This is a reasonable fear in a world where pilots are hired based on their status of being a minority. Is it not? That was the whole point, DEI practices enforce the idea that minorities aren’t qualified.
For those who stumble across this and are confused, this isn’t how DEI works.
The reason DEI policies exist is that without them white male bosses were just blindly hiring white males and not considering anybody else because of their racism and sexism (sometimes conscious, sometimes unconscious). That meant pilots who weren’t as good, musicians who weren’t as good, bankers who weren’t as good, etc. Aside from this being a guaranteed jobs program for white makes, and a roadblock for everyone else, it also led to problems because when everybody came from the same background, they all had the same kinds of blind spots.
So, DEI policies came along to try to make sure that companies were actually hiring the best people, and not missing out because of entrenched racism and sexism. So, instead of having a concert violinist hand her resume to a committee and then perform for them on stage, the person performing on stage performs behind a screen and uses a number so their age, name, gender, and connections aren’t a factor, just the way they play.
So really, when you see yet another white male airline pilot who looks like he’s former air force, you should be saying to yourself “I sure hope this airline has a DEI policy, and they didn’t just hire yet another guy who was drinking buddies with one of their pilots when they were both in the air force together.”
That’s part of DEI, and conveniently not the parts that Kirk, or most conservatives, complain about.
The policies complained about are the one that effectively turn race/gender into qualifications. Like affirmative action. Like IBM working to get 50% female representation in their engineering hires. Like Biden in 2020 campaigning on the promise of hiring a black woman to SCOTUS (2 years before he even looked at candidates). Like Google and other tech companies implementing policies to favor non-asian minorities and women. It’s a form of “diverse sourcing” while making their actual skills and expertise a lower priority than their race/gender.
If that’s not the DEI the left supports, then they’re awfully quiet about ridiculing it.
Those “other parts of DEI” are parts that don’t actually exist.
Nobody’s out there hiring unqualified or underqualified people. When IBM hires engineers they’re not hiring women who are underqualified just to get to 50%, they’re just hiring very qualified women instead of very qualified men.
Like Biden in 2020 campaigning on the promise of hiring a black woman to SCOTUS
Do you think Ketanji Brown Jackson is unqualified? Or is it that you think that Biden couldn’t possibly have known that there were black women who were qualified to be on the supreme court?
Let’s not pretend that everybody who gets a seat on the Supreme Court is incredibly qualified. Justice Hugo Black (who was a white man, despite his name) was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1937 and served until 1971. His only experience as a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court was 1 year as a police court judge. Other than that he worked as a personal injury attorney for a few years, then as a country prosecutor for a short time before joining the army in WWI, and then he was elected to the US senate.
Biden undoubtedly knew that there were plenty of black women who were qualified to be Supreme Court justices, but who simply had never been given the chance because of racism and sexism. The woman he ended up choosing had clerked for 3 judges for 3 years (including 1 supreme court justice), had had a stellar career as a lawyer for 10 years, was vice chair of the US Sentencing Commission for 4 years, then a district court judge for 8 years, then another year on the US Court of Appeals before she joined the Supreme Court.
Like Google and other tech companies implementing policies to favor non-asian minorities and women.
The case you link to was someone suing Google claiming that it had such policies. Did he win that lawsuit?
Do you have any actual evidence that tech companies are actually choosing unqualified or underqualified non-white men? Or is it that they’re making sure to give a fair chance to people who aren’t white men?
When IBM hires engineers they’re not hiring women who are underqualified just to get to 50%, they’re just hiring very qualified women instead of very qualified men.
Only 20% of graduates in engineering are women. They’re picking from a smaller pool, yet I’m supposed to think they won’t be underqualified? That’s not reasonable.
Do you think Ketanji Brown Jackson is unqualified?
You seems to be viewing qualifications as a binary instead of a spectrum. When I look for an attorney, I’m not just looking for someone who passed the bar, even if they technically “qualify” as an attorney. I want to scrutinize their qualification much more than that.
She’s not a terrible judge, necessarily, but not great either. There have been worse selections in the past, but I don’t think that makes the decision acceptable to hire based on gender and race. Justice Thomas proves that merely sharing someone’s race does not represent that constituents of that race.
I don’t think Biden already knew qualified judges that were black women for SCOTUS, imo. It was just politics. Trump did the same when he picked a woman strictly because he was replacing another woman. I’ll admit that SCOTUS, along with a president’s cabinet, are often not chosen based on particular expertise or skill. I personally don’t like this 🤷. Though I gues this can work fine if they have a skilled team while they strictly lead.
Do you have any actual evidence that tech companies are actually choosing unqualified or underqualified non-white men?
Only anecdotal. They’re having similar problems as universities, where they have “too many” asians and want to take measure to pick other races. The problem is that they’re actually not admitting asians to universities and hiring asians in tech because of their race. So to even the ratio, they would have to pick people based on race.
I suspect tech companies really avoid hiring underqualified people, which is why they maintain high asian representation even while publicly acting like they’re working to be more diverse. The lawsuit could be related to that public “policy”. I work in tech and personally have seen positions made specifically to get quotas, usually in non-tech positions. My company has tons of women in non-tech positions like quality assurance, HR, marketing to even out the lack of women engineers and programmers. Or maybe they just know about the gender wage gap and they’re trying to save money lol.
Yeah, I wonder why that is. Could it be that getting hired and promoted is much harder so a lot of women don’t bother? I wonder how you could fix that…
They’re picking from a smaller pool
Yes, good thing they’re IBM and can can pick the highly qualified women from that smaller pool.
I’m supposed to think they won’t be underqualified?
You’re clearly a heavily biased individual, so who knows what you’re going to believe.
When I look for an attorney, I’m not just looking for someone who passed the bar
Let’s be real, when you’re looking for an attorney, the most important thing for you is how much they charge.
She’s not a terrible judge, necessarily, but not great either.
Oh really, care to provide any evidence of that? I assume you’re an extremely qualified lawyer? Maybe a professor of law?
Justice Thomas proves that merely sharing someone’s race does not represent that constituents of that race.
If you want to talk about someone who is incredibly unqualified, he’s your guy.
I don’t think Biden already knew qualified judges that were black women for SCOTUS
You don’t think a man who was a senator for 22 years and voted on the confirmation of 11 Supreme Court justices, and who served as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee for 8 years where he personally led the confirmation hearings of 7 of them was aware that there was a pool of qualified black women who would make good Supreme Court justices? Maybe you better think about that a little harder…
Trump did the same when he picked a woman strictly because he was replacing another woman.
If you want to argue that Trump had no idea what he was doing, I’m not going to dispute that.
Only anecdotal.
So no.
I suspect tech companies really avoid hiring underqualified people
Well there you go. There’s no problem, and no reason to get mad at DEI.
The lawsuit could be related to that public “policy”.
Ah yes, the lawsuit. What happened in that lawsuit?
I work in tech
No, no, no. You’re a professor of law, remember? You have strong opinions on the abilities of Ketanji Brown Jackson. You couldn’t just be some shlub who is watching Newsmax and parroting their opinion. C’mon professor, I’m not going to believe you’re just a guy who works in tech.
Yeah, I wonder why that is. Could it be that getting hired and promoted is much harder so a lot of women don’t bother? I wonder how you could fix that…
Around 58% of college students are women. Of black grad students, the vast majority of degrees go to women, 71.5% of masters and 65.9% of doctoral/medical. Tech companies are starved for female representation. And you think it’s somehow harder for women to make it?
I’m curious why you think men are under represented in college then. I’m sure it’s conveniently not because they think they’ll have a hard time succeeding and “don’t bother.”
I’m supposed to think they won’t be underqualified?
You’re clearly a heavily biased individual, so who knows what you’re going to believe.
In what way am I biased? Use statistical probability and logic to answer the question, that’s all I’m doing. If I narrow my pool to a smaller subset, then are my chances of getting the most qualified people diminishes. Right?
Yes, good thing they’re IBM and can can pick the highly qualified women from that smaller pool.
You certainly see the problem with this. They’re not the only ones doing it, and even if they were, they’re still passing up more qualified people, assuming parity in the rates of qualified people in the 20/80% distribution.
Let’s be real, when you’re looking for an attorney, the most important thing for you is how much they charge.
Wrong. Out of the three I’ve gotten, I look for their specialization to the task I want first. Notice how you completely evaded the question?
Justice Thomas proves that merely sharing someone’s race does not represent that constituents of that race.
If you want to talk about someone who is incredibly unqualified, he’s your guy.
Oh really, care to provide any evidence of that? I assume you’re an extremely qualified lawyer? Maybe a professor of law? (see how dumb these questions are?)
Only anecdotal.
So no.
Personal testimony is admissible evidence in court, so it’s not nothing. Just not useful evidence for this discussion.
Ah yes, the lawsuit. What happened in that lawsuit?
The lawsuit was stayed pending binding arbitration proceedings, meaning they settled privately out of court. I think the employment contract he had forced him into private arbitration.
It’s really cute how you cite a suit that never went anywhere, and then fail to acknowledge, either through ignorance, or in your case just sheer stupidity, the more likely reason for that particular strategy for hiring…
That suit was moved to private arbitration proceeding and settled out of court.
And I joked about hiring women to pay them more in my other comment. It’s a joke because that implies that tech companies, publicly disclosing their desperation to hire women, are actually losing hundreds of millions (collectively billions), just to avoid hiring women. I’ve never met anyone working on tech that hates women that much. It’s one of the most liberal fields out there. They bend over backwards to be diverse. It’s a struggle because asians are overwhelmingly dominating in terms of qualification.
If DEI is explicitly taking measures to not consider race/gender in hiring practices, then conservatives would largely support it.
So they’re not racist for opposing DEI, they just don’t understand what it really is, right?
This is the problem in politics when everyone is using the same terms with different meanings. Political discourse devolves into people speaking past each other with absolutely no point.
Just get to the point, stop fucking around and just say you hate women and non-white people, we know that’s what you’re trying to dance around, that’s Kirk’s whole thing, none of us are fooled by your attempt at high school debate rhetoric, just own your misogyny and racism, you know you want to.
Oh, it’s very fucking relevant, and obvious. Just say what’s in your heart already, stop being chained by us leftist libtard cucks and our societal expectations, live your truth, you untalented hate filled monster hack.
My personal feelings do not inform this argument. What I say is wrong or it isn’t, regardless of my feelings about people or topics. I routinely argue against pro-choice arguments, for example, not because I’m pro-life, but because so many pro-choice arguments are bad. I actually support unfettered abortion and even limited legalized infanticide similar to Peter Singer, but that’s quite irrelevant to arguments I make about abortion.
If you learned that your new surgeon was hired strictly because she’s a white woman, is it racism to be skeptical of her qualifications? Or are you thrilled to get that surgery just because it’s a woman doing it?
Average person cares about their ability to do the job. It’s not racist.
DEI means hiring a diverse pool of qualified employees.
But you know that. You’re just arguing in bad faith.
See why these “debates” are so pointless? It gives a thin veneer of intellectual rigor to bigotry and white nationalism. And the guy “just asking questions” will argue in bad faith or just outright lie. Like Charlie was when he was shot, trying to pretend that the majority of mass murderers aren’t straight cis white men.
He also lashed out at the gay community, denouncing what he called the “LGBTQ agenda,” expressing opposition to same-sex marriage and suggesting that the Bible verse Leviticus 20:13, which endorses the execution of homosexuals, serves as “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”
So, how would someone debate “kill homosexuals”? What’s the counter argument?
The counter argument would be a majority of Christian faiths believe in the new testament so anything in Leviticus is irrelevant. That might be where Charlie was trying to go with that clip with Rachel. That’s not a good clip to use if trying to prove Charlie Kirk held dangerous beliefs.
DEI means hiring a diverse pool of qualified employees. But you know that. You’re just arguing in bad faith.
No, I don’t know that, because it’s wrong, or misleading at best. “Qualified” is a spectrum, unless you’re talking about the low bar of simply having a medical degree/license.
If you’re looking for a lawyer to represent you, are you looking for “black woman” as a qualification, reassured by the fact that she is at least bar certified? That would be stupid. You’d want the person who you felt could best represent you. Which could end up being a black woman, but not necessarily.
Joe Biden literally said he was going to pick a black woman to sit in the SCOTUS before he had even made a shortlist of potential candidates. Jackson is a DEI hire. Sure, she is a “qualified” judge, most acting judges technically are, but it’s unlikely that she’s the most qualified. That’s the problem with DEI, people will assume that women or minorities may not be qualified, even when they are. Jackson could very well be the best for that position, but that would be quite the statistical coincidence considering Biden started his search with narrow racial/gender qualifications.
Like Charlie was when he was shot, trying to pretend that the majority of mass murderers aren’t straight cis white men.
He was discussing whether to exclude gang violence when discussing mass shootings, because those are overwhelmingly from gangs. So much so, that people typically exclude gang violence from stats. So if you’re including gang violence, white men would not commit the majority of “mass murder.” However, most people don’t care about gangsters killing each other, they care about innocent people killed/shot.
So, how would someone debate “kill homosexuals”? What’s the counter argument?
He never advocated for instituting laws to kill homosexuals. Neither did he support killing adulterers and people who worship false gods. So a counter argument is pointless unless he actively wanted to enforce Biblical law in the US.
Joe Biden literally said he was going to pick a black woman to sit in the SCOTUS before he had even made a shortlist of potential candidates.
Probably because he knew there were multiple highly qualified black women you stupid, racist fuck. And diversity is important, especially in our government institutions.
You’re a pathetic worm. Crawl back under whatever the fuck you crawled out from under.
A simple DEI policy would be, for example, to remove the name from a resume before passing it over to the hiring manager for initial selection. That reduces bias against ethnic groups, religions, or genders.
This should in no way reduce the qualifications of the candidates. Quite the opposite.
How is this a hard concept? You still have to be a pilot, you just can’t have a policy - tacit or explicit - of only hiring white men.
Couldn’t you have gone with the idea that it’s “taking jobs from white men?” Then I could point out that there isn’t a limited pool of specific unemployed people you have to pick from, and that even if you give a job to a white man it’s still taking a job from a different white man?
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024
Dude really had no redeeming qualities.
This is a reasonable fear in a world where pilots are hired based on their status of being a minority. Is it not? That was the whole point, DEI practices enforce the idea that minorities aren’t qualified.
For those who stumble across this and are confused, this isn’t how DEI works.
The reason DEI policies exist is that without them white male bosses were just blindly hiring white males and not considering anybody else because of their racism and sexism (sometimes conscious, sometimes unconscious). That meant pilots who weren’t as good, musicians who weren’t as good, bankers who weren’t as good, etc. Aside from this being a guaranteed jobs program for white makes, and a roadblock for everyone else, it also led to problems because when everybody came from the same background, they all had the same kinds of blind spots.
So, DEI policies came along to try to make sure that companies were actually hiring the best people, and not missing out because of entrenched racism and sexism. So, instead of having a concert violinist hand her resume to a committee and then perform for them on stage, the person performing on stage performs behind a screen and uses a number so their age, name, gender, and connections aren’t a factor, just the way they play.
So really, when you see yet another white male airline pilot who looks like he’s former air force, you should be saying to yourself “I sure hope this airline has a DEI policy, and they didn’t just hire yet another guy who was drinking buddies with one of their pilots when they were both in the air force together.”
That’s part of DEI, and conveniently not the parts that Kirk, or most conservatives, complain about.
The policies complained about are the one that effectively turn race/gender into qualifications. Like affirmative action. Like IBM working to get 50% female representation in their engineering hires. Like Biden in 2020 campaigning on the promise of hiring a black woman to SCOTUS (2 years before he even looked at candidates). Like Google and other tech companies implementing policies to favor non-asian minorities and women. It’s a form of “diverse sourcing” while making their actual skills and expertise a lower priority than their race/gender.
If that’s not the DEI the left supports, then they’re awfully quiet about ridiculing it.
deleted by creator
Those “other parts of DEI” are parts that don’t actually exist.
Nobody’s out there hiring unqualified or underqualified people. When IBM hires engineers they’re not hiring women who are underqualified just to get to 50%, they’re just hiring very qualified women instead of very qualified men.
Do you think Ketanji Brown Jackson is unqualified? Or is it that you think that Biden couldn’t possibly have known that there were black women who were qualified to be on the supreme court?
Let’s not pretend that everybody who gets a seat on the Supreme Court is incredibly qualified. Justice Hugo Black (who was a white man, despite his name) was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1937 and served until 1971. His only experience as a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court was 1 year as a police court judge. Other than that he worked as a personal injury attorney for a few years, then as a country prosecutor for a short time before joining the army in WWI, and then he was elected to the US senate.
Biden undoubtedly knew that there were plenty of black women who were qualified to be Supreme Court justices, but who simply had never been given the chance because of racism and sexism. The woman he ended up choosing had clerked for 3 judges for 3 years (including 1 supreme court justice), had had a stellar career as a lawyer for 10 years, was vice chair of the US Sentencing Commission for 4 years, then a district court judge for 8 years, then another year on the US Court of Appeals before she joined the Supreme Court.
The case you link to was someone suing Google claiming that it had such policies. Did he win that lawsuit?
Do you have any actual evidence that tech companies are actually choosing unqualified or underqualified non-white men? Or is it that they’re making sure to give a fair chance to people who aren’t white men?
Only 20% of graduates in engineering are women. They’re picking from a smaller pool, yet I’m supposed to think they won’t be underqualified? That’s not reasonable.
You seems to be viewing qualifications as a binary instead of a spectrum. When I look for an attorney, I’m not just looking for someone who passed the bar, even if they technically “qualify” as an attorney. I want to scrutinize their qualification much more than that.
She’s not a terrible judge, necessarily, but not great either. There have been worse selections in the past, but I don’t think that makes the decision acceptable to hire based on gender and race. Justice Thomas proves that merely sharing someone’s race does not represent that constituents of that race.
I don’t think Biden already knew qualified judges that were black women for SCOTUS, imo. It was just politics. Trump did the same when he picked a woman strictly because he was replacing another woman. I’ll admit that SCOTUS, along with a president’s cabinet, are often not chosen based on particular expertise or skill. I personally don’t like this 🤷. Though I gues this can work fine if they have a skilled team while they strictly lead.
Only anecdotal. They’re having similar problems as universities, where they have “too many” asians and want to take measure to pick other races. The problem is that they’re actually not admitting asians to universities and hiring asians in tech because of their race. So to even the ratio, they would have to pick people based on race.
I suspect tech companies really avoid hiring underqualified people, which is why they maintain high asian representation even while publicly acting like they’re working to be more diverse. The lawsuit could be related to that public “policy”. I work in tech and personally have seen positions made specifically to get quotas, usually in non-tech positions. My company has tons of women in non-tech positions like quality assurance, HR, marketing to even out the lack of women engineers and programmers. Or maybe they just know about the gender wage gap and they’re trying to save money lol.
Yeah, I wonder why that is. Could it be that getting hired and promoted is much harder so a lot of women don’t bother? I wonder how you could fix that…
Yes, good thing they’re IBM and can can pick the highly qualified women from that smaller pool.
You’re clearly a heavily biased individual, so who knows what you’re going to believe.
Let’s be real, when you’re looking for an attorney, the most important thing for you is how much they charge.
Oh really, care to provide any evidence of that? I assume you’re an extremely qualified lawyer? Maybe a professor of law?
If you want to talk about someone who is incredibly unqualified, he’s your guy.
You don’t think a man who was a senator for 22 years and voted on the confirmation of 11 Supreme Court justices, and who served as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee for 8 years where he personally led the confirmation hearings of 7 of them was aware that there was a pool of qualified black women who would make good Supreme Court justices? Maybe you better think about that a little harder…
If you want to argue that Trump had no idea what he was doing, I’m not going to dispute that.
So no.
Well there you go. There’s no problem, and no reason to get mad at DEI.
Ah yes, the lawsuit. What happened in that lawsuit?
No, no, no. You’re a professor of law, remember? You have strong opinions on the abilities of Ketanji Brown Jackson. You couldn’t just be some shlub who is watching Newsmax and parroting their opinion. C’mon professor, I’m not going to believe you’re just a guy who works in tech.
Around 58% of college students are women. Of black grad students, the vast majority of degrees go to women, 71.5% of masters and 65.9% of doctoral/medical. Tech companies are starved for female representation. And you think it’s somehow harder for women to make it?
I’m curious why you think men are under represented in college then. I’m sure it’s conveniently not because they think they’ll have a hard time succeeding and “don’t bother.”
In what way am I biased? Use statistical probability and logic to answer the question, that’s all I’m doing. If I narrow my pool to a smaller subset, then are my chances of getting the most qualified people diminishes. Right?
You certainly see the problem with this. They’re not the only ones doing it, and even if they were, they’re still passing up more qualified people, assuming parity in the rates of qualified people in the 20/80% distribution.
Wrong. Out of the three I’ve gotten, I look for their specialization to the task I want first. Notice how you completely evaded the question?
Oh really, care to provide any evidence of that? I assume you’re an extremely qualified lawyer? Maybe a professor of law? (see how dumb these questions are?)
Personal testimony is admissible evidence in court, so it’s not nothing. Just not useful evidence for this discussion.
The lawsuit was stayed pending binding arbitration proceedings, meaning they settled privately out of court. I think the employment contract he had forced him into private arbitration.
“hello? 911? I’d like to report a murder I just witnessed…”
It’s really cute how you cite a suit that never went anywhere, and then fail to acknowledge, either through ignorance, or in your case just sheer stupidity, the more likely reason for that particular strategy for hiring…
It’s because they want to pay them less. Because they still favor white people. And that was actually proven in court.
That suit was moved to private arbitration proceeding and settled out of court.
And I joked about hiring women to pay them more in my other comment. It’s a joke because that implies that tech companies, publicly disclosing their desperation to hire women, are actually losing hundreds of millions (collectively billions), just to avoid hiring women. I’ve never met anyone working on tech that hates women that much. It’s one of the most liberal fields out there. They bend over backwards to be diverse. It’s a struggle because asians are overwhelmingly dominating in terms of qualification.
Holy shit you’re beyond stupid.
Seek help.
This is the type of misinformation that Kirk spread. This is why it’s good that he’s dead.
That’s not what DEI is at all, literally the exact opposite.
If DEI is explicitly taking measures to not consider race/gender in hiring practices, then conservatives would largely support it.
So they’re not racist for opposing DEI, they just don’t understand what it really is, right?
This is the problem in politics when everyone is using the same terms with different meanings. Political discourse devolves into people speaking past each other with absolutely no point.
Just get to the point, stop fucking around and just say you hate women and non-white people, we know that’s what you’re trying to dance around, that’s Kirk’s whole thing, none of us are fooled by your attempt at high school debate rhetoric, just own your misogyny and racism, you know you want to.
Me liking women and non-white people isn’t even relevant. If you don’t want to discuss the issues, then don’t.
Oh, it’s very fucking relevant, and obvious. Just say what’s in your heart already, stop being chained by us leftist libtard cucks and our societal expectations, live your truth, you untalented hate filled monster hack.
My personal feelings do not inform this argument. What I say is wrong or it isn’t, regardless of my feelings about people or topics. I routinely argue against pro-choice arguments, for example, not because I’m pro-life, but because so many pro-choice arguments are bad. I actually support unfettered abortion and even limited legalized infanticide similar to Peter Singer, but that’s quite irrelevant to arguments I make about abortion.
I take back the untalented remark, that is a stunning example of dancing around addressing the issue, Baryshnikov levels of choreography. Bravo.
Just say it already, we know, we all know.
At least you admit being a racist. Good for you!
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023
If you learned that your new surgeon was hired strictly because she’s a white woman, is it racism to be skeptical of her qualifications? Or are you thrilled to get that surgery just because it’s a woman doing it?
Average person cares about their ability to do the job. It’s not racist.
DEI means hiring a diverse pool of qualified employees.
But you know that. You’re just arguing in bad faith.
See why these “debates” are so pointless? It gives a thin veneer of intellectual rigor to bigotry and white nationalism. And the guy “just asking questions” will argue in bad faith or just outright lie. Like Charlie was when he was shot, trying to pretend that the majority of mass murderers aren’t straight cis white men.
So, how would someone debate “kill homosexuals”? What’s the counter argument?
The counter argument would be a majority of Christian faiths believe in the new testament so anything in Leviticus is irrelevant. That might be where Charlie was trying to go with that clip with Rachel. That’s not a good clip to use if trying to prove Charlie Kirk held dangerous beliefs.
No, I don’t know that, because it’s wrong, or misleading at best. “Qualified” is a spectrum, unless you’re talking about the low bar of simply having a medical degree/license.
If you’re looking for a lawyer to represent you, are you looking for “black woman” as a qualification, reassured by the fact that she is at least bar certified? That would be stupid. You’d want the person who you felt could best represent you. Which could end up being a black woman, but not necessarily.
Joe Biden literally said he was going to pick a black woman to sit in the SCOTUS before he had even made a shortlist of potential candidates. Jackson is a DEI hire. Sure, she is a “qualified” judge, most acting judges technically are, but it’s unlikely that she’s the most qualified. That’s the problem with DEI, people will assume that women or minorities may not be qualified, even when they are. Jackson could very well be the best for that position, but that would be quite the statistical coincidence considering Biden started his search with narrow racial/gender qualifications.
He was discussing whether to exclude gang violence when discussing mass shootings, because those are overwhelmingly from gangs. So much so, that people typically exclude gang violence from stats. So if you’re including gang violence, white men would not commit the majority of “mass murder.” However, most people don’t care about gangsters killing each other, they care about innocent people killed/shot.
He never advocated for instituting laws to kill homosexuals. Neither did he support killing adulterers and people who worship false gods. So a counter argument is pointless unless he actively wanted to enforce Biblical law in the US.
Probably because he knew there were multiple highly qualified black women you stupid, racist fuck. And diversity is important, especially in our government institutions.
You’re a pathetic worm. Crawl back under whatever the fuck you crawled out from under.
Yes, 2 years before there was even a seat to fill, he knew that a black woman would be the best fit. Totally not racist.
Get bent, bigot.
If if if.
When in your life did you learn that someone doing something important for you was hired BECAUSE of the color of their skin?
Shut the fuck up you fucking loser.
When Jackson was chosen for SCOTUS.
A simple DEI policy would be, for example, to remove the name from a resume before passing it over to the hiring manager for initial selection. That reduces bias against ethnic groups, religions, or genders.
This should in no way reduce the qualifications of the candidates. Quite the opposite.
How is this a hard concept? You still have to be a pilot, you just can’t have a policy - tacit or explicit - of only hiring white men.
Couldn’t you have gone with the idea that it’s “taking jobs from white men?” Then I could point out that there isn’t a limited pool of specific unemployed people you have to pick from, and that even if you give a job to a white man it’s still taking a job from a different white man?
Lol. Found the dumbass loser.