Biden Out!

[Clizby Wampuscat]

LOL, it is not discrimination if I look at a pool of qualified applicants and pick the one that will add diversity to my team so as to increase the perspectives brought to the job. Particularly useful in situations requiring developing a widely applicable consensus.

I have a team of people at work that are 12% white. What do you think would happen if the next job opening, I only considered white applicants for the job, for diversity's sake. You know what would happen. It does not make it less discriminatory just because the races are not white.

Also, Justices are supposed to interpret the laws, not bring their own personal experience to their rulings. Her being female or black should have no bearing on her rulings.

 

[Pogo]

I have a team of people at work that are 12% white. What do you think would happen if the next job opening, I only considered white applicants for the job, for diversity's sake. You know what would happen. It does not make it less discriminatory just because the races are not white.

Also, Justices are supposed to interpret the laws, not bring their own personal experience to their rulings. Her being female or black should have no bearing on her rulings.

First failing, misinterpreting the word interpret.


Definitions from Oxford Languages ·
in·ter·pret
/inˈtərprət/
verb
1.
explain the meaning of (information, words, or actions).
"the evidence is difficult to interpret"

How you interpret something depends on your prior experience.

Your prior experience led you to misinterpret my statement that when selecting amongst qualified individuals it can be appropriate to select for diversity beyond just basic qualifications such as in a case like the SC where it will affect a broad category.

A more diverse set of inputs to your decision-making might well avoid these misinterpretations.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

First failing, misinterpreting the word interpret.


Definitions from Oxford Languages ·
in·ter·pret
/inˈtərprət/
verb
1.
explain the meaning of (information, words, or actions).
"the evidence is difficult to interpret"

How you interpret something depends on your prior experience.

Your prior experience led you to misinterpret my statement that when selecting amongst qualified individuals it can be appropriate to select for diversity beyond just basic qualifications such as in a case like the SC where it will affect a broad category.

A more diverse set of inputs to your decision-making might well avoid these misinterpretations.

No, they interpret laws based on not their lived experience but on prior rulings, other laws and other founding documents/writings that may indicate what is meant etc. You don't interpret a law through your experience growing up.

This is just more dem lunacy. Battle discrimination by discriminating against other people.

 

[Copernicus]

<sarcasm>DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) is the flip side of SIE (segregation, inequity, exclusion). If all of these "diversity" folks were so qualified, how come so few of them could get decent jobs in the past? Has anyone ever asked that question? Why aren't white Christian males being given the jobs and the respect that they were always entitled to in the past? </sarcasm>