Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
Simple. If you're hiring based on diversity, you aren't hiring based on merit. The two are incompatible. And I, for one, would rather fly an airline where merit decides the pilot, not race
So every woman and person of color hired based on diversity must not be qualified to do the job otherwise? Is that what you're saying?
That's just a straw man
I'm not even making an argument, let alone misrepresenting your position.
In fact, I'm trying to get you to clarify your position for me so I can better understand you.
So, again, are you saying that every woman and person of color based on diversity must not be qualified to do the job otherwise? Or are you saying something else?
If you're making selections based on diversity, you're fundamentally not focusing on hiring the best of the best. And for safety critical positions like pilots, I would much rather have the focus be 100% on quality.
Are there no women and people of color in the best of the best?
I mean, get what you're trying to say, but you're making unwarranted assumptions about the demographics of the cream of the crop. So, I'm trying to get you to either realize you're doing that and retract basically everything you've said so far, or to keep exploring what you think the best look like and why DEI is antithetical to picking people those meritorious looking people.
The best is the best, regardless of whatever bs diversity qualities. You'll get them without having to specifically look for shit like race and sex. Looking for those instead means you're no longer looking for the best, you're looking for whoever meets minimum standards and is also an acceptable race
If demographics don't matter, then what exactly is wrong with preferring someone of an acceptable race in the best of the best? (You still haven't said whether there are women and people of color in the best of the best or not...so let's assume there are.)
Because the moment you're preferring race, you're fundamentally not preferring something else, and if you ask me, race is pretty much the absolute bottom of the list of things to judge people on.
I said, let's assume that the best of the best is diverse in demographics.
You're saying that race preferences necessarily exclude other preferences. But what is not being excluded is whether any given person is the best of the best by our assumption.
So, sure, race can be the absolute bottom of the list of things to judge people on, but that's inconsequential. We're still highly qualified candidates.
It seems like I'm missing something: what other preferences should take precedence over race, then? We're already at the top of the top, the most whipped of the whipped cream. What other preferences might you prefer to take precedence over race at this level?
Or are you saying something else entirely?
I mean if you want to work from a false premise, there's no point in further having this discussion
I literally asked you to correct me.
That's where I'm at, too. Thx for the argument.
I did. Multiple fucking times. But it didn't fit whatever stupid strawman you wanted, so you just ignored it and acted stupid. Or more realistically, it wasn't an act
You've my permission to have the last word after this:
None of you that I've argued with so far have any idea what you're saying.
I can't press you on anything because, as far as I can tell, your beliefs are completely (or mostly, in Winter's case) divorced from reality and logic. I mean, you consider thought experiments as strawmen, for god's sake! Your "corrections" fail to correct me when I'm trying to be corrected. You make the same logical mistakes over and over and over with nary a hint of awareness. You're all unable to consider alternatives that might lead to the same consequences, and you can't see that you can't either.
Nonetheless, it was a good argument. So, again, thanks. But I definitely won't be doing this again with y'all.
Lmao I guess this is the shit we're stuck with when a perpetual troll gets brought on as a mod
All races are acceptable. You do know race is just a social construct right?
Do you know what a social construct is?
Yes, I do.
Where did he say "every woman and person of color hired based on diversity must not be qualified to do the job otherwise"?
He didn’t. What he said is the focus should only be on skill. Schneider talks about similar topics in his dialogue. It’s not that he’s a “conservative”. The liberals have just want so far, crazy, he appears to be conservative.