How we can stop arguing

This is why we shouldn't listen to Republicans, and certainly not lawyers who are defending Republicans in court.

^^
Trump does not represent the vast majority of Republicans. Don’t make blanket statements

Amazing how progressives bend over for Islamic terrorists, yet feel free to joke about murdering a former President. DEI in action.

Who will win the rando championship of TUSCL, skibum or Dave A? They are both such worthy contenders.

Someone who is mad about the idea of someone joking about one president murdering a former president should not advocate for politicians who want the president to be able to do anything and everything with impunity. Duh. Nothing to do with DEI. Just try, as in put in effort, to be more intelligent and actually take time to consider some of the dumb things you believe instead or reacting to buzzwords.

^Thank you Mr. sloganeering asshole. No one is mad, just pointing out that progressives are hypocritical vermin. Progressives should name all of their children Benedict after the one person in history who best represents their loyalty to this once fine land. Maybe one of you ssholea can go pull a fire alarm like one of your progressive idols did; then you can whine about democracy being in danger and how you are so dei, while you treat women like whores.

Yea ski, it really accoplishes a lot being loyal to "land": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCOzqP9D… (actual footage of ski)

Loyalty is only as good as what you are loyal to. Land is neither good nor bad. When you say you are loyal "this fine land", that by itself is meaningless. "DEI" means putting it in practice that all are created equal and have an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As with any great truth, opportunists will bend its meaning in inappropriate ways, and evil people will try to distort its meaning into something bad.

DEI is a fucking joke. Say your child needs a brain tumor removed, but you know that standards have been relaxed to allow more of Group A into medical schools and prime residency slots. You have a choice between a surgeon of Group A (who may not be up to usual standards) or a surgeon who isn't. This should be a slam dunk. Until you're willing to put your own ass at risk for a more "diverse" candidate, I won't take you seriously.

If DEI was that good for a corporation, they wouldn't need to enforce it or tie executive bonuses of it, because it would be its own reward.

DEI is virtue signaling that you're one of the enlightened. It's already on the downswing. If Republicans take power again, it'll downswing further. Hopefully into irrelevance where it belongs.

@PT it's just a lot more complicated than that. Part of DEI is outreach to encourage more people to actually apply for medical school or whatever and to take the aptitude tests. And, there isn't some perfect way to measure aptitude for medicine (or pretty much any field). The way to get the best doctors is to admit more people to more medical schools, and then pick the best ones at the internship stage. But you´d probably need more government subsidy of tuition, or at least debt cancellation for those who wash out. Based on my experiences with doctors, I think medical schools must kick out anyone who shows signs of having any common senses. Bigots who want to eliminate any or all approaches to DEI always have to argue based on some simplistic, imaginary world, rather than the real one. DEI can be used as an excuse to do bad things, and that should rightly be criticized and blocked. But only bigots want to use those cases to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Supposedly it's the Ivy League schools that have your wonderful, perfect "standards" that select the best of the best. And that system gave us George W. "Mission Accomplished" Bush. Are you going to claim he got in due to DEI?

@ilbbaicnl, you're defining DEI as everything good and everything against DEI as "bigotry." MCAT and USMLE aren't a perfect measure, but there's a strong correlation between them and ability to learn and apply medical knowledge. Anyone who can't make it into medicine on their own merits shouldn't be practicing it, period. Med school grades lead to residency slots, so it's just downstream of that. The AMA's artificial restrictions on residency slots are another issue entirely.

I recently had a major surgery, and all I cared about was that he was chief of this type of surgery at one of the best hospitals in the country, and most of all, had done 2,000 of these. From his name and appearance, I think he's Jewish. That calmed me. The best physicians I've had have been Jewish, Asian, or Indian, precisely the groups that the DEI crowd want to trim back.

Would you choose a lesser surgeon because they were a member of an underrepresented group? A law school professor got fired for noticing, in a blinded fashion, that the black students clustered at the bottom of the grade distribution. So elevating underqualified students happens. This harms them too by putting them into positions they aren't ready for, and making it rational to distrust them. The solution is to prepare them at earlier stages...look at the inner cities to see what progressive-run education systems do to kids, despite these being some of the highest dollar-per-student in the country.

In the corporate realm, DEI is funded well out of proportion to its value. If it's that valuable, why is it getting scaled back everywhere now? Baby and bathwater, there's no baby, maaaaaybe an embryo in the bathwater, if not just a zygote. What's the DEI value proposition for the corporation? Elsewhere, you've mentioned avoiding discrimination lawsuits...how many actually happen and does DEI eliminate it, or just encourage more people to file them?

Not sure what GWB has to do with DEI, other than to say DEI isn't the only crime against meritocracy. That's nepotism, a different one.

So you say you prefer having Jewish doctors. What if a lot of black people prefer to have a black doctor? Shouldn't they have that option?

Admissions, hiring and promotion are done in a mediocre way. When the current system does DEI, it does it in a mediocre way. DEI done right would lead to more competence not less.

When DEI opponents say they'll vote for the political candidate who got the best score on the SAT, then I'll believe they are not motivated by bigotry.

@ilbb, I'm not Jewish, Indian, or Asian (JIA). I like JIA doctors because racial cutoffs penalize them...therefore a JIA doctor has to be EVEN BETTER than a BIPOC or a white non-Jew to get into the right med school and residency.

If someone prefers a black doctor, they are free to choose one. They should also know that that doctor was admitted under less stringent standards. They might be just as good...or not. For whom might having someone of the same skin color outweigh?

"DEI done right would lead to more competence not less."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Sc…
Again, you're defining DEI as "whatever is good." In practice, it's a buzzword. Babylon Bee nailed it, as good satire does, with their piece meant to reassure flyers that the 737 Max engine was worked on by the most diverse crew in history. LOL, doesn't that inspire confidence?
Diversity isn't just skin color. They're also talking about increasing diversity including "psychiatric disabilities" in flight crews. Yeah, look up Germanwings Flight 9525 and Andreas Lubitz...that's what I want, someone having a psychotic break flying my plane because "diversity."

DEI is the emperor's new clothes. Until someone is willing to receive inferior (and possibly fatal) service in the name of DEI, I do not take them seriously.

Aptitude in politics is a lot less tied to the SAT than medicine is to MCAT/USMLE. Not a good comparison.

Where is the proof that the best doctors are the ones who scored highest on the MCAT? What is your evidence that DEI makes it harder for specifically Jewish people to get into medical school.

My point is that, why don't you just say you want a meritocracy? Why focus primarily on DEI? If we made sure everyone with the basic qualifications could go to college, that would help DEI. It would also increase the size of the candidate pool for graduate degrees, thus increasing the chances of the most qualified people getting those degrees. I am saying there are both good and bad things that can be called DEI. So the people who oppose any and all efforts at DEI are either ignorant or bigoted or both.

"why don't you just say you want a meritocracy?"
I am. And that's against everything that "equity" (the E in DEI) stands for. Being a physician or pilot (to use the examples I've given) is not a human right or character-building experience, it's a huge responsibility for the lives and well-beings of others that most people are plainly not fit to handle.

A fixed number of med school slots is a zero-sum game. If you're saying that Group A that comprises 10% of the population deserves 20% of the slots, you're taking 10% of the total slots that would go to more qualified individuals and giving them to less-qualified individuals in Group A. Therefore, Group A will be less skilled on average...measure it by MCAT, interviews, extracurriculars, whatever you like, it's usually made into an aggregate score. Group quotas--the definition of equity--are inherently un-meritocratic. Look at the Harvard admissions lawsuit and who gets the biggest shaft of them all...Asians (usually includes both East and South Asians). Harvard has also used hazy "personality" scores to weed out Jews, too. I'm not telling you anything that hasn't been beaten to death in the news.

I'm talking about DEI as it actually takes place, not in the ill-defined "who could possibly be against 'diversity'?" sense. I don't see how it's the mission of, say, IBM or Apple or Merck, to enact social justice or promote racial equality. When they give out money to help underprivileged kids go to college, that's charity (and therefore, marketing, as these are for-profit entities), not their core business function.

Ask yourself why corporations have slashed DEI in the last year.
Is it because racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia is no longer a societal problem?
Is it because a flood of discrimination lawsuits that once hamstrung the company has stopped?
Is it because minorities have finally achieved equal status?
Is it because suddenly these companies have grown callous and depraved?
No, there's no evidence of any of those. The best explanation is that it stopped being profitable.

@PT my company has a DEI program. Nobody has said anything about us having to meet quotas in our hiring. It involves training classes, and reporting procedures if there are problems with employees being intolerant of others who are different than them, in ways that don't affect work. The classes teach us stuff like, for example, don't think a job candidate is more qualified because they're Jewish. All very, very similar to my previous job. And, has not been "slashed".

It's ironic how the latest DEI spaz is about female pilots, that they're panicky or something. As explained by Tucker Carlson, among the most hormonal, permanently-on-the-rag people who ever lived. Although lots of evidence it's all an act, to monetize a big part of our large idiot population.

@ilbbaicnl, my company has a DEI program too. They seem to spend most of their time on social media complaining, like a little activism arm. What does a for-profit company have to gain by adding a virtue-signaling "social justice" function? These, and the cottage industry of "diversity consultants" didn't spring up all across corporate America by accident. And regardless of what's going on at your company, the function is being slashed across corporate America.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/div…
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/22/google-m…

Again, if this is such a vital function, why are they being slashed?

The best explanation is that the DEI virtue signal is dropping in value like a lead balloon.

BTW HR has dealt with bias complaints for decades. Nothing necessitates a new function. And yes, DEI activists are pushing companies for senior leadership quotas.

^ you guys really need to get laid, who gives a flying fuck about dei

^ Don't like this thread, don't click on it. No need to be such a drama queen. Go back to sniping with GammaNu, at least you're entertaining there.

Wow someone really needs to get laid
Lol

^ You need a new line

^ maybe so, but you still need to get laid
LOL

^ You can ask your daughter about that

^ My daughter wouldn’t give you a second thought

^ Because I was her 10th customer of the night? Or 12th? Or...25th?

^ Back off loser you’re treading in dangerous territory

^ Don't start what you can't finish, gramps...

^ just like the jackass you referred to earlier, you’re an idiot.
I didn’t attack you nor reference any personal details, yet you think everything is about you.
Take a break, you seem to be off your meds.

^ I believe you meant to say:

"I sincerely apologize for trolling a discussion between two adults. It did not reference or concern me in any way, yet I stuck my nose in because I needed conflict to add some excitement to my boring day. I promise I'll do better in the future."

^ I don’t think so

Yes, most of the DEI budget is for marketing purposes, not actual DEI. So, as the shock at the murder of George Floyd fades, that marketing effort will be dialed back. Really, the main focus of corporate DEI programs is to counter lawsuits for discrimination. There's lots of valid criticisms of DEI programs. But the hysteria that they're making white men second class citizens is ridiculous. Most of the stats indicate that white men still come out ahead of women and non-whites other than Asians.

@ilbbaicnl, you made my point that it was marketing as the murder of George Floyd fades. If Trump gets re-elected in 2024, it'll drop further.

I think generally the "making white men second class citizens" is overblown, but it's been DEI who was pushing out the Robin DiAngelo/Saira Rao/Ibram X. Kendi (real name Henry Rogers which sounds a lot less exotic) training material that outright calls white people oppressive and literally says "be less white." That I can understand having a problem with.

Ironically, for all I'm not a fan, my company's DEI was very kind after the 10/7 attacks. I'm not Jewish but they held a forum for Jewish employees and allies to speak their minds. I was gobsmacked how many Jewish colleagues had close ties to Israel, including one whose son used to live a mile from one of the kibbutzes that got attacked.

So you don't think black people in the US are oppressed?

If some started a thread titled "I'm Black American, what are you?", the responses should be "I'm German/Italian/Polish/etc. American". Not "I'm White". The truth is, being white means nothing more than having advantages that all US citizens should have. So if being less white means being ready to share those advantages, seems like a good thing.

Oppressed? That's a loaded word. I think it's harder to be black than white in the US. I think there are people (outside the mainstream) who hate black people for no other reason than their skin color.

Do you deny that 60 years of affirmative action and preferences had an impact? That too is a loaded question. If it didn't, then it needs to be eliminated (it's a major cause of resentment, too). If it did, then we can call victory and end it.

A charge of "racist" is one of the most serious one can level against another these days. If it's demonstrated, it can remove one from polite society or even one's means of making a living. True racists (outside the tendentious redefinition of the term) are few and far between, and marginalized out of power. "Racism" has been written out of law.

But you can't deny the impact of culture. My black friends tell me as much. The racial wealth gap disappears when you factor in the two-parent household gap. The crime problem is real when black Americans account for 13% of the population (really, it's young black males) but over half the murders, 90% of black-vs-white crimes, and even Jesse Jackson says he's relieved when he sees someone following him on the street and they turn out to be white. Blaming poverty for non-property crimes is demonstrably false progressive nonsense.

Not to mention, non-American blacks thrive under the same system. Some groups like Ghanaians and Nigerians even outperform white Americans. That's culture, despite being the same gene pool and looking the same--they value hard work, education, and family, and kick ass in society as a result.

I don't know what they mean by "being less white," but their influence has been pernicious, referring to things necessary to thrive in society like being on time, hard work, valuing education as "white." Those "advantages" are common to any group that has excelled in society like Chinese, Indians, and Jews.

It's laughable how the DiAngelo's (and other race grifters) talk about "white fragility" or the need to have a national conversation on race. America has discussed this issue to death; what I think they mean is they want us to bow and scrape (and of course funnel dollars) before them. I don't enter into conversations on a presumption that I'm the asshole by accident of my birth. But if they make $2,500 a person telling rich white progressive women that they're racist and horrible and need to do penance, well, a fool and her money are soon parted.

The idea that some weak pussy white guy says white people have a privilege, proves their impotent stupidity and weakness, because other than working hard or being born into wealth, no one has privilege. DEI is for weak losers to make themselves feel better.
Calling someone a racist is sillier than calling them a doody head, but it has less actual meaning. All the word racist means is that a progressive lost the argument on facts.
George Bush, Mr. Mission accomplished was the best President since Reagan.
Preferring Jewish doctors is just another way of saying "I want the best chance of having a doctor educated in America, not some foreign land".
PUDDY - for the comments you made about 25's daughter you should be ashamed of yourself, you fucking vagina.

The idea that some weak pussy white guy says white people have a privilege, proves their impotent stupidity and weakness, because other than working hard or being born into wealth, no one has privilege. DEI is for weak losers to make themselves feel better.
Calling someone a racist is sillier than calling them a doody head, but it has less actual meaning. All the word racist means is that a progressive lost the argument on facts.
George Bush, Mr. Mission accomplished was the best President since Reagan.
Preferring Jewish doctors is just another way of saying "I want the best chance of having a doctor educated in America, not some foreign land".
PUDDY - for the comments you made about 25's daughter you should be ashamed of yourself, you fucking vagina.

^ Oh look, it's the other drama queen on this board. Go suck each other's dicks, white knight.

"So you don't think black people in the US are oppressed?"

How are they oppressed?

And more importantly, what metrics will we use to determine confidently that they are no longer oppressed? In other words, define "job done, DEI initiatives can be completely removed."

@5footguy https://econofact.org/how-can-we-know-if…

We also have unrealistic expectations that poor people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps. So descendants of families that were poor in the past, due to even more pervasive and overt racism, are more likely to be poor not.

@ilbbaicnl

You're still talking about economic conditions though. Is your argument that they are poor due to racism? No doubt some of it is. But what about whites? There are also poor white people (about half as much, as a percentage, versus blacks). And, should we do something about the native americans who were displaced? What about the tribes that those native americans displaced before them? Unfortunately, greed causes humans to conquer, rule, and mistreat others. How far back do we go to "make it right"? How many hundreds of years?

Regarding people who can pull themselves up by their bootstraps... I think about the 125,000 Japanese people who were imprisoned in the US during WW2? What Americans did to them was horrible. Yet, I don't hear Japanese people ever use this as an excuse. They pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and then some.

It sounds a bit condescending when you doubt poor people's ability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. History has shown that people of all economic backgrounds have risen up to challenges. I'm all for helping people. For example, opportunities for education. What can we do to enhance this? If the answer is "more money for government education," I'd point to the current failures of government education and say that throwing more money at the problem may not be the best solution.

Regarding your link: it's not rigorous and doesn't seem to really say much useful to prove your point. It's like a wannabe meta-analysis. In particular:

* "It is hard to measure discrimination. While data on wages is generally consistent with wage differences across groups, it is difficult to prove this is evidence of discrimination."

* "I found results from about half of these studies of discrimination against ethnic, racial, or sexual orientation minorities are not robust when correcting for this possible bias and, in these cases, the original findings of discrimination were reversed."

* "Researchers find evidence of hiring discrimination against people based on race, ethnicity, prior felony convictions, and disability."

I agree on all counts, and it's a whole lot of nothing really.

Yes, some overcome oppression better than others. That seems more like an excuse rather than a reason to seek to end oppression.

Do you kick your dog every day, because it would be condescending to think it wasn't tough enough to take a kick?

You can tell when someone has no real counterargument, when they throw up a lot of smoke, mentioning everything but what they are trying to dispute. My assertion was that black people are oppressed, nothing about who else is or isn't oppressed, the best ways to end the oppression, or how long it will take.

That's a strawman. My statement in no way implies that the oppression was excused, just because some handle it better than others. You pulled that inference right out of your ass.

Your own reference said this: "It is hard to measure discrimination. While data on wages is generally consistent with wage differences across groups, it is difficult to prove this is evidence of discrimination."

You still haven't shown evidence of systemic discrimination or racism, and certainly not evidence that would go so far as "oppression." I acknowledge that blacks were once oppressed as a group, but claim that now they are not, as a group. I'll repeat: as a group. It's on you to actually make an argument before I can counter it, and you haven't done it yet.

No one in this land is oppressed involuntarily by others. Some communities always have voted for the oppressors because they give them an excuse for their failures and encourage them to blame others. The "oppressed" in this country have always voted for their oppressors. If a community never succeeds and yet always votes for the same people, wouldn't that make their failure to thrive their responsibility? Of course it would.