hypochondriac

Her husband and father to her children has just been shot in the neck and killed. If anything she was positively restrained.

In what way is the equality act comparable to DEI? Positive discrimination is generally outlawed.

What I've found interesting are the tributes particularly from women, minorities and gay people who knew or interacted with him. I haven't seen a single one so far that wasn't glowing-talking about how supportive he was towards them in private, how he was friendly and spent time with them in their homes, how he helped them with crippling anxiety and gave them confidence, how kind he was to their same sex partners, how he treated minorities like a brother and how he volunteered to assist with theirnorganisations for no money. If he was a bigot then judging by those comments from people who actually knew him he was pretty selective with his bigotry and it doesn't sound like he was a very good one.

I think that no one should get a job over someone else who is more capable based on immutable characteristics like skin colour if this is what is happening. With full implementation of DEI there's certainly potential for that to happen. As long as the best and most capable people are being hired regardless of skin colour then that's the ideal to strive for.

I could support some form of blind hiring where people make decisions based on cvs without identifying characteristics. Just because there may be some bias (and I know this isn't always the case) doesn't mean that DEI discrimination is the answer.

🙏

I'm not sure you can ever really know that unless you know the person in real life.

And we know it happened in he UK with fitness standards in the army. I take the point that it's still a pass if they've reached a certain point but I still don't think someone should be elevated above someone else just based on an immutable characteristic. Even if we accept that Charlie Kirk didn't express himself as well as he might have done, his overall point that DEI is wrong is correct.

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.