liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: It seems that you believe that there is a direct connection between hiring more minorities and women and people not knowing their jobs. Please explain your basis for making that connection

If I am tasked to hire the best applicant I can find I will have the most qualified person for the job.

If I am tasked to hire the best applicant who has the right race/sex I will not have the most qualified person for the job.

Really not that complicated. Unless of course you belive having a certain race/sex makes you better at a job.

You've never hired a person in your life, have you?

Yes, I have.

I have also worked in a company where people got bonuses for getting women and mionorities through training.



Philip Francis Queeg: Is there always one person who is clearly more qualified than everyone else? No, of course not.

Always, no, often times, yes.


Philip Francis Queeg: Generally you have a pool of people who's experience and other qualities provide far murkier picture. Some will be better suited to some portion of the job than others. There are all sorts of pluses and minuses in each applicant that need to be balanced and weighed to determine who will be the best hire for the company

I agree. And none of that disagrees with what I said unless you believe being of certain race/sex is some sort of "plus" or "minus".

So are you just babbling here or do you believe that being of certain race/sex is some sort of plus" or "minus".

As I said before, having people from a wide variety of backgrounds is definitely a plus in my experience. I've worked at firms without a single woman or minority professional. That clearly left us less aware of certain issues and concerns that faced our clients.

Tell us, do you think an all white male firm is going to be able to understand and anticipate the needs and concerns of a diverse society as well as a firm who's employees more closely reflect that diversity?

Parmenius: or, "Top Five Strawmen the GOP uses to Poison Debate"


And we are done.

Philip Francis Queeg: So are you just babbling here or do you believe that being of certain race/sex is some sort of plus" or "minus".

As I said before, having people from a wide variety of backgrounds is definitely a plus in my experience.

Got it, so that is a "yes".

I had you down as "thinks WU are as bad as Al Queda" this might have to replace that as your tag.


Philip Francis Queeg: Tell us, do you think an all white male firm is going to be able to understand and anticipate the needs and concerns of a diverse society as well as a firm who's employees more closely reflect that diversity?

I think a firm who is all white is probbaly not hiring the most qualified people, so they aren't going to be effective as one that is.

Trading "must be white" for "must be 10% black" is a step in the rigth direction, but is still racist and still worse than hiring who is best.

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: So are you just babbling here or do you believe that being of certain race/sex is some sort of plus" or "minus".

As I said before, having people from a wide variety of backgrounds is definitely a plus in my experience.

Got it, so that is a "yes".

I had you down as "thinks WU are as bad as Al Queda" this might have to replace that as your tag.


Philip Francis Queeg: Tell us, do you think an all white male firm is going to be able to understand and anticipate the needs and concerns of a diverse society as well as a firm who's employees more closely reflect that diversity?

I think a firm who is all white is probbaly not hiring the most qualified people, so they aren't going to be effective as one that is.

Trading "must be white" for "must be 10% black" is a step in the rigth direction, but is still racist and still worse than hiring who is best.

So you don't think that having a workforce from a wide variety of backgrounds is a positive for a company? Really? You are more farked up than I thought.

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: So are you just babbling here or do you believe that being of certain race/sex is some sort of plus" or "minus".

As I said before, having people from a wide variety of backgrounds is definitely a plus in my experience.

Got it, so that is a "yes".

I had you down as "thinks WU are as bad as Al Queda" this might have to replace that as your tag.

If you don't want to change his tag, you can put me down for "likes diversity."

By Jonah Goldberg

fark you.

fta: "Taken literally, the phrase is absurd. Letting 10 rapists and murderers go free will almost surely result in far more harm to society than putting one poor innocent sap in jail."

Wow. When everyone, including Goldberg, conflates the final cause of this phrase with "harm to society", I think we're done.

It's not about broad justice. It's not about society. It's about protecting the rights of that particular, innocent individual.

crab66: Parmenius: or, "Top Five Strawmen the GOP uses to Poison Debate"


And we are done.

If you think about it, the article is actually one big strawman.



Yo dawg, I heard you like strawman fallacies, so I put a strawman in your strawman so you can strawman while you strawman.

Give me five minutes with Jonah Goldberg and I'd be happy to be proven wrong about the "violence doesn't solve anything" cliche.

Philip Francis Queeg: So you don't think that having a workforce from a wide variety of backgrounds is a positive for a company? Really? You are more farked up than I thought

Funny how I am talking about race/sex, as is usually what is meant by diversity, and you keep trying to hide behind "wide variety of backgrounds" becasue you don't want to admit you support racist hiring practices.

From your last response.

Philip Francis Queeg: As I said before, having people from a wide variety of backgrounds is definitely a plus in my experience.

Tell us, do you think an all white male firm is going to be able to understand and anticipate the needs and concerns of a diverse society as well as a firm who's employees more closely reflect that diversity

So you clearly know your "wide variety of backgrounds" is really abotu race/sex. So try, for once to be honest and just admit it.


As to yoru question above if your wife was hurt in a bad accident and you were given two options a team selected based upon having a diverse racial/sexual background or on chosen based upon how good they were at their job, which would you take?

I think if a company tries to put a priority on having a "wide variety of backgrounds" (your code word for diverse race/sex) it will always be at the expense of some other qualification.

It sounded to me like he just admitted that conservatives, in fact, do not use facts, logic or reason in their arguments. Sounds about right.

I got as far as "Diversity isn't good for education because Einstein wasn't educated in a diverse environment" (paraphrased) and I had to stop reading right there.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: logic and rhetoric need to be taught EVERY YEAR starting in grade school. This author is an example of a student progressing through (ostensibly) 16 years of education without picking up on some very, very basic concepts.

/I know, welcome to the politics tab, yeah yeah

MrBallou: By Jonah Goldberg.

Jonah Goldberg is just Ann Coulter with a smaller penis.

I know it's already been mentioned, but seriously.......


WTF mods?

Are you all collectively PMSing today, or just being pissy?

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: So you don't think that having a workforce from a wide variety of backgrounds is a positive for a company? Really? You are more farked up than I thought

Funny how I am talking about race/sex, as is usually what is meant by diversity, and you keep trying to hide behind "wide variety of backgrounds" becasue you don't want to admit you support racist hiring practices.

From your last response.

Philip Francis Queeg: As I said before, having people from a wide variety of backgrounds is definitely a plus in my experience.

Tell us, do you think an all white male firm is going to be able to understand and anticipate the needs and concerns of a diverse society as well as a firm who's employees more closely reflect that diversity

So you clearly know your "wide variety of backgrounds" is really abotu race/sex. So try, for once to be honest and just admit it.


As to yoru question above if your wife was hurt in a bad accident and you were given two options a team selected based upon having a diverse racial/sexual background or on chosen based upon how good they were at their job, which would you take?

I think if a company tries to put a priority on having a "wide variety of backgrounds" (your code word for diverse race/sex) it will always be at the expense of some other qualification.

You do love false dichotomies don't you?

So you don't believe that a company is stronger with a mix of male and female employees and a mix of employees of different races, ethnic and other demographic backgrounds? Huh, you're more farked up than I thought.

Do you assume your minority coworkers beat out a more qualified worker because of their race or gender?

BigLuca: I got as far as "Diversity isn't good for education because Einstein wasn't educated in a diverse environment" (paraphrased) and I had to stop reading right there.

Plus it's not true to begin with.

liam76: I would argue that is variety.

What the hell is the functional difference?

liam76: I am not the one here arguing that race should be a factor.

No, but you've certainly argued that it is.

liam76: If I am tasked to hire the best applicant who has the right race/sex I will not have the most qualified person for the job.

I mean, that is pretty blatant.

You could have said "might not".

But you didn't. You said "will not".

Ick.

WombatControl 2012-05-01 02:06:16 PM
(favorite: pants-on-head retarded)

I love it every time there's an article posted that states that American "liberals" are close-minded, intolerant, and juvenile. Because then you get a hoard of comments demonstrating that the liberals on Fark are close-minded, intolerant, and juvenile.

/ happens like clockwork.

And you're a bastion of tolerance and wisdom, right?

verbaltoxin: His book "The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas" will be published Tuesday.

Good god, that is the most butthurt-sounding title he possibly could've used. It practically screams, "Waa! Liberals Say Things I Don't Like!" at the reader.

True. But he does have his Rovian tactics down pretty well though. I think we also found out who randomlibbynomore2 is

Because if there is anyone who is an expert on cliches, it's conservatives.

Wooly Bully: justinguarini4ever: Jonah Goldberg is an annoying twat.

Here are my five cliches that liberals use.
1. Sweden manages to do just fine with socialism
2. Illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than the average citizen.
3. The two-state solution will lead to peace in the Middle East.
4. Raising taxes only cuts into profit margins.
5. If we paid teachers more, our schools would be a lot better.

You wish you could troll as effectively as that twat. You still haven't got a single bite. Punch yourself and cry.

Goldberg is what liberals believe all conservatives are. He clearly is a Randian with no conscious. He doesn't see income inequality or war or the climate change as bad things. I do see these things as bad things, but I don't agree with how Democrats chose to address these problems.

justinguarini4ever: I do see these things as bad things, but I don't agree with how Democrats chose to address these problems.

How did Democrats choose to address these problems?

Mrtraveler01: Nina_Hartley's_Ass:
"diversity is Strength"

Putnam discovered that as a community becomes more ethnically and socially varied, social trust and civic engagement plummet.

How come Canadian cities like Toronto and Vancouver don't seem to have this problem?

Uhhh, yes we do. Its slowly dawning on even the thickest Canadian that "celebrating diversity" is simply back handed racism. Not that I agree with this bonesmoker, but, we need more of a competitive/melting pot, because what we are creating are dysfunctional pockets of smaller societies, than one large society. There is plenty of racism in Vancouver, but we aren't armed to the teeth and desperate as other places. Yet.

Soon as I saw it was written by Jonah Goldberg I laughed and then closed the page. When I want fantasy, I'll read A Song of Ice and Fire. At least than it's entertaining.

corporate mustache: Uhhh, yes we do. Its slowly dawning on even the thickest Canadian that "celebrating diversity" is simply back handed racism. Not that I agree with this bonesmoker, but, we need more of a competitive/melting pot, because what we are creating are dysfunctional pockets of smaller societies, than one large society. There is plenty of racism in Vancouver, but we aren't armed to the teeth and desperate as other places. Yet.

So does this "melting pot" involve you becoming more like others, or just others becoming more like you?

corporate mustache: Uhhh, yes we do. Its slowly dawning on even the thickest Canadian that "celebrating diversity" is simply back handed racism

wat

Question... how many wars of we officially 'won' while we had a republican president?

Im just wondering.Cause a few of the comments said that liberals are soft hearted pansies.

cameroncrazy1984: justinguarini4ever: I do see these things as bad things, but I don't agree with how Democrats chose to address these problems.

How did Democrats choose to address these problems?

They address the symptoms and not the root causes. Cap-and-trade instead of carbon taxes, raising the upper tax rate instead of tax code reform, the terribly inefficient healthcare law, etc....

justinguarini4ever: They address the symptoms and not the root causes. Cap-and-trade instead of carbon taxes, raising the upper tax rate instead of tax code reform, the terribly inefficient healthcare law, etc....

How does cap-and-trade address the symptoms while carbon taxes don't?

How does raising the upper tax rate preclude tax code reform?

How does a healthcare law that has saved seniors $3 billion in prescription drugs alone "inefficient"?

AngryPanda: Ned Stark: I got as far as "we argue like D&D geeks" but then my brain was to full of reasons why 4e is better than 3.5 to continue.

Why can't I know more people like you? I like 4e and think 3.5 is too convoluted, but many of my friends are 3.5 diehards.

As for the article, I was assaulted by a wall of derp. Where's the articles talking about silly things conservatives do? Seriously.

Normally I wouldn't want to derail a thread with this, but it's about a Jonah Goldberg article, so I'll just say that if you think 3.5 was convoluted, thank your lucky stars you never played 1st ed. AD&D. 3.5 is about where I think D&D hit that sweet spot of accessibility and flexibility. 4e just dumbs things down way too much and makes it all too, for lack of a better word, video-gamey.

By Jonah Goldberg,

Stopped reading there.

Hope you did too.

mrshowrules: Kome: Soon as I saw it was written by Jonah Goldberg I laughed and then closed the page. When I want fantasy, I'll read A Song of Ice and Fire. At least than it's entertaining.

See my earlier post.

Ha! I didn't bother to read the thread, but that's funny.

Mrtraveler01: Washington Post is the legit one. Washington Times is the one run by a loony cult leader.

The Post seems to have decided to give the Times a run for their money in the last couple years.

cameroncrazy1984: justinguarini4ever: They address the symptoms and not the root causes. Cap-and-trade instead of carbon taxes, raising the upper tax rate instead of tax code reform, the terribly inefficient healthcare law, etc....

How does cap-and-trade address the symptoms while carbon taxes don't?

How does raising the upper tax rate preclude tax code reform?

How does a healthcare law that has saved seniors $3 billion in prescription drugs alone "inefficient"?

1. Cap-and-trade addresses countries like China and India through blanket tarriffs on their products. Not only could this provoke a trade war, but it eliminates the incentive for factories in those countries to individually reduce their carbon output. The bill also grandfathered in the largest polluters. It was a corporate giveaway.
2. Since noone actually pays the upper tax rate, tax code reform would likely raise more revenue and would raise this revenue more equitably.
3. The healthcare law failed to address the following - a) the shortage of new doctors due to the lack of new mdeical schools and fellowships, b) changing medicare and medicaid from a fee-based system to an outcome-based system. c) the lack of incentive for individuals in premium healthcare plans to ration medical services.

Is one of the cliches the use of Top Five lists?

/dnrtfa

Quite frankly, I think Goldberg gives liberals far too much credit - as lame as those five cliches are, at least they resemble arguments. Looking at this and every other politics thread or your typical HuffPo/Kos/TPM comment thread, etc. most liberals can't even formulate an argument that goes beyond the elementary-school playground level.

Most liberals don't have the argumentation skills or manners to argue even in cliches. Instead, it's a stream of silly little ad hominems one after another - and this thread demonstrates that quite well.

That isn't to say all conservatives are better - many of them aren't. But quite frankly, Jonah Goldberg knows more about the intellectual history of the left than 99% of the left has. The Right frequently harkens back to Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, or William F. Buckley - because the Right is in touch with the moral, political, and philisophical framework of conservatism.

And there's a reason for that - higher education is, by and large, a political monoculture. An "educated" liberal can go through the entire life without ever having to grapple with a dissenting view. A conservative does not generally have that option - conservatism in America grew up in the shadow of liberalism, and had to evolve as an ideology in the face of the domininant left-wing orthodoxy. An educated conservative has to refine their worldview subject to challenges from the other side - an educated liberal rarely has such a baptism by fire.

That's why "liberalism" in America today has become a stale and reactionary ideology while it's conservatism that has the intellectual force behind it. Goldberg is right - liberalism is an ideology of cliches because it's never had to be anything but.

whidbey: By Jonah Goldberg,

Stopped reading there.

Hope you did too.

Only if you're close-minded and wilfully ignorant.

Maybe you should try reading something that challenges your worldview for a change. Because maybe, just maybe, you'll learn something.

Oh wait, this goes to my point about the intellectual curiosity of liberals and conservatives - conservatives enjoy taking apart the arguments of the other side. Liberals ignore them...

WombatControl: That's why "liberalism" in America today has become a stale and reactionary ideology while it's conservatism that has the intellectual force behind it

WombatControl: whidbey: By Jonah Goldberg,

Stopped reading there.

Hope you did too.

Only if you're close-minded and wilfully ignorant.

Maybe you should try reading something that challenges your worldview for a change. Because maybe, just maybe, you'll learn something.

Oh wait, this goes to my point about the intellectual curiosity of liberals and conservatives - conservatives enjoy taking apart the arguments of the other side. Liberals ignore them...



Do you really think anyone still takes Jonah Goldberg seriously? The only reason that guy even has a job is because his mommy pulled some strings for him. The guy is a hack.

WombatControl: Maybe you should try reading something that challenges your worldview for a change. Because maybe, just maybe, you'll learn something.

Nothing Jonah Goldberg has ever written has ever been at all challenging to anyone. Everything is just filled with half-truths and cliched argument stoppers (which is kind of ironic, considering the subject of his latest brainfart).

Better to use cliches than falacies (look it up fox drones)

Halli: WombatControl: whidbey: By Jonah Goldberg,

Stopped reading there.

Hope you did too.

Only if you're close-minded and wilfully ignorant.

Maybe you should try reading something that challenges your worldview for a change. Because maybe, just maybe, you'll learn something.

Oh wait, this goes to my point about the intellectual curiosity of liberals and conservatives - conservatives enjoy taking apart the arguments of the other side. Liberals ignore them...

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x336]

Do you really think anyone still takes Jonah Goldberg seriously? The only reason that guy even has a job is because his mommy pulled some strings for him. The guy is a hack.

Unlike you, I read that book - and had you done the same, you would have noticed that the argument was quite well-researched.

What's interesting about the reaction to Liberal Fascism is how few defenders of liberalism even tried to refute its actual arguments. But again, that just proves my point: liberalism isn't about ideas anymore, it's about maintaining a tribal identity.

But please, if you're so open-minded, tell the group what you think Mr. Goldberg's thesis was and exactly why you think it's wrong.

So far all the responses to my argument have gone towards proving it...