Shooting at Trump rally?

[NoBanStan]

30 minutes ago, btq96r said:

Organic DEI works great when correctly harnessed.  Look at any army unit and you'll see what DEI is and should be.  Different backgrounds, experiences, and processes of thought working for a common goal tends to bring out innovative and adaptive solutions.

Forced DEI for metrics or optics is where we have problems.  I'm all for striving to achieve it, making sure it's not prevented, even if you select diversity as a deal breaker between two or more candidates who clear the requirements.  But when you force it as an absolute requirement over standards, it's a liability, not a positive.

But in the business world, it's anything but organic.

At my place, an extremely large scale enterprise, I attended an event with around 1000 professionals near the start of the DEI push. We had a leader, celebrated for her role as a minority, take the stage and say "We have a lot of work to do when it comes to diversity, equity and inclusion. You only need to take a look around the room to see there is a problem", as she gestured to all of us in the crowd.

From there it was a whirlwind of hires for people that ticked the boxes. I was even personally told I couldn't hire a candidate because "it's not a woman", despite the male candidate being much more qualified. At one point, a leader over a significant chunk of people made the comment that 50% of the US is female, so we're going to move to 50% of our workforce being female. Shortly after that, i discovered that one of my active directory groups that someone added me to had "men" as the label.

So on the surface, businesses will grandstand that they're making an impact, but ultimately it doesn't care... the business will can those folks the second it's not popular.

If they TRULY cared, they would be supporting the next generation. Funding STEM and inner city. Helping the next generation thrive and progress. But they aren't. It's all for show.
 

[NoBanStan]

9 minutes ago, Johnny Rotten said:

dude i just spit out my coffee

[NoBanStan]

wow, just saw this

Microsoft laid off a DEI team, and its lead wrote an internal email blasting how DEI is 'no longer business critical'
https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-layoffs-dei-leader-email-2024-7

unfortunately it's behind a paywall.

[Chucktshoes]

4 minutes ago, NoBanStan said:

wow, just saw this

Microsoft laid off a DEI team, and its lead wrote an internal email blasting how DEI is 'no longer business critical'
https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-layoffs-dei-leader-email-2024-7

unfortunately it's behind a paywall.

Paste that link in the box here: 12 ft ladder

[gregintenn]

29 minutes ago, mikegideon said:

She went to Harvard

Like I said…

[GlockSpock]

47 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

What is the problem with hiring the most qualified candidate?

I think what he is getting at is generally that sometimes, for certain teams, someone with a different background than others may be the best candidate. He's saying to essentially hire competent people but also purposefully bringing in a diverse teams will increase the critical thinking and effectiveness of a team.

He's saying that when you force the issue less qualified people are brought in solely for the purpose of diversification. This is bad. But if you have, generally speaking, two equally qualified applicants in terms of skill/education but one of them could potentially bring a diverse experience, that diverse experience technically makes them more qualified.

[gregintenn]

6 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

I think what he is getting at is generally that sometimes, for certain teams, someone with a different background than others may be the best candidate. He's saying to essentially hire competent people but also purposefully bringing in a diverse teams will increase the critical thinking and effectiveness of a team.

He's saying that when you force the issue less qualified people are brought in solely for the purpose of diversification. This is bad. But if you have, generally speaking, two equally qualified applicants in terms of skill/education but one of them could potentially bring a diverse experience, that diverse experience technically makes them more qualified.

I understood what he said. I was, and still am challenging the validity of the statement. That old line “diversity is our strength” is horsechit. 

[GlockSpock]

In my opinion, it can further be explained like this. Imagine you have a small company that generally is made up of "good old boys" from the same small city. Perhaps you are hiring a position and have two candidates, each of them roughly equal to the other. One of them is from the same small city as everyone else but one of them grew up and worked in Spain for a number of years.

Theoretically, hiring the Spain applicant could be beneficial to the team as a whole because they'll bring life experience, lines of thinking, and other things such as these that the homeboy cannot bring.

Now, it goes wrong if the Spain applicant is grossly under-qualified but you hire them anyways simply because they are a Spain applicant and thus you get to meet metrics on a spreadsheet. Organic vs. forced.

[gregintenn]

2 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

In my opinion, it can further be explained like this. Imagine you have a small company that generally is made up of "good old boys" from the same small city. Perhaps you are hiring a position and have two candidates, each of them roughly equal to the other. One of them is from the same small city as everyone else but one of them grew up and worked in Spain for a number of years.

Theoretically, hiring the Spain applicant could be beneficial to the team as a whole because they'll bring life experience, lines of thinking, and other things such as these that the homeboy cannot bring.

Now, it goes wrong if the Spain applicant is grossly under-qualified but you hire them anyways simply because they are a Spain applicant and thus you get to meet metrics on a spreadsheet. Organic vs. forced.

I simply want the winning team. If they are all women, great. All black, spectacular. All white males, no problem. Just give me the best; not some quota crap.

[GlockSpock]

1 hour ago, gregintenn said:

I understood what he said. I was, and still am challenging the validity of the statement. That old line “diversity is our strength” is horsechit. 

I'll respectfully disagree. It depends. In the IT world, there are many a great different ways of doing things. If everyone on the team has all he exact same experience and culture, things can become stagnant. Sometimes, bringing in different lines of thinking from different corners of the world can challenge the status quo in ways never considered.

It might not always work or be a positive thing,especially as seen when it is done solely for the sake of being done, but I believe it often is beneficial. It's why I strive so much to keep members that go against the flow on TGO active instead of banned. Otherwise, we'd be a useless echo chamber. I want to sharpen my way of thinking, not bounce it off people that will only agree with me and tell me that I'm right.

Edited July 17 by GlockSpock

[NoBanStan]

24 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

Paste that link in the box here: 12 ft ladder

Thanks. Current at work so i just provided it as is.

[NoBanStan]

9 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

In my opinion, it can further be explained like this. Imagine you have a small company that generally is made up of "good old boys" from the same small city. Perhaps you are hiring a position and have two candidates, each of them roughly equal to the other. One of them is from the same small city as everyone else but one of them grew up and worked in Spain for a number of years.

Theoretically, hiring the Spain applicant could be beneficial to the team as a whole because they'll bring life experience, lines of thinking, and other things such as these that the homeboy cannot bring.

Now, it goes wrong if the Spain applicant is grossly under-qualified but you hire them anyways simply because they are a Spain applicant and thus you get to meet metrics on a spreadsheet. Organic vs. forced.

I would agree on the good ole boy reference. You wind up with an echo chamber of confirmation bias.

Diversity is helpful, as long as the talent is qualified.

[gregintenn]

10 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

I'll respectfully disagree. It depends. In the IT world, there are many a great different ways of doing things. If everyone on the team has all he exact same experience and culture, things can become stagnant. Sometimes, bringing in different lines of thinking from different corners of the world can challenge the status quo in ways never considered.

It might not always work or be a positive thing,especially as seen when it is done solely for the sake of being done, but I believe it often is beneficial. It's why I strive so much to keep members that go against the flow on TGO active instead of banned. Otherwise, we'd be a useless echo chamber. I want to sharpen my way of thinking, no bounce it off people that will only agree with me and tell me that I'm right.

I understand your point, but on the flip side, I wouldn’t likely hire an IT guy to frame a barn for me just for the sake of diversity. That’s about where this equal opportunity has gotten us so far.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that while I understand the basic idea behind it, I’ve also sen it implemented in a real world environment, and it ain’t what was advertised.

Edited July 17 by gregintenn

[Links2k]

5 hours ago, Snaveba said:

Well I would say gun-toting, 2A affirming, pro-choice, pro-equality, pro fiscal responsibility, pro tax the 1%, pro teaching all history, pro there are only two genders, pro FREEDOM of religion and from religion  (including freedom from religion in government). Makes me pretty much damn square near the middle. (maybe leaning a little left).

Fiscal Conservative, Socially Liberal , Uber-Moderate.  Leave me alone to live my life as I want to and I will leave you alone to live your life as you want to.  
 

 

I pretty much agree with all of this. I only wish politicians would stop making laws based upon their ideology. 
 

Several of us have mentioned our faith in this post, yet we agree with the government when they want to take away rights of women and queer individuals.  I’m neither of those. I don’t know how their brains function. I don’t think it’s my place to judge them based upon the decisions they make about their bodies. I must admit that I have prejudice against flamboyant gays (drag queens?), but I’m working on that. I’ve found people in the queer community are some of the kindest people I’ve ever met. I also say live and let live. On the day of judgment, each of us will stand alone.  There will be no SCOTUS there to overrule the decision. 
 

5 hours ago, gregintenn said:

Listen to what the man says and watch what he does, or attempts to do; not what the media tells you about him. I expect you’ll be surprised.

I would assume that I pay more attention to the words and actions of the man than most of his followers. If Trump wins and does all of the things TGO David mentioned in an earlier post, I could support him without liking the individual.  I got behind Bush after 9/11.  
 

Thankfully or unfortunately, we live in an age where almost everything is recorded, so at any given time,  there is a recording or quote of Trump saying things that could be detrimental to the physical and financial well being of the country and some of it’s citizens. 
 

What we’ve gone through as a country the last couple of decades is tiring. I’m considering sitting down to have a medium rare steak with the woman in the dress. It seems that people who don’t follow current events tend to be very happy. I’m retired and aging. I want to be that happy, and I can’t do that if people are having a civil war. It will disrupt my internet service.

5 hours ago, Snaveba said:

I listen to him not really the news. I’ll listen to what he says, and how he says things. I’ll listen to the rhetoric he uses, the divisive words, the ugly things he says, and that is what makes me not like him. He is not Presidential. He is not a nice man and I really don’t think he gives two cares about working people. 

he wants to win, he wants the power . 

It doesn’t matter anymore, but I still think Trump only ran, because of the FBI raid and all of the indictments he was facing. Prior to that he was facing his golden years having been president and getting big money from the Saudis for the LIV Golf tournaments at his clubs.  Why would he want to be president again?  Trump made the earliest announcement for president in history, and so far it seems to have brilliantly paid off for him. 
 

 

[mikegideon]

9 minutes ago, Links2k said:

I pretty much agree with all of this. I only wish politicians would stop making laws based upon their ideology. 
 

I wish politicians would quit making laws period. They suck at it. We gotta quit putting the biggest liars on the planet in charge. 

[deerslayer]

Simply using race as an indicator of vastly different backgrounds can be flawed.  Three highly qualified candidates - two kids from wealthy families, one white, one black, went to expensive schools, a third white candidate from a broken family, grew up in a trailer park and worked their way through school.  Who will have different life experiences and lines of thinking?  Which one will be “diverse?”

Edited July 17 by deerslayer

[Links2k]

3 hours ago, Erik88 said:

What is DEI?

It’s another dog whistle. 

You’re out of the “Alpha Male” club now. 
 

2 hours ago, btq96r said:

Organic DEI works great when correctly harnessed.  Look at any army unit and you'll see what DEI is and should be.  Different backgrounds, experiences, and processes of thought working for a common goal tends to bring out innovative and adaptive solutions.

Forced DEI for metrics or optics is where we have problems.  I'm all for striving to achieve it, making sure it's not prevented, even if you select diversity as a deal breaker between two or more candidates who clear the requirements.  But when you force it as an absolute requirement over standards, it's a liability, not a positive.

Well reasoned response!

1 hour ago, gregintenn said:

What is the problem with hiring the most qualified candidate?

This is not a dig at you, but it appears some people always assume the best qualified candidate is a white male. 
 

1 hour ago, mikegideon said:

Snarl

She’s a highly educated woman. I no longer watch her show for personal reasons, but what says she’s any less qualified than any other host on all of the other cable news entertainment platforms? 
 

1 hour ago, mikegideon said:

She went to Harvard

No accusations here, but do as I told another member I would do by checking her credentials.  I’m not recommending watching her show. I won’t watch her show. But read the background behind how she got to Harvard and how she excelled while there.  
 

[BigK]

1 hour ago, GlockSpock said:

I think what he is getting at is generally that sometimes, for certain teams, someone with a different background than others may be the best candidate. He's saying to essentially hire competent people but also purposefully bringing in a diverse teams will increase the critical thinking and effectiveness of a team.

He's saying that when you force the issue less qualified people are brought in solely for the purpose of diversification. This is bad. But if you have, generally speaking, two equally qualified applicants in terms of skill/education but one of them could potentially bring a diverse experience, that diverse experience technically makes them more qualified.

 

So you have to have a different skin color, sex, country of origin, or creed to think differently?

Everyone who checks some of the same DEI boxes of the form all think alike?

I agree there are some cherry-picked career paths were representing multiple backgrounds is a huge benefit, but in the majority of the STEM or highly skilled labor jobs, for instance, those things are exceedingly less important than qualifications. The soft skills are a good place for diversity and in ALL case we should NEVER let a DEI checkbox disqualify someone from a job.

The notion that 2 equally qualified candidates actually exist is rare, let alone common enough to disguise the DEI hire as legitimate. The truth is many companies decide how low they're willing to set the bar to justify a DEI hire over a more qualified candidate. Then the team is stuck working with someone who isn't a good fit and/or is incompatible to work with.

EDIT: Before someone gets the wrong idea, a woman from different country, who is not heterosexual will beat out a straight black American male on the DEI meter, so NO, it's not just the vilified straight white male that suffers. The whole system suffers when DEI is more important than hiring the best candidate.

Edited July 17 by BigK

[GlockSpock]

13 minutes ago, BigK said:

 

So you have to have a different skin color, sex, country of origin, or creed to think differently?

Everyone who checks some of the same DEI boxes of the form all think alike?

I agree there are some cherry-picked career paths were representing multiple backgrounds is a huge benefit, but in the majority of the STEM or highly skilled labor jobs, for instance, those things are exceedingly less important than qualifications. The soft skills are a good place for diversity and in ALL case we should NEVER let a DEI checkbox disqualify someone from a job.

The notion that 2 equally qualified candidates actually exist is rare, let alone common enough to disguise the DEI hire as legitimate. The truth is many companies decide how low they're willing to set the bar to justify a DEI hire over a more qualified candidate. Then the team is stuck working with someone who isn't a good fit and/or is incompatible to work with.

EDIT: Before someone gets the wrong idea, a woman from different country, who is not heterosexual will beat out a black male from here, who is straight on the DEI meter, so NO, it's not all about the vilified straight white male that suffers.

I never said DEI was a good practice or oft implemented in a beneficial way, only that I see how the idea could in theory make a team more flexible and capable. Never once would I argue that a less qualified candidate should take priority over more qualified, but to eliminate that issue we would have to do away with the good-old-boy buddy system and nepotism as a whole. Hopefully someone can tag me in a post once all of that is out of the way.

Edited July 17 by GlockSpock

[btq96r]

1 hour ago, gregintenn said:

What is the problem with hiring the most qualified candidate?

1 hour ago, GlockSpock said:

I think what he is getting at is generally that sometimes, for certain teams, someone with a different background than others may be the best candidate. He's saying to essentially hire competent people but also purposefully bringing in a diverse teams will increase the critical thinking and effectiveness of a team.

He's saying that when you force the issue less qualified people are brought in solely for the purpose of diversification. This is bad. But if you have, generally speaking, two equally qualified applicants in terms of skill/education but one of them could potentially bring a diverse experience, that diverse experience technically makes them more qualified.

GlockSpock has expanded well on my initial thoughts along how I was going with it.

Most qualified is a bit of a misnomer.  Qualified is often a binary yes/no condition.  Within those qualifications, there can be those with abundance of dubious relevance.  Example being someone with 9yrs experience vs. another with 6yrs when the requirement is 5yrs.  Both candidates clear the experience hurdle as a pass/fail check, so what makes the time above that useful as a qualification?  That not a failure to acknowledge the difference in varying levels of experience, but unless it can be quantified in some way, the difference isn't useful as a standalone item.  The candidate with the longer experience might be the wrong one if their getting the job enacts the Peter Principle that was otherwise being guarded against where they're coming from.

It's admittedly subjective, and not something you can write a manual around.  But most people don't make it past HR screening unless they meet the stated qualifications.  So from there, you want to get the best candidate for the role.

[GlockSpock]

2 minutes ago, btq96r said:

GlockSpock has expanded well on my initial thoughts along how I was going with it.

Most qualified is a bit of a misnomer.  Qualified is often a binary yes/no condition.  Within those qualifications, there can be those with abundance of dubious relevance.  Example being someone with 9yrs experience vs. another with 6yrs when the requirement is 5yrs.  Both candidates clear the experience hurdle as a pass/fail check, so what makes the time above that useful as a qualification?  That not a failure to acknowledge the difference in varying levels of experience, but unless it can be quantified in some way, the difference isn't useful as a standalone item.  The candidate with the longer experience might be the wrong one if their getting the job enacts the Peter Principle that was otherwise being guarded against where they're coming from.

It's admittedly subjective, and not something you can write a manual around.  But most people don't make it past HR screening unless they meet the stated qualifications.  So from there, you want to get the best candidate for the role.

Peter is a turtle on a fence post. He doesn't have a clue how he got on top of the post, doesn't have a clue what he is doing, and hasn't the least idea of how to get down.

You touch on a good point though. Perhaps the candidate with nine years experience has 9 years experience because they cannot learn new skills or handle additional responsibility. Sometimes...and I think most of us have seen this...the most capable people in an organization are the ones that are brand new. Since they are so good at what they do, they either promote out of that position rather quickly or an attempt is made to "hold them" in that position for as long as possible. So then what? They go and find a better job at a different company. Guess what though? We've still got that one guy in the department with 25 years worth of experience that is mostly ok with what he does.

[Links2k]

1 hour ago, NoBanStan said:

If they TRULY cared, they would be supporting the next generation. Funding STEM and inner city. Helping the next generation thrive and progress.
 

This!

 

41 minutes ago, mikegideon said:

I wish politicians would quit making laws period. They suck at it. We gotta quit putting the biggest liars on the planet in charge. 

I agree. All of us here know that politicians are grifting, self serving liars, but we still choose those individuals to represent us, because they may say one thing that we support. I am not a Biden supporter, I’m simply unapologetically anti-Trump!

 

46 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

Simply using race as an indicator of vastly different backgrounds can be flawed.  Three highly qualified candidates - two kids from wealthy families, one white, one black, went to expensive schools, a third white candidate from a broken family, grew up in a trailer park and worked their way through school.  Who will have different life experiences and lines of thinking?  Which one will be “diverse?”

They all will still have different life experiences, because they’re individuals!

My family is not rich, but we sent our kids to two of the four  top private schools in Shelby County from kindergarten through high school. They received excellent educations. While they were surrounded by very bright and good kids, they also had to deal with several assholes who had certainly gotten their opinions about certain things kids shouldn’t have to deal with from adults. So there are also diverse lifestyles and experiences among those living comfortable lifestyles. 
 

A rough and tough upbringing doesn’t make an individual more qualified or more deserving because they made it.  I’m of the opinion that having parents who can provide kids a pleasurable youth and a good education are equally valuable experiences. 
 

At the end of the day, diversity is more than race, money and education. It’s what different individuals bring to the table

 

[btq96r]

Well, we're onto other social issues and conspiracy theories alone rather than the main thread.  Seems this thread has cemented itself in our politics forum. 

[gregintenn]

I imagine I'll be labeled a liar, but I have been told point blank at a job interview, "We'd love to hire you, but we have to hire a black person."

Looking back on it, I'm mighty glad it happened that way, but I sure wish they'd have told me before I drove all the way there and wasted my time and theirs.

Hopefully, diversity truly enriched that company.

 

[Links2k]

34 minutes ago, BigK said:

 

I agree there are some cherry-picked career paths were representing multiple backgrounds is a huge benefit, but in the majority of the STEM or highly skilled labor jobs, for instance, those things are exceedingly less important than qualifications. The soft skills are a good place for diversity and in ALL case we should NEVER let a DEI checkbox disqualify someone from a job.

 

In our capitalist society, I refuse to believe the majority of real decision makers are leaving money on the table to make a diversity hire. That’s just one more things politicians push out there, because it’s an effective strategy of angering their base. 
 

Read some of Mark Cuban’s comments about diversity. His comments are a mixture of everything being talked about today. In the end, the best qualified applicants get the jobs.