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

[sringwal]

Mark Robinson is nowhere near the politician that Trump is. Mark Robinson made one speech about guns at the Greensboro City council and made it all the way to a largely ceremonial office and then his career ended. He's not the first politician, black or white, to say Trump stuff to stay in the news and then have their political career hit the rocks.

Robinson didn't lose the governor's race because he was black and Trump didn't win the presidency because he's white. Robinson was an inexperienced politician who just didn't have it running against a popular incumbent. Trump is a charismatic politician who successfully connected with the electorate.

I see your point. Comparison partially withdrawn.

 

[sringwal]

You're right. It could just be an incredible coincidence that the Biden admin has the first black female SCOTUS justice in US history (on which he called his shot, setting the stage for the assertions I'm making now), the highest ranking, openly transgender government official in US history and the first openly gay Cabinet secretary in U.S. history.

I mean, he literally checked every typical DEI box there is to check.

That he hired "the first" of each of those categories means that nobody of those categories has been hired before. Do you understand why that, in and of itself, is the bigger problem?

 

[superrific]

There is no terrific case for considering meaningless characteristics that are wholly irrelevant to a job.

What you have successfully demonstrated is that the non-DEI system considers those meaningless characteristics, in favor of white people. It's called discrimination.

Why was there not a gay cabinet member before Pete? Gay people have been wildly successful in every other field. So then the first gay cabinet member comes in and not surprisingly kicks ass. This is a sign of discrimination against gay people, that DEI tries to reverse.

The proof is in the pudding. And you've been showing us delicious DEI pudding all day long.

 

[NYCBlueBlood]

There is no terrific case for considering meaningless characteristics that are wholly irrelevant to a job.

But there's a terrific case for considering meaningless characteristics as negative for Biden putting them in their roles? You seem confused.

 

[roostra]

Zen, you keep treating this like the NBA draft and every candidate for a government job can be rank-ordered 1-30. If that were true, it would be easy to say something like "Hey GM, you picked the #7 ranked cabinet secretary with the first pick because he is black. What a terrible decision!"

But it doesn't work that way for most jobs. It is pretty easy to generate a pool of candidates that have equal qualifications for a given job.

The main purpose of DEI is to ensure that there aren't qualified folks from traditionally disadvantaged backgrounds left out of the pool because of their background. A secondary purpose is the idea that have a diverse group of people in a job is valuable in and of itself. A huge problem in organizations is groupthink. One way to hedge against that, it have folks with different backgrounds.

If you have a group of equally qualified candidates, what is the harm of selecting one based on a characteristic like coming from a background that is traditionally not represented in a role?

If you are going to make the argument that Pete Buttigieg did a bad job as Transportation Secretary because he was selected on the basis of DEI characteristics, you have the burden of proof. What evidence do you have that Mr. Buttigieg did a bad job as transportation secretary?

As an aside, do you think it is a coincidence that the vast majority of cabinet level officials over the last century have been straight, white, protestant males. How is that not the same thing you decry DEI being about?

 

[farce©]

It's not unique to white males ,etc. but no other group has 400 years of tradition and privilege as a head start.

 

[ZenMode]

But there's a terrific case for considering meaningless characteristics as negative for Biden putting them in their roles? You seem confused.

Correct. What a candidate does, legally, with their genitals, what kind of genitals they have and whether they think they have the correct genitals is absolutely irrelevant to the positions for which they are being considered.

 

[superrific]

Correct. What a candidate does, legally, with their genitals, what kind of genitals they have and whether they think they have the correct genitals is absolutely irrelevant to the positions for which they are being considered.

Being gay or trans is not about genitals. You should try talking to trans people, or reading some of their stories.

 

[UNCatTech]

“"DEI hire" is being used as a sword. It diminishes the accomplishments of the person being described and implies that person did not earn their position,”

I agree, but for a different reason. I think reducing people to an irrelevant characteristic, particularly one over which they have no control, diminishes their value. That’s what DEI does, IMO.
DEI is about basically anything not straight, white, cis male. Is that all KBJ wants to be? Does she want to a be reduced to a series of check boxes that shows she’s far enough from being a straight, white, cis male to get the job?

You sound like the morons that thought quad 1 wins was the only variable in making the tournament. Diversity is about much more than skin color or sexuality.

It's about cultural understanding, acceptance, valuing other people's perspectives, valuing their shared and individual experiences, understanding how they fit into the business into the team, as well as their knowledge and skills. Race and sexuality sould be the least considered factors.

Years ago there was a guy on my team. He was probably the smartest guy on the team, knew the systems better than anyone else.

But he couldn't get along with others, was hard to work with, didn't care about the team or the development of others. Him quitting was the best thing for this team. The w woke team did better with him gone. It had nothing to do with his race or gender or ability. It was his lack of understanding other people their culture, their strengths, and his to build a team. But I'm sure some of you single variable merit guys would have hired him in a second.

By the way for all the meritocracy proponents, do you really believe that this country has ever been merit driven in hiring? If so please explain why networking and who you know are often listed as the number one aspect of getting hired.

 

[UNCatTech]

They added Tuskegee back after backlash.

Shouldn't have ever removed them. Fucking racist.

 

[UNCatTech]

Biologically speaking, throughout the animal kingdom, males and females are just different and those differences often, but not always, impact choices made in lilife.

Please do some research. Several species naturally transition from male to female as needed for their species. Some species are all born the same sex and change later in life. Worker bees never procreate, drones are born exclusively to pregnate the queen. The queen gathers the sperms of hundreds of drones before settling down to reproduce.

And there are many more examples in nature that do not align with your simplistic view that there are only male and female.

Hell our own human race has variants. Maybe watch some of that ladyboy porn mentioned above, there are people with a virgina and a penis and female breast. (Be careful you might get hooked)

But you keep repeating this nonsense that there is only one option in all of nature.

 

[ZenMode]

What you have successfully demonstrated is that the non-DEI system considers those meaningless characteristics, in favor of white people. It's called discrimination.

Why was there not a gay cabinet member before Pete? Gay people have been wildly successful in every other field. So then the first gay cabinet member comes in and not surprisingly kicks ass. This is a sign of discrimination against gay people, that DEI tries to reverse.

The proof is in the pudding. And you've been showing us delicious DEI pudding all day long.

When you are considering irrelevant criteria for a position, the odds of you getting the best person for the job decrease and you are fighting discrimination with a different kind of discrimination.

The goal is to not consider irrelevant characteristics. You and others may believe that all of Bidens DEI firsts were just a coincidence. I'm not buying it because, again, he called his DEI shot with SCOTUS and there is ample evidence that he carried that approach through with other selections.

Responding to your post about genitals....

Being gay or trans isn't only about genitals but it is absolutely about genitals. If you're gay, you want your partner to have the same genitals as you. if you're trans, you believe your body has the wrong genitals.

Can you think of anything more ridiculous to take into consideration when hiring for a job? When you consider those things, as Biden clearly did, you are becoming that which you hate.

 

[Tarheeljoe]

There is no terrific case for considering meaningless characteristics that are wholly irrelevant to a job.

Other than your opinion, you have not given one shred of evidence - not one- that Pete Buttigieg was selected for Transportation Secretary because he is gay. You have pointed to a Slate opinion piece as some sort of evidence. That's a Slate opinion piece that does not even once contain the word gay, or imply in any way that he was selected because he is gay. In fact the opinion piece comes to some entirely different conclusions than what you point to from the headline.

"Now, there probably is some crusading reformer inside the Department of Transportation who would have made the ideal choice in the Biden administration. But that’s not what was on the menu, because the less important Cabinet jobs are political positions to reward allies, and no ally needs a job in Washington quite like Pete Buttigieg, who faced a political dead end back home.

Within that framework, I think Buttigieg is an above-average choice. The things that people don’t like about him—the perfect résumé, and the unguarded ambition that’s helped him leap way beyond it—set him up to really make an impact in a field that is a total disaster."

So that article makes the point that he was selected because he was a political ally with unguarded ambition and a perfect resume. Was he the most qualified person with the broadest knowledge of transportation? Certainly not. Was he selected because, as your article states, he was a political ally to Biden and that is how these roles are typically filled? Well just look at your article.

So unless you have actual proof of your claims other that your feelings, you should probably let it go as you just look somewhat foolish and pretty homophobic to go on and on about it.

 

[ChileG]

Being gay or trans is not about genitals. You should try talking to trans people, or reading some of their stories.

People who work for companies with DEI initiatives probably have.

 

[UNCatTech]

Nothing whatsoever in Trump's policies is designed to limit teaching or promoting (for example) black history. It was ridiculous for the bureaucrats at the Air Force Academy to remove all references to the Tuskegee Airmen at the Academy. It was swiftly corrected as these heroes were a part of AMERICAN history. Yes, I am blaming liberal activists/bureaucrats for this issue because it happens to be true.

Limiting the scope of DEI programs does not equal erasing black history. Why must you assign the worst intent in everything this Administration (or its supporters) does? Do you not acknowledge that DEI programs needed to be curtailed and went too far? I'll admit that perhaps they were initially well intended but, in my opinion, ended up dividing us and wasting vast sums of money.

Wow, talking about a fake narrative to fit your worldview.

This is a bad as Mike, I share my porn history with my son, Johnson saying that all of the people at town halls who are complaining are democrats there to cause issues. Bullshit.

I wonder if you think tariffs are a tax cut also.

 

[ChileG]

Other than your opinion, you have not given one shred of evidence - not one- that Pete Buttigieg was selected for Transportation Secretary because he is gay. You have pointed to a Slate opinion piece as some sort of evidence. That's a Slate opinion piece that does not even once contain the word gay, or imply in any way that he was selected because he is gay. In fact the opinion piece comes to some entirely different conclusions than what you point to from the headline.

"Now, there probably is some crusading reformer inside the Department of Transportation who would have made the ideal choice in the Biden administration. But that’s not what was on the menu, because the less important Cabinet jobs are political positions to reward allies, and no ally needs a job in Washington quite like Pete Buttigieg, who faced a political dead end back home.

Within that framework, I think Buttigieg is an above-average choice. The things that people don’t like about him—the perfect résumé, and the unguarded ambition that’s helped him leap way beyond it—set him up to really make an impact in a field that is a total disaster."

So that article makes the point that he was selected because he was a political ally with unguarded ambition and a perfect resume. Was he the most qualified person with the broadest knowledge of transportation? Certainly not. Was he selected because, as your article states, he was a political ally to Biden and that is how these roles are typically filled? Well just look at your article.

So unless you have actual proof of your claims other that your feelings, you should probably let it go as you just look somewhat foolish and pretty homophobic to go on and on about it.

This is what I have been saying, but you did it better. Which is why I am glad you are here.

 

[UNCatTech]

Other than your opinion, you have not given one shred of evidence - not one- that Pete Buttigieg was selected for Transportation Secretary because he is gay. You have pointed to a Slate opinion piece as some sort of evidence. That's a Slate opinion piece that does not even once contain the word gay, or imply in any way that he was selected because he is gay. In fact the opinion piece comes to some entirely different conclusions than what you point to from the headline.

"Now, there probably is some crusading reformer inside the Department of Transportation who would have made the ideal choice in the Biden administration. But that’s not what was on the menu, because the less important Cabinet jobs are political positions to reward allies, and no ally needs a job in Washington quite like Pete Buttigieg, who faced a political dead end back home.

Within that framework, I think Buttigieg is an above-average choice. The things that people don’t like about him—the perfect résumé, and the unguarded ambition that’s helped him leap way beyond it—set him up to really make an impact in a field that is a total disaster."

So that article makes the point that he was selected because he was a political ally with unguarded ambition and a perfect resume. Was he the most qualified person with the broadest knowledge of transportation? Certainly not. Was he selected because, as your article states, he was a political ally to Biden and that is how these roles are typically filled? Well just look at your article.

So unless you have actual proof of your claims other that your feelings, you should probably let it go as you just look somewhat foolish and pretty homophobic to go on and on about it.

Seriously Pete has a wonderful resume. He's highly qualified.

But you are wasting time reading zen for anything other than opinions.

 

[UNCatTech]

Being gay or trans is not about genitals. You should try talking to trans people, or reading some of their stories.

Zen has some kind of obsession with genitals.

 

[UNCatTech]

You're right. It could just be an incredible coincidence that the Biden admin has the first black female SCOTUS justice in US history (on which he called his shot, setting the stage for the assertions I'm making now), the highest ranking, openly transgender government official in US history and the first openly gay Cabinet secretary in U.S. history.

I mean, he literally checked every typical DEI box there is to check.

Yes, because the meritocracy wasn't working or we would have found candidates who weren't white men and women long ago.

You make a stupid argument, there will be a first for everything, what is sad is how long it took this country to achieve some of these first.

 

[UNCatTech]

@Paine I see I forgot one.

Chantel Wong - Wong is the first out lesbian and the first out LGBTQ person of color to receive the rank of an ambassador.

First Gay
First Lesbian
First Transgender
First Black Female

Incredible coincidence if not intentional

I guess there's a limit, only one first President? Or would you prefer we never have any of these first?

ZEN = the party of old white men.