Removed some comments on moderation and replies.

41 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I really wouldn't worry about mentally ill people on a discussion forum when very soon we will be installing a mentally ill person in the most powerful office on the planet. The former adds color. The latter has the nuclear button. 

I am wondering why people who post claims about other posters being mentally ill are unable to master the basics of grammar and syntax.

1 hour ago, theblether said:

 

This place used to be informative. 

 

It's now a repository for bitter men taking about things they can't control. 

20 years ago they were 20 years younger. 

10 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Perhaps you are unaware Obama is male.

 

The fact both Clinton and Harris lost to Trump convinces me Americans will never grow up enough to have a woman President.

I've heard that rumor as well. Are you saying Michelle is a man?

13 hours ago, theblether said:

17 hours ago, WDSmart said:

I've never heard of Thomas Sowell, and did look him up online. He is described as a neo-Nazi. That would be about as far from Marxism as you can get. You can read more about them here: Fascism vs. Marxism - What's the Difference? | This vs. That 

 

An utter disgrace of a comment. You have just described one of the greatest African-American thinkers of the last 100 years as a neo-Nazi. 

 

That tells me two things about you - your lack of intellectual curiosity to investigate the man, and the type of filth you are prepared to believe. 

 

Shameful, shameful post.  

As I've said in a later post, I erred when I looked this man up online. I searched for and found "Thomas Sewell," who is a White Australian neo-Nazi.

This wasn't a lack of intellectual curiosity but a typo.

17 hours ago, WDSmart said:

I've never heard of Thomas Sowell, and did look him up online. He is described as a neo-Nazi. That would be about as far from Marxism as you can get. You can read more about them here: Fascism vs. Marxism - What's the Difference? | This vs. That 

You never heard of Thomas Sowell… you are either a very young person or uneducated, it’s easy to assume the latter since you lack the ability to do so and latch on to the first thing you see on the internet. Thomas Sowell was a Marxist early on and snapped out of it when he realized how digressive and harmful that ideology is. 

3 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

This wasn't a lack of intellectual curiosity but a typo.

The “typo” excuse is due to the lack of curiosity 

13 hours ago, Airalee said:

Of that list, what percentage of considerations should go towards DEI?

 

And when you’ve figured out that percentage, who within the DEI clown brigade gets the most representation?

IMO, the percentage of consideration that DEI should have on any hire would depend on the makeup of the existing workforce. It could be a lot, or it could be nothing.

Again, IMO, if an employer decides they need to strongly consider DEI on a hire, which applicant they choose would depend on the makeup of the existing workforce and where its DEI needs strengthening - race, gender, ancestors' nationality, etc. 

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

IMO, the percentage of consideration that DEI should have on any hire would depend on the makeup of the existing workforce. It could be a lot, or it could be nothing.

Again, IMO, if an employer decides they need to strongly consider DEI on a hire, which applicant they choose would depend on the makeup of the existing workforce and where its DEI needs strengthening - race, gender, ancestors' nationality, etc. 

So you would hire someone less qualified for the job, because of their; race, gender, nationality, etc.

 

Even though someone more qualified with more experience has applied for the same position.

 

Why DEI is failing, in the workplace 

One of my sisters struggled with this a few years ago during some election where a ballot measure about Affirmative Action was being voted on.  On one hand, she has always been liberal and supportive of minority rights.  On the other hand she was the mother of a white, middle-class boy!  She eventually voted no, she couldn't vote to put her son at a disadvantage to minorities when he applied for University or for jobs.

13 hours ago, Airalee said:

Yes, the US is very mixed, but it’s not equally mixed.

Who is the most DEI worthy?

 

Black man vs Mexican Man

Light skinned Black vs Darker Indian

Gay Mexican vs Lesbian Black

Mexican vs Guatemalan

Trans Latina vs Black guy in a wheel chair

African Black vs American Black 

Gay white guy with alopecia vs straight Black male

Genderqueer dark skinned Hispanic vs Non-binary obese south East Asian

 

IMO, all the above are "DEI worthy," but the "vs." would depend on the makeup of the employer's existing workforce.

For example, take the "Mexican vs. Guatemalan" example you gave. I assume all applicants considered are US citizens, and this designation is just of their ancestors' origin - their heritage.  If this is the choice between two applicants, I presume this DEI has been selected since the existing workforce is primarily Caucasian. So, unless Hispanics in the workforce are primarily made up of only or mainly of Mexican or Guatemalan heritage, either choice would be okay. If there were a plurality of one of these among the Hispanics, then the other heritage would be a better choice.  

Again, this is all IMO...

22 minutes ago, novacova said:

You never heard of Thomas Sowell… you are either a very young person or uneducated, it’s easy to assume the latter since you lack the ability to do so and latch on to the first thing you see on the internet. Thomas Sowell was a Marxist early on and snapped out of it when he realized how digressive and harmful that ideology is. 

No, I've never heard of Thomas Sowell or Thomas Sewell.

 

I'm neither young nor uneducated. I'm 79 and have two bachelor's and one master's degree.

5 hours ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

On 1/18/2025 at 2:10 PM, WDSmart said:

but all those considered must be people who meet the minimum requirements. 

By lowering the minimum requirements..........so they fit them

No, by applying the minimum requirements. Only those that meet them would be considered. That consideration would then also include DEI. 

16 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

So you would hire someone less qualified for the job, because of their; race, gender, nationality, etc.

 

Even though someone more qualified with more experience has applied for the same position.

 

Why DEI is failing, in the workplace 

No, all applicants must meet the minimum requirements for the job. "More qualified" is a judgment. An example would be if at least 5 years of prior work experience in a similar field were required, and one applicant had 8 years of experience and another 6 years. Both meet the minimum requirements, and whether or not the applicant with more years of experience would be considered "more qualified' is a judgment of the employer. 

3 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

No, all applicants must meet the minimum requirements for the job. "More qualified" is a judgment. An example would be if at least 5 years of prior work experience in a similar field were required, and one applicant had 8 years of experience and another 6 years. Both meet the minimum requirements, and whether or not the applicant with more years of experience would be considered "more qualified' is a judgment of the employer. 

That's just common sense hiring, and not much to do with DEI, unless simply wanting to fill a quota.  Only if that was the reason (DEI) for hiring less experienced applicant if all things equal.

 

Unless a huge company, most people hire people they know, or recommended by someone already employed at the company.

 

DEI has been around for a long time, just didn't have an acronym.

 

I applied for small business loan, denied.  Told would be approved, if had a minority race or female partner on the paperwork.

 

While at NWA, after they lost a lawsuit on new black employees, on probation, being fired, I asked my manager if she'd interview a friend for open position.   She asked is he or she black ?  Only hiring blacks at the moment.

 

That was 30+ & 40+ years ago, so DEI is nothing new.

 

Part of the reason you had the financial 'crisis' (USA) in 2008.  

5 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

That's just common sense hiring, and not much to do with DEI, unless simply wanting to fill a quota.  Only if that was the reason (DEI) for hiring less experienced applicant if all things equal.

 

Unless a huge company, most people hire people they know, or recommended by someone already employed at the company.

 

DEI has been around for a long time, just didn't have an acronym.

 

I applied for small business loan, denied.  Told would be approved, if had a minority race or female partner on the paperwork.

 

While at NWA, after they lost a lawsuit on new black employees, on probation, being fired, I asked my manager if she'd interview a friend for open position.   She asked is he or she black ?  Only hiring blacks at the moment.

 

That was 30+ & 40+ years ago, so DEI is nothing new.

 

Part of the reason you had the financial 'crisis' (USA) in 2008.  

What you describe above sounds like Affirmative Action, which was a law and did have legal penalties. DEI is not a law and failure to apply it does not have legal penalties. I am now 79 and also grew up when Affirmative Action was in effect. I supported it then and never had any problems with it that I knew of. I was never denied a job or an educational opportunity because I was a male Caucasian. 

I agree that the social problems both Affirmative Action and DEI are trying to remedy are not new and definitely have not gone away, but DEI is a suggestion to be considered, not a law to be followed with penalties for not doing so. 

14 hours ago, Lacessit said:

You may have a point, although the fact she is mixed race probably did not help in a racist country.

You ignore that she was a horrible person that couldn't even win a primary. Had they put up a half caste black/ Indian that was likable and had been previously been approved in a primary I'm sure she would have won against the worst man on the planet.

59 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You ignore that she was a horrible person that couldn't even win a primary. Had they put up a half caste black/ Indian that was likable and had been previously been approved in a primary I'm sure she would have won against the worst man on the planet.

I really don't understand all the hatred directed at Harris. To me, she looked and sounded quite normal.

 

I hope Trump is capable of turning over a new leaf, and doing things that benefit Americans and the world, not himself and his cronies. Perhaps that hope is forlorn.

4 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

I've heard that rumor as well. Are you saying Michelle is a man?

I did mean Barack; however, you knew that already.

 

Happy now you have had your troll for the day?

13 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I agree he's no sort of Nazi.

But he's lionized by white nationalist maga fascists who take comfort in his false assertions that institutionalized racism doesn't exist. 

You know the left runs most all the institutions, so any institutional racism is on them (you) 

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

IMO, the percentage of consideration that DEI should have on any hire would depend on the makeup of the existing workforce. It could be a lot, or it could be nothing.

Again, IMO, if an employer decides they need to strongly consider DEI on a hire, which applicant they choose would depend on the makeup of the existing workforce and where its DEI needs strengthening - race, gender, ancestors' nationality, etc. 

Quotas 

13 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I did mean Barack; however, you knew that already.

 

Happy now you have had your troll for the day?

Assumptions never play out well. Glad you cleared it up. Thank you.

8 hours ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

By lowering the minimum requirements..........so they fit them

Or by designing the minimum requirements  so that only one person can meet them (usually a mate or a family member).  Seen this way too often in a previous corporate job.

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

IMO, all the above are "DEI worthy," but the "vs." would depend on the makeup of the employer's existing workforce.

For example, take the "Mexican vs. Guatemalan" example you gave. I assume all applicants considered are US citizens, and this designation is just of their ancestors' origin - their heritage.  If this is the choice between two applicants, I presume this DEI has been selected since the existing workforce is primarily Caucasian. So, unless Hispanics in the workforce are primarily made up of only or mainly of Mexican or Guatemalan heritage, either choice would be okay. If there were a plurality of one of these among the Hispanics, then the other heritage would be a better choice.  

Again, this is all IMO...

Ok, then by your standards there are too many women and lesbians in LAFD leadership roles correct?   Or do you think that there weren’t any white men that were qualified?

 

If you’re honestly for DEI then you should be able to be honest and point out where it has gone too far.

 

 

"memories of George Floyd's"  OK, lets review the real George Floyd:

13 minutes ago, Keep Right said:

"memories of George Floyd's"  OK, lets review the real George Floyd:

Let's review the fact none of those offenses carry the death penalty.

 

However, that's what Floyd got.

 

Or  the shooting of Justine Damond, an unarmed woman in a nightdress, shot by a policeman responding to her 911 call.

 

The shooting cost ratepayers of the city of Minneapolis $20 million.

 

Trigger-happy bunch, Americans. Tell me it is not so.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

4 hours ago, WDSmart said:

IMO, the percentage of consideration that DEI should have on any hire would depend on the makeup of the existing workforce. It could be a lot, or it could be nothing.

Again, IMO, if an employer decides they need to strongly consider DEI on a hire, which applicant they choose would depend on the makeup of the existing workforce and where its DEI needs strengthening - race, gender, ancestors' nationality, etc. 

Quotas 

Yes, but they are no quotas set by the government. They are quotas set by the employer depending on the characteristics of the community or communities the employer's business is in. That could be the entire country or just a small town. 

2 hours ago, Airalee said:

Ok, then by your standards there are too many women and lesbians in LAFD leadership roles correct?   Or do you think that there weren’t any white men that were qualified?

 

If you’re honestly for DEI then you should be able to be honest and point out where it has gone too far.

 

 

I assume "LAFD" is the term for the Los Angeles Fire Department. I have no idea what the DEI makeup of the department is. I looked it up online, and of the 12 lead officials they showed, three were female, including the Fire Chief. Of the other nine, all appeared to be male; five appeared to be White and four non-Whites. (That's what I assumed from their photos.) So, this group seems to be very DEI of the Los Angeles area, don't you think? There could be more women, but, again, that is only if they meet the minimum qualifications.

Here is the link I went to: Organization | Los Angeles Fire Department

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Here is the link I went to: Organization | Los Angeles Fire Department

Could someone help me? It seems like the AseanNow Forums have changed the way they post links in the past couple of days.

I copied the link above from my browser, and when I insert it in my comment, it looks okay. It's a live link. But when I post it, the link portion disappears. This seems to happen on some links but not others. I'll try a couple below...

Los Angeles Fire Department

Los Angeles Fire Department - Wikipedia

Both these are live links now, before I post it. But now, after I post it, only the Wikipedia link is live.

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

Could someone help me? It seems like the AseanNow Forums have changed the way they post links in the past couple of days.

I copied the link above from my browser, and when I insert it in my comment, it looks okay. It's a live link. But when I post it, the link portion disappears. This seems to happen on some links but not others. I'll try a couple below...

Los Angeles Fire Department

Sorry, I'm a white man.