Reply With Quote
Nvmnd. I really don't care.
The ridiculous notion that mul udes of under qualified women and minorities are being hired because of quotas fails to acknowledge the realities of under qualified white men being hired and promoted because they are white men. The latter still happens a lot more than the former. Racists can't imagine a minority being equally (or more) qualified than a white man, therefore quotas must lead to under qualified hires.
Nvmnd. I really don't care.
Randomized? Hopefully not. I'm sure some people hold preconceived notions about gender and race where job duties relate. I think you can find competence in each gender (and incompetence) and of course, other races. You're just taking a chance when you overlook proven performers to fill a diversity quota, where you're required to ignore common prerequisites. The question shouldn't be why she was appointed, but why she was a captain if she couldn't handle pressure, assuming that to be the case ( I rarely take these reports as facts )
Muslim is a religion
White is a race
I don't recall any muslim legislation. I recall specific countries being tagged.
Strawman
No one suggested anything of the sort.
You committed so many logical fallacies in that post that I cannot even list them all. You can be against racial and gender quotas without being misogynist or racist. I know suggesting otherwise helps bolster your case but it's not true.
Congrats, all y'all ST assholes on your award
PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year:
Online smear machine tries to take down Parkland students
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...s=mcnewsletter
Another linky pukey from the forum dookey
You, RG and djohn are the ST version of Russian bot farm
So equally qualified candidates does not include past performance?
Got it.
I did not get that out of Spurminator’s post.
Where did I even hint at that?
If you have to meet a gender requirement (or any quota for diversity) you automatically remove all of the applicants who don't meet that requirement, regardless of their past performance, and you have to accept the best of the applicants who do meet that diversity requirement, regardless of their past performance.
Oh.....
It’s nowhere to be found ....
So the argument does not assume equally qualified candidates?
Again, your inner voices might know what you're talking about, I have no idea. Perhaps you could share a bit less with them, more with the real world.
Requiring diversity is like requiring "fair and balanced" reporting. Both are only for outward appearances. Accuracy and efficacy have taken a backseat to social acceptance via facades of social awareness.
These countries so many libs want the US to be like don't have racial or gender quotas. They seem to impress the libs just fine.
What does this say ?
Not if you have to remove the males.
You don’t know what equally qualified candidates means.
So call me a glue sniffer again.
It says "without diversity".
I addressed that with "hopefully not randomized" and acknowledged some bias exists.
Still I have no idea what you're complaining about.
So you have a group of equally qualified candidates and you remove the males that were equally qualified, then you no longer have a group of equally qualified candidates.
Nice.
I know how to read that in the context of the entire sentence.
The term "candidates" in that sentence refers to all candidates. Once you use the diversity filter, you remove a section of those candidates. Therefore the background of those candidates would not be considered. You could have 20 qualified men and 4 qualified women, and though one of those 4 women would be in the top 5 of all candidates, she might be number 5. You'd have to pick her over the remaining 4 who have better qualifications, simply because they do not fill the diversity requirement.
I never said I think that happens, and that was the question being asked, not a condition he applied. You can be qualified for a role but that doesn't make you the best for it. Have you ever applied for a job or interviewed anyone? You likely wouldn't interview someone not even qualified to do the job. Donald Trump qualified for POTUS. Was he the best for it? He was equally as qualified as anyone else who ran, because he met the prerequisites.
Do you really think these decisions come down to a group of people with equal abilities and backgrounds? Or, instead.. that they meet the prerequisites for the job?
Who has never applied for a job that has a job (besides nepotistic family crap)?
Never ever have on my own.
Its always a committee decision. The party responsible goes with the vote.
Yes of course just like marriages, you always marry the perfect partner.
You know what this is actually an attempt to do . Interject novel ideas from a different culture that is equally qualified but not considered because of some sort of pseudo no fit fear. And of course it’s going to end up making mistakes and result in the hiring of bad candidates. All legislation has unintended consequences. But I get the thought process. Red team sees it as purely retribution for past sins involving race.
‘What if someone was shooting?’
More than 4 million children endured lockdowns last school year, a groundbreaking Washington Post analysis found. The experience left many traumatized.
School shootings remain rare, even after
2018, a year of historic carnage on K-12 campuses.
What’s not rare are lockdowns, which have become
a hallmark of American education and a byproduct of this country’s inability to curb its gun violence epidemic.
Lockdowns save lives during real attacks, but even when there is no gunman stalking the hallways,
the procedures can inflict immense psychological damage on children convinced that they’re in danger.
And the number of kids who have experienced these ordeals is extraordinary.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/local/school-lockdowns-in-america/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9f62be7b4cce
Yet another symptom of how incurably sick America is, because BigGun must have its profits.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-27-2018 at 09:17 PM.
Two of the survivors of this attack have killed themselves. Just a week apart.
I know cos I met with them.
Major mass shootings had little effect on voting in communities most affected, Post analysis finds
So when they protested gun violence last summer by staging a “die-in” at the local Publix grocery store, they were shocked by the reaction.
Gun rights activists and some shoppers taunted and mocked them.
One stepped on Patricia’s hand, saying, “I’m sorry for your loss,”
Another man swore at Manuel while screaming his support for the National Rifle Association.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/after-major-mass-shootings-communities-shifted-slightly-to-the-left-post-analysis-finds/2019/04/07/e1bfadbe-2be5-11e9-984d-9b8fba003e81_story.html?utm_term=.e7ac44922270&wpi src=nl_most&wpmm=1
Y'all rightwingnutjob gun fellators are sodden with hate and deeply ill,
and of course duped and racialized by BigGun as much as any Muslim radicalized on line.
lmao. I don't buy that. At least not how it's implied.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
