has Biden done a good job as president?

[The Grand Nudger]

It just falls right out, doesn't it.

[awty]

There are some things you just can't hide.

[Bucky Ball]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There are some things you just can't hide.

Especially when you don’t even try. Racists who embrace their racism are much easier to deal with than those who spout the most racist garbage imaginable while all the time insisting they’re not racist.

Boru

[Bucky Ball]

to what standard? 

Why don't you look it up yourself?  I'd ask why you didn't look it up before you said it - but it would only be rhetorical.

This country does not oppose people on race in mass anymore. haven't for a long long time. the conflict we face is over culture. a culture many black asian white and latino have accepted. the anger and strife is based on trying to force the majority to adopt the subculture. which again also includes black asian white and latino.

IDK, you and yours just attempted a racist coup - we might not be out of the woods entirely.

What is wrong with you ? Can't you accept the vast wisdom of he who can't put in a comma or write a sentence in the English language ? 

[HappySkeptic]

funny how you had to mis frame what i said by cutting 1/2 of said rant out.. it's as you objection was invalidated by my 'rant' when viewed as a whole. you know who does this? out right liars, people who are condition to receive and broadcast fake news and low lifes who deal in 1/2 truths. I say 1/2 truths because you literally cut my message in 1/2 pretending it to be the truth. you practice garbage and pretend to be superior. how bout let that simmer for a bit.

I don't like walls of text.  I didn't feel that cutting out your dictionary definition added anything to the discussion.

I am only replying to make my opinion clear.

Yes, quotas and hiring people based on race is a type of discrimination.  Ideally, the best people from a pool of candidates should be chosen.

However, there are 2 caveats to this

1) Top government appointments are not just about hiring someone.  They are also about placing people in power who represent the population.  If you think the population should be color-blind and accept a whole ton of white guys, think again.  How has that worked out for minority rights?

2) If your hiring does not represent the diversity that is already in a qualified applicant pool, then it is likely your hiring procedures are biased.  That is not about finding "diversity hires", that is about making sure your criteria aren't missing out on truly great talent because people tend to "hire people like them".  Checking the actual results of hiring for bias, rather than hiding behind "well, we hired who we thought was best" is correct, not discrimination.

I will agree that some people's views of hiring can be discriminatory.  If the talent pool is not diverse, some people think that diversity hires should be chosen regardless.  You can't, without reducing your standards (as you have argued).  Some feel that it is a company's job to somehow improve diversity of the talent pool (as if they are responsible for everyone's career choices).  Unless they are a huge corporation, giving money for university scholarships, that just isn't possible.

My argument is that with 200 million working people to choose from, the talent pool for top government appointments is quite diverse.  Also, there is a democratic and political reason why the hires at the top levels should be diverse.  Biden choosing a diverse cabinet is a positive.

Have you been told by Fox News that his cabinet, because they aren't all old white guys, are not qualified?

[Bucky Ball]

[Drich]

[Drich]

funny how you had to mis frame what i said by cutting 1/2 of said rant out.. it's as you objection was invalidated by my 'rant' when viewed as a whole. you know who does this? out right liars, people who are condition to receive and broadcast fake news and low lifes who deal in 1/2 truths. I say 1/2 truths because you literally cut my message in 1/2 pretending it to be the truth. you practice garbage and pretend to be superior. how bout let that simmer for a bit.

I don't like walls of text.  I didn't feel that cutting out your dictionary definition added anything to the discussion.

I am only replying to make my opinion clear.

Yes, quotas and hiring people based on race is a type of discrimination.  Ideally, the best people from a pool of candidates should be chosen.

However, there are 2 caveats to this

this is never the case. it's not 1920 any more. no one out to make money is going to hire a white idiot just because he is white over a black or other minority who has years experience. (unless the idiot in question is related and he would trump a white skilled worker.

1) Top government appointments are not just about hiring someone. They are also about placing people in power who represent the population. 

again listen to the malcolm X recording. he agrees but for a different reason. he says they are put in government position as token "Knee-grows" (his word) as a measure to control the black population. as the people appointed those jobs know they would never have earned them they can often tims be used as puppets, and are being used to manipulate the black community.

If you think the population should be color-blind and accept a whole ton of white guys, think again.  How has that worked out for minority rights?

again why? who cares about skin color if the most qualified is doing everything he can? case in point. donald trump and his admin has arguably done more for the black community than ever president that came before all the way back to lincoln. this includes Obama.

2) If your hiring does not represent the diversity that is already in a qualified applicant pool, then it is likely your hiring procedures are biased. 

just because a given minority group represents say 30% of the population does not mean that all 30% are to be considered "qualified applicants.." that's the problem.. 30% of a given population can sometimes only represent 2 or 3% of said applicants.. now say out of a 100 people applying for a job 3 minorities show up.. what are the chances that those three are the top qualified for this job? what if they were in the bottom 10% of applicants skill/ability level. Now rather than hiring the best of the best you are forced to hire someone who can not hurt your company rather than contribute to it.

That is not about finding "diversity hires", that is about making sure your criteria aren't missing out on truly great talent because people tend to "hire people like them". 

you are talking about finding rare unicorns people who will make it no matter the field or skin color. people who do not want or need diversity programs (like me, who turned down a free ride to school because i knew i could not read well enough to even graduate high yet because of a quota situation i could have bumped a hardworking well deserving white kid) I even passed on grants to the vocational school i went to, i just worked longer. almost 3 years picking up and mopping floors after real mechanics.

Checking the actual results of hiring for bias, rather than hiding behind "well, we hired who we thought was best" is correct, not discrimination.

I will agree that some people's views of hiring can be discriminatory.  If the talent pool is not diverse, some people think that diversity hires should be chosen regardless. 

that's the law...

You can't, without reducing your standards (as you have argued).  Some feel that it is a company's job to somehow improve diversity of the talent pool (as if they are responsible for everyone's career choices).  Unless they are a huge corporation, giving money for university scholarships, that just isn't possible.

and given how the law works you do not see this as a problem? lets say you own a repair shop and are forced to hire a minority or female.. granted there are many many minorities who gravitate towards this field.. but very few are certified as master mechanics. those who are tend to open their own businesses and do very well servicing people who speak their language or share their culture. but most of the rest are grossly incompetent. or have a substance problem or they steal.. now you have to hire and fire 10 to 15 people to find maybe one who will last 1 or 2 years.

My argument is that with 200 million working people to choose from, the talent pool for top government appointments is quite diverse. 

if you don't hire and fire people.. if your not in it you can say that, but i don't see it. my contemporaries don't see it. white blk no one wants to work. no one wants to earn it.

Also, there is a democratic and political reason why the hires at the top levels should be diverse.  Biden choosing a diverse cabinet is a positive.

Have you been told by Fox News that his cabinet, because they aren't all old white guys, are not qualified?

again look at what malcom x had to say about this.

[The Grand Nudger]

Falls right out. Why would anyone care what Malcom X had to say about a thing? His inclusion could only degrade the quality of discourse if the inclusion of the brown people does that. Have you ever taken a sit down and considered the idiocy of describing a subhuman and then imploring people to listen to one?

If malcom x got the job of social sage on account of affirmative action - would you insist that he simply must be the 5th or 8th or 100th place candidate, complete with fucked up disparaging accent mockery from who knows where? Displacing some wiser whiter man on the subject? You don't seem to be able to conceive of affirmative action or diversity as anything but tokenism - what, then, is this intense fetish for a black guy on your part?

I don't even know who you're trying to bullshit with this one. Can't be us, has to be yourself. You aren't at all in the mind of malcom x on anything in the racial periphery. You are the opponent of such thinking. Categorically. Invariably. Predictably.