Political Posts

[73 Reds]

3 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

It was an example intended to show that best intentions can have unintended consequences. 

 

The fact is that most jobs where a diversity of thinking and backgrounds doesnt matter and its solely about outcome tend to be ones that are based on physical effort. Nobody needs to push DEI in the NFL or on an assembly line.  Its management roles and where breadth of experience is important and come into the question of "most qualified"

No, as @Vinod1 just pointed out, the higher the skillset required for a job, the less diversity should have any bearing whatsoever. 

[dwy000]

1 minute ago, 73 Reds said:

I don't follow why it backfired?  Because the school did not get enough qualified applicants?  So?  Other than money, why does that even matter?  If the school is not getting enough qualified applicants, perhaps it has a marketing, or message problem.  Another important lesson for business.  Instead, the school seems to have chosen the easy way out by admitting non-qualified applicants.  I blame the school.

Huh? It backfired because the applicants themselves self selected based upon what they perceived was the bias of the school based upon the results (even though the school intentionally had no bias).  They had plenty of applicants.  But their goal to be the school with the best qualified students overall backfired because the quality of the applicants was reduced due to false perception. 

[73 Reds]

Just now, dwy000 said:

Huh? It backfired because the applicants themselves self selected based upon what they perceived was the bias of the school based upon the results (even though the school intentionally had no bias).  They had plenty of applicants.  But their goal to be the school with the best qualified students overall backfired because the quality of the applicants was reduced due to false perception. 

Applicants self-selected because the school did not do a good enough job promoting itself and its selection process as entirely merit-based.  The fact that 50%+ Asians got in is completely immaterial.

[dwy000]

8 minutes ago, vinod1 said:

 

I fail to understand where diversity for diversity's sake is good:

 

1. Say you are building a missile defense system against hypersonic missiles, what you need is skill in physics, fluid dynamics, metallurgy, etc. 

 

2. If a neurosurgeon is needed, I want their expertise to be in neurosurgery.

 

3. A pilot to be skilled in flying.

 

4. A teacher who is good at teaching.

 

If you qualify for any of the above with any filter other than the specific expertise, you end up with poorer outcomes. All the above are real world examples of recruitment policies that DEI had an adverse impact on that I came across.

 

Vinod

 

 

 

Those are all jobs with high and very deep skill sets but relatively low need for breadth of decisioning.  The pilot is great at flying (and you should pick the best.pilots) but the airline management would be making a very different set of decisions. Its why being a great pilot or great surgeon or great soldier doesnt necessarily make you a great manager. 

[dwy000]

2 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Applicants self-selected because the school did not do a good enough job promoting itself and its selection process as entirely merit-based.  The fact that 50%+ Asians got in is completely immaterial.

No it got there because of that! If you had a high SAT or GPA you would apply there.  And the Asian kids who's parents pushed them to focus on marks alone meant that the highest scores tended to be from Asian families. And then it hit a tipping point where it led to self selection because of that outcome. 

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, dwy000 said:

No it got there because of that! If you had a high SAT or GPA you would apply there.  And the Asian kids who's parents pushed them to focus on marks alone meant that the highest scores tended to be from Asian families. And then it hit a tipping point where it led to self selection because of that outcome. 

Again so what?  So your answer is to sacrifice quality?  That doesn't work in business.  You are proving my point, over and over again.

[dwy000]

26 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Again so what?  So your answer is to sacrifice quality?  That doesn't work in business.  You are proving my point, over and over again.

No, the "so what" is that by entirely ignoring DEI or anything else that would narrow selection criteria, you may be thinking you are maximizing the quality of employees or decisions when in fact you are doing the reverse.  Allowing companies to use DEI to expand their options (without quotas!!) is better for them than requiring them to eliminate any reference to DEI and in fact limiting their options by determining "most qualified" through historic criteria

 

Ironically I think we are actually on the same side on this.  Get quotas and the government out of decisions on who is best to hire.  Let companies, schools, etc determine it for themselves and they live with consequences.  

[SharperDingaan]

21 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

No, as @Vinod1 just pointed out, the higher the skillset required for a job, the less diversity should have any bearing whatsoever. 

 

This is just flat out wrong .....

 

All the senior level managers in the Asian subsidiary of your global US company, selling into Asia, should be Asian. Simply 'cause you ain't selling squat if you cant speak the languages, and don't understand the various cultures and practices of the Asian markets you are selling to. The DEI hire is the hybrid Asian-American, as ability to straddle both cultures is a business requirement.  

 

The higher you go the more political, strategic, and time sensitive it gets. Asia is very good at the political, strategic, and long game; the US ... not so much (short game orientation). The DEI hybrid Asian-American, able to competitively straddle both approaches, is a business requirement.

 

Substitute Asia with South American, Middle Eastern, African, Indian, European, etc. ..... same requirements.

 

Different levels, different requirements,higher the level the more influential; they all look the same for a reason.  

 

SD  

 

[cubsfan]

53 minutes ago, vinod1 said:

 

I fail to understand where diversity for diversity's sake is good:

 

1. Say you are building a missile defense system against hypersonic missiles, what you need is skill in physics, fluid dynamics, metallurgy, etc. 

 

2. If a neurosurgeon is needed, I want their expertise to be in neurosurgery.

 

3. A pilot to be skilled in flying.

 

4. A teacher who is good at teaching.

 

If you qualify for any of the above with any filter other than the specific expertise, you end up with poorer outcomes. All the above are real world examples of recruitment policies that DEI had an adverse impact on that I came across.

 

Vinod

 

Bingo!  +1

[73 Reds]

11 minutes ago, SharperDingaan said:

 

This is just flat out wrong .....

 

All the senior level managers in the Asian subsidiary of your global US company, selling into Asia, should be Asian. Simply 'cause you ain't selling squat if you cant speak the languages, and don't understand the various cultures and practices of the Asian markets you are selling to. The DEI hire is the hybrid Asian-American, as ability to straddle both cultures is a business requirement.  

 

The higher you go the more political, strategic, and time sensitive it gets. Asia is very good at the political, strategic, and long game; the US ... not so much (short game orientation). The DEI hybrid Asian-American, able to competitively straddle both approaches, is a business requirement.

 

Substitute Asia with South American, Middle Eastern, African, Indian, European, etc. ..... same requirements.

 

Different levels, different requirements,higher the level the more influential; they all look the same for a reason.  

 

SD  

 

Right - do what's best for business, regardless of diversity.  Not sure why that is an issue.

[73 Reds]

14 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

No, the "so what" is that by entirely ignoring DEI or anything else that would narrow selection criteria, you may be thinking you are maximizing the quality of employees or decisions when in fact you are doing the reverse.  Allowing companies to use DEI to expand their options (without quotas!!) is better for them than requiring them to eliminate any reference to DEI and in fact limiting their options by determining "most qualified" through historic criteria

 

Ironically I think we are actually on the same side on this.  Get quotas and the government out of decisions on who is best to hire.  Let companies, schools, etc determine it for themselves and they live with consequences.  

Says who - you?  Diversity should not be a factor unless diversity itself makes the business better.  Most businesses hire people who can best meet job requirements - regardless of any outsider's opinion on diversity.  One political party has made this into a divisive issue which it should not be at all.  We have laws that govern discriminatory hiring practices.  Otherwise businesses should be free to hire the most qualified candidates  - period.

[LC]

1 hour ago, cubsfan said:

You can look at these academics & tech companies and find they are 90%+ liberal and do everything in their power to get rid of conservative minded individuals.

 

Amazing, considering America's university system and tech industry are best-in-class globally and seen as major drivers of America's continued success. 

 

Throw in the other area of American leadership: the armed forces, which is also becoming more diverse...and maybe Trump shouldn't fix something that ain't broke!

 

Edited September 4, 2025 by LC

[dwy000]

6 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Says who - you?  Diversity should not be a factor unless diversity itself makes the business better.  Most businesses hire people who can best meet job requirements - regardless of any outsider's opinion on diversity.  One political party has made this into a divisive issue which it should not be at all.  We have laws that govern discriminatory hiring practices.  Otherwise businesses should be free to hire the most qualified candidates  - period.

Businesses should be free to hire the most qualified candidates - period.  Exactly!  And if that business decides that having a diverse workforce is in their best interest then they should be allowed to do that.   Trump looking to remove any reference to DEI by businesses who choose to include it in determining moat-qualified is just as wrong as having a quota on the other side.  Government should stay out of hiring by non govt entities. 

[73 Reds]

3 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Businesses should be free to hire the most qualified candidates - period.  Exactly!  And if that business decides that having a diverse workforce is in their best interest then they should be allowed to do that.   Trump looking to remove any reference to DEI by businesses who choose to include it in determining moat-qualified is just as wrong as having a quota on the other side.  Government should stay out of hiring by non govt entities. 

No!!!!  Trump is not telling any business how to run itself or to eliminate diversity if the business itself believes it is good for business.  Now you are just making stuff up.

[Sweet]

2 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Businesses should be free to hire the most qualified candidates - period.  Exactly!  And if that business decides that having a diverse workforce is in their best interest then they should be allowed to do that.   Trump looking to remove any reference to DEI by businesses who choose to include it in determining moat-qualified is just as wrong as having a quota on the other side.  Government should stay out of hiring by non govt entities. 

If you can’t get a diverse workforce through the most qualified candidate alone then meeting a diversity mandate can only be achieved by discrimination.  Which I think should be illegal.

[cubsfan]

4 minutes ago, LC said:

 

Amazing, considering America's university system and tech industry are best-in-class globally and seen as major drivers of America's continued success. 

 

Throw in the other area of American leadership: the armed forces, which is also becoming more diverse...and maybe Trump shouldn't fix something that ain't broke!

 

The universities totally disgraced themselves with their racist behavior of excluding  asians, whites, etc - in favor of their favorite "victim groups".  They institutionalized racism in their hiring & selection processes. Everyone knows it.

 

The tech companies actively censored conservative voices, doxxed them, and blacklisted them. Everyone knows it.

[dwy000]

12 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

No!!!!  Trump is not telling any business how to run itself or to eliminate diversity if the business itself believes it is good for business.  Now you are just making stuff up.

Literally a 15 second Google search. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/04/11/ibm-reportedly-walks-back-diversity-policies-citing-inherent-tensions-here-are-all-the-companies-rolling-back-dei-programs/

 

https://www.esgdive.com/news/1-in-5-companies-slashed-dei-since-trump-election/756318/

 

 

Edited September 4, 2025 by dwy000

[73 Reds]

3 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Literally a 15 second Google search. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/04/11/ibm-reportedly-walks-back-diversity-policies-citing-inherent-tensions-here-are-all-the-companies-rolling-back-dei-programs/

 

https://www.esgdive.com/news/1-in-5-companies-slashed-dei-since-trump-election/756318/

 

 

Because they were in place for the wrong reasons and were bad for business!

[dwy000]

Just now, 73 Reds said:

Because they were in place for the wrong reasons and were bad for business!

Those companies chose to have them in place.  They obviously felt it was beneficial or they wouldnt have done it. 

[73 Reds]

3 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Those companies chose to have them in place.  They obviously felt it was beneficial or they wouldnt have done it. 

And they chose to remove them.  

[dwy000]

1 minute ago, 73 Reds said:

And they chose to remove them.  

They put them in place without govt interference. They removed them because of it.   The exact thing that both of us said shouldn't happen. Govt should stay out of hiring by businesses. 

Edited September 4, 2025 by dwy000

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, dwy000 said:

They put them in place without govt interference. They removed them because of it.   The exact thing that both of us said shouldn't happen. Govt should stay out of hiring by businesses. 

You really don't get it do you?  They put diversity in place because of misguided thinking.  They removed it because it wasn't effective.  Don't you understand the difference between mandatory DEI and resultant DEI simply because that is what happens to work best?  

[dwy000]

Just now, 73 Reds said:

You really don't get it do you?  They put diversity in place because of misguided thinking.  They removed it because it wasn't effective.  Don't you understand the difference between mandatory DEI and resultant DEI simply because that is what happens to work best?  

Did u see the articles from a 15 second Google search?  There were dozens.  All referring to businesses changing their hiring references (directly or.indirectly) due to government pressure, not because they wanted to.  

 

Keep government out of hiring. 

[73 Reds]

Just now, dwy000 said:

Did u see the articles from a 15 second Google search?  There were dozens.  All referring to businesses changing their hiring references (directly or.indirectly) due to government pressure, not because they wanted to.  

 

Keep government out of hiring. 

No business - public or private has to change anything if they are following the law.   If they violated the law with unlawful quotas or anything else that's misguided thinking and that's on them.

[dwy000]

1 minute ago, 73 Reds said:

No business - public or private has to change anything if they are following the law.   If they violated the law with unlawful quotas or anything else that's misguided thinking and that's on them.

Not if you want to do business with the government or avoid government regulation. 

 

Paramount literally had to remove all references to DEI to get their merger approved last month.