The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[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

[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

[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?

[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

[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. 

[dream big]

3 hours ago, nsplayr said:

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.

So what if it is skewed? As long as the most qualified are being hired and everyone has an opportunity to tryout, then who cares what people look like? If a group of people I’m working with are all disabled transgender black females, but the most qualified… then great! If that same group were all white men…then who cares?

The dudes on this group are talking about it because “those left of you” have made institutionalized racism a comeback in places like the airlines and military. 

Also what problem is DEI trying to solve? Are we losing wars because there aren’t enough minority female generals? Are aircraft incidents on the rise because of old white males? Or is it about feelings and perception…quality and competence be damned? Because that is an unacceptable experiment in fields where quality and competence impacts lives.

Finally, what rights do white males have in terms of getting a pilots license that minorities and females do not? Are women not allowed to pursue aviation, nor minorities? There is no law in place that prevents anyone from pursuing a pilot career. Now, if you want to make the financial barrier argument, for example, African Americans, I’ll buy that and to that point have no issue with flight schools doing outreach, mentorship and offering scholarships. Those should be offered to underprivileged without thought of race/gender but that’s just my opinion. However, having a mandatory quota based on race (United, and let’s be honest many programs in our military) is racist and dangerous. 

[SocialD]

8 hours ago, nsplayr said:

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

🤷‍♂️

 

 

This is what they'd do if they truly cared about removing bias and hiring the most qualified people.  Anything that could lead to a conclusion on demographics would be masked on applications. The interviewers wouldn't see the person being interviewed and their voices would be modulated to avoid detection of any accents (tons of bias based on that).  But that wouldn't meet the agenda, so it would never happen.  

[Inertia17]

7 hours 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?

An issue with setting demographic based quotas is that they don't take into account the interest of said groups. While at least partially due to perception, ie seeing that aviation is 95% male can be discouraging to some women, it isn't simply a matter of setting a demographic for a class. Men and Women tend to gravitate towards certain fields based on interest, which could be argued til the end of time whether it is nature vs nurture, but most engineers are men, most nurses are women. Things vs people. Aviation is a "thing" field. A demographic quota doesn't make sense, and forces the wrong kind of hiring.

If you want to move the number, increase the interest in the groups you want, then continue to hire based on merit. Reference the multiple female demo pilots, show them it can be done, this can be you. Interest grows, hire those who can do the thing, the number moves.

[Boomer6]

I don’t know that anyone is arguing that there should be barriers to ppl based on physical traits they’re born with, specifically in aviation jobs. However, there are a lot of company/gov led initiatives that are pushing certain groups of ppl based on physical traits they’re born with. I get the impression after years of these arguments on BO that the liberal minded ppl here and in America have no problem with physical traits being the discriminator as long as it helps someone get a job, but consider it abhorrent if the situation is reversed. I don’t understand how that isn’t a hypocritical viewpoint.

[tac airlifter]

22 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

I don’t know that anyone is arguing that there should be barriers to ppl based on physical traits they’re born with, specifically in aviation jobs. 

Liberals are arguing there should be barriers to people based on physical traits they are born with in aviation jobs.  They don’t think they are arguing this, but they are.  They talk about opportunities and shattering glass ceilings, and similar emotional gibberish that sounds inspirational and forward thinking at first contact.  However, because there are a finite number of jobs, any hiring advantage given to one group based on their immutable characteristics has deleterious impacts on those outside that group.  A job in the majors is already highly competitive with far more qualified applicants than positions; ergo preference to one skin color/genitalia necessarily creates a higher barrier to those without the desired qualities. 

Flea/NS: is there any proof that race/gender based hiring increases aviation safety or efficiency?  Is there any danger they could threaten aviation safety or efficiency?  I’m sure you are both well meaning bros who want to answer “yes and no” respectively, but consider the question not from your altruistic motives but from the perspective of cold-hearted corporations driven solely by financial incentives.  

[brabus]

Perhaps a lot of talking past each other here. DEI progressives/leftists/grifters (whatever you want to call them) only care about a narrative, which is to say they want to cook the books with numbers and don’t give a fuck about actual qualifications or merit, and in fact are biased and racists against certain demographics. On the other side are the ultra-right people who think women don’t belong in a cockpit, gay people can’t possibly be doctors, etc. (insert whatever other similar statement you want). 
 

I think most of us agree DEI could simply be destroying barriers to truly provide equality of opportunity. I don’t give a fuck how many white vs. black fly airplanes, but we can do better recruiting and educating in inner city Atlanta. I don’t care if we have 50% women or 2% women pilots, but we can put more effort into targeted recruiting at women’s schools, female sports events, whatever. We should be after these demographics not because of physical traits, but to maximize the applicant pool and look for hiring opportunities to diversify backgrounds (and therefore thought), but with zero fucks given about immutable traits. That direction and weight of effort of education and recruitment is how DEI could be a good thing, but instead, as it stands today, is all kinds of fucked up. 

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by brabus

[ClearedHot]

I don't even have words to respond.

Clean pantries are ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’: Loyola marketing scholar