4 ms·

The problem with this idea is that "woke" is a moving target that its enemies are defining. Will they change the definition to include things you don't want? Mo

The problem with this idea is that "woke" is a moving target that its enemies are defining. Will they change the definition to include things you don't want? Moreover, does it currently actually have the goal to make meritocracy? For example, they've allowed discrimination based on race in government hiring, for example, so that does not bode well for the idea of being judged on merit alone. Explicitly, they are now allowed to judge on race where they were not before. Read through project 2025 - is that what you actually want, because that's what he's gonna implement.

Dalewyn 2y ago
>For example, they've allowed discrimination based on race in government hiring ... Read through project 2025 I advise you read through the actual Executive Orders than some false propaganda material of at best questionable value. What Trump is mandating with his EOs are a move back to judging people strictly by their merit, by their character. We are once again on the path to making Martin Luther King's dream a reality. Here are the EOs with regards to the subject matter at hand: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/endi... https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/reforming-the-federal-hiring-process-and-restoring-merit-to-government-service/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/refo... >Americans deserve a government committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect, and to expending precious taxpayer resources only on making America great. >Federal employment practices, including Federal employee performance reviews, shall reward individual initiative, skills, performance, and hard work and shall not under any circumstances consider DEI or DEIA factors, goals, policies, mandates, or requirements. ---- >This Federal Hiring Plan shall: ... prevent the hiring of individuals based on their race, sex, or religion, and prevent the hiring of individuals who are unwilling to defend the Constitution or to faithfully serve the Executive Branch;
- bumby 2y ago
  >prevent the hiring of individuals based on their race, sex, or religion, and prevent the hiring of individuals Did you know the EO that was rescinded had similar verbiage too?[1] [1] https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1965/9/28/12315-12325.pdf https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1965/9/28/1...
- fzeroracer 2y ago
  > What Trump is mandating with his EOs are a move back to judging people strictly by their merit, by their character. We are once again on the path to making Martin Luther King's dream a reality. Trump has outright been banning transgender individuals from enlisting in the military and serving. Presumably in a merit-based society you would judge them on the basis of merit, not on a secondary characteristic.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - fzeroracer 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - pseudalopex 2y ago
      > It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that people who are internally confused about themselves and require/demand extensive specialized medical treatments and care are most likely not suited to serve in the military. Trans people I know are very sure about themselves. More than some cis people in fact. I will let RAND Corporation rebut the rest of your speculation.[1] The effect on force readiness is an important consideration in any military policy change. Many types of medical treatments can lead to lost labor and leave personnel temporarily unable to deploy. Given the small estimated number of transgender personnel and the even smaller number who would seek gender transition–related treatment in a given year, the study found that the readiness impact of transition-related treatment would lead to a loss of less than 0.0015 percent of total available labor-years in the active component. Even using the highest estimates, less than 0.1 percent of the force would seek gender transition–related treatment that would affect their ability to deploy. As a point of comparison, in the Army alone, approximately 50,000 active-component personnel were ineligible to deploy in 2015 for various legal, medical, or administrative reasons—a number amounting to around 14 percent of the active component. A key concern in allowing transgender personnel to serve openly is how this may affect unit cohesion. The underlying assumption is that if service members discover that a member of their unit is transgender, this could inhibit bonding within the unit, which, in turn, would reduce operational readiness. Similar concerns were raised in debates over whether to allow gay and lesbian personnel to serve openly, as well as over whether to allow women to serve in ground combat positions. However, evidence from foreign militaries and the U.S. military has indicated no significant impact on unit cohesion or operational readiness as a result of allowing transgender and gay and lesbian personnel to serve openly or allowing women to serve in ground combat positions. [1] https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/RB9900/RB9909/RAND_RB9909.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/R...
- kingaillas 2y ago
  >What Trump is mandating with his EOs are a move back to judging people strictly by their merit, by their character. Conservatives are OK with rolling everything back and hiding behind words, since right now, most people at the highest levels of power - that do the judging - are white men. How else do you explain such "merit" based nominations like Hegseth for SecDef, Gaetz for Attorney General, etc. (Gaetz withdrew but getting nominated at all was ridiculous). And if Hegseth is qualified to lead the DoD, then so is anybody who ever served in the military at the rank of Major or higher.
- UncleMeat 2y ago
  MLK explicitly supported reparations for black people. He did not support a system of institutional colorblindness. You can only get this from his writing if you take one famous line from one famous speech and ignore the rest of what he wrote.

Dalewyn 2y ago

>For example, they've allowed discrimination based on race in government hiring ... Read through project 2025 I advise you read through the actual Executive Orders than some false propaganda material of at best questionable value. What Trump is mandating with his EOs are a move back to judging people strictly by their merit, by their character. We are once again on the path to making Martin Luther King's dream a reality. Here are the EOs with regards to the subject matter at hand: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/endi... https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/reforming-the-federal-hiring-process-and-restoring-merit-to-government-service/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/refo... >Americans deserve a government committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect, and to expending precious taxpayer resources only on making America great. >Federal employment practices, including Federal employee performance reviews, shall reward individual initiative, skills, performance, and hard work and shall not under any circumstances consider DEI or DEIA factors, goals, policies, mandates, or requirements. ---- >This Federal Hiring Plan shall: ... prevent the hiring of individuals based on their race, sex, or religion, and prevent the hiring of individuals who are unwilling to defend the Constitution or to faithfully serve the Executive Branch;

bumby 2y ago
>prevent the hiring of individuals based on their race, sex, or religion, and prevent the hiring of individuals Did you know the EO that was rescinded had similar verbiage too?[1] [1] https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1965/9/28/12315-12325.pdf https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1965/9/28/1...
fzeroracer 2y ago
> What Trump is mandating with his EOs are a move back to judging people strictly by their merit, by their character. We are once again on the path to making Martin Luther King's dream a reality. Trump has outright been banning transgender individuals from enlisting in the military and serving. Presumably in a merit-based society you would judge them on the basis of merit, not on a secondary characteristic.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - fzeroracer 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - pseudalopex 2y ago
    > It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that people who are internally confused about themselves and require/demand extensive specialized medical treatments and care are most likely not suited to serve in the military. Trans people I know are very sure about themselves. More than some cis people in fact. I will let RAND Corporation rebut the rest of your speculation.[1] The effect on force readiness is an important consideration in any military policy change. Many types of medical treatments can lead to lost labor and leave personnel temporarily unable to deploy. Given the small estimated number of transgender personnel and the even smaller number who would seek gender transition–related treatment in a given year, the study found that the readiness impact of transition-related treatment would lead to a loss of less than 0.0015 percent of total available labor-years in the active component. Even using the highest estimates, less than 0.1 percent of the force would seek gender transition–related treatment that would affect their ability to deploy. As a point of comparison, in the Army alone, approximately 50,000 active-component personnel were ineligible to deploy in 2015 for various legal, medical, or administrative reasons—a number amounting to around 14 percent of the active component. A key concern in allowing transgender personnel to serve openly is how this may affect unit cohesion. The underlying assumption is that if service members discover that a member of their unit is transgender, this could inhibit bonding within the unit, which, in turn, would reduce operational readiness. Similar concerns were raised in debates over whether to allow gay and lesbian personnel to serve openly, as well as over whether to allow women to serve in ground combat positions. However, evidence from foreign militaries and the U.S. military has indicated no significant impact on unit cohesion or operational readiness as a result of allowing transgender and gay and lesbian personnel to serve openly or allowing women to serve in ground combat positions. [1] https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/RB9900/RB9909/RAND_RB9909.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/R...
kingaillas 2y ago
>What Trump is mandating with his EOs are a move back to judging people strictly by their merit, by their character. Conservatives are OK with rolling everything back and hiding behind words, since right now, most people at the highest levels of power - that do the judging - are white men. How else do you explain such "merit" based nominations like Hegseth for SecDef, Gaetz for Attorney General, etc. (Gaetz withdrew but getting nominated at all was ridiculous). And if Hegseth is qualified to lead the DoD, then so is anybody who ever served in the military at the rank of Major or higher.
UncleMeat 2y ago
MLK explicitly supported reparations for black people. He did not support a system of institutional colorblindness. You can only get this from his writing if you take one famous line from one famous speech and ignore the rest of what he wrote.