Opinion Diversity in hiring - Should we hire based on skin color, sexual preference, disability status - or the content of someone's character?

[spamking]

I guess my point is that the example you provided is very niche and one where it makes sense to enact those preferential hiring practices. It doesn't affect the vast, vast majority of Americans who have nothing to do with BIA or the IHS.

And? Does that change the fact of the message as it was in response to the original comment I replied to? I never once stated it was something the vast majority of anyone needed to worry about or that it was something common place in private industry.

 

[spamking]

You have no idea what you are talking about. They do not hire within in these agencies based solely on race. The program states a qualified tribes member will receive preference when appointments are made to vacancies in positions within the BIA and IHS. It does not exclude anyone not indian from appointments in these agencies, qualified is the one prerequisite.

It wasn't even until 2020 that the BIA became a majority Native-american in it's work force. It's still not staffed solely by native americans. Neither of which would be possible in reality if they only hired based on race. Wtf have you been going on about?

It was a perfect example of a thought that amounted to nonsense when you posted it.

Listen dude . . . I've been involved in this for almost 30 years. I've seen jobs where Indian candidates are the only people to make the panel where the jobs are filled. There are means to remove that preference if the job has some specific selective placement factors that would allow the hiring official to not hire one of the Indians who made the panel. I didn't say non-Indians don't work for the BIA or IHS. Or even tribes. Plenty of them do. What you seem to be failing to grasp is nothing you've said disproves what I had originally stated about how there are instances where "anyone" hires based solely on race. And you're once again answering questions I never asked and making comments about things I didn't say.

Why are you having such a hard time with the fact that regardless of how you twist my response it still refuted what you said. That's the only thing I did in my original comment to you. The rest of this diatribe has become nothing more than you throwing stuff against the wall as a distraction.

 

[spamking]

So in direct response to me stating no one hires based solely on race you posted a government agency that is staffed by both non-indian and indian workers that was until very recently a majority of non-indian staffers .... because an agency that clearly has never hired solely on race is an example of hiring solely on race?

What in the ever-loving fuck are you talking about lol?

How was the BIA a majority non-indian staffers 4 years ago if they have solely cared about hiring indians during hiring? You've been rambling about this random scenario that doesn't apply to DEI but it doesn't even apply to thing you think it did. insane waste of time.

Oh my gosh . . . there are plenty of instances where the BIA, IHS and tribes have hired solely based on race. I never said they didn't hire non-Indians. I didn't say there aren't options for job announcements to stipulate a specific set of qualifications to hire someone with certain degrees or credentials. In fact, those selective placement factors are the ONLY way they can get around the Indian Preference hiring requirements.

Discussing this with you has definitely been a complete waste of time . . . so feel free to make up some stupid answer to a question I didn't ask and have the last word while acting like you've won something.

 

[Zazen]

No poll? Fail

 

[panamaican]

I already provided an answer and I asked you for further clarification in order to give you an even better answer but you keep avoiding clarifying it for me.

Diverse from what? Just clarify it and I can provide you a better answer. You don't have me in a gotcha question at all. It's an extremely vague question that can make my answer look completely benign or extremely racist depending on what you mean by diversity.

I already said that I would pick the best candidate of the 3 that are qualified because if there is a minimum qualification, surely there is an applicant that exceeds the others despite all 3 meeting the minimum qualification.

My answers are rooted in real world situations. You are rooted in vague questions and unrealistic analogies. I'm not attempting to skirt the question at all, I just need more info.

Nope. You did not answer my question. That's fine. You wanted to ask questions of others but when you're asked to do the same, suddenly things you never defined in your questions can't be addressed by others. Any analogy...unless you don't like it. Won't answer direct questions. This exchange has highlighted how dishonest some people can be.

Clown shit bro but keep on keeping on.

 

[panem-et-circenses]

Did you guys hire the black guy or the North Korean?

 

[Sweater of AV]

Don’t bother with @Sweater of AV. had him on ignore for a while now and just out of curiosity I pressed “show his content” in this thread just to come to the conclusion he’s still the easily triggered, intelligently dishonest name-calling retard he’s always been lol

I legitimately have no idea who you are. It's absolutely hilarious I've been in your head for this long though. Lol at "ignoring" people on the internet. I must have done a number on you. You sound soft as hell.

How does it feel to know that I have absolutely no idea who you are, lad?



Feel free to argue for your boyfriend or post something relevant instead of shitting your diapers like a two year old. Until then, you're just as dumb as he is.

 

[shockaholic12]

Listen dude . . . I've been involved in this for almost 30 years. I've seen jobs where Indian candidates are the only people to make the panel where the jobs are filled. There are means to remove that preference if the job has some specific selective placement factors that would allow the hiring official to not hire one of the Indians who made the panel. I didn't say non-Indians don't work for the BIA or IHS. Or even tribes. Plenty of them do. What you seem to be failing to grasp is nothing you've said disproves what I had originally stated about how there are instances where "anyone" hires based solely on race. And you're once again answering questions I never asked and making comments about things I didn't say.

Why are you having such a hard time with the fact that regardless of how you twist my response it still refuted what you said. That's the only thing I did in my original comment to you. The rest of this diatribe has become nothing more than you throwing stuff against the wall as a distraction.

You said people hire solely based on race. Then you used a government program that serves indians, that has for a vast majority of it's existence has been mostly staffed by non-indians, as an example of when there has been hiring solely based on if your indian. That makes zero sense.

The program you keep bringing states itself it only gives preference to qualified candidates who are indian, thus why it's appointed many non-indians, because it's hiring strategy is clearly based off qualifications beyond solely race. This is not remotely an example of a program that hires just on race, which is why it in no way refuted my assertion no one hires just based off race. I'm not sure where you're getting lost here.

If a place hired solely on the status of whether you are of the indian race or not, then it would only hire indians and non-indians wouldn't work there. This is elementary logic.

You implied the only were considering indian candidates, dummy they have hired countless non-indian candidates.

 

[shockaholic12]

Oh my gosh . . . there are plenty of instances where the BIA, IHS and tribes have hired solely based on race. I never said they didn't hire non-Indians. I didn't say there aren't options for job announcements to stipulate a specific set of qualifications to hire someone with certain degrees or credentials. In fact, those selective placement factors are the ONLY way they can get around the Indian Preference hiring requirements.

Discussing this with you has definitely been a complete waste of time . . . so feel free to make up some stupid answer to a question I didn't ask and have the last word while acting like you've won something.

If these programs solely hired for race, not considering anything else but if you're a member of an indian tribe, then how did a person of any other race ever get a job there?

There are all these countless nice government jobs that they can't find a single living indian that wants to take it? Or is that they are looking at far more qualifications than just race here? Gee, I wonder lol

 

[spamking]

You said people hire solely based on race. Then you used a government program that serves indians, that has for a vast majority of it's existence has been mostly staffed by non-indians, as an example of when there has been hiring solely based on if your indian. That makes zero sense.

The program you keep bringing states itself it only gives preference to qualified candidates who are indian, thus why it's appointed many non-indians, because it's hiring strategy is clearly based off qualifications beyond solely race. This is not remotely an example of a program that hires just on race, which is why it in no way refuted my assertion no one hires just based off race. I'm not sure where you're getting lost here.

Shocker . . . you keep making up stuff I never said. Why? I'm well aware of situations where both the BIA and IHS hired someone solely based on race. You can't dispute that. I never said non-Indians were never hired.

Also, why focus on the BIA and completely ignore the IHS and the 500+ tribes and how they hire?

You're honestly going to say that when the BIA or IHS limits the panels of applicants they provide to a hiring official to ONLY Indians that they're not hiring solely on race by limiting the pool to a single race? You have absolutely no real-world experience with either agency and have no clue what HR in either agency uses to declare a candidate as "qualified". I've seen panels with applicants who had no direct training, education or work experience for a particular job be considered "qualified" solely based on their claim of Indian Preference. I don't care if you believe that or not.

If a place hired solely on the status of whether you are of the indian race or not, then it would only hire indians and non-indians wouldn't work there. This is elementary logic.

You implied the only were considering indian candidates, dummy they have hired countless non-indian candidates.

Have you hit your head? Why ignore the comments I made that already addressed the ability to hire non-Indians and the fact that I've never said they only hired Indians? I never said they didn't hire non-Indians. I work with dozens of them.

Why would I imply the BIA or IHS only hired Indian candidates when I'm well aware that non-Indians work in both agencies and the information on who works for either agency is available to the public?

 

[spamking]

If these programs solely hired for race, not considering anything else but if you're a member of an indian tribe, then how did a person of any other race ever get a job there?

There are all these countless nice government jobs that they can't find a single living indian that wants to take it? Or is that they are looking at far more qualifications than just race here? Gee, I wonder lol

All of this has been addressed numerous times in my comments. Two things can both be true. The BIA and IHS can fill a position solely based on race and can then also require additional qualifications for specific more specialized positions.

The IHS isn't going to hire an Indian as a Dentist just because they're an Indian dude, but they will often hire an Indian to fill an office assistant vacancy just because they're an Indian.

 

[F1980]

My question still has not been answered yet

Do you hire the black guy or the North Korean?

When people think of DEI, in their head it's choosing between a black guy and a white guy

 

[Sweater of AV]

@Young Calf Kick I did a quick search to see why you're so upset. Lol at having a complete meltdown years ago because I posted a picture of Khabib in the hospital and still harboring all that anger.

easily triggered, intelligently dishonest name-calling retard

I genuinely hope this is a failed attempt at irony.

I know it must be hard for you to live in an irrelevant country while being pudgy and unable to find a girlfriend (the search was pretty hilarious) but taking your anger out on Sherdog at random people isn't the best way to go.

Enjoy your big day of being an irrelevant can. Lol.

 

[shockaholic12]

Shocker . . . you keep making up stuff I never said. Why? I'm well aware of situations where both the BIA and IHS hired someone solely based on race. You can't dispute that. I never said non-Indians were never hired.

Also, why focus on the BIA and completely ignore the IHS and the 500+ tribes and how they hire?

You're honestly going to say that when the BIA or IHS limits the panels of applicants they provide to a hiring official to ONLY Indians that they're not hiring solely on race by limiting the pool to a single race? You have absolutely no real-world experience with either agency and have no clue what HR in either agency uses to declare a candidate as "qualified". I've seen panels with applicants who had no direct training, education or work experience for a particular job be considered "qualified" solely based on their claim of Indian Preference. I don't care if you believe that or not.



Have you hit your head? Why ignore the comments I made that already addressed the ability to hire non-Indians and the fact that I've never said the only hired Indians?

Why would I imply the BIA or IHS only hired Indian candidates when I'm well aware that non-Indians work in both agencies and the information on who works for either agency is available to the public?

This you?

"It was a DIRECT response to his comment about how nobody hires solely based on race"

So in direct response to me saying nobody hires solely on race you replied with an indian government program that's ranks are full of non-indians because for it's entire history it has constantly hired outside of the indian race for other qualifications it also desires. A program that states it's applicants must be qualified for positions before receiving the benefits of being in a tribe doesn't care if they meet any qualifications?

You made an assertion, picked a program you thought you knew more about than you clearly do, and keep repeating it only hires solely for indians when it's never did and has hired countless non-indians. Now you're like "um, what about this other program?" So dumb lol.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Covid effected the stock price during that timespan you dunce lol.

People are sick of comic book flicks. Don't care because that has nothing to do with DEI.

Gentleman and Trannies of the Warroom, I am going to address you, rather than Shockaholic because he's demonstrated too many times in this thread he's either an ignorant fool who parrots talking points without any critical thinking by himself.... or he's a narracistic liar who believes those he disagrees with politically deserved to be lied to because he is simply better.

Regardless, lets look at how those two quotes are laughably delusional.

Covid effected the stock price during that timespan

Yes it sent it into the stratusphere with its all-time high of $190, and after a number of flops AFTER Covid was far over - 2022 - it became far lower hovering around half its all-time high.

If Shockaholic is trying to get everyone to ignore that graph of the stock price, blaming the drop on Covid when Disney's price hit all-time highs during it... when the pandemic effecting boxoffice ended after Spider-Man No Way Home's release, and it earned $2 BILLION DOLLARS.

People are sick of comic book flicks.

Shockaholic's claim is straight out of the mouth of a Disney's shill, blaming the audience rather than the giant $200 Million budgeted shit-quality DEI-approved boxoffice failures no one cared about because they were blatant propaganda meant to socially engineer the audience rather than entertain them.

Lets look at the MCU movies that were released AFTER No Way Home's success -
The Eternals
Thor 4
Dr Strange 2
Black Panther 2
Ant-Man 3
Guardians of the Galaxy 3
The Marvels
And there's actually some major successes in there, just not the $1-$2 Billion boxoffice hauls they've been used to.
If you add in Indiana Jones 5 into the mix Disney was 1 for 4 in profitability of their major releases, which checked all the DEI-approval boxes.
If you add in the three DCEU movies...
Shazam 2
The Flash
Blue Beetle
Aquaman 2
And point out they're flops, and yes, the consensus is that DEI-comic-book movies is a genre that general audiences are officially sick of.

Comic book movies have had reliable returns over the last 20+ years, and after DEI came along its become a woke laughing stock to the point there's one MCU movie being released in 2024 - Deadpool 3 - and the DCEU is being rebooted and won't restart until 2026.

Audiences aren't sick of comic book movies, they're sick of shitty DEI movies.

 

[ShadowRun]

DEI reporter

 

[spamking]

This you?

"It was a DIRECT response to his comment about how nobody hires solely based on race"

So in direct response to me saying nobody hires solely on race you replied with an indian government program that's ranks are full of non-indians because for it's entire history it has constantly hired outside of the indian race for other qualifications it also desires. A program that states it's applicants must be qualified for positions before receiving the benefits of being in a tribe doesn't care if they meet any qualifications?

You made an assertion, picked a program you thought you knew more about than you clearly do, and keep repeating it only hires solely for indians when it's never did and has hired countless non-indians. Now you're like "um, what about this other program?" So dumb lol.

Yep. A direct response with examples of how multiple jobs have been filled based solely on race. You then put on your tap dancing shoes to try to frame what I said to mean they never hired non-Indians. I addressed this several times and in here and even in the comment you quoted in this response. You then decided to continue to ignore that and throw out more useless comments to once again play like you're disproving what I said.

I actually mentioned two federal agencies and 500+ tribal organizations. You decided to try and focus on one of them to suit your stance.

You're unreal. Keep repeating the same stuff . . . . over and over and over and over. All while conveniently ignoring everything else that addresses what you've said.

Here's the thing, as I've said several times before . . . what started this entire time wasting debacle is your comment about "nobody hiring solely based on race". I provided examples of where that has happened in the past, continues to happen today and will continue to happen in the future. In addressing your comment, I never said any of the groups or people I mentioned never hired non-Indians. Not once. But you continue to bring that up like it takes away from the separate point I made against your comment. You keep moving the goalpost in this discussion and dragging it on and on when all you needed to do was acknowledge that I'm correct when I say that the IHS, BIA and 500+ tribes have hired people from a panel that was filled with applicants solely because they were Indian. But you can't do that. You seem to have this innate need to feel that you're right all of the time. So that's when you start the dancing and shifting the discussion and addressing things people don't say.

So please . . . give it a rest. This horse is dead.

 

[spamking]

Gentleman and Trannies of the Warroom, I am going to address you, rather than Shockaholic because he's demonstrated too many times in this thread he's either an ignorant fool who parrots talking points without any critical thinking by himself.... or he's a narracistic liar who believes those he disagrees with politically deserved to be lied to because he is simply better.

Regardless, lets look at how those two quotes are laughably delusional.

Yes it sent it into the stratusphere with its all-time high of $190, and after a number of flops AFTER Covid was far over - 2022 - it became far lower hovering around half its all-time high.

If Shockaholic is trying to get everyone to ignore that graph of the stock price, blaming the drop on Covid when Disney's price hit all-time highs during it... when the pandemic effecting boxoffice ended after Spider-Man No Way Home's release, and it earned $2 BILLION DOLLARS.



Shockaholic's claim is straight out of the mouth of a Disney's shill, blaming the audience rather than the giant $200 Million budgeted shit-quality DEI-approved boxoffice failures no one cared about because they were blatant propaganda meant to socially engineer the audience rather than entertain them.

Lets look at the MCU movies that were released AFTER No Way Home's success -
The Eternals
Thor 4
Dr Strange 2
Black Panther 2
Ant-Man 3
Guardians of the Galaxy 3
The Marvels
And there's actually some major successes in there, just not the $1-$2 Billion boxoffice hauls they've been used to.
If you add in Indiana Jones 5 into the mix Disney was 1 for 4 in profitability of their major releases, which checked all the DEI-approval boxes.
If you add in the three DCEU movies...
Shazam 2
The Flash
Blue Beetle
Aquaman 2
And point out they're flops, and yes, the consensus is that DEI-comic-book movies is a genre that general audiences are officially sick of.

Comic book movies have had reliable returns over the last 20+ years, and after DEI came along its become a woke laughing stock to the point there's one MCU movie being released in 2024 - Deadpool 3 - and the DCEU is being rebooted and won't restart until 2026.

Audiences aren't sick of comic book movies, they're sick of shitty DEI movies.

May God have mercy on your soul . . . maybe @shockaholic12 will start twisting your posts into things they didn't say to save face or something. Instead of whining about mine.

 

[djacobox372]

I look forward to the answers to this question. Someone earlier actually claimed that there's no need for diversity in any field, including fields like medicine.

Depends on what sort of measure you are using for diversity. If you believe that people from different cultural backgrounds may benefit your goals, than go ahead and make that a consideration.

HOWEVER, don't just assume someone's cultural background based on their race--that's lazy and racist. No different than assuming someone's criminality or education level based on their race.

 

[shockaholic12]

Yep. A direct response with examples of how multiple jobs have been filled based solely on race. You then put on your tap dancing shoes to try to frame what I said to mean they never hired non-Indians. I addressed this several times and in here and even in the comment you quoted in this response. You then decided to continue to ignore that and throw out more useless comments to once again play like you're disproving what I said.

I actually mentioned two federal agencies and 500+ tribal organizations. You decided to try and focus on one of them to suit your stance.

You're unreal. Keep repeating the same stuff . . . . over and over and over and over. All while conveniently ignoring everything else that addresses what you've said.

Here's the thing, as I've said several times before . . . what started this entire time wasting debacle is your comment about "nobody hiring solely based on race". I provided examples of where that has happened in the past, continues to happen today and will continue to happen in the future. In addressing your comment, I never said any of the groups or people I mentioned never hired non-Indians. Not once. But you continue to bring that up like it takes away from the separate point I made against your comment. You keep moving the goalpost in this discussion and dragging it on and on when all you needed to do was acknowledge that I'm correct when I say that the IHS, BIA and 500+ tribes have hired people from a panel that was filled with applicants solely because they were Indian. But you can't do that. You seem to have this innate need to feel that you're right all of the time. So that's when you start the dancing and shifting the discussion and addressing things people don't say.

So please . . . give it a rest. This horse is dead.

The program dictates candidates must be qualified before receiving it's benefits. If this was not the case then literally anyone who is an indian would be able to fulfill these roles. The reality is a majority of these hires weren't not indians.

The indians that have gotten these jobs have also met the qualifications for the jobs in addition to being indians. The panels you are referring to were never compromised of people who were simply indian, they also had to meet the job qualifications ya dummy lol. Why do you keep forgetting that step? Because it entails you admitting they aren't hiring on race alone.

So for those keeping score you've provided an example of a program that hires candidates of multiple races based on qualifications and also gives preference to qualified candidates who in addition to being qualified also have the trait of being a tribes-member. You admit this program has nothing to do with DEI, is niche and was chosen by voters, and it's never hired for only race. So it's been pointless.