When you see it... you will flip.

[Expert]

You're perfectly describing your narratives.

following me around sniffing my residues

[BD24]

Let's not forget the real important piece of information we got from this thread. Chris thinks that 14% and 2% is a trivial difference.

[Spurminator]

Of course, no evidence required, just conjecture and speculation dressed as wisdom.

Typo smack in one thread, grievance over a clearly tongue-in-cheek post in another.

Somebody missed their midnight snack.

[Nathan89]

Let's not forget the real important piece of information we got from this thread. Chris thinks that 14% and 2% is a trivial difference.

That's not very important tbh.

People thinking 14 percent should be represented is much more noteworthy.

[Blake]

That's not very important tbh.

People thinking 14 percent should be represented is much more noteworthy.

What color are you?

I'm asking for a friend

[RandomGuy]

LOL at you making all these assumptions based on a picture. How many qualified black people applied to be an intern? Do you think it's a significantly higher % than the % of black republicans?

No idea how many qualified black people applied. I only know how many were hired, assuming all the hires were present at the time of the picture, so I guess I did make ONE assumption.

Setting aside the 2%, which is less than a reasonable margin of error:

To cause the result of only white people getting hired, one of two things had to happen:

Only white people were seriously considered.
Only white people applied.

What are the implications, to you, of either?

[Nathan89]

What color are you?

I'm asking for a friend

Really not relevant. That's objectively an unreasonable outcome if you are judging on merit.

[RandomGuy]

That's not very important tbh.

People thinking 14 percent should be represented is much more noteworthy.

White people are only 60% of the US population. They were 98% of those hired as interns.

So its not really 14% we are talking about it is 40%.

One hundred and twenty million Americans have almost no representation in a major political party's administration (not just talking about interns here), who appears bent on shutting them out of the political process.

Seems like a small problem to me.

Do you find this to be a problem?

[Blake]

Really not relevant. That's objectively an unreasonable outcome if you are judging on merit.

So you're white. Ok thx.

[RandomGuy]

And anyone think that maybe (since most blacks vote Democrat) that they just don't WANT to be interns in Trump's WH and didn't apply?

Yes, I did think that. Why might that be a problem in and of itself?

Stretch yourself here.

[Nathan89]

No idea how many qualified black people applied. I only know how many were hired, assuming all the hires were present at the time of the picture, so I guess I did make ONE assumption.

Setting aside the 2%, which is less than a reasonable margin of error:

To cause the result of only white people getting hired, one of two things had to happen:

Only white people were seriously considered.
Only white people applied.

What are the implications, to you, of either?

It was a combination of merit and very few black people applying.

There are many explanations for that for fewer black people applying.

[SpursforSix]

No idea how many qualified black people applied. I only know how many were hired, assuming all the hires were present at the time of the picture, so I guess I did make ONE assumption.

Setting aside the 2%, which is less than a reasonable margin of error:

To cause the result of only white people getting hired, one of two things had to happen:

Only white people were seriously considered.
Only white people applied.

What are the implications, to you, of either?

Since there is a black person (and an Indian?) in the picture both statements are false.

But since there is a black person in the pick, I'm assuming that they didn't try to hire only whites.
So it leads me to also assume that not many black people applied.

You're trying to cover your ass and say that black people must feel disenfranchised with the current administration.
Which is probably true.

But it's clear that wasn't what you were going for when you said, "you will flip".

You were implying that the lack of hiring blacks for the position was blatantly racist.

[Nathan89]

White people are only 60% of the US population. They were 98% of those hired as interns.

So its not really 14% we are talking about it is 40%.

One hundred and twenty million Americans have almost no representation in a major political party's administration (not just talking about interns here), who appears bent on shutting them out of the political process.

Seems like a small problem to me.

Do you find this to be a problem?

No, not 98 percent. There are more than two non white people in that photo.

That's an input problem mostly. There is no reason more educated black and Hispanic people couldn't have views similar to Thomas Sowell which would place them in the Republican party. I guarantee someone like Thomas could get into office. The problem is the vast majority of black people have come to same conclusion as the solution.

[Nathan89]

So you're white. Ok thx.

Identify politics at its finest.

[Blake]

Identify politics at its finest.

Neh, I'm just poking fun at dmc for originally asking and poking fun at you for being the Chris type of white guy

[RandomGuy]

Only white people were seriously considered.
Only white people applied.

What are the implications, to you, of either?

It was a combination of merit and very few black people applying.

There are many explanations for that for fewer black people applying.

Kind of hard to tell what kind of "merit" was considered, innit? Melanin-based merit?

I didn't ask for the explanation, I asked for the implication. Critical thinking.

What does it mean, that 40% of the US population is not represented here?

[SpursforSix]

Kind of hard to tell what kind of "merit" was considered, innit? Melanin-based merit?

I didn't ask for the explanation, I asked for the implication. Critical thinking.

What does it mean, that 40% of the US population is not represented here?

After getting called out, you're now only worried about implications.

What were you trying to imply with "you will flip" and then only posting a picture?

Just like with all of your other threads, you're trying to create outrage instead of thoughtful discussion.

[RandomGuy]

No, not 98 percent. There are more than two non white people in that photo.

That's an input problem mostly. There is no reason more educated black and Hispanic people couldn't have views similar to Thomas Sowell which would place them in the Republican party. I guarantee someone like Thomas could get into office. The problem is the vast majority of black people have come to same conclusion as the solution.

Feel free to state what percentage you think it actually is, as if 2% or 4% is the real issue. (shrugs) It just isn't. Same point can be made.

•A commitment to the mission of the Trump Administration

Trump has made it abundantly clear whose interests he represents. People aren't stupid, as much as people like Chris would to claim otherwise.

[RandomGuy]

After getting called out, you're now only worried about implications.

What were you trying to imply with "you will flip" and then only posting a picture?

Just like with all of your other threads, you're trying to create outrage instead of thoughtful discussion.

You haven't "called me out".

I have merely gotten to the actual point, and attempted to prompt some thoughtful discussion. Not sure why that bothers you. Do you not think we should have thoughtful discussion?

[SpursforSix]

You haven't "called me out".

I have merely gotten to the actual point, and attempted to prompt some thoughtful discussion. Not sure why that bothers you. Do you not think we should have thoughtful discussion?

I never said I called you out.

and LOL at you "merely getting to the actual point". It took everyone else to get you to it.

LOL at this "bothering me". You're the one who "flipped" at the sight of the picture.

I think there should be thoughtful discussion.

But it doesn't really seem like you're ever after that.

Your first action in most of your threads (at least the ones I've bothered to open) is to attack whatever side you have a problem with.
Not to open up any meaningful or thoughtful discussion.
The fact you responded to this post instead of my other one (which I think made valid points) is pretty telling.

[RandomGuy]

I never said I called you out.

and LOL at you "merely getting to the actual point". It took everyone else to get you to it.

LOL at this "bothering me". You're the one who "flipped" at the sight of the picture.

I think there should be thoughtful discussion.

But it doesn't really seem like you're ever after that.

Your first action in most of your threads (at least the ones I've bothered to open) is to attack whatever side you have a problem with.
Not to open up any meaningful or thoughtful discussion.
The fact you responded to this post instead of my other one (which I think made valid points) is pretty telling.

It tells the story of a guy who scrolls through multiple posts from multiple people, and occasionally misses something.

Since you think you made some valid points, let's unpack them.

Since there is a black person (and an Indian?) in the picture both statements are false.

Hence the qualifier "setting aside the two visible exceptions", which made the statement true. Your point, is therefore, not valid.

But since there is a black person in the pick, I'm assuming that they didn't try to hire only whites.
So it leads me to also assume that not many black people applied.

Two assumptions not really supported by any evidence, or statements provided about the actual hiring process form those involved.

Happy to grant both. I am sure they made sure to have some tokens, because even this White House (or whatever you call it ) knows the optics of that look bad.

I am also sure that not many black people applied. The "must be dedicated to the Trump administration policies/agenda" would self-exclude a lot of people, as noted.

You're trying to cover your ass and say that black people must feel disenfranchised with the current administration.
Which is probably true.

I'm not trying to "cover my ass and say ..."

I am saying that, and asking you to think critically about why that is, and what it means. i.e. critical thinking.

But it's clear that wasn't what you were going for when you said, "you will flip".

You were implying that the lack of hiring blacks for the position was blatantly racist.

Am I?

Trump is a racist, and sets the "tone at the top". Whether the hiring decisions were blatantly racist... impossible to fully say without mind reading. We can only see the results of the hiring process, whatever the motivation.

The big problem is: you can't really eliminate blatant racism as a cause for the lack of diversity, can you?

Improbable, sure. Impossible? That is another matter, and that should worry anyone.

[SpursforSix]

It tells the story of a guy who scrolls through multiple posts from multiple people, and occasionally misses something.

Since you think you made some valid points, let's unpack them.



Hence the qualifier "setting aside the two visible exceptions", which made the statement true. Your point, is therefore, not valid.



Two assumptions not really supported by any evidence, or statements provided about the actual hiring process form those involved.

Happy to grant both. I am sure they made sure to have some tokens, because even this White House (or whatever you call it ) knows the optics of that look bad.

I am also sure that not many black people applied. The "must be dedicated to the Trump administration policies/agenda" would self-exclude a lot of people, as noted.



I'm not trying to "cover my ass and say ..."

I am saying that, and asking you to think critically about why that is, and what it means. i.e. critical thinking.



Am I?

Trump is a racist, and sets the "tone at the top". Whether the hiring decisions were blatantly racist... impossible to fully say without mind reading. We can only see the results of the hiring process, whatever the motivation.

The big problem is: you can't really eliminate blatant racism as a cause for the lack of diversity, can you?

Improbable, sure. Impossible? That is another matter, and that should worry anyone.

TL/DR

[DMC]

What color are you?

I'm asking for a friend

Now we know you're lying. You don't have any friends.

[Blake]

Now we know you're lying. You don't have any friends.

Oh busted. Yeah I was just making fun of you

[RandomGuy]

Let's be real, these are all donors' kids. No sense in dissecting it any further than that.

Again, a rather damning indictment.