"Diversity"

Dancing David said:
Like class: (this one is harder), should someone be denied promotion because all they have is 'book learning', should someone's ideas be ignored because they don't have a master's degree.
Click to expand...

Education level is a bigger HR issue than most suspect. I got a negative comment in a performance review once because a coworker in a neighboring cubicle felt bad about her lack of education when she overheard me and a friend discussing astronomy. Apparently she was so upset she complained to my manager. I swear I hadn't been waving my lowly B.A. (in history, for Pete's sake!) in her face, but she felt I had been.

I know a woman who does HR stuff for a living, and she says it's a big deal these days. Some companies tell workers not to discuss their education any more than they'd discuss their salary. Sad, eh?
 
Well, that's probably because most people accept that a soldier voluntarily gives up so many years of his life for crappy pay, continually reduced benefits, and many of his basic rights being taken from him. He gives up much of what it means to be an American (using my own nation as an example) in order to 'protect the country' and 'defend its interests' (or, more truthfully, to be a pawn in the political games of the time). Veteran preference is just a small way of paying back some of what the veteran gave up.

If the Army started paying a comparable salary (considering you are a soldier 24 hours a day, on duty or off) with reasonable benefits (although even the current reduced benefits are in many ways far better than the civilian sector) and not impending upon the rights of the soldier - then we'd have no reason to HAVE veteran benefits unless we were WAR vets. But the cost to the country would be crippling, and most soldiers understand this and accept lower salary. And, being a soldier isn't just a job - it's a lifestyle you accept when you volunteer. You agree by volunteering to give up a large portion of your freedom of speech; your freedom of self-expression. You agree to support your commanders right or wrong; to support your president, right or wrong. You agree to suspend your personal morals on command: to lie, cheat, steal, murder as your commanders see fit. You agree to this and Oh so much more. So giving a little back to the soldier who sticks out years of this sort of inhumane treatment for his country makes at least a little sense.

Of course, you agree to this all 'in principle'... Anyone who's been a soldier in recent years knows well that a lot of slack is given to the modern soldier with regards to his human rights. But at the same time, every soldier who spends any time with the Army (military in general, of course) knows that you stop being a person and start being a piece of military equipment when you swear those vows.
 
Tmy said:

Lets say you're a doctor. If youve never delt with different people from other backgrounds can you effectivly treat all you patients??
Click to expand...

You could have chosen a much better example. Dealing with people of different backgrounds has nothing to do with treatment. Heart surgery for a jew is going to be the same as heart surgery for a muslim.
 
zaayrdragon said:
Well, that's probably because most people accept that a soldier voluntarily gives up so many years of his life for crappy pay, continually reduced benefits, and many of his basic rights being taken from him. He gives up much of what it means to be an American (using my own nation as an example) in order to 'protect the country' and 'defend its interests' (or, more truthfully, to be a pawn in the political games of the time). Veteran preference is just a small way of paying back some of what the veteran gave up.
Click to expand...

And how is any of that relevent to the job going to the "most qualified" person??? Isnt that the big knock against AA???
 
Tony said:
You could have chosen a much better example. Dealing with people of different backgrounds has nothing to do with treatment. Heart surgery for a jew is going to be the same as heart surgery for a muslim.
Click to expand...

If you have some muslim that is offended by the doctors form of questioning (cause hes never delt with a hard core religious muslim) And he doesnt open up to the doctor. he may never know the muslims heart is bothering him.
 
Tmy said:
If you have some muslim that is offended by the doctors form of questioning (cause hes never delt with a hard core religious muslim) And he doesnt open up to the doctor. he may never know the muslims heart is bothering him.
Click to expand...

What? Can you give a real world example of this non-sense?
 
It could be minor stuff, too. The teacher who insists on students removing their hats in the building....to the student in a yarmulke, and the Sikh in a turban, and the non-French Muslim girl in a headscarf. Enforcing a petty rule against another petty rule is guaranteed to cause problems, because people like to fight over stupid things.
 
Racists are the only people I place permanently on my ignore list.
Bye, Patrick.

Hans

Well, politically correct punks are high on my list of "junk food"-level entertainment, so come back if you change your mind!
 
What cracks me up is that if you try to point out that people from minority backgrounds tend to have bigger hurdles to jump over, hence the concessions in their favour, you get some who say 'if they can't make it, tough! That's competition!'. Yet when Mr White-Cracker doesn't get a high enough test score to make the grade, and has to make do with a lesser college, and hence might have to work a bit harder to get the career they want, the 'competition' argument suddenly grows silent.

Mr. Jackass-in-the-Box pops up once again with yet another trademark featherweight observation! I don't know where you live, but blacks in the U.S. now have the entire system set up in their favor - from scholarships to fellowships to "diversity" quotas at universities and corporations to union apprenticeships to government contracts to municipal employment to lower loan qualification standards to racailly gerrymandered electoral districts -- in practically every imaginable aspect that is important in a person's life, the blacks, far from having to jump over hurdles, are pushed along mightily by the whole liberal establishment.

And did anyone actually say or imply that the "competition argument" only applies to blacks? I don't remember anyone saying that. I think you're having a debate with yourself.

Back in the box now .... (CA-CHUNK!)
 
Perhaps this thread may shed some light on Patricks views of race.

That thread actually sheds light on the MEDIA, plus the illogic, short-term memory problems, attention deficit, and debate cowardice of james and a few others, as the careful reader in possession of an IQ >= 80 will quickly discern. :)
 
Patrick said:
That thread actually sheds light on the MEDIA, plus the illogic, short-term memory problems, attention deficit, and debate cowardice of james and a few others, as the careful reader in possession of an IQ >= 80 will quickly discern. :)
Click to expand...

Meaning someone possessing an IQ greater than 80 won't discern it? Maybe you meant "IQ >= 80".

Lol. Edited it before I hit "submit".
 
Mr Manifesto said:
Yet when Mr White-Cracker doesn't get a high enough test score to make the grade, and has to make do with a lesser college, and hence might have to work a bit harder to get the career they want, the 'competition' argument suddenly grows silent.
Click to expand...
Not to mention they're deemed a victim of having their "career wrecked" by trolls.
 
Snide said:
Not to mention they're deemed a victim of having their "career wrecked" by trolls.
Click to expand...

I use that in interviews. "Why was there a four month gap in your employment?" "My career was wrecked by trolls. There was a dispute over a billygoat..."
 
This is an example of why the term "racist" has ceased to have any meaning. All too often it is applied when a person argues against the prevailing PC position of the day.

Right. The "racist" screech is the last refuge of a PC robot who is losing a debate on any issue that touches on racist. The sooner the PC robot issues the screech, the lower his IQ. :)
 
Because we're all stuck on this planet together, and it might be a good idea to try to understand each other?

Why must understanding each other require racial discrimination??
 
Patrick said:
Because we're all stuck on this planet together, and it might be a good idea to try to understand each other?

Why must understanding each other require racial discrimination??
Click to expand...

Sigh. Once again, I summarize my position for you. In the quote above I was explaining why I think diversity is a good thing. I also believe, however, that it's inherently unjust to attempt to create it artificially, and that's why we shouldn't try. If we stop trying to mandate diversity, it will occur on its own, with considerably fewer hard feelings on all sides.

Like all my positions, I consider the principle of the means as well as the ends, and both have to measure up. Of course, this means I'd never make it in politics, because there's little I'd be willing to actually do.
 
The problem with a moral absolutist is that there is no such thing.

The problem with a moral nihilist is that they are ultimately responsible for much of the evil in society. Oh wait ... forgot - no such thing as evil. Sorry.
 
My experience has left me with the clear impression that diversity in an educational setting is a worthwhile goal.

The problem with such views is that they simply ignore the TOTAL consequences of "diversity". It's always "diversity made me a well-rounded lawyer" etc etc. AND, AND, ANNNNNNNND it kept someone who worked hard, earned his grades, merited admission to law school - and got rejected because of skin color.
 
Patrick said:
The problem with a moral nihilist is that they are ultimately responsible for much of the evil in society.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think most of the evil in society is perpetrated by people who do believe in good and evil---they just don't apply the rules to themselves. "It's not evil if it's me doing it." I wouldn't think the majority of mankind actually bothers to examine their own actions and apply ethical standards to them, and see if they measure up. That requires reflection, reason, and honesty.
 
You know, while Pattie tends to be a bit - um, off-putting about his views, he does have a very good point. Race should in no way come under consideration.

Unfortunately, if we don't have laws PREVENTING people from only hiring one race, they inevitably WILL do so. (Not everyone, but there will always be companies who will hire by race if left unchecked). The tough thing about it is, how do you PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt you were or weren't hired based on race? So the government comes up with 'quotas' and 'affirmative action' - racism in reverse - to force people to 'diversify'.

I have to say, it's no better than what we had.

Frankly, there should simply be an agency responsible for looking over hiring policies of different companies, whos job would be to analyze potential applicants' resumes and interview videos and compare those who seemed qualified against those who are hired - and if a pattern of racism THEN emerges, take action against that company. But such an agency would be a huge use of tax dollars, and most companies would balk heavily at being so closely monitored.

It's a difficult situation, no lie - and one that has shifted from being unfair to minorities, to being unfair to non-minorities.

So while Pat could probably do with some courses in anger management and civility, he does make a really good point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom