The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[HuggyU2]

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

I have no desire trying to convince cold war fossils that we can be inclusive without lowering standards. 

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by HuggyU2

[uhhello]

4 hours ago, pawnman said:

Well, I'm not a pilot, so...

But no. I have no desire trying to convince cold war fossils that we can be inclusive without lowering standards. 

What does being inclusive mean to you though?  Don't you just hire the most qualified candidate?  I think there is very real pressure to give more points to candidates that might not be the MOST qualified in the pool.

[FLEA]

42 minutes ago, uhhello said:

What does being inclusive mean to you though?  Don't you just hire the most qualified candidate?  I think there is very real pressure to give more points to candidates that might not be the MOST qualified in the pool.

So one thing I recognized in this whole debate is there are really two cultures in hiring in the corporate world.

The first one is, you have a role, and a job description, and you are ideally going to fit the person with the highest pedigree of qualification in that role so that they can provide the most value add. 

The other perspective is you have a role, and a job description. The job description is the minimum bar to complete the job and the job as its described is all thats being asked or needed of the employee for the company to meet strategy. Any candidate who meets the minimum qualification is equally qualified with any other candidate because at the end of the day no matter how amazing they are, they will only be asked to do the job as described. 

Most all of us, think in both ways at one time or another. We are all cautious of job creep. For example, nearly everyone has been critical of airlines offering perks for things like masters degrees since its well known that for most airline pilots you're never going to be asked to make a quantitative management decision that steers the direction of the company (I know thats not 100% true and there are management pilots but this is a generalization to MOST pilots). That masters degree is then in actuality a 0 value add for that position, its just a recruiting barrier. Similarly, I was reading a post on reddit today about a C-suite executive for a major healthcare firm who wants a lower stress job and is willing to take a pay cut but recruiters won't talk to him. To some extent hiring over qualified people is problematic. For example, can I legitimately hire a former COO of a F500 to be a Project Manager? Thats likely more problems than answers. Sure his management is probably on point but whats going to be their capacity to accept authority and to not try and steer the strategy of their own management. 

The reason I bring this up though is because I've noticed that people who support large DEI initiatives tend to fall in the second camp more often than the first, and people who are critical of DEI fall in the first camp more than the second. This is just a personal observation, nothing empirical. But the DEI crowd tends to fall back a lot on "if I have 10 candidates, and all are capable to do the job as advertised, why not give the job to the person who has likely had more barriers to get here?" Where as people against DEI would further scrutinize those 10 candidates and say "well yes, but candidate A, D and F have masters degrees, and Candidate G got a 95 on his PT test, so clearly they are more qualified." 

I dont think either approach is wrong really. Job qualification creep is a real thing, but so is getting value add by hiring employees that have unique qualifications others dont. 

Edited March 16, 2023 by FLEA

[dream big]

Not sure if any of you have had the “pleasure” of working with or interacting with any of these DEI / EO types but they make MPF and finance look like mission hacking warriors. God help you if you are a white male in today’s military (I’m not). 

[RASH]

Not sure if any of you have had the “pleasure” of working with or interacting with any of these DEI / EO types but they make MPF and finance look like mission hacking warriors. God help you if you are a white male in today’s military (I’m not). 

Amen Brother


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

[pawnman]

8 hours ago, uhhello said:

What does being inclusive mean to you though?  Don't you just hire the most qualified candidate?  I think there is very real pressure to give more points to candidates that might not be the MOST qualified in the pool.

What's "the most qualified candidate" in a hiring environment with two jobs for every job seeker?

I'd want to hire qualified candidates, sure. And I'd probably not pay much attention to race or gender (unless the resume uses they/them pronouns...immediate red flag).

But I would not want to have a job where a bunch of old white guys question every woman and minority that gets hired. 

[TreeA10]

Just flew a trip with a Check Airman and those that identify under DEI categories are getting double the number of IOE flights to qualify. White guys (his words, not mine) get 5 and out. I'm thinking you must really suck to require 5 attempts at IOE so sucking twice as much can't be good.

[Biff_T]

18 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

A great opportunity for someone who wants to step away from flying. 
 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/air-force-diversity-equity-inclusion-hiring-spree-top-job.amp

They need to implement a DEI draft for the armed services.  Only women, minorities (whites in CA lol) and all of the other marginalized communities will be eligible for selection.   

How many white American men died in WWII?  Can we get some reparations for their sacrifices?  Just a bunch of dumb white men.   My grandfather flew in WWII, Korea and Vietnam.  He took flak to his right leg in WWII over Germany.   A foot away and I wouldn't be here.  How many of those men didn't make it home?  My grandfather lost a lot of buds flying daylight bombing missions in his B-26.  It wouldn't surprise me if one day, children get taught that WWII was good because it got rid if so many whites.  

DEI (dumbasses eating ice cream)  

[FourFans]

14 hours ago, FLEA said:

But the DEI crowd tends to fall back a lot on "if I have 10 candidates, and all are capable to do the job as advertised, why not give the job to the person who has likely had more barriers to get here?"

In a perfect world, yes.  That's not what's happening.  DEI assumes that if you have a certain skin color, then you must have had a disadvantage.  Assuming you overcame more barriers because you aren't white is intensely arrogant.  Imagining that you know anything about someone based on their skin color or gender has a name: RACISM.  

So I'm clear: DEI IS INSTITUTIONAL RACISM

[FLEA]

20 minutes ago, FourFans said:

In a perfect world, yes.  That's not what's happening.  DEI assumes that if you have a certain skin color, then you must have had a disadvantage.  Assuming you overcame more barriers because you aren't white is intensely arrogant.  Imagining that you know anything about someone based on their skin color or gender has a name: RACISM.  

So I'm clear: DEI IS INSTITUTIONAL RACISM

Lets take a minute and recognize the fact the DEI encompasses a lot more than race. DEI is focused on anything that is a protected class. So gender, age, disability, national origin, VETERAN STATUS..... etc.....

You are focusing on one aspect of DEI that you do not particularly like but there is a lot of other stuff out there. Most people on this forum directly benefit from DEI efforts based on age and veteran status. Many other veterans benefit off of DEI efforts protecting disability statuses. 

Edited March 16, 2023 by FLEA

[Biff_T]

They can focus on recruiting more minorities/women/trans/midgets, but I want them to only accept the best applicants, regardless of race/sexual orientation.  It all needs to be masked.  No pictures.  Just qualications and an interview wearing a full face mask, using a voice changer and a burka (race/sexual orientation will be hidden and the parties will be safe).  

They are not going to do that. 

They will be the liberal Getsapo.

[Guardian]

Why do we even do a PT test? it’s discriminatory against those who have genetic and mental barriers. It’s sickening that the military would discriminate at all on anything.

[Blue]

3 hours ago, FLEA said:

Lets take a minute and recognize the fact the DEI encompasses a lot more than race. DEI is focused on anything that is a protected class. So gender, age, disability, national origin, VETERAN STATUS..... etc.....

You are focusing on one aspect of DEI that you do not particularly like but there is a lot of other stuff out there. Most people on this forum directly benefit from DEI efforts based on age and veteran status. Many other veterans benefit off of DEI efforts protecting disability statuses. 

I think most folks on this forum would prefer that DEI go away entirely, and people be hired based upon merit alone.

My experience in corporate America has been that DEI preferences focus on very specific groups that do not include veteran status and age.

[FLEA]

22 minutes ago, Blue said:

I think most folks on this forum would prefer that DEI go away entirely, and people be hired based upon merit alone.

My experience in corporate America has been that DEI preferences focus on very specific groups that do not include veteran status and age.

You've never heard of Hiring Our Heroes? Its probably one of the largest nationally funded DEI initiatives in existence. 

Edit: Also probably one of the most successful if you compare KPI's pre 2012 to 2023. As of last year veteran under employment and unemployment is now statistically negligible from civilian counterparts. 

Edited March 16, 2023 by FLEA

[Guest nsplayr]

5 hours ago, Biff_T said:

They can focus on recruiting more minorities/women/trans/midgets, but I want them to only accept the best applicants, regardless of race/sexual orientation.  It all needs to be masked.  No pictures.  Just qualications and an interview wearing a full face mask, using a voice changer and a burka (race/sexual orientation will be hidden and the parties will be safe).  

They are not going to do that. 

They will be the liberal Getsapo.

I mean, I’m a normal liberal and I am ok with some of the milder DEI initiatives to give more opportunities to folks who have historically be underrepresented in fields like aviation or finance or whatever.

You…are having weird dark fantasies about putting hoods on people and conducting super weird interviews.

🤷‍♂️

95% of ATP holders are men for example…there’s just no believable explanation for how we arrived at that by chance or “merit” alone.

There is some natural & mostly benign career sorting by gender and that’s ok, but it ain’t 95/5. Shit, 14% of nurses are men and 11% of elementary teachers are men…and yet women are only 5% of airline pilots, a career that’s much more lucrative and provides better benefits? My wife is/was an elementary teacher and you sure as heck don’t do that job for the money or prestige, let me tell you.

Anyways, I digress. I don’t even really wanna debate any of this because I know y’all’s positions.

I’m just  here to say that as a normie liberal I think about race/sex/gender/DEI culture stuff WAY less than some of y’all on the right appear to. It’s not even in my top 20 list of things I care about, and there are way more people like me than terminally online lefty weirdos. So please just ignore them as much as you can, like I do.

[HossHarris]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

I mean, I’m a normal liberal and I am ok with some of the milder DEI initiatives to give more opportunities to folks who have historically be underrepresented in fields like aviation or finance or whatever.

You…are having weird dark fantasies about putting hoods on people and conducting super weird interviews.

🤷‍♂️

95% of ATP holders are men for example…there’s just no believable explanation for how we arrived at that by chance or “merit” alone.

There is some natural & mostly benign career sorting by gender and that’s ok, but it ain’t 95/5. Shit, 14% of nurses are men and 11% of elementary teachers are men…and yet women are only 5% of airline pilots, a career that’s much more lucrative and provides better benefits? My wife is/was an elementary teacher and you sure as heck don’t do that job for the money or prestige, let me tell you.

Anyways, I digress. I don’t even really wanna debate any of this because I know y’all’s positions.

I’m just  here to say that as a normie liberal I think about race/sex/gender/DEI culture stuff WAY less than some of y’all on the right appear to. It’s not even in my top 20 list of things I care about, and there are way more people like me than terminally online lefty weirdos. So please just ignore them as much as you can, like I do.

So is your answer to fix the societal and pipeline issues that are detecting women from getting involved in aviation ….

 

or just hire more women at the majors until you get the demographics you like (regardless of skill, experience, etc)?

[FLEA]

5 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

So is your answer to fix the societal and pipeline issues that are detecting women from getting involved in aviation ….

 

or just hire more women at the majors until you get the demographics you like (regardless of skill, experience, etc)?

Gotta start by recognizing DEI is trying to do both. So if you say "I want to get rid of DEI" you are also saying "I want to continue to keep up artificial and stupid barriers that make it harder for certain people to succeed." 

Lets start the conversation by acknowledging most people on here are specifically annoyed with the perceived notion that DEI is pushing hiring people based on a certain skin color or gender over someone who might be more qualified. Then we need some data to show that 1.) that actually happens in a significant volume. 2.) those individuals weren't hired over people who were overqualified. Because you can be overqualified for a position and you should not expect to get hired into something you are overqualified for. (Unless you deliberately alter your resume and work history to remove those overqualifications.) 

[O Face]

19 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Lets start the conversation by acknowledging most people on here are specifically annoyed with the perceived notion that DEI is pushing hiring people based on a certain skin color or gender over someone who might be more qualified. Then we need some data to show that 1.) that actually happens in a significant volume. 

Hope this helps…Sounds exactly like that data you were requesting.

Edited March 17, 2023 by O Face

[Guest nsplayr]

Well half of the population is women, technically more than half of you consider all ages, so that makes sense! If you’re taking people literally off the street and making them pilots all in-house, you should at bare minimum expect to start with ~50% women, right?

[Guest nsplayr]

33 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

So is your answer to fix the societal and pipeline issues that are detecting women from getting involved in aviation ….

 

or just hire more women at the majors until you get the demographics you like (regardless of skill, experience, etc)?

I’m just saying don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. The annoying CBTs, the intolerably weird seminars, etc., yea those aren’t helping. The DEI industrial complex is a thing and it pretty much sucks - 69% of them are a bunch of grifters of you ask me.

BUT, there’s no reason the flight deck (or the boardroom or wherever else) has to be so radically skewed white and male, or female, or whatever else depending on the field. But for aviation it’s definitely white and male.

IMHO talent is relatively evenly distributed by race, gender, etc., so if your institution is not, you are accepting more mediocrity than you should. If there are some no-shitter physical characteristics that are essential to screen for, ok. That doesn’t really exist for airline pilots, yet the group is 95% male and I’m sure very overly represented by white people as well.

And while I’m sure the vast majority of current pilots are well meaning and we’ll qualified, you don’t just continue to accept an objectively weird situation with that kind of imbalance forever.

Give more opportunities to folks who are underrepresented and you’ll find tons of excellent pilots, more than if you remained hemmed in by your very off-kilter, limited historical selection pool.

That’s my opinion at least. It’s not hard quotas or interviewing people with freaking bags over their heads, it’s nuts seeking out talent broadly and nurturing opportunities for everyone. Feel free to disagree if you’d like.

[O Face]

9 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Well half of the population is women, technically more than half of you consider all ages, so that makes sense! If you’re taking people literally off the street and making them pilots all in-house, you should at bare minimum expect to start with ~50% women, right?

Well if you bothered to read what Flea was asking for, which I was kind enough to quote, you would’ve seen that he was asking for data verifying hiring based solely on race and gender. But thank you for reminding us all that half the planet’s population is female. You’re probably right though…Must be that old (male) white devil out there telling all those girls they can’t be pilots again. 

[kaputt]

15 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Well half of the population is women, technically more than half of you consider all ages, so that makes sense! If you’re taking people literally off the street and making them pilots all in-house, you should at bare minimum expect to start with ~50% women, right?

Seriously dude? Do you really think this is how the real world works?

The real world does not have a perfectly symmetrical representation of demographics spread evenly throughout every single aspect of life. 
 

Want to know why? Because actual people are not defined by their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc… People are people; made up of their own experiences, desires, and preferences that have absolutely zero to do with their uncontrollable physical attributes. 
 

Want to know how stupid your comment sounds? The NBA is 75% black, but 75% of the population is white. Youth basketball should obviously be made up of 75% white kids as the entry point to the sport. Gotta make those demographics even and match reality. 
 

Oh wait, no one would argue that. 

Edited March 17, 2023 by kaputt

[Guest nsplayr]

I mean TBH if you have a relatively average town demographically and the pee-wee basketball league is like 75% black kids at age 5…yea you probably should encourage more white boys and girls to play! Never know when you’re gonna find the next Alex Caruso 😂 #WhiteMamba. Did you see Mac McClung win the dunk contest? VA white boy, represent!

Same goes with super early pilot training or pipeline programs…you have not selected for any skill or experience at all at that point, and because I believe talent is evenly distributed, yea you should try to have a relatively representative group.

Same story also for stuff like ROTC - you don’t want your Officer corps to be all male, all southern, all white,  all middle class, etc. Those things are all fine (I am all four!) but there’s talent elsewhere too that you’d miss if you just let societies proclivities and stereotypes run rampant forever. There’s a brittleness that comes with too much sameness that can be hard to see when you are part of the in-group.

Your current crop of ready & willing ATP holders in 2023, yea you hire who’s most qualified now when there’s severe need; don’t hire some random trans black Romanian or whatever with zero flight hours just because. This is your NBA red herring and why there’s no affirmative action for talentless white wanna-ballers like myself. But that’s not happening. Anyone saying we’re less safe in commercial aviation today because of DEI is full of shit unless they have very convincing receipts.

Thinking long-term though, as the airline CEOs are / should be doing, you can do better when you home-grow people like the majors are starting to do with these fight academies.

I have two daughters with zero flight hours each, but there’s absolutely no reason they should not envision themselves as ATP pilots when they grow up nor should there be a lack of great opportunities for them to pursue that if they so choose. Representation and opportunities do actually matter, especially in high-powered, high-status careers, and I hope to see more of both for my girls or other young people like them who are not well represented in cockpits today.

Edited March 17, 2023 by nsplayr

[arg]

Dr. Rachel Levine says changing kids' genders will soon be fully embraced: 'Wheels will turn on this'

https://www.foxnews.com/media/dr-rachel-levine-changing-kids-genders-soon-fully-embraced-wheels-turn




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[bfargin]

25 minutes ago, arg said:

Dr. Rachel Levine says changing kids' genders will soon be fully embraced: 'Wheels will turn on this'
 

That dude is a complete nutjob.