Diversity is not a strength, it's a weakness. And why are the Laurentian Elites fixated on DEI?

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

That is a conservative attitude.
Bullshitting that DEI means hiring lesser qualified minorities over qualified 'white' people isn't.

We are accepting less qualified minorities into medical schools.

 

AI Overview

 

Canadian medical schools are increasingly implementing equity-focused, or "holistic," admissions policies designed to increase the representation of Black, Indigenous, and other minority students who have historically been underrepresented in medicine

. These policies have led to debates regarding the prioritization of diversity over traditional, purely academic metrics. 

CMAJ +4

Admissions Policies and Diversity Initiatives

• Holistic Review: Schools are moving away from relying solely on GPA and MCAT scores to include factors like "lived experiences," rural origin, and socioeconomic status.
• Targeted Pathways: Many schools have dedicated admission streams for underrepresented in medicine (UIM) applicants, including Black and Indigenous students.
• Controversy and Targets: Recent initiatives, such as at Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU), have set high, though sometimes contested, targets for diversity. For instance, reports indicated that TMU aimed to select a significant portion of its incoming class from specific minority or equity-deserving streams.
• Concerns over Metrics: Research published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute argues that some race-based policies have resulted in the admission of students with lower academic scores (like GPA/MCAT) compared to the average, leading to arguments that these policies are discriminatory to other applicants. 

[Venandi]

4 hours ago, herbie said:

Bullshitting that DEI means hiring lesser qualified minorities over qualified 'white' people isn't.

Nothing what so ever to do with excluding minorities or prioritizing "white" people... you've taken a concept most sensible people can agree with (meaning access to opportunity) and turned it into targeted objectives (and bloody hard to hit ones BTW) for organizations like the military whose recruiting window is small to begin with. And it's not small because of racism either, it's small because ready, willing, and able is actually a small group. And that's just for regular military occupations, the special forces community has an even harder time sourcing ready, willing and able because the bar is so much higher.

Mandating DEI objectives when availability is weak inevitably means that you are willing to sacrifice competency in favour of virtue signalling. If you're a lead hand (or company owner) in any predominantly male occupation, say forestry, mining, construction, fishing etc and a conservative government came along and insisted that 1/3 of your crew (at any given time) needed to be female it might cause you some recruiting difficulties. And when it did you would be right here saying the very thing I am but with an obnoxious tone, lots of insults and references to CHUDs and a bunch of bad language.

Most women I know don't want to work construction... don't tell me about the occasional female plumber either, I've worked with some. But mostly they don't and you know it.

Most women don't want to join the Navy and go to sea or join the army and become infantrymen (infantry people for you) either.

They just don't.

Finding them is hard, many can't get past the course and few stay long once the novelty wears off. Recruiting to an established mandate that you support is thirsty work. The folks you think you're defending aren't being excluded, the problem is they're hard to find, hard to recruit and hard to retain.

Let me illustrate the problem for you again:  

How many women do you know personally who sincerely want to join the Navy and make a career out of going to sea? 

I'd ask the same question of any other loud mouth too. Since you claim to know so many of them send em down to the recruiting centre. Just remember the ready, willing and able caveat that applies across the board.

As usual, you are trying to address a rather complex problem with single sentences dripping with sarcasm and ridicule... and if that's all ya got then I only have two words for you.

 

Edited March 28 by Venandi

[herbie]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Schools are moving away from relying solely on GPA and MCAT scores to include factors like "lived experiences," rural origin, and socioeconomic status.

WTF makes those 'qualifications' ? They merely show how well you did on THAT particular test.
It's 2026 they're screaming for med students, and if you're NFG you'll get screened out regardless of who or what you are. Your inherent bigotry is showing if you think it's like elementary school and you go to Grade 2 if you're 9 regardless.

[herbie]

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

Nothing what so ever to do with excluding minorities or prioritizing "white" people

Yes, you like to take an idea to promote equality and pretend it's a LAW that discriminates against you because you're 'white'.

The BOSS hires whoever the hell they want and if they chose to apply DEI terms that's too bad for you. You're the one grovelling for a job and he decides. You're the n-word no matter what colour you are in a job interview.

Tell you what: living in a town that's over 30% native I picked the native guy a couple times over the equally useless others.
When 99% of the candidates can barely walk and chew gum at the same time it's a business advantage. Even had one more-on attend a job session at the manpower centre than drop a completely blank application on my desk and tell me that I had to fill it out...... came by a week later and was mad that I didn't - never even told me his name!

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, Goddess said:

What do you make of this take — is teaching national self-doubt a luxury the West can afford, or a strategic vulnerability in a competitive world?

National self-doubt is not a topic. There are no certificates, diplomas, or doctorates awarded to practicing 'doubtists' in the 'field' because there is no 'field'.

It's a made up term for a made up grievance.

[User]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

Yes, you like to take an idea to promote equality and pretend it's a LAW that discriminates against you because you're 'white'.

The BOSS hires whoever the hell they want and if they chose to apply DEI terms that's too bad for you. You're the one grovelling for a job and he decides. You're the n-word no matter what colour you are in a job interview.

Tell you what: living in a town that's over 30% native I picked the native guy a couple times over the equally useless others.
When 99% of the candidates can barely walk and chew gum at the same time it's a business advantage. Even had one more-on attend a job session at the manpower centre than drop a completely blank application on my desk and tell me that I had to fill it out...... came by a week later and was mad that I didn't - never even told me his name!

Herbie admits he is a racist. 

We already knew. 

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, herbie said:

That is a conservative attitude.
Bullshitting that DEI means hiring lesser qualified minorities over qualified 'white' people isn't.

That's literally what dei is.  Hiring less qualified people under the premise that there is something called positive racism and not because they're qualified

The whole premise is that nobody wants somebody who's qualified, people in businesses only hire people because they're white. This has been shown for many studies to be completely false but that is the premise. It's totally stupid and thoroughly racist

 

[I am Groot]

13 hours ago, herbie said:

WTF makes those 'qualifications' ? They merely show how well you did on THAT particular test.
It's 2026 they're screaming for med students, and if you're NFG you'll get screened out regardless of who or what you are. Your inherent bigotry is showing if you think it's like elementary school and you go to Grade 2 if you're 9 regardless.

Fine. When you need a heart operation, we'll find some low-intelligence, barely passed its exams, trans black woman to do the op for you. We'll reserve the brilliant white male doctors for people like me, who deserve them.

My doctor will have gotten in because of his sheer, bloody brilliance. Yours because they were a thing with black skin.

[Venandi]

12 hours ago, User said:

Herbie admits he is a racist. 

Sounds like it eh?

14 hours ago, herbie said:

living in a town that's over 30% native I picked the native guy a couple times over the equally useless others.

Well herb, let's stand the whole gender equity thing on its head.

I'll leave racial equity to others as gender equity is a bigger challenge for military recruiters because most women don't actually want to go to sea or be paratroopers.

So:

90% of nurses in Canada are female (meaning only 9-10% are male)... you should be as horrified by that as you are about the military situation. Let's put racism aside because I don't see that as causal... I just think that most men don't want to be nurses any more than most women want to join the Navy and go to sea.

But, lets go full DEI on those poor nurses anyway and we'll task you with recruiting... your immediate problem is convincing more men (who don't want the job) to become nurses because your mandate is to hit 30% men by 2030 and extended training times are a limiting factor. 

Might sound similar to what some of us have been saying eh?

I don't envy you the job, but given limited training resources, I think you are going to have to turn away a whole bunch of highly qualified female applicants (who actually want to be nurses) in order to accommodate the influx of men (who at best are unsure about even doing it). 

I'll leave the details to your good judgement but I'd say that In order to hit the new mandated numbers you are going to have to dumb down the entry requirements for men in order to induce a bunch of them to consider doing something they never previously aspired to do. 

Since you're pretty vocal, opinionated, sarcastic and insulting about all this I'd like to hear how you plan to get more guys into the training mill without dumbing down the entry requirements to recruit them in the numbers required.

Get busy, given that you'll be opening a minimum of 20% of the training slots to men.... way more actually since you are tasked with 30% across the board (vice 30% per course) you really need to be mindful of the time crunch here.

I'd also like to hear your plan for attrition because you are going to lose at least a quarter of these folks once they find out it's hard and decide they don't want to do it any more. 

- What do you suppose will be the overall effect of this new plan on system wide intake of new nurses to an already severely undermanned occupation? Maybe your efforts will look something like the military recruiting debacle over the last few years eh?

If not, we have a job for you.

 

Edited March 29 by Venandi

[herbie]

So here is your usual response, that you will simply repeat your original accusation, with zero evidence to support it?
Stupid people are graduating from medical school because they're minorities.
Companies and Institutions are hiring people counter to their own interests.

You have clearly shown us all who the stupid ones are.

[User]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

So here is your usual response, that you will simply repeat your original accusation, with zero evidence to support it?
Stupid people are graduating from medical school because they're minorities.
Companies and Institutions are hiring people counter to their own interests.

You have clearly shown us all who the stupid ones are.

You just told us what a racist you are here. Proudly so.

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Stupid people are graduating from medical school because they're minorities.
Companies and Institutions are hiring people counter to their own interests.

I can't speak to the racial aspect of intake... I don't know enough about it but I see it as easier to manage (recruit for and retain) than the gender gap is. There have been outreaches to various minority groups, the opportunities are there, the numbers are what they are and the effort is ongoing.

The gender gap is more problematic IMO; if memory serves the target for 2026 is 25% female and we are currently down by some 10% for that gate. For 2030 it is (or was) 30% female. I don't see it happening and given systemic limitations on intake  I wouldn't know how to make it happen if it were my job to do it.

Since you have nothing to offer but absurdities and accusations I yield the field and observe in passing that strong opinions from loud mouths are rarely supported by innovative solutions.Since you aren't going to stay on topic or address the issue in a mature manner I'll leave it at that.    

Edited March 29 by Venandi

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Fine. When you need a heart operation, we'll find some low-intelligence, barely passed its exams, trans black woman to do the op for you. We'll reserve the brilliant white male doctors for people like me, who deserve them.

My doctor will have gotten in because of his sheer, bloody brilliance. Yours because they were a thing with black skin.

You're assuming he has a heart. 

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, I am Groot said:

We'll reserve the brilliant white male doctors for people like me, who deserve them.

You do realize doctors all wear gloves right? What sort of cooties are you actually worried about?

In any case I think if I was in charge I'd put you at the back of the waiting list.

BTW are you aware of MAID and what DNR means? How about organ donation? Everyone deserves a chance at the best coloured organs available don't you think?

9 hours ago, Venandi said:

I just think that most men don't want to be nurses any more than most women want to join the Navy and go to sea.

Is it just the ratio of sailors, if it was the reverse would men be lined up around the block?

I know, I should be ashamed at joking but seriously, I know plenty of women using their sea time and experience that are moving on from being deckhands to skippers and working on boats from here to the Arctic and Antarctica. I've trained deckhands into skippers who've since become coast guard unit chiefs. The first woman I worked with on a boat wasn't even allowed to help tie one up when she started in the marine industry.

[I am Groot]

[herbie]

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

can't speak to the racial aspect of intake...

I speak of it because if you examine the objections they are overwhelmingly racist. And all pretend it is the law of the land. They're trying to convince each other that they'd hire a Homer Simpson of colour before Oppenheimer at the nuclear plant and a man with no arms or legs to drive the bus instead of them. Or a decision to place a woman on a Board od Directors discriminates against them because they worked on the loading dock for five years.

None of the whiners has ever lost a job to a less qualified minority or even thought 'do they hire whites' while sitting in the interview room.

[User]

11 minutes ago, herbie said:

None of the whiners has ever lost a job to a less qualified minority or even thought 'do they hire whites' while sitting in the interview room.

And yet that is exactly what happens to people. Also, it doesn't matter if they are less qualified. Are you saying it is OK to be racist and hire people based on their skin color and/or ethnicity if they are equally qualified?! This is exactly why you keep getting called out for being a racist. That is still racism. 

I have never been murdered either, but I can still see that others are, and it is bad, and I oppose it. 

 

[herbie]

It's never happened to anyone, so it happens all the time.
It's defined as a choice between equally qualified candidates, so that means choosing the less qualified one.
And your opinion on something entirely unrelated makes your case.

Repeat the dogma over and over lin lieu of a working cerebellum.
That makes it real

[User]

41 minutes ago, herbie said:

It's never happened to anyone, so it happens all the time.
It's defined as a choice between equally qualified candidates, so that means choosing the less qualified one.
And your opinion on something entirely unrelated makes your case.

Repeat the dogma over and over lin lieu of a working cerebellum.
That makes it real

You sure do love the strawman!

Anything to run from your racism here. 

[I am Groot]

23 hours ago, herbie said:

I speak of it because if you examine the objections they are overwhelmingly racist.

Believing in merit is not racism. It's a part of Canada's historical cultural belief in fairness.

You ignoramuses just go by whatever the Americans do. They put DEI in, so YOU have to put DEI in. But theirs is to redress centuries of racism. And ours? Over 80% of visible minorities are immigrants and almost all the rest are their kids, born here since immigration was opened up in the 1970s. There's no plantation houses in our history because we never had slaves. And almost no one you're giving priority in hiring, promotions, grants and college admissions to has any ancestry in this country that goes back farther than that.

[User]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

There's no plantation houses in our history because we never had slaves.

Canada most certainly did have slaves. 

 

[herbie]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Believing in merit is not racism

Believing in racism is not a merit. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, User said:

Canada most certainly did have slaves. 

 

Canada didn't. 

[User]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Canada didn't. 

https://www.canada.ca/en/parks-canada/news/2020/07/the-enslavement-of-african-people-in-canada-c-16291834.html

3 hours ago, herbie said:

Believing in racism is not a merit. 

Then why do you do it?

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, User said:

https://www.canada.ca/en/parks-canada/news/2020/07/the-enslavement-of-african-people-in-canada-c-16291834.html

 

I get where that title might be misleading, but Canada was founded in 1867. long after all slavery was abolished.  So nope, no slaves in Canada, sorry.  You need to remember a lot of the history the gov't sites put out is written by leftist who WANT to make the country sound horrible. Just like the left in the states insists that america really begain in 1619. 

But Canada never had legal slavery.  Before canada there were some slaves but even that is misleading, for example upper canada (ontario) had a law that said a slave must be allowed to quit being a slave at any time    So it was closer to a light version of indentured servitude more than slavery.  

Of course the first nations practiced slavery so if we're counting them then pre-canada had slaves, but that's still not canada. 

Canada never had slavery.