Cringe discussion of DEI on The Chris Wallace Show

[OKTexas]

To the right you have two men who can clearly articulate their points with facts. On the left you have the embodiment of the DEI crowd, two women who are only capable of babbling bias and emotional chatter. Try to sit through the whole seven minutes if you can, but it will be challenging.

I did and you're right. And the former pres of Harvard was no more articulate than those two. Nuff said.

.

 

[Mac1958]

That is a totally asinine statement because you're basically stating that people who are female or of a minority group are automatically LESS qualified.

You all have repeated this falsehood so often and in such a steady and unrelenting refrain that people now accept this as the truth and don't even bother asking for proof of its veracity.

Nope. I'm saying that merit is either the top priority or it is not. Skin color irrelevant. And if we drop standards for any reason, we're hurting ourselves. When we maintain standards, we all end up winning.

Whether it's an individual, a couple, a family, a business, or a country. Maintain standards, things will go better in the long run. Skin color irrelevant. I really don't think that's a crazy or asinine notion.

So the question to me is, how we make a transition back to that sociological environment. The answer is cultural in nature, in my opinion.

That's it. Period.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Apparently Meister and those with a similar mindset don't want equality and fairness.

It would seem that way wouldn't it?

 

[tshrimp]

Maybe if you responded to me instead of at me you wouldn't seem like such a bitch. The negative ramifications of America's actions is incredible socio-economic inequality you see around you today. What are we going to do about it? Respond timidly so as not to offend or scare white people?

So let them push. I didn't think white racists where going to lay down. Laying down and asking us to play nice with racists is what pussy white moderates like you are for.

You think I didn't consider it. I just don't care.

You are definitely proving this right.

Americans Say Blacks More Racist Than Whites, Hispanics, Asians

Americans believe blacks are more racist than whites, Hispanics and Asians in this country.

www.rasmussenreports.com

Americans believe blacks are more racist than whites, Hispanics and Asians in this country.

 

[Mac1958]

I just don't care.

Oh, I know.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Nope. I'm saying that merit is either the top priority or it is not. Skin color irrelevant. And if we drop standards for any reason, we're hurting ourselves. When we maintain standards, we all end up winning.

No Mac you're doing it again. When you say "... if we drop standards for any reason, we're hurting ourselves..." you're falsely stating as fact that it is a foregone conclusion that including minorities or women MEANS a lowering of standard, that you're accommodating individuals who don't quite meet the same standards or qualifications as the status quo who are white males.

White males are not the status quo because they are ALL extraordinary individuals, they are the status quo because they legislated themselves into the top position of authority when our country was founded - remember, only white land-owning adult males could participate in the election process. They made the laws and they enforced the laws and the laws that they created & enforced gave preference to whites, placing white males at the top of the power structure. It took until 1920 and the passage of the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution before white women obtained the right to vote (all women did).

There is no correlation to pure ability or lack thereof when it comes to women and minorities members of society, however if you don't allow them the same opportunities to obtain an education, to attend training courses or take flight instructions, just as an example, this then allows the more disingenuous members of society to turn around and claim that they are simply not qualified for their jobs and standards allegedly have to be lowered for them.

Then you have the other situation where the woman and/or minority candidates are equally or more qualified than the status quo but no one would ever believe that because of the constant false refrain touted that affirmative action allows unqualified Black people to be employed at the expense of much more qualified whites (they're always described as being "much more qualified"). Even when this is not the case, especially when you consider that no company in its right mind wants to hire, then spend the time & money to train an employee who simply doesn't possess the ability to do the job, everyone will still believe that the candidate is unqualified to do the job and that they only got the job due to affirmative action and that it was not based on merit.

I'm not sure if you're even aware of the correlations you're stating but you are doing so. Read what you wrote again.


th

 

[SweetSue92]

Nope. I'm saying that merit is either the top priority or it is not. Skin color irrelevant. And if we drop standards for any reason, we're hurting ourselves. When we maintain standards, we all end up winning.

Whether it's an individual, a couple, a family, a business, or a country. Maintain standards, things will go better in the long run. Skin color irrelevant. I really don't think that's a crazy or asinine notion.

So the question to me is, how we make a transition back to that sociological environment. The answer is cultural in nature, in my opinion.

That's it. Period.

We can't and we don't.

It's over.

 

[Mac1958]

Then you have the other situation where the woman and/or minority candidates are equally or more qualified than the status quo but no one would ever believe that because of the constant false refrain touted that affirmative action allows unqualified Black people to be employed at the expense of much more qualified whites (they're always described as being "much more qualified").

You hit on the actual, practical issue here -- resentment -- and I think the Left underestimates its profound importance.

I see two elements at play from the Right's perspective. First, there is the old fashioned, mouth breathing, buttcrack scratching, ignorant, bigoted, manipulated, paranoid racism that you and I goddamn well both know still exists. We certainly see plenty of it on this board, and we're both called evil Hitler commies for pointing it out. And to me, even worse is the way it's denied and enabled by so many on the Right.

But there is another element here that I think is far more reasonable. There is a resentment that builds over time when one group is singled out for different treatment, i.e., we're going to provide an advantage to this person over that because of the color of their skin. A modern American is not responsible for our sins of the past, yet they have to pay the price for them. As a result, the resentment builds and builds and builds. And guess what? Trump wins. Trump wins.

Whenever I get into this conversation, I'm reminded of a great skit Eddie Murphy did on SNL, below. In the skit, he disguises himself as a white person and discovers how wonderful and glorious and easy life is when you're white, and how people just give you goodies and money for no reason.

This is why I don't understand what the actual goal is of many political tactics. My goal regarding race -- and coming from and married into mixed race families, this is important to me -- is that it no longer matters in everyday life. That racial tensions become a thing of the past, and not something that we keep exacerbating. It seems to me that the ends of this argument don't share that goal.

 

[Curried Goats]

You hit on the actual, practical issue here -- resentment -- and I think the Left underestimates its profound importance.

I see two elements at play from the Right's perspective. First, there is the old fashioned, mouth breathing, buttcrack scratching, ignorant, bigoted, manipulated, paranoid racism that you and I goddamn well both know still exists. We certainly see plenty of it on this board, and we're both called evil Hitler commies for pointing it out. And to me, even worse is the way it's denied and enabled by so many on the Right.

But there is another element here that I think is far more reasonable. There is a resentment that builds over time when one group is singled out for different treatment, i.e., we're going to provide an advantage to this person over that because of the color of their skin. A modern American is not responsible for our sins of the past, yet they have to pay the price for them. As a result, the resentment builds and builds and builds. And guess what? Trump wins. Trump wins.

Whenever I get into this conversation, I'm reminded of a great skit Eddie Murphy did on SNL, below. In the skit, he disguises himself as a white person and discovers how wonderful and glorious and easy life is when you're white, and how people just give you goodies and money for no reason.

This is why I don't understand what the actual goal is of many political tactics. My goal regarding race -- and coming from and married into mixed race families, this is important to me -- is that it no longer matters in everyday life. That racial tensions become a thing of the past, and not something that we keep exacerbating. It seems to me that the ends of this argument don't share that goal.

You don't get passed racial tensions by pretending past racial tensions have no relationship to socio-economic condition today. At that point you only care about easing tension for one group. Whites.

 

[MarcATL]

No Mac you're doing it again. When you say "... if we drop standards for any reason, we're hurting ourselves..." you're falsely stating as fact that it is a foregone conclusion that including minorities or women MEANS a lowering of standard, that you're accommodating individuals who don't quite meet the same standards or qualifications as the status quo who are white males.

White males are not the status quo because they are ALL extraordinary individuals, they are the status quo because they legislated themselves into the top position of authority when our country was founded - remember, only white land-owning adult males could participate in the election process. They made the laws and they enforced the laws and the laws that they created & enforced gave preference to whites, placing white males at the top of the power structure. It took until 1920 and the passage of the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution before white women obtained the right to vote (all women did).

There is no correlation to pure ability or lack thereof when it comes to women and minorities members of society, however if you don't allow them the same opportunities to obtain an education, to attend training courses or take flight instructions, just as an example, this then allows the more disingenuous members of society to turn around and claim that they are simply not qualified for their jobs and standards allegedly have to be lowered for them.

Then you have the other situation where the woman and/or minority candidates are equally or more qualified than the status quo but no one would ever believe that because of the constant false refrain touted that affirmative action allows unqualified Black people to be employed at the expense of much more qualified whites (they're always described as being "much more qualified"). Even when this is not the case, especially when you consider that no company in its right mind wants to hire, then spend the time & money to train an employee who simply doesn't possess the ability to do the job, everyone will still believe that the candidate is unqualified to do the job and that they only got the job due to affirmative action and that it was not based on merit.

I'm not sure if you're even aware of the correlations you're stating but you are doing so. Read what you wrote again.


th

Moreover, these people like Mac1958 tend to ignore, wash over and/or reward blatant incompetence of white men. And this is considered normal.

 

[j-mac]

White people will always question why a minority is there because they are racist. It's wild that we still have to make a positive case for INCLUSION. Fuck you people are deplorable.

No rational person has a problem with including you, but it is always merit that advances you…

 

[j-mac]

Moreover, these people like Mac1958 tend to ignore, wash over and/or reward blatant incompetence of white men. And this is considered normal.

You mean incompetence like the Biden administration?

 

[j-mac]

Nope. I'm saying that merit is either the top priority or it is not. Skin color irrelevant. And if we drop standards for any reason, we're hurting ourselves. When we maintain standards, we all end up winning.

Whether it's an individual, a couple, a family, a business, or a country. Maintain standards, things will go better in the long run. Skin color irrelevant. I really don't think that's a crazy or asinine notion.

So the question to me is, how we make a transition back to that sociological environment. The answer is cultural in nature, in my opinion.

That's it. Period.

We’ll have to mark this one, I actually agree with Mac on this one…

 

[Mac1958]

Moreover, these people like Mac1958 tend to ignore, wash over and/or reward blatant incompetence of white men.

I don't look at incompetence as being a racial issue. That seems racist to me.

 

[Curried Goats]

No rational person has a problem with including you, but it is always merit that advances you…

No. It wasn't merit that created socio-economic inequality among white and black Americans so why should we believe merit would correct it?

 

[Lisa558]

Stefanik asked the wrong question if she wanted an unequivocal declaration that calling for the genocide of the Jewish people is wrong.

It was a simple question, and Gay’s respond was deplorable. That you defend a woman afraid to point-blank condemn calls to genocide Jews is equally as deplorable.

Glad the woman was fired from her post. I just wish they had dismissed her from Harvard entirely.

 

[Lisa558]

That is a totally asinine statement because you're basically stating that people who are female or of a minority group are automatically LESS qualified.

You all have repeated this falsehood so often and in such a steady and unrelenting refrain that people now accept this as the truth and don't even bother asking for proof of its veracity.

That’s not what he said. He said that merit should be the top priority - IOW, hire the most qualified for the job. Why would you assume that means that females or minorities are automatically less qualified for any and all jobs?

It is clear that, IN THIS INSTANCE, Gay was hired because Harvard decided that being a black female (and obviously a liberal) was the top priority, and then, of that group, she was the best. The problem is that Harvard limited themselves to 6% of the population in making their decision.

 

[Lisa558]

Nope. I'm saying that merit is either the top priority or it is not. Skin color irrelevant. And if we drop standards for any reason, we're hurting ourselves. When we maintain standards, we all end up winning.

Whether it's an individual, a couple, a family, a business, or a country. Maintain standards, things will go better in the long run. Skin color irrelevant. I really don't think that's a crazy or asinine notion.

So the question to me is, how we make a transition back to that sociological environment. The answer is cultural in nature, in my opinion.

That's it. Period.

I AGREE WITH MAC1958!

The biggest change in culture over the last few years that has resulted in the decline in America is that liberals are demeaning the successful and making excuses for the non-successful.

 

[Lisa558]

Whites have been given jobs since the beginning of this country only based on the color of their hides. When those like you stop pretending that things to didn't happen that way, America will begin to solve our racial problems.

Blacks will begin to solve racial problems when they start taking ownership of the problem and take steps to solve it.

The first step is to lower the OOW birthrate to something half-way respectable. No group of people who, as a whole, has a 72% illegitimacy rate is going to get rid of their problems without changing that first. It is associated with lower educational attainment, higher crime rates, and higher poverty rates.

 

[Dragonlady]

That one lady who is "infuriated" is complaining about something the Left created. When a minority is included, there will always be a question as to why. THAT'S BECAUSE THE LEFT DEMANDED THE INCLUSION IN THE FIRST PLACE. Exactly what were they expecting when they dropped standards and made immutable characteristics like race and gender a higher priority than merit?

This is a great example of the crap that turns people off about the Left.

I strongly disagree that when a minority is included, there "will always be a question as to why". That's a racist assumption, and it has nothing to do with leftist demands for inclusion. And it's those racist assumptions that prevent really equality from happening.

When I see a minority in a position of authority, my assumption is that they have to be super well qualified and capable, because the first in the door have been out there a long, long time, honing their skills to get in. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson being a case in point. Ms. Brown Jackson is the MOST qualified Justice to be appointed to the Supreme Court, in decades.

Nope. I'm saying that merit is either the top priority or it is not. Skin color irrelevant. And if we drop standards for any reason, we're hurting ourselves. When we maintain standards, we all end up winning.

Whether it's an individual, a couple, a family, a business, or a country. Maintain standards, things will go better in the long run. Skin color irrelevant. I really don't think that's a crazy or asinine notion.

So the question to me is, how we make a transition back to that sociological environment. The answer is cultural in nature, in my opinion.

That's it. Period.

The problem being is that while skin colour SHOULD be irrelevant, it's not. It's been proven time and time again, that white applicants go to the head of the line, when it comes hiring. The "scrambled resumees" study proved that in spades.

Hiring managers pass over 'names associated with Black people' in their rush to review resumes, according to study of all 50 U.S. states

But beyond a rush to hire, the behavioral economists' study found the most important factor was a participant’s view on affirmative action.

fortune.com

From the Cover: Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time

Many scholars have argued that discrimination in American society has decreased over time, while others point to persisting race and ethnic gaps and subtle forms of prejudice. The question has remained unsettled due to the indirect methods often used ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So the REAL question is, how to make a transition TO merit based employment without "affirmative action".