Vallejo holds panel discussion on what is and isn't funny...

Bored now.

Boobs.





Better?

Uh huh. So you're okay with being a target of racism as... what? Some kind of fictive "restitution" for offenses you never committed? Bully for you. The self-loathing are not entitled to sign the rest of us up for their trip.

And Vallejo's self-aware irony schtick, typified by the above post, has officially gotten stale in less than 150 posts.

If this and the other one are the best Wordforge can get in terms of new members, I say we close our borders permanently.

Keep the dream alive, dimbulb!

Weird, that's totally not what he said.

A springboard for further research. In accordance with the fact that ethnic majorities invariably express the natural human tendency toward racism, there you go.

This one just gave itself away as a dual. "Dimbulb" is an old play on my username that's been used by........others in the past.

Borders are so 1980s. Schengen ftw.

And yet it's totally what can be inferred from what he said. At least, by those of us developmentally advanced enough to have achieved the capability of inference.

Wait, you think they're new?

Do you really think such a play on your username isn't incredibly obvious?

No, I automatically assume any new username is a dual. We never attract new members.

By those with pre-conceived notions it's easy to see whatever you want. But what he said actually means that he's okay with surrendering privilege in favor of an even playing field.

That can't be right. I'm sure there's no love for John Castle.

Again?

You are absolutely talking out your ass. Let me burst your bubble if I may:
in the past (when we were kids or not even born yet) there was indeed prejudice and discrimination.
Thus, the military (always the canary in the coal mine for social experiments) wanted to "level the playing field."
The fucking "goal" was met after a while, so they could get rid of quotas, according to your theory.
But the quotas never went away. What a fucking shock! Then it got to the point where they set up a "racial/gender review board". This means that no matter who was selected for promotion to the Senior NCO ranks, it had to be filtered through the board. If not enough minorities were selected, the board had better come up with valid reasons why more minorities were not promoted. Maybe their records or achievements or qualifications weren't as good? Sorry, not good enough. We need a higher percentage of minorities.
Still tracking? Good - let's say ten people are up for selection, competing for just two slots. Eight are white males, two are females or minorities. The white males have awesome records and pretty much walk on water.
So the voting is finished, and the two winners are white males. HELL NO! If there is even one minority in that pool of eligible soldiers, the records are reviewed again...and again....until at least one minority is chosen.
If you are a "double dipper" that means you are a female and black/hispanic/asian. They pretty much have to choose you. So every time you (a minority) are up for the selection board, you only have to compete with the other minorities. If there are two minorities among ten total applicants, your odds of getting selected are 50 percent, because they have to choose at least one minority. If you are a white male, your odds are about 10 percent. Let's say only four soldiers are competing, and one is a minority. That minority has a 100 percent chance of getting selected, unless there is strong proof they aren't as qualified. So let's do some simple math. If over the course of your 20 year career you go to 14 annual selection boards. It takes a few years before you are a high enough rank to advance to Senior NCO level, and be eligible for the selection board. Still tracking? Good - as a white male your odds are 10 percent every single time. As a minority your odds are 50 percent every time. Thus there is an imbalance - minorities are 20 percent of The Army as a whole, but 70 percent of the Senior NCO ranks. Take a look at the pictures on the wall of the Chain Of Responsibility - it's like a Chain Of Command, but for enlisted rather than officers. These are the highest ranking enlisted of course. Count the white males. It's pretty easy, there are only a few if any.

Oh, and the selection process is done via secret, closed voting. Thus if any rabble-rouser tries to find out why the minority with a not-so-good record got selected over the white male with an outstanding record, they are stone-walled and met with mandatory silence, because the board members and the racial review board are sworn to secrecy.

I've known females who got passed over for selection. As I said, there might have been another minority competing against them. Anyway, they married another service member who is Hispanic, and their name went from Smith to Hernandez. They get selected at the next board, despite not improving their military record one bit.

I know a guy who declared (legally and legitimatly) himself 1/4 Native American just before his first board.
BAM! Pay the man, he's selected! Never been in charge of troops, never actually worked the job he got trained in.

I once tried to be an Army Recruiter. The guy who interviews/screens prospects told me straight up, I had two things against me.....I was too old (not really but nearing the age cutoff for my rank) and white.
Yep, fucking white. I wouldn't be a good "fit" for trying to recruit the demographic The Army is looking for.

These examples are off the top of my head. There are dozens more, but I won't bore you.
What's that about quotas again? Please enlighten me with your experiences.

If that really is the case then sure, they can get rid of the quota. I have no fucking clue about the US army and you'll notice that I didn't even mention the army (I wrote: politics, economy, media).
Sadly it took you all of 3 days to make sure I don't really consider you a credible source so I'll just hold my breath until you present some sources. Articles in peer-reviewed journals would be ideal. I'm sure there are scholars following this process.
No, anecdotal evidence isn't enough.

Even if it were true this obviously doesn't change anything about my post. It would just be one example of quotas done wrong.

No, what he actually said is that he's okay with being the target of racism if it diminishes his "privilege."

He hasn't got any "privilege." It's a fictive problem which justifies racism as a "solution." All the same, he can believe whatever self-loathing claptrap he likes. Puts him in the same league with Catholics, but it's his life, and he can do what he wants with it. As long as he doesn't drag anyone else into that foolhardy hokum with him; that's where I feel a duty to object.

Quotas are idiotic. No names should be on any application just relabeled ABCD and so on. Let that get rid of most of the lingering racism.

How does a job interview work then? Just putting a bag over people's heads?

The pool of applicants can very easily be put down to a small number through applications and emails. One of our biggest companies does this.

From there I find it's much better to have boss's and employees who understand each other. By the time it gets to face to face it should, theoretically be between equally qualified applicants. Which ever one fits in better with the company atmosphere/organization, should get the job.


This theoretically works as well as Quotas.

"Theoretically".

Statistically the process you described tended and still tends to favor white males because usually they're the ones taking the decision.

If I gave you dozens of examples of quotas not working would you....oh who am I kidding. Unless the information comes from one of their own, it's null and void. Sorry, no scholars to verify my findings, just decades of experience and thousands of other soldiers who would tell you pretty much what I did. Did you not understand that the process is secret, thus pretty much ensuring they are immune to oversight?
Okay, you know nothing about the military, no problem. It's a huge corporation that doesn't have to make a profit.
Thus, they don't have to hire the most qualified. If the job doesn't get done in the best manner by the best people it won't matter since we are not competing against another army. It's us or nobody. So they can run every kind of social experiment they want. If quotas are unfair, counter-productive and misleading, those are the breaks - as long as "diversity" is going full force everything is fine.

Did you miss when I said I know nothing about the US military so I'd be happy to accept this as a case of "quotas done wrong" if you provided any sources apart from anecdotal evidence?
As I said I'm sure scholars have followed the whole process. I'm just too lazy to research academic databases at 5am and I don't see why I should be doing your research. You made a statement. Provide some sources.
Whether or not the US Army is an example of "quotas done wrong" doesn't really affect my own statements at all. I did say that I don't find quotas to be an ideal, fair solution and that they should only be used under very specific circumstances. The Army might be doing it wrong. I simply don't know!

Good point! Quotas create racial/gender distrust, especially when the decisions are made behind closed doors so there can be no auditing. Then again no auditing is needed as long as the quotas are met.
There will always be doubt as to whether that person was really qualified or not.

And especially in a "low density" MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) like mine. There are only about 200 of us at any one time in The Army. Only a fraction of these 200 are NCO's - so we all know each other or know about each other. We have all worked with or for each other, so we all pretty know our records, qualifications, and achievements. Thus we constantly see dangerously unqualified people get selected, and great people passed over.

So who does quotas right? The Army is pretty much a huge corporation like many others. I'm guessing but I'd be willing to bet their quotas are FUBAR just as much if not more than The Army. But our corporation is immune to investigation for "security" reasons, and military members by law cannot sue the government.

As if it is even possible to do them right.

And with names identifying ethnicity or gender redacted, they're judging on the qualifications and experience. Sounds like the problem is that the groups favored by quotas are favored only with quotas in place rather than by their qualifications or experience. Perhaps you should lodge a grievance agains the Universe.