Is Social Justice a disease? (Page 3/21)
sourmash JAN 08, 09:21 AM
There's over a billion Black Africans. And that doesn't include those on the rest of the globe outside of Africa.
There are over a billion Chinese in China only, and doesn't include all the other East Asians nor those Chinese elsewhere in the world.
There are over a billion Indians in India and doesn't include the rest of them elsewhere.

There are not 1 billion White people. There are only 330 million Americans. Only 60% are White and we are not reproducing.
The UN predicts in 80 years half the world population will be African.
Who is in peril here?
sourmash JAN 08, 09:24 AM

quote
Originally posted by 2.5:
Sadly these arent his ideas, these are what is taught and what is currently being implemented in many jobs.



This is genocide of White people. At least it's a compliment that they need us out of the way in order to enslave the world, because only one people created a middle class.
2.5 JAN 08, 09:25 AM

quote
Originally posted by theBDub:

Edit: and I’m still not a leftist. I just work relatively high up in Corporate America, where Social Justice is extremely relevant.




Would you say it makes you make decisions that make you feel uneasy, or that you disagree with, in order to keep your job?
I find it strange that is accepted as relevant. Is it relevant because it was taught in colleges long enough, taught to youngters who are now in leadership? Who then hired people who think the same way? Is it because we have social media guiding our morality and not absolute truth?
Do you see the connection between this and post modernist group identity politics, and how that leads to socialism, communism, and what that leads to?

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-08-2021).]

2.5 JAN 08, 09:34 AM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

For some reason, this discussion made me think of the television show "The Voice". Where judges listen to singers but can't see them until they turn around.
Those judges still select who they want based on their own qualifiers. I would think that a qualifier would be things subject only to talent and possibly range of voice although I'm not qualified to really suggest anything within the music world, I only know what I like.

Even if management promotions or hirings were done in a similar manner, the interviewee must convince the "judges" they have the knowledge, skills, personality and talents. There is no doubt that it's not only what you know but who you know in life that helps one get ahead, I won't deny that but, I also firmly believe that where there is the will, there is a way for the individual to get ahead. I know that in my own hiring and promotion practices, the only thing I really cared about was could the person do the job successfully. But, I also recognize that every person I promoted eventually came into what is known as the "Peter Principle". That same principle applies to myself.

Rams




Good analogy I think.
Thats the thing, enacting this system, removes "if there is a will there is a way" from relevancy. For example, the first step to sorting resumes is to trash the ones that checked a certain race box. How else will they "correct" their race quota percentages?

Since you brought up it reminding you of a TV show...
It reminds me of The Man in the High Castle.
blackrams JAN 08, 09:42 AM

quote
Originally posted by theBDub:


This would be good, and I agree with this. When implemented, including removing names (because names like “Devonta” and “Brayden” give away the respective race), it’s close to equal.

The issue is that it’s hard to implement, including in-person interviews. We see that when anonymized, BIPOC are hired near equal to White people. But when not, White people are overrepresented in hiring. Those same hiring managers believe themselves to be unbiased. And I think that’s really what the “issue” is and what Social Justice tries to resolve.



Oh, I don't know about that. I know in my own hiring/firing and promotion practices, what I knew was that the most successful candidate made me look better and that should always be a goal. You don't hire or promote people that are going to make you look bad. If you can't select the right people for a job, then you might be in the wrong job.

I once changed jobs (a different company) and needed to hire a new supervisor. I knew who I thought I wanted but didn't have his contact information so, I called his supervisor to get it at the old company. His supervisor had been selected by the Production Manager previous to me so, he was in that position when I arrived. This supervisor was adequate but, he wasn't the person for the job I had in mind. He was disappointed when I didn't ask him if he was interested but, I knew he would not be successful. The person I wanted did interview with the hiring team (I was not on the interview team) and was offered the job. He didn't accept due to the salary offer but, that's not important. Oh, BTW, the person I wanted was black and damn good at what he did.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-08-2021).]

2.5 JAN 08, 09:46 AM

quote
Originally posted by theBDub:


Due to where I sit, I have had to learn a lot about this. It structures a company’s goals and HR approach. Of course it is relevant to everyone, but not everyone has had to have so much training. Don’t mistake my comment.




quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

I know in my own hiring/firing and promotion practices, what I knew was that the most successful candidate made me look better and that should always be a goal. You don't hire or promote people that are going to make you look bad. If you can't select the right people for a job, then you might be in the wrong job.




I have seen it implemented in workplaces as well, LARGE companies, every employee gets mandatory training..yearly, and there are multiple new leadership positions and structures created just to oversee these things.
Literally created to "support diversity equity and inclusion outcomes".
Management has said it will be measured in the supervisors reviews.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-08-2021).]

sourmash JAN 08, 09:49 AM
Perfectly said. Social Justice isn't about equal opportunity. It's about equal outcome (which precludes earning anything).
2.5 JAN 08, 09:53 AM

quote
Originally posted by sourmash:

Perfectly said. Social Justice isn't about equal opportunity. It's about equal outcome (which precludes earning anything).



That is an exact quote from a LARGE company too.
blackrams JAN 08, 10:00 AM

quote
Originally posted by 2.5:


I have seen it implemented in workplaces as well, LARGE companies, every employee gets mandatory training..yearly, and there are multiple new leadership positions and structures created just to oversee these things.
Literally created to "support diversity equity and inclusion outcomes".
Management has said it will be measured in the supervisors reviews.




Hmm Yeah, I went through some of that training, a lot of it is just awareness training. Giving one things to think about.
I'm not sure if I'm guilty or innocent then. My goal is, was and has always been to put the most qualified, motivated and talented person in the position. Don't give a rat's ass about much else. If, my goal is/was to get promoted myself or look good, why would I consider anyone but the best I could hire? But, as I said previously, the "Peter Principle" applies to all of us. I'm no longer in a position to hire or fire anyone. Actually, I'm just trying to keep my job as head of household and it ain't look'n good.

Rams
sourmash JAN 08, 10:03 AM
One of my female friends was embarrassed when our huge global corporation placed her on one of the internal magazine publications along with two other minorities as "people on the move up". She said, as if people aren't going to see this for what it is. She was hired in at a higher pay grade than all her male counterparts who were hired at the same time. Hers was one that group supervisors got. She had no subordinates. She's capable, but...yeah, that won't have any blow-back.