I applaud and will defend the right of any American to speak their mind, protest and be as "woke" as they want to be....but...
Let me give those of you who are a little dose of reality. I will do it in digestible bites so that it is easy to understand.
1. Most companies in the US are small to medium sized concerns.
2. For every job opening, the hiring manager will receive hundreds of résumé's.
3. The hiring manager is looking to hire somebody who will do a job and do it with a minimum of hassle. If, he/she thinks the potential employee will be a problem employee that potential employee is passed over.
...So...
4. The hiring manager starts with a series of screens to quickly weed out people that will not be hired. A list of potential screens include:
-- A liberal arts degree from a liberal arts college especially ones on either coast.
-- A statement of preferred pronouns.
-- A poor GPA.
-- Hobbies that have anything to do with societal hot button topics.
5. Any résumé's that check one of the above boxes are immediately discarded into the "no" pile.
6. Only then do they sort the résumé's for potential phone interviews, face-to-face interviews and the selection of a person to fill a position.
I don't think today's universities are helping their students to understand that businesses are not in business to provide jobs. A business is created to make a product that customers want. The business then sells that product at a competitive price and reap the profits for reinvestment, new hiring, expansion and a plethora of other actions.
If a hiring manager believes that the value trade-off for hiring you will not help achieve his/her goals and get the work done, you will not be hired. And, I would suggest, hiring managers are becoming ever more discriminating as much of our "woke" brethren are proving themselves to be not worth the risk.
Reading the paper today I noticed a piece from the news organization Anonymous Propaganda (AP) where the writer was describing a shooting and he kept referring to the Negroid shooter as a “Black” man and the Caucasian victim as a “white” man. First, I wondered why Black was capitalized and white was not. Then I thought, what if the people weren’t 100% black or 100% white but of mixed races? If we aren’t 100% black or 100% white, we should not be identified as black or white. It isn’t fair to the people who are 100% black or 100% white.
Originally, there were only three races: Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasian. Later, Australoid was added. Currently, Harvard University recognizes African, European, Asian, Oceania and Native American. Some even list “Black” as a race but that doesn’t seem fair to the aboriginal people of Australia who tend to be very dark skinned but are considered to be of the Australoid race. The fact is, various organizations disagree on a precise list of races. What most organizations do acknowledge is that there are very, very few people today that are 100% pure any race. So, what do we call these people of mixed races especially since most of us are, at least a little, mixed race?
Let’s say a purely black woman (Mary) marries a purely white man (Joe) and they have a son which they name Grayson. Is the child gray? Brown seems wrong for two reasons. First according to color charts black mixed with white results in gray and secondly, some other group has already claimed brown. The first and most important question is, obviously, do we capitalize “gray” when referring to Grayson’s race? After all, the white parent’s race isn’t capitalized but the Black parent’s race is.
Now if Grayson’s Black mother instead married an Asian man, what would be the color of Grayson’s race? We know it would be capitalized since “Black” is capitalized and “Asian” is capitalized but what color can we call this person without offending them? If Black is a race and white is a race then we are not being fair to the other races if we do not give them a color. There are only two options. One is to give these other races their own color and the other is to remove black and white from the racial description. If we remove color from race, Grayson would be Black-Asian “Blasian” (notice the capitalization) or Asian-Black “Asack” (again capitalized). But I digress.
For the purposes of this discussion, let’s say Grayson’s parents are Black and white. Now let’s say Grayson, who is gray, grows up and marries a purely white person and they have a child. Now this child would be light gray but, again, would it be capitalized? It is ¼ Black (capitalized) and ¾ white (non-capitalized).
What if, instead of marrying a purely white person Grayson marries a purely black person and they have a child. This child is dark gray sure, but capitalized? ¾ capitalized, ¼ non-capitalized. What if, Grayson marries a Native American. No idea what color but ¾ capitalized and ¼ non-capitalized. Native American-Gray “Nagray”?
Now, half-way around the world, while Mary and Joe were raising their kid, a Mongoloid woman (Bopha) and an Australoid man (Jarrah) married and gave birth to a daughter which they named Billy-Jo. Billy-Jo’s race is obviously capitalized because both her parents came from capitalized races but what color? Again, perhaps it’s not a color but “Monaus” or “Ausmon”.
Now, let’s say Grayson and Billy-Jo are all grown up and Billy Jo is on a business trip to where Grayson lives. They meet, fall in love, get married and have a child which they name “Hyoomon”.
Who can tell me what color and what race Hyoomon is and should it be capitalized?
Over thousands of years the races have become somewhat mixed and they are becoming more and more each year. Did you know that race cannot be determined with DNA? Race is really not a biological thing. It only exists because the media keeps it alive. Morgan Freeman has the best advice on how to get rid of racism: “Stop talking about it.” When Mike Wallace asked Morgan Freeman on 60 minutes “How’re we supposed to end racism…?” Freeman responded, “Stop talking about it. I’m going to stop calling you a white man. And I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. I’m not going to say, ‘I know this white guy named Mike Wallace.’
Freeman is absolutely right. The media doesn’t say the “Protestant” kid was killed by the “Baptist” cop. They don’t say the “gay” cop shot the “straight” robber. They don’t say the “Democrat” man robbed the “Republican” man. They don’t say the “smart” guy killed the “stupid” guy. Why draw the line at race? Should a “journalist” for Anonymous Propaganda (AP) write, “Yesterday a short, black, middle aged, gay, Catholic, Libertarian police officer shot a fat, bearded, half white, half Native American, Democrat, burglar whose sexual preference was not immediately known”? Why is it impossible for them to avoid saying the “black” guy shot the “white” guy or vice versa? If a black man shoots a white man, isn’t the real news that a human being shot another human being? Who cares what color they are? We are all human beings regardless of race, so why bring it up?
Some 20 years ago I watched Ed Bradley interview a Black family of professionals, doctors, lawyers, teachers and bankers (mother, father, 4 grown children) on 60 minutes. The family lived in an affluent black neighborhood in suburban Atlanta. At one point, Mr Bradley prefaced a question by saying, “As African Americans…”. One of the sons jumped up and said, We’re not African anything. We’re Americans who happen to be Black.”
We are all guilty of using a descriptive adjective at some point to identify ourselves.
We are Irish Americans, Native American, Italian American, German American etc. This is usually done when we want to identify ourselves as part of a group even though we go back three or four generations of family born in the US. When does it end? When we all become tan Americans?
I was always friends with the more traditional moms in my daughters' school. They were the older moms and frankly they were more the recently emigrated moms. The career and working moms just didn't have time or focus, and interacting with their hired caregivers was exhausting, because they are getting paid on the clock while my time was Free, and my "privilege" was there for the taking. I did have a lot of respect for the dads who took on the caregiving, they were great.
The school identified its "privileged" members by race AND gender orientation. Then it invited or instructed "us" in renouncing it. I was to joyfully renounce my straight privilege in order to prove my commitment to be an ally against straight white men, which is half my family and many of my friends. Don't call that teacher with cut off breasts a her. Don't call out to your sisters and brothers. No public women's bathroom, all should be genderless "like we have in our homes". As if public and private space should be indistinguishable. No gendered titles. Including mother and father. And that went in lockstep with the antiracism.
I didn't like it. My child was bullied, and they had no reasonable remedy, in spite of their endless meetings to codify hate speech. I spoke out, and I had to leave.
I really don't see this way of treating people working out in the long term. But it has been very effective in turning moms against each other, and family against each other, and destroying friendships, in the last several years.
OMG, listening to these three guys - well maybe mainly Loury and McWorter - are like listening to three would be intellectuals engaging in an intellectual circle jerk. So many memes, buzz words, simplistic analyses. Really, I started counting the times some intellectualist trend word was used, but ran out of numbers.
I cut it off with 17.11 to go. What they needed was a moderator with guts to insist that they speak propositions with reference to evidence.
If Righties are gonna look to these folks, you gonna be very disappointed.
The funniest part was when McWorter and Loury seemed appalled that "Righties" actually like what they write. Almost embarrassed by it. You could not have exposed yourselves more than that guys!
As a child of the sixties, I learned from my family, my school, and my government to judge others by the content of character; not just some immutable human characteristic. None carried this prescription for human relations to a higher standard than Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. Their books and weekly writings epitomized the unbiased human ideal. When their voices became silent, the vacuum drew in the likes of BLM, CRT, Ibram X. Kendi, Kimberle Crenshaw, and Robin DiAngelo. To me, it is appalling to accept teachings where your character is defined by skin color and ignoring skin color is proof of unconscious bias. How can anyone actually believe such thoughts, much less promote them as the means to improve societal virtue?
Just in the nick of time, Glenn Laurie and John McWhorter have come forward to carry on with the intellectual integrity of Sowell and Williams. Like their predecessors, Laurie and McWhorter take a humanistic approach in the analysis of the issues. Anyone who seeks a thoughtful perspective on cultural matters would do well to spend time with them. If you begin to follow Laurie and McWhorter, notice they are unafraid to defend their ideas in a wide variety of venues. Compare this to the “skin color” grifters who seemingly only take their message into safe spaces.
You sound really bitter. It's 2022. Equal opportunity, not equal results, right? Maybe if you worked harder, had better morals, etc. You could be successful too. Yes...my color is SUPREMELY important to me. Society has made that clear, so I have had to learn, as Dubois called it, "double consciousness."
While I agree with them, overall the so-called "reckoning" in America needs to come from the black side. Collective punishment was supposed to have died with the Nazis, yet 4 generations of whites who had nothing to do with slavery are supposed to apologize and feel badly.
There are several very interesting YouTube videos of the children or grandchildren of Nazi camp murderers having civil, kind, decent meetings with Jewish survivors. Jews also have the Righteous Among the Nations designation, for the scant few who tried to help them during the Nazi slaughter. Blacks have no such appreciation for the over 300,000 white men who died trying to liberate them.
There are no black slavery survivors alive, nor have there been for generations. The "legacy of slavery" is a self-imposed handicap by which black families tell their kids stupid things that create fear and a sense of inferiority. When you tell a person all their problems are the other guy's fault, they are helpless. When you tell them the other guy is a jerk and its up to you to make your way, the message is that you can fix your own life.
Enough already. If a white person does something racist and wrong towards a black, that is between them. It has nothing to do with the other 340,000,000 Americans who are not implicated. The most recent Pew surveys show that about 12% of Americans have anti-black views. About 15% have anti-Jewish views. As for the latter, 45% of them are black.
There are people in every culture who can not survive for numerous reasons who simply need help. In America we supposedly give that help through multiple programs not because we are a decent society but to prevent revolution by these segments. So either give that help to be decent. Give that help to prevent revolution. But when you label segments within segments then you are a .....( Please finish this with your words).
King had a 69-70% disapproval rating at the time of his death. One of the most hated men in American history. Also had many ideas re: reparations, economic policy that you would disagree with. If you anything more than the one partial, out of context quote everyone loves, you would know that.
But love how black people voted for Obama because they, according to you, thought they'd get something. Thank God white people never do that. "Identity politcs" is a new phenomenon that's going to destroy us all. So sad.
I applaud and will defend the right of any American to speak their mind, protest and be as "woke" as they want to be....but...
Let me give those of you who are a little dose of reality. I will do it in digestible bites so that it is easy to understand.
1. Most companies in the US are small to medium sized concerns.
2. For every job opening, the hiring manager will receive hundreds of résumé's.
3. The hiring manager is looking to hire somebody who will do a job and do it with a minimum of hassle. If, he/she thinks the potential employee will be a problem employee that potential employee is passed over.
...So...
4. The hiring manager starts with a series of screens to quickly weed out people that will not be hired. A list of potential screens include:
-- A liberal arts degree from a liberal arts college especially ones on either coast.
-- A statement of preferred pronouns.
-- A poor GPA.
-- Hobbies that have anything to do with societal hot button topics.
5. Any résumé's that check one of the above boxes are immediately discarded into the "no" pile.
6. Only then do they sort the résumé's for potential phone interviews, face-to-face interviews and the selection of a person to fill a position.
I don't think today's universities are helping their students to understand that businesses are not in business to provide jobs. A business is created to make a product that customers want. The business then sells that product at a competitive price and reap the profits for reinvestment, new hiring, expansion and a plethora of other actions.
If a hiring manager believes that the value trade-off for hiring you will not help achieve his/her goals and get the work done, you will not be hired. And, I would suggest, hiring managers are becoming ever more discriminating as much of our "woke" brethren are proving themselves to be not worth the risk.
For what it's worth...g.
Reading the paper today I noticed a piece from the news organization Anonymous Propaganda (AP) where the writer was describing a shooting and he kept referring to the Negroid shooter as a “Black” man and the Caucasian victim as a “white” man. First, I wondered why Black was capitalized and white was not. Then I thought, what if the people weren’t 100% black or 100% white but of mixed races? If we aren’t 100% black or 100% white, we should not be identified as black or white. It isn’t fair to the people who are 100% black or 100% white.
Originally, there were only three races: Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasian. Later, Australoid was added. Currently, Harvard University recognizes African, European, Asian, Oceania and Native American. Some even list “Black” as a race but that doesn’t seem fair to the aboriginal people of Australia who tend to be very dark skinned but are considered to be of the Australoid race. The fact is, various organizations disagree on a precise list of races. What most organizations do acknowledge is that there are very, very few people today that are 100% pure any race. So, what do we call these people of mixed races especially since most of us are, at least a little, mixed race?
Let’s say a purely black woman (Mary) marries a purely white man (Joe) and they have a son which they name Grayson. Is the child gray? Brown seems wrong for two reasons. First according to color charts black mixed with white results in gray and secondly, some other group has already claimed brown. The first and most important question is, obviously, do we capitalize “gray” when referring to Grayson’s race? After all, the white parent’s race isn’t capitalized but the Black parent’s race is.
Now if Grayson’s Black mother instead married an Asian man, what would be the color of Grayson’s race? We know it would be capitalized since “Black” is capitalized and “Asian” is capitalized but what color can we call this person without offending them? If Black is a race and white is a race then we are not being fair to the other races if we do not give them a color. There are only two options. One is to give these other races their own color and the other is to remove black and white from the racial description. If we remove color from race, Grayson would be Black-Asian “Blasian” (notice the capitalization) or Asian-Black “Asack” (again capitalized). But I digress.
For the purposes of this discussion, let’s say Grayson’s parents are Black and white. Now let’s say Grayson, who is gray, grows up and marries a purely white person and they have a child. Now this child would be light gray but, again, would it be capitalized? It is ¼ Black (capitalized) and ¾ white (non-capitalized).
What if, instead of marrying a purely white person Grayson marries a purely black person and they have a child. This child is dark gray sure, but capitalized? ¾ capitalized, ¼ non-capitalized. What if, Grayson marries a Native American. No idea what color but ¾ capitalized and ¼ non-capitalized. Native American-Gray “Nagray”?
Now, half-way around the world, while Mary and Joe were raising their kid, a Mongoloid woman (Bopha) and an Australoid man (Jarrah) married and gave birth to a daughter which they named Billy-Jo. Billy-Jo’s race is obviously capitalized because both her parents came from capitalized races but what color? Again, perhaps it’s not a color but “Monaus” or “Ausmon”.
Now, let’s say Grayson and Billy-Jo are all grown up and Billy Jo is on a business trip to where Grayson lives. They meet, fall in love, get married and have a child which they name “Hyoomon”.
Who can tell me what color and what race Hyoomon is and should it be capitalized?
Over thousands of years the races have become somewhat mixed and they are becoming more and more each year. Did you know that race cannot be determined with DNA? Race is really not a biological thing. It only exists because the media keeps it alive. Morgan Freeman has the best advice on how to get rid of racism: “Stop talking about it.” When Mike Wallace asked Morgan Freeman on 60 minutes “How’re we supposed to end racism…?” Freeman responded, “Stop talking about it. I’m going to stop calling you a white man. And I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. I’m not going to say, ‘I know this white guy named Mike Wallace.’
Freeman is absolutely right. The media doesn’t say the “Protestant” kid was killed by the “Baptist” cop. They don’t say the “gay” cop shot the “straight” robber. They don’t say the “Democrat” man robbed the “Republican” man. They don’t say the “smart” guy killed the “stupid” guy. Why draw the line at race? Should a “journalist” for Anonymous Propaganda (AP) write, “Yesterday a short, black, middle aged, gay, Catholic, Libertarian police officer shot a fat, bearded, half white, half Native American, Democrat, burglar whose sexual preference was not immediately known”? Why is it impossible for them to avoid saying the “black” guy shot the “white” guy or vice versa? If a black man shoots a white man, isn’t the real news that a human being shot another human being? Who cares what color they are? We are all human beings regardless of race, so why bring it up?
Some 20 years ago I watched Ed Bradley interview a Black family of professionals, doctors, lawyers, teachers and bankers (mother, father, 4 grown children) on 60 minutes. The family lived in an affluent black neighborhood in suburban Atlanta. At one point, Mr Bradley prefaced a question by saying, “As African Americans…”. One of the sons jumped up and said, We’re not African anything. We’re Americans who happen to be Black.”
We are all guilty of using a descriptive adjective at some point to identify ourselves.
We are Irish Americans, Native American, Italian American, German American etc. This is usually done when we want to identify ourselves as part of a group even though we go back three or four generations of family born in the US. When does it end? When we all become tan Americans?
I was always friends with the more traditional moms in my daughters' school. They were the older moms and frankly they were more the recently emigrated moms. The career and working moms just didn't have time or focus, and interacting with their hired caregivers was exhausting, because they are getting paid on the clock while my time was Free, and my "privilege" was there for the taking. I did have a lot of respect for the dads who took on the caregiving, they were great.
The school identified its "privileged" members by race AND gender orientation. Then it invited or instructed "us" in renouncing it. I was to joyfully renounce my straight privilege in order to prove my commitment to be an ally against straight white men, which is half my family and many of my friends. Don't call that teacher with cut off breasts a her. Don't call out to your sisters and brothers. No public women's bathroom, all should be genderless "like we have in our homes". As if public and private space should be indistinguishable. No gendered titles. Including mother and father. And that went in lockstep with the antiracism.
I didn't like it. My child was bullied, and they had no reasonable remedy, in spite of their endless meetings to codify hate speech. I spoke out, and I had to leave.
I really don't see this way of treating people working out in the long term. But it has been very effective in turning moms against each other, and family against each other, and destroying friendships, in the last several years.
The depth, intellect and civility of this discussion brought tears to my eyes because it has gotten so lost for most.
Hey great job ! Compliments to K’mele!
It’s ALWAYS a pleasure when common sense brings even More REASON!
Ladies- enjoy your baby!
OMG, listening to these three guys - well maybe mainly Loury and McWorter - are like listening to three would be intellectuals engaging in an intellectual circle jerk. So many memes, buzz words, simplistic analyses. Really, I started counting the times some intellectualist trend word was used, but ran out of numbers.
I cut it off with 17.11 to go. What they needed was a moderator with guts to insist that they speak propositions with reference to evidence.
If Righties are gonna look to these folks, you gonna be very disappointed.
The funniest part was when McWorter and Loury seemed appalled that "Righties" actually like what they write. Almost embarrassed by it. You could not have exposed yourselves more than that guys!
Too bad Thomas Sowell hasnt been consulted for this cast.
As a child of the sixties, I learned from my family, my school, and my government to judge others by the content of character; not just some immutable human characteristic. None carried this prescription for human relations to a higher standard than Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. Their books and weekly writings epitomized the unbiased human ideal. When their voices became silent, the vacuum drew in the likes of BLM, CRT, Ibram X. Kendi, Kimberle Crenshaw, and Robin DiAngelo. To me, it is appalling to accept teachings where your character is defined by skin color and ignoring skin color is proof of unconscious bias. How can anyone actually believe such thoughts, much less promote them as the means to improve societal virtue?
Just in the nick of time, Glenn Laurie and John McWhorter have come forward to carry on with the intellectual integrity of Sowell and Williams. Like their predecessors, Laurie and McWhorter take a humanistic approach in the analysis of the issues. Anyone who seeks a thoughtful perspective on cultural matters would do well to spend time with them. If you begin to follow Laurie and McWhorter, notice they are unafraid to defend their ideas in a wide variety of venues. Compare this to the “skin color” grifters who seemingly only take their message into safe spaces.
You sound really bitter. It's 2022. Equal opportunity, not equal results, right? Maybe if you worked harder, had better morals, etc. You could be successful too. Yes...my color is SUPREMELY important to me. Society has made that clear, so I have had to learn, as Dubois called it, "double consciousness."
While I agree with them, overall the so-called "reckoning" in America needs to come from the black side. Collective punishment was supposed to have died with the Nazis, yet 4 generations of whites who had nothing to do with slavery are supposed to apologize and feel badly.
There are several very interesting YouTube videos of the children or grandchildren of Nazi camp murderers having civil, kind, decent meetings with Jewish survivors. Jews also have the Righteous Among the Nations designation, for the scant few who tried to help them during the Nazi slaughter. Blacks have no such appreciation for the over 300,000 white men who died trying to liberate them.
There are no black slavery survivors alive, nor have there been for generations. The "legacy of slavery" is a self-imposed handicap by which black families tell their kids stupid things that create fear and a sense of inferiority. When you tell a person all their problems are the other guy's fault, they are helpless. When you tell them the other guy is a jerk and its up to you to make your way, the message is that you can fix your own life.
Enough already. If a white person does something racist and wrong towards a black, that is between them. It has nothing to do with the other 340,000,000 Americans who are not implicated. The most recent Pew surveys show that about 12% of Americans have anti-black views. About 15% have anti-Jewish views. As for the latter, 45% of them are black.
Who should be reckoning with whom?
I think you’re being drowned-out by the Vice President herself.
The fight is about money, in the end.
Some very powerful people are running a game which literally does transfer cash from group to group.
So, not zero sum, is it.
There are people in every culture who can not survive for numerous reasons who simply need help. In America we supposedly give that help through multiple programs not because we are a decent society but to prevent revolution by these segments. So either give that help to be decent. Give that help to prevent revolution. But when you label segments within segments then you are a .....( Please finish this with your words).
Welcome to America
No matter what you the individual may achieve if you are Jewish you get knifed
If you are black you get arrested
And the new media fuels it daily
But noone is actually seeing reality
That america has been invaded by those seeking to revive the ottoman empire
And the news media is ignoring this invasion
As a Black native Southerner, I find myself reading the vast majority of these responses, shaking my head, and saying "Bless your heart."
I'm white and I'm shaking my head too. Not saying bless your heart though.
Isn't that the southern Lingo for go fuck yourselves or something similar?
It can be, among other things; it all depends on the context in which it's used. The way in which I used it isn't quite that antagonistic though.
King had a 69-70% disapproval rating at the time of his death. One of the most hated men in American history. Also had many ideas re: reparations, economic policy that you would disagree with. If you anything more than the one partial, out of context quote everyone loves, you would know that.
But love how black people voted for Obama because they, according to you, thought they'd get something. Thank God white people never do that. "Identity politcs" is a new phenomenon that's going to destroy us all. So sad.