Jump to content

Moonlight Graham

Senior Member
  • Posts

    9,697
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    15

Moonlight Graham last won the day on August 15

Moonlight Graham had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Location
    Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

36,077 profile views

Moonlight Graham's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • Week One Done
  • One Year In
  • One Month Later
  • Very Popular Rare

Recent Badges

785

Reputation

  1. Read a book. People from South Asia and East Asia were often called Indians back then.
  2. You're saying with 2 similar candidates the tiebreaker will often unconsciously be biases like same race, gender or other categories. But with "diversity" hires the tiebreaker is also determined by race, gender and maybe other categories determined by policy. Either way someone is being unfairly discriminated against based on categories like what identity group they belong to like race or gender. Little is being solved here, just different problems created. What someone looks like or how they spell their name etc should not be considered during hiring. This is the whole point. Train people to be less biased instead of training them to be more biased. People are being told to hire based on race and sex, and to feel good about that, it's insane.
  3. Sure, these white male bigots are racist and sexist and should lose their jobs. I am interested in getting rid of racism and sexism, not promoting another flavour of it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Someone's sex or gender (what they look like) should not be a criteria for hiring.
  4. You're making a whole bunch of racist and sexist assumptions. Saying a person will be a better fit for an organization simply because of their skin colour or gender is a racist and sexist statement. You're discriminating against people and making hiring decisions based on their race and gender. But of course you can't challenge this in a court of law in Canada because discriminating against white people and men is protected in our Charter of Rights, while all other groups are protected from discriminatory hiring practices. Your biases are as real as the people you claim "hire based on commonalities". People shouldn't typically be discussing personal interests and whatnot during a job interview. If you have people hiring employees they have things in common with (ie: are hiring based on common race and sex, or in other words are being sexist and racist) rather than the best person for the job they should be sent for bias training or fired, because discriminating against people based on their sex or gender is wrong. If you have employees or recruiters who have racist or sexist biases you should be training them on how to remove these. Instead you're doing the exact opposite, you're training people to be consciously sexist and racist. Everyone who walks into an interview at your organization will be judged on their skin colour and gender, it is quite disgusting. The cover of "diverse organizations perform better" is racist and sexist nonsense created by people who want to socially engineer our society through means like employment discrimination. Organizations often don't factor "diversity" in other ways, like age, socioeconomic background, where in the country they grew up, marital status etc. They typically only factor race and sex, or possibly sexual orientation in some cases, because the agenda isn't diversity it's "social justice"
  5. Kids deaths are extremely rare. My understand is the health risk to kids and the general population of getting the vaccine are lower than if they didn't get the vaccine. For anyone of any population, if your health risks of getting the vaccine are lower than if they didn't get the vaccine, then logically you should get the vaccine. It's that simple. it's a simple cost-benefit analysis. If anyone is unsure if they should vax their kids they should consult their doctor instead of non-doctors and non-scientists on the internet.
  6. Define "representative"? The racial and gender makeup of a company and its hierarchy are the same proportion to the general population? That doesn't work. People like Asians and Jewish people will be discriminated against, because they achieve education and career success at higher rates per capita than others. The only fair way to hire is to hire the best person for the job regardless of race or gender, unless the job qualifications specifically would benefit from someone of a certain background. Joe Biden did exactly that with his VP pick and Supreme Court pick. Trudeau did exactly that with his cabinet picks and both GG picks. Define "organic". From what I see it just seems like people pulling decisions on diversity hires out of their butts with no clear or consistent criteria for justifying selection whatsoever. It's pretty random and based on "feelings". But this is "ok" because people don't feel bad about discriminating against white people, men, or asians apparently. They still sleep at night and even pat themselves on the back. Meanwhile Keith the white guy doesn't have a job because he wasn't the right skin colour or had the wrong sex parts, or Fukodomo doesn't have a job because he wasn't the right skin colour. You're not hiring the best candidate based on merit if that's what you're doing. This is discrimination based on racism and sexism if you're making hiring pool decisions based on race and gender. These things shouldn't matter in hiring decisions, unless the qualifications of the job would specifically benefit from someone of a certain background (ie: school with majority black children that has little to no black teachers).
  7. The best way to solve the issue is for people to not re-elect a government if they don't like their policies. Democracy means we get a chance to guillotine our rulers every few years via election, peacefully and bloodlessly. There is no political system possible where everyone gets the policies they want, people will always disagree. We don't have a perfect system, but rule by majority with peaceful transitions is about as good as it gets.
  8. That's not practically how it works though. Parliament approves tax legislation, it is rubber stamped for approval by the King and given royal assent. Parliament then approves a budget on how to spend the tax revenue (and debt money) and the King rubber stamps it as well. Because the King only has limited reserve powers to be used in emergency only. Otherwise he defers to the will of Parliament. This is the case because centuries ago when the King still had the power to rule without the people's consent on his decisions, the King abused his authority and acted like a tyrant, so the people deposed him, and then allowed him to return to the throne again, but with most of his powers stripped by convention and given to Parliament, and the monarch became a rubber stamp with emergency reserve powers.
  9. From what it sounds like, there is income redistribution clearly going on here. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". But i wouldn't expect anything different from an NDP government, so people in BC have reaped what they sow. Not much to complain about unless you didn't vote NDP.
  10. Mostly accurate but I think there's also movements on the left that have taken the unfair privileges of whites and men and given them to POC and women in the form of affirmative action that is often more based on "feelings" than merit. If you're going to take a job away from a white man and give it to a woman and/or a POC not based on merit but based on filling a diversity quota it's not in any way surprising that white men would want to support a party that opposes this. Biden's Democrats did exactly this with his VP pick and his Supreme Court Justice pick, and Trudeau did the same with his cabinet picks and both of his GG picks. Now, there's also just straight up racist and misogynist men and they find their way to the GOP too.
  11. It's because she's so much more intelligent than everyone else and needs to talk slowly so we pleebs can understand her. She was a Rhodes Scholar in Ukrainian studies after all.
  12. Celebrating and being thankful for the autumn harvest seems pretty racist to me. I'm sure there's historical inaccuracies in a lot of narratives we tell ourselves, and it's fine to acknowledge it, but i don't think we should demonize the holiday entirely for it. The left are big party poopers on our holidays for some reason, they dwell on the negative in everything. Yet the right seems to like to deny that these negatives even exist.
  13. If you're a greedy rich person and don't care about the less fortunate in society, you could label that narcissism. However, if you're a greedy poor person and just want the government to give you lots of free money and don't care how its paid for you or that other people are paying your way you could also label that narcissism. People gravitate to parties that further their own interests, generally. Economically, if you're independent or a rich business person you're usually going to gravitate to the right, if you're poor or prefer depending on others (like the government) you'll vote for the left. It's not rocket science. Young people lean left economically because they are typically not independent financially and still often rely on their parents. Getting free money and services from the government isn't much different than getting free money and services from your parents. As you get older you become more financially independent, and you also tend to get more conservative economically as you get older. Until you retire, then a lot of people want the goodies lol and you start becoming a dependent again.
×
×
  • Create New...