matters)?

I'm pretty sure B doesn't block his cousin and then secretly surf conservative meme sites to see what the latest buzz is.

I'm sure he could identify when a post by a liberal family member might be considered toxic by the other side without having to visit conservative media.

Ah I read your post incorrectly.

Liberals, amirite

tragabigzanda wrote:Ruddo is the real diversity hire in this thread

I'd come to his defense, but he's not frail and in need of my special protection.

B wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Ruddo is the real diversity hire in this thread

I'd come to his defense, but he's not frail and in need of my special protection.

but maybe his tough exterior is just a façade and inside he is like a dainty porcelain egg

here fight over this for awhile.





I think she was more of a nepotism hire but whatever.

Calling a successful prosecutor who became a successful attorney general who became a successful senator who became Vice President a DEI hire is to many people a clear racist attack based on them not being a white male. But more importantly...

Hey "BurtReynolds" why don't you tell me what exactly is wrong with diversity, equity and inclusion. Do you think those things should not be considered when hiring people? Is it your opinion that a lack of diversity, a lack of equity, and a lack of inclusion are good things?

Norm Macdonald

I can’t imagine the DEI attack resonating with anyone who isn’t already into the anti-woke/maga world stuff.

So glad you asked! In brief:

- Diversity (what they usually mean here is racial and gender diversity and pretty much no other kind) is morally neutral. It's neither good nor bad, but the idea that a magical combination of different races leads to some kind of enlightened thinking is absurd, not to mention racist. And no, I don't think there is any moral imperative for more diversity for diversity's sake.

- Equity is absolutely vile and I resist it with every fiber of my being, because I'm not a fucking commie. Equality is better. No one is obligated to work for anyone else, and the only way to enforce equity is through monstrously huge and bureaucratic state coercion. Fuck equity.

- Inclusion is fine generally, but what they call inclusion is usually a one-way street, and crudely defined and implemented. And some forms of it, like changing fictional characters to suit some identity group, is just a smokescreen to make people feel better without actually doing anything of substance. I've been told point blank (multiple times and recently in fact) that I'm only allowed to hire women, despite the fact that they made up less than 10% of applicants, and I'm not about to tell my nephews that they have to sit out a generation because we need more inclusion.

- But besides all this is the fact that, smuggled in with these benign sounding terms, is a whole ideology of worthless ideas and policies, mostly based on cherry-picked statistics, loathsome identity politics and woefully incomplete historicism. DEI views the world through an oppressor/oppressed lens, and absolutely no other, yet it's treated as a complete and uncontestable view of the world (like a religion!).

- Finally, there is a reason that it was so wholeheartedly embraced by corporations and other institutions: because it benefits the people in power. And no other reason. No, the people who run the world didn't suddenly become altruists.

------------

- Ultimately, whether someone is a "diversity hire" is a question of motive, and that can be hard to prove one way or another, unless they say it outright. In Harris's case, Biden explicitly picked her because of her race and gender, not because she is a great prosecutor or anything else, so whatever else she is doesn't change the fact of why she was picked, at least in very large part.

- But honestly, I don't think DEI is the real reason. The real reason is that she appealed to certain demographics, which isn't DEI, it's just politics. What pisses me off is the idea that this it's inherently racist to even bring it up. This is mindless partisan sophistry from idiots who default to the same tired bullshit they've been spewing forever, because they have no actual political theory. It's just Pavlovian tribal barking to my ears.

- But like I said in another thread, many VPs are picked based on some identarian bullshit reason (DEI is most definitely identarian bullshit) or another, so she's not exactly a unique case. If she picks a white guy as VP, it will likely be for similar reasons.

I will not be taking any more questions.

fuck that was a great post.

BurtReynolds wrote:- Equity is absolutely vile and I resist it with every fiber of my being, because I'm not a fucking commie. Equality is better. No one is obligated to work for anyone else, and the only way to enforce equity is through monstrously huge and bureaucratic state coercion. Fuck equity.

Which part of equity is the most vile, Burt?

What Is Equity?

Gallup defines equity as fair treatment, access and advancement for each person in an organization. This definition considers the historical and sociopolitical factors that affect opportunities and experiences so that policies, procedures and systems can help meet people's unique needs without one person or group having an unfair advantage over another.

Gallup defines equity as fair treatment, access and advancement for each person in an organization.

Equity often involves issues related to fairness in pay, opportunities for advancement and fairness in daily work experiences. For example, an organization might have a diverse workforce overall, but because of traditional job selection criteria, such as having a mentor or sponsor for candidacy, historically disadvantaged groups struggle to be promoted.

In addition, an organization may have an inclusive culture, but pay and benefits favor men over women. How organizations and their workplace cultures treat child care, maternity leave, work-from-home flexibility and family obligations can create an unfair workplace environment. Office rules or norms may be the same for everyone, but those rules may benefit some while harming others.

https://www.gallup.com/workplace/401573 ... tters.aspx

What the fuck is Gallup? No equity isn't "fair treatment". Lol what in the motte-and-bailey bullshit is that?!


From the horse's mouth:
Or just have B post the people watching the baseball game pic again.

Equity is allocating resources and opportunities as needed to create equal outcomes for all community members. As opposed to equality, which in this context is not about enforcing equal outcomes.

I'd say they are just too stupid to even know the difference and are just assuming the terms are roughly equal, but like I said, they do love their smuggling of shit ideas under the flag of nice sounding tripe.

OK, so what is vile about allocating resources and opportunities as needed to create equal outcomes for all community members?

Other than the 'environmental justice' aspect, how will they go about rehabilitating her most significant work history as a DA and AG and square that with the decarceration push of her party?

Incarcerating brown bodies is still bad, or are we putting qualifiers on that now?

simple schoolboy wrote:Other than the 'environmental justice' aspect, how will they go about rehabilitating her most significant work history as a DA and AG and square that with the decarceration push of her party?

Incarcerating brown bodies is still bad, or are we putting qualifiers on that now?

Maybe the party doesn't mind that aspect of her career. She's not easily dismissed as "soft on crime" like many other progressive candidates might be.

zeb wrote:OK, so what is vile about allocating resources and opportunities as needed to create equal outcomes for all community members?

I already said what was vile about it: No one is obligated to provide resources to everyone else in the interests of some warped idea of "fairness". No one should be enslaved to the community because of some "greater good" bullshit. And the only way to ensure equal outcomes is through state violence, complete with all the problems that come along with that. That includes forcing people down so that we can all be "equal" in outcome.