Conservative

382 readers

26 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-38

Rob Schneider tells United Airlines CEO he won't fly airline because it prioritizes ‘diversity’ over 'safety' (www.foxnews.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

60 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If you’re making selections based on diversity, you’re fundamentally not focusing on hiring the best of the best.

Are there no women and people of color in the best of the best?

I mean, get what you're trying to say, but you're making unwarranted assumptions about the demographics of the cream of the crop. So, I'm trying to get you to either realize you're doing that and retract basically everything you've said so far, or to keep exploring what you think the best look like and why DEI is antithetical to picking people those meritorious looking people.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The best is the best, regardless of whatever bs diversity qualities. You'll get them without having to specifically look for shit like race and sex. Looking for those instead means you're no longer looking for the best, you're looking for whoever meets minimum standards and is also an acceptable race

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

If demographics don't matter, then what exactly is wrong with preferring someone of an acceptable race in the best of the best? (You still haven't said whether there are women and people of color in the best of the best or not...so let's assume there are.)

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

preferring someone of an acceptable race in the best of the best

All races are acceptable. You do know race is just a social construct right?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Do you know what a social construct is?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago

Yes, I do.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Because the moment you're preferring race, you're fundamentally not preferring something else, and if you ask me, race is pretty much the absolute bottom of the list of things to judge people on.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I said, let's assume that the best of the best is diverse in demographics.

You're saying that race preferences necessarily exclude other preferences. But what is not being excluded is whether any given person is the best of the best by our assumption.

So, sure, race can be the absolute bottom of the list of things to judge people on, but that's inconsequential. We're still highly qualified candidates.

It seems like I'm missing something: what other preferences should take precedence over race, then? We're already at the top of the top, the most whipped of the whipped cream. What other preferences might you prefer to take precedence over race at this level?

Or are you saying something else entirely?

[+] [email protected] -6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

But what is not being excluded is whether any given person is the best of the best by our assumption.

I mean if you want to work from a false premise, there's no point in further having this discussion

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I literally asked you to correct me.

there’s no point in further having this discussion

That's where I'm at, too. Thx for the argument.

[+] [email protected] -6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I literally asked you to correct me.

I did. Multiple fucking times. But it didn't fit whatever stupid strawman you wanted, so you just ignored it and acted stupid. Or more realistically, it wasn't an act

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You've my permission to have the last word after this:

None of you that I've argued with so far have any idea what you're saying.

I can't press you on anything because, as far as I can tell, your beliefs are completely (or mostly, in Winter's case) divorced from reality and logic. I mean, you consider thought experiments as strawmen, for god's sake! Your "corrections" fail to correct me when I'm trying to be corrected. You make the same logical mistakes over and over and over with nary a hint of awareness. You're all unable to consider alternatives that might lead to the same consequences, and you can't see that you can't either.

Nonetheless, it was a good argument. So, again, thanks. But I definitely won't be doing this again with y'all.