Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
Sleepy Fennec
« older

Medium (920px wide max)
Wide - use max window width - scroll to see page ⇅
Fit all of image in window
set default image size: small | medium | wide
Download (new tab)
I was rather frustrated at the time I drew this, some weeks back, so I think it would be prudent to add a little explanation of this here. Diversity is something that is brought up all the time these days, always referred to positively, as if it were a goal at which we should aim. This is not critically questioned, unfortunately. Diversity kicks ass if we're talking about diversity of experience, thought, ideas, perspectives. When people come together with a shared aim, having a wealth of experience is, naturally, very important. However, this is not the meaning of diversity in its present, most widespread usage. Diversity, and we can assess this from the goals of those implementing it, instead refers to race, gender and sexuality.

Now, obviously people of any race, gender or sexuality should not face discrimination for those reasons, because we would be discriminating based on inherent traits of people, traits for which no person can be held responsible and, in any event, are superficial. Take one example, I'm a gay, white man. Are gay people similar to eachother in any way, even generally, that isn't purely their sexuality? What about white people, are they all similar, to the point of general significance, in any way beyond race? Apply the same to men. The point is that if you take anybody from any of these categories you cannot infer, from no other information, what they believe, how they think, what they have experienced, what their personality is, their skills etc. Because of this, isolating these shallow traits tells you nothing about the individual, which renders the individual irrelevant if we choose to care more about these traits than others.

Put simply, if we set out to enforce an outcome of demographics based on traits that have almost nothing to do with individual characteristics, then we are setting up a system whereby people are judged by these traits. If we are to be judged based on race, sexuality, gender, things we can't change and things which do not determine who we are as individuals, then we have a system which inevitably destroys the individual. Merit is what should matter, if we care about people being able to do the things they are most suited and most interested in doing. Seeing people of multiple races, genders and sexualities in a particular industry or company might make good optics and feel nice enough, but in even trying for it we are making these things the most important features of a person. We can't do that unless we want to be collectivists, unless we don't want to be considered as individual people. There's no two ways about it, the current diversity drive is bigotry by another name. It is diseased, ignorant nonsense and it ought to be thrown out like the garbage it is.

Keywords
assigned male 571,593, raccoon 18,331, politics 190, diversity 3
Details
Type: Sketch
Published: 3 days, 15 hrs ago
Rating: General

MD5 Hash for Page 1... Show Find Identical Posts [?]
Stats
1,007 views
60 favorites
187 comments

BBCode Tags Show [?]
 
afdsa
3 days, 15 hrs ago
Diversity for diversity sake is a pointless exercise in social justice.
MrSOCKS
3 days, 14 hrs ago
"Diversity for diversity's sake".
In America, we call this the Free Market. And it's a glorious, terrifying beastie!
Hey, right now? You're soaking in it!
KevinSnowpaw
3 days, 13 hrs ago
I think he is referring to concepts like Diverity quoatas and the shit silicon vally is pulliong right now were they are convinced they have to stop hireing straight white men to do jobs and hire more...well anything else... dispite the fact that your gender skin color and or anything else has zero factor on the JOB you can do wich is the only thing that should matter.


at least.. I think thats what they mean
MrSOCKS
3 days, 13 hrs ago
When a quest for diversity leads to discrimination, it leaves the path of wisdom.
At the same time, there are lots of reports coming out of silicon valley of how white-- and even Asian-- men have become the schoolyard bullies of the industry, harassing women and black people especially, trying to chase them out so more of their own kind can come in. And that is also something that needs to be addressed.
The issue of enforced diversity is a response to a problem, not the problem itself.
KevinSnowpaw
3 days, 12 hrs ago
still a prety shitty fucking response =p


but we agree chaseing people out of an industry for something like there gender or race is bad. I have seen ZERO evidence to suport that but reguardless...it's bad.


MrSOCKS
3 days, 12 hrs ago
It's a shitty response because it's a shitty reality. And cleaning up shit is a messy business.
And zero evidence? Hold on...
...
Typing "racism cases in the software industry" -- this is what we're talking about here, right?-- into the Google Machine yields ~450k results. Belly up.
KevinSnowpaw
3 days, 10 hrs ago
yeah but that means nothing i could type ANYTHING into google and get thousends of results it's GOOGLE i ment hard evidence that this is a PROBLEM in the tech industry and while im sure it exists.. i've never seen an example of it being a problem EXCEPT that there are FAR fewer wemen then men in the tech industry and "thats a problem" when it really is not unless there are less women due to some kinda intentional barrior.


the first 6 results arnt even relivent on the google search when i saw the results.

the 6th one was a wikipedia artical on workplace discrimination as a definition lol the 4th was a complaint that silicon vally discriminates IN FAVOR of indians.Not exactly what were looking for here either.



in the ned.. i just dont want to see enforced racism and sexism to defend against perseeved systemic racism and sexism XD it's like shooting a person in the head so they wont catch the flu...
MrSOCKS
2 days, 21 hrs ago
First you want evidence, then you want "hard evidence". I have one more Wikipedia page for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
zangooseOO
2 days, 20 hrs ago
personal accounts and gossip are considered evidence, that doesn't make them automatically valid.  it's not moving goalposts if it's clarifying and excluding bullshit.  of course you're going to find articles online about muh diversity or whatever because that's what the media is pushing.  they'll use anything they can to do so, including outright lies, so "i googled articles" is not meaningful "evidence"
MrSOCKS
2 days, 20 hrs ago
I've encountered this trick before, elsewhere. First evidence it requested. Then "hard evidence". Then comes all the dismissals of "we don't know the full story yet", et. al., including or followed by a vilification of whatever sources might be linked.
And that is moving the goalposts. Confirmation bias is as slippery a beast as it is obstinate.
zangooseOO
2 days, 19 hrs ago
you've probably encountered it because people are calling you out on your bullshit.  if your "evidence" is nebulous, vague statements, then it's invalid, and clearly "hard evidence" needs to be specified so you dont keep submitting garbage
MrSOCKS
2 days, 16 hrs ago
No, that's the problem! They don't call me out on anything. They just say I'm lying, dismiss any data presented they disagree with, call me names, and then run away. Like what you did here. Nothing but dismissals, but no rebuttals. And no counterpoints. Just the most perfunctory and flat efforts at discredit that end up sounding ignorant and cowardly.
zangooseOO
2 days, 16 hrs ago
but what data, i still havent seen anything presented in this thread and you were the one that started it.  you've made a claim, failed to back it up, and now wonder why people dismiss you.  it's not on me or anyone else to present information in rebuttal if you havent even backed up your own claim.  you've so far cited, and i quote "lots of reports"

i can do it too.  there are lots of reports that unicorns poop rainbows.  will anyone take me seriously for saying that?  no, not at all, and for good reason.  it's simply not evidence.
MrSOCKS
2 days, 15 hrs ago
And then is it my job to do your research? 450k articles on the Google Machine. News reports. Magazine articles. Commentaries. Reports. Testimonies. All over the place. Just because we're on a cub-art site doesn't mean I have to spoon feed you. And again, you're already psychologically prepped to dismiss any data presented as "garbage, since journalism is not academic, nor is it necessarily factual, it can and more than likely would be just gossip and/or accusation with, once again, no concrete evidence."
Wallow in your obstinacy then. We shall progress without you.
zangooseOO
2 days, 15 hrs ago
i'm not saying it's your job to do my reasearch, i'm saying your job to do your research.  you made the claim, you back it up.
PrysmTKitsune
2 days, 14 hrs ago
a negative asertion does not need to be proven, the burden of proof is always on the one who is atempting to prove that something 'is' real not that something is not, translation 'you' have to provide the evidence to support your own claims if you make a claim and then do not substantiate it with proof for example
have there been any studies done on the topic? if show provide links to these studies.
have there been any related court cases in the last 10 years, link to findings and court documents regarding those cases.
MrSOCKS
2 days, 14 hrs ago
"a negative asertion does not need to be proven"
Of course negative assertions need proving. it's called "defense".
"This thing is not happening."
"But all these people say it is."
"It is not happening because I say it isn't, and I don't have to prove it isn't happening."

Don't be silly.
PrysmTKitsune
2 days, 13 hrs ago
Incorrect, self serving, and self invalidateing as the second half of your statement proves my point

in that scenario the person saying something wasnt real didnt have to provide any evidence for or against his point.
those seeking to prove it 'was' real did, they had to look and then point to the item in question thusly proveing it was in fact very much real.

and you still havn't provided any evidence to back up your own point, even after being given sugestions on what you could provide to do so i might add

your attempt to divert attention from the topic useing a straw man argument is noted, and denied.
MrSOCKS
2 days, 13 hrs ago
You merely repeat your own declaration. You don't get to make up the rules.
Proving something has not occurred is as important as proving something did. Accusations are cousin to hypotheses: their are presented to be tested and proven true or false. If rejection of assertion were not necessary, defense attorneys, for example, would not need exist.
Prosecutor: "We accuse the defendant of doing this thing."
"I, the accused, declare that I did not."
Judge: "Case dismissed!"
See?
This is a problem with the whole #MeToo movement: mere accusation unquestioned, unchallenged and uncontested, is enough to totally wreck a man's life. Does it matter if some of the accused have said "No, I didn't do that?"
And I'm not diverting attention from anytyhing. I'm answering you, directly.
PrysmTKitsune
2 days, 12 hrs ago
heres the thing, if the prosecutor doesn't provide any evidence to the assertion that the defendant did in fact do it then 'yes' the judge 'will' dismiss the case at that point, hell without sufficient evidence it wouldn't have even made it to court to begin with.

also regarding the Internets tendency to mob tactic people...that's just the nature of the beast, once the majority has decided something is the 'truth' it is ridiculously hard to convince them otherwise sadly...which actually makes all this arguing pointless really, because no mater which of us is right it wont change what the majority of people belive, and only changing 'that' will cause the way things function to change.
MrSOCKS
1 day, 21 hrs ago
It is to the positive of the prosecution's case that the defense must prove the negative. The burden of proof means that the indictment and evidence must be able to withstand any and all objections and challenges from the active defense. Hell, the D.A. is even required by law to supply the defense with any exculpatory evidence the prosecution might discover. Justice is not supposed to be about the pursuit of conviction 'wins' at all costs. It's supposed to be about finally discovering who did what and what actually happened.

And mob rule, being the court of public opinion, holds to that same standard, with even a greater open resentment when the condemnors are proven to be finally wrong and have all their entertainment ruined. See: Michael Jackson.

And I know this is all Internet fights, and..? Not only is this democracy in action, the mental calisthenic alone is a major benefit to such online pissing matches.
Feel the burn!
https://media.giphy.com/media/3xz2BIIBBvBS8iDofm/giphy.gif
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/504/9...
https://media.giphy.com/media/BvkAtMoUtyecw/giphy.gif
PrysmTKitsune
1 day, 14 hrs ago
regarding that first part about what justice is supposed to be, somebody needs to tell that to the lawyers cause that doesnt seem to be there point of view.
MrSOCKS
1 day, 14 hrs ago
The ambitious, career-building drive of many prosecutors is as blatant and ugly a problem as it seems an unrepentant one. it really got bad in the 90s, as so many thousands of my fellow Americans were thrown into prison just so DAs and ADAs could cut another notch in their metaphoric gunbelt, with an eye to building careers and getting re-elected. When a results-driven culture is enforced, the niceities of moral, truth and indeed justice become mere quaint inconveniences.
PrysmTKitsune
1 day, 14 hrs ago
i saw on a documentary once that mentioned that its a common strategy for overworked public defenders to when assigned to a client try to convince them to plead out as fast as possible 'meet em and pleadem' cause there were and are so many cases going on for the public defenders and so few of them...i can see the logic, but its also stupid as it defeats the point of being an attorney your supposed to defend your client not try to convince them to give up.
MrSOCKS
1 day, 14 hrs ago
Incarceration in America is a vast, multi-billion-dollar, for-profit industry. it has nothing to do with keeping the public safe, it has everything to do with locking up as many people as possible so demons can get rich. And with such campaigns as the War On Drugs and the School To Prison Pipeline, the racism becomes blatant.
PrysmTKitsune
1 day, 13 hrs ago
you do realize that the large majority of our prison population is white males right.

this having a larger part to do with population percentages overall more then anything i suppose though, since america is made up largely of white people, and males tend to be more violent then females overall this makes sense.
MrSOCKS
1 day, 12 hrs ago
My comment was about the War On Drugs specifically. Other campaigns, like Tough On Crime, the return of Debtor's Prisons, Three Strikes, Maximum Sentencing, join and aid the prison-industrial complex against America.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2016/03/23/nix...
MaxDeGroot
3 days ago
Oh, so, you claim the unicorns don't exist?

*does a Google search of "unicorn"*

Hah!! over a thousand articles. Proof positive.
MrSOCKS
2 days, 21 hrs ago
Such a clumsy false equivalency.
2/10
zangooseOO
2 days, 20 hrs ago
reductio ad absurdum, not false equivalency.  simply showing why "i googled it" is not a valid reason to claim "it exists"
MrSOCKS
2 days, 20 hrs ago
And if I had taken the time to meticulously link a token five different stories on the issue from five seperate legit journalistic sources, your reaction would be..?
zangooseOO
2 days, 19 hrs ago
that's a pretty big if.  i cannot say what my reaction would be because you have not done so.  perhaps what you consider to be "legitimate sources" could actually be biased, paid for garbage, i cant know that until you do so.

however, given you specified "journalistic" for sources, i would more than likely believe it is garbage, since journalism is not academic, nor is it necessarily factual, it can and more than likely would be just gossip and/or accusation with, once again, no concrete evidence
Lunarshark
2 days, 18 hrs ago
So, just to understand properly, if I dropped a pen and said "There is gravity" you would say it's bull because I'm not an "academic" source. But if I brought you Newton's publishings about gravity, you'd believe it's true?
To tie it back to earlier, if Mrsocks showed you an academic study about discrimination in the tech industry, you'd believe that? Because everything else could be false? Does this sound more like A or B?
A: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/critical-thinking?s=t
B: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy
zangooseOO
2 days, 17 hrs ago
nope, not at all.  dropping a pen and observing gravity is an objective, repeatable experiment.  if i disbelieved you, i could simply verify it myself.

also, still more of the "if they did" arguments.  the simple fact of the matter is that they havent.  but sure, suppose they did.  if they had done so, and again, they have not, it would be certainly a huge step over the hypotheticals and vague claims being made, but that would not simply be enough to accept it.  at that point, the questions would be things like, "are the assumptions acceptable?", "is the data correct, unbiased, and properly sampled?", "were the conclusions logical given the assumptions/data presented?", etc

so, address your seemingly underlying question, no, a "credible" source would still not be enough in its own right, i'm not one to just see names and believe immediately what they say, but as i said, it would be an improvement
MrSOCKS
2 days, 16 hrs ago
*reads my post & Lunarshark's & your response*
*nods*
Reads to me like you have all your rationale lined up and ready to dismiss any and all sources that might report anything you don't wish to recognize. Your issue is not confirmation bias, but rather fanaticism: only if you experience something yourself are you willing to acknowledge it.
zangooseOO
2 days, 15 hrs ago
are you then suggesting that i should accept any given thing i see at face value?  that's simply going to happen.  also I havent even made a claim of any stance of my own so far, what bias are you presuming i have?

by the way, you still havent put any concrete backing to anything you've said.  go on, do it, i'm waiting
MrSOCKS
2 days, 15 hrs ago
The evidence is there. Like Alex Jones says, "Study It Out!!!" If you just want it plopped down in front of you that's no my problem.

And anyways yes, you have made a stance: to dismiss any presented evidence by all the derisive terms you've already recited.
zangooseOO
2 days, 15 hrs ago
and yet you still cant even support your own claims.  it's almost as if you have fucking nothing
MrSOCKS
2 days, 15 hrs ago
zangooseOO
2 days, 14 hrs ago
off to a bad start already then, but better than nothing at least.

lets start off with the entire premise of this: silicon valley.  silicon valley is a liberal hotspot, any statement about it is going to be a reflection of liberal leaning behaviors, which i will say as a personal observation i suspect is already biased towards crying -isms, even when there are none

lets start with the guardian.  the guardian is well known to have strong liberal bias.  your first mistake here was linking an obviously biased publication instead of the studies they draw their conclusions from.  but lets go ahead with that

the first article's study already makes me suspicious in that it's about leaving work for perceived issues, something a) which is voluntary, and b) may be explainable simply by disposition of individuals studied, even under same conditions.  all surveyed had left companies, which itself introduces a degree of sample bias.

the second article is almost quotes and no data, all "i felt this" and accusation, something that has become an epidemic.  people have forgotten that the law states that you are innocent until PROVEN guilty.  the one study they do link is a study that entirely is about unproveable feelings.  on top of that, that study doesnt mention any information on how they actually collected data, other than the anonymous "submit story" option, which will carry heavy sampling bias, why would people go there to share that things are fine?

tldr: both surveys rely on how people felt, not on what actually happened.  while those feelings may be what they felt, that doesnt mean what was perceived actually happened

the vice article is a step up, as it seems to rely on objective employment numbers.  however it too fails to use statistics correctly.  easy enough to spot, it doesnt compare the population of those company's employees to the population of the country.  if, for example, hispanics hypothetically only represent 4% of the country's population, then 4% representation in a company would be perfect, for example.  the lack of this comparison suggests deceit or at least misshandling of statistics.  they also stated earnings statistics, which i do not have enough characters in this to debunk properly, but they should be using wages for equivalent work, not earnings.

the cio article makes the same mistakes as the vice one, but cites less statistics and even correctly admits they cant draw the conclusion that race was the reason in the example cited

finally, that pew article is, once again, about perceived racism, not real, documented events, dismissed

a good try, and much more constructive than making nebulous claims, but i would advise taking a closer look at your sources
MrSOCKS
2 days, 14 hrs ago
My initial post clearly states that there are lots of reports that this shit is going on. And that's it. There are some links that verify that statement. if you choose not to believe them, that's your choice.
KevinSnowpaw
2 days, 10 hrs ago
lets examin it from a purely economic point of view.


what is the point of makeing the tech industry a "boys club"  we are currently in a situation were tech giants like google are hireing minoritys to fill deversity qoutas not for reasons of marit alone. How did we come to this?

the argument from the progressives here and from what i can tell what your argueing as well, and thats fine, is that women and to some extent minority groups not only includeing women are being excluded for...reasons...


what reasons? these are massive bussnesses were talking about. they care about dollers not dicks.

it costs a LOT of time and money to train people in and thats one of the reasons that most bussnesses try to minimize turn around employes are a human resources investment.

on top of that, these same groups argue that women are paid LESS.

Assumeing this is true.. why not just hire a fuck ton of women...Wouldent I make so much more money cutting costs out of payroll by about 20-30% for all employes across the board by hireing only women?

the DATA supports there being less women becouse there are less women over all interested in the feild...not out of some weird..no girls allowed computer nerd polacy going on behind closed doors.
MrSOCKS
1 day, 22 hrs ago
Ahhh, but this isn't a purely economic issue! Emotions are involved. There is no good business sense in making any such public company a "boys' club" or an "all white club" or an exclusive-anything-else.  Not in these modern times. But good heavens, how much human potential has been wasted over the centuries because a perfectly talented individual was barred their opportunity in industry because they weren't __________  or "____________ enough" for the boys who ran the club. Now matter how public a business might be, professionals view their industries and therefore their jobs as very-much a private club-- again, natural human collectivism-- and they can be very belligerent about chasing out and keeping out any members of any group they personally don't like because reasons, and that certainly isn't limited to mere race or sex. Modern society has decided to combat this attitude in the name of fairness and justice.
And there is no guarantee that each and every person hired under a quota system is unqualified. No preferential hiring system will deliver %100 good results or %100 bad results. And there is a good probability that someone hired under quotas will prove themselves entirely qualified, but would not have been considered otherwise because reasons. And there will be resentment towards that employee because they were hired under preferential standards. It is then up to then to prove they deserve the chance they've been given.
KevinSnowpaw
1 day, 19 hrs ago
but you see.. it's not ABOUT emotions.. it's about getting the job done. this isent the 1920's or even the 1940's  if we DONT regulate who does and does not get hired your not gonna suddenly see this MASSIVE influx of none whites and women who are jobless, becouse nobody wants to hire them lol

theres this assumption theres some kind of invisible racist hive mind thats going to make sure all the girls are kicked out and excluded from the tech industry. this is HORSE SHIT!


even more so when you consider that silicon vally is SUPER progressie and VERY poltical lately... if anything it's the straight white guys who need to be worrying about there jobs not the other way around. Look at the crap googles been pulling lately.


Diversity, when it's forced, is meaningless.


actually diversity itself is meaningless...I dont give two fucks about your skin color or the junk in your trunk.
MrSOCKS
1 day, 15 hrs ago
It's *supposed* to be about getting the job done. And no this isn't the Bad Old Days, in that corporate bigotry is no longer the official company policy. But these issues will always exist because people. Just like some grown men and women who act like total hormone-crazed teenagers towards the opposite sex, in the workplace. And when people misbehave, shit needs taking care of.
theres this assumption theres some kind of invisible racist hive mind thats going to make sure all the girls are kicked out and excluded from the tech industry. this is HORSE SHIT!
>racist
>girls
umm...
But back to business, there seems to be evidence to prove you wrong, doesn't it? These issues aren't just being conjured out of nothing. Women and non-white/non-asian men are saying shit's going on in their industry. There's also reports that gays are being chased out as well. Are you just going to dismiss all that simply because you don't WANT it to be true? That's how abuse is sheltered, you know. Whether it's abuses in the business world, the Catholic Church, Hollywood or the Boy Scouts: abuses are allowed to happen and continue because nobody wants to believe it could ever occur, because that threatens their own comfort zone. That Olympic coach thing that's now wrapping up is an excellent example of this.
Silicon Valley has always been very political. The industry that they work in has greatly reshaped the first world and will be a major worker in reshaping humanity; and many Old School authority structures aren't too happy about that. And it's their aggressive progressivism that have so many people upset at them.
Simply because straight white men aren't allowed total uncontested domination of something (they're still the majority of the software workforce by a considerable degree), does not mean they are "under threat". Or perhaps, they're just worried about karma..?
"Diversity, when it's forced, is meaningless."
The desegregated American armed forces looks askance as you, at attention.
KevinSnowpaw
1 day, 14 hrs ago
so what? your IMPLYING alot of shit is going on becouse "stories arnt just conjured but the actualy complaint is that there are LESS women in particuler in say the tech industry, and that this is some how Representative of sexism.


Correlation does not equal causation.

your makeing a CLAIM thje burden of PROF lays on the shoulders of the people who belive there is something bad going on. yet nobody has been able to prove anything of the sort.


in fact a guy writes a Memo Sugesting the OPASIT is true and makes meaningful suggestions to get more women into the industry and gets fired for being sexist...


as others have allready pointed out you basicly just platered a bunch of google results, and i LOOKED at them and the top 6 or so results returned diddent even support your argument. one of them infact hurt your argument XD


Diversity qoutas are a TERRIBLE thing the create an ILLUSION of fairness, by forcing a balance in races and genders that is otherwise meaningless.

Your skin color doesn't effect your ability to do the job nor does your gender and or sex. the entire CONCEPT of forced diversity is a waste of time and energy.

I say it again, your "diversity" is meaningless. Your skin color, it's meaningless. your gender, it's meaningless. YES there will allways be some dumb fuck who thinks your pigmentation is some how importent but those people are on the decline.

racism and sexism wont ever die if we keep makeing a huge deal out of it forexample all this systemic crap. we cant find an ACTUAL racist boogyman to fight so now we have an invisible one that nobody can fight! Were ALL unconcusly racist! ohhhhh GUILT TRIP!!!


im not buying into it. I belive in marit and marit alone.
MrSOCKS
1 day, 11 hrs ago
Whoa! Whoa! Slow down, cowboy! Your signal's breaking up!

I am not implying anything. It's the people who either are in the industry or were, that are making these complaints and observations.
You seem far more upset that a remedy you dislike is being applied, than the existence of the problem that provoked the remedy in the first place. "How dare all those people complain about mistreatment??? Don't they know I disapprove of diversity???"
And you looked at the top six links alone and only? That doesn't even leave the first page, does it? I have the honor of witnessing a new definition of perfunctory.
"Your skin color doesn't effect your ability to do the job nor does your gender and or sex."
You know that. I know that. But there's lots and lots of people who do not know that, and do not care to be taught that. They are the genesis of this problem. BTW: Sex = male/female. Gender = that pertaining to the male/female. The first identifies, the second describes. They are not interchangeable. Sorry, old peeve.
Simply because you declare that the cosmetic is meaningless does not mean that billions around the world agree with you. In uncountable instances, the cosmetic is all far too many people see. And "my diversity"! Silly bun. This diversity isn't mine! Trust me: you have no idea what "my" diversity would look like.
"racism and sexism wont ever die if we keep makeing a huge deal out of it..."
No problem either goes away or gets better if you just try to ignore it. Indeed, the problem gets worse when left to its own devices. indeed, most all monuments of social progress began when people started ignoring abuses began doing something about them, instead. I am astounded that you would embrace such a towering naivete...and cowardice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RovF1zsDoeM
This issue is not all about you, or your beliefs. This issue is about thousands of others, complete strangers to you, far away from you, in situations that are not even remotely your own. It is their beliefs, and their practices, that are the crux of this issue.
KevinSnowpaw
1 day, 10 hrs ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3cGfrExozQ

how we gonna get rid of racism? Morgan says it pretty well. I dont think it's ignorent at all to stop makeing such a huge deal out of things like race. I would much rather make a huge deal out of things that actualy effect me.

as for only looking at the top 6 links.. You provided a Googel SEARCH term...several key words to illistrate your point. the search turned up a bunch of impotent bitching but it was SEVERAL links down on the list and not a single shred of evidence or documented proof.

Im sure there are SOME isssues were women for example were denighed a job in this industry due to there sex...but if there where it was a extreamly small number and was due to personal bigotry not some systemic issue "keeping women down"

in short.. theres no problem here... there are LESS women interested in tech jobs so there are less women working in tech jobs... seems to add up to me.
MrSOCKS
19 hrs, 26 mins ago
The total elimination of the more bestial aspects of the human being does seem a long way off. But the fearsome thing about the human faculty is that we KNOW we can do better and be better than what we are now. And just sitting back and ignoring the ugly things around us fixes nothing, betters nobody, and society as a whole goes nowhere. Morgan's view is the correct on all points, and it is the end to which we should strive. But way too many people do not wish to stop talking about race, or sexuality, or economic class, or whatever else divider or separator you might invoke; gnawing on such cosmetics entertains them far too much, as they endlessly rationalize their fear and hatred of the different. Whole organizations by the score operate to promote this sole practice. You and I don't have to talk about race, and I prefer not to in company. But the people who cannot stop talking about race, or "uppity women", or "faggots", or "kikes", or whomever else, they are the problem. And as long as they are among us, just ignoring them does nothing.
What is Google but the single largest reference library ever created? Any issue, queried any number of ways, pulls down so many references via links. But you still have to go and do the reading yourself. Pages and pages of references of all kinds. Just sampling from Page 1 out of hundreds if not thousands more, is like doing a book report on the first page of a novel. if you're not willing to put in the time to go deeper than Page 1, that's not my problem.
Proof comes from investigation. Investigation gets rolling when allegations are made. These initial reports saying that some racist and sexist shit is going down is not the end product, but the beginning. See?
KevinSnowpaw
16 hrs, 35 mins ago
im getting tired of the text blocks so im cutting to the chase. HE who makes the acusation must prove said acusation. you cant just link google keywords and then get upset when people dont want to  bother shifting through thousends of links to find eveidence of the point YOU are trying to make.


Im not trying to make a point im stateing the idea that women are less prevalent in the tech industry due to a hostile enviornment is horse shit =p evidence does not point to the contrary either. While there are some instances of racism and sexism and there allways will be these are not the norm.


If they are not the norm then were makeing a mole hill out of a mountain with things like diversity quotas.
MaxDeGroot
2 days, 7 hrs ago
My reaction would be, "THANK GOD, at least one person bothers to present actual evidence instead of blowing their mouth off."
MaxDeGroot
2 days, 7 hrs ago
False equivalency nothing. You did a search for, and I quote, "racism cases in the software industry", got thousands of articles, and assumed, wrongly, that they were all articles about actual cases of racism in the software industry.

You forget that it will also match:

"cases of racism which were hoaxes"

"cases of racism" (regardless of whether in the software industry)

"cases of absenteeism in the software industry"

"racism in the race baiting industry"

ALL of those would also have matched what you gave Google.
MrSOCKS
1 day, 21 hrs ago
"Waaaaaaah! Research is hard!"
drivernjax
3 days, 10 hrs ago
The unfortunate thing is that, quite often, those hirings are mandated by the courts here.  I remember hearing that a court once told a police department that it had to promote more minorities until quotas were met, even if those minorities couldn't perform the job requirements.  The way I look at it, if I know I'm going to be promoted simply because of my race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc., why should I do my best to learn the job?  Once upon a time here, minorities were educated and willing to learn a job to PROVE to the whites in this country that they were their equals.  Now, with government mandated hiring and promotion requirements, they no longer care.  "I know I'm going to get that job, promotion, etc., because I'm a (insert minority status here)."
KevinSnowpaw
1 day, 19 hrs ago
in the end it's only hurting minority groups.
drivernjax
1 day, 10 hrs ago
I'm all for hiring and promoting minorities that are qualified for said positions.  Actually, I should say that I'm all for hiring and promoting the most qualified person for said positions.  (BTW, I grew up during the 1960s so I know a bit of what I'm talking about.)
KevinSnowpaw
1 day, 8 hrs ago
what bothers me the most is the agressive defensive tactics i keep seeing from the "regressive" elements of the far left...when i know at there core they mean to help...we fight and disagree but were all on the same side on this issue in the end...it's crazy
Straitfox
3 days ago
It's a bullshit lie made by the liberal media and the socialist agenda.  
moyomongoose
3 days, 15 hrs ago
Everyone would have to admit, it would be a pretty boring world if we were all alike.

Just imagine if there was only one species of animal on the planet...oh say squirrels.
Or only one kind of flower on the planet...oh say buttercups.

If there were not different races, nationalities and cultures, everywhere in the world would be the same...That would get redundant after a while.
MrSOCKS
3 days, 13 hrs ago
While this is all true, there are still many groups of people who value the comfort of the familiar over anything else. Diversity scares them, because it is unfamiliar and therefore uncomfortable.
moyomongoose
2 days, 17 hrs ago
I pity those folks you refer to...They just don't get it.
KevinSnowpaw
3 days, 14 hrs ago
nobody will debate discuss or even consider any points or facts made that inconvenience there narrative lol.
MrSOCKS
3 days, 14 hrs ago
Sorry I'm late.
KevinSnowpaw
3 days, 13 hrs ago
will forgive it this time since your such a great worker but if your late again Mr. Socks Im going to have to write you up for being tardy :(
MrSOCKS
3 days, 13 hrs ago
A change. Most people write me up for being 'tarded...
KevinSnowpaw
3 days, 13 hrs ago
i dont find you "tarded" at all even when we disagree it's allways been in a cival way and allways dicussed with maturity. Were cool =p
MrSOCKS
3 days, 13 hrs ago
KevinSnowpaw
3 days, 12 hrs ago
XD i deserved that XD it';s what i get for trying to think when tired XD
Danjen
3 days, 14 hrs ago
See also: Globalism vs. Nationalism
MrSOCKS
3 days, 14 hrs ago
"Diversity = individuals, not pointless physical traits."
Like sex, hair colour, skin colour, eye colour, language, religion, nationality, country of origin, economic/ social class..?

" Diversity, and we can assess this from the goals of those implementing it, instead refers to race, gender and sexuality."
Because these, along with language, religion and nationality, have been the gatekeepers of discrimination through the ages. Removing those things rendered as standard to bar diversity, invites diversity to occur.

"Put simply, if we set out to enforce an outcome of demographics based on traits that have almost nothing to do with individual characteristics, then we are setting up a system whereby people are judged by these traits. If we are to be judged based on race, sexuality, gender, things we can't change and things which do not determine who we are as individuals, then we have a system which inevitably destroys the individual."
This in a nutshell is the traditional-conservative template for social control that we have had in place since antiquity. Diversity introduces an overload of variables that the old system cannot control because it cannot fit them into older, inflexible systems of social tiering that serve only one group of people, really.

It's amazing you condemn conservative-traditional social ordering here, and do not seem to realize it.

RoareyRaccoon
3 days, 14 hrs ago
Why are you bringing up conservatism? I'm not a conservative, nor do I support the discriminatory practices from earlier periods. I believe people should be judged based on their individual merits, that is what I've argued for and clearly stated. You have a really weird habit of ranting about conservatives every time I criticise literally anything far left.
MrSOCKS
3 days, 13 hrs ago
You want to know why the diversity movement both attacks and enforces the specific points that your raised? Start at the beginning. They are directly addressing those things that kept most-all non-majority people out of the good stuff for generations on end. Things that you identified in your full-ticks recitation. And the conservatives want to keep it that way, because it serves them that it be so.

Meritocracy is a very appealing ideal. The sheer inventory of human potential that could be unleashed in a truly meritocratic society remains as staggering as criminally untapped. Opening up the marketplace to a maximum diversity of talent and content by tearing down all the old bigotries and barriers that prevented people of merit access based upon those points merely superficial, is a step in that direction.

"You have a really weird habit of ranting about conservatives every time I criticise literally anything far left."
Because whether you discern it or not, a great many of the ideals/policies you condemn as "far left" have been embraced and enforced by the "right" for generations on-end. And that especially includes a system of bigotries and discriminations based upon knee-jerk judgments of the superficial. One of the stunning things I realized when I was still terrorizing the righties on the /pol/s, is how very-much the alt-right/trads/online conservatives were themselves the exact mirror image of the lefty SJWs they so reviled, and nothing more than that, but with one exception: while the rightie SJWs just sat and ranted in front of computers, the lefties actually managed to get out of the house rather often.
A true meritocracy, where restrictions based upon the cosmetic would not exist, would extinguish the hard left and the hard right, because the first would no longer have the second to battle against. And all the lazy, entitled, crybaby types would either change their ways and actually present some worth, or become extinct.
RoareyRaccoon
3 days, 13 hrs ago
They are not addressing discrimination by advocating discrimination. You don't fight against being seen as a category, for being seen as an individual, by insisting we all see everybody in terms of their race, gender, sexuality etc instead of their individual merit. It is nonsense, end of story, done, dusted, over, simple.
MrSOCKS
3 days, 13 hrs ago
"They are not addressing discrimination by advocating discrimination."
Are they truly advocating discrimination? Do calls to reverse discriminatory practices themselves qualify as discriminatory practices? Are you sure?
We are not at a meritocracy yet, nor have we ever been. Many of the old bigoted policies are still very-much in effect. Deactivating them is a necessary early step, and insisting that even addressing those injustices is somehow wrong gets you not one step close to that ideal society. Advocating a meritocracy from outside the locked doors is all well and good, but until the bigotries that keep those doors closed and locked are undone, meritocracy will just be an idealistic pipe dream. It is a messy business, but then revolution always is.
RoareyRaccoon
3 days, 12 hrs ago
Yes, because insisting more or fewer of any demographic ought to be present or absent from a particular industry or business etc is, by necessity, insisting upon viewing people according to their membership in said demographic. It is by necessity seeing people in terms of their demographic rather than as individual people. So when the head of diversity at apple says a room full of white men can still be diverse because they are different people with different skills, views, experiences etc, she gets in so much hot water she has to resign after a 20+ year fucking career. It is anti racism by being racist, anti sexism by being sexist. It is being the thing one purports to fight against. This is so simple to understand I don't know how the fuck anyone has any trouble with it.
MrSOCKS
3 days, 12 hrs ago
Other systems of blatantly preferential hiring already exist: race, regions, alma maters, family connections, the several forms of  political correctness. And the product of those systems of preferential hiring is as touch-and-go as any established quota system. There is no extant meritocratic hiring system, as there is no extant safeguard to protect qualified people from behing unjustly fired.
How do you propose to amend these issues?
RoareyRaccoon
3 days, 12 hrs ago
You cannot, repeat cannot, eliminate human relationships. Human relationships are the source of discrimination, they're why we can choose who we sleep with or whom we employ. All you can do is what our societies have done, make certain kinds of discrimination illegal, make sure there are no laws preventing people from pursuing the careers/jobs they want to do. We have that already. You can study what you want, make as much or little effort as you want and try for what you want. But we do this in a society where everyone else is doing that too, so if you want to reach high you have to outcompete everyone else. Tough shit, that's how it is. I don't need to propose an alternative to the system which has worked better than any other in human history and lifted more people out of abject misery, death and poverty than any other in human history. I think we're already on the right road, all we need to do is maintain it and make some tweaks here and there. What we DON'T need are people proposing racist, sexist fucking collectivist nonsense again like it already didn't fail on its arse everywhere else in the fucking world in the entire history of humanity. Seeing people as members of a group and not individuals is a bad decision, therefore I don't ever advocate it in social policy. This is as simple as the sky being blue.
MrSOCKS
3 days, 11 hrs ago
Human relationships are precisely that: human. Far from perfect or infallable, they shall always have room for improvement.
I've typed nothing about an alternative to the overarching open market/capitalist system. And yet you should understand that its superior performance over other systems is due to its near-constant tweaking over the generations. All machinery require constant upkeep, tuning, and replacement of worn our or obsolete parts to remain competitive and attractive. The reason that the system has lifted so many different peoples is precisely because it embraces change, evolution, revolution and diversity, expanding opportunity into new demographics and markets and technologies over the objections of older guards who only wish to keep the wealth and power to themselves and those they identify with. Demanding to keep things "the good old-fashioned way" is merely an embracing of entropy and atrophy.
When the "racist, sexist fucking collectivist nonsense" of both the left and the right are finally vanquished, it will be a fine day indeed.
RoareyRaccoon
3 days, 11 hrs ago
I'm not in favour of this "old way" for fuck sake, stop bringing it up. I'm in favour of the gradual tweaking, the constant shift and discussion in a constantly changing environment. But I am also a man of principle and there are some principles I will never bend, ever. One of those is I believe it is wrong to discriminate against or for anyone based on characteristics people can't change, that are woven into their biology. I see people as individuals, I see that every system that does not act as if we are leads to horrendous tyranny, therefore I am against this diversity quota shite. I'm against it no matter which groups it favours or denigrates. It is wrong in principle, so it is always wrong. And that's that. When it comes to this, it is indeed end of story for me.
MrSOCKS
3 days, 10 hrs ago
test
MrSOCKS
3 days, 10 hrs ago
You're just reciting the same points now, post after post, seeming on automatic. I think we're done here.
RoareyRaccoon
3 days, 10 hrs ago
Because you keep talking out of your arse instead of admitting the simple fact that this diversity shit is wrong in principle. So yes I will repeat myself, it's akin to you trying to convince me that raping children is morally permissible.
MrSOCKS
3 days, 9 hrs ago
It is wrong according to your principals. Do not presume to speak for others. And again: won't offer something better? That an half-assed job.
RoareyRaccoon
3 days, 7 hrs ago
How in the fuck am I presuming to speak for others? And again, I don't need to offer a new alternative because my position is what we have now, minus diversity, is already adequately fair and strikes a workable balance. I don't want an alternative system, I want the system which has had such brilliant results to continue and to continue with incremental, small and steady improvements that last. It is you who lacks the decent alternative, you who buys into a terrible, collectivist horseshit principle that you can't defend, so you have to rave like a twat about nasty conservative bigots.
MrSOCKS
2 days, 21 hrs ago
But that's just it: the system ISN'T working well. Perhaps it's working well for you, but your satisfaction isn't the issue here. And a challenge has arisen to your assertion that it's run "adequately fair". A problem has emerged, and the system now has to be got into to address that problem: time to run a diagnostic.
And the issue is not that the system has not produced brilliant results, but that it can produce even greater brilliant results with cleansing and tuning. Constant upkeep is how we got to where we are now, not by being satisfied with the "adequate" results of the moment, and indeed it is that constant upkeep and improvement that prevents the need for just rebooting the entire system.
And your reviling of "collectivist" policies flies against your endorsement of human nature.  Humanity is a social animal. "Collectivist" policies is what we naturally do. Guilds, unions, communes, combines, associations, nations, alliances and religions: all of them "collectivist", because larger numbers of people working together towards a common goal gets more done than a single person working for their own self-interest and for nobody else. Never mind the blatant oxymorons presented, the libertarian ideal of a society of individualists is as unattainable as the communist ideal of a classless society. Humans don't work that way. Never did.
What we have here is one collectivist ideal of "diversity", waging against another collectivist ideal of "bigotry". Fire with fire?
RoareyRaccoon
22 hrs, 40 mins ago
Every country that follows the socialist, collectivist crap you advocate is a living nightmare and you can look at how the western world is night and day to everywhere else to the point people risk life and limb to get here and conclude that what we have isn't working well? You have no sense of perspective and I'm done ever responding to you again, because it's clear you enjoy being like this and I absolutely hate communicating with you.
MrSOCKS
19 hrs, 58 mins ago
Never once have I advocated for socialism. Anywhere. But to assume that human economic or political association begins and ends with socialism, that it never existed before, or that such association is evil, is wrong. Guilds existed in Europe since the Middle Ages. And then their offspring like Chambers of Commerce and Labor Unions came after.
THIS is Socialism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Employees banding together to advance their mutual goals is not socialism. Government, acting as the agent of the population, making laws to ensure corporations behave as good citizens, is not socialism.
But go ahead: stop responding to me. Clearly, you were never paying that much attention to begin with.
And I have the honour then of bidding you a good evening.
Delphinidae
3 days, 13 hrs ago
"Opening up" the marketplace is one thing, forcing quotas is another. If a company is legally required to hire a colourful, but sub-par employee regardless of merit, then the net result is damaged market potential, especially if their colleagues also wise up to this fact.
MrSOCKS
3 days, 12 hrs ago
Enforcing quotas does not automatically promise a poor quality of future employee. Unqualified people get hired all the time, often to rather important posts, totally free of the compulsion of a quota. And indeed without the enforcement of quotas, can you guarantee that actually qualified "colorful" people would be hired at all?
Ideally, the perfect pursuit against discrimination is to succeed in spite of it in independent endeavors, but given just how concentrated all industrial power has become in the very-big-business-friendly regulatory atmosphere of the USA, this action is more reduced than it has been in decades.
RoareyRaccoon
3 days, 12 hrs ago
Making quotas based on qualities of people that are so generic as race, sex, sexuality and the like is inherently destructive. Because it means your main focus is demographics and not the experience and quality of the individual applicants. If you prioritise something, anything, above the merit of your applicants you will not end up with the best people for the job being the ones getting hired. It is basic shit. Who decides what quota is right? Who decides how many of a particular skin pigment or genital configuration or sexual preference ought to be working in a particular place? How can you possibly set quotas for these things without simultaneously discriminating, positively and negatively, based on those same things? You can't be this stupid, so I can only guess that you are so in love with the ideas you can't see the forest for the trees.

There is no perfect way of doing anything and never will be. All we can do is try to be as fair as possible. The best way of treating people, the biggest possible way of breaking society down into component parts is at the level of the individual. So our societies are supposed to advocate for individualism. That means, no matter what you look like, whatever your race, whatever group you are placed in for the purposes of demographic analysis, you will be judged based on who you are, what you've done, what you've experienced and what you are capable of, as yourself. The alt-right and the far left are the same, they see people as a collective of competing interest groups, which requires we all look at people in each of the groups as essentially being the same as eachother, so we treat them accordingly. So you're not you, you're a member of an arbitrary group and are treated as such, regardless of who you are as an individual. This is WRONG. The minute anyone starts having the fucking arrogance to believe that not only do they know how the best society should look, but know how to achieve it too, they become a danger to everybody else should they ever have any power.
MrSOCKS
3 days, 12 hrs ago
Everything you type about relying on the cosmetic is true...but that's the way much of society still operates, and has since antiquity. How then do you propose to undo that system? How then do you neutralize all these ancient systems that enforce discrimination based upon the cosmetic? You say you despise quotas. Propose then an alternative that will both replace the need for quotas and the old system, for the meritocracy we crave. Condemning the only system that seems to even halfway work while offering nothing in its place gets us exactly nowhere. Quotas are an imposition, but warts and all they're the best we can do. You got something better? Do share. I am serious.
RoareyRaccoon
3 days, 12 hrs ago
The hell are you on about? You can't fix all the things you believe are unjust, you can't eliminate all discrimination. To do that you'd have to change human nature itself. It is infantile to focus on outcomes and believe you can possibly, ever have a system where the outcomes of which are all you desire. We can improve opportunity, we can make discrimination based on things people can't change illegal, but to do what this diversity shit does is just as wrong as that which it claims to be fighting against and it achieves it via exactly the same methods. Some people get hired for who they know, some people get hired or fired for dumbass reasons, it's gonna happen. But what you don't do is propose a "solution" which is worse than the fucking problem it's supposed to solve. This diversity shit is unjust, it reduces people to their demographic and it glosses over their individuality. We know this doesn't work out well, we know it's shit, so we have to stop fucking doing it. End of story.
MrSOCKS
3 days, 12 hrs ago
If diversity is shit, then what quality the selfsame and much-older system that does the things you insist diversity does? Your attitude puzzles me: "You can't fix it! Don't try to fix it! Quotas are shit so throw them out, but don't try to fix the system that's just as shit as the quotas!" You are a hopeless little bugger, aren't you?
"It is infantile to focus on outcomes and believe you can possibly, ever have a system where the outcomes of which are all you desire."
Tsk, tsk. You just don't get it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnaQXJmpwM4
Social development is supposed to be clumsy and given to error and mis-execution. That's what experimentation is all about. To legislate away bigotry is what America has been struggling with really since our Constitutional period. Our results? Well, things are somewhat better off now than they *were*...   Not to say there isn't still great room for improvement, and not to say that our progress has not come with no small resentment from those who view themselves compromised because of it.
And no, Roary. This is not the end of the story. This bumpy ride never ends...
RoareyRaccoon
3 days, 11 hrs ago
You have to, as an adult, come to terms with the fact that there are some things which can't be eliminated. You can help reduce suffering, you can mitigate it, but you can't remove it. Thinking you can socially engineer a system from the top down that eliminates all negative outcomes (negative in your view at any rate) is like trying to legislate against the existence of pain. The best we can do is judge each other based on who we are as individuals, because we ARE individuals. We aren't a race, a gender, a sexuality, a hair type, a body type, we are individual human beings. So we have a system based on merit. Is it 100% merit?  Fuck no, never can be either. Imagine trying to make it illegal for company owners to not hire friends and family, as if people don't have relationships with each other where we discriminate in favour of those we care for most. That's making human nature illegal. You can't do that without forcing people to disobey their own nature, you can't do it without tyranny. So we have to find a medium, a way of mitigating as much nastiness as possible while preserving a functioning system. The system we have now results in amazing innovation every day, it works so bloody well it's almost a miracle. But because there are injustices you think the system is fucked and it needs an alternative. You don't have one mate, nobody does. This 'alternative' of diversity only offers the exact same shit as Jim Crow laws did in the USA, judging people based on their unalterable characteristics that they've had since birth. It is indefensible and tyrannical. Stop pretending like there is a magic wand you can wave to make all the bad things go away, because you're not 9 years old.
MrSOCKS
3 days, 11 hrs ago
When and where did I ever claim that removal of all evil was a desired goal, much less a possible one? Mitigating and reducing our worse natures is exactly what all these issues are about. Eventually we may just get to an actual Utopia, where all the stuff we both recognize as bullshit are reduced to embarrassing novelties of a distant past, and our control of our bestial impulses becomes divine. But to get there, even if you and I don't see it, we as a race have to start somewhere. Somewhere, sometime, somehow. Quotas might not be a perfect fix, but neither is a crude patch on a flat tire. But it will help us get down that Road.
"Imagine trying to make it illegal for company owners to not hire friends and family, as if people don't have relationships with each other where we discriminate in favour of those we care for most. That's making human nature illegal."
What is 'Nepotism', Alex?
A true meritocracy would indeed outlaw favoritism. Of all kinds. Every system outlaws its anathemata. That's human nature.
Forcing people to disobey their own nature is what laws are all about. Over-fast driving. Disregarding the public good. All the acts of violence, theft, deceit, abuse,etc. Call it sin or call illegality. Law exists to protect us from ourselves.
The system will always be fucked. Somewhere and somehow. And why? Because humanity built it. And the fact that we're fucked up in incontrovertible. And as I've already reminded you, it does not work as well as it does because of some reverential hands-off approach, but by our constant attentions, tinkerings and innovations.
You condemn the improvements attempted, but refuse to offer any alternative to the problem. You do not assist.
Delphinidae
1 day, 12 hrs ago
There exists a very simple force that is stronger than antique habits. Supply and demand. Only the market can change the market.

This means that once there is an actual *supply* of qualified black gay women (or whatever) in IT, or coal mining, or bank security, or truck driving, or whatever, then they will inevitably start getting hired and the problem will solve itself without quotas. There is a way to ease the transition, which is auditing the reasons companies use to *not* hire someone, and either shaming or fining them if they refused an applicant *because* of what they are instead of because they did not have the skills.

One person doesn't count. If, say, Silicon Valley has a black gay woman who is the very best at designing CPU branch logic, that's very adorable, but not enough to change the underlying market dynamic. Also, not hiring her will not be social injustice. We need undeniable numbers before a problem can be called social.

But as far as supply goes, we're not seeing a lot of women in engineering or computer technology, and in the US we don't see an overabundance of blacks in a number of career paths (I can't name specifics off the top of my head because I'm European, but I recall this being a problem there).

Say, let's stick to IT. If women simply don't find it a compelling topic to go for in university, how are we *ever* going to convince an IT company of adopting a quota and believing it won't suck? First you need to solve the problem at the source: why aren't less-represented types of humans interested in a particular slice of the work market? "Either make them interested, or stop complaining."
MrSOCKS
1 day, 12 hrs ago
The contentions are that the extant supply of non-white/non-asian/non-male talent is being actively resisted in the software workplace. That those non-white/non-asian/non-males who are not only qualified and experienced but available for work, right now, are being targeted for harassment with the end of chasing them from the workplace and indeed the talent pool.
So many romantic ideals about pure market forces being bandied about in this thread. So many fantasies about how pure personnel and corporate interests. Oh, if only we were that much closer to perfection!
Delphinidae
1 day, 11 hrs ago
Well, it's what I'd do, so I assume the corporate world needs more psychopath CEOs.
MrSOCKS
1 day, 11 hrs ago
NO! We have a vast oversupply of psychopath CEOs as it is! Hell, here in America, we even put one of them in the White House!
Now, IDEALIST CEOs? That would be a refreshment.
Delphinidae
1 day, 10 hrs ago
A psychopath puts no value on human emotion, which is the thing antique habits prey upon. See the connection yet? The best leader is one who cannot be swayed by an appeal to emotion. Crucially, the current US leader is definitely not that type of man; on the contrary.
MrSOCKS
1 day, 2 hrs ago
Settle on in. This is a read:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mindmelding/201301...
Little Donnie Comb-over passes this test with full ticks.
Delphinidae
1 day ago
I am aware of what the term means, I've read a similar article 2 years ago and used the term correctly.

Consider this: If a CEO has no capacity for empathy and no incentive to help anyone but themself, then it stands to reason that they would be the perfect candidates to prioritise skill and achievements over skin colour and gender. Furthermore: psychopaths are hard to unsettle or disgust, which prevents them from having strong reactions to - say - transgender employees or flaming gays, as long as they see the quarterly results.

As a Pakistani president once claimed, a good dictatorship is better than a bad democracy. In this same vein, I posit that a psychopath CEO is better than a classic xenophobic patriarch.  They may be cold and calculating, but that is literally the purpose of a CEO. Perfect fit.
MrSOCKS
19 hrs, 41 mins ago
You posit that a psychopath is bereft of their own natural bigotries. Do not mistake amorality as cold logic. Also, do not assume that the market automatically punishes any corporate misbehaviour. This has not proven to be the case. In many instances, the enforcement of bigoted policies carries no penalty because the market in willing to accept/ignore such practices due to desirability of the product, or the knowledge of the bigoted practices actually encourages commerce as an act of support of such policies.
And psychopaths are not difficult to unsettle. Any challenge to their power, position, or self-image is quite enough to set them off; their incapacity to even tolerate the knowledge of the needs of others is one of their hallmarks. And they will retaliate in that way, however amoral, that suits their advantage best.
Given that nation's track record, I will defer from accepting any political advice from Pakistan. Thank you.
Xenophobic patriarchy is universally obsolete. But the entire menu of choices you present in ultimately unpalatable. I would be ruled by neither psychopath, CEO, tyrant or monarch. I'm American. We're funny that way.
Lyserdigi
3 days, 14 hrs ago
and, because of this, some sjw somewhere, would be willing to call you a nazi...
what a lovely world we live in :3
JakeDaMaus
3 days, 14 hrs ago
*cue triggered snowflake posting wall of text, including calling Roarey an alt-fur or a Nazi* X3
MrSOCKS
3 days, 13 hrs ago
Wall Of Text: because explaining the real world in grown-up terms takes more than a single sentence.
JakeDaMaus
3 days, 11 hrs ago
Hahahaha, we have gotten so used to Roarey's comment sections with the same arguments, it's become as predictable as a horror movie XD
MrSOCKS
3 days, 11 hrs ago
A good parallel! The making of sausages is known to be a messy, bloody affair...
Kepora
3 days, 5 hrs ago
Except you've failed to do so. Repeatedly now.
MrSOCKS
2 days, 21 hrs ago
How so?
Please use more than a single sentence in your reply.
zangooseOO
2 days, 20 hrs ago
i see two periods, that already was two sentences.  good job.
MrSOCKS
2 days, 16 hrs ago
I'll have to give you that one. I mean, what else do you have?
MedleyChimera
3 days, 13 hrs ago
I honestly hate when people make characters in movies/shows a female or "minority" (considering the amount of people on this earth no one race is a minority anymore with all this interacial breeding) just to pad some sort of diversity bullshit.

No the guy from the Dark Tower wasn't black, please read the friggin book. Omfg.

No we don't need another CSI/Criminal Minds esque show with some assholebitch feeeeemale computer queen of the nerds to show that with love and gurl power we can be equal to the mens!!

Seriously that shit is way out of hand...
MrSOCKS
3 days, 12 hrs ago
>mfw it used to be worse, when Hollywood would hire nothing but white folks to play ethnic characters they clearly weren't
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Sta...
MedleyChimera
3 days, 4 hrs ago
'm not saying whitewashing doesn't happen, but giving someone a role solely due to trying to reach a diversity quota is just as stupid as whitewashing

How about we give actors roles based off of their ablility to fit the role instead of trying to appease the masses with big names or trying and failing at being PC af?
MrSOCKS
2 days, 21 hrs ago
What you call "PC" has been called "bankablity" since this shit got started back in antiquity. it's all about the money. What makes it, and what makes the most of it? In visual media, it wants pretty. Lots of pretty. Yes there are lots of good actors who are not pretty, who become attractive due to their talents (Betty Davis, Fred Astaire being classic examples). In the WWE, they don't push the best wrestlers, but the best bodies... because Vince McMahon is a five-star Gym Fag.
Was Heimdall ever Bantu? Of course he wasn't! But hey, maybe if we cast him as black, we can draw some more black butts into this movie? Never mind that casting the doorman as black is as big a show of subtle NYC racism as you can get.
Was there ever a Moor in England to join Robin's Merry Men? NO! But hey, let's get Morgan Freeman in on this Kevin Costner costume drama and we might make a bit more money off it, hey?
Were the Pharaohs of Egypt or the gods of Olympus all old pasty white guys who spoke the Queen's English? No, but then neither Moses nor Perseus were white men who spoke with a flat American accent. But that was how the market wanted to consume these exotic tales of far away. Remember, we're not talking morality here: we're talking BUSINESS!
anonymousih
3 days, 12 hrs ago
Ironically, an ideal - albeit cold - system would be an individualist system that views people as unique TOOLS rather than, you know, different folks. Job Interview: "Corporation": Ok, what's your name? / Applicant: "I am..." / Corp: We don't care. what's your race, gender, sexuality, nationality, religion, political views? / App: "Well, I'm..." / Copr: Trick question, WE DON'T CARE! But feel free to tell us your unique traits concerning hobbies, favorite colors and the such. / App: "Really?" / Corp: SIKE, NO! The only traits we care for in the faceless goons we hire are experience, productivity, and if they won't go on a shooting spree against their coworkers because they're insane or their deeply held superstitious beliefs dictate that." / App: But i'm not a faceless... / Corp: You are to us, for all we care, WHICH WE DON'T."
(Also, a possible inconsistency above: religion & political views are likely to dictate you should discriminate against, even kill, folks of a certain background, so it's in their interest to "care" about those in the same context as potentially disastrous mental illnesses.)
zangooseOO
2 days, 20 hrs ago
you can like
just press enter
it makes new lines
anonymousih
2 days, 11 hrs ago
Yeah, sorry about that; my walls of text could probably use some more visual appeal and clarity. Guess I just wasn't thinking straight yesterday due to personal issues.
anonymousih
3 days, 11 hrs ago
A sequel to my previous, above comment, is an opposite system which looks deceitfully similar. It's one that CLAIMS to only care about traits related to work quality, but is actually not analyzing such traits, but is instead using the association fallacy to link unrelated traits to meaningful ones. For instance: Vice-president: Boss, this applicant is a man. / Boss: A man? That must mean he's a rapist out to get our female workers! / VP: But boss, this specific individual has remarkable records concerning social interactions..." / Boss: ENOUGH! Hm, aren't Mexicans unjustly stereotypically depicted as lazy?/ VP: I'm afraid so. / Boss: then we must prove those bigots wrong by hiring all of our Mexican applicants straight-away!" / VP: But boss, there might be bad or incompetent people among those! You can't assume all of our Mexican applicants are automatically good merely based on nationality alone! / Boss: Are you calling me a racist you hypocrite!?
Lost
3 days, 11 hrs ago
There's an old political comic strip from the 80s called Bloom County where the black and nerdy kid Oliver returns home to find that his mom painted a picture of a positive role model (read: Michael Jackson) on his bedroom wall. He responds to it by hanging a portrait of his own personal role model (read: Albert Einstein) on top of it.

Coming from the left, this here is probably the one thing you've said that I (mostly) agree with. Tokenism has become a rampant problem in both journalism and media in general, trying to push an artificial sense of diversity to fulfill an arbitrary quota that overrides anything else a character can be about. Ironically, it causes its own form of racism by highlighting a character's race or sexuality over who they are as a character or a person, which is far worse.

I'm coming at this from the perspective of a writer. Things like gender, hair color, skin color, sexuality, etc. are just tools in the toolbox for me to use, and I use them at my own discretion, not to forward some perverted ideology that comes in direct response to growing racism and white supremacy from the far right, and not to abandon because of people's increasingly fragile sensibilities.

Going back to the Bloom County strip, the context is that Oliver's mom wanted him to have a positive BLACK role model, even as Oliver himself detested Michael for having his strange obsessions, and he saw Einstein as a positive role model for his academic achievements and contributions to science.

That's what the whole tokenism movement fails to recognize, is that positive role models exist regardless of what the role model is or who you are. Black people can have white role models and vice versa. All tokenism does is muddy the waters.
KevinSnowpaw
3 days, 10 hrs ago
wish i could fav this.. your absolutely right. a Positive role model, the color should be meaningless.
CuriousFerret
3 days, 5 hrs ago
Any chance you can link to the copy of the Bloom County comic if you happen to have it?

CaracalCaracalCaracal
3 days, 8 hrs ago
Stop smoking cigarettes!
Penis > cigarette
Pierce
3 days, 5 hrs ago
I don't even have to scroll down to know mrsocks probably has paragraphs of intentional misrepresentation to dance around the point for several hours with.
Edit : Haha! I was correct!
FoxWorks
3 days, 2 hrs ago
Except if we DONT think in terms of manually enforced diversity, then people of those groups are naturally discriminated against in our current society.

Insisting on increased diversity is the only way our society has of combatting that natural tendency toward discrimination.

For example, say ~12% of the population in a city is black. And you have a company of 1000 workers, only one of whom is black, even though they receive a proportional number of black applicants. Sure you could say, well they were judged on individual merit and it just so happened that white applicants have tended to be more qualified, but how can you tell that apart from a company that's being racist? I think the answer is you can't. A company of more than a handful of people should have about proportional numbers of given groups to the population in which they exist. If they don't, it reeks of discriminatory hiring and promotion practices.

Until we get past our societal tendency toward discrimination, I think actively looking for diversity is the best tool we have. Otherwise, we'll end up back in a society of rich straight white men who just "coincidentally" happen to be almost exclusively the most qualified people for every job one might want to have. Women will be back at home or in factories and secretary desks, blacks will be back to unemployment or manual labor, and gay men will be back in prison.

I mean, really, how else can you pick out a company that's subtly discriminating against minorities?
CuriousFerret
3 days, 2 hrs ago
Its better to confront found examples of discrimination then enforcing  superficial diversity that only makes a company appear diverse on paper.  As you state yourself each location and community has different proportions of racial, religious, and cultural groups of people.  A blanket approach invites mindless application devoid of local considerations.

There will be areas that have historically been undervalued by racism as well as other factors and there should be efforts to educate and bring these people up to employable standards.  But until they are up to proficiency for the job, bringing them in purely would be a p.r. stunt and can disinclined the policy changes need to correct the past abuses as the problem has been papered over by superficial diversity.
JackDesert
2 days, 17 hrs ago
" CuriousFerret wrote:
Its better to confront found examples of discrimination then enforcing  superficial diversity that only makes a company appear diverse on paper.  As you state yourself each location and community has different proportions of racial, religious, and cultural groups of people.  A blanket approach invites mindless application devoid of local considerations.

There will be areas that have historically been undervalued by racism as well as other factors and there should be efforts to educate and bring these people up to employable standards.  But until they are up to proficiency for the job, bringing them in purely would be a p.r. stunt and can disinclined the policy changes need to correct the past abuses as the problem has been papered over by superficial diversity.


Like one school being accused of being racist in being where all the black kids were being dumped.  We took that lawyer Door to door and had him count how many of the 200 homes were not black.  it was countable on one hand.  It was simply a mostly black community set up by blacks, sold exclusively to blacks by black for blacks...  they actively chased out the whites with burning crosses 'a proper greeting for white people' they said.
so yes, MLKjr elementary school was predominantly black
zephyrnok
3 days, 1 hr ago
Aahh... popcorn time.
moyomongoose
2 days, 17 hrs ago
It seems it always is with Roareyraccoon.
smblion
3 days ago
This is one of my favorite rants of yours.

The concept of diversity may be well intentioned but trying to defeat a problem of stupidity with more stupidity is not helping anyone. Recognizing that people are individuals and are not defined by their group associations is a matter of having critical thinking skills. Those same critical thinking skills would tell you that, for example, hiring someone because of their group affiliation instead of looking solely at merit and what's best for your organization, is a bad idea.

But in their desperate attempts to solve their own idiotic problems the humans have done things like "Affirmative Action" which displaces qualified candidates from jobs and education in favor of inferior candidates purely because they need a certain number of dark skinned people or women in their roles. There's no thought behind it, there's no room for exceptions, which makes it exactly as stupid as the racism and sexism it was created to defeat.

Maybe humans should stop trying to dictate every fucking decision that anyone ever makes using a bunch of broadly generalized rulesets. Maybe adults need to face difficult decisions sometimes, such as sacrificing diversity because that white skinned male programmer is the most qualified candidate for their new position. Or those female candidates running for public office are fucking insane (Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina).

Making decisions is not as scary or as difficult as a lot of people seem to think, and it's probably half the fun of being alive with a brain. We don't need rules crafted by committees based on public opinion polling to tell us how to think.
tatemil
2 days, 23 hrs ago
meh
lupuskar240
2 days, 19 hrs ago
Actually, greater gender, ethnic, cultural diversity has been shown to positively correlate with workplace engagement, productivity, and moral. However that's not to say that some arguments against things like affirmative action aren't ligament (because some are).
Lunarshark
2 days, 19 hrs ago
I would try to refute this, but Mrsocks is doing a pretty good job already. But I'd like you to consider the following.
A person who lives on the west coast and a person who lives on the east coast will have different experiences in their lives, no? They do because they live in different areas. If they're both white, they'll have different experiences. If their both black, different experiences. One is white and one is black will have different experiences.
If someone has different experiences, won't they also have different values, skills, and insights? A common way to tackle a problem is by bringing more minds to the discussion, thereby more possible solutions.So having those different viewpoints works in everyone's favor, no?
Now let us look at how people treat those who are different. You can look at history for this, but simply put, the best way to motivate people is by vilifying the "other". A white man looks at a black man, the white man may say "He's black, he's different, he's bad!" (and the black man can say the same thing). Two different branches of the same religion can influence people to have a conflicting interaction. This very discussion is creating a conflict of ideas. Propaganda is a powerful tool to move people into doing something. From there you just keep stoking the flames until people are whipped up into a frenzy. Frenzys are very easy to control. Just point the way and they'll do whatever you want.
So let us combine these ideas. If you have people who have been systemically treated different and lower in the social hierarchy, their ideas, skills, and insights are lost to the general public. Are you not cutting off a large portion of the population potential resources?
Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native, White, Gay, Stright, Bisexual, Women, Men. These are all factors that influence people's lives. For the longest time, those factors could mean you were treated with respect or a slave. The head of the house or a punching bag. Each one gives different outlooks on life, and those outlooks should be heard. More diversity aims to fix that but putting those voices in the spotlight so they can be heard. After all, how can you spot the individual, if the whole is judged as lesser? Or should they just try really hard to fight against a system that represses them?
Quick version: People are boiled down to external features that aren't as meaningful as the quality of their character. Diversity tries to fix that in a world where not everyone agrees. Because sometimes you need to fight an individual's misguided ideas.
Maybe not perfect, but wanted to give it a shot.
Shakunabat
2 days, 18 hrs ago
I've been trying to put into words why I find half of the transgender arguments about people being transphobic, bullshit, and then I came across this gem on reddit.

"it's transphobic for trans people to want surgery and/or hormones because their desires are based in cissexist ideas of bodies"

"This is a reach up your ass that has little relevence to the topic just because you don't want to consider other stances, try again"

"how is it a reach ? if it's transphobic to consider body parts feminine, then transitioning and altering ur body is transphobic"

It's like on one hand.... you have people that don't want to be judged for their physical born gender because that isn't fair and makes no sense to do..... but on the other hand they feel they match the other gender based on their own internal stereotypes towards the gender that make them feel like they belong to it.

If anything, a good portion of transgenders that I've had the opportunity to talk to, come off/sound like the most sexist people I've met considering how they applied stereotypes of their own choosing which make them feel like they belong to the other gender. Not even mentioning all the hate towards cis people, particularly cis men.... cause the shit is sickeningly hypocritical that I see coming from people I expect to fucking Know better from dealing with ignorant ass comments their self.

How can you say you feel like internally you are something that you aren't on the outside, if you can not even say Why you feel that way.

The moment you say why beyond a bullshit answer like "i just do", you can realize your reasons for feeling like you do are based on the same stupid fucking stereotypes that people dislike being applied to them when it is of the gender they do not like. It all boils down to stereotypes which is why it really pisses me off. So many people stuck up their own asses with their double-standards.

"I feel like I should of been born a women"

Why? Because you feel like you match the female stereotype? Isn't that like..... sexist? And if it isn't the personality stereotypes, all you've got left with is the body.

So.... you feel like you should of been born a women, if not for the stereotypes.... for the body?

Well fuck in that case I wish I were an anthropomorphic bat who could fly across the sky and eat bugs  :D

It goes full circle and far to few can see it. I'm optimistic though in that people will realize how ass-backwards their double-standard arguments are.

Truth is stereotypes are unfair and bullshit. I don't feel the slightest bit put off by the idea a person of any gender would be interested in experience life in the body of a different gender. I do however, get put off when some of the teenage sjw go around parading their "knowledge" calling everyone a fucking transphobe and saying seriously sexist as fuck shit. It's super fucking hypocritical and leaves no room discussion if you start calling people by names.

Like seriously you have someone trying have a legit conversation on the topic, and without using a single derogatory term like tranny/trap/random trigger word, being called fucking transphobic, when half the time the person doesn't have a problem with trans people, but rather the shit one or two may have been saying. But hey if we just slander one another with names like transphobe its easier to expect people will just skim over and not actually read the conversation right?
SoggyGoat
1 day, 19 hrs ago
You're operating under the assumption that trans people don't think gender differences exist. Yeah, biology is a thing, trans people get that, they're just trying to get to a point where they feel comfortable in their own bodies. It's when you start stereotyping that it becomes an issue. You can point to a bellcurve and say, "men/women are typically like this" but there are always outliers.
Shakunabat
1 day, 14 hrs ago
"You're operating under the assumption that trans people don't think gender differences exist." if you believe that, it goes to show how over your head my post went, given you actually read it.

You're comment is completely wrong from the start.

 My post was talking in the assumption that trans people want to be one gender instead of another because they recognize the differences, and thus is a little hypocritical in the sense that they wanna pick and choose the stereotypes applied to them while also putting down people who stereotype men and women.

"I don't want to be a male because I don't like the stereotypes people apply to it, so please don't stereotype me as a guy, stereotype me as a girl as I try to look like one." It's like stereotypes are only bad when they aren't being treated as feminine or butch as they would like.

When I came out at the end of middleschool going into highschool, I was given this great peace of knowledge. People who treat you like shit, aren't worth changin yourself for.... unless you were being shitty in the first place yadda yadda...

I feel comfortable with my image REGARDLESS of people. I totally understand, being an Androgynous Long haired Male, what it is like to be criticized and stereotyped.

I also, have a huge set of metaphorical nuts that tell me to think FUCK THOSE ASSHOLES

Should I start cutting my hair and changing my appearence just so these people will treat me the way I want to be treated?

NO, because then they will see they won, I cut my hair, and it'll become some other little thing, until im wearing the same designer sheep bullshit and so on.

Instead we've got SOME trans people physically changing their-self, so ignorant ass people will some how be less shitty towards them? Like if the person gave zero fucks about bullshit opinions, and Honestly Just want to be the other gender because they feel more comfortable looking feminine/butch, then yeah, cool for you if you can afford the surgery and don't have complications or regrets later on.

It just hurts me to see so many young people hurting to the point that they want to change their gender for the sake of people treating them different. It isn't always the reason, but it does happen.

They are changing their bodies due to cis-sexist ideas of stereotypes. If there were no stereotypes and everyone was "allowed" to be masculine/feminine without judgement..... do you think there would be as many people trying to change gender?

It's like if I were to say I want to transition into being a female because women are more considerate/clean/pretty.... it would be subjective sexist bullshit.

In the end a lot of the young kids seem like their missing out on living their youth, giving a shit about every little negative opinion until they've put theirself in a corner and wanna commit suicide. It may sound harsh, but maybe if these kids worked a little more on who they were inside (making that person strong), maybe they wouldn't have to change their outside appearance to feel happy.

Looking like a man or woman doesn't give you a personality.
JackDesert
2 days, 18 hrs ago
I support Diversity, mainly through opening up opportunities through lifting the minorities up out of the pit and showing them they can be better than the stereotypes.  And the ones helped could turn and help more, bringing them out of disadvantages and the cycle continues.
Unfortunately many minorities demands things rather than prove they could get things through effort and drive.
I was working in a fast food resturant and two black kids came in with red and blue bandanas, pants lower than their butts and talking like they were ghetto rappers.  they came up and said "Give us a job Cracker!" and I told them "Fill an appllication out"  They then said "I aint seeing no niggers except that bitch in the window... now give us a job or we'll make you... you can't deny us blacks jobs ya know"  
I looked them in the eye and said "When you dress like you want a job and not looking for 'gin and juice' and learn how to write your own names without resorting to symbols like Prince did and fill out the application, then I will forward it to the manager to give you an interview and he's blacker than the both of you put together."
Kids leave and run into a black police officer who then took them for questioning for a break in.
Didn't see them again.
Bondagepup
2 days, 5 hrs ago
Hey everyone!

Check out this totally made up story that this dumbfuck wrote!
Bondagepup
2 days, 3 hrs ago
Sorry for calling you a bad name.

It's just that this story is like a bad satire.

The part at the end where they were arrested for a break in moments after leaving was a bit much.

Be more subtle next time.
JackDesert
1 day, 22 hrs ago
I wish it was satire... it would be wonderful satire if it wasn't bruisingly true.  Red and Blue, can't remember their names, were about as subtle as a pink elephant in a room full of white rabbits.  Rumors about them once said they stole a security camera to remove evidence.  
Shakunabat
1 day, 14 hrs ago
Maybe there is reason you have an inclination to suck on a pacifier; probably to save you face and prevent you from saying stupid shit. You sound like someone who believes that bullshit that "black people can't be racist". Save the shit spreading for diapers please.
Shakunabat
1 day, 14 hrs ago
Yeah kids can be pretty stupid when it comes to social rights and what they think they deserve.
moyomongoose
2 days, 17 hrs ago
We all are what we are.
No one needs to be discriminated against.
No one needs to be held accountable for what dead people did 200 years ago (dragging the dead into the living is witchcraft).
No country needs a race war (you would be better off living in a 3rd world country that has no race war).
What we are is what we are. And we all had no control over what we are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzHmunZxJeM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYZH_4yo170

GenericUser
2 days, 9 hrs ago
"Here's my furry avatat smoking a cigarette and spewing his political opinions.Stay tuned for my ponysona solving the Israelo-Palestinian conflict.
That's what journals are for
RoareyRaccoon
2 days, 7 hrs ago
No I think you'll find that my gallery is for what I want it to be for and I don't care if you dislike it XP.
KevinSnowpaw
1 day, 19 hrs ago
actually, COULD you take a stab at solving the isreal-palistine conflict? At this point im enjoying watching some of your more.... engaged, opponents twitch and spaz out like there having an epileptic seizure XD
CuriousFerret
2 days ago
This idea would fit right in with a legit episode of MLP.
Shakunabat
1 day, 14 hrs ago
Heres a generic no av having anon making a generic statement.
Mittsies
2 days, 4 hrs ago
include me in the screenshot
InannaEloah
2 days, 1 hr ago
Yeah, I hear you.  What bugs me is how these people are constantly changing the meanings of words, such as "racism," "justice," and of course the topic of your journal, "diversity."  It's to the point now where some people are actually claiming that "hiring the most qualified person for the job is racist," because of this stupid obsession with demographics-based quotas combined with the fear that a white person might get chosen for a job over a non-white.  It's so irrational that if it wasn't an institution right now the people pushing it would be locked up in a different kind of institution, probably being restrained while doctors force-fed them drugs in order to "calm them down."  It's the same feel-good bullcrap that gave us "hate crime" legislation.  There's nothing reasonable about it.
milkgalaxy
1 day, 22 hrs ago
youre so gay x3 <3
CaracalCaracalCaracal
1 day, 22 hrs ago
The Roarey Raccoon Talk Show

PS
Trying to get warm, but nothing... Yet they say these comment sections get overheated. [Insert Alexander's "Yet this isn't even a house." smart face here]
DewBunny
1 day, 21 hrs ago
See.... Last time I was all for you sharing your opinions but now. Now you're just posting anything looking for a rise out of people for drama sake. Whether or not you actually have the opinion doesn't seem to matter you just want to rile people up is what this seems like. It's getting old and frankly makes your art less appealing. I used to like your art and  didn't mind the banter but now it's all political nonsense and none of the actual art just sticker and pin ups with political opinions.

It's legitimately sad to see another cool artist get a big head and go sour.

(As a note I'm neither for nor against the subject matter on this post, just against the posters seemingly need for drama to be sown.)
RoareyRaccoon
1 day, 2 hrs ago
Got an argument or are you just going to whine at me? Sunshine, I don't want or need your approval. I don't deliberately go out to stir pots or whatever metaphor you wish to use. I state my opinion about things as honestly as I can and my opinions are stated in reaction to the things I see happening. If you don't like my opinion then you don't, but I'm not here to cater to you, so you can stop acting under the pretense as if I do. Fuck what you're "all for".
Kolo
1 day, 20 hrs ago
Good fucking lord this is some high quality bait and we are all falling for your bullshit.
RoareyRaccoon
1 day, 2 hrs ago
It isn't bait. This is a real thing in the real world that I really disagree with, which is why I have an actual argument and not meaningless quips.
Kolo
23 hrs, 52 mins ago
Oh it's absolutely bait. Just because you believe something idiotic and controversial doesn't change the fact that you're sharing it to elicit an emotional response from people, especially if you can use their responses to make yourself feel superior.

basically internet trolling 101
RoareyRaccoon
23 hrs, 11 mins ago
Think whatever ludicrous things you like, I've never been a troll, I've always been honest and I've always made political cartoons. These accusations of trolling never happened when I believed in lefty bullshit. I've been consistent in my attitude and tone for over 13 years in this fandom all so people like you, who know fuck all about me, can pretend they've got a clue and fire off baseless shit.
Kolo
23 hrs, 4 mins ago
Nothing you're saying is actually a counter to the fact you're stirring up drama because you want to. That's what trolling is.

But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, right? Let's ignore the fact that the point of quotas is to give an equal chance against prejudice, rather than your shitty little oversimplification of "all of us are different and unique therefore discrimination against generalised groups doesn't exist"
RoareyRaccoon
22 hrs, 52 mins ago
No it isn't. Advocating prejudice to combat prejudice is a mistake so obvious it should hit you in the forehead. Prejudice is assumed based on statistical discrepancies between whatever institution is being observed and the demographic content of wider society. So if there are 50% women in society and less than 50% in a particular place, the only reason must be that women are being discriminated against. This is so thoughtlessly stupid, so ignorant that you have to be ideologically possessed to go along with it. The reason I state this stuff is so I CAN sleep at night because I'm not going to entertain and go along with bullshit that damages society just because saying something might get me some flak on the internet. People should be sensible enough to not react like I just curb stomped an infant for stating common sense, but they do. So you hold me responsible for not holding my tongue. Well fuck that. I think saying what is true is more important than being quiet just so someone like you can keep your ignorance without any conflicting opinions. You might want everyone to think the same and shut up if they don't agree with you but I don't want that kind of world.
Kolo
10 hrs, 33 mins ago
You are so far up your own ass there's nothing anyone can say to change your mind.
RoareyRaccoon
7 hrs, 16 mins ago
You're describing yourself. I was just as far on the left as you two years ago. I have changed my mind in the face of better evidence and arguments my whole life, no matter how much I may want to believe I'm correct. You don't even have an argument to make and I'm the one up my own ass? Haha.
DrReverb
13 hrs, 23 mins ago
He's challenging ideas he finds dangerous. In a nutshell he wants people to be judged for their merit, not physical traits. It's just what MLK wanted.
SoggyGoat
1 day, 19 hrs ago
Personally, when I was growing up as a gay kid I wished I could've seen one example of a gay couple that wasn't an exagerated homophobic joke. The biggest flaw with what your saying is that you think the narrative is "gender/race don't matter". No, of course it matters, of course we're all different individuals. God forbid we see more women and POC in movies. Examples of individuals other than "young white guy". And I get it, I don't want rich CEOs idea of "diversity". I'm not going to applaud the latest poorly written Star Wars movie just because a woman or black guy was in it. But damn I have to wonder, if you genuinely don't think diversity matters, then why are making posts about it?
RoareyRaccoon
1 day, 2 hrs ago
Why am I talking about it? Because something logically inconsistent and, in my view, immoral is happening in the real world and because I dislike it I'm saying I dislike it. What are you going to say, never discuss that with which you disagree? That fucks your comment then, doesn't it? I also like to see gay people pop up in media as normal humans too, but its not like my life is buggered if I don't. A gay guy getting a job somewhere does nothing to affect my life and because we're not interchangeable units of generic faggot I don't feel represented by other gays.
Kolo
10 hrs, 32 mins ago
maybe you don't but others do

the world doesn't revolve around you
RoareyRaccoon
7 hrs, 8 mins ago
I don't care if others do and I know the world doesn't revolve around me. I care about what is true and no matter how weak of character someone is, we factually are not represented by complete strangers simply because they have a superficial trait in common with us. Believing we are is to strip us of our individuality so we're just a member of a demographic, interchangeable and replaceable. You're the one who came to me out of nowhere to bitch at me because I've said something you don't agree with, like your opinion is the only possibly good one. You calling me self-centered is utterly laughable.
Forsaken3d
1 day, 17 hrs ago
Judging someone at all based on sex or race, no matter what the reason, is sexist/racist, period. People who support this are sorta advocating discrimination based on the people they aren't favoring, are they not?

Hire people who are qualified, there is plenty of natural diversity as it is. If I was running a company and needed someone for the job, race or sex is not something I would pay any mind to at all, I would see who could do the job better.
Xocolatl
1 day, 6 hrs ago
Precisely. If anything, gender/race quotas are responsible for giving women and minorities a bad name in the workplace because these people are often forced diversity hires who are placed by government and/or corporate mandate rather than merit.
charyoshi
1 day, 13 hrs ago
REV UP THAT POPCORN MAKER
Shakunabat
1 day, 13 hrs ago
"exagerated homophobic joke" Starts to paint a pretty picture of who you are.

 "God forbid we see more women and POC in movies." More? Short of an all black cast.... which there are movies like that... women and black people are in plenty of mainstream movies.

Tyler Perry's various garbage movies, the decent Friday Series, Don't be a menace to society while drinking your juice in the hood(decent comedy). Was Samuel L Jackson, Not Mace Windu in star wars? Nutty professor doesn't really count since they had eddie murphy most of the family I guess. How about Shaft, how about the hilarious Black Dynamite. The problem isn't that there aren't movies with "POC", the problem is that YOU JUST DON'T FUCKING REMEMBER ANY/WATCH ANY

Oh and now lets go to women; Tomb Raider, Aeon Flux, Resident Evil, Ultra Violet, The Fifth Element, Tank Girl, The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo, or HOW ABOUT THE FUCKING MATRIX. How about that last The Mummy, where the main villain was a chick. Or how about that last Thor movie, where the villain was... a chick.

They sound like a blind man complaining that there isn't enough light.

Just because people are inept at knowing more than 5 different movies, doesn't mean shit doesn't fucking exist in a plethora of variety.

Btw POC is what cops use, and last I checked the black community isn't that fond of the police, oh and last I asked, my friends didn't wanna call me person of no color, or person of color considering white people have fucking color, no one is fucking "white". I was told when I asked, Black, is preferred.

" But damn I have to wonder, if you genuinely don't think diversity matters, then why are making posts about it?"

They aren't saying they don't think diversity matters, but rather, pride for being diverse based on PHYSICAL TRAITS shouldn't be. Physical Traits, DO NOT MAKE THE MAN OR WOMAN.

The reason why he and other people continue to make posts, is for the sake of one, not having to hear as much stupid shit given they convince a few people to stop spreading it and two, so people don't sound stupid and talk out of their ass about shit they know very little about. Never vented about shit that pisses you off?
oddwilds
1 day, 11 hrs ago
tfw you listen to jordan peterson one time
RoareyRaccoon
1 day, 2 hrs ago
TFW you don't have a point.
dnmd
1 day, 9 hrs ago
Gonna pull a muscle with that much reach.
DHX2KArtz
1 day, 5 hrs ago
Ahh persons arguing pointlessly over the internet, my favorite meal.
Shakunabat
1 day, 1 hr ago
I don't see it as that pointless considering I enjoy hearing opinions I share. It's also nice to hear people explain ones I don't agree with, cause guess what, sometimes people change their minds in light of different information/different perspective.

Who knows, maybe you're the few people incapable of learning anything from debates.

"herp a derp I have nothing to contribute other than my ability to be a douche" That's you, that's what you sound like.
DHX2KArtz
1 day, 1 hr ago
Lol thanks man. My post was merely my thought that people get needlessly heated in online arguments against people they will never even meet. That's why I find it pointless, I look through these comments and all I see is alot of banter, hardly anything productive. A debate isn't a shade contest,  but yeah thanks I'm a douche. XD

The first part of your reply was so true, and I agree 100 percent but then you resort to poop slinging because you are heated...in a online convo. Half of the conversation on this post and even your reply to me is anything but thoughtful and helpful opinion. You yourself dove into insulting me by stating I may be closed minded and a douche without even knowing my stance on anything. Well done mah dude, gonna change alot of minds with that logic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfcMd6qqDQI

daveboy2000
1 day, 3 hrs ago
Oh look.

A cunt.
RoareyRaccoon
1 day, 2 hrs ago
No shortage of mirrors in your place, I take it XP.
Sultai
1 day, 1 hr ago
Diversity is honesty bs and nonsense lot. They only care about the traits of people like the skin color or other  traits. Diversity neglect the character and work ethics.
https://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2013/03/characte...
Crim
1 day ago
If everyone saw the traits of the various groups we hear about when discussing 'diversity' as meaningless and didn't make important decisions based on them, we wouldn't need to discuss it. The fact is they do and the color of your skin, apparent ethnicity, religion, gender identity, sexual preferance, age, body shape, etc do make a difference in whether you get hired, whether you get sold a house in certain areas, what sort of medical care you get, whether you get treated with respect and dignity, etc. As long as that is the case, then discussions and even legislation forcing diversity based on these same traits are going to happen and be necessary even though doing so tends to perpetuate the importance of said traits.
RoareyRaccoon
23 hrs ago
It has been illegal to discriminate based on these things for decades. The more recent diversity drive is based on nonsense. It is based on looking at the demographic content of a particular industry or institution and concluding any differences of demographic makeup between that place and wider society can only be down to discrimination. With no causal evidence, no logical argument, only assumption. When people assert causality without justifying it they're talking bollocks. The argument starts and stops with a single principle, either it is right to judge people based on inherent characteristics like race and gender or it isn't. Justifying a shitty principle by saying it's for a good cause is exactly at the intersection in the road where people begin to do evil things with clear consciences. I believe principles are bloody important and I don't bend them without one hell of a good reason, which must always start with clear, solid evidence and not brainless inferences from broad statistical data.
Crim
19 hrs, 5 mins ago
Yes it's been illegal, that doesn't mean it hasn't happened both intentionally and unintentionally. It doesn't have to be a stated policy or even conscious for discrimination to be present. Yes, when statistical analysis is used improperly, it can give misleading results. On the other hand, if you look at a company that offers training and promotes mostly from within and they have X percentage of various groups I mentioned and the makeup of the management of the company doesn't reflect something at least close to those percentages, it's pretty safe to say that something is askew and needs to be examined.
RoareyRaccoon
16 hrs, 13 mins ago
You can't eliminate all of anything from society, all you can do is make laws and let culture handle the rest the best it can. No matter what insane level of psychotic micromanagement one could care to try, you will always get people who break the rules you make. In fact, the more one pressures people to conform to ever-multiplying social standards, the more batshit crazy people are likely to get and become more resentful, more hateful as a result. You are never going to get rid of discrimination and it's not even something that should be gotten rid of (in and of itself, as a concept), because discriminating against people is as essential to life as breathing is. Like when you turn someone down when they ask you for sex but you're not interested. Getting turned down like that hurts ten times worse than any office bullshit, but imagine trying to make it illegal lol. The problem is not just trying to organise everybody's social existence from the top down, which is already Chairman Mao shit, it's also the matter of who gets to decide what plan everyone ends up needing to follow. Soon as anyone has that power, to demographically control the content of an institution, then anyone else who gets into the same position will have that exact same power, so all it takes is one extra-cunt and the table gets flipped out the window. It is wrong to screw, or aid, peoples options purely because of their race, gender, sexuality etc. The moment we do is the exact moment we have stopped seeing those people as actual people and we see them as a member of a group. Now we have to do that in our lives by necessity, that's how socialising works in part, but society's rules/laws must never do this. The law must treat individuals as individuals and the more we encourage ourselves to see people like that in our daily lives, the better people we become too. I simply will not ever accept treating people based on shit they can't control that matters only in the most superficial ways, it's a dangerous road and every single person knows examples of it going so wrong that people are murdered to the point of it being an industrial activity.

Also, one thing. Why should management reflect racial/gender/whatever makeup of the company? Do you not see how insane that concept is? Like only people of a particular race/gender/etc can.....decide.....things....that relate to others of the same demographic? Or if they're not the same demographic they might fuck over all the people who aren't represented at management? How does being white and having a white boss mean something...meaningful?
Rafaelthepuppy
21 hrs, 37 mins ago
I didn't quite read the description, but I agree with most points so far.
DrReverb
13 hrs, 28 mins ago
Spot on. To judge people by their physical traits instead of merit is inherently racist/sexist.
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.