Guns.

DE4173

Bryan Cranston nails it:

https://youtube.com/shorts/tSyu-s1zR0c?si=TiBkUDCc4k71haOW

Go Beavers

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

njhaley1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

njhaley1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

the bitterness

Literally the same comment as the west wing, is that one bitter?

west wing is a phenomenal show, back when there wasn’t a woke litmus test among democrats.

had a nice long post for u the other day  about why nyc mayor race is very relevant to national politics….its not bitter at all.

No. The fact that you think this place is so ‘radical left’ that it upsets you so much that you need to keep trying to get that dig in whenever you can.

I have to admit I haven't but up to speed on this place lately, but it amazes me that here, of all places, anyone still refers to some of the people on this forum as "radical left".  That's like saying a high of 82 degrees Fahrenheit is an indicator of a major heat wave, or the common house fly is and large insect.  Good grief! 

It's a dogwhistle utilized by the retRUmplicans to wind up their base. Any ideas, policies, thoughts that don't align with their regressive theology is "radical left".

When "woke" just doesn't cut it and you need people to be more afraid and hateful. 

Woke is a better way of describing the far left than using extremists or leftists?

and for those thinking the shoe doesn’t fit, set up a new acct and comment like a centrist. Watch the replies with joy.

I feel like "woke" is describing a philosophy of treating everyone with respect, having empathy; being inclusive and supporting a diverse range of opinions, cultures, and beliefs; being a polite member of society, etc.  Many of the things that CK was decidedly not.  I would love to believe that that applies to many of us here.

Radical left, on the other hand, suggests something more subversive, think IRA, Weather Underground, etc.  

I would guess I'd be labeled as "woke" - I've spent my life in a career that started out heavily dominated by white males - like 90%+, and I was one of them.  Now, our incoming professionals are 80% women with many minorities represented - Indians, Asians, Hispanics, Arabs.  It's awesome, this field is significantly better because of it; even if I'm old enough to feel a little uncomfortable around intelligent women with opinions, that's my problem, not theirs. 

My boss is a black woman with a medical degree and a law degree - would someone say she benefited off of affirmative action and doesn't deserve her job?  Probably, but she's great at her job and I respect her quite a bit.  I often wonder about what she's had to go through to get where she is, the grit she's had to have to ignore comments like those.

I have a trans (M>F) neighbor and while I sometimes feel like I'm gawking at a fish on a bicycle, it's more curiosity - what is her life like? Is she terrified living in a ruby red neighborhood?  I'm empathetic to her situation, I don't wish she were dead or blame all of my problems on her or think she needs to find Christ and a wife and have kids.

If these things make me "radical left," well shit, I'll be one of the first to hop on the trains.  But I like to think it's how Christ would handle things, even though I consider myself an atheist.    

Your bottom paragraph is EXACTLY how I explain it to cons/religious folk. JC certainly would have been left, he certainly WAS woke, and he absolutely was a radical. 

( 🙋‍♂️Agnostic here)

The problem is that the textbook definition of woke is different than the practical definition we often see play out. 
Textbook definition is to be aware of racial or social injustices. Which we should be doing.
The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group. I don't think that's a practical application of being woke. Or, when I worked in Colorado, I was literally told by admin that we can't discipline minority students because "it makes us looks racist." How well do you think those minority schools worked out? Most people would see that as a woke approach to a problem. SO when I, or people in my circles, complain about something being woke, I'm talking about these asinine policies that have developed about race. A kid can cuss me out, and if he's white he gets suspended, if he's black I'm told ignore it. Literally. 

Do you have a source for the united 50% reference? I’m interested in reading that. 

No worries on the source. The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie, which is at the foundation of a lot of Kirk’s positions.  

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html

"Over the next decade, United will train 5,000 pilots who will be guaranteed a job with United, after they complete the requirements of the Aviate program – and our plan is for half of them to be women and people of color," said United CEO Scott Kirby. 

Right. Those are targeted hiring goals. Do you think, like Kirk did, that the faa and the airlines lowered the qualifications and requirements for minority pilots? They didn’t, so that’s the lie Kirk’s
position is coming from. 

Gern Blansten

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

njhaley1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

njhaley1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

the bitterness

Literally the same comment as the west wing, is that one bitter?

west wing is a phenomenal show, back when there wasn’t a woke litmus test among democrats.

had a nice long post for u the other day  about why nyc mayor race is very relevant to national politics….its not bitter at all.

No. The fact that you think this place is so ‘radical left’ that it upsets you so much that you need to keep trying to get that dig in whenever you can.

I have to admit I haven't but up to speed on this place lately, but it amazes me that here, of all places, anyone still refers to some of the people on this forum as "radical left".  That's like saying a high of 82 degrees Fahrenheit is an indicator of a major heat wave, or the common house fly is and large insect.  Good grief! 

It's a dogwhistle utilized by the retRUmplicans to wind up their base. Any ideas, policies, thoughts that don't align with their regressive theology is "radical left".

When "woke" just doesn't cut it and you need people to be more afraid and hateful. 

Woke is a better way of describing the far left than using extremists or leftists?

and for those thinking the shoe doesn’t fit, set up a new acct and comment like a centrist. Watch the replies with joy.

I feel like "woke" is describing a philosophy of treating everyone with respect, having empathy; being inclusive and supporting a diverse range of opinions, cultures, and beliefs; being a polite member of society, etc.  Many of the things that CK was decidedly not.  I would love to believe that that applies to many of us here.

Radical left, on the other hand, suggests something more subversive, think IRA, Weather Underground, etc.  

I would guess I'd be labeled as "woke" - I've spent my life in a career that started out heavily dominated by white males - like 90%+, and I was one of them.  Now, our incoming professionals are 80% women with many minorities represented - Indians, Asians, Hispanics, Arabs.  It's awesome, this field is significantly better because of it; even if I'm old enough to feel a little uncomfortable around intelligent women with opinions, that's my problem, not theirs. 

My boss is a black woman with a medical degree and a law degree - would someone say she benefited off of affirmative action and doesn't deserve her job?  Probably, but she's great at her job and I respect her quite a bit.  I often wonder about what she's had to go through to get where she is, the grit she's had to have to ignore comments like those.

I have a trans (M>F) neighbor and while I sometimes feel like I'm gawking at a fish on a bicycle, it's more curiosity - what is her life like? Is she terrified living in a ruby red neighborhood?  I'm empathetic to her situation, I don't wish she were dead or blame all of my problems on her or think she needs to find Christ and a wife and have kids.

If these things make me "radical left," well shit, I'll be one of the first to hop on the trains.  But I like to think it's how Christ would handle things, even though I consider myself an atheist.    

Your bottom paragraph is EXACTLY how I explain it to cons/religious folk. JC certainly would have been left, he certainly WAS woke, and he absolutely was a radical. 

( 🙋‍♂️Agnostic here)

The problem is that the textbook definition of woke is different than the practical definition we often see play out. 
Textbook definition is to be aware of racial or social injustices. Which we should be doing.
The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group. I don't think that's a practical application of being woke. Or, when I worked in Colorado, I was literally told by admin that we can't discipline minority students because "it makes us looks racist." How well do you think those minority schools worked out? Most people would see that as a woke approach to a problem. SO when I, or people in my circles, complain about something being woke, I'm talking about these asinine policies that have developed about race. A kid can cuss me out, and if he's white he gets suspended, if he's black I'm told ignore it. Literally. 

Do you have a source for the united 50% reference? I’m interested in reading that. 

No worries on the source. The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie, which is at the foundation of a lot of Kirk’s positions.  

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html

"Over the next decade, United will train 5,000 pilots who will be guaranteed a job with United, after they complete the requirements of the Aviate program – and our plan is for half of them to be women and people of color," said United CEO Scott Kirby. 

Right. Those are targeted hiring goals. Do you think, like Kirk did, that the faa and the airlines lowered the qualifications and requirements for minority pilots? They didn’t, so that’s the lie Kirk’s
position is coming from. 

yeah his position was clearly "black people are not capable of being pilots"

mace1229

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

njhaley1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

njhaley1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

the bitterness

Literally the same comment as the west wing, is that one bitter?

west wing is a phenomenal show, back when there wasn’t a woke litmus test among democrats.

had a nice long post for u the other day  about why nyc mayor race is very relevant to national politics….its not bitter at all.

No. The fact that you think this place is so ‘radical left’ that it upsets you so much that you need to keep trying to get that dig in whenever you can.

I have to admit I haven't but up to speed on this place lately, but it amazes me that here, of all places, anyone still refers to some of the people on this forum as "radical left".  That's like saying a high of 82 degrees Fahrenheit is an indicator of a major heat wave, or the common house fly is and large insect.  Good grief! 

It's a dogwhistle utilized by the retRUmplicans to wind up their base. Any ideas, policies, thoughts that don't align with their regressive theology is "radical left".

When "woke" just doesn't cut it and you need people to be more afraid and hateful. 

Woke is a better way of describing the far left than using extremists or leftists?

and for those thinking the shoe doesn’t fit, set up a new acct and comment like a centrist. Watch the replies with joy.

I feel like "woke" is describing a philosophy of treating everyone with respect, having empathy; being inclusive and supporting a diverse range of opinions, cultures, and beliefs; being a polite member of society, etc.  Many of the things that CK was decidedly not.  I would love to believe that that applies to many of us here.

Radical left, on the other hand, suggests something more subversive, think IRA, Weather Underground, etc.  

I would guess I'd be labeled as "woke" - I've spent my life in a career that started out heavily dominated by white males - like 90%+, and I was one of them.  Now, our incoming professionals are 80% women with many minorities represented - Indians, Asians, Hispanics, Arabs.  It's awesome, this field is significantly better because of it; even if I'm old enough to feel a little uncomfortable around intelligent women with opinions, that's my problem, not theirs. 

My boss is a black woman with a medical degree and a law degree - would someone say she benefited off of affirmative action and doesn't deserve her job?  Probably, but she's great at her job and I respect her quite a bit.  I often wonder about what she's had to go through to get where she is, the grit she's had to have to ignore comments like those.

I have a trans (M>F) neighbor and while I sometimes feel like I'm gawking at a fish on a bicycle, it's more curiosity - what is her life like? Is she terrified living in a ruby red neighborhood?  I'm empathetic to her situation, I don't wish she were dead or blame all of my problems on her or think she needs to find Christ and a wife and have kids.

If these things make me "radical left," well shit, I'll be one of the first to hop on the trains.  But I like to think it's how Christ would handle things, even though I consider myself an atheist.    

Your bottom paragraph is EXACTLY how I explain it to cons/religious folk. JC certainly would have been left, he certainly WAS woke, and he absolutely was a radical. 

( 🙋‍♂️Agnostic here)

The problem is that the textbook definition of woke is different than the practical definition we often see play out. 
Textbook definition is to be aware of racial or social injustices. Which we should be doing.
The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group. I don't think that's a practical application of being woke. Or, when I worked in Colorado, I was literally told by admin that we can't discipline minority students because "it makes us looks racist." How well do you think those minority schools worked out? Most people would see that as a woke approach to a problem. SO when I, or people in my circles, complain about something being woke, I'm talking about these asinine policies that have developed about race. A kid can cuss me out, and if he's white he gets suspended, if he's black I'm told ignore it. Literally. 

Do you have a source for the united 50% reference? I’m interested in reading that. 

No worries on the source. The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie, which is at the foundation of a lot of Kirk’s positions.  

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html

"Over the next decade, United will train 5,000 pilots who will be guaranteed a job with United, after they complete the requirements of the Aviate program – and our plan is for half of them to be women and people of color," said United CEO Scott Kirby. 

Right. Those are targeted hiring goals. Do you think, like Kirk did, that the faa and the airlines lowered the qualifications and requirements for minority pilots? They didn’t, so that’s the lie Kirk’s
position is coming from. 

Did he ever say that? All I recall him saying from videos I've watched was that you will pass by more qualified people to meet the quota. Which is statically true. If a group is only 10% of the applicants, but you are required to make them 50% of people hired, will you not likely pass over some even more qualified people in order to meet that goal? That doesn't mean those whoa re hired are not qualified or do not meet the standards, but there are likely ones who didn't get the job who had even higher scores.

I don't think he ever said they would lower the criteria and standards. Do you have a link or quote of him saying that, because I don't think he ever did.

Gern Blansten

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

njhaley1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

njhaley1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

the bitterness

Literally the same comment as the west wing, is that one bitter?

west wing is a phenomenal show, back when there wasn’t a woke litmus test among democrats.

had a nice long post for u the other day  about why nyc mayor race is very relevant to national politics….its not bitter at all.

No. The fact that you think this place is so ‘radical left’ that it upsets you so much that you need to keep trying to get that dig in whenever you can.

I have to admit I haven't but up to speed on this place lately, but it amazes me that here, of all places, anyone still refers to some of the people on this forum as "radical left".  That's like saying a high of 82 degrees Fahrenheit is an indicator of a major heat wave, or the common house fly is and large insect.  Good grief! 

It's a dogwhistle utilized by the retRUmplicans to wind up their base. Any ideas, policies, thoughts that don't align with their regressive theology is "radical left".

When "woke" just doesn't cut it and you need people to be more afraid and hateful. 

Woke is a better way of describing the far left than using extremists or leftists?

and for those thinking the shoe doesn’t fit, set up a new acct and comment like a centrist. Watch the replies with joy.

I feel like "woke" is describing a philosophy of treating everyone with respect, having empathy; being inclusive and supporting a diverse range of opinions, cultures, and beliefs; being a polite member of society, etc.  Many of the things that CK was decidedly not.  I would love to believe that that applies to many of us here.

Radical left, on the other hand, suggests something more subversive, think IRA, Weather Underground, etc.  

I would guess I'd be labeled as "woke" - I've spent my life in a career that started out heavily dominated by white males - like 90%+, and I was one of them.  Now, our incoming professionals are 80% women with many minorities represented - Indians, Asians, Hispanics, Arabs.  It's awesome, this field is significantly better because of it; even if I'm old enough to feel a little uncomfortable around intelligent women with opinions, that's my problem, not theirs. 

My boss is a black woman with a medical degree and a law degree - would someone say she benefited off of affirmative action and doesn't deserve her job?  Probably, but she's great at her job and I respect her quite a bit.  I often wonder about what she's had to go through to get where she is, the grit she's had to have to ignore comments like those.

I have a trans (M>F) neighbor and while I sometimes feel like I'm gawking at a fish on a bicycle, it's more curiosity - what is her life like? Is she terrified living in a ruby red neighborhood?  I'm empathetic to her situation, I don't wish she were dead or blame all of my problems on her or think she needs to find Christ and a wife and have kids.

If these things make me "radical left," well shit, I'll be one of the first to hop on the trains.  But I like to think it's how Christ would handle things, even though I consider myself an atheist.    

Your bottom paragraph is EXACTLY how I explain it to cons/religious folk. JC certainly would have been left, he certainly WAS woke, and he absolutely was a radical. 

( 🙋‍♂️Agnostic here)

The problem is that the textbook definition of woke is different than the practical definition we often see play out. 
Textbook definition is to be aware of racial or social injustices. Which we should be doing.
The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group. I don't think that's a practical application of being woke. Or, when I worked in Colorado, I was literally told by admin that we can't discipline minority students because "it makes us looks racist." How well do you think those minority schools worked out? Most people would see that as a woke approach to a problem. SO when I, or people in my circles, complain about something being woke, I'm talking about these asinine policies that have developed about race. A kid can cuss me out, and if he's white he gets suspended, if he's black I'm told ignore it. Literally. 

Do you have a source for the united 50% reference? I’m interested in reading that. 

No worries on the source. The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie, which is at the foundation of a lot of Kirk’s positions.  

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html

"Over the next decade, United will train 5,000 pilots who will be guaranteed a job with United, after they complete the requirements of the Aviate program – and our plan is for half of them to be women and people of color," said United CEO Scott Kirby. 

Right. Those are targeted hiring goals. Do you think, like Kirk did, that the faa and the airlines lowered the qualifications and requirements for minority pilots? They didn’t, so that’s the lie Kirk’s
position is coming from. 

Did he ever say that? All I recall him saying from videos I've watched was that you will pass by more qualified people to meet the quota. Which is statically true. If a group is only 10% of the applicants, but you are required to make them 50% of people hired, will you not likely pass over some even more qualified people in order to meet that goal? That doesn't mean those whoa re hired are not qualified or do not meet the standards, but there are likely ones who didn't get the job who had even higher scores.

I don't think he ever said they would lower the criteria and standards. Do you have a link or quote of him saying that, because I don't think he ever did.

you didn't see him say "If I see a black pilot I get nervous"?

njhaley1

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

njhaley1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

njhaley1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

the bitterness

Literally the same comment as the west wing, is that one bitter?

west wing is a phenomenal show, back when there wasn’t a woke litmus test among democrats.

had a nice long post for u the other day  about why nyc mayor race is very relevant to national politics….its not bitter at all.

No. The fact that you think this place is so ‘radical left’ that it upsets you so much that you need to keep trying to get that dig in whenever you can.

I have to admit I haven't but up to speed on this place lately, but it amazes me that here, of all places, anyone still refers to some of the people on this forum as "radical left".  That's like saying a high of 82 degrees Fahrenheit is an indicator of a major heat wave, or the common house fly is and large insect.  Good grief! 

It's a dogwhistle utilized by the retRUmplicans to wind up their base. Any ideas, policies, thoughts that don't align with their regressive theology is "radical left".

When "woke" just doesn't cut it and you need people to be more afraid and hateful. 

Woke is a better way of describing the far left than using extremists or leftists?

and for those thinking the shoe doesn’t fit, set up a new acct and comment like a centrist. Watch the replies with joy.

I feel like "woke" is describing a philosophy of treating everyone with respect, having empathy; being inclusive and supporting a diverse range of opinions, cultures, and beliefs; being a polite member of society, etc.  Many of the things that CK was decidedly not.  I would love to believe that that applies to many of us here.

Radical left, on the other hand, suggests something more subversive, think IRA, Weather Underground, etc.  

I would guess I'd be labeled as "woke" - I've spent my life in a career that started out heavily dominated by white males - like 90%+, and I was one of them.  Now, our incoming professionals are 80% women with many minorities represented - Indians, Asians, Hispanics, Arabs.  It's awesome, this field is significantly better because of it; even if I'm old enough to feel a little uncomfortable around intelligent women with opinions, that's my problem, not theirs. 

My boss is a black woman with a medical degree and a law degree - would someone say she benefited off of affirmative action and doesn't deserve her job?  Probably, but she's great at her job and I respect her quite a bit.  I often wonder about what she's had to go through to get where she is, the grit she's had to have to ignore comments like those.

I have a trans (M>F) neighbor and while I sometimes feel like I'm gawking at a fish on a bicycle, it's more curiosity - what is her life like? Is she terrified living in a ruby red neighborhood?  I'm empathetic to her situation, I don't wish she were dead or blame all of my problems on her or think she needs to find Christ and a wife and have kids.

If these things make me "radical left," well shit, I'll be one of the first to hop on the trains.  But I like to think it's how Christ would handle things, even though I consider myself an atheist.    

Your bottom paragraph is EXACTLY how I explain it to cons/religious folk. JC certainly would have been left, he certainly WAS woke, and he absolutely was a radical. 

( 🙋‍♂️Agnostic here)

The problem is that the textbook definition of woke is different than the practical definition we often see play out. 
Textbook definition is to be aware of racial or social injustices. Which we should be doing.
The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group. I don't think that's a practical application of being woke. Or, when I worked in Colorado, I was literally told by admin that we can't discipline minority students because "it makes us looks racist." How well do you think those minority schools worked out? Most people would see that as a woke approach to a problem. SO when I, or people in my circles, complain about something being woke, I'm talking about these asinine policies that have developed about race. A kid can cuss me out, and if he's white he gets suspended, if he's black I'm told ignore it. Literally. 

Do you have a source for the united 50% reference? I’m interested in reading that. 

No worries on the source. The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie, which is at the foundation of a lot of Kirk’s positions.  

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html

"Over the next decade, United will train 5,000 pilots who will be guaranteed a job with United, after they complete the requirements of the Aviate program – and our plan is for half of them to be women and people of color," said United CEO Scott Kirby. 

Right. Those are targeted hiring goals. Do you think, like Kirk did, that the faa and the airlines lowered the qualifications and requirements for minority pilots? They didn’t, so that’s the lie Kirk’s
position is coming from. 

Did he ever say that? All I recall him saying from videos I've watched was that you will pass by more qualified people to meet the quota. Which is statically true. If a group is only 10% of the applicants, but you are required to make them 50% of people hired, will you not likely pass over some even more qualified people in order to meet that goal? That doesn't mean those whoa re hired are not qualified or do not meet the standards, but there are likely ones who didn't get the job who had even higher scores.

I don't think he ever said they would lower the criteria and standards. Do you have a link or quote of him saying that, because I don't think he ever did.

you didn't see him say "If I see a black pilot I get nervous"?

He didn't say that, and if he did, he didn't mean it. And if he did, you didn't understand it, and if you did, it's no big deal. And if it is, others have said worse.

mace1229

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

njhaley1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

njhaley1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

the bitterness

Literally the same comment as the west wing, is that one bitter?

west wing is a phenomenal show, back when there wasn’t a woke litmus test among democrats.

had a nice long post for u the other day  about why nyc mayor race is very relevant to national politics….its not bitter at all.

No. The fact that you think this place is so ‘radical left’ that it upsets you so much that you need to keep trying to get that dig in whenever you can.

I have to admit I haven't but up to speed on this place lately, but it amazes me that here, of all places, anyone still refers to some of the people on this forum as "radical left".  That's like saying a high of 82 degrees Fahrenheit is an indicator of a major heat wave, or the common house fly is and large insect.  Good grief! 

It's a dogwhistle utilized by the retRUmplicans to wind up their base. Any ideas, policies, thoughts that don't align with their regressive theology is "radical left".

When "woke" just doesn't cut it and you need people to be more afraid and hateful. 

Woke is a better way of describing the far left than using extremists or leftists?

and for those thinking the shoe doesn’t fit, set up a new acct and comment like a centrist. Watch the replies with joy.

I feel like "woke" is describing a philosophy of treating everyone with respect, having empathy; being inclusive and supporting a diverse range of opinions, cultures, and beliefs; being a polite member of society, etc.  Many of the things that CK was decidedly not.  I would love to believe that that applies to many of us here.

Radical left, on the other hand, suggests something more subversive, think IRA, Weather Underground, etc.  

I would guess I'd be labeled as "woke" - I've spent my life in a career that started out heavily dominated by white males - like 90%+, and I was one of them.  Now, our incoming professionals are 80% women with many minorities represented - Indians, Asians, Hispanics, Arabs.  It's awesome, this field is significantly better because of it; even if I'm old enough to feel a little uncomfortable around intelligent women with opinions, that's my problem, not theirs. 

My boss is a black woman with a medical degree and a law degree - would someone say she benefited off of affirmative action and doesn't deserve her job?  Probably, but she's great at her job and I respect her quite a bit.  I often wonder about what she's had to go through to get where she is, the grit she's had to have to ignore comments like those.

I have a trans (M>F) neighbor and while I sometimes feel like I'm gawking at a fish on a bicycle, it's more curiosity - what is her life like? Is she terrified living in a ruby red neighborhood?  I'm empathetic to her situation, I don't wish she were dead or blame all of my problems on her or think she needs to find Christ and a wife and have kids.

If these things make me "radical left," well shit, I'll be one of the first to hop on the trains.  But I like to think it's how Christ would handle things, even though I consider myself an atheist.    

Your bottom paragraph is EXACTLY how I explain it to cons/religious folk. JC certainly would have been left, he certainly WAS woke, and he absolutely was a radical. 

( 🙋‍♂️Agnostic here)

The problem is that the textbook definition of woke is different than the practical definition we often see play out. 
Textbook definition is to be aware of racial or social injustices. Which we should be doing.
The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group. I don't think that's a practical application of being woke. Or, when I worked in Colorado, I was literally told by admin that we can't discipline minority students because "it makes us looks racist." How well do you think those minority schools worked out? Most people would see that as a woke approach to a problem. SO when I, or people in my circles, complain about something being woke, I'm talking about these asinine policies that have developed about race. A kid can cuss me out, and if he's white he gets suspended, if he's black I'm told ignore it. Literally. 

Do you have a source for the united 50% reference? I’m interested in reading that. 

No worries on the source. The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie, which is at the foundation of a lot of Kirk’s positions.  

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html

"Over the next decade, United will train 5,000 pilots who will be guaranteed a job with United, after they complete the requirements of the Aviate program – and our plan is for half of them to be women and people of color," said United CEO Scott Kirby. 

Right. Those are targeted hiring goals. Do you think, like Kirk did, that the faa and the airlines lowered the qualifications and requirements for minority pilots? They didn’t, so that’s the lie Kirk’s
position is coming from. 

Did he ever say that? All I recall him saying from videos I've watched was that you will pass by more qualified people to meet the quota. Which is statically true. If a group is only 10% of the applicants, but you are required to make them 50% of people hired, will you not likely pass over some even more qualified people in order to meet that goal? That doesn't mean those whoa re hired are not qualified or do not meet the standards, but there are likely ones who didn't get the job who had even higher scores.

I don't think he ever said they would lower the criteria and standards. Do you have a link or quote of him saying that, because I don't think he ever did.

you didn't see him say "If I see a black pilot I get nervous"?

Let me clarify.
First, the question was about united's policy, and that the 50% claim was a lie. Specially the "The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie." All I did was show a link that showed they want their training program for new pilots to be 50% female or minority, which was what the claim was. So it wasn't a lie. 

Then the it turned into that Kirk claimed they lowered requirements (not about the united policy anymore).

To that, I don't think he ever made that claim. He may have said some controversial things that could lead you to believe that, but I don't think he ever made that claim. 

And so to your question, yes. And then he follows it up and says it is specifically because they are hiring based on race and he wouldn't have thought that without the policy in question. So he states that before the policy he wouldn't have felt that way with a black pilot.  And he wants the most qualified to get the job. In the entire exchange of the interviews I've seen he elaborates to say when you make a policy like that, it forces people to wonder if you got the job because of your qualifications or because of your race, and says that is a horrible way to think. He wants to see a black pilot and know he was the most qualified.  He also related it do doctors and surgeons. If your life depended on it, do you want the one that was ranked higher in his class, or do you want the one that was hired to fill a quota? 

Now I will add I don't agree with his assertion that he gets nervous, and you can infer he thinks they lower the standard. But my point was he never said, as far as I can tell, they they lowered the standards for black pilots. 

I think it was a separate "debate" where he was asked to clarify that, and he related it to the NBA. If they mandated that 50% of the NBA was white, that would be some better NBA players would not get the job to fill some of the white positions. That doesn't mean they can't play basketball,  but that there are just better ones out there that didn't get the job.

Taking into the whole context that he was referring specially to racial quotas for hiring when he said that, added that he wouldn't have thought that without the quota, I don't agree his stance was "black people are not capable of being pilots."

mickeyrat

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

njhaley1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

njhaley1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

the bitterness

Literally the same comment as the west wing, is that one bitter?

west wing is a phenomenal show, back when there wasn’t a woke litmus test among democrats.

had a nice long post for u the other day  about why nyc mayor race is very relevant to national politics….its not bitter at all.

No. The fact that you think this place is so ‘radical left’ that it upsets you so much that you need to keep trying to get that dig in whenever you can.

I have to admit I haven't but up to speed on this place lately, but it amazes me that here, of all places, anyone still refers to some of the people on this forum as "radical left".  That's like saying a high of 82 degrees Fahrenheit is an indicator of a major heat wave, or the common house fly is and large insect.  Good grief! 

It's a dogwhistle utilized by the retRUmplicans to wind up their base. Any ideas, policies, thoughts that don't align with their regressive theology is "radical left".

When "woke" just doesn't cut it and you need people to be more afraid and hateful. 

Woke is a better way of describing the far left than using extremists or leftists?

and for those thinking the shoe doesn’t fit, set up a new acct and comment like a centrist. Watch the replies with joy.

I feel like "woke" is describing a philosophy of treating everyone with respect, having empathy; being inclusive and supporting a diverse range of opinions, cultures, and beliefs; being a polite member of society, etc.  Many of the things that CK was decidedly not.  I would love to believe that that applies to many of us here.

Radical left, on the other hand, suggests something more subversive, think IRA, Weather Underground, etc.  

I would guess I'd be labeled as "woke" - I've spent my life in a career that started out heavily dominated by white males - like 90%+, and I was one of them.  Now, our incoming professionals are 80% women with many minorities represented - Indians, Asians, Hispanics, Arabs.  It's awesome, this field is significantly better because of it; even if I'm old enough to feel a little uncomfortable around intelligent women with opinions, that's my problem, not theirs. 

My boss is a black woman with a medical degree and a law degree - would someone say she benefited off of affirmative action and doesn't deserve her job?  Probably, but she's great at her job and I respect her quite a bit.  I often wonder about what she's had to go through to get where she is, the grit she's had to have to ignore comments like those.

I have a trans (M>F) neighbor and while I sometimes feel like I'm gawking at a fish on a bicycle, it's more curiosity - what is her life like? Is she terrified living in a ruby red neighborhood?  I'm empathetic to her situation, I don't wish she were dead or blame all of my problems on her or think she needs to find Christ and a wife and have kids.

If these things make me "radical left," well shit, I'll be one of the first to hop on the trains.  But I like to think it's how Christ would handle things, even though I consider myself an atheist.    

Your bottom paragraph is EXACTLY how I explain it to cons/religious folk. JC certainly would have been left, he certainly WAS woke, and he absolutely was a radical. 

( 🙋‍♂️Agnostic here)

The problem is that the textbook definition of woke is different than the practical definition we often see play out. 
Textbook definition is to be aware of racial or social injustices. Which we should be doing.
The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group. I don't think that's a practical application of being woke. Or, when I worked in Colorado, I was literally told by admin that we can't discipline minority students because "it makes us looks racist." How well do you think those minority schools worked out? Most people would see that as a woke approach to a problem. SO when I, or people in my circles, complain about something being woke, I'm talking about these asinine policies that have developed about race. A kid can cuss me out, and if he's white he gets suspended, if he's black I'm told ignore it. Literally. 

Do you have a source for the united 50% reference? I’m interested in reading that. 

No worries on the source. The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie, which is at the foundation of a lot of Kirk’s positions.  

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html

"Over the next decade, United will train 5,000 pilots who will be guaranteed a job with United, after they complete the requirements of the Aviate program – and our plan is for half of them to be women and people of color," said United CEO Scott Kirby. 

Right. Those are targeted hiring goals. Do you think, like Kirk did, that the faa and the airlines lowered the qualifications and requirements for minority pilots? They didn’t, so that’s the lie Kirk’s
position is coming from. 

Did he ever say that? All I recall him saying from videos I've watched was that you will pass by more qualified people to meet the quota. Which is statically true. If a group is only 10% of the applicants, but you are required to make them 50% of people hired, will you not likely pass over some even more qualified people in order to meet that goal? That doesn't mean those whoa re hired are not qualified or do not meet the standards, but there are likely ones who didn't get the job who had even higher scores.

I don't think he ever said they would lower the criteria and standards. Do you have a link or quote of him saying that, because I don't think he ever did.

you didn't see him say "If I see a black pilot I get nervous"?

Let me clarify.
First, the question was about united's policy, and that the 50% claim was a lie. Specially the "The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie." All I did was show a link that showed they want their training program for new pilots to be 50% female or minority, which was what the claim was. So it wasn't a lie. 

Then the it turned into that Kirk claimed they lowered requirements (not about the united policy anymore).

To that, I don't think he ever made that claim. He may have said some controversial things that could lead you to believe that, but I don't think he ever made that claim. 

And so to your question, yes. And then he follows it up and says it is specifically because they are hiring based on race and he wouldn't have thought that without the policy in question. So he states that before the policy he wouldn't have felt that way with a black pilot.  And he wants the most qualified to get the job. In the entire exchange of the interviews I've seen he elaborates to say when you make a policy like that, it forces people to wonder if you got the job because of your qualifications or because of your race, and says that is a horrible way to think. He wants to see a black pilot and know he was the most qualified.  He also related it do doctors and surgeons. If your life depended on it, do you want the one that was ranked higher in his class, or do you want the one that was hired to fill a quota? 

Now I will add I don't agree with his assertion that he gets nervous, and you can infer he thinks they lower the standard. But my point was he never said, as far as I can tell, they they lowered the standards for black pilots. 

I think it was a separate "debate" where he was asked to clarify that, and he related it to the NBA. If they mandated that 50% of the NBA was white, that would be some better NBA players would not get the job to fill some of the white positions. That doesn't mean they can't play basketball,  but that there are just better ones out there that didn't get the job.

Taking into the whole context that he was referring specially to racial quotas for hiring when he said that, added that he wouldn't have thought that without the quota, I don't agree his stance was "black people are not capable of being pilots."

but it infers black people and women are inherently less qualified than white men.

Gern Blansten

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

njhaley1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

njhaley1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

the bitterness

Literally the same comment as the west wing, is that one bitter?

west wing is a phenomenal show, back when there wasn’t a woke litmus test among democrats.

had a nice long post for u the other day  about why nyc mayor race is very relevant to national politics….its not bitter at all.

No. The fact that you think this place is so ‘radical left’ that it upsets you so much that you need to keep trying to get that dig in whenever you can.

I have to admit I haven't but up to speed on this place lately, but it amazes me that here, of all places, anyone still refers to some of the people on this forum as "radical left".  That's like saying a high of 82 degrees Fahrenheit is an indicator of a major heat wave, or the common house fly is and large insect.  Good grief! 

It's a dogwhistle utilized by the retRUmplicans to wind up their base. Any ideas, policies, thoughts that don't align with their regressive theology is "radical left".

When "woke" just doesn't cut it and you need people to be more afraid and hateful. 

Woke is a better way of describing the far left than using extremists or leftists?

and for those thinking the shoe doesn’t fit, set up a new acct and comment like a centrist. Watch the replies with joy.

I feel like "woke" is describing a philosophy of treating everyone with respect, having empathy; being inclusive and supporting a diverse range of opinions, cultures, and beliefs; being a polite member of society, etc.  Many of the things that CK was decidedly not.  I would love to believe that that applies to many of us here.

Radical left, on the other hand, suggests something more subversive, think IRA, Weather Underground, etc.  

I would guess I'd be labeled as "woke" - I've spent my life in a career that started out heavily dominated by white males - like 90%+, and I was one of them.  Now, our incoming professionals are 80% women with many minorities represented - Indians, Asians, Hispanics, Arabs.  It's awesome, this field is significantly better because of it; even if I'm old enough to feel a little uncomfortable around intelligent women with opinions, that's my problem, not theirs. 

My boss is a black woman with a medical degree and a law degree - would someone say she benefited off of affirmative action and doesn't deserve her job?  Probably, but she's great at her job and I respect her quite a bit.  I often wonder about what she's had to go through to get where she is, the grit she's had to have to ignore comments like those.

I have a trans (M>F) neighbor and while I sometimes feel like I'm gawking at a fish on a bicycle, it's more curiosity - what is her life like? Is she terrified living in a ruby red neighborhood?  I'm empathetic to her situation, I don't wish she were dead or blame all of my problems on her or think she needs to find Christ and a wife and have kids.

If these things make me "radical left," well shit, I'll be one of the first to hop on the trains.  But I like to think it's how Christ would handle things, even though I consider myself an atheist.    

Your bottom paragraph is EXACTLY how I explain it to cons/religious folk. JC certainly would have been left, he certainly WAS woke, and he absolutely was a radical. 

( 🙋‍♂️Agnostic here)

The problem is that the textbook definition of woke is different than the practical definition we often see play out. 
Textbook definition is to be aware of racial or social injustices. Which we should be doing.
The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group. I don't think that's a practical application of being woke. Or, when I worked in Colorado, I was literally told by admin that we can't discipline minority students because "it makes us looks racist." How well do you think those minority schools worked out? Most people would see that as a woke approach to a problem. SO when I, or people in my circles, complain about something being woke, I'm talking about these asinine policies that have developed about race. A kid can cuss me out, and if he's white he gets suspended, if he's black I'm told ignore it. Literally. 

Do you have a source for the united 50% reference? I’m interested in reading that. 

No worries on the source. The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie, which is at the foundation of a lot of Kirk’s positions.  

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html

"Over the next decade, United will train 5,000 pilots who will be guaranteed a job with United, after they complete the requirements of the Aviate program – and our plan is for half of them to be women and people of color," said United CEO Scott Kirby. 

Right. Those are targeted hiring goals. Do you think, like Kirk did, that the faa and the airlines lowered the qualifications and requirements for minority pilots? They didn’t, so that’s the lie Kirk’s
position is coming from. 

Did he ever say that? All I recall him saying from videos I've watched was that you will pass by more qualified people to meet the quota. Which is statically true. If a group is only 10% of the applicants, but you are required to make them 50% of people hired, will you not likely pass over some even more qualified people in order to meet that goal? That doesn't mean those whoa re hired are not qualified or do not meet the standards, but there are likely ones who didn't get the job who had even higher scores.

I don't think he ever said they would lower the criteria and standards. Do you have a link or quote of him saying that, because I don't think he ever did.

you didn't see him say "If I see a black pilot I get nervous"?

Let me clarify.
First, the question was about united's policy, and that the 50% claim was a lie. Specially the "The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie." All I did was show a link that showed they want their training program for new pilots to be 50% female or minority, which was what the claim was. So it wasn't a lie. 

Then the it turned into that Kirk claimed they lowered requirements (not about the united policy anymore).

To that, I don't think he ever made that claim. He may have said some controversial things that could lead you to believe that, but I don't think he ever made that claim. 

And so to your question, yes. And then he follows it up and says it is specifically because they are hiring based on race and he wouldn't have thought that without the policy in question. So he states that before the policy he wouldn't have felt that way with a black pilot.  And he wants the most qualified to get the job. In the entire exchange of the interviews I've seen he elaborates to say when you make a policy like that, it forces people to wonder if you got the job because of your qualifications or because of your race, and says that is a horrible way to think. He wants to see a black pilot and know he was the most qualified.  He also related it do doctors and surgeons. If your life depended on it, do you want the one that was ranked higher in his class, or do you want the one that was hired to fill a quota? 

Now I will add I don't agree with his assertion that he gets nervous, and you can infer he thinks they lower the standard. But my point was he never said, as far as I can tell, they they lowered the standards for black pilots. 

I think it was a separate "debate" where he was asked to clarify that, and he related it to the NBA. If they mandated that 50% of the NBA was white, that would be some better NBA players would not get the job to fill some of the white positions. That doesn't mean they can't play basketball,  but that there are just better ones out there that didn't get the job.

Taking into the whole context that he was referring specially to racial quotas for hiring when he said that, added that he wouldn't have thought that without the quota, I don't agree his stance was "black people are not capable of being pilots."

wow...you are juggling some incredible stuff there

I mean holy shit...he didn't say "even if it is a white pilot I get nervous because I don't know their test scores"....he fucking straight up said if they are black I'm nervous

mace1229

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

njhaley1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

njhaley1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

the bitterness

Literally the same comment as the west wing, is that one bitter?

west wing is a phenomenal show, back when there wasn’t a woke litmus test among democrats.

had a nice long post for u the other day  about why nyc mayor race is very relevant to national politics….its not bitter at all.

No. The fact that you think this place is so ‘radical left’ that it upsets you so much that you need to keep trying to get that dig in whenever you can.

I have to admit I haven't but up to speed on this place lately, but it amazes me that here, of all places, anyone still refers to some of the people on this forum as "radical left".  That's like saying a high of 82 degrees Fahrenheit is an indicator of a major heat wave, or the common house fly is and large insect.  Good grief! 

It's a dogwhistle utilized by the retRUmplicans to wind up their base. Any ideas, policies, thoughts that don't align with their regressive theology is "radical left".

When "woke" just doesn't cut it and you need people to be more afraid and hateful. 

Woke is a better way of describing the far left than using extremists or leftists?

and for those thinking the shoe doesn’t fit, set up a new acct and comment like a centrist. Watch the replies with joy.

I feel like "woke" is describing a philosophy of treating everyone with respect, having empathy; being inclusive and supporting a diverse range of opinions, cultures, and beliefs; being a polite member of society, etc.  Many of the things that CK was decidedly not.  I would love to believe that that applies to many of us here.

Radical left, on the other hand, suggests something more subversive, think IRA, Weather Underground, etc.  

I would guess I'd be labeled as "woke" - I've spent my life in a career that started out heavily dominated by white males - like 90%+, and I was one of them.  Now, our incoming professionals are 80% women with many minorities represented - Indians, Asians, Hispanics, Arabs.  It's awesome, this field is significantly better because of it; even if I'm old enough to feel a little uncomfortable around intelligent women with opinions, that's my problem, not theirs. 

My boss is a black woman with a medical degree and a law degree - would someone say she benefited off of affirmative action and doesn't deserve her job?  Probably, but she's great at her job and I respect her quite a bit.  I often wonder about what she's had to go through to get where she is, the grit she's had to have to ignore comments like those.

I have a trans (M>F) neighbor and while I sometimes feel like I'm gawking at a fish on a bicycle, it's more curiosity - what is her life like? Is she terrified living in a ruby red neighborhood?  I'm empathetic to her situation, I don't wish she were dead or blame all of my problems on her or think she needs to find Christ and a wife and have kids.

If these things make me "radical left," well shit, I'll be one of the first to hop on the trains.  But I like to think it's how Christ would handle things, even though I consider myself an atheist.    

Your bottom paragraph is EXACTLY how I explain it to cons/religious folk. JC certainly would have been left, he certainly WAS woke, and he absolutely was a radical. 

( 🙋‍♂️Agnostic here)

The problem is that the textbook definition of woke is different than the practical definition we often see play out. 
Textbook definition is to be aware of racial or social injustices. Which we should be doing.
The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group. I don't think that's a practical application of being woke. Or, when I worked in Colorado, I was literally told by admin that we can't discipline minority students because "it makes us looks racist." How well do you think those minority schools worked out? Most people would see that as a woke approach to a problem. SO when I, or people in my circles, complain about something being woke, I'm talking about these asinine policies that have developed about race. A kid can cuss me out, and if he's white he gets suspended, if he's black I'm told ignore it. Literally. 

Do you have a source for the united 50% reference? I’m interested in reading that. 

No worries on the source. The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie, which is at the foundation of a lot of Kirk’s positions.  

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html

"Over the next decade, United will train 5,000 pilots who will be guaranteed a job with United, after they complete the requirements of the Aviate program – and our plan is for half of them to be women and people of color," said United CEO Scott Kirby. 

Right. Those are targeted hiring goals. Do you think, like Kirk did, that the faa and the airlines lowered the qualifications and requirements for minority pilots? They didn’t, so that’s the lie Kirk’s
position is coming from. 

Did he ever say that? All I recall him saying from videos I've watched was that you will pass by more qualified people to meet the quota. Which is statically true. If a group is only 10% of the applicants, but you are required to make them 50% of people hired, will you not likely pass over some even more qualified people in order to meet that goal? That doesn't mean those whoa re hired are not qualified or do not meet the standards, but there are likely ones who didn't get the job who had even higher scores.

I don't think he ever said they would lower the criteria and standards. Do you have a link or quote of him saying that, because I don't think he ever did.

you didn't see him say "If I see a black pilot I get nervous"?

Let me clarify.
First, the question was about united's policy, and that the 50% claim was a lie. Specially the "The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie." All I did was show a link that showed they want their training program for new pilots to be 50% female or minority, which was what the claim was. So it wasn't a lie. 

Then the it turned into that Kirk claimed they lowered requirements (not about the united policy anymore).

To that, I don't think he ever made that claim. He may have said some controversial things that could lead you to believe that, but I don't think he ever made that claim. 

And so to your question, yes. And then he follows it up and says it is specifically because they are hiring based on race and he wouldn't have thought that without the policy in question. So he states that before the policy he wouldn't have felt that way with a black pilot.  And he wants the most qualified to get the job. In the entire exchange of the interviews I've seen he elaborates to say when you make a policy like that, it forces people to wonder if you got the job because of your qualifications or because of your race, and says that is a horrible way to think. He wants to see a black pilot and know he was the most qualified.  He also related it do doctors and surgeons. If your life depended on it, do you want the one that was ranked higher in his class, or do you want the one that was hired to fill a quota? 

Now I will add I don't agree with his assertion that he gets nervous, and you can infer he thinks they lower the standard. But my point was he never said, as far as I can tell, they they lowered the standards for black pilots. 

I think it was a separate "debate" where he was asked to clarify that, and he related it to the NBA. If they mandated that 50% of the NBA was white, that would be some better NBA players would not get the job to fill some of the white positions. That doesn't mean they can't play basketball,  but that there are just better ones out there that didn't get the job.

Taking into the whole context that he was referring specially to racial quotas for hiring when he said that, added that he wouldn't have thought that without the quota, I don't agree his stance was "black people are not capable of being pilots."

but it infers black people and women are inherently less qualified than white men.

I don't agree with that. When 90% of the applicants are a certain demographic, but you are forced to make half of your hires from the other 10%, it means you will be ignoring some very qualified people to meet a quota. Thats all that means.
Also, like many other things, there are factors like social-economic challenges that go into becoming a pilot that do impact minority groups harder than white males. But I don't think it means they are inherently bad pilots and less qualified. 

Go Beavers

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

njhaley1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

njhaley1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

the bitterness

Literally the same comment as the west wing, is that one bitter?

west wing is a phenomenal show, back when there wasn’t a woke litmus test among democrats.

had a nice long post for u the other day  about why nyc mayor race is very relevant to national politics….its not bitter at all.

No. The fact that you think this place is so ‘radical left’ that it upsets you so much that you need to keep trying to get that dig in whenever you can.

I have to admit I haven't but up to speed on this place lately, but it amazes me that here, of all places, anyone still refers to some of the people on this forum as "radical left".  That's like saying a high of 82 degrees Fahrenheit is an indicator of a major heat wave, or the common house fly is and large insect.  Good grief! 

It's a dogwhistle utilized by the retRUmplicans to wind up their base. Any ideas, policies, thoughts that don't align with their regressive theology is "radical left".

When "woke" just doesn't cut it and you need people to be more afraid and hateful. 

Woke is a better way of describing the far left than using extremists or leftists?

and for those thinking the shoe doesn’t fit, set up a new acct and comment like a centrist. Watch the replies with joy.

I feel like "woke" is describing a philosophy of treating everyone with respect, having empathy; being inclusive and supporting a diverse range of opinions, cultures, and beliefs; being a polite member of society, etc.  Many of the things that CK was decidedly not.  I would love to believe that that applies to many of us here.

Radical left, on the other hand, suggests something more subversive, think IRA, Weather Underground, etc.  

I would guess I'd be labeled as "woke" - I've spent my life in a career that started out heavily dominated by white males - like 90%+, and I was one of them.  Now, our incoming professionals are 80% women with many minorities represented - Indians, Asians, Hispanics, Arabs.  It's awesome, this field is significantly better because of it; even if I'm old enough to feel a little uncomfortable around intelligent women with opinions, that's my problem, not theirs. 

My boss is a black woman with a medical degree and a law degree - would someone say she benefited off of affirmative action and doesn't deserve her job?  Probably, but she's great at her job and I respect her quite a bit.  I often wonder about what she's had to go through to get where she is, the grit she's had to have to ignore comments like those.

I have a trans (M>F) neighbor and while I sometimes feel like I'm gawking at a fish on a bicycle, it's more curiosity - what is her life like? Is she terrified living in a ruby red neighborhood?  I'm empathetic to her situation, I don't wish she were dead or blame all of my problems on her or think she needs to find Christ and a wife and have kids.

If these things make me "radical left," well shit, I'll be one of the first to hop on the trains.  But I like to think it's how Christ would handle things, even though I consider myself an atheist.    

Your bottom paragraph is EXACTLY how I explain it to cons/religious folk. JC certainly would have been left, he certainly WAS woke, and he absolutely was a radical. 

( 🙋‍♂️Agnostic here)

The problem is that the textbook definition of woke is different than the practical definition we often see play out. 
Textbook definition is to be aware of racial or social injustices. Which we should be doing.
The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group. I don't think that's a practical application of being woke. Or, when I worked in Colorado, I was literally told by admin that we can't discipline minority students because "it makes us looks racist." How well do you think those minority schools worked out? Most people would see that as a woke approach to a problem. SO when I, or people in my circles, complain about something being woke, I'm talking about these asinine policies that have developed about race. A kid can cuss me out, and if he's white he gets suspended, if he's black I'm told ignore it. Literally. 

Do you have a source for the united 50% reference? I’m interested in reading that. 

No worries on the source. The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie, which is at the foundation of a lot of Kirk’s positions.  

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html

"Over the next decade, United will train 5,000 pilots who will be guaranteed a job with United, after they complete the requirements of the Aviate program – and our plan is for half of them to be women and people of color," said United CEO Scott Kirby. 

Right. Those are targeted hiring goals. Do you think, like Kirk did, that the faa and the airlines lowered the qualifications and requirements for minority pilots? They didn’t, so that’s the lie Kirk’s
position is coming from. 

Did he ever say that? All I recall him saying from videos I've watched was that you will pass by more qualified people to meet the quota. Which is statically true. If a group is only 10% of the applicants, but you are required to make them 50% of people hired, will you not likely pass over some even more qualified people in order to meet that goal? That doesn't mean those whoa re hired are not qualified or do not meet the standards, but there are likely ones who didn't get the job who had even higher scores.

I don't think he ever said they would lower the criteria and standards. Do you have a link or quote of him saying that, because I don't think he ever did.

you didn't see him say "If I see a black pilot I get nervous"?

Let me clarify.
First, the question was about united's policy, and that the 50% claim was a lie. Specially the "The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie." All I did was show a link that showed they want their training program for new pilots to be 50% female or minority, which was what the claim was. So it wasn't a lie. 

Then the it turned into that Kirk claimed they lowered requirements (not about the united policy anymore).

To that, I don't think he ever made that claim. He may have said some controversial things that could lead you to believe that, but I don't think he ever made that claim. 

And so to your question, yes. And then he follows it up and says it is specifically because they are hiring based on race and he wouldn't have thought that without the policy in question. So he states that before the policy he wouldn't have felt that way with a black pilot.  And he wants the most qualified to get the job. In the entire exchange of the interviews I've seen he elaborates to say when you make a policy like that, it forces people to wonder if you got the job because of your qualifications or because of your race, and says that is a horrible way to think. He wants to see a black pilot and know he was the most qualified.  He also related it do doctors and surgeons. If your life depended on it, do you want the one that was ranked higher in his class, or do you want the one that was hired to fill a quota? 

Now I will add I don't agree with his assertion that he gets nervous, and you can infer he thinks they lower the standard. But my point was he never said, as far as I can tell, they they lowered the standards for black pilots. 

I think it was a separate "debate" where he was asked to clarify that, and he related it to the NBA. If they mandated that 50% of the NBA was white, that would be some better NBA players would not get the job to fill some of the white positions. That doesn't mean they can't play basketball,  but that there are just better ones out there that didn't get the job.

Taking into the whole context that he was referring specially to racial quotas for hiring when he said that, added that he wouldn't have thought that without the quota, I don't agree his stance was "black people are not capable of being pilots."

If someone knows what dei policies are, then they wouldn’t be nervous about a black pilot. If someone lies and says dei is discriminatory hiring based on race, then you have to ask why are they perpetuating this lie? Either they think it’s true or they’re intentionally trying to manipulate their audience. And here’s what you said about the 50% thing:

‘The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group’

The goal being 50%, not that it must or that how it is currently. 

mace1229

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

njhaley1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

njhaley1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

the bitterness

Literally the same comment as the west wing, is that one bitter?

west wing is a phenomenal show, back when there wasn’t a woke litmus test among democrats.

had a nice long post for u the other day  about why nyc mayor race is very relevant to national politics….its not bitter at all.

No. The fact that you think this place is so ‘radical left’ that it upsets you so much that you need to keep trying to get that dig in whenever you can.

I have to admit I haven't but up to speed on this place lately, but it amazes me that here, of all places, anyone still refers to some of the people on this forum as "radical left".  That's like saying a high of 82 degrees Fahrenheit is an indicator of a major heat wave, or the common house fly is and large insect.  Good grief! 

It's a dogwhistle utilized by the retRUmplicans to wind up their base. Any ideas, policies, thoughts that don't align with their regressive theology is "radical left".

When "woke" just doesn't cut it and you need people to be more afraid and hateful. 

Woke is a better way of describing the far left than using extremists or leftists?

and for those thinking the shoe doesn’t fit, set up a new acct and comment like a centrist. Watch the replies with joy.

I feel like "woke" is describing a philosophy of treating everyone with respect, having empathy; being inclusive and supporting a diverse range of opinions, cultures, and beliefs; being a polite member of society, etc.  Many of the things that CK was decidedly not.  I would love to believe that that applies to many of us here.

Radical left, on the other hand, suggests something more subversive, think IRA, Weather Underground, etc.  

I would guess I'd be labeled as "woke" - I've spent my life in a career that started out heavily dominated by white males - like 90%+, and I was one of them.  Now, our incoming professionals are 80% women with many minorities represented - Indians, Asians, Hispanics, Arabs.  It's awesome, this field is significantly better because of it; even if I'm old enough to feel a little uncomfortable around intelligent women with opinions, that's my problem, not theirs. 

My boss is a black woman with a medical degree and a law degree - would someone say she benefited off of affirmative action and doesn't deserve her job?  Probably, but she's great at her job and I respect her quite a bit.  I often wonder about what she's had to go through to get where she is, the grit she's had to have to ignore comments like those.

I have a trans (M>F) neighbor and while I sometimes feel like I'm gawking at a fish on a bicycle, it's more curiosity - what is her life like? Is she terrified living in a ruby red neighborhood?  I'm empathetic to her situation, I don't wish she were dead or blame all of my problems on her or think she needs to find Christ and a wife and have kids.

If these things make me "radical left," well shit, I'll be one of the first to hop on the trains.  But I like to think it's how Christ would handle things, even though I consider myself an atheist.    

Your bottom paragraph is EXACTLY how I explain it to cons/religious folk. JC certainly would have been left, he certainly WAS woke, and he absolutely was a radical. 

( 🙋‍♂️Agnostic here)

The problem is that the textbook definition of woke is different than the practical definition we often see play out. 
Textbook definition is to be aware of racial or social injustices. Which we should be doing.
The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group. I don't think that's a practical application of being woke. Or, when I worked in Colorado, I was literally told by admin that we can't discipline minority students because "it makes us looks racist." How well do you think those minority schools worked out? Most people would see that as a woke approach to a problem. SO when I, or people in my circles, complain about something being woke, I'm talking about these asinine policies that have developed about race. A kid can cuss me out, and if he's white he gets suspended, if he's black I'm told ignore it. Literally. 

Do you have a source for the united 50% reference? I’m interested in reading that. 

No worries on the source. The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie, which is at the foundation of a lot of Kirk’s positions.  

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html

"Over the next decade, United will train 5,000 pilots who will be guaranteed a job with United, after they complete the requirements of the Aviate program – and our plan is for half of them to be women and people of color," said United CEO Scott Kirby. 

Right. Those are targeted hiring goals. Do you think, like Kirk did, that the faa and the airlines lowered the qualifications and requirements for minority pilots? They didn’t, so that’s the lie Kirk’s
position is coming from. 

Did he ever say that? All I recall him saying from videos I've watched was that you will pass by more qualified people to meet the quota. Which is statically true. If a group is only 10% of the applicants, but you are required to make them 50% of people hired, will you not likely pass over some even more qualified people in order to meet that goal? That doesn't mean those whoa re hired are not qualified or do not meet the standards, but there are likely ones who didn't get the job who had even higher scores.

I don't think he ever said they would lower the criteria and standards. Do you have a link or quote of him saying that, because I don't think he ever did.

you didn't see him say "If I see a black pilot I get nervous"?

Let me clarify.
First, the question was about united's policy, and that the 50% claim was a lie. Specially the "The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie." All I did was show a link that showed they want their training program for new pilots to be 50% female or minority, which was what the claim was. So it wasn't a lie. 

Then the it turned into that Kirk claimed they lowered requirements (not about the united policy anymore).

To that, I don't think he ever made that claim. He may have said some controversial things that could lead you to believe that, but I don't think he ever made that claim. 

And so to your question, yes. And then he follows it up and says it is specifically because they are hiring based on race and he wouldn't have thought that without the policy in question. So he states that before the policy he wouldn't have felt that way with a black pilot.  And he wants the most qualified to get the job. In the entire exchange of the interviews I've seen he elaborates to say when you make a policy like that, it forces people to wonder if you got the job because of your qualifications or because of your race, and says that is a horrible way to think. He wants to see a black pilot and know he was the most qualified.  He also related it do doctors and surgeons. If your life depended on it, do you want the one that was ranked higher in his class, or do you want the one that was hired to fill a quota? 

Now I will add I don't agree with his assertion that he gets nervous, and you can infer he thinks they lower the standard. But my point was he never said, as far as I can tell, they they lowered the standards for black pilots. 

I think it was a separate "debate" where he was asked to clarify that, and he related it to the NBA. If they mandated that 50% of the NBA was white, that would be some better NBA players would not get the job to fill some of the white positions. That doesn't mean they can't play basketball,  but that there are just better ones out there that didn't get the job.

Taking into the whole context that he was referring specially to racial quotas for hiring when he said that, added that he wouldn't have thought that without the quota, I don't agree his stance was "black people are not capable of being pilots."

If someone knows what dei policies are, then they wouldn’t be nervous about a black pilot. If someone lies and says dei is discriminatory hiring based on race, then you have to ask why are they perpetuating this lie? Either they think it’s true or they’re intentionally trying to manipulate their audience. And here’s what you said about the 50% thing:

‘The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group’

The goal being 50%, not that it must or that how it is currently. 

This is how I imagine it playing out when a company makes a policy like that.
Where I went to college was mostly white. There were initiatives to increase the minority population, and one of my friends worked for the school and became an admittance counselor after she graduated. We stayed in contact for a while. She told me they give preference to minority students and transfer students. Essentially if a minority student meets the standards and criteria, they are much more likely to be accepted, resulting in another student with a higher GPA and SAT/ACT scores not being admitted. Those students who were admitted were still qualified, they just took the place of someone who had better scores. 
Maybe that's not how United used it, but that's how I perceive it playing out. And I think how the majority of people who criticize it view it as well. 

mace1229

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

njhaley1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

njhaley1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

the bitterness

Literally the same comment as the west wing, is that one bitter?

west wing is a phenomenal show, back when there wasn’t a woke litmus test among democrats.

had a nice long post for u the other day  about why nyc mayor race is very relevant to national politics….its not bitter at all.

No. The fact that you think this place is so ‘radical left’ that it upsets you so much that you need to keep trying to get that dig in whenever you can.

I have to admit I haven't but up to speed on this place lately, but it amazes me that here, of all places, anyone still refers to some of the people on this forum as "radical left".  That's like saying a high of 82 degrees Fahrenheit is an indicator of a major heat wave, or the common house fly is and large insect.  Good grief! 

It's a dogwhistle utilized by the retRUmplicans to wind up their base. Any ideas, policies, thoughts that don't align with their regressive theology is "radical left".

When "woke" just doesn't cut it and you need people to be more afraid and hateful. 

Woke is a better way of describing the far left than using extremists or leftists?

and for those thinking the shoe doesn’t fit, set up a new acct and comment like a centrist. Watch the replies with joy.

I feel like "woke" is describing a philosophy of treating everyone with respect, having empathy; being inclusive and supporting a diverse range of opinions, cultures, and beliefs; being a polite member of society, etc.  Many of the things that CK was decidedly not.  I would love to believe that that applies to many of us here.

Radical left, on the other hand, suggests something more subversive, think IRA, Weather Underground, etc.  

I would guess I'd be labeled as "woke" - I've spent my life in a career that started out heavily dominated by white males - like 90%+, and I was one of them.  Now, our incoming professionals are 80% women with many minorities represented - Indians, Asians, Hispanics, Arabs.  It's awesome, this field is significantly better because of it; even if I'm old enough to feel a little uncomfortable around intelligent women with opinions, that's my problem, not theirs. 

My boss is a black woman with a medical degree and a law degree - would someone say she benefited off of affirmative action and doesn't deserve her job?  Probably, but she's great at her job and I respect her quite a bit.  I often wonder about what she's had to go through to get where she is, the grit she's had to have to ignore comments like those.

I have a trans (M>F) neighbor and while I sometimes feel like I'm gawking at a fish on a bicycle, it's more curiosity - what is her life like? Is she terrified living in a ruby red neighborhood?  I'm empathetic to her situation, I don't wish she were dead or blame all of my problems on her or think she needs to find Christ and a wife and have kids.

If these things make me "radical left," well shit, I'll be one of the first to hop on the trains.  But I like to think it's how Christ would handle things, even though I consider myself an atheist.    

Your bottom paragraph is EXACTLY how I explain it to cons/religious folk. JC certainly would have been left, he certainly WAS woke, and he absolutely was a radical. 

( 🙋‍♂️Agnostic here)

The problem is that the textbook definition of woke is different than the practical definition we often see play out. 
Textbook definition is to be aware of racial or social injustices. Which we should be doing.
The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group. I don't think that's a practical application of being woke. Or, when I worked in Colorado, I was literally told by admin that we can't discipline minority students because "it makes us looks racist." How well do you think those minority schools worked out? Most people would see that as a woke approach to a problem. SO when I, or people in my circles, complain about something being woke, I'm talking about these asinine policies that have developed about race. A kid can cuss me out, and if he's white he gets suspended, if he's black I'm told ignore it. Literally. 

Do you have a source for the united 50% reference? I’m interested in reading that. 

No worries on the source. The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie, which is at the foundation of a lot of Kirk’s positions.  

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html

"Over the next decade, United will train 5,000 pilots who will be guaranteed a job with United, after they complete the requirements of the Aviate program – and our plan is for half of them to be women and people of color," said United CEO Scott Kirby. 

Right. Those are targeted hiring goals. Do you think, like Kirk did, that the faa and the airlines lowered the qualifications and requirements for minority pilots? They didn’t, so that’s the lie Kirk’s
position is coming from. 

Did he ever say that? All I recall him saying from videos I've watched was that you will pass by more qualified people to meet the quota. Which is statically true. If a group is only 10% of the applicants, but you are required to make them 50% of people hired, will you not likely pass over some even more qualified people in order to meet that goal? That doesn't mean those whoa re hired are not qualified or do not meet the standards, but there are likely ones who didn't get the job who had even higher scores.

I don't think he ever said they would lower the criteria and standards. Do you have a link or quote of him saying that, because I don't think he ever did.

you didn't see him say "If I see a black pilot I get nervous"?

Let me clarify.
First, the question was about united's policy, and that the 50% claim was a lie. Specially the "The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie." All I did was show a link that showed they want their training program for new pilots to be 50% female or minority, which was what the claim was. So it wasn't a lie. 

Then the it turned into that Kirk claimed they lowered requirements (not about the united policy anymore).

To that, I don't think he ever made that claim. He may have said some controversial things that could lead you to believe that, but I don't think he ever made that claim. 

And so to your question, yes. And then he follows it up and says it is specifically because they are hiring based on race and he wouldn't have thought that without the policy in question. So he states that before the policy he wouldn't have felt that way with a black pilot.  And he wants the most qualified to get the job. In the entire exchange of the interviews I've seen he elaborates to say when you make a policy like that, it forces people to wonder if you got the job because of your qualifications or because of your race, and says that is a horrible way to think. He wants to see a black pilot and know he was the most qualified.  He also related it do doctors and surgeons. If your life depended on it, do you want the one that was ranked higher in his class, or do you want the one that was hired to fill a quota? 

Now I will add I don't agree with his assertion that he gets nervous, and you can infer he thinks they lower the standard. But my point was he never said, as far as I can tell, they they lowered the standards for black pilots. 

I think it was a separate "debate" where he was asked to clarify that, and he related it to the NBA. If they mandated that 50% of the NBA was white, that would be some better NBA players would not get the job to fill some of the white positions. That doesn't mean they can't play basketball,  but that there are just better ones out there that didn't get the job.

Taking into the whole context that he was referring specially to racial quotas for hiring when he said that, added that he wouldn't have thought that without the quota, I don't agree his stance was "black people are not capable of being pilots."

wow...you are juggling some incredible stuff there

I mean holy shit...he didn't say "even if it is a white pilot I get nervous because I don't know their test scores"....he fucking straight up said if they are black I'm nervous

I don't think it was a smart thing for him to say. But I do think it changes the context when that statement was in direct response to the 50% hiring quota, and he clarifies he didn't think that seeing a black pilot before the new policy.
Was he still wrong for saying it? Yes. But I don't think it equates to black people can't fly planes, which is essentially what I keep seeing. 

njhaley1

A question you should be asking yourself is "what happened to the person who was 'passed over?'"  Did they become a hobo and join in on the J6 riots, or did they simply find a job with Delta? 

Same goes for the students.  Did they wind up going to Trump University and become a Boogaloo Bois, or did they just wind up going to Cal Tech instead?  

Go Beavers

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

njhaley1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

njhaley1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

the bitterness

Literally the same comment as the west wing, is that one bitter?

west wing is a phenomenal show, back when there wasn’t a woke litmus test among democrats.

had a nice long post for u the other day  about why nyc mayor race is very relevant to national politics….its not bitter at all.

No. The fact that you think this place is so ‘radical left’ that it upsets you so much that you need to keep trying to get that dig in whenever you can.

I have to admit I haven't but up to speed on this place lately, but it amazes me that here, of all places, anyone still refers to some of the people on this forum as "radical left".  That's like saying a high of 82 degrees Fahrenheit is an indicator of a major heat wave, or the common house fly is and large insect.  Good grief! 

It's a dogwhistle utilized by the retRUmplicans to wind up their base. Any ideas, policies, thoughts that don't align with their regressive theology is "radical left".

When "woke" just doesn't cut it and you need people to be more afraid and hateful. 

Woke is a better way of describing the far left than using extremists or leftists?

and for those thinking the shoe doesn’t fit, set up a new acct and comment like a centrist. Watch the replies with joy.

I feel like "woke" is describing a philosophy of treating everyone with respect, having empathy; being inclusive and supporting a diverse range of opinions, cultures, and beliefs; being a polite member of society, etc.  Many of the things that CK was decidedly not.  I would love to believe that that applies to many of us here.

Radical left, on the other hand, suggests something more subversive, think IRA, Weather Underground, etc.  

I would guess I'd be labeled as "woke" - I've spent my life in a career that started out heavily dominated by white males - like 90%+, and I was one of them.  Now, our incoming professionals are 80% women with many minorities represented - Indians, Asians, Hispanics, Arabs.  It's awesome, this field is significantly better because of it; even if I'm old enough to feel a little uncomfortable around intelligent women with opinions, that's my problem, not theirs. 

My boss is a black woman with a medical degree and a law degree - would someone say she benefited off of affirmative action and doesn't deserve her job?  Probably, but she's great at her job and I respect her quite a bit.  I often wonder about what she's had to go through to get where she is, the grit she's had to have to ignore comments like those.

I have a trans (M>F) neighbor and while I sometimes feel like I'm gawking at a fish on a bicycle, it's more curiosity - what is her life like? Is she terrified living in a ruby red neighborhood?  I'm empathetic to her situation, I don't wish she were dead or blame all of my problems on her or think she needs to find Christ and a wife and have kids.

If these things make me "radical left," well shit, I'll be one of the first to hop on the trains.  But I like to think it's how Christ would handle things, even though I consider myself an atheist.    

Your bottom paragraph is EXACTLY how I explain it to cons/religious folk. JC certainly would have been left, he certainly WAS woke, and he absolutely was a radical. 

( 🙋‍♂️Agnostic here)

The problem is that the textbook definition of woke is different than the practical definition we often see play out. 
Textbook definition is to be aware of racial or social injustices. Which we should be doing.
The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group. I don't think that's a practical application of being woke. Or, when I worked in Colorado, I was literally told by admin that we can't discipline minority students because "it makes us looks racist." How well do you think those minority schools worked out? Most people would see that as a woke approach to a problem. SO when I, or people in my circles, complain about something being woke, I'm talking about these asinine policies that have developed about race. A kid can cuss me out, and if he's white he gets suspended, if he's black I'm told ignore it. Literally. 

Do you have a source for the united 50% reference? I’m interested in reading that. 

No worries on the source. The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie, which is at the foundation of a lot of Kirk’s positions.  

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html

"Over the next decade, United will train 5,000 pilots who will be guaranteed a job with United, after they complete the requirements of the Aviate program – and our plan is for half of them to be women and people of color," said United CEO Scott Kirby. 

Right. Those are targeted hiring goals. Do you think, like Kirk did, that the faa and the airlines lowered the qualifications and requirements for minority pilots? They didn’t, so that’s the lie Kirk’s
position is coming from. 

Did he ever say that? All I recall him saying from videos I've watched was that you will pass by more qualified people to meet the quota. Which is statically true. If a group is only 10% of the applicants, but you are required to make them 50% of people hired, will you not likely pass over some even more qualified people in order to meet that goal? That doesn't mean those whoa re hired are not qualified or do not meet the standards, but there are likely ones who didn't get the job who had even higher scores.

I don't think he ever said they would lower the criteria and standards. Do you have a link or quote of him saying that, because I don't think he ever did.

you didn't see him say "If I see a black pilot I get nervous"?

Let me clarify.
First, the question was about united's policy, and that the 50% claim was a lie. Specially the "The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie." All I did was show a link that showed they want their training program for new pilots to be 50% female or minority, which was what the claim was. So it wasn't a lie. 

Then the it turned into that Kirk claimed they lowered requirements (not about the united policy anymore).

To that, I don't think he ever made that claim. He may have said some controversial things that could lead you to believe that, but I don't think he ever made that claim. 

And so to your question, yes. And then he follows it up and says it is specifically because they are hiring based on race and he wouldn't have thought that without the policy in question. So he states that before the policy he wouldn't have felt that way with a black pilot.  And he wants the most qualified to get the job. In the entire exchange of the interviews I've seen he elaborates to say when you make a policy like that, it forces people to wonder if you got the job because of your qualifications or because of your race, and says that is a horrible way to think. He wants to see a black pilot and know he was the most qualified.  He also related it do doctors and surgeons. If your life depended on it, do you want the one that was ranked higher in his class, or do you want the one that was hired to fill a quota? 

Now I will add I don't agree with his assertion that he gets nervous, and you can infer he thinks they lower the standard. But my point was he never said, as far as I can tell, they they lowered the standards for black pilots. 

I think it was a separate "debate" where he was asked to clarify that, and he related it to the NBA. If they mandated that 50% of the NBA was white, that would be some better NBA players would not get the job to fill some of the white positions. That doesn't mean they can't play basketball,  but that there are just better ones out there that didn't get the job.

Taking into the whole context that he was referring specially to racial quotas for hiring when he said that, added that he wouldn't have thought that without the quota, I don't agree his stance was "black people are not capable of being pilots."

If someone knows what dei policies are, then they wouldn’t be nervous about a black pilot. If someone lies and says dei is discriminatory hiring based on race, then you have to ask why are they perpetuating this lie? Either they think it’s true or they’re intentionally trying to manipulate their audience. And here’s what you said about the 50% thing:

‘The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group’

The goal being 50%, not that it must or that how it is currently. 

This is how I imagine it playing out when a company makes a policy like that.
Where I went to college was mostly white. There were initiatives to increase the minority population, and one of my friends worked for the school and became an admittance counselor after she graduated. We stayed in contact for a while. She told me they give preference to minority students and transfer students. Essentially if a minority student meets the standards and criteria, they are much more likely to be accepted, resulting in another student with a higher GPA and SAT/ACT scores not being admitted. Those students who were admitted were still qualified, they just took the place of someone who had better scores. 
Maybe that's not how United used it, but that's how I perceive it playing out. And I think how the majority of people who criticize it view it as well. 

And people have confused college admission affirmative action with corporate hiring policies. Race based discrimination in hiring has been illegal for a long time. 

mace1229

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

njhaley1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

njhaley1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

the bitterness

Literally the same comment as the west wing, is that one bitter?

west wing is a phenomenal show, back when there wasn’t a woke litmus test among democrats.

had a nice long post for u the other day  about why nyc mayor race is very relevant to national politics….its not bitter at all.

No. The fact that you think this place is so ‘radical left’ that it upsets you so much that you need to keep trying to get that dig in whenever you can.

I have to admit I haven't but up to speed on this place lately, but it amazes me that here, of all places, anyone still refers to some of the people on this forum as "radical left".  That's like saying a high of 82 degrees Fahrenheit is an indicator of a major heat wave, or the common house fly is and large insect.  Good grief! 

It's a dogwhistle utilized by the retRUmplicans to wind up their base. Any ideas, policies, thoughts that don't align with their regressive theology is "radical left".

When "woke" just doesn't cut it and you need people to be more afraid and hateful. 

Woke is a better way of describing the far left than using extremists or leftists?

and for those thinking the shoe doesn’t fit, set up a new acct and comment like a centrist. Watch the replies with joy.

I feel like "woke" is describing a philosophy of treating everyone with respect, having empathy; being inclusive and supporting a diverse range of opinions, cultures, and beliefs; being a polite member of society, etc.  Many of the things that CK was decidedly not.  I would love to believe that that applies to many of us here.

Radical left, on the other hand, suggests something more subversive, think IRA, Weather Underground, etc.  

I would guess I'd be labeled as "woke" - I've spent my life in a career that started out heavily dominated by white males - like 90%+, and I was one of them.  Now, our incoming professionals are 80% women with many minorities represented - Indians, Asians, Hispanics, Arabs.  It's awesome, this field is significantly better because of it; even if I'm old enough to feel a little uncomfortable around intelligent women with opinions, that's my problem, not theirs. 

My boss is a black woman with a medical degree and a law degree - would someone say she benefited off of affirmative action and doesn't deserve her job?  Probably, but she's great at her job and I respect her quite a bit.  I often wonder about what she's had to go through to get where she is, the grit she's had to have to ignore comments like those.

I have a trans (M>F) neighbor and while I sometimes feel like I'm gawking at a fish on a bicycle, it's more curiosity - what is her life like? Is she terrified living in a ruby red neighborhood?  I'm empathetic to her situation, I don't wish she were dead or blame all of my problems on her or think she needs to find Christ and a wife and have kids.

If these things make me "radical left," well shit, I'll be one of the first to hop on the trains.  But I like to think it's how Christ would handle things, even though I consider myself an atheist.    

Your bottom paragraph is EXACTLY how I explain it to cons/religious folk. JC certainly would have been left, he certainly WAS woke, and he absolutely was a radical. 

( 🙋‍♂️Agnostic here)

The problem is that the textbook definition of woke is different than the practical definition we often see play out. 
Textbook definition is to be aware of racial or social injustices. Which we should be doing.
The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group. I don't think that's a practical application of being woke. Or, when I worked in Colorado, I was literally told by admin that we can't discipline minority students because "it makes us looks racist." How well do you think those minority schools worked out? Most people would see that as a woke approach to a problem. SO when I, or people in my circles, complain about something being woke, I'm talking about these asinine policies that have developed about race. A kid can cuss me out, and if he's white he gets suspended, if he's black I'm told ignore it. Literally. 

Do you have a source for the united 50% reference? I’m interested in reading that. 

No worries on the source. The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie, which is at the foundation of a lot of Kirk’s positions.  

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html

"Over the next decade, United will train 5,000 pilots who will be guaranteed a job with United, after they complete the requirements of the Aviate program – and our plan is for half of them to be women and people of color," said United CEO Scott Kirby. 

Right. Those are targeted hiring goals. Do you think, like Kirk did, that the faa and the airlines lowered the qualifications and requirements for minority pilots? They didn’t, so that’s the lie Kirk’s
position is coming from. 

Did he ever say that? All I recall him saying from videos I've watched was that you will pass by more qualified people to meet the quota. Which is statically true. If a group is only 10% of the applicants, but you are required to make them 50% of people hired, will you not likely pass over some even more qualified people in order to meet that goal? That doesn't mean those whoa re hired are not qualified or do not meet the standards, but there are likely ones who didn't get the job who had even higher scores.

I don't think he ever said they would lower the criteria and standards. Do you have a link or quote of him saying that, because I don't think he ever did.

you didn't see him say "If I see a black pilot I get nervous"?

Let me clarify.
First, the question was about united's policy, and that the 50% claim was a lie. Specially the "The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie." All I did was show a link that showed they want their training program for new pilots to be 50% female or minority, which was what the claim was. So it wasn't a lie. 

Then the it turned into that Kirk claimed they lowered requirements (not about the united policy anymore).

To that, I don't think he ever made that claim. He may have said some controversial things that could lead you to believe that, but I don't think he ever made that claim. 

And so to your question, yes. And then he follows it up and says it is specifically because they are hiring based on race and he wouldn't have thought that without the policy in question. So he states that before the policy he wouldn't have felt that way with a black pilot.  And he wants the most qualified to get the job. In the entire exchange of the interviews I've seen he elaborates to say when you make a policy like that, it forces people to wonder if you got the job because of your qualifications or because of your race, and says that is a horrible way to think. He wants to see a black pilot and know he was the most qualified.  He also related it do doctors and surgeons. If your life depended on it, do you want the one that was ranked higher in his class, or do you want the one that was hired to fill a quota? 

Now I will add I don't agree with his assertion that he gets nervous, and you can infer he thinks they lower the standard. But my point was he never said, as far as I can tell, they they lowered the standards for black pilots. 

I think it was a separate "debate" where he was asked to clarify that, and he related it to the NBA. If they mandated that 50% of the NBA was white, that would be some better NBA players would not get the job to fill some of the white positions. That doesn't mean they can't play basketball,  but that there are just better ones out there that didn't get the job.

Taking into the whole context that he was referring specially to racial quotas for hiring when he said that, added that he wouldn't have thought that without the quota, I don't agree his stance was "black people are not capable of being pilots."

If someone knows what dei policies are, then they wouldn’t be nervous about a black pilot. If someone lies and says dei is discriminatory hiring based on race, then you have to ask why are they perpetuating this lie? Either they think it’s true or they’re intentionally trying to manipulate their audience. And here’s what you said about the 50% thing:

‘The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group’

The goal being 50%, not that it must or that how it is currently. 

This is how I imagine it playing out when a company makes a policy like that.
Where I went to college was mostly white. There were initiatives to increase the minority population, and one of my friends worked for the school and became an admittance counselor after she graduated. We stayed in contact for a while. She told me they give preference to minority students and transfer students. Essentially if a minority student meets the standards and criteria, they are much more likely to be accepted, resulting in another student with a higher GPA and SAT/ACT scores not being admitted. Those students who were admitted were still qualified, they just took the place of someone who had better scores. 
Maybe that's not how United used it, but that's how I perceive it playing out. And I think how the majority of people who criticize it view it as well. 

And people have confused college admission affirmative action with corporate hiring policies. Race based discrimination in hiring has been illegal for a long time. 

Well, I've been in 2 different districts where the head of HR has openly stated during professional development that he tells the principals if they have 2 qualified candidates, to pick the minority. Both were in Colorado. One was phrased exactly like that, the other was a little more subtle. 

Go Beavers

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

njhaley1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

njhaley1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

the bitterness

Literally the same comment as the west wing, is that one bitter?

west wing is a phenomenal show, back when there wasn’t a woke litmus test among democrats.

had a nice long post for u the other day  about why nyc mayor race is very relevant to national politics….its not bitter at all.

No. The fact that you think this place is so ‘radical left’ that it upsets you so much that you need to keep trying to get that dig in whenever you can.

I have to admit I haven't but up to speed on this place lately, but it amazes me that here, of all places, anyone still refers to some of the people on this forum as "radical left".  That's like saying a high of 82 degrees Fahrenheit is an indicator of a major heat wave, or the common house fly is and large insect.  Good grief! 

It's a dogwhistle utilized by the retRUmplicans to wind up their base. Any ideas, policies, thoughts that don't align with their regressive theology is "radical left".

When "woke" just doesn't cut it and you need people to be more afraid and hateful. 

Woke is a better way of describing the far left than using extremists or leftists?

and for those thinking the shoe doesn’t fit, set up a new acct and comment like a centrist. Watch the replies with joy.

I feel like "woke" is describing a philosophy of treating everyone with respect, having empathy; being inclusive and supporting a diverse range of opinions, cultures, and beliefs; being a polite member of society, etc.  Many of the things that CK was decidedly not.  I would love to believe that that applies to many of us here.

Radical left, on the other hand, suggests something more subversive, think IRA, Weather Underground, etc.  

I would guess I'd be labeled as "woke" - I've spent my life in a career that started out heavily dominated by white males - like 90%+, and I was one of them.  Now, our incoming professionals are 80% women with many minorities represented - Indians, Asians, Hispanics, Arabs.  It's awesome, this field is significantly better because of it; even if I'm old enough to feel a little uncomfortable around intelligent women with opinions, that's my problem, not theirs. 

My boss is a black woman with a medical degree and a law degree - would someone say she benefited off of affirmative action and doesn't deserve her job?  Probably, but she's great at her job and I respect her quite a bit.  I often wonder about what she's had to go through to get where she is, the grit she's had to have to ignore comments like those.

I have a trans (M>F) neighbor and while I sometimes feel like I'm gawking at a fish on a bicycle, it's more curiosity - what is her life like? Is she terrified living in a ruby red neighborhood?  I'm empathetic to her situation, I don't wish she were dead or blame all of my problems on her or think she needs to find Christ and a wife and have kids.

If these things make me "radical left," well shit, I'll be one of the first to hop on the trains.  But I like to think it's how Christ would handle things, even though I consider myself an atheist.    

Your bottom paragraph is EXACTLY how I explain it to cons/religious folk. JC certainly would have been left, he certainly WAS woke, and he absolutely was a radical. 

( 🙋‍♂️Agnostic here)

The problem is that the textbook definition of woke is different than the practical definition we often see play out. 
Textbook definition is to be aware of racial or social injustices. Which we should be doing.
The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group. I don't think that's a practical application of being woke. Or, when I worked in Colorado, I was literally told by admin that we can't discipline minority students because "it makes us looks racist." How well do you think those minority schools worked out? Most people would see that as a woke approach to a problem. SO when I, or people in my circles, complain about something being woke, I'm talking about these asinine policies that have developed about race. A kid can cuss me out, and if he's white he gets suspended, if he's black I'm told ignore it. Literally. 

Do you have a source for the united 50% reference? I’m interested in reading that. 

No worries on the source. The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie, which is at the foundation of a lot of Kirk’s positions.  

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html

"Over the next decade, United will train 5,000 pilots who will be guaranteed a job with United, after they complete the requirements of the Aviate program – and our plan is for half of them to be women and people of color," said United CEO Scott Kirby. 

Right. Those are targeted hiring goals. Do you think, like Kirk did, that the faa and the airlines lowered the qualifications and requirements for minority pilots? They didn’t, so that’s the lie Kirk’s
position is coming from. 

Did he ever say that? All I recall him saying from videos I've watched was that you will pass by more qualified people to meet the quota. Which is statically true. If a group is only 10% of the applicants, but you are required to make them 50% of people hired, will you not likely pass over some even more qualified people in order to meet that goal? That doesn't mean those whoa re hired are not qualified or do not meet the standards, but there are likely ones who didn't get the job who had even higher scores.

I don't think he ever said they would lower the criteria and standards. Do you have a link or quote of him saying that, because I don't think he ever did.

you didn't see him say "If I see a black pilot I get nervous"?

Let me clarify.
First, the question was about united's policy, and that the 50% claim was a lie. Specially the "The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie." All I did was show a link that showed they want their training program for new pilots to be 50% female or minority, which was what the claim was. So it wasn't a lie. 

Then the it turned into that Kirk claimed they lowered requirements (not about the united policy anymore).

To that, I don't think he ever made that claim. He may have said some controversial things that could lead you to believe that, but I don't think he ever made that claim. 

And so to your question, yes. And then he follows it up and says it is specifically because they are hiring based on race and he wouldn't have thought that without the policy in question. So he states that before the policy he wouldn't have felt that way with a black pilot.  And he wants the most qualified to get the job. In the entire exchange of the interviews I've seen he elaborates to say when you make a policy like that, it forces people to wonder if you got the job because of your qualifications or because of your race, and says that is a horrible way to think. He wants to see a black pilot and know he was the most qualified.  He also related it do doctors and surgeons. If your life depended on it, do you want the one that was ranked higher in his class, or do you want the one that was hired to fill a quota? 

Now I will add I don't agree with his assertion that he gets nervous, and you can infer he thinks they lower the standard. But my point was he never said, as far as I can tell, they they lowered the standards for black pilots. 

I think it was a separate "debate" where he was asked to clarify that, and he related it to the NBA. If they mandated that 50% of the NBA was white, that would be some better NBA players would not get the job to fill some of the white positions. That doesn't mean they can't play basketball,  but that there are just better ones out there that didn't get the job.

Taking into the whole context that he was referring specially to racial quotas for hiring when he said that, added that he wouldn't have thought that without the quota, I don't agree his stance was "black people are not capable of being pilots."

If someone knows what dei policies are, then they wouldn’t be nervous about a black pilot. If someone lies and says dei is discriminatory hiring based on race, then you have to ask why are they perpetuating this lie? Either they think it’s true or they’re intentionally trying to manipulate their audience. And here’s what you said about the 50% thing:

‘The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group’

The goal being 50%, not that it must or that how it is currently. 

This is how I imagine it playing out when a company makes a policy like that.
Where I went to college was mostly white. There were initiatives to increase the minority population, and one of my friends worked for the school and became an admittance counselor after she graduated. We stayed in contact for a while. She told me they give preference to minority students and transfer students. Essentially if a minority student meets the standards and criteria, they are much more likely to be accepted, resulting in another student with a higher GPA and SAT/ACT scores not being admitted. Those students who were admitted were still qualified, they just took the place of someone who had better scores. 
Maybe that's not how United used it, but that's how I perceive it playing out. And I think how the majority of people who criticize it view it as well. 

And people have confused college admission affirmative action with corporate hiring policies. Race based discrimination in hiring has been illegal for a long time. 

Well, I've been in 2 different districts where the head of HR has openly stated during professional development that he tells the principals if they have 2 qualified candidates, to pick the minority. Both were in Colorado. One was phrased exactly like that, the other was a little more subtle. 

I’m not saying it’s never happened, and someone should have mentioned to him that that’s illegal. Kirk is referring to the myth that requirements were lowered for minority pilots. 

Gern Blansten

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

njhaley1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

njhaley1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

the bitterness

Literally the same comment as the west wing, is that one bitter?

west wing is a phenomenal show, back when there wasn’t a woke litmus test among democrats.

had a nice long post for u the other day  about why nyc mayor race is very relevant to national politics….its not bitter at all.

No. The fact that you think this place is so ‘radical left’ that it upsets you so much that you need to keep trying to get that dig in whenever you can.

I have to admit I haven't but up to speed on this place lately, but it amazes me that here, of all places, anyone still refers to some of the people on this forum as "radical left".  That's like saying a high of 82 degrees Fahrenheit is an indicator of a major heat wave, or the common house fly is and large insect.  Good grief! 

It's a dogwhistle utilized by the retRUmplicans to wind up their base. Any ideas, policies, thoughts that don't align with their regressive theology is "radical left".

When "woke" just doesn't cut it and you need people to be more afraid and hateful. 

Woke is a better way of describing the far left than using extremists or leftists?

and for those thinking the shoe doesn’t fit, set up a new acct and comment like a centrist. Watch the replies with joy.

I feel like "woke" is describing a philosophy of treating everyone with respect, having empathy; being inclusive and supporting a diverse range of opinions, cultures, and beliefs; being a polite member of society, etc.  Many of the things that CK was decidedly not.  I would love to believe that that applies to many of us here.

Radical left, on the other hand, suggests something more subversive, think IRA, Weather Underground, etc.  

I would guess I'd be labeled as "woke" - I've spent my life in a career that started out heavily dominated by white males - like 90%+, and I was one of them.  Now, our incoming professionals are 80% women with many minorities represented - Indians, Asians, Hispanics, Arabs.  It's awesome, this field is significantly better because of it; even if I'm old enough to feel a little uncomfortable around intelligent women with opinions, that's my problem, not theirs. 

My boss is a black woman with a medical degree and a law degree - would someone say she benefited off of affirmative action and doesn't deserve her job?  Probably, but she's great at her job and I respect her quite a bit.  I often wonder about what she's had to go through to get where she is, the grit she's had to have to ignore comments like those.

I have a trans (M>F) neighbor and while I sometimes feel like I'm gawking at a fish on a bicycle, it's more curiosity - what is her life like? Is she terrified living in a ruby red neighborhood?  I'm empathetic to her situation, I don't wish she were dead or blame all of my problems on her or think she needs to find Christ and a wife and have kids.

If these things make me "radical left," well shit, I'll be one of the first to hop on the trains.  But I like to think it's how Christ would handle things, even though I consider myself an atheist.    

Your bottom paragraph is EXACTLY how I explain it to cons/religious folk. JC certainly would have been left, he certainly WAS woke, and he absolutely was a radical. 

( 🙋‍♂️Agnostic here)

The problem is that the textbook definition of woke is different than the practical definition we often see play out. 
Textbook definition is to be aware of racial or social injustices. Which we should be doing.
The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group. I don't think that's a practical application of being woke. Or, when I worked in Colorado, I was literally told by admin that we can't discipline minority students because "it makes us looks racist." How well do you think those minority schools worked out? Most people would see that as a woke approach to a problem. SO when I, or people in my circles, complain about something being woke, I'm talking about these asinine policies that have developed about race. A kid can cuss me out, and if he's white he gets suspended, if he's black I'm told ignore it. Literally. 

Do you have a source for the united 50% reference? I’m interested in reading that. 

No worries on the source. The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie, which is at the foundation of a lot of Kirk’s positions.  

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html

"Over the next decade, United will train 5,000 pilots who will be guaranteed a job with United, after they complete the requirements of the Aviate program – and our plan is for half of them to be women and people of color," said United CEO Scott Kirby. 

Right. Those are targeted hiring goals. Do you think, like Kirk did, that the faa and the airlines lowered the qualifications and requirements for minority pilots? They didn’t, so that’s the lie Kirk’s
position is coming from. 

Did he ever say that? All I recall him saying from videos I've watched was that you will pass by more qualified people to meet the quota. Which is statically true. If a group is only 10% of the applicants, but you are required to make them 50% of people hired, will you not likely pass over some even more qualified people in order to meet that goal? That doesn't mean those whoa re hired are not qualified or do not meet the standards, but there are likely ones who didn't get the job who had even higher scores.

I don't think he ever said they would lower the criteria and standards. Do you have a link or quote of him saying that, because I don't think he ever did.

you didn't see him say "If I see a black pilot I get nervous"?

Let me clarify.
First, the question was about united's policy, and that the 50% claim was a lie. Specially the "The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie." All I did was show a link that showed they want their training program for new pilots to be 50% female or minority, which was what the claim was. So it wasn't a lie. 

Then the it turned into that Kirk claimed they lowered requirements (not about the united policy anymore).

To that, I don't think he ever made that claim. He may have said some controversial things that could lead you to believe that, but I don't think he ever made that claim. 

And so to your question, yes. And then he follows it up and says it is specifically because they are hiring based on race and he wouldn't have thought that without the policy in question. So he states that before the policy he wouldn't have felt that way with a black pilot.  And he wants the most qualified to get the job. In the entire exchange of the interviews I've seen he elaborates to say when you make a policy like that, it forces people to wonder if you got the job because of your qualifications or because of your race, and says that is a horrible way to think. He wants to see a black pilot and know he was the most qualified.  He also related it do doctors and surgeons. If your life depended on it, do you want the one that was ranked higher in his class, or do you want the one that was hired to fill a quota? 

Now I will add I don't agree with his assertion that he gets nervous, and you can infer he thinks they lower the standard. But my point was he never said, as far as I can tell, they they lowered the standards for black pilots. 

I think it was a separate "debate" where he was asked to clarify that, and he related it to the NBA. If they mandated that 50% of the NBA was white, that would be some better NBA players would not get the job to fill some of the white positions. That doesn't mean they can't play basketball,  but that there are just better ones out there that didn't get the job.

Taking into the whole context that he was referring specially to racial quotas for hiring when he said that, added that he wouldn't have thought that without the quota, I don't agree his stance was "black people are not capable of being pilots."

If someone knows what dei policies are, then they wouldn’t be nervous about a black pilot. If someone lies and says dei is discriminatory hiring based on race, then you have to ask why are they perpetuating this lie? Either they think it’s true or they’re intentionally trying to manipulate their audience. And here’s what you said about the 50% thing:

‘The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group’

The goal being 50%, not that it must or that how it is currently. 

This is how I imagine it playing out when a company makes a policy like that.
Where I went to college was mostly white. There were initiatives to increase the minority population, and one of my friends worked for the school and became an admittance counselor after she graduated. We stayed in contact for a while. She told me they give preference to minority students and transfer students. Essentially if a minority student meets the standards and criteria, they are much more likely to be accepted, resulting in another student with a higher GPA and SAT/ACT scores not being admitted. Those students who were admitted were still qualified, they just took the place of someone who had better scores. 
Maybe that's not how United used it, but that's how I perceive it playing out. And I think how the majority of people who criticize it view it as well. 

And people have confused college admission affirmative action with corporate hiring policies. Race based discrimination in hiring has been illegal for a long time. 

Well, I've been in 2 different districts where the head of HR has openly stated during professional development that he tells the principals if they have 2 qualified candidates, to pick the minority. Both were in Colorado. One was phrased exactly like that, the other was a little more subtle. 

I’m not saying it’s never happened, and someone should have mentioned to him that that’s illegal. Kirk is referring to the myth that requirements were lowered for minority pilots. 

Yeah and that clip, when considered along with the other comments he has made about blacks, and, when considering that he didn't IMMEDIATELY catch himself and explain his point completely, is a pretty clear view of his beliefs.

mrussel1

Gern Blansten said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

njhaley1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

njhaley1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

the bitterness

Literally the same comment as the west wing, is that one bitter?

west wing is a phenomenal show, back when there wasn’t a woke litmus test among democrats.

had a nice long post for u the other day  about why nyc mayor race is very relevant to national politics….its not bitter at all.

No. The fact that you think this place is so ‘radical left’ that it upsets you so much that you need to keep trying to get that dig in whenever you can.

I have to admit I haven't but up to speed on this place lately, but it amazes me that here, of all places, anyone still refers to some of the people on this forum as "radical left".  That's like saying a high of 82 degrees Fahrenheit is an indicator of a major heat wave, or the common house fly is and large insect.  Good grief! 

It's a dogwhistle utilized by the retRUmplicans to wind up their base. Any ideas, policies, thoughts that don't align with their regressive theology is "radical left".

When "woke" just doesn't cut it and you need people to be more afraid and hateful. 

Woke is a better way of describing the far left than using extremists or leftists?

and for those thinking the shoe doesn’t fit, set up a new acct and comment like a centrist. Watch the replies with joy.

I feel like "woke" is describing a philosophy of treating everyone with respect, having empathy; being inclusive and supporting a diverse range of opinions, cultures, and beliefs; being a polite member of society, etc.  Many of the things that CK was decidedly not.  I would love to believe that that applies to many of us here.

Radical left, on the other hand, suggests something more subversive, think IRA, Weather Underground, etc.  

I would guess I'd be labeled as "woke" - I've spent my life in a career that started out heavily dominated by white males - like 90%+, and I was one of them.  Now, our incoming professionals are 80% women with many minorities represented - Indians, Asians, Hispanics, Arabs.  It's awesome, this field is significantly better because of it; even if I'm old enough to feel a little uncomfortable around intelligent women with opinions, that's my problem, not theirs. 

My boss is a black woman with a medical degree and a law degree - would someone say she benefited off of affirmative action and doesn't deserve her job?  Probably, but she's great at her job and I respect her quite a bit.  I often wonder about what she's had to go through to get where she is, the grit she's had to have to ignore comments like those.

I have a trans (M>F) neighbor and while I sometimes feel like I'm gawking at a fish on a bicycle, it's more curiosity - what is her life like? Is she terrified living in a ruby red neighborhood?  I'm empathetic to her situation, I don't wish she were dead or blame all of my problems on her or think she needs to find Christ and a wife and have kids.

If these things make me "radical left," well shit, I'll be one of the first to hop on the trains.  But I like to think it's how Christ would handle things, even though I consider myself an atheist.    

Your bottom paragraph is EXACTLY how I explain it to cons/religious folk. JC certainly would have been left, he certainly WAS woke, and he absolutely was a radical. 

( 🙋‍♂️Agnostic here)

The problem is that the textbook definition of woke is different than the practical definition we often see play out. 
Textbook definition is to be aware of racial or social injustices. Which we should be doing.
The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group. I don't think that's a practical application of being woke. Or, when I worked in Colorado, I was literally told by admin that we can't discipline minority students because "it makes us looks racist." How well do you think those minority schools worked out? Most people would see that as a woke approach to a problem. SO when I, or people in my circles, complain about something being woke, I'm talking about these asinine policies that have developed about race. A kid can cuss me out, and if he's white he gets suspended, if he's black I'm told ignore it. Literally. 

Do you have a source for the united 50% reference? I’m interested in reading that. 

No worries on the source. The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie, which is at the foundation of a lot of Kirk’s positions.  

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html

"Over the next decade, United will train 5,000 pilots who will be guaranteed a job with United, after they complete the requirements of the Aviate program – and our plan is for half of them to be women and people of color," said United CEO Scott Kirby. 

Right. Those are targeted hiring goals. Do you think, like Kirk did, that the faa and the airlines lowered the qualifications and requirements for minority pilots? They didn’t, so that’s the lie Kirk’s
position is coming from. 

yeah his position was clearly "black people are not capable of being pilots"

Also, last I checked, women are not automatically "people of color".  There are white women.  Did he hate chicks too?

mrussel1

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

njhaley1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

njhaley1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

the bitterness

Literally the same comment as the west wing, is that one bitter?

west wing is a phenomenal show, back when there wasn’t a woke litmus test among democrats.

had a nice long post for u the other day  about why nyc mayor race is very relevant to national politics….its not bitter at all.

No. The fact that you think this place is so ‘radical left’ that it upsets you so much that you need to keep trying to get that dig in whenever you can.

I have to admit I haven't but up to speed on this place lately, but it amazes me that here, of all places, anyone still refers to some of the people on this forum as "radical left".  That's like saying a high of 82 degrees Fahrenheit is an indicator of a major heat wave, or the common house fly is and large insect.  Good grief! 

It's a dogwhistle utilized by the retRUmplicans to wind up their base. Any ideas, policies, thoughts that don't align with their regressive theology is "radical left".

When "woke" just doesn't cut it and you need people to be more afraid and hateful. 

Woke is a better way of describing the far left than using extremists or leftists?

and for those thinking the shoe doesn’t fit, set up a new acct and comment like a centrist. Watch the replies with joy.

I feel like "woke" is describing a philosophy of treating everyone with respect, having empathy; being inclusive and supporting a diverse range of opinions, cultures, and beliefs; being a polite member of society, etc.  Many of the things that CK was decidedly not.  I would love to believe that that applies to many of us here.

Radical left, on the other hand, suggests something more subversive, think IRA, Weather Underground, etc.  

I would guess I'd be labeled as "woke" - I've spent my life in a career that started out heavily dominated by white males - like 90%+, and I was one of them.  Now, our incoming professionals are 80% women with many minorities represented - Indians, Asians, Hispanics, Arabs.  It's awesome, this field is significantly better because of it; even if I'm old enough to feel a little uncomfortable around intelligent women with opinions, that's my problem, not theirs. 

My boss is a black woman with a medical degree and a law degree - would someone say she benefited off of affirmative action and doesn't deserve her job?  Probably, but she's great at her job and I respect her quite a bit.  I often wonder about what she's had to go through to get where she is, the grit she's had to have to ignore comments like those.

I have a trans (M>F) neighbor and while I sometimes feel like I'm gawking at a fish on a bicycle, it's more curiosity - what is her life like? Is she terrified living in a ruby red neighborhood?  I'm empathetic to her situation, I don't wish she were dead or blame all of my problems on her or think she needs to find Christ and a wife and have kids.

If these things make me "radical left," well shit, I'll be one of the first to hop on the trains.  But I like to think it's how Christ would handle things, even though I consider myself an atheist.    

Your bottom paragraph is EXACTLY how I explain it to cons/religious folk. JC certainly would have been left, he certainly WAS woke, and he absolutely was a radical. 

( 🙋‍♂️Agnostic here)

The problem is that the textbook definition of woke is different than the practical definition we often see play out. 
Textbook definition is to be aware of racial or social injustices. Which we should be doing.
The problem is when a company takes that, and like United Airlines, says that 50% of all new hires must be of a minority group. I don't think that's a practical application of being woke. Or, when I worked in Colorado, I was literally told by admin that we can't discipline minority students because "it makes us looks racist." How well do you think those minority schools worked out? Most people would see that as a woke approach to a problem. SO when I, or people in my circles, complain about something being woke, I'm talking about these asinine policies that have developed about race. A kid can cuss me out, and if he's white he gets suspended, if he's black I'm told ignore it. Literally. 

Do you have a source for the united 50% reference? I’m interested in reading that. 

No worries on the source. The 50% of United’s hiring thing was another lie, which is at the foundation of a lot of Kirk’s positions.  

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html

"Over the next decade, United will train 5,000 pilots who will be guaranteed a job with United, after they complete the requirements of the Aviate program – and our plan is for half of them to be women and people of color," said United CEO Scott Kirby. 

Right. Those are targeted hiring goals. Do you think, like Kirk did, that the faa and the airlines lowered the qualifications and requirements for minority pilots? They didn’t, so that’s the lie Kirk’s
position is coming from. 

Did he ever say that? All I recall him saying from videos I've watched was that you will pass by more qualified people to meet the quota. Which is statically true. If a group is only 10% of the applicants, but you are required to make them 50% of people hired, will you not likely pass over some even more qualified people in order to meet that goal? That doesn't mean those whoa re hired are not qualified or do not meet the standards, but there are likely ones who didn't get the job who had even higher scores.

I don't think he ever said they would lower the criteria and standards. Do you have a link or quote of him saying that, because I don't think he ever did.

Women are 50% of the population, not 10%.  And 60% of college graduates are women.  People keep focusing on POC, but it is women too.