344
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
344 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32282 readers
591 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Except I did, the article is sourceless
As Hyperreality says, the article is a source.
But if you would like more sources, you should check out Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sewell_(Australian_neo-Nazi)
EDIT: You can also have a scroll through these image search results: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=thomas+sewell+nazi+salute&t=fpas&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images
I stand corrected.
The important part was that you got the far-right talking point out there.
Too often I see people being called neo-nazis just because they have different world views from the woke herd. I'd rather treat labels like this with caution as it's far too easy to hurt someone's image undeserved, especially when biased media starts echoing these claims.
“The woke herd”
Yeahhhh you’re not clever. We know what you are.
Different world views like what?
Like "we shouldn't let children choose to undergo irreversible, life-altering treatments" or "we should give everyone equal opportunities"
Ah yes, the thing that already is heavily discouraged and doesn't happen (unless illegally, which is a whole other issue and has jack to do with your imaginary mob), and the thing that... The "woke mob" already believes in? Alrighty then.
The general consensus of the left nowadays seems to be equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, very big difference (eg diversity quotas and gender wage gap)
So in this scenario, what exactly is the equal outcome supposed to be exactly? Affording education? Being accepted into a job that you're qualified for in a diverse setting which is preferred scientifically considering workspaces and study groups benefit more from diversity of lived experience, background and origin? (Chicago Tufts University. "Racial Diversity Improves Group Decision Making In Unexpected Ways, According To Tufts University Research." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 10 April 2006. )
Equal outcome would be for example getting picked for a job position over somebody who is better qualified because you belong to a minority group.
Does this actually happen as much as you claim it does or are some people pissy that the establishment they applied to decided, between equally qualified candidates, to pick the one that would add to their diversity? Or are you implying (I don't even need to ask if you're from the US) that most minorities only ever get a job/scholarship not because of their own efforts, but because they're receiving handouts and of course could never actually be qualified for anything?
Microsoft and Target do this, to name 2 big ones. They don't explicitly say so, but no respectable company will ever admit to discriminating against anyone and they're both proudly showing off how diverse they are.
Don't get me wrong, I personally don't have any issues with diversity, I have an issue with people getting places they shouldn't be because they are in a specific group. Whether that's an elitist white male group or a minority group, I believe all discrimination is wrong.
I understand your concern but trust me, if this situation happens ever, it happens incredibly rarely, especially with Walmart and Microsoft considering the thousands of applications they receive. At some point, you have a whole lot of highly qualified individuals, some from diverse backgrounds. The better choice for the company is to pick with diversity in mind through the top. It's just how it is scientifically, it's what benefits the company the most.
That being said nepotism is shit, Idiocracy is shit, but meritocracy is also very much, shit.
So to be clear, you're saying that Microsoft and Target hire people who are objectively unqualified for their roles, purely because they're minorities?
Because that's definitely bullshit and would be career suicide for anyone in charge of hiring.
That doesn't answer the question, which was whether these companies hire less qualified people over better qualified people due to diversity targets. You seem to assume they do, but where's the evidence?
If you have evidence of this, call a lawyer, because that's a slam-dunk case.
Removing diversity quotas and addressing the wage gap (which you seem to oppose, but it's probably because you're just listing trigger words) doesn't make for a meritocracy and it's been shown over and over again.
In controlled conditions, when someone is completely unable to know the gender, race or sexuality of the person they're judging, minorities have the same merit and are judged much the same as anyone else.
When you remove those conditions, suddenly, in a magical coincidence, straight white men just happen to think that other straight white men are the most qualified for the job.
On top of that, people who heard the words "diversity quotas" and assumed they knew everything about them tend to assume they're mandatory discrimination, then get upset.
They're not. Managers aren't saying "well unfortunately, all these hirely qualified men aren't eligible because the quota said, so we have to hire this black gay woman who turned up to the interview visibly drunk".
Any job tends to have a pool of candidates, any of whom are qualified. If you've genuinely been hiring on merit and have ended up with an all male team, that shouldn't be difficult to demonstrate when scrutinised.
We don't but you'd already know that if you bothered to look.
No one calls anyone a Nazi for that. People are called Nazis for being Nazis.
With that talking point expressed with that vocabulary, you should probably be more careful about whose opinions you adopt.
When they say "we need to start loading people onto trains", that's not just their "different world view" about the role of public transportation.
You realise woke herd is just another label, right?
Fuck off. If you wanted a source, you would have asked for one
The article is reporting on a court case, the public court record is the obvious source.