Woke is a Joke

[turtlespeed 220]

59 minutes ago, billvon said:

So hiring someone based on his race - good or bad - is wrong.  We should avoid that.

And barriers to hiring based on race (or gender, or sexual orientation, or religion) are just as bad.  We should work to end them.

Looks like you've just made an argument for DEI.

Negative - 

I responded to this:

""RE: Now imagine that the only reason they were hired is that they were white, straight and male like the DZO.  And the DZO decided that was a good choice because he dislikes gays, and therefore the gay guy would not be a team player.""

And said that would be just as wrong.  Disliking gays is not a crime.  Discriminating is.

It is also just as bad as the above mentioned discrimination to discriminate in favor of someone based on race or sexuality.

But Nice try.

 

 

[turtlespeed 220]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

They are far less complex.

As an example, reporters once asked republicans what the definition of "woman" was.  They could not give a coherent answer.  One said "anyone with a uterus."  The reporter then asked if a woman who had had a hysterectomy was still a woman.  The conservative could not answer - because the question had become too complex.

Now, keep in mind that this is a question that conservatives mock liberals for not being able to answer.

Many conservatives prefer simple answers, and feel that anyone with a more complex answer is a liberal ivory tower elite (or some similar pejorative.)  But keep in mind that to any complex problem (and most of our problems today are complex) there is an answer that is simple, straightforward - and wrong.

Define "many" is that most in your mind?

Because many liberals didnt even know Joe Biden was conning them about his mental acuity.

[turtlespeed 220]

43 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

more qualified defined how? More education? More experience? Better team player? Fits better on the corporate golf team?

More relevant education and experience. Yes

Team player is subjective, but yes, that is a quality I hire people with.

Golf has nothing to do with it.

[jakee 1,489]

4 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Because you have to be able to get it.

Hehehe ok, it's my fault you're talking bollocks. That's fine, at least we agree it's bollocks.

[turtlespeed 220]

21 minutes ago, jakee said:

There goes that thing about assuming a minority will be a 'meh' employee again. I think there's a word for that.

I also love this idea that you always know who the most qualified applicant is. Like, why even bother interviewing, right? Hiring the best talent is easy! Like when the Mercedes F1 team announced a diversity initiative the trolls moaned about how they should always just pick the most qualified candidate. When they advertise for graduate positions they're probably going to have 50 applications from people with fesh first class degrees from Cambridge, Oxford, UCL and other top engineering schools throughout the country and the continent. Which one would be the most qualified?

You are missing the point - 

Dont bring ANY of that shit to bear.

Hire on ability not skin or sexual preference.

The more you make a big deal about those things the longer its going to be an issue for you.

I always take the best qualified employee when I hire.  Always.

[jakee 1,489]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

Team player is subjective, but yes, that is a quality I hire people with.

There you go now, people hire based on subjective criteria, they don't just hire the most qualified person. Follow that thought a step or two further down the road and you might just start to see the light.

(Not the very bright covid light though, you remember how bad that made you look last time!)

[jakee 1,489]

5 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Team player is subjective, but yes, that is a quality I hire people with.

 

3 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I always take the best qualified employee when I hire.  Always.

You know the posts you make here stay visible for longer than 3 minutes, yes?

[tkhayes 348]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

The goal means nothing when you pass over a more qualified worker for "Meh" because of racist views.  

 

more qualified people are passed over all the time for a variety of reasons and sometimes no reason at all.  Life is filled with humans.... and that is the reality of the situation out there.  You seem to conclude that DEI hires are the 'only thing happening' in the real world.  and continue to suggest that they are racist.

[turtlespeed 220]

7 minutes ago, jakee said:

Hehehe ok, it's my fault you're talking bollocks. That's fine, at least we agree it's bollocks.

[jakee 1,489]

10 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

""RE: Now imagine that the only reason they were hired is that they were white, straight and male like the DZO.  And the DZO decided that was a good choice because he dislikes gays, and therefore the gay guy would not be a team player.""

And said that would be just as wrong.  Disliking gays is not a crime.  Discriminating is.

So you understand that this is literally what happens all the time, right? Because there is rarely any such thing as the definitive most qualified candidate. Again, if you have ten people with first class degrees from the top ranked universities in the country, one of them is gay and the boss doesn't like gays, 2 of them are black and the boss doesn't know how to relate to black people... are they getting hired?

[jakee 1,489]

Just now, turtlespeed said:

First honest thing you've said since coming back.

[turtlespeed 220]

8 minutes ago, tkhayes said:

more qualified people are passed over all the time for a variety of reasons and sometimes no reason at all.  Life is filled with humans.... and that is the reality of the situation out there.  You seem to conclude that DEI hires are the 'only thing happening' in the real world.  and continue to suggest that they are racist.

Not at all.  There is a LOT of crazy stupid stuff going on in the world. DEI is just one of them.

I disagree with ANYONE that is more qualified being passed over because of skin tone or sexual persuasion.  Its wrong.  To be clear, it is wrong no matter which side of the spectrum you are on.  It's just as wrong and racist hire someone because of skin color and just as wrong for passing someone over because of the skin they have.

[turtlespeed 220]

11 minutes ago, jakee said:

So you understand that this is literally what happens all the time, right? Because there is rarely any such thing as the definitive most qualified candidate. Again, if you have ten people with first class degrees from the top ranked universities in the country, one of them is gay and the boss doesn't like gays, 2 of them are black and the boss doesn't know how to relate to black people... are they getting hired?

In reality, it is more often than not, pretty evident.

There is OFTEN a definitive candidate.

Are we in Jakee's make-believe now?

[tkhayes 348]

3 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I disagree with ANYONE that is more qualified being passed over because of skin tone or sexual persuasion.  Its wrong. 

That is not at all what I said.  I said that more qualified people are passed over all the time.... that is most certainly the case in the real world.  and yet you immediately swing back to 'they must have been hired because they are black or other gender'.

But hey, at least you consistently show your bias against people who do not look like you.  I am CERTAIN that you do not always hire the most qualified who is also a team player.... with your comments, it could not nor would it even be possible.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

29 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

More relevant education and experience. Yes

Team player is subjective, but yes, that is a quality I hire people with.

Golf has nothing to do with it.

perfect, so there are two candidates. They score as follows out of a 100:

 

Who is the most qualified candidate?

 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

12 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

In reality, it is more often than not, pretty evident.

There is OFTEN a definitive candidate.

Are we in Jakee's make-believe now?

A definitive candidate based on unbiased and measured metrics, or based on subjective grading and feels?

[turtlespeed 220]

18 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

perfect, so there are two candidates. They score as follows out of a 100:

 

Who is the most qualified candidate?

 

Can I see thier resumes please?

Last 5 years of employment history.

Salary requirements and expectations.

I'll need to speak to their references and past employers.

They will need to pass a background check.

They will need to submit their latest security clearance level.

I'll need to see verified citizenship.

We will need all applicants to complete a Strengths Finder analysis.

We will need all applicants at 2nd or 3rd level interview to participate in a personality matrix questionaire.

We will need to review a sample of past work in a portfolio, or perform work as a paid temporary employee for a designated time frame if a work portfolio is not available, or security and NDAs prevent such.

3 items isnt enough information.

See our answers are not less complex, they just make more sense.

 

 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

26 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Can I see thier resumes please?

Last 5 years of employment history.

Salary requirements and expectations.

I'll need to speak to their references and past employers.

They will need to pass a background check.

They will need to submit their latest security clearance level.

I'll need to see verified citizenship.

We will need all applicants to complete a Strengths Finder analysis.

We will need all applicants at 2nd or 3rd level interview to participate in a personality matrix questionaire.

We will need to review a sample of past work in a portfolio, or perform work as a paid temporary employee for a designated time frame if a work portfolio is not available, or security and NDAs prevent such.

3 items isnt enough information.

See our answers are not less complex, they just make more sense.

 

 

All of this is summarized in the score.

So answer the question, which candidate is most qualified

I'd love to see you hire a VP, SVP or C level employee by requiring paid temporary employment for a designated timeframe. I wouldn't even move if there was a probationary period and the exit package wasn't defined up front.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

38 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

We will need all applicants to complete a Strengths Finder analysis.

Ah yes, the wonderful world of self reporting. I can make the Don Clifton Strengths Finder assessment say anything I want it to say. Entirely relies on self reporting with no built-in reliability checks.

The frame work is entirely Western Centric, meaning you are giving preference to specific cultures. Didn't you say that was a bad thing?

Edited December 18, 2024 by SkyDekker

[billvon 2,990]

3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

""RE: Now imagine that the only reason they were hired is that they were white, straight and male like the DZO.  And the DZO decided that was a good choice because he dislikes gays, and therefore the gay guy would not be a team player.""

And said that would be just as wrong.  Disliking gays is not a crime.  Discriminating is.

So you need a process to ensure diverse candidates have the same chances that a candidate who looks/acts just like the DZO, because discriminating against people who DON'T look like him is a crime.

That's diversity.

You need a process to ensure that someone who needs help with something (like a stepstool so a shorter pilot can get to the oil filler) isn't excluded on that basis alone.

That's equity.

And you need a process to ensure that someone who wouldn't otherwise be included in your search - like a former military pilot who does not frequent the DZ - gets considered too.

That's inclusion.

That's what the words mean.  If you really believe all the stuff you just said - the most qualified candidates should get the job, race/sexual orientation should not be a barrier etc - then you support DEI.  Keep in mind that DEI means diversity, equity and inclusion, and does not mean whatever FOX News just told you it did (i.e. it's an insult that really owns Kamala Harris.)

[billvon 2,990]

3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Define "many" is that most in your mind?

Because many liberals didnt even know Joe Biden was conning them about his mental acuity.

Didn't you just say results matter more than perception?

We now have below-average inflation, are pumping more oil than any country EVER, an economy that is the envy of the world, record low unemployment, and a drastically dropping rate of illegal immigration and fentanyl deaths.

So no, he wasn't - even if you think he mumbles and rambles.  If competence is ability to do the job, rather than the ability to look, talk and act like you, then the only people fooled were you guys.

[jakee 1,489]

7 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

In reality, it is more often than not, pretty evident.

There is OFTEN a definitive candidate.

Are we in Jakee's make-believe now?

The fact that you just went on to produce an enormous list of mostly subjective criteria including the need for multiple interviews would put the lie to that assertion. Again - you know your posts stay visible for more than 3 minutes, yeah?

7 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I disagree with ANYONE that is more qualified being passed over because of skin tone or sexual persuasion.  Its wrong.  To be clear, it is wrong no matter which side of the spectrum you are on.  It's just as wrong and racist hire someone because of skin color and just as wrong for passing someone over because of the skin they have.

Sounds great and all… it’s just that you think it’s better for the racist hirers to continue with their racist hiring practices than for organisations to put any effort into trying to be less racist.

[turtlespeed 220]

11 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

All of this is summarized in the score.

So answer the question, which candidate is most qualified

I'd love to see you hire a VP, SVP or C level employee by requiring paid temporary employment for a designated timeframe. I wouldn't even move if there was a probationary period and the exit package wasn't defined up front.

RE: All of this is summarized in the score.

Sorry - It doesnt work that way.

[turtlespeed 220]

11 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Ah yes, the wonderful world of self reporting. I can make the Don Clifton Strengths Finder assessment say anything I want it to say. Entirely relies on self reporting with no built-in reliability checks.

The frame work is entirely Western Centric, meaning you are giving preference to specific cultures. Didn't you say that was a bad thing?

No - I didn't say culture is a bad thing.

Unless you mean specifically Western culture, hich makes me suspect you have a dislike for and bias against it.

[turtlespeed 220]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

So you need a process to ensure diverse candidates have the same chances that a candidate who looks/acts just like the DZO, because discriminating against people who DON'T look like him is a crime.

That's diversity.

You need a process to ensure that someone who needs help with something (like a stepstool so a shorter pilot can get to the oil filler) isn't excluded on that basis alone.

That's equity.

And you need a process to ensure that someone who wouldn't otherwise be included in your search - like a former military pilot who does not frequent the DZ - gets considered too.

That's inclusion.

That's what the words mean.  If you really believe all the stuff you just said - the most qualified candidates should get the job, race/sexual orientation should not be a barrier etc - then you support DEI.  Keep in mind that DEI means diversity, equity and inclusion, and does not mean whatever FOX News just told you it did (i.e. it's an insult that really owns Kamala Harris.)

Not really - 

See, you obviously want more rules, and more ways to make yourself subserviant.

I want freedom.

DEI is restriction, and it is virtue signaling.

Quit trying to increase the rukes that others have to live by just because you think they know more than they do, and know whats better for them than themselves. Every time you do that it makes yuou seem a little more narcissistic.