Trump's latest aphasia

[billvon 3,090]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Woke as it is embraced by many is too all encompassing. For example, I don't think allowing or encouraging gender bending among kids, especially the permanent stuff makes sense. I do think treating our gay friends and citizens with absolute equality is the right thing. I also believe that recognizing societal injustices and making some accommodations that help level the playing field is right. I don't think that as a matter of policy candidates with great ability should be sidelined simply because more people are needed in a different column. Too far is never good policy and too far is now where the right is going in the false belief that DEI is ruining the world.

Woke isn't endorsing any of that.  Woke is understanding it.  By definition.

[JoeWeber 2,871]

20 minutes ago, billvon said:

Woke isn't endorsing any of that.  Woke is understanding it.  By definition.

I was attempting to address woke as the pejorative term currently used by the right to describe caring about others but not getting paid for your concerns.

[dogyks 11]

14 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Woke as it is embraced by many is too all encompassing. For example, I don't think allowing or encouraging gender bending among kids, especially the permanent stuff makes sense. I do think treating our gay friends and citizens with absolute equality is the right thing. I also believe that recognizing societal injustices and making some accommodations that help level the playing field is right. I don't think that as a matter of policy candidates with great ability should be sidelined simply because more people are needed in a different column. Too far is never good policy and too far is now where the right is going in the false belief that DEI is ruining the world.

It's kind of a black and white thing.  Either discrimination is permissable or not.  If it's permissable, opinions will then vary as to which type is 'good' or 'bad.'

I submit that taking innate characteristics into consideration that are unrelated to the job at hand is unacceptable.  Options selected by a candidate are fair game.

This is to say that someone's taking the podium to espouse the destruction of the capitalist system by infiltration of industry from within may be a valid concern for offering said candidate a position later, for example.

To include a mediocre violinist as first chair to address historical inequality is pure idiocy.  Patronizing one generation to 'correct' past injustices, real or perceived, is the kind of good intentions with which the road to hell is paved.

I'm cool with equality, your well intentioned inequality you can have.

[dogyks 11]

Dupe

Edited May 21 by dogyks

[dogyks 11]

Dupe

Edited May 21 by dogyks

[dogyks 11]

Dupe

Edited May 21 by dogyks
dupe

[dogyks 11]

Dupe

Edited May 21 by dogyks

[nigel99 589]

37 minutes ago, dogyks said:

It's kind of a black and white thing.  Either discrimination is permissable or not.  If it's permissable, opinions will then vary as to which type is 'good' or 'bad.'

I submit that taking innate characteristics into consideration that are unrelated to the job at hand is unacceptable.  Options selected by a candidate are fair game.

This is to say that someone's taking the podium to espouse the destruction of the capitalist system by infiltration of industry from within may be a valid concern for offering said candidate a position later, for example.

To include a mediocre violinist as first chair to address historical inequality is pure idiocy.  Patronizing one generation to 'correct' past injustices, real or perceived, is the kind of good intentions with which the road to hell is paved.

I'm cool with equality, your well intentioned inequality you can have.

Discrimination isn’t always black and white.

People in wheelchairs shouldn’t be discriminated against for an office job, but they’re not going to be climbing ladders as a roofer. In your black and white world are you going to argue that people in wheelchairs shouldn’t have ramp access to offices? Or that because there are ramps into buildings they should be given specialist equipment to enable them to do roofing? 

As far as tangential characteristics, there’s a lot of evidence to show that a diverse group tends to have higher performance. But humans are naturally drawn to copies of themselves. So if you’ve got a company that only employs graduates from Oxford University because “it’s the best”, is discriminating.

The lie that is told by the anti DEI believers is that diversity means accepting inferior people. There are many DEI policies and practices that are sensible and practical. 20 odd years ago in the UK it was fairly common practice to have a photo on your CV. These days best hiring practices remove names, genders and race from the CV’s removing innate bias. The only people it hurts are Uncle Fred’s nephew who knows someone and gets a leg up. 

Lastly sorry to say it but with bias involved I’m certain that your violinist will be perceived as mediocre no matter how good they are, if you’ve got people who believe that only blond white women can play well. You only need to look at your political views to see that there are those of who believe that Trump is “better” than Harris, because a woman could never be better than a man.

[normiss 873]

46 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

Discrimination isn’t always black and white.

People in wheelchairs shouldn’t be discriminated against for an office job, but they’re not going to be climbing ladders as a roofer. In your black and white world are you going to argue that people in wheelchairs shouldn’t have ramp access to offices? Or that because there are ramps into buildings they should be given specialist equipment to enable them to do roofing? 

As far as tangential characteristics, there’s a lot of evidence to show that a diverse group tends to have higher performance. But humans are naturally drawn to copies of themselves. So if you’ve got a company that only employs graduates from Oxford University because “it’s the best”, is discriminating.

The lie that is told by the anti DEI believers is that diversity means accepting inferior people. There are many DEI policies and practices that are sensible and practical. 20 odd years ago in the UK it was fairly common practice to have a photo on your CV. These days best hiring practices remove names, genders and race from the CV’s removing innate bias. The only people it hurts are Uncle Fred’s nephew who knows someone and gets a leg up. 

Lastly sorry to say it but with bias involved I’m certain that your violinist will be perceived as mediocre no matter how good they are, if you’ve got people who believe that only blond white women can play well. You only need to look at your political views to see that there are those of who believe that Trump is “better” than Harris, because a woman could never be better than a man.

But she's a BLAAAACK woman for Christ's sake!!!!

 

 

/s

[kallend 2,119]

16 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Ken,

Back then, Biden was what I did not want on the ticket.  But, he got the nomination; then, it was a no-brainer on who I would be voting for.

In 2024, I supported Biden, until he opened his mouth at the debate.  I immediately knew that he could not win.  As many people have said:  Politics is not for the faint of heart.

Strom Thurmond, RBG, Biden, Feinstein; an infinite list.  It is ruining this country.

Jerry Baumchen

 

[JoeWeber 2,871]

2 hours ago, dogyks said:

It's kind of a black and white thing.  Either discrimination is permissable or not.  If it's permissable, opinions will then vary as to which type is 'good' or 'bad.'

I submit that taking innate characteristics into consideration that are unrelated to the job at hand is unacceptable.  Options selected by a candidate are fair game.

This is to say that someone's taking the podium to espouse the destruction of the capitalist system by infiltration of industry from within may be a valid concern for offering said candidate a position later, for example.

To include a mediocre violinist as first chair to address historical inequality is pure idiocy.  Patronizing one generation to 'correct' past injustices, real or perceived, is the kind of good intentions with which the road to hell is paved.

I'm cool with equality, your well intentioned inequality you can have.

I disagree, possibly owing to our having different opinions on whether purposefully giving a person an equal shot at an opportunity that was denied their father or mother because of skin color, sex, or sexual orientation is discrimination of the same feather or even something other than discrimination. 

The first violinist example strikes me as specious. It wouldn't happen anymore than requiring that less competent violinists be seated for the easier songs. In any case, that's not the problem. The problem, as I see it, is denying entry to music school to someone because they aren't the correct sex or color or height or are obviously careless about living like skydivers. 

Your point about "patronizing one generation to 'correct' past injustices, real or perceived," makes no sense to me. One generation always follows the previous generation, and you cannot change the past: you can stop a thing from happening, but you cannot fix a problem before it happens. In that case you or someone else must fix it later. 

I haven't seen very many perfect solutions in my life and while these social equality efforts are sometimes, and inarguably, a bit messy and imprecise, I still think it's the best choice if fairness is the goal.

That said, it more and more appears that those efforts have only been masking our true natures and not making any real or endurable changes to build on and that those of us who think a world where the big kids should be able to take the little kids' candy without penalty or redress are going to win the day.

 

[wmw999 2,560]

3 hours ago, dogyks said:

Dupe

Yes.

If some groups discriminate against women and/or minorities because of “workplace fit,” why is it worse to discriminate against majorities for the same reason? And shouldn’t diversity of opinion be something to be valued? The lack thereof leads us to institutions like the Catholic Church.

Wendy P. 

[wmw999 2,560]

3 hours ago, dogyks said:

To include a mediocre violinist as first chair to address historical inequality is pure idiocy.  Patronizing one generation to 'correct' past injustices, real or perceived, is the kind of good intentions with which the road to hell is paved

When orchestras began having blind auditions, the number of women selected went up.

Wendy P. 

[billvon 3,090]

5 hours ago, dogyks said:

To include a mediocre violinist as first chair to address historical inequality is pure idiocy. 

Agreed.  And today, if that mediocre violinist is the child of the largest donor to the symphony, odds are they will get that first chair.  A DEI approach would ensure that the best violinist gets that chair.  Even if they are black.  Even if they're in a wheelchair.  Even if they are not the child of the biggest donor.  Even if they express political opinions you dislike.

[jakee 1,571]

He ain’t gonna change, just let him do his racist thing.

[dogyks 11]

3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

When orchestras began having blind auditions, the number of women selected went up.

Wendy P. 

One reason I greatly approve of Juilliard's blind audition process.

[dogyks 11]

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Yes.

If some groups discriminate against women and/or minorities because of “workplace fit,” why is it worse to discriminate against majorities for the same reason? And shouldn’t diversity of opinion be something to be valued? The lack thereof leads us to institutions like the Catholic Church.

Wendy P. 

Where you get the better/worse thing escapes me.  My contention is that racial discrimination is equally despicable in any form.  If someone does it first or more recently, that doesn't make responding in kind okay.

I support equality rather than equity

 

[normiss 873]

6 minutes ago, dogyks said:

Where you get the better/worse thing escapes me.  My contention is that racial discrimination is equally despicable in any form.  If someone does it first or more recently, that doesn't make responding in kind okay.

I support equality rather than equity

 

So if someone intently removed a black applicant from the pool because they're black, albeit the most qualified, you're good with that? Historically that STILL happens in America, and efforts to address it and correct it to make it more fair, is to remove them from initial consideration altogether. You're intentionally missing the point of DEI.

Fuck racism and your masked support continuing it.

[dogyks 11]

6 hours ago, nigel99 said:

Discrimination isn’t always black and white.

People in wheelchairs shouldn’t be discriminated against for an office job, but they’re not going to be climbing ladders as a roofer. In your black and white world are you going to argue that people in wheelchairs shouldn’t have ramp access to offices? Or that because there are ramps into buildings they should be given specialist equipment to enable them to do roofing? 

As far as tangential characteristics, there’s a lot of evidence to show that a diverse group tends to have higher performance. But humans are naturally drawn to copies of themselves. So if you’ve got a company that only employs graduates from Oxford University because “it’s the best”, is discriminating.

The lie that is told by the anti DEI believers is that diversity means accepting inferior people. There are many DEI policies and practices that are sensible and practical. 20 odd years ago in the UK it was fairly common practice to have a photo on your CV. These days best hiring practices remove names, genders and race from the CV’s removing innate bias. The only people it hurts are Uncle Fred’s nephew who knows someone and gets a leg up. 

Lastly sorry to say it but with bias involved I’m certain that your violinist will be perceived as mediocre no matter how good they are, if you’ve got people who believe that only blond white women can play well. You only need to look at your political views to see that there are those of who believe that Trump is “better” than Harris, because a woman could never be better than a man.

A black co-worker expressed frustration at being compared to an individual who was not hired for any demonstrable talent, who he deemed a diversity/quota hire.  He contended that said individual wouldn't have been on the property if he wasn't black, and hiring black incompetents reflected badly on him.  Luckily enough he was able to pass P. E. licensure, but he expressed annoyance at having to do so to differentiate himself from the degreed idiots.

[dogyks 11]

2 minutes ago, normiss said:

So if someone intently removed a black applicant from the pool because they're black, albeit the most qualified, you're good with that? Historically that STILL happens in America, and efforts to address it and correct it to make it more fair, is to remove them from initial consideration altogether. You're intentionally missing the point of DEI.

Fuck racism and your masked support continuing it.

You're not paying attention.  I oppose discrimination, and DEI is most definitely discriminatory.  The"point" of DEI is clear, and it most certainly is not equality.

[billvon 3,090]

32 minutes ago, dogyks said:

You're not paying attention.  I oppose discrimination, and DEI is most definitely discriminatory.

DEI is the opposite of discriminatory.

Diversity - a skilled black candidate is more desirable than a less skilled white candidate.

Equity - a skilled candidate in a wheelchair is considered because the place has handicapped ramps, so he can get to work.

Inclusion - a skilled candidate who is a mother is considered because they get 10 minutes off every 2 hours to pump milk.

Anti-DEI means you hire the boss's son, whether he has any skill or not.

[nigel99 589]

3 hours ago, dogyks said:

A black co-worker expressed frustration at being compared to an individual who was not hired for any demonstrable talent, who he deemed a diversity/quota hire.  He contended that said individual wouldn't have been on the property if he wasn't black, and hiring black incompetents reflected badly on him.  Luckily enough he was able to pass P. E. licensure, but he expressed annoyance at having to do so to differentiate himself from the degreed idiots.

I honestly don’t think you understand DEI or what it means.

So now we get to see a glimpse of your biases. People with degrees are idiots, unlike the jocks who are good at PE.

It makes sense that you would struggle with women like Harris being competent, as in your world deadlift weight is directly correlated to IQ. Trump on the other hand being able to lift 300lbs of lard is a genius

[JoeWeber 2,871]

24 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

I honestly don’t think you understand DEI or what it means.

So now we get to see a glimpse of your biases. People with degrees are idiots, unlike the jocks who are good at PE.

It makes sense that you would struggle with women like Harris being competent, as in your world deadlift weight is directly correlated to IQ. Trump on the other hand being able to lift 300lbs of lard is a genius

Um, I think he meant P.E. as in Professional Engineer. 

[dogyks 11]

10 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

I honestly don’t think you understand DEI or what it means.

So now we get to see a glimpse of your biases. People with degrees are idiots, unlike the jocks who are good at PE.

It makes sense that you would struggle with women like Harris being competent, as in your world deadlift weight is directly correlated to IQ. Trump on the other hand being able to lift 300lbs of lard is a genius

News flash: the P. E. (Professional Engineer) license results from two 8 hour days of testing.  The Fundamentals of Engineering test qualifies one as an Engineer in Training (EIT), after 5 years of experience one qualifies for the Professional Engineer examination.  In general one must correctly answer one question every 1.6 some odd minutes and cheating is effectively impossible.  The number of P.E.s awarded is a fraction of the number of first time F.E. tested.

The people who somehow made it through diploma mills by doing anything except learning the material are degreed idiots.

DEI sounds noble but is a recipe for decisiveness and mediocrity.  Perhaps you view these qualities as admirable.

[nigel99 589]

1 minute ago, dogyks said:

News flash: the P. E. (Professional Engineer) license results from two 8 hour days of testing.  The Fundamentals of Engineering test qualifies one as an Engineer in Training (EIT), after 5 years of experience one qualifies for the Professional Engineer examination.  In general one must correctly answer one question every 1.6 some odd minutes and cheating is effectively impossible.  The number of P.E.s awarded is a fraction of the number of first time F.E. tested.

The people who somehow made it through diploma mills by doing anything except learning the material are degreed idiots.

DEI sounds noble but is a recipe for decisiveness and mediocrity.  Perhaps you view these qualities as admirable.

Oh my bad. Merican English can have odd miscommunications. In my world that is a Chartered Engineer (which I am), and PE is physical exercise.