Jump to content

The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)


tac airlifter

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

It's about time. Men have spent thousands of years being told how hard it is to be a woman. Now we've only been doing it for a few years and we're already winning awards. Truly inspirational!

image.png.5235d2de54e390276585485aecbe76da.png

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

It's about time. Men have spent thousands of years being told how hard it is to be a woman. Now we've only been doing it for a few years and we're already winning awards. Truly inspirational!

Took a few years, but the patriarchy finally found a way to beat those feminists. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I better not see any of you non Irish Catholics celebrating St Patty's Day.  I'm tired of all of the cultural appropriation.   

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Biff_T said:

 

I don't think "he" knows what genocide means.  

 

He def doesn’t, but then again he has serious mental/psychological issues that just might be clouding his thinking.

Why are we letting the lunatics run this asylum?

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/03/business/disneyland-zip-a-dee-doo-dah-removal/index.html

Thank you Disney!  You have done this world a great service.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Classic article attributed to Hanoi Jane? I’m doubtful she penned it, but it might be the only time I’ve even partially agreed with anything she’s said or written. I guess even Hollywood elites have their hot buttons (DEI and bad chocolate).

“Hershey, You Owe Us an Apology

Jane Fonda
March 2, 2023

I know I’m being highly presumptuous in speaking for the women of the world, but I’m old and I can handle the heat. Shame on you Hershey for slapping half of the worlds population in the face with your latest HerShe campaign. Your misguided decision to highlight a man posing as a woman as your symbol of female empowerment on National Woman’s day is offensive to all of us. With approximately 3.5 billion real women roaming this earth, you decided as a company that Herman Munster in drag best represents the incredible strength, empathy, brilliance, grace, and beauty of us women. 

In all fairness, I’m guessing that 3 or 4 of your recent DEI hires got together and with their academically rigorous gender studies, women’s studies, queer studies, and/or lesbian dance theory majors (for accuracy’s sake I’m hoping they are Bachelor of Science rather than Bachelor of Arts degrees) decided that a man somehow makes a better woman than a true woman. Then, these seriously confused employees, convinced a group of seemingly rational and mentally stable executives into signing off on the insanity. I’m sure they convinced you of the value of the large green check-mark the company would earn on the annual DEI scorecard.

The only positive thing this decision to champion a man as a symbol for woman’s empowerment did, was highlight how unnecessary and divisive the DEI influence on companies is. Truthfully, while it allows the aforementioned worthless degree holders to obtain a lucrative job inciting mistrust and division within companies, DEI makes no positive contribution to the workplace. The DEI label might sound good, but the execution results in decisions like this by otherwise intelligent executives. I’m still hoping you’ll do the right thing as a company and apologize to all of the women of the world for insulting us, but I won’t hold my breath.

My final advice for you as a company is to focus on making decent chocolate. Your time would be better spent buying Milka’s or UK Cadbury’s chocolate recipe instead of business as usual selling the brown paraffin wax bars you call chocolate. If you can’t obtain a good recipe, at least let Cadburys North America use the recipe from England so we can enjoy good chocolate on this side of the world.”

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
16 hours ago, bfargin said:

Continuation of DEI from airline thread. I thought this was timely.

 

AEE9B1E9-9F92-4D2A-A56A-0DDB094D155D.jpeg

This would be funny if it wasn't true.  I feel bad for the Mesa guy hitching a ride home.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

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

 

6E50C1B4-7A65-4DF5-9B3A-7C991F33529D.gif

Edited by HuggyU2
  • Like 4
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by FLEA
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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). 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...