DNC: White men shouldn't apply for tech jobs

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

What part of deal with our own problems rather then importing more do you not understand?

Apparently all of it in your haste to make an equivalence.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
wrong thread

Who called me a Nazi?

a reply to: Blaine91555

Thank you Blaine.

a reply to: kaylaluv

I'm sorry, too.

Yeah, I agree with conservatives here, as I've seen first hand how this has taken over not just government or political organizations, but also liberal NGOs too. I've been working in all of these for a while. It's a LOT of identity politics and optics at this point. Also un-regulated faux-affirmative action. Basically people have taken it upon themselves in these orgs, sometimes with direction, to right the macro wrongs of society that they perceive by hiring or promoting minorities or women in micro settings over at times more qualified whites or men (not always, obviously sometimes the person of color or woman is the most qualified). Intrinsic to this too is an identity politics belief that the "lived experience" of a woman and especially a person of color imbues a special understanding of societal issues such as helping communities, working on poverty, promoting justice, etc. Conversely, because white people especially white males are blinded by their own privilege, and have never experienced real hardship but only "unearned privilege," they can never truly understand the issues no matter how many years of relevant experience they have nor how many degrees they have related to the topic at hand.

Similarly, diversity of mindset, experience, education, political belief is not sought, but instead diversity is seen through the above lenses of monolithic ethnic or gender based identities. So even if a political office such as in the DNC is composed of 99% stereotypical Democrats that mostly believe and say the exact same things, if you have all kinds of sexualities, gender identities, and races in the mix, it's "diverse."

Finally, I've seen first hand how these perspectives are dangerous. For example, I work on anti-poverty initiatives, which are supposed to use evidence-based, data, best practices, relevant expertise to best help a given community. So on a micro level sometimes a woman or person of color with minimal relevant expertise (if any) is propelled forward in a org because in the org's mind it will change the macro issue of under-representation in power structures, and because they are operating under the belief that those people's "lived experience" will make them know how to address the poverty or justice issue. Some of the diversity hires are great because many are qualified or highly experienced. But a lot also don't have as much qualifications as the person who lost the job to them. It's not racist or sexist to point out that truth.

The problem is when the position is for something that impacts a lot of people, either internally or externally.

For example, what if the organization is working with 60,000 homeless people and a slew of programs and partner organizations, and very serious decisions have to be made to help them, which require a great deal of experience and expertise? Often, a large proportion of the homeless community will be people of color too. By putting someone who isn't fully qualified, to meet some kind of bigger justice goal, ironically the org may be harming the groups, customers, or communities affected by the work of the org, i.e. harming more people than helping. What about the poor people, again many of which are people of color. Is it better to promote diversity hires that may or may not know what they are doing, or to promote someone regardless of identity who is highly qualified and may actually help MORE diverse people by executing better programs and using their expertise for good?

This sh%t drives me crazy, as I am around it all day every day.



a reply to: DBCowboy

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Someone a lot smarter than me once said that we should judge people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.

a reply to: ketsuko

If we wanted to deal with our own problems we wouldn't be sending $600 billion per year overseas helping to create these radicals you're so scared of.

Couldn't I just as easily make the same argument against guns? We need to deal with the gun problem, not sell more of them! Or does that not make sense? I don't think so either.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Someone a lot smarter than me once said that we should judge people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.

I agree with that, but according to many social justice folks now that is racist (being color blind erases the different experience of people of color), and also they will tell you "white people shouldn't use MLK Jr. in arguments." Lol.

I worshiped at the altar of identity politics, but i am becoming an apostate.

a reply to: IAMTAT

I don't think you are a racist either.

Well! Since they state "The DNC is an equal opportunity employer and it is our policy to recruit, hire, train, promote and administer any and all personnel actions without regard to sex, race, age, color, creed, national origin, religion, economic status, sexual orientation, veteran status, gender identity or expression, ethnic identity or disability, or any other legally protected basis" on their website, so I applied for a remote position. I just can't remember which position.

Perhaps they can hire one of the Awan's again, since they tend to double down on stupid.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Look at the computer and mathematical occupations list from the website you sourced. Women consistently make up less than 50% of the workforce in those areas. The following information contains the percent of women in different areas of computer and mathematical occupations.

Computer and mathematical occupations 25.5%
Computer systems analysts 35.7%
Information security analysts 21.8%
Software developers, applications and systems software 20.0%
Web developers 33.6%
Computer support specialists 25.5%
Database administrators 46.2%
Network and computer systems administrators 17.1%
Computer network architects 9.7%
Computer occupations, all other 23.4%

It has been well-known for a while that women are under-represented in this industry. I don't know what the exact situation is for blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals and the like because, in order to analyze that, one would have to compare their rates in the workplace to their rates in the population. But from the website you sourced, it is clear that not only are women in the minority of this industry, but minorities are, as well.

After analyzing the data on the web page you provided, I don't see how you came to the conclusion that straight, white males are not the majority of employees in the computer tech industry. According to the statistics given on the site you sourced, women consistently make up less than 50% of the workforce in this area and all minorities combined make up much less than 50%, as well.

Although you can add the percentage Hispanics, blacks, and Asians together to get a total percentage of minorities in the workforce, you cannot add this to the percent of women to get the percent of non-white males in the workforce because some women are also Hispanic, black, or Asian and this would be double-dipping.

The DNC can diss straight white male all they want.

But please be aware, that straight white male are the biggest voter group. And don‘t blame Russia, if you lose your biggest voter group.

Have fun with translesbian Latina IT pros. (have not seen many of them, though)

a reply to: kaylaluv

For what its worth,the thought of you being racist never entered my mind.

What I find amazing is they still have party members,being associated with them shows fools tend to flock together,they claim Racism,yet they are the ones promoting it,only Democrats left are welfare recipiants,people on govt giveaway programs,in other words people who do nothing but leach off the system

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: IAMTAT

Right. I should have hired the white guy. Doh!

The problem with what you are trying to sell here is that you have openly admitted that you made a hiring decision, in the end, based on race and gender. This is, by definition, an illegal hiring practice.

You, as a person, may not be a racist - but your hiring decision, in this case, was undeniably both racist and sexist.

"Diversity" is not a get out of following the law card.

The real problem was that you, as a supervisor, were not able to identify the factor (or factors), pertaining to the individuals in question, that separated them in terms of their ability to perform the function. This, sorry to say, was a failing on your part as an employer.

So, instead of doing your job and digging a little deeper to find a legitimate tie breaker - you took the easy way out and made a lazy decision, one that made you feel good about yourself (by supposedly righting some kind of societal wrong).

I am not attacking you personally here - I am only pointing out that the decision you made in this case (just like what the DNC is trying to do here) was wrong both morally and legally.

They are gonna regret the white cis backlash.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: IAMTAT

I don't think you are a racist either.

I was being facetious. However, that one hiring decision was racist.

a reply to: mobiusmale

They will be sued over this. If there actually were justice the EEOC would audit tthem

a reply to: mobiusmale

“The email in question was not authorized by the DNC nor was it authorized by senior leadership," spokesman Michael Tyler told Fox News. "All hiring decisions at the DNC are made consistent with the DNC’s commitment to equal employment opportunity and hiring an inclusive and talented staff that reflects the coalition of the Democratic Party, because our diversity is our greatest strength.”