No racism here. Nope, Not at all.

[Strike 5,185]

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-black-lives-matter-equal-opportunity-corporate-diversity/?srnd=premium&sref=JKvrt6NM

[The Real timschochet 6,407]

For once you hit it right. There is no racism here. Diversity hiring isn’t racist. 

[seafoam1 2,799]

57 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

For once you hit it right. There is no racism here. Diversity hiring isn’t racist. 

It's racist. Hiring people based on skin color is racist. And somehow you missed.his point. Curious.

[BuckSwope 654]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

For once you hit it right. There is no racism here. Diversity hiring isn’t racist. 

There are good and bad ways to do this though.    A company choosing to do this is one thing, a company made to do it for a quota or number is another.    Even the article said at the bottom they couldn't fully parse out the reasons, they could just use the net numbers.   

That said, don't you think that 94% is a bit of a shocking number?  I wouldn't have expected it to be that high, and I found that and the article interesting.  

[GutterBoy 2,898]

That's a really high number, I'm surprised.

I wonder if we'll see an uptick in lawsuits by white people claiming discrimination.

[kilroy69 1,216]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

For once you hit it right. There is no racism here. Diversity hiring isn’t racist. 

This is a joke. Coming from a recruiter who has had to deal with DEI for the last 5 or so years I can 100 percent without question tell you that DEI is racism under the guise of equality. If you think any different you are either lying to yourself or you just do not know what you are talking about. From the company that wanted to hire "a bunch of black people" and would not accept any other candidates to the hiring manager that told me to "find someone... just not someone who...looks like....you"  DEI has been a way to weed out straight white males and put POC, Females or LGBTQ in their place.  Again. This is not something I read about as a keyboard warrior in my moms basement. This is literally real life. 

[Mike Hunt 261]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

For once you hit it right. There is no racism here. Diversity hiring isn’t racist. 

I thought anything based on skin color is racist?

Truth of the matter is.  We did hire so called POC, but very few were black.  Educated men and women from India were by far the most, then Hispanics, then down the list blacks.

The people from India do not want to be lumped in and labeled as a minority group though.  They want assimilation like sugar into coffee as one man stated. 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

5 minutes ago, kilroy69 said:

This is a joke. Coming from a recruiter who has had to deal with DEI for the last 5 or so years I can 100 percent without question tell you that DEI is racism under the guise of equality. If you think any different you are either lying to yourself or you just do not know what you are talking about. 

I guess it depends on your definition of racism.

Its not racist based on most definitions but I can see why white people who cry racism after feeling disadvantaged based on their skin color.

[kilroy69 1,216]

7 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

I guess it depends on your definition of racism.

Its not racist based on most definitions but I can see why white people who cry racism after feeling disadvantaged based on their skin color.

When someone looks at you and says " find me someone who does not look like you(white)" that is 100 percent racism. 

 

Lets try it out this way. "find me someone,  as long as they are not a person of color" would be an acceptable thing to do in your opinion? Or would THAT be racism ?

 

I can give you so many more examples of white men people being passed over because of the color of their skin or gender.  Something that would get a company canceled and sued by the eeoc had it been a POC or one of the alphabet group or a woman.  

 

For you to dismiss it as anything less than racism  is utter  bullshitt. 

 

 

ETA: The ABSOLUTE most nuttiest thing about all of this. The BIGGEST winners in the game of DEI are actually NOT POC. It is white women. Go on linkedin. Type in chief diversity officer, or DEI and be amazed at how many white women hold these jobs that were specially created for DEI. That is not even counting how many white women got their jobs specifically because they counted towards the DEI goal. DEI allows companies to filter based by race and gender without being sued for what it is. Discrimination based on race or gender.  It is a cooperate cover and when the lawsuits hit the SCOTUS and it the ruling comes down on the side of opponents to this the cooperate world is going to shitt a brick.  They are going to have to find a place for all of these DEI people whose only skill IS DEI. 

 

[Fireballer 2,639]

19 minutes ago, Mike Hunt said:

I thought anything based on skin color is racist?

Truth of the matter is.  We did hire so called POC, but very few were black.  Educated men and women from India were by far the most, then Hispanics, then down the list blacks.

The people from India do not want to be lumped in and labeled as a minority group though.  They want assimilation like sugar into coffee as one man stated. 

Dont waste your time with Tim.  He’s on record stating that black on white racism doesn’t count.  He’s sticking by it

[RLLD 4,143]

Racism is everywhere, and not limited to a location or segment of society.  The redefinition of racism uses terms like "systemic" and "power".  So you can be a degenerate racist if your ancestors were harmed by some other group......thats perfectly fine.....people just cant return that to you because somewhere before any of us were born, people were bih meanies to someone else....

If you want to go looking for systemic racism you have to ignore some racism.....because its allowable for some....based on skin color..... yeah....I know....

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

If it's any consolation, corporate jobs are soul-sucking depression inducing circles of hell.

[listen2me 23 1,825]

3 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

For once you hit it right. There is no racism here. Diversity hiring isn’t racist. 

Its simple.  If you hire someone because they are white that is racist.  If you hire somone because they have a darker skin color then that is good.  

Logic 101

[kilroy69 1,216]

1 minute ago, listen2me 23 said:

Its simple.  If you hire someone because they are white that is racist.  If you hire somone because they have a darker skin color then that is good.  

Logic 101

THIS is DEI in a nutshell. 

[listen2me 23 1,825]

Just now, kilroy69 said:

THIS is DEI in a nutshell. 

And anyone trying to say this isn't a form of racism is absolutely batshlt crazy.  So gone they can't come back.  

[avoiding injuries 1,506]

14% got 94% of the jobs? It would be interesting if they tracked how this works out. 

[RLLD 4,143]

3 minutes ago, listen2me 23 said:

Its simple.  If you hire someone because they are white that is racist.  If you hire somone because they have a darker skin color then that is good.  

Logic 101

More or less....and if stats show a huge disparity, first evaluate skin color to determine if racism is present.....you cannot make this sh!t up....

[BuckSwope 654]

7 minutes ago, avoiding injuries said:

14% got 94% of the jobs? It would be interesting if they tracked how this works out. 

They don't, and the article said as much.  It could be a white dude retired and got replaced by poc, it could be a new position, it could be a quota, etc.  It's also more than 14%- They aren't just tracking black employees. 

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

This will end in a massive class action lawsuit against at least the S&P 500. The Supreme Court voted 6-3 that race-based admissions, like the ones used by Harvard and the University of North Carolina, violated the equal protection clause, essentially ruling that affirmative action is unconstitutional. I’m not a lawyer but don’t see how that doesn’t also apply here. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,925]

42 minutes ago, Mike Hunt said:

I thought anything based on skin color is racist?

Truth of the matter is.  We did hire so called POC, but very few were black.  Educated men and women from India were by far the most, then Hispanics, then down the list blacks.

The people from India do not want to be lumped in and labeled as a minority group though.  They want assimilation like sugar into coffee as one man stated. 

Yup. The new “people of color” ruse.  Blacks still largely left out. But I was told immigrants are only here to take jobs no one wants. 

[RLLD 4,143]

2 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

They don't, and the article said as much.  It could be a white dude retired and got replaced by poc, it could be a new position, it could be a quota, etc.  It's also more than 14%- They aren't just tracking black employees. 

Interesting.  You assume there are many permutations that can lead to disparity of outcomes, and racism is not necessarily the primary one....I think you and I can find common ground here.

[5-Points 3,387]

35 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

I guess it depends on your definition of racism.

Its not racist based on most definitions but I can see why white people who cry racism after feeling disadvantaged based on their skin color.

How many definitions of racist do you need? 

Preferential or discriminatory treatment, based on skin color, is racist. If you need any other definition than that, you're trying to disguise your own racism. 

[Fireballer 2,639]

25 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

I guess it depends on your definition of racism.

Its not racist based on most definitions but I can see why white people who cry racism after feeling disadvantaged based on their skin color.

“Your” definition.  Modern libtard logic at its finest.

[RLLD 4,143]

1 minute ago, Fireballer said:

“Your” definition.  Modern libtard logic at its finest.

So if some NeoNazi sh!tbag rolls in with their own definition, and then manages to get a bunch of retarded sheep to agree, since so many agree....then we can embrace THAT version of racism?

No thank you, rather than allow it because it makes us feel good, we should continue to disallow it....

[BuckSwope 654]

49 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Interesting.  You assume there are many permutations that can lead to disparity of outcomes, and racism is not necessarily the primary one....I think you and I can find common ground here.

Of course.   There was discussion in the other thread about people like Kendi and their worldview of looking at an outcome and crying racism.   Yet, we start off this thread by doing the same - jumping to claims of racism because of an outcome.    

Situations like kilroy has encountered are not uncommon, and seems to be more so in the corporate world as the article was following.   Those types of policies if they are doing it to check off a box are 100% wrong.   But, other things can also lead to similar rises in those numbers we discussed as well, as I pointed out.   As I said, 94% was shocking to me, and I didn't expect that high of a number.   

I'm not saying it's the same thing as what they were looking at, but our store would probably look very similar.  About 5 years ago there were about 2 Latinos and 1 black person working here.  Now, most of our morning staff is Latino, we have a black manager and about 4 others working here.   At no time was it a conscious decision to hire these people to bump up those numbers.  We have never been contacted from corporate for any initiative to do so.   It was more to do with who was applying, people started recommending family and friends to then got hired, etc..  Completely natural reasons for the numbers to be a lot bigger here, that have nothing to do with racism.

[HellToupee 1,583]

Out of the 6%ers I wonder how many were straight white males

[RLLD 4,143]

3 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Out of the 6%ers I wonder how many were straight white males

I infer they now have no job, and are thus easy prey for extremists seeking to bolster their ranks.....

[nobody 2,558]

26 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Of course.   There was discussion in the other thread about people like Kendi and their worldview of looking at an outcome and crying racism.   Yet, we start off this thread by doing the same - jumping to claims of racism because of an outcome.    

Situations like kilroy has encountered are not uncommon, and seems to be more so in the corporate world as the article was following.   Those types of policies if they are doing it to check off a box are 100% wrong.   But, other things can also lead to similar rises in those numbers we discussed as well, as I pointed out.   As I said, 94% was shocking to me, and I didn't expect that high of a number.   

I'm not saying it's the same thing as what they were looking at, but our store would probably look very similar.  About 5 years ago there were about 2 Latinos and 1 black person working here.  Now, most of our morning staff is Latino, we have a black manager and about 4 others working here.   At no time was it a conscious decision to hire these people to bump up those numbers.  We have never been contacted from corporate for any initiative to do so.   It was more to do with who was applying, people started recommending family and friends to then got hired, etc..  Completely natural reasons for the numbers to be a lot bigger here, that have nothing to do with racism.

You might not even realize it if you're part of a corporate entity.  I have a very close friend of the family that was head of HR for a very large hotel chain, and her direction was to "hire anyone but white males," so her team weeded out all of those applicants before forwarding to hiring managers.

I know you won't believe that, but I can only tell you what she told me.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,925]

7 minutes ago, nobody said:

You might not even realize it if you're part of a corporate entity.  I have a very close friend of the family that was head of HR for a very large hotel chain, and her direction was to "hire anyone but white males," so her team weeded out all of those applicants before forwarding to hiring managers.

I know you won't believe that, but I can only tell you what she told me.

What about lgbtq white males? 

[BuckSwope 654]

9 minutes ago, nobody said:

You might not even realize it if you're part of a corporate entity.  I have a very close friend of the family that was head of HR for a very large hotel chain, and her direction was to "hire anyone but white males," so her team weeded out all of those applicants before forwarding to hiring managers.

I know you won't believe that, but I can only tell you what she told me.

Why wouldn't I believe you? I acknowledged that was happening in my 2nd paragraph.  

[The Real timschochet 6,407]

It’s not racist to hire more black people even if it means that white people are discriminated against. Context is everything. We do not live in a color blind society; we never have, even if that is the ultimate goal. We live rather in a society in which black people have suffered over 400 years of slavery, Jim Crow, and unequal treatment under the law. Even now white privilege is a very real thing and the systemic racism against blacks by our police and justice system continues. 
 

Under this context it’s almost impossible for a white person to be subject to racism. If you’re one of the tiny handful of white people who has ever lost out on a job due to diversity hiring practices (and it really is a minuscule number of actual people by percentage) chalk it up to being privileged with whiteness in every other aspect of your life: you don’t have to fear being stopped by police for no justifiable reason, or being watched with suspicion every time you shop, or having to suffer thousands of other indignities on a daily basis. Call it unfair if you want based on your personal situation, and move on to all of your other advantages in this society. But don’t you dare call it racism. 

[Voltaire 5,182]

4 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

It’s not racist to hire more black people even if it means that white people are discriminated against. Context is everything. We do not live in a color blind society; we never have, even if that is the ultimate goal. We live rather in a society in which black people have suffered over 400 years of slavery, Jim Crow, and unequal treatment under the law. Even now white privilege is a very real thing and the systemic racism against blacks by our police and justice system continues. 
 

Under this context it’s almost impossible for a white person to be subject to racism. If you’re one of the tiny handful of white people who has ever lost out on a job due to diversity hiring practices (and it really is a minuscule number of actual people by percentage) chalk it up to being privileged with whiteness in every other aspect of your life: you don’t have to fear being stopped by police for no justifiable reason, or being watched with suspicion every time you shop, or having to suffer thousands of other indignities on a daily basis. Call it unfair if you want based on your personal situation, and move on to all of your other advantages in this society. But don’t you dare call it racism. 

There is simply no way to get through to you. You're too deep in the lie. You see massive racism around you directed exclusively at white people and still push this canard. 

The true north is colorblindness and you're the one that doesn't want it.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,832]

3 hours ago, BuckSwope said:

There are good and bad ways to do this though.    A company choosing to do this is one thing, a company made to do it for a quota or number is another.    Even the article said at the bottom they couldn't fully parse out the reasons, they could just use the net numbers.   

That said, don't you think that 94% is a bit of a shocking number?  I wouldn't have expected it to be that high, and I found that and the article interesting.  

I was shocked too and I agree with you for the most part.  Black people only represent 13% of the population total - that's all black people including kids - but they got 94% of the corporate jobs?  Yeah, that's flat out racist and it's not even debatable.

If the races were reversed and 94% of the jobs went to white people you better believe Tim would be in here declaring SYSTEMATIC RACISM™!! OMG!!!  Unbelievable.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,832]

2 hours ago, avoiding injuries said:

14% got 94% of the jobs? It would be interesting if they tracked how this works out. 

Well, to be clear, MATH isn't something liberals are noted for.  Heck, they think if a man simply says he's a woman it's scientific fact.

So that's what we're dealing with here.  "Feelings" > Science, Logic, Truth, Facts and now Math.

[GutterBoy 2,898]

2 hours ago, kilroy69 said:

When someone looks at you and says " find me someone who does not look like you(white)" that is 100 percent racism. 

 

No it's not, there are factors.  First, in order for it to be racist by most definitions, then then your race would have to be a minority or disadvantaged status.  I'm assuming you're white, so we'll take that off the table.  Next, what is the reasoning.  Do they want someone who is non white, because whites are inferior to other races, then yes that would be racist.  Or do they want non whites because they are currently mostly white, and they are looking for some different traits, experiences and knowledge that other races might be able to provide?  Not racist.

There is context.

[GutterBoy 2,898]

2 hours ago, avoiding injuries said:

14% got 94% of the jobs? It would be interesting if they tracked how this works out. 

25%, but yes.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,832]

3 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

No it's not, there are factors.  First, in order for it to be racist by most definitions, then then your race would have to be a minority or disadvantaged status.  I'm assuming you're white, so we'll take that off the table.  Next, what is the reasoning.  Do they want someone who is non white, because whites are inferior to other races, then yes that would be racist.  Or do they want non whites because they are currently mostly white, and they are looking for some different traits, experiences and knowledge that other races might be able to provide?  Not racist.

There is context.

  

Yeah, okay, minorities can't be racist.

What else did your plantation masters tell you to say today?

You're a f'n idiot.  GTFO.

[BuckSwope 654]

5 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I was shocked too and I agree with you for the most part.  Black people only represent 13% of the population total - that's all black people including kids - but they got 94% of the corporate jobs?  Yeah, that's flat out racist and it's not even debatable.

If the races were reversed and 94% of the jobs went to white people you better believe Tim would be in here declaring SYSTEMATIC RACISM™!! OMG!!!  Unbelievable.

Again, read the article closer.  It's not just black people, so your math and stats aren't accurate.   It's POC, and Asians were hired on about the same % as blacks despite 1/2 the representation in the population, and hispanics were hired the most.   So if you combine those populations, you get little different number - 14% of the population black, 7% asian, and 20% hipanic.  So more accurately, about 40% of the population got 94% of those hires.   ALSO, those populations are growing, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was more applications from college grads representing these populations.   Still skewed, and we agree that it's wrong to hire based on a box or skin, but let's also talk honestly about the numbers.  

[GutterBoy 2,898]

2 hours ago, Dizkneelande said:

This will end in a massive class action lawsuit against at least the S&P 500. The Supreme Court voted 6-3 that race-based admissions, like the ones used by Harvard and the University of North Carolina, violated the equal protection clause, essentially ruling that affirmative action is unconstitutional. I’m not a lawyer but don’t see how that doesn’t also apply here. 

You want to sue the index?

[RogerDodger 797]

10 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

No it's not, there are factors.  First, in order for it to be racist by most definitions, then then your race would have to be a minority or disadvantaged status.  I'm assuming you're white, so we'll take that off the table.  Next, what is the reasoning.  Do they want someone who is non white, because whites are inferior to other races, then yes that would be racist.  Or do they want non whites because they are currently mostly white, and they are looking for some different traits, experiences and knowledge that other races might be able to provide?  Not racist.

There is context.

Deep insights to Tiny Brain.