How is that? It has been discussed quite a bit already in the Kirk thread. Why should I have to Google it for him when he has the ability to find multiple instances of Kirk being racist
I'm operating under the idea that the guy isn't a racist until someone can show me something that supports the claim. It's obvious that Hickory can't point to anything. I did chuckle at his response though. Reminded me of Office Space.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan. POTFB
Kirk started out as a campus preacher with a microphone having religious discussions/debates with students. "Take your best hold on the mike and make your argument - prove me wrong." That morphed into politics, where his comments (blunt to be sure) were considered more controversial - but mostly because of the weak-minded radicalized turds on both end of the Trump/anti-Trump social media war. He never did or said anything that deserved being shot by some internet-radicalized fool who believes what Hurryin' Hoosier believes.
The BS "racism' crap started with the stupid people - and still resides there.
Kirk expressed objections to DEI hiring and gave as one example (among others) that minority pilots and airline passengers should not have to ever even think about whether the pilot got his job through merit or DEI - they should all always know/feel that all pilots are hired based on merit. Kirk argued (as do many others) that DEI destroys a valuable social belief in a merit-based bottom line.
The same topic is discussed in law school "employment discrimination" classes all the time - except where cowards refuse to discuss controversial topics and/or where fascists "teach" by stifling all ideas but their own. It is no more controversial than discussing causation versus proximate cause or contributory negligence versus comparative negligence in a torts class. Exception for the emotionally-driven virtue-signaling stupid.
It was discussed when "affirmative action" was proposed in Executive Order 11246. It was discussed when the Bakke "reverse discrimination" lawsuit made news. Such discussions usually spawn thought and sifting and understanding. Sometimes even agreed-upon change. Except among the stupid - who can't even understand how they spawn hate by having no real idea what they are talking about
But wildly left liberals have always felt that blacks are inferior and need "help" (DEI) to get jobs. Ergo ... DEI exists. It is a "white supremacy" idea and Lefty the Liberal fears their own racism will be exposed and they will lose votes. So Lefty the White Supremacists got out their feinting couches and seized on a single political idea (usually more than can handle) that folks who oppose DEI - not the people who sell it - are racists and bigots. Them calling Kirk a racist bigot is high praise. It reveals serious deflection and transference that require a whole generation of psychiatrists ...
I'm operating under the idea that the guy isn't a racist until someone can show me something that supports the claim. It's obvious that Hickory can't point to anything. I did chuckle at his response though. Reminded me of Office Space.
One example since you are too lazy to look it up on your own (and might be too lazy to even read the linked article), is Kirk said black pilots were incompetent. Hard to argue that isn't a racist comment.
Kirk started out as a campus preacher with a microphone having religious discussions/debates with students. "Take your best hold on the mike and make your argument - prove me wrong." That morphed into politics, where his comments (blunt to be sure) were considered more controversial - but mostly because of the weak-minded radicalized turds on both end of the Trump/anti-Trump social media war. He never did or said anything that deserved being shot by some internet-radicalized fool who believes what Hurryin' Hoosier believes.
The BS "racism' crap started with the stupid people - and still resides there.
Kirk expressed objections to DEI hiring and gave as one example (among others) that minority pilots and airline passengers should not have to ever even think about whether the pilot got his job through merit or DEI - they should all always know/feel that all pilots are hired based on merit. Kirk argued (as do many others) that DEI destroys a valuable social belief in a merit-based bottom line.
The same topic is discussed in law school "employment discrimination" classes all the time - except where cowards refuse to discuss controversial topics and/or where fascists "teach" by stifling all ideas but their own. It is no more controversial than discussing causation versus proximate cause or contributory negligence versus comparative negligence in a torts class. Exception for the emotionally-driven virtue-signaling stupid.
It was discussed when "affirmative action" was proposed in Executive Order 11246. It was discussed when the Bakke "reverse discrimination" lawsuit made news. Such discussions usually spawn thought and sifting and understanding. Sometimes even agreed-upon change. Except among the stupid - who can't even understand how they spawn hate by having no real idea what they are talking about
But wildly left liberals have always felt that blacks are inferior and need "help" (DEI) to get jobs. Ergo ... DEI exists. It is a "white supremacy" idea and Lefty the Liberal fears their own racism will be exposed and they will lose votes. So Lefty the White Supremacists got out their feinting couches and seized on a single political idea (usually more than can handle) that folks who oppose DEI - not the people who sell it - are racists and bigots. Them calling Kirk a racist bigot is high praise. It reveals serious deflection and transference that require a whole generation of psychiatrists ...
And people wonder why I think it waste of my time posting examples when it is clear idiots will put their head in the sand regardless
You and maga just love defending bigots and racists
One example since you are too lazy to look it up on your own (and might be too lazy to even read the linked article), is Kirk said black pilots were incompetent. Hard to argue that isn't a racist comment.
How is that? It has been discussed quite a bit already in the Kirk thread. Why should I have to Google it for him when he has the ability to find multiple instances of Kirk being racist
I rest my case, Yer Onner.
You didn't rest anything. Bet you even after I provided a link, hooky and others will still pretend Kirk wasn't racist and posting it will just be a waste of time as I said
Not like we didn't already have a back and forth on Kirk to prove the people defending him like he was the second coming of Jesus will not acknowledge that he wasnt anything close to that
But wildly left liberals have always felt that blacks are inferior and need "help" (DEI) to get jobs. Ergo ... DEI exists. It is a "white supremacy" idea and Lefty the Liberal fears their own racism will be exposed and they will lose votes. So Lefty the White Supremacists got out their feinting couches and seized on a single political idea (usually more than can handle) that folks who oppose DEI - not the people who sell it - are racists and bigots. Them calling Kirk a racist bigot is high praise. It reveals serious deflection and transference that require a whole generation of psychiatrists ...
I'm only going to push back on this part for now. Name bias with regard to employment is a proven thing. Promoting diversity with the end goal being that it becomes a non-issue in the future is similar to, I think it was Justice O'Connor who stated, the goal of affirmative action should be to no longer need affirmative action.
I'm operating under the idea that the guy isn't a racist until someone can show me something that supports the claim. It's obvious that Hickory can't point to anything. I did chuckle at his response though. Reminded me of Office Space.
One example since you are too lazy to look it up on your own (and might be too lazy to even read the linked article), is Kirk said black pilots were incompetent. Hard to argue that isn't a racist comment.
It's an opinion piece that makes claims, but doesn't present anything to prove he said what is claimed. It's like everything else I've read that makes claims of racism, but provides nothing of substance to substantiate the claims. It links to a NYT opinion piece that I can't read. The wired piece is a joke, taking bits and pieces of what I assume is a larger debate he had. You'd need to have the full context of what was said. Even the accusation of stoning gays isn't used in the context in which it was claimed.
On the surface, he's saying there are good things and bad things about MLK and the Civil Rights Act of 64, and he focuses on the bad things. How is that racist or bigoted? Can you point to anything specifically that you think is racist or bigoted or is it just what you're reading from opinion pieces that reference other opinion pieces?
I've heard him say things that I don't agree with, but so far, nothing that I think rises to racism or bigotry.
Your source is interesting, to say the least.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan. POTFB
And people wonder why I think it waste of my time posting examples when it is clear idiots will put their head in the sand regardless
I think you waste everyone's time, not just yours, with your posts.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan. POTFB
Calling me MAGA is another example you are scared of actual thought. I have voted against Trump more times than you. MAGA is a label pumped into you by brainwashing media propaganda so you won’t think.
Smart people can discuss the DEI issue. Like I said, it’s been discussed for decades under multiple names in law schools and places where laws and regulations are written. Discussed in courts where those laws and regulations are tested. You didn’t know that. It hit your radar when The Propagandists wanted you to dance and call people MAGA. So you accept that “Kirk called black pilots incompetent.” But he didn’t. Understanding what he said requires a mental nuance that evades the PPP.
But wildly left liberals have always felt that blacks are inferior and need "help" (DEI) to get jobs. Ergo ... DEI exists. It is a "white supremacy" idea and Lefty the Liberal fears their own racism will be exposed and they will lose votes. So Lefty the White Supremacists got out their feinting couches and seized on a single political idea (usually more than can handle) that folks who oppose DEI - not the people who sell it - are racists and bigots. Them calling Kirk a racist bigot is high praise. It reveals serious deflection and transference that require a whole generation of psychiatrists ...
I'm only going to push back on this part for now. Name bias with regard to employment is a proven thing. Promoting diversity with the end goal being that it becomes a non-issue in the future is similar to, I think it was Justice O'Connor who stated, the goal of affirmative action should be to no longer need affirmative action.
And THAT (we are now down to things like “name bias”) is proof of radical improvements.
Prior to Title VII, workplace discrimination was blatant, open and notorious. Minorities were making progress compared to their own prior numbers, but not matching population stats. (Modern spouters of epithets like MAGA like to forget that the Democrats fought JFK on civil rights, and LBJ supported it only to get votes - not because he believed in equality. To his credit, his experience mellowed him and he finally saw the same light Lincoln found - the nation could not survive in without racial equality.)
After 60 years, workplaces and schools are now as diverse as the population. In 35 years of practicing discrimination law, I saw exactly 1 workplace where the numbers showed a difference considered “statistically significant” under the law, and it was on the basis of sex, not race, in Appalachia. And it was resolved by a consent decree requiring advertising for female applicants (affirmative action on the back end).
We have elected minorities throughout state and federal congresses. We have diversity in the courts. We elected a black president and should have elected a woman (Elizabeth Dole).
At the highest levels, “DEI” was manufactured for “hate politics,” not as a needed tool to fight workplace discrimination. At the street level, the only people who buy it are uninformed unthinking people who believe minorities can’t cut it on their own - the people who can be manipulated by, for and with hate - ie Hurrying Hoosier types.
But wildly left liberals have always felt that blacks are inferior and need "help" (DEI) to get jobs. Ergo ... DEI exists. It is a "white supremacy" idea and Lefty the Liberal fears their own racism will be exposed and they will lose votes. So Lefty the White Supremacists got out their feinting couches and seized on a single political idea (usually more than can handle) that folks who oppose DEI - not the people who sell it - are racists and bigots. Them calling Kirk a racist bigot is high praise. It reveals serious deflection and transference that require a whole generation of psychiatrists ...
I'm only going to push back on this part for now. Name bias with regard to employment is a proven thing. Promoting diversity with the end goal being that it becomes a non-issue in the future is similar to, I think it was Justice O'Connor who stated, the goal of affirmative action should be to no longer need affirmative action.
And THAT (we are now down to things like “name bias”) is proof of radical improvements.
Prior to Title VII, workplace discrimination was blatant, open and notorious. Minorities were making progress compared to their own prior numbers, but not matching population stats. (Modern spouters of epithets like MAGA like to forget that the Democrats fought JFK on civil rights, and LBJ supported it only to get votes - not because he believed in equality. To his credit, his experience mellowed him and he finally saw the same light Lincoln found - the nation could not survive in without racial equality.)
After 60 years, workplaces and schools are now as diverse as the population. In 35 years of practicing discrimination law, I saw exactly 1 workplace where the numbers showed a difference considered “statistically significant” under the law, and it was on the basis of sex, not race, in Appalachia. And it was resolved by a consent decree requiring advertising for female applicants (affirmative action on the back end).
We have elected minorities throughout state and federal congresses. We have diversity in the courts. We elected a black president and should have elected a woman (Elizabeth Dole).
At the highest levels, “DEI” was manufactured for “hate politics,” not as a needed tool to fight workplace discrimination. At the street level, the only people who buy it are uninformed unthinking people who believe minorities can’t cut it on their own - the people who can be manipulated by, for and with hate - ie Hurrying Hoosier types.
DEI has always been a new construction for a long—standing problem which was invented by smug self- centered elites as a virtue signal for other smug self-centered elites. In the George Floyd wake, if your organization did not have DEI, offices, officers, education, oaths, and demands, your organization was not gonna be accepted in the best social circles.
I readily admit we still have work to do for those who were the intended beneficiaries of DEI. But that work does not include window dressing a problem. As I keep saying, we gotta start with fixing our piss-poor public education system that especially deprives poor and minorities of important skills.
I see some green shoots with the Mississippi Miracle which is spreading to other public education systems . Progress won’t happen overnight with new slogans or virtue signaling.
But wildly left liberals have always felt that blacks are inferior and need "help" (DEI) to get jobs. Ergo ... DEI exists. It is a "white supremacy" idea and Lefty the Liberal fears their own racism will be exposed and they will lose votes. So Lefty the White Supremacists got out their feinting couches and seized on a single political idea (usually more than can handle) that folks who oppose DEI - not the people who sell it - are racists and bigots. Them calling Kirk a racist bigot is high praise. It reveals serious deflection and transference that require a whole generation of psychiatrists ...
I'm only going to push back on this part for now. Name bias with regard to employment is a proven thing. Promoting diversity with the end goal being that it becomes a non-issue in the future is similar to, I think it was Justice O'Connor who stated, the goal of affirmative action should be to no longer need affirmative action.
And THAT (we are now down to things like “name bias”) is proof of radical improvements.
Prior to Title VII, workplace discrimination was blatant, open and notorious. Minorities were making progress compared to their own prior numbers, but not matching population stats. (Modern spouters of epithets like MAGA like to forget that the Democrats fought JFK on civil rights, and LBJ supported it only to get votes - not because he believed in equality. To his credit, his experience mellowed him and he finally saw the same light Lincoln found - the nation could not survive in without racial equality.)
After 60 years, workplaces and schools are now as diverse as the population. In 35 years of practicing discrimination law, I saw exactly 1 workplace where the numbers showed a difference considered “statistically significant” under the law, and it was on the basis of sex, not race, in Appalachia. And it was resolved by a consent decree requiring advertising for female applicants (affirmative action on the back end).
We have elected minorities throughout state and federal congresses. We have diversity in the courts. We elected a black president and should have elected a woman (Elizabeth Dole).
At the highest levels, “DEI” was manufactured for “hate politics,” not as a needed tool to fight workplace discrimination. At the street level, the only people who buy it are uninformed unthinking people who believe minorities can’t cut it on their own - the people who can be manipulated by, for and with hate - ie Hurrying Hoosier types.
I'm mostly with you on your first full paragraph (although minorities were making little progress prior to 1964), but then you veer off into a disjointed discussion of DEI. Why are you equating (and seemingly limiting) workplace discrimination with/to diversity and proportionate representation in the workplace?
Tremendous progress has been made since 1964 with respect to workplace discrimination, thanks in large part to the EEOC. However, workplace discrimination based on race, national origin, religion, gender, disability and other legally protected categories still occurs all too frequently. For FY 2024, the EEOC secured nearly $700 million in monetary recoveries for approximately 21,000 claimants. That's an all-time $ high.
