There's intrinsic value in having diversity in anything. This doesn't have to apply only to race/gender, but that's certainly a big factor. All eggs in one basket gets you results that are biased by that basket, whether it's the C-level of a company (everyone went to an Ivy league school, maybe there's value in the next hire not being Ivy League?), a board of directors (everyone at this Biotech company is a businessperson, maybe there's merit to putting a pure biologist on the board?), a local book club (everyone can't get enough historical fiction, maybe sprinkle in some romance so someone doesn't feel left out?), etc.

The Senate is granted 2 members from each of the 50 states. They are elected. But if the Senate were to have only the most qualified 100 members (or within election context - only the 100 most voted-for people across the country, regardless of location), it would certainly not be 2 from each of the 50 states. The same principle of forced diversity is built into our country as a check and balance against the other parts of government. There wouldn't even be a reason to have a Senate without the concept of diversity for diversity's sake. If not for diversity's sake, then "to protect the under-represented" which is LITERALLY THE SAME LINE OF THINKING AS HIRING A BLACK WOMAN.

Openly saying that you are considering a Supreme Court justice because they are black/female in addition to all their other qualities, is far from a miscarriage of justice, or virtue signaling, or anti-whitism, or reverse wokeness, whatever you want to call it. It just means diversified perspectives are valued in this hiring process and the one doing the hiring isn't ashamed to say it if it triggers opponents who were just going to oppose whatever he did anyway because that's political default nowadays.

If she was unqualified but still got pushed ahead because she was black, then there would be a problem. If someone else was significantly more qualified, but was getting ignored, that would be a problem. But that's not what's happening here.

If you had 15 equally on-paper qualified candidates for a job and one would add diversity (flip it - suppose it's an all-black group you'd be adding a white person to) - all else being equal, the concept of adding diverse perspectives to counterbalance biases in the group's day-to-day decision-making has intrinsic value, period. Measuring that value is the only thing there can really be an argument about. Crying about Biden saying he wanted a black woman on the court is just losers knowing they're going to lose and not doing it gracefully.

Pedophile stuff was basically debunked when it was proven that she sentenced in line with the statistical middle of the guidelines, and around the averages of her peers across the board, and isn't tangibly going out of her way to protect pedophiles any more than her peers. So all you can really say if you're still hung up about "protecting pedos" is suggest we should be nominating judges who are progressively acting out against pedophilia, sentencing the max every time unconditionally, which no one really is that I'm aware of. Sounds like they'd be an activist judge.

is it /thread yet?

This post was edited by CheatEngine on Apr 8 2022 02:49pm

total nonsense.

96 point something for Forbes 500 are companies/firms with no diversity. according to mckinsey (a far left cesspool).

again, almost 100 percent of Forbes 500 *insanely profitable companies* are not diverse.

kek.

also if you do need to know what someone different than you would think of a program, product, change, etc. there are focus groups.

The presupposed intrinsic value of diversity is the original sin of this wave of the left-wing. Its at the root of CRT, diversity quotas, AA, immigration, all the gender nonsense, etc etc.
Its a premise taken for granted, without a credible argument to support it, a dogmatic principle that cannot be questioned. If you don't accept that diversity is inherently good, then you are racist. Thus nobody can question it.

Capitalism has weak ethics. It creates scarcity where there is none so it can be profitable. Things could be better instead of more profitable.
It would be different if that profit was shared with its employees, but most oligarchs are human dragons, hoarding more wealth than they could ever use in a lifetime while preventing others from having any.

We have the richest guy in the world telling his minions they can't pee or use certain words and nobody is talking about this actual oppression because it's at will employment, as if working is a choice. Referring to Amazon.

The most profitable movies are recycled garbage. By your metric the best novels are Harry Potter and twilight, which offer no diversity as well. Harry Potter even had greedy jew goblins in the banks I couldn't believe it when I seen it.




Ideas should be defended. You aren't tolerant if you're not engaging with and accepting people who disagree with you.

I will say the opposition to CRT is mostly people who tried to keep the blacks out of the schools trying to prevent the teaching of that fact. Literally more white washing history. The dynamic with the Texas Board of Education is enough.

This post was edited by Skinned on Apr 8 2022 06:42pm

if you look at gaming companies, diversity does not help, almost at all.

all diversity studies started from the idea that diversity is good and looked for straws to prove that.

those are not independent studies... it's like the meat industry having studies proving meat is healthy in any situation. or the egg industry having studies that eggs are good in any situation.

ive worked in diverse companies, people are just borderline demented.

the safe and inclusive places are just like the middle ages, some are the inquisitors and the rest are runnign for their lives.

The big take away here is...

Obama picked a black chick who doesn't know what a Woman is...

no bullshit.

Gaming companies are new and had a frat culture until now. Women haven't been able to contribute. Ever hear of the stories about Atari? They make Blizzard look like non bad guys.

Not a lot of these places pass the test of "would it be okay for my daughter to be treated like this at work". Many have mandatory crunchtime, so they're abusive to most of their employees overall.

Last of Us 2 was a masterpiece and I heard diversity was a priority for them. I've been enjoying the PS5 line up myself. Just got Returnal...not sure about diversity quota idc really think about that stuff when buying games. I'm playing Warzone and they market to everyone and have all sorts of people playing.



Yep, I'm so glad she didn't take that bait and triggered a whole bunch of people by just being mature and not answering that asinine question.

It's hilarious that the GOP grandstanded, said they weren't going to act like the Dems did with Kaugh, and then they went way worse and basically called a mainstream judge and everyone who supported her a pedophile. They should all be ashamed.

This post was edited by Skinned on Apr 8 2022 07:45pm

gaming companies are new? they have been around since the early 80s, that is 40 years. but ok.

last of us 2 is pretty meh. i dont it have degeneracy as the main character.

Diversity of opinions has intrinsic value for institutions and companies, but that's the one kind of diversity the modern left doesn't want to promote.