4 ms·

He may have been an office bully, an adulterer, and possibly even someone who had sex with underage girls on Epstein's island. However, as far as I am concerned

He may have been an office bully, an adulterer, and possibly even someone who had sex with underage girls on Epstein's island. However, as far as I am concerned, opposing diversity efforts is a good thing and should not be mixed up with those other things as if it were a negative. If America wants to make up for its legacy of slavery and racism, it should do so by directly and forthrightly aiding descendants of slaves through well-defined government programs, not by fostering a thought-policing culture that forces companies to indefinitely hire people based on qualifications other than merit.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
100% agreed. Valuing a candidate because they contribute to diversity is judging candidates by their race, sex or other group affiliation, instead of their personal merit. Such hiring practices are based on a cult-like victimhood culture that is thick with crude race/gender-based generalizations. It is ideology, and a fundamentally racist/sexist one, being injected into corporate operations.
failwhaleshark 5y ago
I agree. Reparations: who can be found living that was harmed? I wish someone harmed could be found. It seems difficult and messy to assign how much cash and to who to give it to, and then where do you stop? Diversity points: They're insulting to all people who work hard. This sets back an individual and tells them they don't have to do as much because of fashionable identity political concerns. Merit should be the only decider. Aid: Get people who are presently-struggling compared to other groups the direct help they need to compete. What is with throwing away standardized testing? Are multiple choice questions "racist" now? What exactly is "diversity?" I can understand avoiding biases of people who inadvertently hire people they like who look like themselves, but smart hiring managers can analyze accomplishments and test candidates for potential. Talent is better than whatever identity bingo game is being played to meet "inclusion" goals. I go to the UK to get away from American touchiness about race and gender.. there, with very good friends and colleagues, you can take the piss out of each other with absurd epithets in private and everyone knows it's not meant.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

100% agreed. Valuing a candidate because they contribute to diversity is judging candidates by their race, sex or other group affiliation, instead of their personal merit. Such hiring practices are based on a cult-like victimhood culture that is thick with crude race/gender-based generalizations. It is ideology, and a fundamentally racist/sexist one, being injected into corporate operations.

failwhaleshark 5y ago

I agree. Reparations: who can be found living that was harmed? I wish someone harmed could be found. It seems difficult and messy to assign how much cash and to who to give it to, and then where do you stop? Diversity points: They're insulting to all people who work hard. This sets back an individual and tells them they don't have to do as much because of fashionable identity political concerns. Merit should be the only decider. Aid: Get people who are presently-struggling compared to other groups the direct help they need to compete. What is with throwing away standardized testing? Are multiple choice questions "racist" now? What exactly is "diversity?" I can understand avoiding biases of people who inadvertently hire people they like who look like themselves, but smart hiring managers can analyze accomplishments and test candidates for potential. Talent is better than whatever identity bingo game is being played to meet "inclusion" goals. I go to the UK to get away from American touchiness about race and gender.. there, with very good friends and colleagues, you can take the piss out of each other with absurd epithets in private and everyone knows it's not meant.