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

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 665
  • Views: 10K
  • Politics 
UNCatTech said:
Seriously Pete has a wonderful resume. He's highly qualified.

But you are wasting time reading zen for anything other than opinions.
Click to expand...
Of course he is, if nothing else because he is highly intelligent and quick on his feet. His experience as mayor certainly gave him at least basic experience with many aspects of transportation. My point is that there was likely someone out there with tons of experience but Pete brings so much more to the table than just that one aspect.
 
roostra said:
But then you are back in the conundrum of the post that you didn't reply to from today. I will cut and paste:

"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, 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."

If you have a large applicant pool, there are likely many qualified candidates that would all do the job well. There is no objective measure to decide amongst these folks, so it doesn't matter what criteria you use to make your choice. There is no "one best option." There are tons of judgment calls - this one may write a little better than the others, but that other one is a slightly better public speaker, and the other one over there speaks three languages, but that other one is better at math, that one in the corner gets along slightly better with people they haven't met, and that one is better at delivering tough constructive criticism, that one grew up poor and has demonstrated that they can overcome adversity, this one... And on and on.

If it is not possible to ascertain the "best" candidate for a job but you identify a pool of candidates who would all do a good job, then it doesn't matter what you use as the tie breaker.

(And that is before you take into account that there may be something about their unique background that is a factor that makes them better at the job they are being considered for. There are plenty of management studies that say diversity in backgrounds on, for example, an executive team is a good hedge against groupthink, which can degrade the effectiveness of an organization)
Click to expand...
In which cabinet position, or otherwise, is "I'm not sure if I'm a man or woman" or "I want my partner to have the same genitals as me" a relevant criteria?
 
Mulberry Heel said:
Trust me, you're better off. I put both of them on ignore awhile ago and it's a much better experience reading the board. Of course they'll say it's because I only want a "liberal echo chamber", which is bullshit. If there were arguing in good faith it would be different, but they're simply not. They love yanking people's chains here by being deliberately dense and arguing in circles as long as the other poster is willing to keep arguing or posting. It's not worth the time or effort, imo.
Click to expand...
Only thing I disagree with is the notion that they are being deliberately dense. They are being their authentic selves and are not capable of better.
 
ZenMode said:
In which cabinet position, or otherwise, is "I'm not sure if I'm a man or woman" or "I want my partner to have the same genitals as me" a relevant criteria?
Click to expand...
I am really trying hard to believe that you aren't just trolling in bad faith (which seems more and more likely with each past you make), so here goes:

Aside from the general value of having someone who has maybe had different experiences than many, and thus a different perspective, one example could be the Department of Justice - someone who is a member of a subgroup that has experienced discrimination might have some insight on civil rights.

And again, you bear the burden to show that (1) anyone was hired for a cabinet position solely based on the fact that they were gay (or whatever other characteristic that you find objectionable) and (2) that anyone you assert as hired for that position was not qualified for the job. (and if your argument that they were only the second or third or fourth most qualifies, then who should have gotten their spot).
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Were they really that right to be all upset about it. It came back in what less than a week? Trump didn't have to. Trump has taken plenty of unpopular positions and reveled in it. But the administration put back the Tuskegee airmen and all the others because they either don't really care about individuals breaking some barrier or actually celebrate it.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
roostra said:
I am really trying hard to believe that you aren't just trolling in bad faith (which seems more and more likely with each past you make), so here goes:

Aside from the general value of having someone who has maybe had different experiences than many, and thus a different perspective, one example could be the Department of Justice - someone who is a member of a subgroup that has experienced discrimination might have some insight on civil rights.

And again, you bear the burden to show that (1) anyone was hired for a cabinet position solely based on the fact that they were gay (or whatever other characteristic that you find objectionable) and (2) that anyone you assert as hired for that position was not qualified for the job. (and if your argument that they were only the second or third or fourth most qualifies, then who should have gotten their spot).
Click to expand...
I've laid out support for my claims a few times.

Here and here
 
sringwal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah but, he never participated in MTV’s The Real World or Road Rules, so he’s obviously not qualified.

TacoMode is such a dumb fuck homophobe piece of shit.
 
Actress Bea Arthur of Golden Girls and Maude fame is among those who were scrubbed from the DoD website. Arthur was one of the first women to join the US Marine Corps Women's Reserve in World War Two. She was then known as Bernice Frankel. After facing a backlash from her fans, her page - which had been deleted at least as early as March 17 - was restored. One wonders at how many other, less famous, minority trailblazers remain scrubbed from the DoD and other government websites. But I'm sure that our resident bosiders and Trumpers are correct that this is all just due to "malicious compliance" (lol, what a term) from liberal bureaucrats just trying to undermine the great work of Dear Leader and Co-President Musk! It's pathetic - I certainly feel much safer knowing that our Defense Department is busily scrubbing people like Bea Arthur from its websites (albeit restoring them when they face a strong enough backlash).

 
Yes, ‘Snow White’ Is Bombing At The Box Office

Snow White did not impress critics with its 44% score on Rotten Tomatoes, but even with a higher 74% audience score, the movie is in fact currently bombing at the box office, at least according to these initial figures.

Snow White brought in $87 million in its opening weekend globally, with just $43 million domestically. That may not mean much out of context, but compared to the other slew of recent live-action Disney adaptations, that’s definitely in “bomb” territory, at least for now. Here’s the list along the same opening weekend time period domestically:

The Lion King - $191 million
Beauty and the Beast - $174 million
Alice in Wonderland - $116 million
The Jungle Book - $103 million
The Little Mermaid - $95 million
Aladdin – $91 million
Maleficent - $69 million
Cinderella - $67 million
Snow White and the Hunstman - $56 million
Dumbo $46 million
Snow White - $43 million
Mufasa: The Lion King - $35 million

There are very few ways to spin that. Snow White is close to the worst-performing live-action Disney adaptation ever, doing not even half or a quarter as well as the higher-up ones on the list, and reviewed more poorly than essentially all of them, which is no doubt a contributor here.

The single bright spot of the film is said to be Rachel Zegler’s performance and her singing, but villain Gal Gadot is criticized roundly, as is the overall structure, script and directing of the film (and those horrifying CGI dwarves). Again, you can even see the unconventional adaptation, Snow White and the Huntsman, opened better than this.

There is one thing to note, however, that could be a glimmer of hope. The lowest film on this list, Mufasa: The Lion King, opened poorly, but over time, despite being an original production (which probably hurt it at the outset) snowballed into eventually making $717 million worldwide, a huge hit. But that feels like an anomaly rather than something that’s going to happen with Snow White.

www.forbes.com

Yes, ‘Snow White’ Is Bombing At The Box Office

Snow White did not impress critics with its 44% score on Rotten Tomatoes, but even with a higher 74% audience score, the movie is currently bombing at the box office.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 
ZenMode said:
Yes, ‘Snow White’ Is Bombing At The Box Office

Snow White did not impress critics with its 44% score on Rotten Tomatoes, but even with a higher 74% audience score, the movie is in fact currently bombing at the box office, at least according to these initial figures.

Snow White brought in $87 million in its opening weekend globally, with just $43 million domestically. That may not mean much out of context, but compared to the other slew of recent live-action Disney adaptations, that’s definitely in “bomb” territory, at least for now. Here’s the list along the same opening weekend time period domestically:

The Lion King - $191 million
Beauty and the Beast - $174 million
Alice in Wonderland - $116 million
The Jungle Book - $103 million
The Little Mermaid - $95 million
Aladdin – $91 million
Maleficent - $69 million
Cinderella - $67 million
Snow White and the Hunstman - $56 million
Dumbo $46 million
Snow White - $43 million
Mufasa: The Lion King - $35 million

There are very few ways to spin that. Snow White is close to the worst-performing live-action Disney adaptation ever, doing not even half or a quarter as well as the higher-up ones on the list, and reviewed more poorly than essentially all of them, which is no doubt a contributor here.

The single bright spot of the film is said to be Rachel Zegler’s performance and her singing, but villain Gal Gadot is criticized roundly, as is the overall structure, script and directing of the film (and those horrifying CGI dwarves). Again, you can even see the unconventional adaptation, Snow White and the Huntsman, opened better than this.

There is one thing to note, however, that could be a glimmer of hope. The lowest film on this list, Mufasa: The Lion King, opened poorly, but over time, despite being an original production (which probably hurt it at the outset) snowballed into eventually making $717 million worldwide, a huge hit. But that feels like an anomaly rather than something that’s going to happen with Snow White.

www.forbes.com

Yes, ‘Snow White’ Is Bombing At The Box Office

Snow White did not impress critics with its 44% score on Rotten Tomatoes, but even with a higher 74% audience score, the movie is currently bombing at the box office.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
Click to expand...
So, a bad movie is performing poorly at the Box Office.
Okay, but why is this in the DEI thread?
 
ZenMode said:
Because it's likely that the Woke/DEI aspect was a news story and was likely a factor.
Click to expand...
1. SW is played by a woman who is half Colombian and half Polish. Why is this an issue? Look at pictures of her as Snow White and she looks like Snow White.

2. Your own article said she is the lone bright spot in the film. Isn’t the point of the anti-DEI crusade to hire the best?
In this case they should have hired someone less talented who is maybe just a little more pale?

You may be right about why some people aren’t seeing it (but it is likely a very small minority, and the movie is performing poorly because apparently it is a bad film) but if that’s true it only proves what a farce this anti-DEI crusade is.
 
ChileG said:
1. SW is played by a woman who is half Colombian and half Polish. Why is this an issue? Look at pictures of her as Snow White and she looks like Snow White.

2. Your own article said she is the lone bright spot in the film. Isn’t the point of the anti-DEI crusade to hire the best?
In this case they should have hired someone less talented who is maybe just a little more pale?

You may be right about why some people aren’t seeing it (but it is likely a very small minority, and the movie is performing poorly because apparently it is a bad film) but if that’s true it only proves what a farce this anti-DEI crusade is.
Click to expand...
"Isn’t the point of the anti-DEI crusade to hire the best?"

In a world where Disney is (was) "Woking" everything it got its hands on, a Colombian isn't the "white as snow" actress some people are looking for and is, therefore, not the "best" option. She may have been fine in a non-Woke, non-DEI world.
 
don't forget the fact that this snow white had a little agency and decided to make her life about more than just finding her prince. BIG problems for the misogyny brigade. way too woke.

i had no idea that this was a thing but now i've read all of the talking points. i am both incredulous and wildly amused that so many conservatives are so batshit insane and miserable that they spend massive amounts of time let alone any amount of time policing this stuff and being outraged by it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top