Comment on DEI, more like DIED
Cruel@programming.dev 1 month agoThis is a reasonable fear in a world where pilots are hired based on their status of being a minority. Is it not? That was the whole point, DEI practices enforce the ideal that minorities aren’t qualified.
The ironic thing is that this anti-DEI government has some of the dumbest, unqualified people in key positions. Clearly they were hired based on anything but their ability to do the job they were hired to do.
Every accusation is a confession with these people.
For those who stumble across this and are confused, this isn’t how DEI works.
The reason DEI policies exist is that without them white male bosses were just blindly hiring white males and not considering anybody else because of their racism and sexism (sometimes conscious, sometimes unconscious). That meant pilots who weren’t as good, musicians who weren’t as good, bankers who weren’t as good, etc. Aside from this being a guaranteed jobs program for white makes, and a roadblock for everyone else, it also led to problems because when everybody came from the same background, they all had the same kinds of blind spots.
So, DEI policies came along to try to make sure that companies were actually hiring the best people, and not missing out because of entrenched racism and sexism. So, instead of having a concert violinist hand her resume to a committee and then perform for them on stage, the person performing on stage performs behind a screen and uses a number so their age, name, gender, and connections aren’t a factor, just the way they play.
So really, when you see yet another white male airline pilot who looks like he’s former air force, you should be saying to yourself “I sure hope this airline has a DEI policy, and they didn’t just hire yet another guy who was drinking buddies with one of their pilots when they were both in the air force together.”
That’s part of DEI, and conveniently not the parts that Kirk, or most conservatives, complain about.
The policies complained about are the one that effectively turn race/gender into qualifications. Like affirmative action. Like IBM working to get 50% female representation in their engineering hires. Like Biden in 2020 campaigning on the promise of hiring a black woman to SCOTUS (2 years before he even looked at candidates). Like Google and other tech companies implementing policies to favor non-asian minorities and women. It’s a form of “diverse sourcing” while making their actual skills and expertise a lower priority than their race/gender.
If that’s not the DEI you support, then the left is awfully quiet about it.
Those “other parts of DEI” are parts that don’t actually exist.
Nobody’s out there hiring unqualified or underqualified people. When IBM hires engineers they’re not hiring women who are underqualified just to get to 50%, they’re just hiring very qualified women instead of very qualified men.
Like Biden in 2020 campaigning on the promise of hiring a black woman to SCOTUS
Do you think Ketanji Brown Jackson is unqualified? Or is it that you think that Biden couldn’t possibly have known that there were black women who were qualified to be on the supreme court?
Let’s not pretend that everybody who gets a seat on the Supreme Court is incredibly qualified. Justice Hugo Black (who was a white man, despite his name) was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1937 and served until 1971. His only experience as a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court was 1 year as a police court judge. Other than that he worked as a personal injury attorney for a few years, then as a country prosecutor for a short time before joining the army in WWI, and then he was elected to the US senate.
Biden undoubtedly knew that there were plenty of black women who were qualified to be Supreme Court justices, but who simply had never been given the chance because of racism and sexism. The woman he ended up choosing had clerked for 3 judges for 3 years (including 1 supreme court justice), had had a stellar career as a lawyer for 10 years, was vice chair of the US Sentencing Commission for 4 years, then a district court judge for 8 years, then another year on the US Court of Appeals before she joined the Supreme Court.
Like Google and other tech companies implementing policies to favor non-asian minorities and women.
The case you link to was someone suing Google claiming that it had such policies. Did he win that lawsuit?
Do you have any actual evidence that tech companies are actually choosing unqualified or underqualified non-white men? Or is it that they’re making sure to give a fair chance to people who aren’t white men?
When IBM hires engineers they’re not hiring women who are underqualified just to get to 50%, they’re just hiring very qualified women instead of very qualified men.
Only 20% of graduates in engineering are women. They’re picking from a smaller pool, yet I’m supposed to think they won’t be underqualified? That’s not reasonable.
Do you think Ketanji Brown Jackson is unqualified?
You seems to be viewing qualifications as a binary instead of a spectrum. When I look for an attorney, I’m not just looking for someone who passed the bar, even if they technically “qualify” as an attorney. I want to scrutinize their qualification much more than that.
She’s not a terrible judge, necessarily, but not great either. There have been worse selections in the past, but I don’t think that makes the decision acceptable to hire based on gender and race. Justice Thomas proves that merely sharing someone’s race does not represent that constituents of that race.
I don’t think Biden already knew qualified judges that were black women for SCOTUS, imo. It was just politics. Trump did the same when he picked a woman strictly because he was replacing another woman. I’ll admit that SCOTUS, along with a president’s cabinet, are often not chosen based on particular expertise or skill. I personally don’t like this 🤷. Though I gues this can work fine if they have a skilled team while they strictly lead.
Do you have any actual evidence that tech companies are actually choosing unqualified or underqualified non-white men?
Only anecdotal. They’re having similar problems as universities, where they have “too many” asians and want to take measure to pick other races. The problem is that they’re actually not admitting asians to universities and hiring asians in tech because of their race. So to even the ratio, they would have to pick people based on race.
I suspect tech companies really avoid hiring underqualified people, which is why they maintain high asian representation even while publicly acting like they’re working to be more diverse. The lawsuit could be related to that public “policy”. I work in tech and personally have seen positions made specifically to get quotas, usually in non-tech positions. My company has tons of women in non-tech positions like quality assurance, HR, marketing to even out the lack of women programming. Or maybe they just know about the gender wage gap and they’re trying to save money lol.
It’s really cute how you cite a suit that never went anywhere, and then fail to acknowledge, either through ignorance, or more likely just sheer stupidity, the more likely reason for that particular reasoning for hiring…
It’s because they want to pay them less.. Because they still favor white people. And that was actually proven in court.
That suit was moved to private arbitration proceeding and settled out of court.
And I joked about hiring women to pay them more. It’s a joke because that implies that tech companies, publicly disclosing their desperation to hire women, are actually losing hundreds of millions (collectively billions), just to avoid hiring women. I’ve never met anyone working on tech that hates women that much. It’s one of the most liberal fields out there. They bend over backwards to be diverse. It’s a struggle because asians are overwhelmingly dominating in terms of qualification.
A simple DEI policy would be, for example, to remove the name from a resume before passing it over to the hiring manager for initial selection. That reduces bias against ethnic groups, religions, or genders.
This should in no way reduce the qualifications of the candidates. Quite the opposite.
This is the type of misinformation that Kirk spread. This is why it’s good that he’s dead.
That’s not what DEI is at all, literally the exact opposite.
If DEI is explicitly taking measures to not consider race/gender in hiring practices, then conservatives would largely support it.
So they’re not racist for opposing DEI, they just don’t understand what it really is, right?
This is the problem in politics when everyone is using the same terms with different meanings. Political discourse devolves into people speaking past each other with absolutely no point.
Just get to the point, stop fucking around and just say you hate women and non-white people, we know that’s what you’re trying to dance around, that’s Kirk’s whole thing, none of us are fooled by your attempt at high school debate rhetoric, just own your misogyny and racism, you know you want to.
Me liking women and non-white people isn’t even relevant. If you don’t want to discuss the issues, then don’t.
How is this a hard concept? You still have to be a pilot, you just can’t have a policy - tacit or explicit - of only hiring white men.
Couldn’t you have gone with the idea that it’s “taking jobs from white men?” Then I could point out that there isn’t a limited pool of specific unemployed people you have to pick from, and that even if you give a job to a white man it’s still taking a job from a different white man?
Lol. Found the dumbass loser.
That’s not how DEI works.
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 1 month ago
At least you admit being a racist. Good for you!
Cruel@programming.dev 1 month ago
If you learned that your new surgeon was hired strictly because she’s a white woman, is it racism to be skeptical of her qualifications?
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 1 month ago
DEI means hiring a diverse pool of qualified employees.
But you know that. You’re just arguing in bad faith.
See why these “debates” are so pointless? It gives a thin veneer of intellectual rigor to bigotry and white nationalism. And the guy “just asking questions” will argue in bad faith or just outright lie. Like Charlie was when he was shot, trying to pretend that the majority of mass murderers aren’t straight cis white men.
So, how would someone debate “kill homosexuals”? What’s the counter argument?
Grilipper54@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
The counter argument would be a majority of Christian faiths believe in the new testament so anything in Leviticus is irrelevant. That might be where Charlie was trying to go with that clip with Rachel. That’s not a good clip to use if trying to prove Charlie Kirk held dangerous beliefs.
Cruel@programming.dev 1 month ago
No, I don’t know that, because it’s wrong, or misleading at best. “Qualified” is a spectrum, unless you’re talking about the low bar of simply having a medical degree/license.
If you’re looking for a lawyer to represent you, are you looking for “black woman” as a qualification, reassured by the fact that she is at least bar certified? That would be stupid. You’d want the person who you felt could best represent you. Which could end up being a black woman, but not necessarily.
Joe Biden literally said he was going to pick a black woman to sit in the SCOTUS before he had even made a shortlist of potential candidates. Jackson is a DEI hire. Sure, she is a “qualified” judge, most acting judges technically are, but it’s unlikely that she’s the most qualified. That’s the problem with DEI, people will assume that women or minorities may not be qualified, even when they are. Jackson could very well be the best for that position, but that would be quite the statistical coincidence considering Biden started his search with narrow racial/gender qualifications.
He was discussing whether to exclude gang violence when discussing mass shootings, because those are overwhelmingly from gangs. So much so, that people typically exclude gang violence from stats. So if you’re including gang violence, white men would not commit the majority of “mass murder.” However, most people don’t care about gangsters killing each other, they care about innocent people killed/shot.
He never advocated for instituting laws to kill homosexuals. Neither did he support killing adulterers and people who worship false gods. So a counter argument is pointless unless he actively wanted to enforce Biblical law in the US.
DarkFuture@lemmy.world 1 month ago
If if if.
When in your life did you learn that someone doing something important for you was hired BECAUSE of the color of their skin?
Shut the fuck up you fucking loser.
Cruel@programming.dev 1 month ago
When Jackson was chosen for SCOTUS.