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

[sringwal]

I see your point. Comparison partially withdrawn.

With that in mind @yellowjacket:

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.

As I said before, I will give you that the comparison is a shaky one. With that in mind - while Trump may not have been elected because he is white, I still posit that a non-white Trump would not have been elected. This may be a linguistic quibble, but is still critical to understand when discussing both the flaws and strengths of DEI and policy making.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

With that in mind @yellowjacket:

As I said before, I will give you that the comparison is a shaky one. With that in mind - while Trump may not have been elected because he is white, I still posit that a non-white Trump would not have been elected. This may be a linguistic quibble, but is still critical to understand when discussing both the flaws and strengths of DEI and policy making.

I honestly don't know. Trump is a pretty singular politician in the United states. So it's not like we have the Black version of Trump to compare. Now don't confuse me, I don't compare Obama to Trump in many ways, but they were both charismatic politicians that became president. Obama of course was very tan. So it's not like a black person couldn't become president.

So I'm just not sure where the argument is that if Trump was black he couldn't become president. Republicans have elected black men to other offices. Not many, but it's not impossible.

And of course there's nothing saying that a morally flexible, charismatic celebrity black-Trump couldn't drop the abortion and maybe even the DEI stuff and still run as a Democrat. Isolationism and anti-immigration could be his main platform. Probably be a little tougher to pass a tax break for wealthy people but package it as giving back to the middle class by dropping AMT and supercharging the economy by reducing corporate taxes and slip in some capital gains decreases, and you're right back to White Republican Trump.

 

[superrific]

The main appeal of Trump is the racism. A black Trump could not possibly get elected. That's in part because no self-respecting black person would ever be MAGA. Herschel Walker was a minstrel show and Byron Donalds is a complete joke.

We saw how well a black person can do as a candidate for national office. Tim Scott.

 

[ZenMode]

Why are you okay with the clear evidence that prior administrations have hired people because they were straight white Protestant males? They were hired in numbers staggeringly higher than their proportion of the total population. That can't be a coincidence (which seems to be your bright line to decide whether someone has been hired for the wrong reasons).

If there was reason to believe they were picking people solely because they are white, protestant and male, I wouldn't be ok with it.

I will say that non-Christians, regardless of party, have historically had difficulty progressing in politics. It's slightly changing now, but it'll be a very long time before we see an atheist president.

 

[SmilingJack]

If there was reason to believe they were picking people solely because they are white, protestant and male, I wouldn't be ok with it.

I will say that non-Christians, regardless of party, have historically had difficulty progressing in politics. It's slightly changing now, but it'll be a very long time before we see an atheist president.

JD Vance....case closed.

 

[UNCatTech]

That's fine. I don't know where the dysphoria in gender dysphoria comes from if not from a contrast between what's going on in your head and what's going on with your body, but it's irrelevant to my point. The references to genitals is to show how ridiculous it is to take sexuality and gender dysphoria into consideration for hiring someone.

I'm sure it is absolutely possible that you have your timelines wrong.

Maybe instead of let's hire a trans person the idea was let's hire the most qualified person. Then when that person turned out to be trans, they celebrated it because it's part of who that person is.

 

[UNCatTech]

With that in mind @yellowjacket:

As I said before, I will give you that the comparison is a shaky one. With that in mind - while Trump may not have been elected because he is white, I still posit that a non-white Trump would not have been elected. This may be a linguistic quibble, but is still critical to understand when discussing both the flaws and strengths of DEI and policy making.

If trump were black, the turnout for the Presidential election would have been at least 30% lower. He might have still won, who knows, but much less people would have voted having a black man and a black woman as candidates.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

If there was reason to believe they were picking people solely because they are white, protestant and male, I wouldn't be ok with it.

I will say that non-Christians, regardless of party, have historically had difficulty progressing in politics. It's slightly changing now, but it'll be a very long time before we see an atheist president.

An admitted atheist president. Trump and Obama weren't the most observant before they ran for office.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

If trump were black, the turnout for the Presidential election would have been at least 30% lower. He might have still won, who knows, but much less people would have voted having a black man and a black woman as candidates.

I'm not sure where that comes from. 2008, featuring Obama, was the highest turnout percentage in 28 years. 2024, featuring Harris, was the second highest percentage turnout in 100 years.

 

[ZenMode]

I'm sure it is absolutely possible that you have your timelines wrong.

Maybe instead of let's hire a trans person the idea was let's hire the most qualified person. Then when that person turned out to be trans, they celebrated it because it's part of who that person is.

Like I said, Biden revealed his DEI intentions when he said he was going to pick a black, female justice. Since then, he's had three more significant DEI firsts. Has the influx of trans/homosexual people in government /government adjacent positions spiked so much that it seems possible that we are suddenly seeing a natural increase and not intentional discrimination?

I'd say no.

 

[ZenMode]

JD Vance....case closed.

Oh, now you want to talk to the "certified idiot".

Vance is Catholic.

 

[ZenMode]

An admitted atheist president. Trump and Obama weren't the most observant before they ran for office.

Yes. That's what I was getting at.

 

[roostra]

Like I said, Biden revealed his DEI intentions when he said he was going to pick a black, female justice. Since then, he's had three more significant DEI firsts. Has the influx of trans/homosexual people in government /government adjacent positions spiked so much that it seems possible that we are suddenly seeing a natural increase and not intentional discrimination?

I'd say no.

Again, your arguments are only valid if you can demonstrate that these were bad picks. You haven't done that. Not even close. It is your burden, as the person making the assertion.

Until you can point out reasons that these people should not have been hired, there is not a debate here.

 

[UNCatTech]

Like I said, Biden revealed his DEI intentions when he said he was going to pick a black, female justice. Since then, he's had three more significant DEI firsts. Has the influx of trans/homosexual people in government /government adjacent positions spiked so much that it seems possible that we are suddenly seeing a natural increase and not intentional discrimination?

I'd say no.

No, you are wrong. Picking a black female justice was a choice, not a DEI hire. She was and is qualified. You sound just like the idiots that are now using DEI to replace the "N" word.

DEI does not mean unqualified.

If an all black firm chooses to hire a white person, is that a DEI hire?

You are clearly 100% in acceptance of the rights false narrative that DEI means hiring unqualified people who are not white.

 

[UNCatTech]

I'm not sure where that comes from. 2008, featuring Obama, was the highest turnout percentage in 28 years. 2024, featuring Harris, was the second highest percentage turnout in 100 years.

Just think about the average trump voter. Obama's win was historic in many ways. One variable was people wanting to vote for the first black president.

But on the other side of that vote, we all heard the racist rhetoric during the entire eight years. Those same racist voted for trump in 2016 because they wanted to restore America after suffering through a Black Muslim president. They are his base.

I guess I shouldn't have made the statement that he may have still won. He would not, because the vast majority of the racist that would not vote for a black person are maga.

 

[superrific]

An admitted atheist president. Trump and Obama weren't the most observant before they ran for office.

Bet any amount of money you were one of those screaming about Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But sure, Obama wasn't observant.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Just think about the average trump voter. Obama's win was historic in many ways. One variable was people wanting to vote for the first black president.

But on the other side of that vote, we all heard the racist rhetoric during the entire eight years. Those same racist voted for trump in 2016 because they wanted to restore America after suffering through a Black Muslim president. They are his base.

I guess I shouldn't have made the statement that he may have still won. He would not, because the vast majority of the racist that would not vote for a black person are maga.

South Carolina has a black senator who is a republican. Is Maga not a thing in South Carolina? Trump endorsed Tim Scott during his reelection campaign in 2021 and Scott endorsed Trump in this most recent campaign.

Yes there are racist white people and most of them are Republicans but I don't think it's nearly as prevalent in maga land as people think. Or at least it's not so ironclad as to eliminate the chance that they would vote for a black Republican.

 

[ZenMode]

Again, your arguments are only valid if you can demonstrate that these were bad picks. You haven't done that. Not even close. It is your burden, as the person making the assertion.

Until you can point out reasons that these people should not have been hired, there is not a debate here.

Not being the best doesn't mean they are bad. Any one of them could have been the second, third or fourth best option.

There's no reason they couldn't be the best option, but when you are taking into consideration irrelevant criteria for a higher, the odds of getting the best decreases.

 

[ChileG]

Apparently so.
Not sure what the lie was. Seems more like a lack of having all the info... similar to all those who got bent out of shape about the so-called removal of Tuskegee airmen.

No, they lied. They made up a reason out of thin air. There were no facts to support what they said. It was a lie.
The people who “got bent out of shape” were mad that efforts to remove DEI from all governmental websites led to a bunch of bullshit like the removal of the Tuckaseegee airmen. And they were right to be upset about it.

 

[roostra]

Not being the best doesn't mean they are bad. Any one of them could have been the second, third or fourth best option.

There's no reason they couldn't be the best option, but when you are taking into consideration irrelevant criteria for a higher, the odds of getting the best decreases.

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)