Several SCOTUS decisions coming out today.....

[TimHauck 2,870]

1 minute ago, jonmx said:

JfC...the ENTIRE purpose of DEI is to hire and promote people  based on their race. 

Only a retard could be in favor of DEI programs then say they are against exactly what they do. 

Nope.  Some companies took it too far, but that is not the purpose.  The purpose was to make sure everyone was given a fair shot (and I know @Strike will be in here shortly to say “not giving everyone a fair shot is illegal!!”)

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dei

 

DEI

¹

 

also DE&I
also

abbreviation

1. diversity, equity, and inclusion: a conceptual framework that promotes the fair treatment and full participation of all people, especially in the workplace, including populations who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination because of their background, identity, disability, etc.

 

 

[TimHauck 2,870]

1 minute ago, 5-Points said:

DEI is, by definition, the practice of advancing lesser qualified people in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion. 

Is it not? 

Nope.  See my reply to @jonmx above

[5-Points 3,528]

1 minute ago, jonmx said:

Putting people in buckets based upon some arbitrary criteria is so effing racist. The US is a melting pot,  the buckets they make up are complete BS. 

Exactly. The cream rises to the top of the bucket. From which everybody is free to scoop. When you force people, by government mandate, to reach below the cream to find and promote certain people based on race, it is the definition of racism. 

[5-Points 3,528]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Nope.  See my reply to @jonmx above

Im not the one who needs to be educated on the intent of DEI policies. 

HTH

[TimHauck 2,870]

Just now, 5-Points said:

Im not the one who needs to be educated on the intent of DEI policies. 

HTH

I literally posted the definition.

[TimHauck 2,870]

2 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Exactly. The cream rises to the top of the bucket. From which everybody is free to scoop. When you force people, by government mandate, to reach below the cream to find and promote certain people based on race, it is the definition of racism. 

So let’s say @iam90sbaby is a hiring manager and is looking into a bucket of resumes.  Do you think he’s going to scoop out one that is named Jamal?

[squistion 2,198]

Just now, TimHauck said:

So let’s say @iam90sbaby is a hiring manager and is looking into a bucket of resumes.  Do you think he’s going to scoop out one that is named Jamal?

Not in a hundred years. 

[Frozenbeernuts 2,264]

19 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Today was a great day for parental rights, which the left have been undermining for some time now. Decency won. Bigly. 

You mean removing kids from the custody of their parents because they wouldn't abide by a sex change for their kids doesn’t align with proper parenting rights?

[Ron_Artest 1,520]

22 minutes ago, jonmx said:

JfC...the ENTIRE purpose of DEI is to hire and promote people  based on their race. 

Only a retard could be in favor of DEI programs then say they are against exactly what they do. 

It is illegal to hire or promote someone based on their race.

[5-Points 3,528]

7 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

So let’s say @iam90sbaby is a hiring manager and is looking into a bucket of resumes.  Do you think he’s going to scoop out one that is named Jamal?

I think he'd pick the best qualified candidate. 

90's is pretty shrewd. 

[TimHauck 2,870]

1 minute ago, 5-Points said:

I think he'd pick the best qualified candidate. 

90's is pretty shrewd. 

Lol, I know you don’t actually believe this 

[5-Points 3,528]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

Lol, I know you don’t actually believe this 

Do you actually believe he would pick a lesser qualified person for the job based on skin color? 

He's not a big believer in DEI. So I dont think he would do that. 

[5-Points 3,528]

49 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

What was the question?

I see you haven't answered the question either. Why is that? 

 

[TimHauck 2,870]

1 minute ago, 5-Points said:

Do you actually believe he would pick a lesser qualified person for the job based on skin color? 

He's not a big believer in DEI. So I dont think he would do that. 

Yes, I believe he’d pick a lesser qualified white person over a more qualified black person.

And I bet he’d admit it TBH.  He’d probably rationalize it by saying some nonsense like he’d be afraid the black person would steal money or his girlfriend from him.

[5-Points 3,528]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Yes, I believe he’d pick a lesser qualified white person over a more qualified black person.

And I bet he’d admit it TBH.  He’d probably rationalize it by saying some nonsense like he’d be afraid the black person would steal money or his girlfriend from him.

I'd bet he'd tell you that. 

 

If, in fact, he found the perfect person for the job he was looking to fill for his company, and that person wasn't a white guy, he'd hire em. 

Mebbe not a jew, though. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,101]

6 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Yes, I believe he’d pick a lesser qualified white person over a more qualified black person.

And I bet he’d admit it TBH.  He’d probably rationalize it by saying some nonsense like he’d be afraid the black person would steal money or his girlfriend from him.

You don't even know how the DEI process works, do you?  Because reaching into the pile and grabbing the one that says "Jamal" is EXACTLY how it is done.   And if that happens to be a white guy, then bringing him in for an interview and visually verifying to eliminate him is the next step.

You are LITERALLY using racism to fight racism. 

[BrahmaBulls 763]

27 minutes ago, squistion said:

Not in a hundred years. 

Does Jamal's resume objective say Tryna get on wit a real gig ready to level up no cap?

[5-Points 3,528]

1 minute ago, BrahmaBulls said:

Does Jamal's resume objective say Tryna get on wit a real gig ready to level up no cap?

Hire dat nigga! 

 

[TimHauck 2,870]

4 hours ago, 5-Points said:

So, in your mind, the left championed DEI, but it was never used as a basis to hire or advance anybody? 

Is that your contention? 

Either they lied to the rubes to virtue signal or they believe in it and used it as a basis to hire and/or advance people. 

Which is it? 

 

If the person is qualified, using DEI as “a basis to hire or advance anybody” is not racist.  Again, the purpose of DEI is to give people a fair shot that may not have had one previously.  But again, I know some companies took it too far.

But it’s not surprising to me that a forum which contains multiple admitted racists (not saying you are one) thinks workplace discrimination against minorities doesn’t happen…

[TimHauck 2,870]

7 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

You don't even know how the DEI process works, do you?  Because reaching into the pile and grabbing the one that says "Jamal" is EXACTLY how it is done.   

Overall, no, it’s not.

[5-Points 3,528]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

If the person is qualified, using DEI as “a basis to hire or advance anybody” is not racist.  Again, the purpose of DEI is to give people a fair shot that may not have had one previously.  But again, I know some companies took it too far.

But it’s not surprising to me that a forum which contains multiple admitted racists (not saying you are one) thinks workplace discrimination against minorities doesn’t happen…

If the person is qualified, you dont need DEI. 

For focks sake, what is it you people dont understand? 

 

Its clear that some of you have never run a business or been responsible for hiring, and more importantly these days, firing, anybody. 

ITSATIP: Business owner's want to hire the best qualified person for the position they need filled. Period. It saves them money on training that individual and ensures that person knows wtf they're doing. 

Taking a flyer on somebody because you dont have enough blacks or women or gheys or mental patients on staff, isn't a sound business plan. 

[Ron_Artest 1,520]

3 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

If the person is qualified, you dont need DEI. 

For focks sake, what is it you people dont understand? 

 

Its clear that some of you have never run a business or been responsible for hiring, and more importantly these days, firing, anybody. 

ITSATIP: Business owner's want to hire the best qualified person for the position they need filled. Period. It saves them money on training that individual and ensures that person knows wtf they're doing. 

Taking a flyer on somebody because you dont have enough blacks or women or gheys or mental patients on staff, isn't a sound business plan. 

The assumption in all of your posts is that the minority is not qualified.  I don't know anyone that would hire a minority that isn't qualified.  That is not what dei is about.

[TimHauck 2,870]

11 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

If the person is qualified, you dont need DEI. 

For focks sake, what is it you people dont understand? 

 

Its clear that some of you have never run a business or been responsible for hiring, and more importantly these days, firing, anybody. 

ITSATIP: Business owner's want to hire the best qualified person for the position they need filled. Period. It saves them money on training that individual and ensures that person knows wtf they're doing. 

Taking a flyer on somebody because you dont have enough blacks or women or gheys or mental patients on staff, isn't a sound business plan. 

You SHOULDN’T need DEI, but while it’s much better than in the past, there are still a lot of racists out there. Like you, apparently

21 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Hire dat nigga! 

 

 

[5-Points 3,528]

1 minute ago, Ron_Artest said:

The assumption in all of your posts is that the minority is not qualified.  I don't know anyone that would hire a minority that isn't qualified.  That is not what dei is about.

The purpose of DEI is to hire a lesser, or, for the sake of argument, equally qualified applicant, based solely on the fact that the applicant you're hiring isn't white. In order to increase the amount of non-white employees employed by the company. 

That is the sum total of DEI. 

 

[5-Points 3,528]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

You SHOULDN’T need DEI, but while it’s much better than in the past, there are still a lot of racists out there. Like you, apparently

 

In a merit based society we dont need DEI, Precious. 

[Ron_Artest 1,520]

2 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

The purpose of DEI is to hire a lesser, or, for the sake of argument, equally qualified applicant, based solely on the fact that the applicant you're hiring isn't white. In order to increase the amount of non-white employees employed by the company. 

That is the sum total of DEI. 

 

Not lesser.  Equally qualified or maybe even more qualified.

[seafoam1 3,023]

4 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

The purpose of DEI is to hire a lesser, or, for the sake of argument, equally qualified applicant, based solely on the fact that the applicant you're hiring isn't white. In order to increase the amount of non-white employees employed by the company. 

That is the sum total of DEI. 

 

He doesn't even know what DEI is. Kind of like the other liberal who doesn't know what's in the newly proposed bill.

Liberals just come to conclusions based on their wild musings in life. 

You will never get anywhere with the likes of any liberal tards. 

[TimHauck 2,870]

1 minute ago, 5-Points said:

In a merit based society we dont need DEI, Precious. 

I agree.  But I don’t think we’re quite there yet.

[seafoam1 3,023]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I agree.  But I don’t think we’re quite there yet.

So just hire black people if that is your goal. Whose is stopping you? 

 

[5-Points 3,528]

Just now, Ron_Artest said:

Not lesser.  Equally qualified or maybe even more qualified.

What hiring manager would pass on a "more qualified" minority applicant these days? 

They need their jobs too. Hiring lesser qualified whites, who sh!t the bed, will get them fired. 

You guys are fighting a decades old war that was over decades ago. 

Show up to work, on time, everyday, work harder than the next guy, produce better than the next guy, and watch yourself climb that corporate ladder all by yourself. 

It doesn't matter who you are. 

[5-Points 3,528]

10 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I agree.  But I don’t think we’re quite there yet.

I think you're wrong. We've been there. For a while. 

[TimHauck 2,870]

4 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

What hiring manager would pass on a "more qualified" minority applicant these days? 

 

Someone hiring their buddy over the more qualified applicant, for example.

[seafoam1 3,023]

6 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Someone hiring their buddy over the more qualified applicant, for example.

So it's not about race. It's not about diversity, equity, or inclusiveness. 

It's all about people hiring people they trust vs. people they don't know. Hmm...

This is getting confusing. 

[Frozenbeernuts 2,264]

NOW liberals are concerned about people hiring based on color even if the candidate isn't qualified. It's OK when it's for a minority. Not OK when it's hiring a white person. Which of course none of us with common sense are surprised.

[5-Points 3,528]

12 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Someone hiring their buddy over the more qualified applicant, for example.

Nepotism? 

Its not widespread. 

[5-Points 3,528]

38 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

He doesn't even know what DEI is. Kind of like the other liberal who doesn't know what's in the newly proposed bill.

Liberals just come to conclusions based on their wild musings in life. 

You will never get anywhere with the likes of any liberal tards. 

Clearly. Why waste my time? 

[TimHauck 2,870]

12 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Nepotism? 

It’s not widespread. 

It is, but I think the politically correct word is “networking”

[5-Points 3,528]

Just now, TimHauck said:

It is, but I think the politically correct word is “networking”

Talk to the other Tim. I dont know anything about it. I got where I am based on my own hard work and dedication. 

[TimHauck 2,870]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

But it’s not surprising to me that a forum which contains multiple admitted racists thinks workplace discrimination against minorities doesn’t happen…

Bump

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

3 hours ago, 5-Points said:

I don't begrudge him that.

But to turn around and act like everybody else was born with the same silver spoon and didn't get where they are through their own hard work and determination is focking pathetic. 

He didn't have to do it, so he thinks no other white people had to either.  We all just got handed a decent life on a silver platter with no effort or hardship. 

He and his mindset are what is wrong with this country. 

First off I have never once argued that those who are well off didn’t earn it. That is true for most people. If you have worked hard all your life and done well as a result more power to you. You needn’t be ashamed of it. 

In my own case I don’t really talk about it too much because it’s no one’s business but mine. It’s true I inherited my firm from my father but that was after working with him as #2 for over 30 years, during which time I contributed greatly to the expansion of our business. Nothing was simply handed to me. 
 

But my point is this: when I speak about white privilege I am not arguing that white people are simply handed things that others are not. I am suggesting instead that we have opportunities to succeed that many minorities do not; they begin, in general, at a lower rung on the ladder. That doesn’t mean they can’t succeed. Nor does it mean that every white person will succeed. All it means is that it isn’t an even playing field. Liberals as a general rule seek government intervention to try and make it a little more equal. But conservatives fight us on every attempt.