We Are Charlie Kirk

@UNIMAN

 Like I said though, the point still remains the same.

True meritocracy would not require DEI.

There would be no need for marginalized people months either if people knew how to get along.

Our society, especially in America is catered to lowest common denominator.  If people evolved, our society would flourish but alas it's not the case because people are delusional into thinking they are something they are not.

Are you or any of those who are trolling this atrocious line of reasoning seriously interested in the math proficiency for students in Baltimore

Most definitely.  When I go to see the Orioles and the Royal Farms clerk on Key Highway can't get my change allocation right, it throws a wrench in my trip.

@StumpTownStu

 What the hell do i care im not a Democrat. They are some of the biggest racists themselves. But I damn sure would never be on the other side. Can't think of 2 many on that side that are not God mocking bigots that are afraid to stand up to a baby of a man 

Never mentioned political affliliation when talking math scores. 

Every year kids from Balitimore and Oregon will hit the real world. Will they be able to compete against the rest of the world? Most likely not. And it's not just those places, all across the country. So what happens to the nonwhites when they reach, say,  22-28 years old?? It's racism!! A white man's world!!! Testing is racist!! Jail is racist, bail is racist!!

No, it all begins in upbringing. 

@UNIMAN

 Why did you mention Baltimore then specifically? It doesnt have anything to do with the Baltimore is a liberal mess that has been said here right? There are MANY areas of the country where student results are lacking and I could say that is the case in many zones that I live. I had a kiddo that went through the AZ public schools and I know several kids the same age that started in the public system and decided to go charter or Basis, many of them and what shapes the results in the end is not at all what political grouping their family is in and to me the results of public vs private/charter/Basis is also not cut and dry. I have seen several groupings of kids that went to public school and then to university and into the workforce, same goes with charter schools and university. I do not see value in trying to degrade and minimize a social grouping and location based on political frameworks and SEVERAL of you here often do just that.

If you think that the outcomes are more positive with home involvement and then say Baltimore is not doing great, what does this tell you about the challenges people there are facing and why the results are not good enough?

I can drive 5 minutes from my house in several directions and find inequitable zones right here where I live and I am like ten minutes from the reservation where they do not even have full access to utilities and public services and I know 100% what makes the results in those zones and on the reservation less than 5 minutes in the other direction where the local high school has 35 national merit semifinalists and the college attendance rate is exponentially higher. What makes such a wide and alarming difference in the same geographic area to have such a dramatic difference?

Nonsense. There are plenty of highly educated wealthy people of all colors in this country. What most have in common is a parent figure who gave a damn and steered them in the right direction. 

NOW I will include politics. The Left does not represent proper parenting. Just like you did they blame the white man when in actuality overall the white man does a hell of a better job preparing their children for the real world. Not some fantasy socialist utopia where the govt takes care of you. The disparity starts right there in Baltimore (the best example).

Now I ask myself "Why did I come here again?" 

Goodbye.

@UNIMAN

 So the fact that disparity exists is not why inclusion exists? Does this make sense to you? The perfect retort to your claim is in the Seuss book the Sneetches where one group sought out ways to create  division and disparity, the other adapted and found a way to remove the disparity and the other group found a DIFFERENT way to create disparity.

Humans are all born the same with the same basic energy and abilities in general, nobody is better than another from the view of our creator. Disparity and difference is a part of our crappy human nature and in response to humans degrading and dividing there is a reactive attempt to be inclusive and bring everyone to be the same, THIS IS DEI.

DEI exists because of disparity, divide, inequity and human nature. If there is no divide and disparity in a society then there is no purpose or need for DEI.

@UNIMAN

@wallstreetcappers

Your efforts to high jack this thread ends now.

Start your own where you can waste each other's time elsewhere.

@packersbackers

 Just curious, when were you going to do more than just post youtube clips? Where is your discussion or content outside just vid clips?

@packersbackers

I enjoy your thought provoking curation of video clips.  Many I haven't seen and provide me a great opportunity to consider other points of view.

#WeAreCharlieKirk

#ContextLivesMatter

I don't believe that only posting youtube videos is against club rules here. In fact, it's the only type of video that can be posted here. And not sure that it needs to or is required to come with any dialogue or content whatsoever. At least I do not see that in any of the rules. This thread is entirely within the guidelines, whether one agrees with or is against the content being stated.

I'll admit that I never knew who CK was prior to his murder, so I really knew nothing about him. I didn't watch all of the other videos, but I did just watch the one you just posted. A really different perspective than what many portray him as. 

I recall when the whole legal compliance issue came out in California that your board of directors needed to include certain criteria and I never agreed with it. You shouldn't be offered a position just because one is trying to fill a criteria. That doesn't necessarily qualify you as the best person for the job and is instead forcing others to meet a qualification because of an agenda one sets forth. It's not that it's not equal, it's about choice. People have a choice, but when you start hiring because you are told that you have to be diverse or you have to be a certain way it does kind of feel like you are only hiring some because the law is telling you to versus because you feel they are the most qualified. 

In 2018 California required that there be at least one woman on your board of directors. In 2020 it expanded and stated that you needed to have unrepresented communities. This meant that you needed to have individuals who identified as Asian, Black, African America, Hispanic, Latino, Pacific islander, etc, as well as someone who identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

In 2022 the State court ruled it unconstitutional under the State constitution. That was then backed up by a Federal court in 2023.

The State no longer mandates it.

And this makes sense to me. Forcing an employer to be diverse is wrong. Not saying that there should not be more diversity out there, but when you tell an employer who is putting their neck on the line with their money and exposing themselves to all the liabilities and risks that are associated with running a business in America you should not be telling them who they must hire. Who is hired should be based on that employer offering to who they see best fits their organizational needs and workplace demographic. Not sure what diversity has to do with anything.       

Myth is that diversity, equity and inclusion are about taking jobs away from qualified people to give them to the less qualified for the purpose of political correctness.  Actually, DEI supports meritocracy.  

First hand hearsay from childhood friend who works for either Boeing, Aerospace, or Lockheed and does hiring.

I am given a stack of resumes from HR to assess candidates.  After Trump came in, the stack included different and more candidates.

While admittedly hearsay this is a lifelong friend who doesn't follow, watch, or engage in politics who I have no reason to disbelieve.  He was also concerned about DOGE and said they were mandated to hire as much as possible before it happened.

So stacking my own personal experiences from my own trusted acquaintance vs. Third's uncited general speak, I will go with in the history of the US the occurrence of less qualified people being given jobs for the purpose of political correctness has happened and thus cannot be a myth by definition.

Again, completely anecdotally.

I run a business to help other businesses and I can tell you that each and every business that we have helped struggled mightily with trying to hire diversity when the California laws came out. I mean it was a struggle. We work with hundreds of business owners and their struggles were real. Not just hiring good candidates, but sometimes even trying to find those that would even be interested. Often times the candidate pools were so bleak they would just hire anyone that fit the criteria to meet the compliance factors. It was not because they were the most qualified or the best candidate at all. Sometimes it was simply just because they need a seat filler to maintain compliance. That's sad if you ask me because I know that some of these businesses struggled with those that they felt obligated to hire versus those that may have been more qualified to hire. There is some truth to what CK was trying to explain about the United Airlines situation. Hiring because the government or legislation tells you that you have to rather than who you feel best fits your organization. I can't name one business owner or executive that our company was involved in that was not struggling to comply with this demand and none of them were unhappy to see this overruled. And mind you, being in California we work with all races and nationalities. I would say the majority of the owners we work with are Hispanic, but the diversity is already there. A lot owners prefer to hire family because they are generally more trusted. 

Just my experience.     

The confirmation bias is strong within you.  You atleast admit.

On what planet would hiring unqualified individuals for a role be beneficial?  Hint: It never would...

I am sorry to tell you, but the real unqualified people are typically the ones that are screaming about how unfair DEI is.  DEI wouldn't be needed if people DID hire based on meritocracy.  The ones that created the atmosphere for DEI are the ones that kept hiring "mediocre" people that looked like them and refused to give the merit based person that didn't look like them, the job.

Maybe "mediocre" people should up their game and evolve instead of whining about how they can't get a job anymore based on how they look like back in the good ole' days.

In the end, this whining will amount to nothing because things are going to change whether people cry or not.  Capitalism only cares how more money can be made, not whether people hate DEI or not.

I don't know what industry your business falls into but I do know you will always get what you pay for.  There are plenty of people to fill roles if the conditions are right.  That being said, I know the purpose of business is to make money.  So finding that balance between taking care of your employee and your business is tough.  In my experience, business owners like to harp about noone wanting to work while offering poor pay and benefits.  If you offer poor pay and benefits, it sounds to me as the business owner needs to work harder to provide conditions that entice people to want to work for you.  Maybe having family help out is the way to go because they will probably be willing to put up with that subpar conditions for the sake of the family depending on the relationship.

The confirmation bias is strong within you. You atleast admit.

There's nothing to admit to.  I shared my anecdotal experience with someone I personally know who's insight runs counter-current to the post I responded to.

On what planet would hiring unqualified individuals for a role be beneficial? Hint: It starts with federal funding - fixed it for you.

In the end, this whining will amount to nothing because things are going to change whether people cry or not. Capitalism only cares how more money can be made, not whether people hate DEI or not.

True and False.  True about capitalism.  False that it won't change, it will depending on what party controls the purse strings....as we just saw.

To be abundantly clear.  I personally don't give a toot one way or another.  Government and private sector companies are wildly inefficient and hire, or put, the wrong people in the wrong positions all the time as is their prerogative.  Partly why I left the number two US insurer to become a sole practitioner of TCM medicine. 

However, I take issue with those dealing in False absolutes.

Back to regularly scheduled programming:

She makes some interesting points that will need to be explored come trial.

@kagakuotoko

 A final thought.  In order to have confirmation basis you need an existing belief or theory.

I did not which I why I discussed with the one person I personally know familiar with the subject.

So in the future if you're going to broad brush smear me, at least get it right or use an appropriate smear.

@unplucked_gem

If you take it as a smear, that sounds like a personal problem.  It is simply what I was able to ascertain for the post you made.  You shared an anecdote and extrapolated your own thoughts that less qualified people were given jobs due to political correctness.  I cannot wrap my head around it but it makes sense to you, so it is what it is. 

People do make bad hires, but it does not have to do with pressure of hiring unqualified candidates to be politically correct... in fact I would go as far to say it's the opposite but I have already explained that ad nauseum in my previous post.

Your comment about who controls the purse strings makes no sense.  The US is not a vacuum, we have a global economy.  If the US doesn't adapt, it will simply be die off and be cast aside.  The clinging to the old ways without evolving is the reason why the US is in the position it is in today.

@ABooksNightmare

 You state the reality of reaction and coil after decades of abuse and white power controlling the hiring narrative. I think the strong reaction and over action of a state like Calif is a result of citizens crying out for equity and action to abuses we allowed and that were common place since pretty much the origin of this country. What will eventually happen is a settling of policy and procedure to hopefully erase the white control and give more balance to ALL citizens. Initially the surge away from one extreme and to try and find a center might push the balance too far and I think that is likely the case but we could go 50 years of extreme hiring requirements in the DEI direction and not even remotely undo the damage done by white control for 150 years.

What would be more indicative of balance is when wages for white men especially in a professional role were EQUAL or LESSER than a minority or a female, that the scale tipped past the median and went further, this would be the sign that society really gets it and that we are making progress.

It could take 30-40 years of changed policy, education and generational adjustments to bring balance in society but that really is what is needed as white men are not the majority and even if that was the case the pay balance and opportunities should never have gone on for so long, it is a black eye to the US, one of the worst aspects of this country that DEI had to be pushed forward due to the steel grip that white men had and have in our society.

@kagakuotoko

 As demonstrated, factually inaccurate.

Smear:

2.

damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.

"someone was trying to smear her by faking letters"

Your ignorance of language isn't a personal problem on my part.  In your case, I believe projection is strong.