Black History Month.

[impartialobserver]

37 minutes ago, taxme said:

Why don't you answer my simple questions? Why do you keep ignoring them? Cannot come up with anything, lefty? Do i now get to say that I gotcha? 🤣

I answered you. Yes, they would complain. guess what? You are complaining about BHM... lots of evidence. Unless its not you writing it 

[Zeitgeist]

On 3/8/2024 at 5:50 PM, Michael Hardner said:

The onus is on you to back things up. I don't make claims and then tell you to go Google it. If you challenge me. At least give me a key word or what thread it was on

I can’t share more for reasons that should be obvious.  If you don’t know that many such postings exist at this late point, you have your head buried in the sand or you’re playing games.  This was mentioned many months ago.  Do your own research if it’s important to you.  I’m solid in my position. 

Edited March 10 by Zeitgeist

[I am Groot]

On 3/7/2024 at 1:56 PM, Black Dog said:

Because some of them might be good at it and make valuable contributions to their fields? What a dumbass question.

This is what you answer to my question of why does it matter that women don't want to be cops or geologists. The inference being "We know what's good for them! They will go to the jobs we direct them to!"

The depth of arrogance in that answer is just breathtaking.

On 3/7/2024 at 2:02 PM, Black Dog said:

No it's partly due to selective recruitment of highly educated Asian immigrants from certain countries.

News flash: We do not 'recruit' people as immigrants. 

[I am Groot]

On 3/7/2024 at 2:09 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Well that's what I thought but I couldn't find evidence.  Of course we recruit highly educated people, which leads to strange racist tropes like "Chinese people are really good at Math"...

We do not recruit anyone to be an immigrant. It would be a lot smarter to do so but we don't. We throw open the doors and take whatever comes through. Yes, we do prefer those who are educated. But immigration rules don't change from country to country. 

[I am Groot]

On 3/7/2024 at 3:32 PM, Black Dog said:

Well the issue is a lot of fields (STEM for example) have done a poor job of providing those opportunities on their own.

All universities provide equal access to all fields. And you have provided zero evidence to the contrary. By insisting that these fields 'provide' opportunities you are demanding special consideration beyond equality.

On 3/7/2024 at 3:32 PM, Black Dog said:

No one is doing that.

Except you.

On 3/7/2024 at 3:32 PM, Black Dog said:

And there's women who want to be auto mechanics who don't become auto mechanics because that's a field that has been hostile to women. 

A close friend is a mechanic. In fact, he's in charge of the service section at a major dealership. Being a mechanic is dirty, physically difficult work that few women have either the physical ability or desire for.

On 3/7/2024 at 3:32 PM, Black Dog said:

Recruitment isn't the right words so much as the people who choose to immigrate from these societies are ones with the resources to do so. 

If that's the case then everyone who comes here from the Philippines and Southeast Asia would also have those resources and, by your logic, should be equally successful here as those from Japan, Korea or China.

[Zeitgeist]

14 hours ago, Black Dog said:

You see job postings where the only qualification required is that someone be a member of a racialized group? I find that hard to believe.

Coded means when a job or field is associated primarily or exclusively to certain genders. Like plumbers, nurses, school teachers. The other definitions are easily googleable. Oh and I didn't use the term systemic racism.

Systems aren't individuals. They're embedded attitudes or practices that are ingrained in the way institutions operate or in their culture.

The jobs required certain skills but they were exclusively for “racialized”.  I have no reason to make it up.  I wish it wasn’t the case.  I referenced a specific job posting on another thread many months ago that has probably been filled.  If you doubt it, that actually tells me you don’t know or are pretending not to know that such postings exist.

I’m glad you revealed that your idea of systemic racism has nothing to do with laws or policies but relies entirely on “attitudes and practices that are engrained”.   Really?  By whom?  Have you interviewed people to discern their attitudes?  Have you observed their practices?   Or is it really just a numbers game where you’re looking at the percentage of representation and making assumptions about why disproportionalities exist?  Believe me, I’ve read many studies and theories on these topics and I can speak woke.  I also know when someone has an agenda without a solid basis but is hoping that people will just buy into the assumptions.  If you shout loud enough and throw out stats that in themselves don’t tell you why, maybe people will buy in.   That’s DEI to a tee.

[I am Groot]

On 3/7/2024 at 3:35 PM, Perspektiv said:

But they are. They literally are.

You don't have engineering that runs laps around anything the US could ever dream of, without having a nation full of gifted engineers. Some of the world's best.

Literally the top countries regarding math, are mostly southeast Asian.

How is it racist if its true?

The Left insists that such things must be considered racist because if they allow this kind of thing to be considered acceptable than the corally must also logically be acceptable. Ie, when particular groups are well known for something not so good as math.

[I am Groot]

On 3/7/2024 at 3:59 PM, Black Dog said:

It's fascinating that you assume a woman couldn't be qualified on merit. Does that apply to different races as well?

It's you who assumes a woman can't be qualified on merit. Just as you assume the same for black and brown people. Because if you and your ilk thought otherwise you wouldn't be so furiously opposed to hiring based on merit. In fact, it's a Leftist belief that 'hiring on merit is racist'. 

Which is why we call your beliefs racist.

Edited March 9 by I am Groot

[I am Groot]

On 3/7/2024 at 5:48 PM, Black Dog said:

I don't know how you guys look at "we should promote and incentive women and minority groups to be part of fields in which they are underrepresented" and think that means "unqualified people should be given jobs because of their race/sex/gender."

Life experience.

[I am Groot]

On 3/7/2024 at 6:52 PM, Black Dog said:

Historically no. That's only changed because of a concentrated effort to get more women into those fields.

I'd love to see social studies of how many stay in those fields they've been badgered into joining, and how happy they are vs men.

On 3/7/2024 at 6:52 PM, Black Dog said:

I think men and women are socialized differently, yes.

Uhm, no. Women have long had a preference for jobs with a high degree of social exposure, ie, working with people. Men, some men, in particular, have an affinity with working with things, mostly alone, focusing on their numbers or rocks or bugs. In Scandinavia, where they have worked the hardest to make their society a gender-equal utopia male and female students at colleges and universities have an even HIGHER preference for this. It's biological, not social conditioning. 

On 3/7/2024 at 6:52 PM, Black Dog said:

Women having to interrupt their careers to have children because men aren't expected to stay home and look after the kids is actually a great example of the patriarchy in action.

Have you ever met a mother who preferred to have her husband stay home with her young children instead of herself? I'm sure there are a few, but they ARE few. I never knew a young mother who was eager to go back to work and leave her child to daycare. I know one mother whose husband did the child-rearing while she went to work because she had a good job and he did not. She tried to make up for it by bringing her children with her everywhere she went when not working but to this day she regrets the time not spent with them when they were younger.

On 3/7/2024 at 6:52 PM, Black Dog said:

I don't think women should be punished for having children and the state should have family-friendly policies to facilitate equitable participation in both the workforce and childcare.

Me neither but we reward experience and time spent on the job. Male doctors and lawyers make more than their female counterparts both because of the time women spend in child bearing and due to the fact women prefer to be the ones who are home with their child when that child is sick and are much less enthusiastic about working extra hours when they have children at home than men. It's slowly dawning on the medical world that if you have a higher percentage of doctors that are female you need to have a higher number of doctors to make up for the fewer hours they will be spending working.

[Zeitgeist]

19 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

It's you who assumes a woman can't be qualified on merit. Just as you assume the same for black and brown people. Because if you and your ilk thought otherwise you wouldn't be so furiously opposed to hiring based on merit. In fact, it's a Leftist belief that 'hiring on merit is racist'. 

Which is why we call your beliefs racist.

Yup.  Canada hasn’t yet required that race or other superficial characteristics that have nothing to do with knowledge and skills not be considered in hiring and admissions if the purpose of such discrimination is to elevate the representation of select groups.  Of course discrimination is discrimination.  It’s an uncomfortable reality that some minority groups actually punch above their weight as a percentage of the population in high status positions.  Many Asian groups fit this bill.  That’s just one reason why trying to make outcomes the same for all racial groups and genders is absurd and Marxist: There’s no accounting for the prevailing skills and interests within each group.  Instead, we get the Marxist critique of economic master and slave, the idea that the only reason for inequality is some form of oppression.  Of course there are no racist laws or hiring policies and as people of different backgrounds get to know and trust each other, racist attitudes have declined to insignificance, except for this one new area where whites are defined as privileged solely on the basis of their colour and men are patriarchal oppressors solely on the basis of gender.  There are actual policies in hiring and admissions that engender this new discrimination, which certainly is systemic.

Edited March 9 by Zeitgeist

[I am Groot]

22 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

This is nothing but reverse racism.

You're punishing white people, for things on a generational level, that they have nothing to do with currently. How else is this not punishing current white people for existing, racism?

It's even dumber than that. 

The people we're 'making things up to' are mostly immigrants or their kids. 

That's because this whole concept of DEI has been lifted wholesale from the United States. It makes no allowances whatsoever for being in Canada and imposes the same terms and uses the same justifications as in America. 

"DEI is necessary due to the way certain black and brown communities were discriminated against in the past and so robbed of the... " But wait, they weren't even in this country in the past!

Just like the reason DEI particularly focuses on black people is because it's from the US. Canada essentially had no black people to speak of*, prior to immigration being opened up to the third world in the 70s and especially 80s. And yet 'anti-black racism' is a figure which is used widely in the DEI business. The only group that can realistically complain of historical injustice and racism are natives. Why don't we focus on 'anti-native racism'? Because that's not how progressives think. They get ALL their ideas and beliefs from the Americans.

*The black population of Canada was 31k in 1971

Edited March 9 by I am Groot

[I am Groot]

22 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

And people wonder why so many movies have tanked at the box office, recently.

Movies like this, who take it to the limit, are essentially lecturing you, when they should focus on entertaining you.

Yes. And it's worse than the quote depicts because the same rules apply to writers. In fact, the new agreement between the Writers Guild and the studios codifies this by requiring racial/ethnic/sexual representation on the writing staff of all TV shows and movies.

For those who don't know. Good writers are extremely rare in any field, especially fiction, especially genre fiction. 

22 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

For that movie, I felt I wasted hours of my life I couldn't get back. Literally most of it was BLM flags, and wokespeak, and the lead character correcting peoples politically incorrect ways of talking. 

You just cringed.

Many female heroine movies, instead of empowering the woman, will take power away from men, because of course--woke. And men are the patriarchy.

I've seen strong female characters written well - but mostly in the past. It seems like the writers today have no clue how to write a strong woman. So they give them the cliche'd strengths they would give a strong man. They make them physically dominant (while utterly ignoring basic biology), unemotional, and close-mouthed. They make them Mary Sues because making them seem in any way weak goes against the narrative. Thus the sneers and jeers directed at characters like that last Star Wars main character "Rey", who somehow learned to be a Jedi master simply by existing and having ovaries. 

[I am Groot]

21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't think this has anything to do with that.  Oscar and Box Office - two different things.  At best, Oscar promotes prestige and higher art films but... not really.  It's always the Blockbusters that make the money.

Oscar promotes the politically correct. Which is why you had Bill Maher listing them a couple of years ago as an example of how nuts Oscar was since none of the movies was popular and since the mostly made people want to go and slit their wrists. 

 

Edited March 9 by I am Groot

[Zeitgeist]

10 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

It's even dumber than that. 

The people we're 'making things up to' are mostly immigrants or their kids. 

That's because this whole concept of DEI has been lifted wholesale from the United States. It makes no allowances whatsoever for being in Canada and imposes the same terms and uses the same justifications as in America. 

"DEI is necessary due to the way certain black and brown communities were discriminated against in the past and so robbed of the... " But wait, they weren't even in this country in the past!

Just like the reason DEI particularly focuses on black people is because it's from the US. Canada essentially had no black people to speak of*, prior to immigration being opened up to the third world in the 70s and especially 80s. And yet 'anti-black racism' is a figure which is used widely in the DEI business. The only group that can realistically complain of historical injustice and racism are natives. Why don't we focus on 'anti-native racism'? Because that's not how progressives think. They get ALL their ideas and beliefs from the Americans.

*The black population of Canada was 31k in 1971

Even the native oppression narratives treat natives as if they have no agency and had clean hands throughout history.  We know that deals were struck selfishly to gain weapons and horses, that tribes brutalized each other, and kept more slaves in Canada than any “colonial” settlers.  I won’t even get into the supposed graves that haven’t been unearthed.  Yes people treated people badly and some groups were more on the losing end than others for periods in Canada, but what can be done fairly to address the past today without punishing people who had no role in oppression?  Also, how do you quantify how much someone alive today has been economically impacted by oppression going back generations?  There are native billionaires.  Do they get reparations?  From whom?  Can I get a payout for property left in the US when my Loyalist ancestors fled to Canada for their safety?  It was only around 250 years ago.  Where’s the sense of self-reliance and the belief that hard work pays off?  Much of success comes down to the basic premise, “You get out of it what you put into it”, as long as the rules of the game are the same for everyone.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Oscar promotes the politically correct. Which is why you had Bill Maher listing them a couple of years ago as an example of how nuts Oscar was since none of the movies was popular and since the mostly made people want to go and slit their wrists. 

 

That's the Oscars though.  The unpopular nature of their favourite products is a perennial flower.  I picked a year at random, 30 years ago 1994, and the five nominees had one commercial picture, one historical picture that had commercial potential, and three forgettable art pics.

Have you ever seen a weird obscure movie on a streaming service, and wondered why a huge star like say Woody Harrelson is in it? It's because the movies that the Hollywood insiders like are not the movies that we like.

Edited March 9 by Michael Hardner

[Perspektiv]

49 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Me neither but we reward experience and time spent on the job.

As it should be. 

I will seek relevant experience, as an employer. Not too sure on many who will not.

If am building a business and need to put in grueling hours to get it off of the ground, I will need someone who can dedicate years of their life to that goal.

If I am willing to put in 15+ hours daily, for 3 years, and a woman gets pregnant missing out on months of experience, I don't see how I should slow my ascent just to let her keep up.

Like the sheer arrogance of feeling entitled to a position you didn't earn. 

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

If I am willing to put in 15+ hours daily, for 3 years, and a woman gets pregnant missing out on months of experience, I don't see how I should slow my ascent just to let her keep up.

You seem to be unwittingly proving Black Dog's point.

It's in the nation's best interest to provide for domestic population growth.  Many people on here have said that that's preferable to immigration.

Yet, it's not in your personal interest to hire a woman who is of birthing age.  Therefore, the government puts in policies purposed to achieve the results that serve national interests at the cost of your personal interest.

 

[I am Groot]

18 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Yes in certain fields, I think women face systemic obstacles to entry.

Name them.

18 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Why would women want to become plumbers when the message from people like you is some fields are for boys and some are for girls and that's just how it is?

I expect it has never once occurred to you that having more women in those "shitty jobs" benefits men too?

No. It's never occurred to me that having more women plumbers is good for men. Please explain it to me.

[I am Groot]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well that doesn't address Black Dog's point... it's a side step.  But ok - post an example.  I've asked for this a few times on this thread so we can make some intelligent reviews of what's happening.

I posted one a few days ago. My memory is you commented on it but perhaps not.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

I posted one a few days ago. My memory is you commented on it but perhaps not.

I believe you, but I don't remember either.  I have a recollection of a valid example 

[I am Groot]

16 hours ago, Black Dog said:

You see job postings where the only qualification required is that someone be a member of a racialized group? I find that hard to believe.

Way to move the goalposts. Obviously, no serious job is going to ONLY ask for people who are racialized.

Further, while there are few job postings that openly exclude whites many give preference to non-whites, or members of other identity groups. A friend always identifies herself in applications as bisexual now just to a box ticked off for the HR people on the other end.

[I am Groot]

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I believe you, but I don't remember either.  I have a recollection of a valid example 

A quick search turned up on a few examples

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/waterloo

https://universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/canada-research-chairs-program-announces-new-more-ambitious-equity-targets/

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

A quick search turned up on a few examples

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/waterloo

https://universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/canada-research-chairs-program-announces-new-more-ambitious-equity-targets/

Yeah that's the one.  I'm against that.  A public institution will be accountable.  There are ways to increase participation from marginalized people without making groups compete in that way.

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yeah that's the one.  I'm against that.  A public institution will be accountable.  There are ways to increase participation from marginalized people without making groups compete in that way.

But what is the actual point of increasing participation for marginalized people who can't otherwise qualify based on merit? Unless you can demonstrate they're victims of some kind of undiscoverable oppressive 'systemic discrimination'? And that is generally based almost entirely on statistical variations between groups (except that groups that perform ahead of whites are ignored). It also ignores group preference. Ie, there are more female nurses than male nurses because more women want to be nurses than men.