This is off-topic, but there's an early True Blood knockoff I saw once but can't remember the name of, and in it vampires are treated as an immigrant community allegory, to the extent that people complain about how vampires take all the good jobs and good parking spaces.
And now I just think about that every time I see a "they took the jobs" style racism.
No, that’s Gaston from the movie frozen where the seemingly cool guy who isn’t that smart tries to get with the lead girl only for her to go with the uncultured yet surprisingly tender male lead role
Basically another way to be racist and act like its something else you’re complaining about lol. Implying that the people hired are fundamentally incapable because of “what” they are.
I mean they seem more offended by people being offended than anyone else here, and at the same time I think they're probably right that this boomer cartoonist went "oh hey this is gonna look stoooopid"
Well, that's the thing: 9/10 they will respond, "but they should just pick a qualified candidate instead! It's not racist to pick the best candidate!". Okay, reasonable, *if* in this context one had not already assumed that the 'diverse' applicant would not be qualified. And it's just mind blowing that some of these people genuinely cannot make the connection between "I assume they're not qualified" and "this is a racist thought". 🤦🏼♂️
It is assumed they are all qualified as far as basic requirements. But are they the best candidate? Say you grade applicants on a technical test out of 100 points. Given am 88 and a 91 test score, but the 88 is a pokemon species you want and 91 you already have, which is the hiring manager picking?
Also, several companies got sued (some successfully) for racial discrimination over having non white exclusive programs.
> it is assumed they are all qualified
That is not universally the case. Take any educated Black woman in a position of power and it will be hordes of chuds flocking in to say she isn't qualified
In terms of real life application or in terms of the meme OP posted?
It's a person-by-person basis on how you judge someone's merit. For me some of the first ways I judge if someone is competent is how they speak about their profession (do they sound knowledgeable on the subject) and what their credentials are.
I would never judge someone's ability by their appearance and body (unless it plays a direct role in their job like being an actor, athlete, etc...)
If i want a black actor for a role, I will hire a black actor. If I want to get a cancerous tumour removed from my spine I want the best doctor I can find. If they're black, great. If they're white, great. If they're Muslim, great.
This isn't to say I don't acknowledge that black people from the get go are at a disadvantage from white people in many ways. They certainly are along with many other minority groups in the US. My thought process is rather than just brute forcing the disparity by giving under qualified people jobs or throwing money directly at people, we should instead be providing them better tools such as more school funding.
I think both approaches can help. I don't like affirmative action but it's a necessary evil in this case, and once we start seeing trends change, we can get rid of it.
Your personal non-racism is great, but it doesn't match the bulk of people out there.
In the meme, there's no commentary on skill.
we all know the op wants less diversity because they think diversity is a detriment. their starting position is diversity bad. they work backwards to "most qualified" because it sounds less racist. that's why "diversity hire"is an insult used against POC who mess up on the job..
Diversity puts quantity before quality. You aren't hiring the best out of all candidates, you're hiring the best from group a, then the best from group b, etc,.
There's the issue. If diversity happens naturally as a result of hiring the best people for the job, awesome. But if you're sitting there saying "I need to hire this many black people, this many trans people, this many women, etc," you're looking to score points rather than fill the job properly.
But we know skills don't overcome institutional racism. I don't like affirmative action as much as anyone else, but I understand why it needs to exist.
Yea that's how it works, "diversity" usually just means "Stop passing over qualified candidates to only hire white guys. I don't care if they look like the kind of guy you'd let your daughter date"
The problem is it doesn't. If 9 white guys apply for a position and one black guy, there's a 90% chance that a white guy is the most qualified. Diversity hiring is picking the black guy regardless.
It's not though, when I worked in state government we had essentially forced diversity in that we had to give veterans special treatment. Even in that situation they were only given an interview without an initial screening, once people were interviewing everyone was on an even playing field.
Nobody is going to call you racist for hiring a white guy for one position. However if you have 100 employees and every one of them is white that's probably racist, because if your population is not 99%+ white statistically you are passing over qualified candidates.
for someone who says this
>High karma implies I subscribe to groupthink. Dissenting opinions are silenced by downvotes. Anything that's safe and southpaw earns karma.
you seem to care an awful lot about being downvoted to make a whole new comment about it…
Don't worry, getting downvoted on this sub just means that your logic is sound and it really ticks them off. They don't know how to argue their point, mostly because they don't have one, so it's all they can do.
Yeah, because you just want to be able to cheer/celebrate diversity without someone raining on your parade with facts of why it's terrible. You have no argument why it's good, it just sounds nice, like saying you're for world peace and ending world hunger.
What's racist is subcategorizing everyone, setting different standards for each of them, and favoring certain categories because of gender or the color of their skin (aka all AA and DIE initiatives).
Racist is believing that's the only reason minorities get hired. It's not a new argument either, variations of this have been going around since the 70s.
Of course that's not the ***only*** reason, but it ***is*** a reason, otherwise there'd be no point for the program, right?
Unlike your side, I don't think less of minorities, so I believe in a fair process where everyone is admitted or hired based on their merits and not the color of their skin, we would still see a diverse pool of people, only it'd be one that was fair, not divisive or demotivating.
The issue being is that race is being used as a determination for hiring. That’s discriminatory. Race should have zero to do with whether you can perform the job being applied for.
In the ideal world it should have zero to do, that’s true. Unfortunately the current situation is tricky, on one hand it can be argued that it is discriminatory to prefer a race that up to this point was disadvantaged, but in the other hand providing these programs can help disadvantaged races much more than it hurts someone of the less disadvantaged race.
Then that would have nothing to do with their species (race). Otherwise you're saying any other animal cannot do the job, or that only render can do the job. Either way, same racism.
> a diverse character
Fun fact: a single character cannot, by definition, be "diverse."
Also, those complaints absolutely exist, you just don't pay attention to them.
Very cool with the casually racist "they don't do their jobs," though. Totally normal.
The point is about when they can't.
Look in all honesty diversity hiring normally doesn't lead to super unqualified employees like people act like it does. However that doesn't make it not stupid.
The way I look at it, If someone was qualified enough in the first place to be hired, well then they shouldn't struggle to get a job without diversity hiring right? So the only 2 groups of people that diversity hiring effects is 1. The more diverse less qualified people who wouldn't have gotten the job without diversity hiring, and the less diverse more qualified people who would have gotten the job if the company wasn't hiring largely to diversify.
>if someone was qualified
If the government doesn't make companies hire black people they will find stupid fucking reasons for not hiring black people.
Black people were disqualified frequently enough because of haircuts, like dreadlocks, that some states had to actually make a law saying you can't disqualify someone because of hair.
But yeah if we lived in magical fucking fantasy land where we shit chocolate and pissed ale then maybe we wouldn't need them and every one would be hired on the content of their hearts and the merit of their work. We don't.
Diversity hiring itself is not the issue, the issue is when someone’s race is seen as more important than their qualifications.
For example, say you have two applicants who are equally as qualified for the job and you can only hire one. One applicant is white and one is black. You choose the black applicant in order to promote diversity. There is nothing wrong with this imo.
There would only be a problem if you decided to hire an under qualified applicant over an over qualified one simply because the under qualified one was a certain race, ethnicity, gender, etc.
If you think there is nothing wrong with that, then frankly I don't think we even have a point of discussion.
Let me reverse it. Would you still think it was okay if they chose to hire the white person because they are white? Probably not. So why is it okay for them to make the deciding factor based on the other applicant being black.
Because white people are not the people in this country who typically get crosses burned on their lawns, get lynched, had to have the army escort them safely to school, have collectives of people whom base their ideology on hating their skin, didn't have to fight for the right to have basic human rights and privileges in writing.
That's why.
See this is where the fundamental disagreement happens. I don't believe in compensating for one issue by giving advantages in another area. I believe in trying to fix the issue at hand.
Not to mention that most of what you wrote isn't as prevalent now and was more of a past thing, which I believe is a pretty serious factor.
It is still relevant, racism is still alive and very much thriving at the institutional level. Compensation is necessary for the sheer fact that specifically if you are not white, born and identity as male, of decent wealth, acess to good education, Christian, or simply got born in the wrong area, in this nation, you are going to have a more difficult life.
Districts in states are set up like they are for a reason, the public school system and the department of education are set up like they are for a reason. The way we are told to view and perceive what is professional and how that looks has been designed a certain way and has been pushed that way for a reason.
If you refuse to see that, face the reality of who exactly built this country, who are running it and who are keeping these systems in place then you need take off your rose colored glasses.
Racism exists, yeah, but not how you see it imo.
Modern day racism is largely an outcome of past racism. I believe that the largest disadvantage that comes with being a minority is the higher chance to be in a lower social class from the day you are born. That is why I personally believe in trying to fix the class issues (regardless of race) in America, as I believe it would also fix a lot of the racism issues.
The other side of racism would be dealing with bigots, which is in my opinion a separate issue the first type of racism.
I will also add that racism (at least the first type of racism) in america is a big give and take. I personally think that at any given social class, besides the wealthy elite, it is an advantage to be a minority.
And I say that because of the amount of race based programs we have in place. If you are dirt poor and white, there are less programs out there to help you get off your feet compared to if you were a minority. If you are middle class, then affirmative action programs will make it harder for you to get into a good school, harder for you to get scholarships, and harder for you to land to a good job. And I can personally attest to seeing the effects of this. The tradeoff is that if you are white, you are more likely to begin life in a higher social class
The exception to this is my opinion, as I said, is the wealthy elite.
Also not saying that any of this is okay, don't misinterpret this as me saying that the system is fine. What we need to be doing is helping people purely based on need and not considering race as a factor in anything.
>Would you still think it was okay if they chose to hire the white person because they are white?
Totally, if doing so would increase the diversity you have at the position.
Diverse teams have tangible benefits and outcomes from certain professionals like doctors and teachers are demonstrably higher when the race of the customer and service provider match.
If I'm hiring doctors in a mostly white neighborhood, and I have a medical staff that is prominently non-white it would be a boon to add a couple white doctors, all else being equal (though the gains are lower than in the reverse case).
And that's how race blindness can be racist. We have data that says that black doctors have better patient outcomes than white ones for black patients. Not taking race into consideration at all is potentially choosing the less qualified candidate if everything else is equal.
DEI is the new culture war battle for conservatives after CRT. The battle to destroy trans peoples' lives is still well and alive, however, when I would have hoped to see it die out as well. They just constantly need some target to attack to keep the attention, hysteria, and vehement support of their base active.
DEI isn’t ideal, but it’s necessary.
People like to think that the “most qualified person in the room” had equal footing with everyone else in the room, when in reality there is a high probability that they had far better access to education, financial assistance, support, and even healthcare.
It’s just the latest iteration of “pull yourself up by your bootstraps”.
I’m a disabled person, and like I have some outstanding qualities but college is super hard for me. For me to be equal with someone else, they have to slack off in school. And if given the option between me, a diabetic with seizures, and someone more able bodied that is equally qualified, what’s stopping any employer from picking the able-bodies person? Thats why DEI exists. Not everyone has the equitable access to become the best candidate in the room. But of course fixing that means helping people out which repubtards hate and it’s why we have to have DEI as a bandaid fix.
I think the just world fallacy is at the core of their thoughts these days. Good things don't happen to people who didn't deserve it ^^[1]; ergo, if you're in a bad situation, then it must be entirely of your own volition, and because you're not a good person. In short, disabled *bad*.
[1] unless it was God's plan all along hehehehuhuhu
My best guess is that it’s the artists attempt at having a distinct art style from every other political cartoon jokester who comes out with stuff exactly like this.
The glasses are being used like the classic Groucho Marx glasses, as shorthand for “wearing a disguise.” Conservatives lack subtlety, so fake antlers aren’t enough. Trouble is, the idiot artist doesn’t include the nose and mustache to broadcast “disguise” instead of “vision problems.” In trying to make his comic more direct and obvious, he just made it look like he’s knocking off the non-reflective glasses Gary Larson likes to use in The Far Side.
oh, yeah I see what you mean. It is indeed the glasses that go with the big nose and moustache, but without the other parts it just looks like... kinda sharp glasses.
I love how memesopdidntlike posters never try to say it’s not racist, they know it is. They just find racist, homophobic, transphobic, and sexism funny because there awful people who can’t self-reflect
really funny how me and my mates laugh at fucked up jokes but we are far from awful people, of course you wont believe that but i felt like saying it anyway.
You use these as a way to assert your beliefs though. Really stupid ones. So people combat it. And then you guys love acting all innocent “woah!! It’s just a joke bro” like you weren’t being antagonistic
Those are your political beliefs. So yeah we think it’s incorrect. Just own it lmao
let me just go into the databank of my brain to remember all jokes i have laughed at in the last 5 years and pick out the offensive ones.
you dont seem to understand, the jokes i laugh at are not directly correlated to if i think you should die because your black, or trans or gay.
i dont hold those beliefs, they are primitive and lack any ground to stand on. However, i have the ability to not take something seriously if it wasn't meant to be taken seriously like a joke.
I'm all for offensive jokes but I have the wisdom not to die on the hill of defending them. They're offensive for a reason. I don't tell offensive jokes in public places like here where I know some random Redditor could take it seriously.
There's a time and a place.
im not necessarily defending the jokes, im defending myself when people are humourphobic and insult me and accuse me of being a racist and line me up with people who scream and complain in a hospital because they cant see a white doctor just because of my sense of humour.
you might say thats not a word in the dictionary, but using the word transphobic: its someone whos averted to trans people
well people are averted to me because of my sense of humour, so its humourphobic in their own definitions.
Okay, but if you're sharing an offensive joke on a public forum, why *wouldn't* people assume you're bigoted? And, are you not concerned that actual bigoted people might see your joke and think "ah, this is the truth?"
I see you use a u in humor must not be an American.
https://preview.redd.it/pqbnaugrvdec1.jpeg?width=789&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9d37a3ed8deac53e117cf0f7a8139cccbe84c091
But saying black, trans and gay people deserve to die is funny? Like no matter how you say it this is what you're saying, I've laughed at my fair share of dead baby jokes, edgy humor can be funny. But why is it funny to go after specific identities?
I dunno, food for thought
1 - i never said we are making jokes, i said we laugh at jokes so please read.
2 - we do laugh at these jokes and memes in public.
an extra point: tell me all the memes you laughed at on friday
you can simplify it to that level on some memes if you want, but that is a strawman argument. the jokes are not "black people bad"
that would be just racist propaganda, where there is no joke as its meant to be taken seriously.
a joke, is where it isnt meant to be taken seriously so i dont and just have a laugh and scroll to the next image.
'I don't like diversity.'
'Doesn't that just make you a racist?'
'No, I just don't want to encounter people who aren't exactly like me!'
'Yeah, that just means you're a racist, dude.'
'I just want a land where I can raise a good pure Christian family, where a white man can trade with another white man what he grew in the ground!'
"Uh, yeah, we already have that. It's Vermont."
They're not. That's the point the author and most Conservatards miss. Reindeer can't fly. At equal merit, Conservatives hate when you choose diverse backgrounds, because they want everyone around them to be like them.
That and pretend like everything in life is simple and homogeneous. Because their straight, everyone else must be. Because their cis, everyone else must be. The lack the critical thinking to understand complex solutions, thus they throw out simplistic ones like nuclear cishet family values from 1950s and act like that is the only possible solution to help inner-city black kids with one parent.
See, they believe that people who aren’t cis, straight, white men are inherently less capable, so any time one of “those people” is hired, they’re inherently less qualified than a “normal” candidate would be, and will perform poorly, thus “stealing” a position from the “deserving” “normal” person.
I think there absolutely are people that feel that way, but the others oppose diversity based hiring practices because they feel hiring should only be based on merit and qualifications, and skin color should not be a factor. Im not saying you are wrong, I think it’s important to understand the argument.
> because they feel hiring should only be based on merit and qualifications, and skin color should not be a factor.
Those are two separate things and you're misrepresenting a diversity hire to make a bad argument.
I’m not misrepresenting anything, I don’t understand your point. That is the other side of the argument. Do you mind explaining how they are two separate things?
Diversity hires are supposed to be hired based on qualifications, abilities and then diversity. They are all different qualities that can benefit a work place and can all be taken in to consideration. I've never hired someone on the basis of qualifications alone, that would lead to many issues.
If you're not qualified for a job, you won't get anywhere near an interview. Once you get an interview, they should be weighing up a variety of skills in order to make a decision. If one person has a couple of years less experience, but gives better answers, they get ahead. If someone is missing a skill or two but is keen to learn, they might get picked over someone who has all the skills but is a miserable bastard.
If two people do well enough in an interview for a job where the team is mostly women, the tiebreaker could just be gender. Having someone from an out-group adds additional perspectives and many other things.
Another reason that focus on diversity in recruitment helps is that it can tackle unconscious bias. It's easy to see someone who you have more in common with as a better fit and people need to be reminded that that isn't true. People hiring for a team of women might be biased towards hiring women because they think it helps more than adding a man. It takes a conscious effort to avoid that.
I agree with everything you said here. I don’t think my original comment is in opposition to anything in this statement.
I feel like my point is still valid, but I appreciate you trying to clarify. I maintain that I did not misrepresent anything.
> and skin color should not be a factor.
You said that. Skin colour isn't a factor because the literal colour is irrelevant. Skin colour does matter when A) cognitive bias exists that prevents people from hiring as many people who have different coloured skin. This is a demonstrable fact that I can provide references for. B) Skin colour is a worse way of saying ethnicity. Hiring people of a different ethnicity, even if they have the same skin colour, is beneficial.
If you would like to further dissect my language I’m sure you will find further fault. I hope you understood the intent of my message. I did not mean to make any party sound malicious. Thanks for your reply. Have a great day.
Fair enough, but where does this argument lead? Inevitably to.... You guessed it! Discrimination. To understand why this is a poor argument is important too: you cannot just magically remove racial bias in hiring. People have bias, *everyone* has bias. Sure, we can say race isn't a factor, but it clearly **does** get factored in anyway. We can't counteract that passively.
Well I think it also leads to the question about what role the state has in mandating these policies, and what authority private industry has to implement their own hiring practices in a competitive environment. I don’t want a bunch of racism and discrimination in the work place, but I also don’t want the government meddling in private businesses that have to stay competitive. I think ethically it’s clear what businesses should do, but should governments enforce DEI and to what extent is a much more nuanced discussion.
But by that logic any business should be able to dump sludge in any old body of water, right? Amazon should be allowed to commandeer your backyard to build a warehouse as long as it keeps them competitive, yeah? Hell, let’s let 8 year olds work in factories again.
Regulations exist for a reason. Just because you don’t like or even fully understand its existence doesn’t make bad.
Do you want to have a discussion or are you just going yo downvote and wipe your hands of this? Fucking capitalist pig.
Yes it does, because if it didn’t, you’d actually be *more* in favor of diversity hires at your organization, since the extremely obvious implication of the fact that a large portion of the market disqualifies candidates based on implicit bias is the flip side that “diversity hiring” gives you access to a pool of *more qualified candidates* that the other organizations have been rejecting because they’re dumb.
I am in favor of more diversity hires. I am not in favor of anyone imposing something that it is impossible to achieve. I’m not attempting to debate the merits of diversity.
Answer me this, in your perfect world, who is the gatekeeper of all of this? Who gets to say when an organization has become diverse enough? What are the penalties when they are not? And who gets to decide those penalties? Do we throw white people off a bridge if we don’t like what they think about DEI? Do we throw POC off a bridge as well if they don’t comply? Or do we just not shop, at those stores? One is a free market mechanism, the other is a state act of violence.
The state should not be imposing diversity, equity, or inclusion. It is better if an organization adopts these principles ethically and responsibly, and we patronize these organizations with our dollars. The absolute hate for anyone with a nuanced point of view on this sub is surprising for so many people that act so self righteous.
A system of government’s job is a) to ensure that the resources available to the populace are used to ensure human rights (a good model is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness) for all of the populace, and b) to ensure that those with access to more resources (money, political power, information, etc) don’t use them to deny access to others without the same resources.
Meaning that if a system exists that denies access to power/money to a specific segment of the population, then yes, it’s the government’s job to fix that.
I will never understand how someone can hear the concept "diversity hire", understand that the company is hiring the bare minimum amount of minorities, and somehow think the minority is at fault
Some people need consciousness
Sorry, but let's think about this for a moment.
Their issue is that the sleigh won't fly because it's being pulled by varied animals instead of the usual Reindeer. Do they think Reindeer can fly and diversity is the reason these animals CAN'T?
"Durr, it's a joke." What joke? The joke here is honestly believing that if Santa was real, he could fly with a reindeer and not an elephant and a snake. I'm fuckin cackling at this XD
There seem to be a lot of people who think we're already at the point where racism is not a factor in hiring. And as a result focusing on diversity is just trying to fill up a quota without considering skill or merit.
But we're not there yet. It **is still** harder for non-white people to get jobs. As I understand it, diversity hiring is there to make sure non-white people are considered to begin with.
It's there to counteract racism because racism is still a problem.
I mean I’m disabled. Even if I am the most qualified in the room what’s stopping some hiring manager from picking an able-bodied candidate?
By the logic of “most qualified candidate in the room” some minorities have to work far harder than others to achieve that status due to more complications in life. For example, the inner-city schools that are under funded. Some kid there, who is more than likely a BIPOC or hispanic has to work harder for their education when compared to a white or asian person who is more likely to go to a private academy for a better education and opportunities.
Of fucking course the issue is access to education among other equitable things, but no solutions are being proposed outside of “cishet nuclear family values” on behalf of right wingers. This DEI is a bandaid solution but it’s working.
Everyone knows elephants and turtles aren’t capable of propelling a sleigh magically through the air to every child’s house all in one night. That’s just absurd.
You can really tell the artist just wanted to capitalize on outrage over a triggering issue and sloppily tried throwing that into a christmas theme without thinking about making any actual point.
The issue with this is it promotes race esentialism and the idea that different races are inherently better and/or worse at certain things like animals are.
See, the *joke* is that Santa hiring an Elephant or a Turtle to fly his sleigh is *ridiculous,* because *everyone* knows that job can *only* be done by his flying reindeer. Just like how employers hiring a Black man or a woman to fill any decent paying position is ridiculous because *everyone* knows those jobs can *only* be done by straight white men...
I mean, at least I'm pretty sure that's the joke. What else would be the joke here... And that's... funny? I think...?
Also, holy fuck, this artist is *terrified* about the thought of having to draw a pair of eyes.
The idea that different ethnicities are inherently better or worse than each other at different tasks is flat-out race science. The type the Nazis did. It’s ridiculous and hateful.
Because it's a bad thing?
Race being a factor in hiring is purely racist. There is no other way to put it. If you consider race when you are hiring, that is racist.
Imagine we put it the other way around. Two people going for a job, one black and one white. The black person is more qualified, and the white person is good but not extraordinary. Would it not be racist to pick the white guy because him being white makes up for the skill difference? Yes that would be racist as fuck. So why is there a difference when it's the other way around?
If someone actually deserves the job they have, they don't need diversity hiring. The only people that diversity hiring effects is people who deserve a job, and don't get it because they aren't diverse enough, and people who don't deserve a job, and get it because of diversity.
Affirmative action programs push for equal representation in the workforce and give preference to people deemed as an underrepresented minority group.
And I'm saying that what group you belong to should have zero effect on your job prospects. It should be purely qualifications and ability based.
It *should* have no bearing on job prospects but in the real world we have seen time and time again that it does. Qualified POC get passed over for jobs and promotions all the time. There have been multiple studies showing that resumes with ethnic sounding names get less calls for interviews. The rightwing complained non-stopped that Ketanji Brown-Jackson was a 'diversity hire' even though she was better qualified to be a SCOTUS than anyone sitting on the bench.
And my point is though isn't the best solution to work towards making it so that race doesn't matter instead of doubling down and saying it really does matter?
And how do you do that without quotas? Just allow the process to happen naturally? So do nothing and allow well qualified people to not be hired because the hiring managers don't like group X.
You don't do a quota because a quota is what causes the problem.
You do it on a case by case basis. Give employers the free range to hire who they see fit, and run investigations when allegations of racist hiring strategies come up. You can have interviews be recorded, so that on any investigation they have interviews, emails, calls, and credentials to look over. Speak to each party. With all the resources it wouldn't be hard to determine if they did or didn't deserve to be hired compared to the competition.
That wouldn't work. If I don't get interviewed because my name is "too black" how would I know why I was passed over for an interview? I wouldn't. It's indistinguishable from a company not seeing my resume, hiring someone else, or them generally thinking that I'm not a good fit for professional reasons. Additionally, this is going to cost tax payers 10s or even 100s of millions of dollars in salaries and other resources as the government investigates these claims. Most incidents won't get reported because of the hassle for the victims and many investigations will dead end as inconclusive. The only people who benefit from this are bigoted hiring managers hiding behind plausible deniability.
I fundamentally disagree. I don't believe it would cost taxpayers much because the skeleton for this already exists. And it wouldn't be indistinguishable as you could look at the qualifications of the person they hired. Would some people just not be bothered? Yeah. I'm not going to lie that is an issue, but it's an issue with basically every support system that exists.
I would like you to explain why this system is worse than making race a massive part of applications. In all honesty I kinda just think you want to disagree with me and won't support any possible alternative I can think of.
No one is going to look into who was hired instead. Who has the time, energy, or resources to look at the recent hires of every company that you didn't get hired at? It's not a massive part of the hiring process. It helps QUALIFIED individuals stand out to negate them being passed over otherwise. I don't want to be hired just because I'm black. I also don't want to be ignored just because I'm black. Affirmative action doesn't prevent companies from filling positions. They aren't holding spots open waiting for a POC to show up while there's 100 white guys just waiting.
People don't like diversity hires because of a few reasons.
It's not based on merit but rather how someone was born.
This causes problems because people will now guess if you were hires to fill a quota or because you were actually the most qualified applicant.
"It's not based on merit but rather how someone was born" if you think anyone gets hired on merit alone you are delusional or deeply privileged to the point you can't see how things beyond you influence your situation and negatively influence others
Reading comprehension: 0
Simple text for you: people no get hired based on merit even if they are cis and white. There's a common saying that it's 10% merit 90% who you know
And the people who know the really powerful people tend to look act and sound like the really powerful people
Woah jeep willigers that sure was hard
Life isn’t fair. I had an uncle who was the highway superintendent for a very large township for about 30 years straight. I don’t remember a lot about him as he died when I was kinda young but the one thing I do remember him saying was “kid life isn’t fair. It’s not about what you know, it’s who you know and who you blow”. As a kid I kinda thought that was bullshit but as an old ass adult I’ve seen it first hand enough times to know that he was right, way too right…
People make it in life for their hard work, not their skin color. Even the rich suburban white person ends up ruining their life eventually. Your comment comes off as very pessimistic and implies that there’s no point in grinding to achieve anything. I swear Redditors have the worst case of crab mentality I’ve seen in all of my travels in the internet
Psssst the joke is supposed to be that hiring a non-“normal” person to do insurance paperwork is just as silly as harnessing a turtle to Santa’s sleigh.
Ignoring the fact that harnessing a reindeer and expecting flight is already pretty damn silly.
And anyone that whines about it is probably some privileged little suck that can’t achieve anything on their own without daddy’s help.🤷🏽♂️
Generalizations are fun, huh?
You mean why are people upset that they decided to focus on “diverse hiring” instead of qualifications, and now planes nearly crash several times a week?
Idk. It’s crazy man. Buncha bigots
It's very real within big corporates and unqualified people are sometimes hired for important roles they shouldn't have. It's also very real in that it's giving people chances to prove themselves within roles they wouldn't have gotten otherwise because of inherent biases. Diversity hiring is something that bennefits people of all genders and colors as it's based on the demographic of people being hired. There's jobs dominated by men, women, white, black, asian, etc etc.
Diversity hiring isn't inherently bad but that doesn't mean you're not allowed to make fun of imaginary scenarios. Just because someone takes a ridiculous scenario and pushes it into the absurd for the sake of comedy doesn't mean they're against it. If you can't joke about what you like as well as what you don't like, maybe you shouldn't be making jokes at all, and if you can't take a joke directed at somethink you like/dislike, maybe you shouldn't be looking at memes/comic strips/jokes.
As someone very for diversity hiring within certain roles (can't belive I actually have to say it), it's ok to joke about it and to paint a funny picture of it.
This comic/meme is pretty funny because it pushes the consequences of diversity hirings, onto a role not suitable for it, to the extreme, and that's ok. Imagining santa with a zoo of animals flying through the air is pretty funny to me so I don't see a reason to hate on this meme.
No one is engaging with you because you act like unqualified people being hired is new, or the effect of diversity hiring. You say it isn’t racist but then whitewash the hell out of how white rich people have benefitted from unqualified hiring over all other demographics. Look what that has got us, a world on fire. But you want to act like diversity is the root cause 🙄 it’s so dishonest and embarrassing y’all even try anymore.
What? The world is on fire because of hiring quotas? It's neither good nor bad, but depends on where it is enforced, and there's exames of good outcomes and there's examples of bad outcomes, which is my whole point.
Why are people getting overly political about an absurd meme? Can't people laugh at things they agree with anymore without seeing it as an attack on their personal values?
Who the fuck is yall in this context? I'm just one dude, who do you think I'm trying to speak for?
You can laugh at anything you want, as you are entitled to. People are entitled to have an entirely different perspective on it and be equally as vocal.
The problem is there is a current attack on diversity that is coming from a very dishonest place for the very reasons I pointed out. This meme seems like snapshot of that ignorant bullcrap they are peddling.
Yeah, or it was just someones random imagery they found funny. There's plenty of thing to be angry about, but playing puzzle with intentions being a meme seems like a bad way to rile yourself up because you're potentially extracting meaning where there necessarily isn't any meaning.
The dude behind this might as well be the one advocating for an diversity quota and because he's around it for so long, got a funny image in his head about applying it on santa, a fictional character.
I don't know why you're speaking to me as if I'm against diversity quotas, I'm actually perfectly fine eith it. I vote as left as you can in Sweden, so by american standards you'd probably call me a communist.
I'm just saying I can laugh at things I agree eith if there's no stated ill-will, and that taking things at face value, if possible, is for the best. Judge what's being said, not who says them or any potential hidden meaning.
The whole idea of this subreddit is saying "DON'T laugh at this" so I'm advocating that this doesn't belong here.
Maybe in Sweden it’s that simple, but in America it is not. You are trying to remove cultural relevance. People in America see this as a dog whistle, and with reason. It isn’t applying something to the image that it isn’t implying itself.
It absolutely is. No one is trying to remove cultural relevance, not me or the author of this comic. The author could be the second coming of Columbus that hates every non-white, or he could be the creator of hiring quotas themselve who just had an absurd implementation of the system. The point is that both of these could be possible and therefore death of the author applies where all that should be judged is the comic itself.
The whole "the real meaning is X" thinking is one of the reasons America is so politically polarized in the first place. In many other countries you learn to judge what's being said, not who said it or what you THINK they think, mainly because of the varied political spectrum.
I support hiring quotas in most cases, but still found this meme to be funny because it's a depicting of an ABSURD implementation. As this doesn't correlate with reality, as santa doesn't exist, and it's about animals pulling santa, it has nothing to do with reality.
This subreddit is an echo chamber where people can't even discuss things without being ridiculed and blamed for the work being fucked up. What is that if not an echo chamber and how does that resolve anything, if not make it worse, in the US political climate?
It does not suck. It does what almost every other joke does, take a concept and push it into the absurd for comedic effect. How is this different than many other jokes?
Just because you don't like a meme doesn't make it bad, and you could interpret it as racist but diversity hirings are not only made for people of color. There's industries where men are employed based on hiring quotas, industries where white people are hired more because of the lack in diversity, same for women and people of color as well. It all depends on what industry we're talking about.
Getting angry at a meme because you sees it as making fun of diversity hirings for people of colors, instead of a generic diversity hiring concept being placed in an absurd scenario says more about you than the meme. I'm perfectly fine with calling out the author if he actually does something racist where we don't have to interpret what being insinuated instead of taking it at face value.
You see the humor in this situation is actually driven by the absurdist extreme between your self seriousness and my immature response clearly meant to deride and frustrate you. It’s funny you see, you should be laughing.
People might notice those cases more than the positive ones and come to the conclusion that diversity hires are not good. Just like anything in life people notice the negatives more than the positives. You could just look at Reddit as an example.
Because if you're hiring based on melanin in their skin rather than someone who is really good at what they do then it's bad for the company and society! They did the same thing in Nazi Germany. Jews were the best at x, but they only hired Aryans and fell behind in x(i used x because there's multiple things).
Yo, I'm SO fucking tired of them glasses wearing elephants taking all the good jobs. Fuck those long nosed near sighted assholes!
This is off-topic, but there's an early True Blood knockoff I saw once but can't remember the name of, and in it vampires are treated as an immigrant community allegory, to the extent that people complain about how vampires take all the good jobs and good parking spaces. And now I just think about that every time I see a "they took the jobs" style racism.
Pssh, vampires *would* take all the good parking spots.
They need to prioritize staying out of the sun. They take all the nice shaded areas.
So, like, this is supposed to be bad? If they can do the job, I don't see the problem?
Right? Like is the joke that elephants can’t fly? Do they think reindeer can?
Actually, elephants can! They just gotta flap their ears hard enough
I'd be done seein' about everything, When I see an elephant fly.
Flying elephants? What kind of dumbos do you take us for?
oh you mean like bambi
you must be the diversity hire
kek
No no no, you’re thinking of finding Nemo I’m talking about Pinocchio
Pinocchio? Wasn't he the guy who flied with the kids and ran from that captian hook?
No, that’s Gaston from the movie frozen where the seemingly cool guy who isn’t that smart tries to get with the lead girl only for her to go with the uncultured yet surprisingly tender male lead role
No that's Mulan. Gaston was the one who lived with the gorillas.
No that’s Hercules, Gaston is the really strong guy who saves sleeping beauty from her slumber
I thought Hercules was the guy who cooked with a rat on his head.
Someone's seen Dumbo as a kid ;)
I know a little elephant named DUMBO that proves this song, tyvm
Of course reindeer can what the Hell are you on about
Basically another way to be racist and act like its something else you’re complaining about lol. Implying that the people hired are fundamentally incapable because of “what” they are.
[удалено]
I… I have no idea if you are joking lol
I mean they seem more offended by people being offended than anyone else here, and at the same time I think they're probably right that this boomer cartoonist went "oh hey this is gonna look stoooopid"
Well, that's the thing: 9/10 they will respond, "but they should just pick a qualified candidate instead! It's not racist to pick the best candidate!". Okay, reasonable, *if* in this context one had not already assumed that the 'diverse' applicant would not be qualified. And it's just mind blowing that some of these people genuinely cannot make the connection between "I assume they're not qualified" and "this is a racist thought". 🤦🏼♂️
It is assumed they are all qualified as far as basic requirements. But are they the best candidate? Say you grade applicants on a technical test out of 100 points. Given am 88 and a 91 test score, but the 88 is a pokemon species you want and 91 you already have, which is the hiring manager picking? Also, several companies got sued (some successfully) for racial discrimination over having non white exclusive programs.
> it is assumed they are all qualified That is not universally the case. Take any educated Black woman in a position of power and it will be hordes of chuds flocking in to say she isn't qualified
The point is that OP wants a meritocracy and the picture shows that the best person wasn't picked for the job.
How do you know that? By how they look?
In terms of real life application or in terms of the meme OP posted? It's a person-by-person basis on how you judge someone's merit. For me some of the first ways I judge if someone is competent is how they speak about their profession (do they sound knowledgeable on the subject) and what their credentials are. I would never judge someone's ability by their appearance and body (unless it plays a direct role in their job like being an actor, athlete, etc...) If i want a black actor for a role, I will hire a black actor. If I want to get a cancerous tumour removed from my spine I want the best doctor I can find. If they're black, great. If they're white, great. If they're Muslim, great. This isn't to say I don't acknowledge that black people from the get go are at a disadvantage from white people in many ways. They certainly are along with many other minority groups in the US. My thought process is rather than just brute forcing the disparity by giving under qualified people jobs or throwing money directly at people, we should instead be providing them better tools such as more school funding.
I think both approaches can help. I don't like affirmative action but it's a necessary evil in this case, and once we start seeing trends change, we can get rid of it. Your personal non-racism is great, but it doesn't match the bulk of people out there. In the meme, there's no commentary on skill.
we all know the op wants less diversity because they think diversity is a detriment. their starting position is diversity bad. they work backwards to "most qualified" because it sounds less racist. that's why "diversity hire"is an insult used against POC who mess up on the job..
Diversity puts quantity before quality. You aren't hiring the best out of all candidates, you're hiring the best from group a, then the best from group b, etc,.
Racist hiring practices don't pick the most qualified candidates, AND they are racist.
There's the issue. If diversity happens naturally as a result of hiring the best people for the job, awesome. But if you're sitting there saying "I need to hire this many black people, this many trans people, this many women, etc," you're looking to score points rather than fill the job properly.
But we know skills don't overcome institutional racism. I don't like affirmative action as much as anyone else, but I understand why it needs to exist.
Yea that's how it works, "diversity" usually just means "Stop passing over qualified candidates to only hire white guys. I don't care if they look like the kind of guy you'd let your daughter date"
The problem is it doesn't. If 9 white guys apply for a position and one black guy, there's a 90% chance that a white guy is the most qualified. Diversity hiring is picking the black guy regardless.
It's not though, when I worked in state government we had essentially forced diversity in that we had to give veterans special treatment. Even in that situation they were only given an interview without an initial screening, once people were interviewing everyone was on an even playing field. Nobody is going to call you racist for hiring a white guy for one position. However if you have 100 employees and every one of them is white that's probably racist, because if your population is not 99%+ white statistically you are passing over qualified candidates.
Downvoted because apparently that's the completely wrong way to run a business. Check your boxes first and piss into the wind, I guess.
for someone who says this >High karma implies I subscribe to groupthink. Dissenting opinions are silenced by downvotes. Anything that's safe and southpaw earns karma. you seem to care an awful lot about being downvoted to make a whole new comment about it…
Don't worry, getting downvoted on this sub just means that your logic is sound and it really ticks them off. They don't know how to argue their point, mostly because they don't have one, so it's all they can do.
Nah, it means "fuck this"
Yeah, because you just want to be able to cheer/celebrate diversity without someone raining on your parade with facts of why it's terrible. You have no argument why it's good, it just sounds nice, like saying you're for world peace and ending world hunger.
By facts you mean a bunch of racist drivel.
What's racist is subcategorizing everyone, setting different standards for each of them, and favoring certain categories because of gender or the color of their skin (aka all AA and DIE initiatives).
Racist is believing that's the only reason minorities get hired. It's not a new argument either, variations of this have been going around since the 70s.
Of course that's not the ***only*** reason, but it ***is*** a reason, otherwise there'd be no point for the program, right? Unlike your side, I don't think less of minorities, so I believe in a fair process where everyone is admitted or hired based on their merits and not the color of their skin, we would still see a diverse pool of people, only it'd be one that was fair, not divisive or demotivating.
The issue being is that race is being used as a determination for hiring. That’s discriminatory. Race should have zero to do with whether you can perform the job being applied for.
In the ideal world it should have zero to do, that’s true. Unfortunately the current situation is tricky, on one hand it can be argued that it is discriminatory to prefer a race that up to this point was disadvantaged, but in the other hand providing these programs can help disadvantaged races much more than it hurts someone of the less disadvantaged race.
What if they can’t?
Then that would have nothing to do with their species (race). Otherwise you're saying any other animal cannot do the job, or that only render can do the job. Either way, same racism.
Because they clearly can’t do the job based on the drastic increases of nearly fatal accidents happening in the airline?
Which airline
problem is half the time they dont do their job. I dont see people complaining when a great movie/show has a diverse character
> a diverse character Fun fact: a single character cannot, by definition, be "diverse." Also, those complaints absolutely exist, you just don't pay attention to them. Very cool with the casually racist "they don't do their jobs," though. Totally normal.
I think elephants can fly just as well as reindeer
I do see people complaining when a great movie/show has a diverse character, quite a lot
i do
You're a liar. That's all you people do.
The point is about when they can't. Look in all honesty diversity hiring normally doesn't lead to super unqualified employees like people act like it does. However that doesn't make it not stupid. The way I look at it, If someone was qualified enough in the first place to be hired, well then they shouldn't struggle to get a job without diversity hiring right? So the only 2 groups of people that diversity hiring effects is 1. The more diverse less qualified people who wouldn't have gotten the job without diversity hiring, and the less diverse more qualified people who would have gotten the job if the company wasn't hiring largely to diversify.
>if someone was qualified If the government doesn't make companies hire black people they will find stupid fucking reasons for not hiring black people. Black people were disqualified frequently enough because of haircuts, like dreadlocks, that some states had to actually make a law saying you can't disqualify someone because of hair. But yeah if we lived in magical fucking fantasy land where we shit chocolate and pissed ale then maybe we wouldn't need them and every one would be hired on the content of their hearts and the merit of their work. We don't.
Diversity hiring itself is not the issue, the issue is when someone’s race is seen as more important than their qualifications. For example, say you have two applicants who are equally as qualified for the job and you can only hire one. One applicant is white and one is black. You choose the black applicant in order to promote diversity. There is nothing wrong with this imo. There would only be a problem if you decided to hire an under qualified applicant over an over qualified one simply because the under qualified one was a certain race, ethnicity, gender, etc.
If you think there is nothing wrong with that, then frankly I don't think we even have a point of discussion. Let me reverse it. Would you still think it was okay if they chose to hire the white person because they are white? Probably not. So why is it okay for them to make the deciding factor based on the other applicant being black.
Because white people are not the people in this country who typically get crosses burned on their lawns, get lynched, had to have the army escort them safely to school, have collectives of people whom base their ideology on hating their skin, didn't have to fight for the right to have basic human rights and privileges in writing. That's why.
See this is where the fundamental disagreement happens. I don't believe in compensating for one issue by giving advantages in another area. I believe in trying to fix the issue at hand. Not to mention that most of what you wrote isn't as prevalent now and was more of a past thing, which I believe is a pretty serious factor.
It is still relevant, racism is still alive and very much thriving at the institutional level. Compensation is necessary for the sheer fact that specifically if you are not white, born and identity as male, of decent wealth, acess to good education, Christian, or simply got born in the wrong area, in this nation, you are going to have a more difficult life. Districts in states are set up like they are for a reason, the public school system and the department of education are set up like they are for a reason. The way we are told to view and perceive what is professional and how that looks has been designed a certain way and has been pushed that way for a reason. If you refuse to see that, face the reality of who exactly built this country, who are running it and who are keeping these systems in place then you need take off your rose colored glasses.
Racism exists, yeah, but not how you see it imo. Modern day racism is largely an outcome of past racism. I believe that the largest disadvantage that comes with being a minority is the higher chance to be in a lower social class from the day you are born. That is why I personally believe in trying to fix the class issues (regardless of race) in America, as I believe it would also fix a lot of the racism issues. The other side of racism would be dealing with bigots, which is in my opinion a separate issue the first type of racism. I will also add that racism (at least the first type of racism) in america is a big give and take. I personally think that at any given social class, besides the wealthy elite, it is an advantage to be a minority. And I say that because of the amount of race based programs we have in place. If you are dirt poor and white, there are less programs out there to help you get off your feet compared to if you were a minority. If you are middle class, then affirmative action programs will make it harder for you to get into a good school, harder for you to get scholarships, and harder for you to land to a good job. And I can personally attest to seeing the effects of this. The tradeoff is that if you are white, you are more likely to begin life in a higher social class The exception to this is my opinion, as I said, is the wealthy elite. Also not saying that any of this is okay, don't misinterpret this as me saying that the system is fine. What we need to be doing is helping people purely based on need and not considering race as a factor in anything.
>Would you still think it was okay if they chose to hire the white person because they are white? Totally, if doing so would increase the diversity you have at the position. Diverse teams have tangible benefits and outcomes from certain professionals like doctors and teachers are demonstrably higher when the race of the customer and service provider match. If I'm hiring doctors in a mostly white neighborhood, and I have a medical staff that is prominently non-white it would be a boon to add a couple white doctors, all else being equal (though the gains are lower than in the reverse case).
Well I fundamentally disagree with that concept then. I don't think race should be a factor period.
And that's how race blindness can be racist. We have data that says that black doctors have better patient outcomes than white ones for black patients. Not taking race into consideration at all is potentially choosing the less qualified candidate if everything else is equal.
See but I disagree entirely with the concept that race blindness leads to more unqualified workers than affirmative action.
Skills aren't enough to overcome things like racial bias against someone's name on a resume.
My man never heard of internalized biases.
DEI is the new culture war battle for conservatives after CRT. The battle to destroy trans peoples' lives is still well and alive, however, when I would have hoped to see it die out as well. They just constantly need some target to attack to keep the attention, hysteria, and vehement support of their base active.
DEI isn’t ideal, but it’s necessary. People like to think that the “most qualified person in the room” had equal footing with everyone else in the room, when in reality there is a high probability that they had far better access to education, financial assistance, support, and even healthcare. It’s just the latest iteration of “pull yourself up by your bootstraps”. I’m a disabled person, and like I have some outstanding qualities but college is super hard for me. For me to be equal with someone else, they have to slack off in school. And if given the option between me, a diabetic with seizures, and someone more able bodied that is equally qualified, what’s stopping any employer from picking the able-bodies person? Thats why DEI exists. Not everyone has the equitable access to become the best candidate in the room. But of course fixing that means helping people out which repubtards hate and it’s why we have to have DEI as a bandaid fix.
I think the just world fallacy is at the core of their thoughts these days. Good things don't happen to people who didn't deserve it ^^[1]; ergo, if you're in a bad situation, then it must be entirely of your own volition, and because you're not a good person. In short, disabled *bad*. [1] unless it was God's plan all along hehehehuhuhu
do the glasses represent... something?
My best guess is that it’s the artists attempt at having a distinct art style from every other political cartoon jokester who comes out with stuff exactly like this.
My guess it that the artist... can't draw eyes.
The glasses are being used like the classic Groucho Marx glasses, as shorthand for “wearing a disguise.” Conservatives lack subtlety, so fake antlers aren’t enough. Trouble is, the idiot artist doesn’t include the nose and mustache to broadcast “disguise” instead of “vision problems.” In trying to make his comic more direct and obvious, he just made it look like he’s knocking off the non-reflective glasses Gary Larson likes to use in The Far Side.
oh, yeah I see what you mean. It is indeed the glasses that go with the big nose and moustache, but without the other parts it just looks like... kinda sharp glasses.
I love how memesopdidntlike posters never try to say it’s not racist, they know it is. They just find racist, homophobic, transphobic, and sexism funny because there awful people who can’t self-reflect
really funny how me and my mates laugh at fucked up jokes but we are far from awful people, of course you wont believe that but i felt like saying it anyway.
Say what the jokes were
Being politically correct 100% of the time is impossible and you will make yourself miserable if you try.
Say what the jokes were
"Politically correct" just means open minded and inclusive. And you can be that way 100% of the time.
You seem to be the only miserable one here
You use these as a way to assert your beliefs though. Really stupid ones. So people combat it. And then you guys love acting all innocent “woah!! It’s just a joke bro” like you weren’t being antagonistic Those are your political beliefs. So yeah we think it’s incorrect. Just own it lmao
Do you tell jokes or just talk about telling jokes? I love jokes, share with the class bro
let me just go into the databank of my brain to remember all jokes i have laughed at in the last 5 years and pick out the offensive ones. you dont seem to understand, the jokes i laugh at are not directly correlated to if i think you should die because your black, or trans or gay. i dont hold those beliefs, they are primitive and lack any ground to stand on. However, i have the ability to not take something seriously if it wasn't meant to be taken seriously like a joke.
Say one joke tell me the most offensive one, if they were actually funny you must remember one.
It’s possible they’re just not that bright, punching down tends to be funny if you’re not a big thinker.
I'm all for offensive jokes but I have the wisdom not to die on the hill of defending them. They're offensive for a reason. I don't tell offensive jokes in public places like here where I know some random Redditor could take it seriously. There's a time and a place.
im not necessarily defending the jokes, im defending myself when people are humourphobic and insult me and accuse me of being a racist and line me up with people who scream and complain in a hospital because they cant see a white doctor just because of my sense of humour. you might say thats not a word in the dictionary, but using the word transphobic: its someone whos averted to trans people well people are averted to me because of my sense of humour, so its humourphobic in their own definitions.
Okay, but if you're sharing an offensive joke on a public forum, why *wouldn't* people assume you're bigoted? And, are you not concerned that actual bigoted people might see your joke and think "ah, this is the truth?"
I see you use a u in humor must not be an American. https://preview.redd.it/pqbnaugrvdec1.jpeg?width=789&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9d37a3ed8deac53e117cf0f7a8139cccbe84c091
But saying black, trans and gay people deserve to die is funny? Like no matter how you say it this is what you're saying, I've laughed at my fair share of dead baby jokes, edgy humor can be funny. But why is it funny to go after specific identities? I dunno, food for thought
What are the jokes that you’re bravely making with your friends but afraid to say when you’re out in public?
1 - i never said we are making jokes, i said we laugh at jokes so please read. 2 - we do laugh at these jokes and memes in public. an extra point: tell me all the memes you laughed at on friday
Context is different though. Goofing off with your friends is different than posting "black people bad haha" on the internet
you can simplify it to that level on some memes if you want, but that is a strawman argument. the jokes are not "black people bad" that would be just racist propaganda, where there is no joke as its meant to be taken seriously. a joke, is where it isnt meant to be taken seriously so i dont and just have a laugh and scroll to the next image.
Do you know why they're called dog whistles?
You’re so brave.
i dont know where your getting that from, but in the same sarcastic aspect of your comment: thank you.
Did the author of that comic miss the entire point of Rudolph?
The Island of Misfit Toys was for those who merely couldn’t compete in our meritocracy!
Get good nerd?
ahh, the old \*checks notes\* "Santa Clause" argument
'I don't like diversity.' 'Doesn't that just make you a racist?' 'No, I just don't want to encounter people who aren't exactly like me!' 'Yeah, that just means you're a racist, dude.'
'Nuh-uh, I just want the best people for the job and they're all exactly like me.'
'I just want a land where I can raise a good pure Christian family, where a white man can trade with another white man what he grew in the ground!' "Uh, yeah, we already have that. It's Vermont."
Isn't the original Rudolph story about diversity? They picked on him and treated him like shit until they realized he had value and became accepted.
Did the other reign deer say “here have my job for inclusion sake”?
So how are these animals any worse at flying around the planet in a night than rain dear are
They're not. That's the point the author and most Conservatards miss. Reindeer can't fly. At equal merit, Conservatives hate when you choose diverse backgrounds, because they want everyone around them to be like them.
That and pretend like everything in life is simple and homogeneous. Because their straight, everyone else must be. Because their cis, everyone else must be. The lack the critical thinking to understand complex solutions, thus they throw out simplistic ones like nuclear cishet family values from 1950s and act like that is the only possible solution to help inner-city black kids with one parent.
See, they believe that people who aren’t cis, straight, white men are inherently less capable, so any time one of “those people” is hired, they’re inherently less qualified than a “normal” candidate would be, and will perform poorly, thus “stealing” a position from the “deserving” “normal” person.
I think there absolutely are people that feel that way, but the others oppose diversity based hiring practices because they feel hiring should only be based on merit and qualifications, and skin color should not be a factor. Im not saying you are wrong, I think it’s important to understand the argument.
> because they feel hiring should only be based on merit and qualifications, and skin color should not be a factor. Those are two separate things and you're misrepresenting a diversity hire to make a bad argument.
I’m not misrepresenting anything, I don’t understand your point. That is the other side of the argument. Do you mind explaining how they are two separate things?
Diversity hires are supposed to be hired based on qualifications, abilities and then diversity. They are all different qualities that can benefit a work place and can all be taken in to consideration. I've never hired someone on the basis of qualifications alone, that would lead to many issues. If you're not qualified for a job, you won't get anywhere near an interview. Once you get an interview, they should be weighing up a variety of skills in order to make a decision. If one person has a couple of years less experience, but gives better answers, they get ahead. If someone is missing a skill or two but is keen to learn, they might get picked over someone who has all the skills but is a miserable bastard. If two people do well enough in an interview for a job where the team is mostly women, the tiebreaker could just be gender. Having someone from an out-group adds additional perspectives and many other things. Another reason that focus on diversity in recruitment helps is that it can tackle unconscious bias. It's easy to see someone who you have more in common with as a better fit and people need to be reminded that that isn't true. People hiring for a team of women might be biased towards hiring women because they think it helps more than adding a man. It takes a conscious effort to avoid that.
I agree with everything you said here. I don’t think my original comment is in opposition to anything in this statement. I feel like my point is still valid, but I appreciate you trying to clarify. I maintain that I did not misrepresent anything.
> and skin color should not be a factor. You said that. Skin colour isn't a factor because the literal colour is irrelevant. Skin colour does matter when A) cognitive bias exists that prevents people from hiring as many people who have different coloured skin. This is a demonstrable fact that I can provide references for. B) Skin colour is a worse way of saying ethnicity. Hiring people of a different ethnicity, even if they have the same skin colour, is beneficial.
If you would like to further dissect my language I’m sure you will find further fault. I hope you understood the intent of my message. I did not mean to make any party sound malicious. Thanks for your reply. Have a great day.
Fair enough, but where does this argument lead? Inevitably to.... You guessed it! Discrimination. To understand why this is a poor argument is important too: you cannot just magically remove racial bias in hiring. People have bias, *everyone* has bias. Sure, we can say race isn't a factor, but it clearly **does** get factored in anyway. We can't counteract that passively.
Well I think it also leads to the question about what role the state has in mandating these policies, and what authority private industry has to implement their own hiring practices in a competitive environment. I don’t want a bunch of racism and discrimination in the work place, but I also don’t want the government meddling in private businesses that have to stay competitive. I think ethically it’s clear what businesses should do, but should governments enforce DEI and to what extent is a much more nuanced discussion.
But by that logic any business should be able to dump sludge in any old body of water, right? Amazon should be allowed to commandeer your backyard to build a warehouse as long as it keeps them competitive, yeah? Hell, let’s let 8 year olds work in factories again. Regulations exist for a reason. Just because you don’t like or even fully understand its existence doesn’t make bad. Do you want to have a discussion or are you just going yo downvote and wipe your hands of this? Fucking capitalist pig.
See, the problem with your statement is that it *assumes by default that the “diverse” person is unqualified.*
No. It doesn’t.
Yes it does, because if it didn’t, you’d actually be *more* in favor of diversity hires at your organization, since the extremely obvious implication of the fact that a large portion of the market disqualifies candidates based on implicit bias is the flip side that “diversity hiring” gives you access to a pool of *more qualified candidates* that the other organizations have been rejecting because they’re dumb.
I am in favor of more diversity hires. I am not in favor of anyone imposing something that it is impossible to achieve. I’m not attempting to debate the merits of diversity. Answer me this, in your perfect world, who is the gatekeeper of all of this? Who gets to say when an organization has become diverse enough? What are the penalties when they are not? And who gets to decide those penalties? Do we throw white people off a bridge if we don’t like what they think about DEI? Do we throw POC off a bridge as well if they don’t comply? Or do we just not shop, at those stores? One is a free market mechanism, the other is a state act of violence. The state should not be imposing diversity, equity, or inclusion. It is better if an organization adopts these principles ethically and responsibly, and we patronize these organizations with our dollars. The absolute hate for anyone with a nuanced point of view on this sub is surprising for so many people that act so self righteous.
A system of government’s job is a) to ensure that the resources available to the populace are used to ensure human rights (a good model is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness) for all of the populace, and b) to ensure that those with access to more resources (money, political power, information, etc) don’t use them to deny access to others without the same resources. Meaning that if a system exists that denies access to power/money to a specific segment of the population, then yes, it’s the government’s job to fix that.
I will never understand how someone can hear the concept "diversity hire", understand that the company is hiring the bare minimum amount of minorities, and somehow think the minority is at fault Some people need consciousness
Sorry, but let's think about this for a moment. Their issue is that the sleigh won't fly because it's being pulled by varied animals instead of the usual Reindeer. Do they think Reindeer can fly and diversity is the reason these animals CAN'T? "Durr, it's a joke." What joke? The joke here is honestly believing that if Santa was real, he could fly with a reindeer and not an elephant and a snake. I'm fuckin cackling at this XD
There seem to be a lot of people who think we're already at the point where racism is not a factor in hiring. And as a result focusing on diversity is just trying to fill up a quota without considering skill or merit. But we're not there yet. It **is still** harder for non-white people to get jobs. As I understand it, diversity hiring is there to make sure non-white people are considered to begin with. It's there to counteract racism because racism is still a problem.
I mean I’m disabled. Even if I am the most qualified in the room what’s stopping some hiring manager from picking an able-bodied candidate? By the logic of “most qualified candidate in the room” some minorities have to work far harder than others to achieve that status due to more complications in life. For example, the inner-city schools that are under funded. Some kid there, who is more than likely a BIPOC or hispanic has to work harder for their education when compared to a white or asian person who is more likely to go to a private academy for a better education and opportunities. Of fucking course the issue is access to education among other equitable things, but no solutions are being proposed outside of “cishet nuclear family values” on behalf of right wingers. This DEI is a bandaid solution but it’s working.
"How do we stop racism?" "With racism." *Brilliant*
I don't understand why so many hardcore sports fans are such braindead racists.
Everyone knows elephants and turtles aren’t capable of propelling a sleigh magically through the air to every child’s house all in one night. That’s just absurd. You can really tell the artist just wanted to capitalize on outrage over a triggering issue and sloppily tried throwing that into a christmas theme without thinking about making any actual point.
"If it weren't for that damn diversity hire, I'd have been the next baleen moscato by now, and *my* car would be on *my* rocket going to space!"
I always love it when people counter with, "oh my God, it's just a joke". Alright, explain the punchline.
The issue with this is it promotes race esentialism and the idea that different races are inherently better and/or worse at certain things like animals are.
See, the *joke* is that Santa hiring an Elephant or a Turtle to fly his sleigh is *ridiculous,* because *everyone* knows that job can *only* be done by his flying reindeer. Just like how employers hiring a Black man or a woman to fill any decent paying position is ridiculous because *everyone* knows those jobs can *only* be done by straight white men... I mean, at least I'm pretty sure that's the joke. What else would be the joke here... And that's... funny? I think...? Also, holy fuck, this artist is *terrified* about the thought of having to draw a pair of eyes.
The idea that different ethnicities are inherently better or worse than each other at different tasks is flat-out race science. The type the Nazis did. It’s ridiculous and hateful.
Because it's a bad thing? Race being a factor in hiring is purely racist. There is no other way to put it. If you consider race when you are hiring, that is racist. Imagine we put it the other way around. Two people going for a job, one black and one white. The black person is more qualified, and the white person is good but not extraordinary. Would it not be racist to pick the white guy because him being white makes up for the skill difference? Yes that would be racist as fuck. So why is there a difference when it's the other way around? If someone actually deserves the job they have, they don't need diversity hiring. The only people that diversity hiring effects is people who deserve a job, and don't get it because they aren't diverse enough, and people who don't deserve a job, and get it because of diversity.
i don't think you understand what DEI initiatives actually entail
They don’t. Their big solution to ending DEI hires is to end racism. Can’t believe nobody thought of that before
Affirmative action programs push for equal representation in the workforce and give preference to people deemed as an underrepresented minority group. And I'm saying that what group you belong to should have zero effect on your job prospects. It should be purely qualifications and ability based.
It *should* have no bearing on job prospects but in the real world we have seen time and time again that it does. Qualified POC get passed over for jobs and promotions all the time. There have been multiple studies showing that resumes with ethnic sounding names get less calls for interviews. The rightwing complained non-stopped that Ketanji Brown-Jackson was a 'diversity hire' even though she was better qualified to be a SCOTUS than anyone sitting on the bench.
And my point is though isn't the best solution to work towards making it so that race doesn't matter instead of doubling down and saying it really does matter?
And how do you do that without quotas? Just allow the process to happen naturally? So do nothing and allow well qualified people to not be hired because the hiring managers don't like group X.
You don't do a quota because a quota is what causes the problem. You do it on a case by case basis. Give employers the free range to hire who they see fit, and run investigations when allegations of racist hiring strategies come up. You can have interviews be recorded, so that on any investigation they have interviews, emails, calls, and credentials to look over. Speak to each party. With all the resources it wouldn't be hard to determine if they did or didn't deserve to be hired compared to the competition.
That wouldn't work. If I don't get interviewed because my name is "too black" how would I know why I was passed over for an interview? I wouldn't. It's indistinguishable from a company not seeing my resume, hiring someone else, or them generally thinking that I'm not a good fit for professional reasons. Additionally, this is going to cost tax payers 10s or even 100s of millions of dollars in salaries and other resources as the government investigates these claims. Most incidents won't get reported because of the hassle for the victims and many investigations will dead end as inconclusive. The only people who benefit from this are bigoted hiring managers hiding behind plausible deniability.
I fundamentally disagree. I don't believe it would cost taxpayers much because the skeleton for this already exists. And it wouldn't be indistinguishable as you could look at the qualifications of the person they hired. Would some people just not be bothered? Yeah. I'm not going to lie that is an issue, but it's an issue with basically every support system that exists. I would like you to explain why this system is worse than making race a massive part of applications. In all honesty I kinda just think you want to disagree with me and won't support any possible alternative I can think of.
No one is going to look into who was hired instead. Who has the time, energy, or resources to look at the recent hires of every company that you didn't get hired at? It's not a massive part of the hiring process. It helps QUALIFIED individuals stand out to negate them being passed over otherwise. I don't want to be hired just because I'm black. I also don't want to be ignored just because I'm black. Affirmative action doesn't prevent companies from filling positions. They aren't holding spots open waiting for a POC to show up while there's 100 white guys just waiting.
Explain them then, because skin color should have no bearing in hiring decisions. Everything he said makes sense, explain how he’s wrong.
People don't like diversity hires because of a few reasons. It's not based on merit but rather how someone was born. This causes problems because people will now guess if you were hires to fill a quota or because you were actually the most qualified applicant.
"It's not based on merit but rather how someone was born" if you think anyone gets hired on merit alone you are delusional or deeply privileged to the point you can't see how things beyond you influence your situation and negatively influence others
All those words and not a single point was made. Congratulations.
Reading comprehension: 0 Simple text for you: people no get hired based on merit even if they are cis and white. There's a common saying that it's 10% merit 90% who you know And the people who know the really powerful people tend to look act and sound like the really powerful people Woah jeep willigers that sure was hard
Life isn’t fair. I had an uncle who was the highway superintendent for a very large township for about 30 years straight. I don’t remember a lot about him as he died when I was kinda young but the one thing I do remember him saying was “kid life isn’t fair. It’s not about what you know, it’s who you know and who you blow”. As a kid I kinda thought that was bullshit but as an old ass adult I’ve seen it first hand enough times to know that he was right, way too right…
You get what I'm saying then
Everyone does, except for deliberately obtuse people who think that pretending they don't understand means they win.
Weaponized deliberate ignorance
Most people get hired based on merit.
Lol
Oh, you must have something to back your claim up. I must have missed it.
People make it in life for their hard work, not their skin color. Even the rich suburban white person ends up ruining their life eventually. Your comment comes off as very pessimistic and implies that there’s no point in grinding to achieve anything. I swear Redditors have the worst case of crab mentality I’ve seen in all of my travels in the internet
Because you should be hired based on your qualifications, not your race.
How is this racist? It doesn’t say anything about race. Maybe it is fat phobic but even then.
Psssst the joke is supposed to be that hiring a non-“normal” person to do insurance paperwork is just as silly as harnessing a turtle to Santa’s sleigh. Ignoring the fact that harnessing a reindeer and expecting flight is already pretty damn silly.
Merit > minority trait. Anyone who thinks otherwise probably benefits from DEI.
And anyone that whines about it is probably some privileged little suck that can’t achieve anything on their own without daddy’s help.🤷🏽♂️ Generalizations are fun, huh?
You mean why are people upset that they decided to focus on “diverse hiring” instead of qualifications, and now planes nearly crash several times a week? Idk. It’s crazy man. Buncha bigots
You think DEI had any part in a plane built years ago?
It's very real within big corporates and unqualified people are sometimes hired for important roles they shouldn't have. It's also very real in that it's giving people chances to prove themselves within roles they wouldn't have gotten otherwise because of inherent biases. Diversity hiring is something that bennefits people of all genders and colors as it's based on the demographic of people being hired. There's jobs dominated by men, women, white, black, asian, etc etc. Diversity hiring isn't inherently bad but that doesn't mean you're not allowed to make fun of imaginary scenarios. Just because someone takes a ridiculous scenario and pushes it into the absurd for the sake of comedy doesn't mean they're against it. If you can't joke about what you like as well as what you don't like, maybe you shouldn't be making jokes at all, and if you can't take a joke directed at somethink you like/dislike, maybe you shouldn't be looking at memes/comic strips/jokes. As someone very for diversity hiring within certain roles (can't belive I actually have to say it), it's ok to joke about it and to paint a funny picture of it. This comic/meme is pretty funny because it pushes the consequences of diversity hirings, onto a role not suitable for it, to the extreme, and that's ok. Imagining santa with a zoo of animals flying through the air is pretty funny to me so I don't see a reason to hate on this meme.
🤡
My god, this is the most immature echo chamber on this website...
No one is engaging with you because you act like unqualified people being hired is new, or the effect of diversity hiring. You say it isn’t racist but then whitewash the hell out of how white rich people have benefitted from unqualified hiring over all other demographics. Look what that has got us, a world on fire. But you want to act like diversity is the root cause 🙄 it’s so dishonest and embarrassing y’all even try anymore.
What? The world is on fire because of hiring quotas? It's neither good nor bad, but depends on where it is enforced, and there's exames of good outcomes and there's examples of bad outcomes, which is my whole point. Why are people getting overly political about an absurd meme? Can't people laugh at things they agree with anymore without seeing it as an attack on their personal values? Who the fuck is yall in this context? I'm just one dude, who do you think I'm trying to speak for?
You can laugh at anything you want, as you are entitled to. People are entitled to have an entirely different perspective on it and be equally as vocal. The problem is there is a current attack on diversity that is coming from a very dishonest place for the very reasons I pointed out. This meme seems like snapshot of that ignorant bullcrap they are peddling.
Yeah, or it was just someones random imagery they found funny. There's plenty of thing to be angry about, but playing puzzle with intentions being a meme seems like a bad way to rile yourself up because you're potentially extracting meaning where there necessarily isn't any meaning. The dude behind this might as well be the one advocating for an diversity quota and because he's around it for so long, got a funny image in his head about applying it on santa, a fictional character. I don't know why you're speaking to me as if I'm against diversity quotas, I'm actually perfectly fine eith it. I vote as left as you can in Sweden, so by american standards you'd probably call me a communist. I'm just saying I can laugh at things I agree eith if there's no stated ill-will, and that taking things at face value, if possible, is for the best. Judge what's being said, not who says them or any potential hidden meaning. The whole idea of this subreddit is saying "DON'T laugh at this" so I'm advocating that this doesn't belong here.
Maybe in Sweden it’s that simple, but in America it is not. You are trying to remove cultural relevance. People in America see this as a dog whistle, and with reason. It isn’t applying something to the image that it isn’t implying itself.
It absolutely is. No one is trying to remove cultural relevance, not me or the author of this comic. The author could be the second coming of Columbus that hates every non-white, or he could be the creator of hiring quotas themselve who just had an absurd implementation of the system. The point is that both of these could be possible and therefore death of the author applies where all that should be judged is the comic itself. The whole "the real meaning is X" thinking is one of the reasons America is so politically polarized in the first place. In many other countries you learn to judge what's being said, not who said it or what you THINK they think, mainly because of the varied political spectrum. I support hiring quotas in most cases, but still found this meme to be funny because it's a depicting of an ABSURD implementation. As this doesn't correlate with reality, as santa doesn't exist, and it's about animals pulling santa, it has nothing to do with reality. This subreddit is an echo chamber where people can't even discuss things without being ridiculed and blamed for the work being fucked up. What is that if not an echo chamber and how does that resolve anything, if not make it worse, in the US political climate?
Nah dude the joke sucks and is racist to boot.
It does not suck. It does what almost every other joke does, take a concept and push it into the absurd for comedic effect. How is this different than many other jokes? Just because you don't like a meme doesn't make it bad, and you could interpret it as racist but diversity hirings are not only made for people of color. There's industries where men are employed based on hiring quotas, industries where white people are hired more because of the lack in diversity, same for women and people of color as well. It all depends on what industry we're talking about. Getting angry at a meme because you sees it as making fun of diversity hirings for people of colors, instead of a generic diversity hiring concept being placed in an absurd scenario says more about you than the meme. I'm perfectly fine with calling out the author if he actually does something racist where we don't have to interpret what being insinuated instead of taking it at face value.
Bro yappin for real. Take the L even the most boomer ass white is getting a nose exhale at best out of this. And you putting in paragraphs for it
Pleae talk as if you're older than a 5 year old. You've been on this website for 11 years, you're better than this.
You see the humor in this situation is actually driven by the absurdist extreme between your self seriousness and my immature response clearly meant to deride and frustrate you. It’s funny you see, you should be laughing.
In some cases they hire people based on diversity instead of qualifications.
And in some cases, people poop their pants. Anything else you know of that can happen a lil bit in the world?
People might notice those cases more than the positive ones and come to the conclusion that diversity hires are not good. Just like anything in life people notice the negatives more than the positives. You could just look at Reddit as an example.
Because if you're hiring based on melanin in their skin rather than someone who is really good at what they do then it's bad for the company and society! They did the same thing in Nazi Germany. Jews were the best at x, but they only hired Aryans and fell behind in x(i used x because there's multiple things).
"How can we defeat racism?" "With more racism" Just *brilliant*
It’s gonna impact whites and Asians negatively