hypochondriac

It's only dangerous if you take online persons seriously and take those sort of things offline. I think soggy is a complete bellend but if I ever met him in real life I'm sure I could have a polite conversation and maybe a haircut from his black barber. We don't really know anyone on here (other than the few people I do actually know in real life) and I'm sure the majority are nothing like their online personality.

No one should get a job over somebody else if they are less qualified purely based on skin colour if everything else other than those two factors is equal. That woukd be the case the other way round too.

Under qualified means less qualified than the original standard. The standard will necessarily be lowered in order to reach the racial quota they are aiming for.

See these kind of posts are just sad. I don't know you in real life you could be a great person and a really warm and friendly guy but on here you come across like many of the worst people on the left -an unearned sense of moral superiority, preaching empathy but then demonstrating very little for people who you disagree with. You use crass language and fling around insults at people just because they see things differently to you and you brand people as ists and phobes rather than trying to understand others and you think you're the one with the empathy. I'm sure you're a very nice person offline but sadly not on here.

In the context of the discussion it was very obvious what he meant. He's arguing against the lowering of standards in general in order to meet quotas. He's not necessarily saying don't try not to hire more black people, he's saying that those black people should meet the existing standard prior to the introduction of the DEI policy. He's right. If less black people or less of any ethnicity don't meet the standard then less should be hired which is what happens in a merit based systen.

Like I said, he clarifies what he means in the video I posted.

Ah OK I thought you were having a semi serious discussion. It seems you were just trolling fair enough.

Watch the video. He also used other examples such as college admissions. There has been DEI schemes where standards have been lowered and shortcuts taken in order to discriminate based on skin colour.

So there was no example he could have used according to you without being branded in some fashion.

I don't believe you watched it but if you did it is clear we will never agree because our world views are diametrically opposed. I can only hope that people who think as you do are never in a position to implement these things in this country.

He clarifies "under qualified" in the video I just posted. He explains it well and what he's said is correct.

So if he'd chosen women as an example you'd have called him sexist?

It's very clear what he means. He explains it in detail here but you won't watch it because you don't want to understand, you'd rather quote one line out of context and call it racist.

You're being pathetic. It's entirely obvious that his issue was with the concept of DEI in hiring. He has explained it himself in detail and he's absolutely correct.

Because he was discussing a specific DEI policy where United Airlines said they wanted 40% of their pilots to be people of colour or women. They relax standards in order to reach racial quotas so if he sees a black person he's going to hope that that policy is not in place and that that person is qualified.

I mean it's a throwaway line in a long conversation but obviously he as using it to criticise DEI hiring. I think you're just being overly pedantic to try and suggest he was being racist when it's clear what the intent is.

He was saying that he was forced to make negative assumptions about someone based on their skin colour due to the racist hiring practices of DEI hiring. What he was saying was that he wanted DEI hiring to cease so that he didn't have to make assumptions about the competence of the employees and he could be confident that the black pilot got his job on merit.

Yes and I do understand the desire to course correct in America due to their racial issues which have been much greater than ours. I still don't agree with it though. We don't tend to have much of it in this country though thankfully.

I think it's being not very good combined with the air of superiority she exudes and playing the race card whilst coming accross as not particularly bright. See here for a clear example:

Yes. His point was that it was the racist actions of others giving people preferential treatment based on skin colour that meant he was not able to be sure that someone black was not hired due to the colour of their skin rather than their ability. Not racist at all.

His point was that DEI hiring means that it was no longer certain that the most qualified or most competent person was getting jobs anymore since hiring was not necessarily on merit anymore.

I'm cool with that as long as you don't try to murder me with a rifle.

Not sure if you're being serious or not but liberal in the UK typically refers to classical liberals which is more associated with centrism. Liberalism in America is indeed more associated with being further left and progressives.

A liberal in America has a different meaning to the ones over here.

Because many people who are hardcore supporters of both and who claim to be big Christians frequently show support for and act in ways that I consider to be very unchristian.