Liberalism Explained

[Raven Fan 362]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Can you link to the posts you reference? I rolled up but I did not notice them. I would welcome the opportunity to learn something new.

I am disinclined to equivocate, as the university presidents did, when a simple topic arises.  So before reading posts, I will say that even though hateful rhetoric is something to disdain, I support the rights of people to do it.....so as with these vile Palestidiot supporters....I think they should be able to march and support their agenda, and where it crosses the line they can then be held accountable.  Pretty simple really. 

So if you mean to suggest that calling non-whites in positions of power DEI hires is hateful....no, it is not.   In fact, when it arises that someone tells us this is exactly what they did, I think we should be in lock step to oppose it.   It has been wrong to do this all along, pretending its now good is just not something I can get behind.

6 posts up boyo.  Your fellow conservatives just love to hate on non-whites in positions they think they "don't deserve."

The very epitome of hate. 

[Raven Fan 362]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Thanks for being an idiot, it will help in my discussion with @Fnord.

Hey Fnord, check this out.  This is an example of where "woke" jumped the shark from "respect and acceptance".  I had a discussion recently with Raven Fan where I argued that thinking Claudine Gay was DEI does NOT mean you think that all minority hires are DEI.  Above he quoted where I provided examples.  But in the woke world, there can be no nuance.  Slingblade here will brook no defiance to the orthodoxy -- I am now a MAGA racist.  Wheeee!!!!!

Anyway, I do appreciate your post in that other thread, and I'll get back over there for a longer response as time allows.  I just wanted to point this out.   

I was arguing she was not a DEI hire, you argued she was.  And how about those other couple of posts that I quoted.  LOTS more where that came from.

Face it, your fellow conservatives distrust (at best) non-whites in positions of power.  Just like you do with Claudine.

It's SAD.

[RLLD 4,181]

1 minute ago, Raven Fan said:

6 posts up boyo.  Your fellow conservatives just love to hate on non-whites in positions they think they "don't deserve."

The very epitome of hate. 

Thank you for pointing that out, I missed them.  Also, just a note that condescension lowers the quality of your position, it does not enhance it.

Now, back to your position.  If they choose to view those hires as being based on DEI instead of merit, then I might encourage you to offer a counter point that might refute that position.

It is not hate.  People who disagree with you do not hate you, it is an odd position to hold to think that is true.

[squistion 2,074]

Just now, RLLD said:

Thank you for pointing that out, I missed them.  Also, just a note that condescension lowers the quality of your position, it does not enhance it.

Now, back to your position.  If they choose to view those hires as being based on DEI instead of merit, then I might encourage you to offer a counter point that might refute that position.

It is not hate.  People who disagree with you do not hate you, it is an odd position to hold to think that is true.

Seems that way around here with all the vicious and nasty name calling that is used.

[Raven Fan 362]

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Thank you for pointing that out, I missed them.  Also, just a note that condescension lowers the quality of your position, it does not enhance it.

Now, back to your position.  If they choose to view those hires as being based on DEI instead of merit, then I might encourage you to offer a counter point that might refute that position.

It is not hate.  People who disagree with you do not hate you, it is an odd position to hold to think that is true.

So I have to refute why a non-white person is a DEI hire?  Do I have to then support why a white hire is justified?

You're talking yourself in circles boyo trying to justify the hate spread on this very board by your fellow conservatives.  You'll find no such instances of such blatant hate from the liberals.  If you can, link away boyo. 

[TheNewGirl 1,438]

10 minutes ago, Raven Fan said:

So I have to refute why a non-white person is a DEI hire?  Do I have to then support why a white hire is justified?

You're talking yourself in circles boyo trying to justify the hate spread on this very board by your fellow conservatives.  You'll find no such instances of such blatant hate from the liberals.  If you can, link away boyo. 

Ha. That's funny. 

[Raven Fan 362]

Just now, TheNewGirl said:

Ha. That's funny. 

Link away girlio.  

I did.

[jerryskids 6,683]

21 minutes ago, Raven Fan said:

I was arguing she was not a DEI hire, you argued she was.  And how about those other couple of posts that I quoted.  LOTS more where that came from.

Face it, your fellow conservatives distrust (at best) non-whites in positions of power.  Just like you do with Claudine.

It's SAD.

I still argue that she was a DEI hire, I still argue that that does not mean that I think all minority hires are DEI hires, and your posts here prove that you still don't see the distinction.  Boyo.

Agreed it's SAD, just not for the reason you think it is.

[RLLD 4,181]

16 minutes ago, squistion said:

Seems that way around here with all the vicious and nasty name calling that is used.

I concede this point, I notice as well.....

[Raven Fan 362]

Just now, jerryskids said:

I still argue that she was a DEI hire, I still argue that that does not mean that I think all minority hires are DEI hires, and your posts here prove that you still don't see the distinction.  Boyo.

Agreed it's SAD, just not for the reason you think it is.

Have you looked at her work record post graduation?   She is in no way a DEI hire.

What do you think the president of harvard needs to have done to be qualified?  They had a candidate list of 600 boyo.  I guarantee I can pull the credentials from the other white ivy presidents and they will be equal or worse and you won't call them unqualified. 

Get your head straight boyo. 

[TheNewGirl 1,438]

What's with all the "boyo"? 

[jerryskids 6,683]

Just now, Raven Fan said:

Have you looked at her work record post graduation?   She is in no way a DEI hire.

What do you think the president of harvard needs to have done to be qualified?  They had a candidate list of 600 boyo.  I guarantee I can pull the credentials from the other white ivy presidents and they will be equal or worse and you won't call them unqualified. 

Get your head straight boyo. 

I'm done with you unless you can recognize the distinction that you've, to this point, seemed incapable of recognizing.  Since that is the point of this discussion.

[RLLD 4,181]

16 minutes ago, Raven Fan said:

So I have to refute why a non-white person is a DEI hire?  Do I have to then support why a white hire is justified?

You're talking yourself in circles boyo trying to justify the hate spread on this very board by your fellow conservatives.  You'll find no such instances of such blatant hate from the liberals.  If you can, link away boyo. 

Not talking in circles.  It is simple.  If we are to believe that white people enjoy "privilege" by grace of their appearance, then we can do the same for all segments of society.  If you find the notion that applying the label of "DEI hire" is hatred then you have to hold that same position when the notion of "white privilege" is raised. 

I have an alternative way though.

What if we instead are honest with ourselves.  What if we acknowledge that it can be true that people can be hired under the auspices of DEI and a similar argument could be made for some hiring of other segments of society.

There was a time when we recognized that treating people differently based on their skin color was not how we should live.  But here we are, embracing that vile mentality....but some of us hide being the faux veil of morality to defend it.

So no....it is not wrong to point out when someone, anyone....irrespective of who or what they look like....are hired due to anything other than merit.  We should all challenge this together.

[Raven Fan 362]

Just now, jerryskids said:

I'm done with you unless you can recognize the distinction that you've, to this point, seemed incapable of recognizing.  Since that is the point of this discussion.

Run away since you've been outwitted.  I focused our entire exchange on why you think Gay is a DEI hire.  That's the only thing I've addressed.

You're wrong.  You won't admit it.  You're a coward. 

[Raven Fan 362]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Not talking in circles.  It is simple.  If we are to believe that white people enjoy "privilege" by grace of their appearance, then we can do the same for all segments of society.  If you find the notion that applying the label of "DEI hire" is hatred then you have to hold that same position when the notion of "white privilege" is raised. 

I have an alternative way though.

What if we instead are honest with ourselves.  What if we acknowledge that it can be true that people can be hired under the auspices of DEI and a similar argument could be made for some hiring of other segments of society.

There was a time when we recognized that treating people differently based on their skin color was not how we should live.  But here we are, embracing that vile mentality....but some of us hide being the faux veil of morality to defend it.

So no....it is not wrong to point out when someone, anyone....irrespective of who or what they look like....are hired due to anything other than merit.  We should all challenge this together.

Nope.  Disagree.  Making the assumption that minorities are nothing but DEI hires until proven otherwise is the epitome of racism and hate.

You disagree fine.  You're wrong. 

[jerryskids 6,683]

4 minutes ago, Raven Fan said:

Run away since you've been outwitted.  I focused our entire exchange on why you think Gay is a DEI hire.  That's the only thing I've addressed.

You're wrong.  You won't admit it.  You're a coward. 

I literally responded to your saying this about me:

Quote

Took two seconds to show just how repulsive and racist most MAGAtards are.

I could do the same thing with hating on jews.

Embrace those you share the same political thoughts with boyos!

You don't even remember what you typed 30 minutes ago.  Serious question, are you special needs?  I don't want to be mean if you are.  Anyway, carry on.

[RLLD 4,181]

5 minutes ago, Raven Fan said:

Nope.  Disagree.  Making the assumption that minorities are nothing but DEI hires until proven otherwise is the epitome of racism and hate.

You disagree fine.  You're wrong. 

If it is wrong to do this to minorities and DEI and hiring....then it is also wrong to suggest that white people are privileged.... if you are to remain philosophically honest.

Alternatively, you can allow it to happen.....to both.... and we can agree to oppose actions that grant preference based on skin color.

[The Real timschochet 6,546]

40 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Thanks for being an idiot, it will help in my discussion with @Fnord.

Hey Fnord, check this out.  This is an example of where "woke" jumped the shark from "respect and acceptance".  I had a discussion recently with Raven Fan where I argued that thinking Claudine Gay was DEI does NOT mean you think that all minority hires are DEI.  Above he quoted where I provided examples.  But in the woke world, there can be no nuance.  Slingblade here will brook no defiance to the orthodoxy -- I am now a MAGA racist.  Wheeee!!!!!

Anyway, I do appreciate your post in that other thread, and I'll get back over there for a longer response as time allows.  I just wanted to point this out.   

I don’t think you’re a racist. But I think your comments about Gay were problematic. If Gay were white and incompetent, would your thoughts have gone right to DEI? I’m guessing no, you just would have thought she was incompetent. Her skin color would not have played any factor into your thinking whatsoever. Is that fair? 

[jerryskids 6,683]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t think you’re a racist. But I think your comments about Gay were problematic. If Gay were white and incompetent, would your thoughts have gone right to DEI? I’m guessing no, you just would have thought she was incompetent. Her skin color would not have played any factor into your thinking whatsoever. Is that fair? 

Why would I think DEI about a white person?

[Raven Fan 362]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

If it is wrong to do this to minorities and DEI and hiring....then it is also wrong to suggest that white people are privileged.... if you are to remain philosophically honest.

Alternatively, you can allow it to happen.....to both.... and we can agree to oppose actions that grant preference based on skin color.

Stop bringing up doing it white people.  No one is doing that.  I gave concrete examples of racist on this board assuming that minorities were DEI hires.  You agreed that it's ok to assume that and we need to prove them wrong.  Full stop.  You're wrong.

No one should do that to white people or any other color.   If folks prove themselves unqualified, fine.  But to say "it's ok for the minority hire to have to be proven qualified is racist and awful.

I will never agree with your racism and hate friend. 

[The Real timschochet 6,546]

Just now, jerryskids said:

Why would I think DEI about a white person?

But that’s kind of my point, isn’t it? You wouldn’t. You would automatically assume she was qualified for her position, up until the day she proved she wasn’t. Here however your mind goes immediately to DEI and you question her true qualification. Don’t you see that as a problem? 
 

And BTW I get that this is a double edged sword. One of the problems with DEI, and affirmative action before it, is that it’s going to cause these sort of assumptions about minority hires all the time, and therefore actually might increase the very sort of racial bias it’s designed to eliminate. That’s the conservative argument, long made by Thomas Sowell and others, and it’s a good one. I’m not fully convinced of it but it’s a reasonable position to hold. 

[Horseman 2,438]

20 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

What's with all the "boyo"? 

Apparently its how intellectuals converse.  

[TBayXXXVII 2,510]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

But that’s kind of my point, isn’t it? You wouldn’t. You would automatically assume she was qualified for her position, up until the day she proved she wasn’t. Here however your mind goes immediately to DEI and you question her true qualification. Don’t you see that as a problem? 
 

And BTW I get that this is a double edged sword. One of the problems with DEI, and affirmative action before it, is that it’s going to cause these sort of assumptions about minority hires all the time, and therefore actually might increase the very sort of racial bias it’s designed to eliminate. That’s the conservative argument, long made by Thomas Sowell and others, and it’s a good one. I’m not fully convinced of it but it’s a reasonable position to hold. 

I'd have thought that about EVERYONE up until the big DEI movement.  Now, my assumption is that anyone not white IS a DEI hire.

[jerryskids 6,683]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

But that’s kind of my point, isn’t it? You wouldn’t. You would automatically assume she was qualified for her position, up until the day she proved she wasn’t. Here however your mind goes immediately to DEI and you question her true qualification. Don’t you see that as a problem? 
 

And BTW I get that this is a double edged sword. One of the problems with DEI, and affirmative action before it, is that it’s going to cause these sort of assumptions about minority hires all the time, and therefore actually might increase the very sort of racial bias it’s designed to eliminate. That’s the conservative argument, long made by Thomas Sowell and others, and it’s a good one. I’m not fully convinced of it but it’s a reasonable position to hold. 

My mind didn't "immediately" go to DEI hire.  It went there after it was clear that she had a lacking academic resume for such a lofty position (11 papers, no books), and that the papers were rife with authenticity issues that nobody vetted, or if they did, kept quiet about.  Here is a good read on it:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/governance/executive-leadership/2024/01/08/did-gay-fail-harvard-or-did-harvard-fail-gay

Also, the "double edged" sword is... triple edged?  Because there will be cases of poor DEI hires, and folks like Raven and you will argue I'm racist and/or assuming things instead of seriously considering the possibility.

[The Real timschochet 6,546]

12 minutes ago, RLLD said:

then it is also wrong to suggest that white people are privileged.... 

I think people like yourself misunderstand what is meant by this. When I say “white privilege” I mean that white people have all sorts of privileges in our society that many minorities don’t. But I am NOT saying that any of these privileges are undeserved. I don’t want to take away any white privileges; I just want everyone else to have them too. 

[RLLD 4,181]

8 minutes ago, Raven Fan said:

Stop bringing up doing it white people.  No one is doing that.  I gave concrete examples of racist on this board assuming that minorities were DEI hires.  You agreed that it's ok to assume that and we need to prove them wrong.  Full stop.  You're wrong.

No one should do that to white people or any other color.   If folks prove themselves unqualified, fine.  But to say "it's ok for the minority hire to have to be proven qualified is racist and awful.

I will never agree with your racism and hate friend. 

My reasoning is that when we extend your position out, it tends to work poorly.   So I submit that treating people differently based on skin color is wrong.  Its divisive. Its not a solution. 

Calling out things that are wrong is not racism.  I know that tends to be a common tactic, but I do not accept it.  I maintain that we can call out things that are wrong, regardless of the immutable characteristics of those involved. 

[The Real timschochet 6,546]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

My mind didn't "immediately" go to DEI hire.  It went there after it was clear that she had a lacking academic resume for such a lofty position (11 papers, no books), and that the papers were rife with authenticity issues that nobody vetted, or if they did, kept quiet about.  Here is a good read on it:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/governance/executive-leadership/2024/01/08/did-gay-fail-harvard-or-did-harvard-fail-gay

Also, the "double edged" sword is... triple edged?  Because there will be cases of poor DEI hires, and folks like Raven and you will argue I'm racist and/or assuming things instead of seriously considering the possibility.

Again I didn’t argue that you are racist and I have no reason to think you are. 

[RLLD 4,181]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I think people like yourself misunderstand what is meant by this. When I say “white privilege” I mean that white people have all sorts of privileges in our society that many minorities don’t. But I am NOT saying that any of these privileges are undeserved. I don’t want to take away any white privileges; I just want everyone else to have them too. 

How you use it vs the wider usage may vary.

There are priviledged people of course.  We talk about them every day.  But the assumption that white people are in a better place because of priviledge is no different than claiming AA's are because of DEI.

In truth if your parents are not sh!tty dirtbags, you have a fair chance in this society.....more so than in most others, and certainly more than anything in history.

Sadly, there will be kids born to just deplorable people....and they will suffer a less-happy life as a result. 

 

[Raven Fan 362]

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

My reasoning is that when we extend your position out, it tends to work poorly.   So I submit that treating people differently based on skin color is wrong.  Its divisive. Its not a solution. 

Calling out things that are wrong is not racism.  I know that tends to be a common tactic, but I do not accept it.  I maintain that we can call out things that are wrong, regardless of the immutable characteristics of those involved. 

Lots of words saying very little about the point.  Here's my last try.  Do you think that assuming minorities hired into positions of power or prominence to be DEI hires is hateful and racist.

Simple yes or no please.

[Raven Fan 362]

11 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I'd have thought that about EVERYONE up until the big DEI movement.  Now, my assumption is that anyone not white IS a DEI hire.

And here we have someone outing themselves.

So racist and hate filled.

SAD

[Raven Fan 362]

36 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

What's with all the "boyo"? 

Let's not worry about lingo you're not hip to girlio.

Now, you laughed and I asked you to provide examples from this board.

I'm waiting for your links. 

[TheNewGirl 1,438]

2 minutes ago, Raven Fan said:

Let's not worry about lingo you're not hip to girlio.

Now, you laughed and I asked you to provide examples from this board.

I'm waiting for your links. 

Well you can continue to wait, boyo. Because IDGAF if you think I am right/wrong, or whatever. 

Have a great day. 

[Raven Fan 362]

4 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

Well you can continue to wait, boyo. Because IDGAF if you think I am right/wrong, or whatever. 

Have a great day. 

Ok, that's fine. Seems weird though to laugh when I said you won't find such blatant hate from liberals but then refuse to provide even a single example from the many liberal posts on this board.

And no offense was meant by calling you girlio.  It's a kind of term of endearment.

I hope you enjoy your day too.

[RLLD 4,181]

19 minutes ago, Raven Fan said:

Lots of words saying very little about the point.  Here's my last try.  Do you think that assuming minorities hired into positions of power or prominence to be DEI hires is hateful and racist.

Simple yes or no please.

Not hateful nor racist.......and challenging it should be done, and it needs to be done.  We should no more accept the way DEI operates than the way Jim Crow operated.  

Pretending that something wrong is "good" because your intentions are good is a failed approach from the start. 

[Raven Fan 362]

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Not hateful nor racist.......and challenging it should be done, and it needs to be done.  We should no more accept the way DEI operates than the way Jim Crow operated.  

Pretending that something wrong is "good" because your intentions are good is a failed approach from the start. 

So you're ok with every minority hire in a position of power or prominence to be question if they're a DEI hire until they prove they're not?

You and I will have to bigly disagree on that boyo.  I think that's terrible and goes against everything a reasonable society should represent. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,168]

3 hours ago, Raven Fan said:

I was arguing she was not a DEI hire, you argued she was.  And how about those other couple of posts that I quoted.  LOTS more where that came from.

Face it, your fellow conservatives distrust (at best) non-whites in positions of power.  Just like you do with Claudine.

It's SAD.

You’re good at telling us who isn’t a DEI hire. Can you tell us who is? 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,299]

4 hours ago, Raven Fan said:

 

 

Took two seconds to show just how repulsive and racist most MAGAtards are.

I could do the same thing with hating on jews.

Embrace those you share the same political thoughts with boyos!

they are acting outside of the law and based on their ideology

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,299]

2 hours ago, Raven Fan said:

So you're ok with every minority hire in a position of power or prominence to be question if they're a DEI hire until they prove they're not?

You and I will have to bigly disagree on that boyo.  I think that's terrible and goes against everything a reasonable society should represent. 

nope I am ok with them hired til the prove they ARE.  I give the benefit of the doubt to everyone

 

I am sure youve b1tched more than once about a "trump" appointed judge, so spare us

[RLLD 4,181]

2 hours ago, Raven Fan said:

So you're ok with every minority hire in a position of power or prominence to be question if they're a DEI hire until they prove they're not?

You and I will have to bigly disagree on that boyo.  I think that's terrible and goes against everything a reasonable society should represent. 

Your strawman aside, I am fine with ANY leader being questioned actually.

And the notion that the color of your skin might absolve you from criticism is perhaps something we can simple agree to disagree on.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,299]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Your strawman aside, I am fine with ANY leader being questioned actually.

And the notion that the color of your skin might absolve you from criticism is perhaps something we can simple agree to disagree on.

you have a point everyone who isnt a straight white male gets to hide behind this and these leftists love it