WOKE

Lerxst1992

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

benjs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

On topic, using woke quotas to determine who gets hired and fired,

“The US population in 2021 was approximately 49.1% male and 50.9% female. Whites made up 59.3% of the total population while Hispanics made up 18.9%, Blacks 12.6% and Asians 5.9%, and other races the balance.

Questions to anyone who wants to respond:

What is wrong with this approach?”


…

Simplified Example, A company has half union and half management. Union jobs require strenuous labor, and extremely difficult for women to perform.

as a result, the union staff is roughly 99% male.


to achieve overall 50% female employment quota to sell to its investors and politically aligned organizations, for management non union jobs, all men have nearly zero percent of getting hired or retaining their job in a reorganization. Fake company is looking to not disclose that the union is almost all male to the public, so to tell the public their diversity matches “society” they need to make up its numbers somehow.

this is promoting stereotypes that women stay indoors to do women desk work and men must do arduous labor if they want to work there. And quotas are wrong, period. This is an oversimplified example but decisions like this absolutely happen in public companies that release their employment strategies publicly. It’s racism, bigoted, and not American, where skill and ability should  match capitalist ideals. And why the right and center right are strongly fighting this bastardization of American ideals.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747

A company that has a one to one ratio of management and employees wouldn't be a company as they wouldn't be able to compete. With such a ratio, clearly management sucks and needs to be replaced.

We were discussing a specific company, United, and a specific type of skilled employee, pilots, as brought into and referenced in the conversation. That was the example I used, not some made up, pretend union company with a one to one ratio of management to employees.

Based on the bolded part, that comment clearly does not understand the basics of management vs union employees. 

In addition to supervisors of union workers who are likely non union, management employees in a union shop usually includes, Marketing, HR, Legal, M and A, Finance, Treasury, Risk Management. And on and on. Can easily be 50% of an employer with unions. This is where large DEI employers make their quotas, because they are at will employees. Unions they can’t touch with quotas. An airline has minimal hard labor, so it’s possibly easier to staff pilots, plane and gate attendants with DEI hires into their unions. Except the pilots. Imagine a company where half is specialized labor like pilots. Difficult to cook the books in that case. Which is what DEI is after all.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

To the bold in your attempt to move the goal posts again. These are not “management” positions. They could be union or non-union but they’re not “management.” On and on in your imagination.

Please do try to stay on topic. The example is pilots at United Airlines. One category of skilled labor at one US based company. 

Just because you don’t understand the basics of employment classifications at large publicly owned employers is no reason to make accusations. These are the companies that are largely into gender and race based quotas.

large employers refer to management employees usually as those who are full time and not eligible for union membership, including the examples provided earlier. These are usually exempt employees, exempt from minimum wage and overtime rules. An entry level corporate attorney or treasury analyst who supervises no one are examples of management employees but do not supervise anyone.

It does not refer specifically to direct management of another, rather an employee representing the interests of management. Regarding your airline, any hiring decision using race and gender quotas even as a supplement to a skills analysis is immoral. To look at your percentages is wrong at face. Forget the drummer,  let’s sack Eddie and insert a black female singer, because that’ll create the right percentage mix, according to your politics. Makes perfect sense. /s.

  * The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Back to the United example, and it’d be nice if you’d stay on topic, they’re not “sacking” existing employees in favor of women and minorities but rather, setting hiring goals for future hires, from a pool of candidates that meet their requirements and qualifications to be pilots. Everyone in the pool is qualified, regardless of race, gender and/or ethnicity.

Nobody sacked Matt. He quit. The rest of the band could decide to hire a black female who is transgender and identifies as male. Poor white male drummers would lose out. Same if Eddie quit. If PJ wanted to continue, the rest of the band could hire a Hispanic woman lead singer. Poor white males would lose out. Nice attempt at moving the goal posts. Again.

If you’re so certain that publicly traded companies are firing white males and replacing them with their quotas of women and minorities, why don’t you link or identify any of them? Same with the SEC filings, link to this public information that just shouts immorality. Why can’t you post anything more than AI generated it could be this, it could be that, I think I saw a yellow cat?

No one said they were firing anyone.  Never saw that written or spoken about.  What was/is happening is people were being passed over in favor of those quotas.

Your analogy for Matt is off also.  You can pick a wide array of drummers that are trained but did not pass a certification course for their profession as a percussionist.

The pilots on the other hand did.

  * The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Lerxst kept stating publicly traded companies are replacing current employees and replacing them with women and minorities to meet quotas, and that these multitudes of SEC filings prove the immorality. I specifically referenced United Airlines and their goals in hiring new pilots. Not firing existing pilots and replacing them. Mace brought United into the conversation.

I doubt PJ would require “certification as a percussionist” for position of drummer as if you can play their catalog for 3 hours without missing a beat, you’d likely get hired, formal education be damned. United prefers that their applicant pool knows how to fly, typically by having a minimum number of flight hours in different types of aircraft (I admittedly don’t know what they are).

Poor white people, being replaced. Great replacement theory is real. Charlie said so.

It isn’t racist to understand math and how a target of a certain percentage of a demographic, means lesser odds than formerly for the ‘privileged’ demographic. Call it unfair, but if I’m born with a silver spoon and expect a silver spoon, then when I get a plastic spork I will be disappointed, because that’s where my expectations were set.

Also, just because I acknowledge this, doesn’t mean I believe in great replacement theory. That’s a ridiculous and unfounded stretch.

in the USA, they leave it to corporations to fire the 48 year old white slob supporting  three kids on a half million dollar mortgage to make way for quota hirings. Not sure how some slob in that predicament has a silver spoon, but liberal politics has become a strange animal in the recent past.


while the Dems cry about Epstein and Gaza…. Rs have identified this as illegal discrimination and attacked Dems aggressively. It’s a losing issue, using private hiring practices for crimes committed that have no specific correlation to modern victims of discriminatory policies.

Executives can fire or hire to approach those targets. You seem to feel they’ll reach quotas with firing actions - I believe they’ll reach them with hiring actions, and discriminatory firing actions will yield wrongful dismissal lawsuits as they always have. 

My analogy was pretty straightforward. If you expect X, but receive Y, you will feel aggrieved as you are receiving less than you’ve become accustomed to expect. Sorry if my use of the term ‘silver spoon’ was upsetting to you.

It is very difficult to win an employment discrimination lawsuit in the states. The exact cause for dismissal needs to be proven beyond doubt. Employees typically do not have access to internal memos and emails needed to obtain a smoking gun, and executives are not going to hand that stuff over without a court order. And hiring a lawyer and starting proceedings to obtain that is very expense, while most EEOC claims have a $300,000 ceiling. And finding another job after suing your prior employer? I wouldn’t recommend it.

Lerxst1992

tempo_n_groove said:

Lerxst1992 said:

static111 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

static111 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

benjs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

On topic, using woke quotas to determine who gets hired and fired,

“The US population in 2021 was approximately 49.1% male and 50.9% female. Whites made up 59.3% of the total population while Hispanics made up 18.9%, Blacks 12.6% and Asians 5.9%, and other races the balance.

Questions to anyone who wants to respond:

What is wrong with this approach?”


…

Simplified Example, A company has half union and half management. Union jobs require strenuous labor, and extremely difficult for women to perform.

as a result, the union staff is roughly 99% male.


to achieve overall 50% female employment quota to sell to its investors and politically aligned organizations, for management non union jobs, all men have nearly zero percent of getting hired or retaining their job in a reorganization. Fake company is looking to not disclose that the union is almost all male to the public, so to tell the public their diversity matches “society” they need to make up its numbers somehow.

this is promoting stereotypes that women stay indoors to do women desk work and men must do arduous labor if they want to work there. And quotas are wrong, period. This is an oversimplified example but decisions like this absolutely happen in public companies that release their employment strategies publicly. It’s racism, bigoted, and not American, where skill and ability should  match capitalist ideals. And why the right and center right are strongly fighting this bastardization of American ideals.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747

A company that has a one to one ratio of management and employees wouldn't be a company as they wouldn't be able to compete. With such a ratio, clearly management sucks and needs to be replaced.

We were discussing a specific company, United, and a specific type of skilled employee, pilots, as brought into and referenced in the conversation. That was the example I used, not some made up, pretend union company with a one to one ratio of management to employees.

Based on the bolded part, that comment clearly does not understand the basics of management vs union employees. 

In addition to supervisors of union workers who are likely non union, management employees in a union shop usually includes, Marketing, HR, Legal, M and A, Finance, Treasury, Risk Management. And on and on. Can easily be 50% of an employer with unions. This is where large DEI employers make their quotas, because they are at will employees. Unions they can’t touch with quotas. An airline has minimal hard labor, so it’s possibly easier to staff pilots, plane and gate attendants with DEI hires into their unions. Except the pilots. Imagine a company where half is specialized labor like pilots. Difficult to cook the books in that case. Which is what DEI is after all.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

To the bold in your attempt to move the goal posts again. These are not “management” positions. They could be union or non-union but they’re not “management.” On and on in your imagination.

Please do try to stay on topic. The example is pilots at United Airlines. One category of skilled labor at one US based company. 

Just because you don’t understand the basics of employment classifications at large publicly owned employers is no reason to make accusations. These are the companies that are largely into gender and race based quotas.

large employers refer to management employees usually as those who are full time and not eligible for union membership, including the examples provided earlier. These are usually exempt employees, exempt from minimum wage and overtime rules. An entry level corporate attorney or treasury analyst who supervises no one are examples of management employees but do not supervise anyone.

It does not refer specifically to direct management of another, rather an employee representing the interests of management. Regarding your airline, any hiring decision using race and gender quotas even as a supplement to a skills analysis is immoral. To look at your percentages is wrong at face. Forget the drummer,  let’s sack Eddie and insert a black female singer, because that’ll create the right percentage mix, according to your politics. Makes perfect sense. /s.

  * The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Back to the United example, and it’d be nice if you’d stay on topic, they’re not “sacking” existing employees in favor of women and minorities but rather, setting hiring goals for future hires, from a pool of candidates that meet their requirements and qualifications to be pilots. Everyone in the pool is qualified, regardless of race, gender and/or ethnicity.

Nobody sacked Matt. He quit. The rest of the band could decide to hire a black female who is transgender and identifies as male. Poor white male drummers would lose out. Same if Eddie quit. If PJ wanted to continue, the rest of the band could hire a Hispanic woman lead singer. Poor white males would lose out. Nice attempt at moving the goal posts. Again.

If you’re so certain that publicly traded companies are firing white males and replacing them with their quotas of women and minorities, why don’t you link or identify any of them? Same with the SEC filings, link to this public information that just shouts immorality. Why can’t you post anything more than AI generated it could be this, it could be that, I think I saw a yellow cat?

No one said they were firing anyone.  Never saw that written or spoken about.  What was/is happening is people were being passed over in favor of those quotas.

Your analogy for Matt is off also.  You can pick a wide array of drummers that are trained but did not pass a certification course for their profession as a percussionist.

The pilots on the other hand did.

  * The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Lerxst kept stating publicly traded companies are replacing current employees and replacing them with women and minorities to meet quotas, and that these multitudes of SEC filings prove the immorality. I specifically referenced United Airlines and their goals in hiring new pilots. Not firing existing pilots and replacing them. Mace brought United into the conversation.

I doubt PJ would require “certification as a percussionist” for position of drummer as if you can play their catalog for 3 hours without missing a beat, you’d likely get hired, formal education be damned. United prefers that their applicant pool knows how to fly, typically by having a minimum number of flight hours in different types of aircraft (I admittedly don’t know what they are).

Poor white people, being replaced. Great replacement theory is real. Charlie said so.

It isn’t racist to understand math and how a target of a certain percentage of a demographic, means lesser odds than formerly for the ‘privileged’ demographic. Call it unfair, but if I’m born with a silver spoon and expect a silver spoon, then when I get a plastic spork I will be disappointed, because that’s where my expectations were set.

Also, just because I acknowledge this, doesn’t mean I believe in great replacement theory. That’s a ridiculous and unfounded stretch.

in the USA, they leave it to corporations to fire the 48 year old white slob supporting  three kids on a half million dollar mortgage to make way for quota hirings. Not sure how some slob in that predicament has a silver spoon, but liberal politics has become a strange animal in the recent past.


while the Dems cry about Epstein and Gaza…. Rs have identified this as illegal discrimination and attacked Dems aggressively. It’s a losing issue, using private hiring practices for crimes committed that have no specific correlation to modern victims of discriminatory policies.

You seem like the type of person that would have fought against post-slavery reconstruction in the south.  Maybe we wouldn't continue to need DEI initiatives in this country if people like you would just get out of the way long enough or better yet help fight for equality long enough that this is no longer an issue.  Instead of constantly complain about white grievance politics, and whining about how helping the historically disadvantaged is somehow hurting the Whites....

Conveniently ignored the earlier post about the 48 year old white dude with three kids and half a million mortgage who has zero to do with “silver spoons” and what atrocities Americans committed in the 1800s being targeted by corporate DEI policies.

In a reorg, if someone is REMOVED from a job to make room for diversity, either gender or color, by language definition that is not equality. Less expertise and less skill is not equal, by definition.

the democrats are using identity politics as a weapon, not the centrists. You are actually arguing against your own views.

I didn’t ignore the previous post I just viewed it as another pointless what if.   You are arguing to go with the status quo and not rock the boat so that you and some imaginary figment white slob can remain comfortable.  In your example both you and the slob have not participated in any of the atrocities of the 1800s but you fail to acknowledge that both you and he have benefitted from the power systems that have remained in place due to people having too much cowardice to shake the status quo.

 In order to make the strides necessary for the equality that you would rather see replace DEI initiatives and the like there will need to be a national reckoning of some kind.   Does that mean free college for minorities for three generations, extra housing assistance, etc?  I don’t know, but whatever it is there will be some white male complaining that he didn’t get it. It’s just pathetic.

And pretending that removing all assistance ie DEI, quotas etc is somehow more equal is just stupid.  We live in a racist country with a racist power structure that does not have racial equality, until that changes all of the programs currently in place are necessary.

That’s not my argument and you know that. I have no issue, I’ve said often on the forum, of spending countless billions for diverse folks eduction and specialty training. So I’m quite far removed from conservatives.

what I am against is identity politics and politics of blame. It is not the job of elected officials (or even worse, corporate executives pressured by politicians) to assign blame for atrocities committed two hundred years ago and do the complex math if someone based on skin color or gender is at fault or benefitted. That’s discrimination, and just as immoral as it was in our past . The politicians job is to provide housing, training and education for communities in need, of course. 

And it’s not a what if. Go read a multinationals 10k. They were not shy about it, at least until Harris lost.

read that Human Resource link I posted.

I only saw a DEI hiring guide on that link. It reads pretty much like “…think of all the diverse people you want to hire, and hire them.” 

Trying to hire diverse candidates isn’t really the worst, it’s when employers have “diversity employment targets” when undergoing a reorganization. That means some employees will get fired, likely without cause, to make room for someone with less experience in the role filled. I’ve had friends, acquaintances and folks I have known over the years let go, with excellent work reputations. And it’s very obvious to them who the new employees are.

Halifax2TheMax

Lerxst1992 said:

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

benjs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

On topic, using woke quotas to determine who gets hired and fired,

“The US population in 2021 was approximately 49.1% male and 50.9% female. Whites made up 59.3% of the total population while Hispanics made up 18.9%, Blacks 12.6% and Asians 5.9%, and other races the balance.

Questions to anyone who wants to respond:

What is wrong with this approach?”


…

Simplified Example, A company has half union and half management. Union jobs require strenuous labor, and extremely difficult for women to perform.

as a result, the union staff is roughly 99% male.


to achieve overall 50% female employment quota to sell to its investors and politically aligned organizations, for management non union jobs, all men have nearly zero percent of getting hired or retaining their job in a reorganization. Fake company is looking to not disclose that the union is almost all male to the public, so to tell the public their diversity matches “society” they need to make up its numbers somehow.

this is promoting stereotypes that women stay indoors to do women desk work and men must do arduous labor if they want to work there. And quotas are wrong, period. This is an oversimplified example but decisions like this absolutely happen in public companies that release their employment strategies publicly. It’s racism, bigoted, and not American, where skill and ability should  match capitalist ideals. And why the right and center right are strongly fighting this bastardization of American ideals.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747

A company that has a one to one ratio of management and employees wouldn't be a company as they wouldn't be able to compete. With such a ratio, clearly management sucks and needs to be replaced.

We were discussing a specific company, United, and a specific type of skilled employee, pilots, as brought into and referenced in the conversation. That was the example I used, not some made up, pretend union company with a one to one ratio of management to employees.

Based on the bolded part, that comment clearly does not understand the basics of management vs union employees. 

In addition to supervisors of union workers who are likely non union, management employees in a union shop usually includes, Marketing, HR, Legal, M and A, Finance, Treasury, Risk Management. And on and on. Can easily be 50% of an employer with unions. This is where large DEI employers make their quotas, because they are at will employees. Unions they can’t touch with quotas. An airline has minimal hard labor, so it’s possibly easier to staff pilots, plane and gate attendants with DEI hires into their unions. Except the pilots. Imagine a company where half is specialized labor like pilots. Difficult to cook the books in that case. Which is what DEI is after all.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

To the bold in your attempt to move the goal posts again. These are not “management” positions. They could be union or non-union but they’re not “management.” On and on in your imagination.

Please do try to stay on topic. The example is pilots at United Airlines. One category of skilled labor at one US based company. 

Just because you don’t understand the basics of employment classifications at large publicly owned employers is no reason to make accusations. These are the companies that are largely into gender and race based quotas.

large employers refer to management employees usually as those who are full time and not eligible for union membership, including the examples provided earlier. These are usually exempt employees, exempt from minimum wage and overtime rules. An entry level corporate attorney or treasury analyst who supervises no one are examples of management employees but do not supervise anyone.

It does not refer specifically to direct management of another, rather an employee representing the interests of management. Regarding your airline, any hiring decision using race and gender quotas even as a supplement to a skills analysis is immoral. To look at your percentages is wrong at face. Forget the drummer,  let’s sack Eddie and insert a black female singer, because that’ll create the right percentage mix, according to your politics. Makes perfect sense. /s.

  * The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Back to the United example, and it’d be nice if you’d stay on topic, they’re not “sacking” existing employees in favor of women and minorities but rather, setting hiring goals for future hires, from a pool of candidates that meet their requirements and qualifications to be pilots. Everyone in the pool is qualified, regardless of race, gender and/or ethnicity.

Nobody sacked Matt. He quit. The rest of the band could decide to hire a black female who is transgender and identifies as male. Poor white male drummers would lose out. Same if Eddie quit. If PJ wanted to continue, the rest of the band could hire a Hispanic woman lead singer. Poor white males would lose out. Nice attempt at moving the goal posts. Again.

If you’re so certain that publicly traded companies are firing white males and replacing them with their quotas of women and minorities, why don’t you link or identify any of them? Same with the SEC filings, link to this public information that just shouts immorality. Why can’t you post anything more than AI generated it could be this, it could be that, I think I saw a yellow cat?

No one said they were firing anyone.  Never saw that written or spoken about.  What was/is happening is people were being passed over in favor of those quotas.

Your analogy for Matt is off also.  You can pick a wide array of drummers that are trained but did not pass a certification course for their profession as a percussionist.

The pilots on the other hand did.

  * The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Lerxst kept stating publicly traded companies are replacing current employees and replacing them with women and minorities to meet quotas, and that these multitudes of SEC filings prove the immorality. I specifically referenced United Airlines and their goals in hiring new pilots. Not firing existing pilots and replacing them. Mace brought United into the conversation.

I doubt PJ would require “certification as a percussionist” for position of drummer as if you can play their catalog for 3 hours without missing a beat, you’d likely get hired, formal education be damned. United prefers that their applicant pool knows how to fly, typically by having a minimum number of flight hours in different types of aircraft (I admittedly don’t know what they are).

Poor white people, being replaced. Great replacement theory is real. Charlie said so.

It isn’t racist to understand math and how a target of a certain percentage of a demographic, means lesser odds than formerly for the ‘privileged’ demographic. Call it unfair, but if I’m born with a silver spoon and expect a silver spoon, then when I get a plastic spork I will be disappointed, because that’s where my expectations were set.

Also, just because I acknowledge this, doesn’t mean I believe in great replacement theory. That’s a ridiculous and unfounded stretch.

in the USA, they leave it to corporations to fire the 48 year old white slob supporting  three kids on a half million dollar mortgage to make way for quota hirings. Not sure how some slob in that predicament has a silver spoon, but liberal politics has become a strange animal in the recent past.


while the Dems cry about Epstein and Gaza…. Rs have identified this as illegal discrimination and attacked Dems aggressively. It’s a losing issue, using private hiring practices for crimes committed that have no specific correlation to modern victims of discriminatory policies.

Executives can fire or hire to approach those targets. You seem to feel they’ll reach quotas with firing actions - I believe they’ll reach them with hiring actions, and discriminatory firing actions will yield wrongful dismissal lawsuits as they always have. 

My analogy was pretty straightforward. If you expect X, but receive Y, you will feel aggrieved as you are receiving less than you’ve become accustomed to expect. Sorry if my use of the term ‘silver spoon’ was upsetting to you.

It is very difficult to win an employment discrimination lawsuit in the states. The exact cause for dismissal needs to be proven beyond doubt. Employees typically do not have access to internal memos and emails needed to obtain a smoking gun, and executives are not going to hand that stuff over without a court order. And hiring a lawyer and starting proceedings to obtain that is very expense, while most EEOC claims have a $300,000 ceiling. And finding another job after suing your prior employer? I wouldn’t recommend it.

  * The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Seems you can always get a job in manufacturing. Or, if you prefer dirty work, the coal industry. I hear both are making a huuuuuge comeback.

Lerxst1992

gimmesometruth27 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

white grievance is the maga way. always has been. 

I'll disagree with that.

which part?

against any kind of assistance for the poor and minority population
against immigration (BUILD THE WALL!!!)
against anything "woke"
wants to take the country back to the 50s.
has called for a second civil war and states like texas have threatened to secede
against affirmative action and dei
against lgbtq rights

what else am i missing?

most, if not all of these are based on white grievance. it is a platform of hate from the conservative whites against everybody else that is different from them.

DEI is disguised as affirmative action.  That is where it began, nothing to do w MAGA.

white grievance was a tenat of the tea party. you know, a bunch of republicans that did not want to pay taxes for some reason. tea party morphed into maga, and that entire movement is based on white grievance.

question. how many african americans besides clarence thomas, ben carson, and tim scott do you see out there opposing dei and affirmative action? it is all white men.

Because they are the targets of dei. Who else is there when companies look to benefit people of color and women? White men without union protections, they are the most vulnerable employees in any organization.


 And women don’t count? How discriminatory 

You can do people of color next…

”

 Yes, some women and women's rights advocates oppose Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives for various reasons

. The opposition is not monolithic and includes arguments regarding meritocracy, the impact on different groups of women, and the perception of DEI efforts as discriminatory. 

Arguments against DEI from a female perspective

• Undermining meritocracy: Critics allege that DEI efforts prioritize demographic characteristics over qualifications, leading to perceptions that competent women may have been hired or promoted simply to meet a quota. For example, after being hired for an engineering job, one woman felt like a "DEI entrant" and was directly challenged by a male colleague who implied she was taking a position from a more deserving man.
• Creating divisiveness: Some women oppose DEI because they believe it creates division and resentment by focusing on group identity rather than individual talent. They may support the principles of diversity and inclusion but disagree with current implementation.
• Disproportionate benefits: While many DEI opponents claim that women of color benefit most from these policies, some data suggests that white women have been the primary beneficiaries of corporate DEI efforts. For example, in 1997, a study estimated that millions of women held positions because of affirmative action, and the majority were white. Some critics see this as unfairly prioritizing one group of women over others.
• Concerns over reverse discrimination: Critics argue that any program excluding white workers is illegal, just as excluding Black workers would be. In December 2024, Politico reported on an Indian-American woman and fellow at the Manhattan Institute who welcomed a court decision against Walmart's DEI policies, stating, "I, like Christopher Rufo, oppose DEI across the board... I'm a woman and I'm Indian... and I strongly oppose diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in corporate America".
• Excluding diverse viewpoints: Some women oppose DEI on the basis that it does not encourage viewpoint diversity. They believe that corporate DEI programs punish those with different political or social views, rather than fostering an environment that welcomes a wide array of thoughts. 

Survey findings on women's views of DEI

• Pew Research Center (2024): A survey found that views on DEI practices' impact on white women are more mixed compared to other demographic groups. Three-in-ten Americans said DEI helps white women, while 23% said it hurts them. In contrast, men were more likely than women to say DEI practices hurt each group. For example, 45% of men said DEI hurts white men, compared to 29% of women.
• Global Woman Leader and Resume.org (2025): A survey focusing on companies that cut back on DEI following the 2024 elections found adverse effects on women in the workplace. Nearly half of these companies reported a decline in employee morale, and 24% saw fewer women advancing into leadership roles. The hiring of both women of color and white women also decreased. However, the survey did not reflect the views of women who supported cutting DEI initiatives. 

Gern Blansten

oh hell yeah the beautiful clean coal industry is going to explode...it's great because you take the coal, clean it, then it's beautiful

everyone is talking about it but no one is saying it

HughFreakingDillon

the mindset of whites being "targets of DEI" is the problem.

were white people the "targets" of anti-segregation laws?

Tim Simmons

Hey man, all we want to do is marginalize some people. whats so wrong with that? 

gimmesometruth27

HughFreakingDillon said:

the mindset of whites being "targets of DEI" is the problem.

were white people the "targets" of anti-segregation laws?

technically the southern ones were impacted in the laws during reconstruction in the 1860s. but currently living white people? nope.

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

benjs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

I keep seeing the complaint regarding United Airlines announcing that they want to have 50% of their pilots be minorities and women. In 2021, when they made this announcement, 7% of their pilots were women and 13% were minorities. What is the problem with stating this as a goal? If they recruit, train and the folks pass and qualify, what's the issue? That they announced it? Made it a goal? That any initiative to increase diversity must be at the expense of white males? Why is DEI considered "woke" and wrong?

If you woke up one day and flew on United, or were a business traveler, and recognized that there were more women and minority pilots than you were used to seeing, would you be concerned and be complaining? Would you stop flying United? Would you be like Charlie and question the qualifications and competency of the person at the controls?

What's the freak out about?

If the current female and minority percentage is 20%, and the goal is to increase that percentage to 50%, it is mathematically the same as saying that the goal is to assure that the current 80% white male representation goes down to 50%.

It’s not so hard to see how a quota or target system like this pisses people with a former advantage off. From their perspective, it’s removing three-eighths of available jobs from their demographic. 

I still believe in this strategy to help put a dent in fixing decades of imbalances and support it, but there are a finite number of jobs, and giving more to one demographic necessitates giving less to another. 

Also, the argument above which is based in reason doesn’t include racism or sexism at all, although your response assumes the criticism is based on one or both. 

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747

I have a slightly different perspective, surprise. I think it was Mace who brought up United several times and how announcing that 50% of new hires would be either women or minorities. It made me think, as my previous posts attest, about what that might look like. Here goes, for what its fucking worth around these parts:

Lets make some assumptions for simplicity, you could extrapolate out the numbers based on their current level of staffing for pilots but I digress. Lets assume United has 100 pilots and 7% are women, 13% are minorities (there may be cross overs, minority women but for sake of argument), and 80% are white males. 20 are minorities and women and 80 are white males. United didn't say they were reducing current staffing to be 50% minorities and women and 50% would be white males. They stated that they had hiring goals for new hires to be 50% minorities and women going forward.

United expands routes, needs to replace retiring pilots, etc. and has a goal of hiring 100 pilots a year for 5 years, 50% of which would be minorities and women and 50% would be white males. And lets assume that the split of 50% between minorities and women would be split evenly. This results in 25 women (25%), 25 minorities (25%) and 50 white males (50%) being hired each year for five years. Lets assume no one retired from the original 100 but they grew their pilot base due to demand and new routes.

At the end of five years, you'd have 600 pilots with 132 women representing 22% of all pilots, 138 minorities representing 23% of all pilots and 330 white males, representing 55% of all pilots. Again, there could be cross over. 45% of pilots are women and minorities and 55% are white males.

The US population in 2021 was approximately 49.1% male and 50.9% female. Whites made up 59.3% of the total population while Hispanics made up 18.9%, Blacks 12.6% and Asians 5.9%, and other races the balance.

Questions to anyone who wants to respond:

What is wrong with this approach? It seems to me that males and white males in particular are still over represented. Where is the harm in this approach? What if United hadn't announced it and just did it and their pilot pool looked like the above after 5 years? Is there a better way to do it? Based on actual percentages as it relates to population? Applicant pool of thousands all qualified, divide them up by race/gender as reflected in the last census, put ping pong balls in a lottery thingy and draw numbers until you reached that percentage for that group (random)?

I'll add that there are winners and losers in everything as it relates to life. The college you get accepted to, the job you get, the bank loan offered or not, car loans, insurance and credit cards and their corresponding interest rates, sports competitions, etc. So yes, losers lose out and complain but the simple fact that one might be white, that that gives them and has given them through the centuries, an advantage. Never mind the studies that prove diversity leads to better outcomes, profits, technological advancements and efficiencies, etc., or that applications/resumes with the same skills but different sounding names leads to unfair hiring practices.

Yes, I've been treated unfairly, I haven't gotten jobs that I applied for, I've sat through countless hours of DEI and sensitivity training and yet, I've somehow been able to stay gainfully employed since I was 13 years old. When workplaces sucked, I moved on, often upward. And yes, I'm a white male.

Gimme's link to the guy whoever he was that was stating "they" tear it down and only look out for themselves while "we" build it up and see the benefit in all benefitting, or words to that effect, is spot on. If you, general you, think white males have had it hard throughout history, imagine what women and minorities, particularly indigenous, have had to, and continue to, contend with.

edit to unequivocally state that I was never good and remain terrible at the maths.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Three guesses for who the 21% voted for in the last election. But hey, it’s just a media anecdote. From the October 2025 issue of Harper’s Magazine:

Percentage of Americans who regard workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion policies as a bad thing: 21

As a good thing: 56

Minimum number of anti-DEI shareholder resolutions introduced at S&P 500 companies this year: 24

Percentage of shareholders who voted against these resolutions, on average: 99

https://harpers.org/

I’ll respond to that original question. It’s been a while so I can’t remember for sure, but my united comment was in response to a quote about Kirk. His comment was in response to that said quota.
So to answer your question, there is nothing wrong with having a diverse workforce. That’d be great.
I tried to explain before, but gave up after going in circles. The problem is if 50% of your hires are from 10% of the applicant pool, I don’t see how it’s possible for race and gender to not be a factor in the hiring process. Someone brought up that would be illegal. And I agree, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen though, and would be difficult to prove. Not like they send out all their denial letters as “sorry, but you’re not a minority.”
Instead of self-imposing a quota, get more minorities and women into the field and increase their representation in the applicant pool. That would be better.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

For Mace. Seems your original comment about United Airlines may have been in the Charlie Kirk thread, since closed, or another thread. But oh, the burn of being "woke."

Lerxst1992

HughFreakingDillon said:

the mindset of whites being "targets of DEI" is the problem.

were white people the "targets" of anti-segregation laws?

Tim Simmons said:

Hey man, all we want to do is marginalize some people. whats so wrong with that? 

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

double meaning. 

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

benjs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

I keep seeing the complaint regarding United Airlines announcing that they want to have 50% of their pilots be minorities and women. In 2021, when they made this announcement, 7% of their pilots were women and 13% were minorities. What is the problem with stating this as a goal? If they recruit, train and the folks pass and qualify, what's the issue? That they announced it? Made it a goal? That any initiative to increase diversity must be at the expense of white males? Why is DEI considered "woke" and wrong?

If you woke up one day and flew on United, or were a business traveler, and recognized that there were more women and minority pilots than you were used to seeing, would you be concerned and be complaining? Would you stop flying United? Would you be like Charlie and question the qualifications and competency of the person at the controls?

What's the freak out about?

If the current female and minority percentage is 20%, and the goal is to increase that percentage to 50%, it is mathematically the same as saying that the goal is to assure that the current 80% white male representation goes down to 50%.

It’s not so hard to see how a quota or target system like this pisses people with a former advantage off. From their perspective, it’s removing three-eighths of available jobs from their demographic. 

I still believe in this strategy to help put a dent in fixing decades of imbalances and support it, but there are a finite number of jobs, and giving more to one demographic necessitates giving less to another. 

Also, the argument above which is based in reason doesn’t include racism or sexism at all, although your response assumes the criticism is based on one or both. 

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747

I have a slightly different perspective, surprise. I think it was Mace who brought up United several times and how announcing that 50% of new hires would be either women or minorities. It made me think, as my previous posts attest, about what that might look like. Here goes, for what its fucking worth around these parts:

Lets make some assumptions for simplicity, you could extrapolate out the numbers based on their current level of staffing for pilots but I digress. Lets assume United has 100 pilots and 7% are women, 13% are minorities (there may be cross overs, minority women but for sake of argument), and 80% are white males. 20 are minorities and women and 80 are white males. United didn't say they were reducing current staffing to be 50% minorities and women and 50% would be white males. They stated that they had hiring goals for new hires to be 50% minorities and women going forward.

United expands routes, needs to replace retiring pilots, etc. and has a goal of hiring 100 pilots a year for 5 years, 50% of which would be minorities and women and 50% would be white males. And lets assume that the split of 50% between minorities and women would be split evenly. This results in 25 women (25%), 25 minorities (25%) and 50 white males (50%) being hired each year for five years. Lets assume no one retired from the original 100 but they grew their pilot base due to demand and new routes.

At the end of five years, you'd have 600 pilots with 132 women representing 22% of all pilots, 138 minorities representing 23% of all pilots and 330 white males, representing 55% of all pilots. Again, there could be cross over. 45% of pilots are women and minorities and 55% are white males.

The US population in 2021 was approximately 49.1% male and 50.9% female. Whites made up 59.3% of the total population while Hispanics made up 18.9%, Blacks 12.6% and Asians 5.9%, and other races the balance.

Questions to anyone who wants to respond:

What is wrong with this approach? It seems to me that males and white males in particular are still over represented. Where is the harm in this approach? What if United hadn't announced it and just did it and their pilot pool looked like the above after 5 years? Is there a better way to do it? Based on actual percentages as it relates to population? Applicant pool of thousands all qualified, divide them up by race/gender as reflected in the last census, put ping pong balls in a lottery thingy and draw numbers until you reached that percentage for that group (random)?

I'll add that there are winners and losers in everything as it relates to life. The college you get accepted to, the job you get, the bank loan offered or not, car loans, insurance and credit cards and their corresponding interest rates, sports competitions, etc. So yes, losers lose out and complain but the simple fact that one might be white, that that gives them and has given them through the centuries, an advantage. Never mind the studies that prove diversity leads to better outcomes, profits, technological advancements and efficiencies, etc., or that applications/resumes with the same skills but different sounding names leads to unfair hiring practices.

Yes, I've been treated unfairly, I haven't gotten jobs that I applied for, I've sat through countless hours of DEI and sensitivity training and yet, I've somehow been able to stay gainfully employed since I was 13 years old. When workplaces sucked, I moved on, often upward. And yes, I'm a white male.

Gimme's link to the guy whoever he was that was stating "they" tear it down and only look out for themselves while "we" build it up and see the benefit in all benefitting, or words to that effect, is spot on. If you, general you, think white males have had it hard throughout history, imagine what women and minorities, particularly indigenous, have had to, and continue to, contend with.

edit to unequivocally state that I was never good and remain terrible at the maths.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Three guesses for who the 21% voted for in the last election. But hey, it’s just a media anecdote. From the October 2025 issue of Harper’s Magazine:

Percentage of Americans who regard workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion policies as a bad thing: 21

As a good thing: 56

Minimum number of anti-DEI shareholder resolutions introduced at S&P 500 companies this year: 24

Percentage of shareholders who voted against these resolutions, on average: 99

https://harpers.org/

I’ll respond to that original question. It’s been a while so I can’t remember for sure, but my united comment was in response to a quote about Kirk. His comment was in response to that said quota.
So to answer your question, there is nothing wrong with having a diverse workforce. That’d be great.
I tried to explain before, but gave up after going in circles. The problem is if 50% of your hires are from 10% of the applicant pool, I don’t see how it’s possible for race and gender to not be a factor in the hiring process. Someone brought up that would be illegal. And I agree, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen though, and would be difficult to prove. Not like they send out all their denial letters as “sorry, but you’re not a minority.”
Instead of self-imposing a quota, get more minorities and women into the field and increase their representation in the applicant pool. That would be better.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

For Mace. Seems your original comment about United Airlines may have been in the Charlie Kirk thread, since closed, or another thread. But oh, the burn of being "woke."

Wasn't meant to be a burn on being woke.
My comment was over 2 weeks ago in a different thread (gun thread, that is still open). I just find it odd that, for a conversation I hadn't participated it at all (I wasn't interested in the back and forth going on), you kept bringing up United in this conversation and then bring me into it like I started it.  Nothing to do with being woke or a burn, just making an observation. 

Halifax2TheMax

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

This is what petty, woke politics looks like. Poor, white males, boo hoo. From Letter From An American:

Vought also announced on social media: “Roughly $18 billion in New York City infrastructure projects have been put on hold to ensure funding is not flowing based on unconstitutional DEI principles.” He said he was referring to funding for the Hudson River Tunnel Project known as Gateway, and the Second Avenue Subway project. 

Tim Simmons

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

the mindset of whites being "targets of DEI" is the problem.

were white people the "targets" of anti-segregation laws?

Tim Simmons said:

Hey man, all we want to do is marginalize some people. whats so wrong with that? 

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

double meaning. 

I mean, theres nothing "wrong" with DEI

Lerxst1992

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

the mindset of whites being "targets of DEI" is the problem.

were white people the "targets" of anti-segregation laws?

Tim Simmons said:

Hey man, all we want to do is marginalize some people. whats so wrong with that? 

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

double meaning. 

I mean, theres nothing "wrong" with DEI

Sure . Let’s subsidize advanced training, eduction, everything we can do to level the playing fields. I wholeheartedly agree,


but it’s immoral to tie executive compensation to diversity hiring goals and teach recruiting managers how to select interviewees based on their names. Teaching people how to identify minorities and women based on their names. Immoral and disgusting…and America will not vote for it as we learn more about what some of corporate America did to satisfy the puppeteers running the Biden admin

tempo_n_groove

Gern Blansten said:

oh hell yeah the beautiful clean coal industry is going to explode...it's great because you take the coal, clean it, then it's beautiful

everyone is talking about it but no one is saying it

I laughed at this.  TY for my morning chuckle.  "Clean it", lol

Gern Blansten

tempo_n_groove said:

Gern Blansten said:

oh hell yeah the beautiful clean coal industry is going to explode...it's great because you take the coal, clean it, then it's beautiful

everyone is talking about it but no one is saying it

I laughed at this.  TY for my morning chuckle.  "Clean it", lol

"We've ended the war on beautiful, clean coal. and it's just been announced that a second, brand new coal mine where they're going to take out clean coal — meaning they're taking out coal, they're going to clean it — is opening in the state of Pennsylvania," Trump said.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-clean-coal/story?id=49376237

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic

HughFreakingDillon

This is what I’ve been saying, that the rest
of the free world knows, except a few here: there is no radical left in the states (yes, it’s a comedy bit, but it’s the truth)

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1ZYTLntK9W/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Bentleyspop

HughFreakingDillon said:

This is what I’ve been saying, that the rest
of the free world knows, except a few here: there is no radical left in the states (yes, it’s a comedy bit, but it’s the truth)

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1ZYTLntK9W/?mibextid=wwXIfr

To the maga cultists if you are not supporting their orange savior then you're the "radical left"

Lerxst1992

Bentleyspop said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

This is what I’ve been saying, that the rest
of the free world knows, except a few here: there is no radical left in the states (yes, it’s a comedy bit, but it’s the truth)

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1ZYTLntK9W/?mibextid=wwXIfr

To the maga cultists if you are not supporting their orange savior then you're the "radical left"

Mamdani's policies related to real estate, such as socializing elements of the industry (e.g., massive public construction, deep rent freezes, and proposals for land seizure and conversion to social housing), are generally considered radical when compared to the historical mainstream of U.S. democratic party policy.

While the Democratic Party has historically supported government intervention in housing, the scale and ideological nature of Mamdani's proposals represent a significant shift leftward from established norms.

Comparison with Historical Democratic Policy

Historical democratic policy on real estate and housing has generally focused on measures that support and stabilize the private market, rather than replacing it with a socialized model. 

Mamdani's approach is often described as radical because it embraces tenets of democratic socialism, challenging the fundamental reliance on the capitalist, private-market real estate model:  

• Socialization/Seizure: The idea of the state seizing private property to convert it to public housing or advocating for a complete shift away from market-based housing radically departs from the traditional democratic framework, which, even in its most liberal forms, defends private property rights and market mechanisms as the primary drivers of housing supply.

• Scale of Public Investment: The proposal for a $100 billion investment and the construction of 200,000 publicly-owned/subsidized units represents a scale of direct public intervention in the housing market far beyond recent Democratic norms.  

• Ideological Goal: The stated goal of treating housing as a right guaranteed by the state, rather than a commodity acquired on the market, is a core socialist principle that places his policies outside the mainstream of both modern and historical Democratic Party platforms, which have generally prioritized market stability and private-sector support.

Bentleyspop

So many people so scared of the dogwhistles. ...socialists and socialism.

Seems to work well for Israel and the 
Scandinavian countries.