So-called Anti-Woke, Anti-DEI policy catch-all

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 726
  • Views: 16K
  • Politics 
I mean Linda McMahon is our Secretary of Education. How fucking ridiculous is that?

But no. Her husband is connected to the most faux-manly, Trumpiest of sports. She gets a pass. She’s MAGA and there is no such thing as DEI MAGA. Because everyone in MAGA is instantly more qualified than the experts in every field. Unless the purpose is to put someone unqualified into a position to tear everything down. Look at all that 3d chess that Trump is playing!
 
sringwal said:
I mean Linda McMahon is our Secretary of Education. How fucking ridiculous is that?

But no. Her husband is connected to the most faux-manly, Trumpiest of sports. She gets a pass. She’s MAGA and there is no such thing as DEI MAGA. Because everyone in MAGA is instantly more qualified than the experts in every field. Unless the purpose is to put someone unqualified into a position to tear everything down. Look at all that 3d chess that Trump is playing!
Click to expand...
He couldn't spell 3d chess if you spotted him chess.
 
ZenMode said:
Strawman
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that I agree. There are always going to be people who are hired for positions that others are more qualified for. But we only call it DEI when the recipient is anything but a straight white male. Why should their unqualification be above reproach?

Make an argument for why it is a straw man. I am open to being convinced.
 
Last edited:
sringwal said:
I’m not sure that I agree. There are always going to be people who are hired for positions that others are more qualified for. But we only call it DEI when the receptive t is anything but a straight white male. Why is their unqualification be above reproach?

Make an argument for why it is a straw man. I am open to being convinced.
Click to expand...
It’s a strawman because I said nothing about Trump’s selections, nor do his selections change anything about Biden’s and DEI.

With Trump, his selections are clearly people who a) represent his beliefs and b) are people he believes he can count on to do his bidding. Agree or disagree with that approach, at least it makes sense. Picking an under-qualified Transportation dept. head because he’s a male who likes to have other males diddle his naughty parts is just ridiculous and more than a little weird.
 
ZenMode said:
It’s a strawman because I said nothing about Trump’s selections, nor do his selections change anything about Biden’s and DEI.

With Trump, his selections are clearly people who a) represent his beliefs and b) are people he believes he can count on to do his bidding. Agree or disagree with that approach, at least it makes sense. Picking an under-qualified Transportation dept. head because he’s a male who likes to have other males diddle his naughty parts is just ridiculous and more than a little weird.
Click to expand...
Have to listen because I do believe that you understand more than a little about both "male who likes other males diddle his naughty parts" and "weird"!?!
Who even thinks sentences like this?
 
SmilingJack said:
Have to listen because I do believe that you understand more than a little about both "male who likes other males diddle his naughty parts" and "weird"!?!
Who even thinks sentences like this?
Click to expand...

For the record, I'm not saying that being gay is weird. What's weird is using sexual attraction as a reason to select an underqualified candidate.

I worded my sentence that way to emphasize just how weird and ridiculous It is to have that as a criteria.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
For the record, I'm not saying that being gay is weird. What's weird is using sexual attraction as a reason to select an underqualified candidate.

I pray is my sentence that way to emphasize just how weird and ridiculous It is to have that as a criteria.
Click to expand...
In the very recent past you have pointed to Musk’s ridiculous website as proof of how much money he was “saving” and I think you know understand that was folly.
You claimed liberals were doing all of this malicious compliance and we now see that was wrong.
I’m curious if you have any reason to claim Pete B was hired because he was gay.

Also, a gay guy and a black lady getting jobs is hardly proof that DEI is about quotas, for the record (which is what we were discussing).
 
ZenMode said:
For the record, I'm not saying that being gay is weird. What's weird is using sexual attraction as a reason to select an underqualified candidate.

I worded my sentence that way to emphasize just how weird and ridiculous It is to have that as a criteria.
Click to expand...
Shut the fuck up, you hateful homophobic piece of filth. How many times did you get banned on IC for that shit? 2? 3?
 
ZenMode said:
It’s a strawman because I said nothing about Trump’s selections, nor do his selections change anything about Biden’s and DEI.
Click to expand...
Let me put it this way. Structures have been in place for centuries, in this country, to allow mediocre white men to have jobs that either they weren't qualified for, or lacked the experience to do. My maternal grandfather was a member of the Lion's Club in High Point. "Secret Societies" like the Lions Club are built as a way for mediocre (usually white) men with just a little bit of money to network and and rise up in (or remain at the top of) society. Fraternities have a similar end. For the slightly more wealthy, so did country clubs.

We all took social studies classes that football coach who came to work every day to teach football. A lot of those classes involved watching movies. It was an easy A.

By and large, these underqualified middle/upper class men clocked into work each day, and quite frankly didn't accomplish a lot. Certainly not by today's standards.

As long as it was straight white men who filled those positions, no one seemed to give a shit that they weren't really qualified to do them. But, suddenly, now that there is a belief that people who aren't straight white men are working in positions that they might not be qualified for, it's keeping certain portions of our society up at night, angry at the "injustice" of it all.

Why does our mediocrity get a pass?
 
Last edited:
ChileG said:
In the very recent past you have pointed to Musk’s ridiculous website as proof of how much money he was “saving” and I think you know understand that was folly.
You claimed liberals were doing all of this malicious compliance and we now see that was wrong.
I’m curious if you have any reason to claim Pete B was hired because he was gay.

Also, a gay guy and a black lady getting jobs is hardly proof that DEI is about quotas, for the record (which is what we were discussing).
Click to expand...
If I didn't include an "if this is true" disclaimer when referencing Musk's tweets, then I was definitely very much wrong.

As far as malicious compliance is concerned, I still believe it could go either way. I'm not a mind reader to know, with certainty, what is going on in the mines of those who are removing web content.

Given his lack of qualifications, which was pointed out by his former employer, I don't know how Buttigiege could be anything but a DEI higher due to his homosexuality. Clearly I am not in Biden's inner circle, nor can I read his mind, but it seems to be much more than a coincidence that he checked all of the DEI boxes. Black woman on scotus? Check. Trans person as the head of a department? Check. Homosexual person as the head of a department? Check.
 
ZenMode said:
If I didn't include an "if this is true" disclaimer when referencing Musk's tweets, then I was definitely very much wrong.

As far as malicious compliance is concerned, I still believe it could go either way. I'm not a mind reader to know, with certainty, what is going on in the mines of those who are removing web content.

Given his lack of qualifications, which was pointed out by his former employer, I don't know how Buttigiege could be anything but a DEI higher due to his homosexuality. Clearly I am not in Biden's inner circle, nor can I read his mind, but it seems to be much more than a coincidence that he checked all of the DEI boxes. Black woman on scotus? Check. Trans person as the head of a department? Check. Homosexual person as the head of a department? Check.
Click to expand...
Great example of “begging the question.”
 
I mean, Pete Buttigieg is a Rhodes Scholar who studied at at Harvard and Oxford. He also has shown himself to be both charismatic and pretty knowledgeable about political matters. On top of that, he is able to explain policy to "ordinary people" in a way that is engaging and convincing. Claiming that he was unqualified and only got the job because of his sexual preference is kind of a hot take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top