Charlie Kirk Shot and killed

#8,776
#8,776
BigOrangeMojo said:
If you take a look at the numbers for United, their DEI program isnt about as much as hiring diversity as it is packaging existing long term hiring into a pretty PC bow..

The plan for United was to train and hire 250 non white males esch year for a decade (Half of 5,000 for a decade). Between retirements, pilots leaving, and new routes, United averages close to 2K hires per year. Somewhere around 15% of pilots are no white males. 15% of 2,000 is roughly 250-300 per year. Crazy how that math works, right?

@KB5252 - My thoughts on their "initiative"
Click to expand...
Their stated plan was to have half of their crew be women or minorities by 2030.

I think that irresponsible. Quotas are usually a problem. Increase the numbers get the best prime for the job, of you have targets you'd like to hit internally that's great..... You should have that if you want to increase minority representation in your company. But the quotas are where the problem starts and ends. If that's where it ends up in 2030 so be it, but just makes sure it's the best man and woman for the job, nothing else should matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CobbVol, Vol since 77, Behr and 1 other person
#8,777
#8,777
NashVol11 said:
But you are. When you have one set of judgments for one race and another set for another race, at a certain point "it's not because they're Black" is semantics and the result is the same. If they weren't Black, those judgments would not exist, so how is it not?
Click to expand...
And maybe those judgments are temporary based on policies like DEI. But for that temporary period, you are still viewing people differently based on what race they are, and that is racist (or, again, bigoted if you prefer). It doesn't mean it's the worst thing in the world
 
#8,778
#8,778
NashVol11 said:
But you are. When you have one set of judgments for one race and another set for another race, at a certain point "it's not because they're Black" is semantics and the result is the same. If they weren't Black, those judgments would not exist, so how is it not?
Click to expand...
I just explained to you that I don't. If United came out tomorrow and stated they wanted to increase white pilot representation I'd have a similar issue. Race shouldn't matter in the cockpit. The best person should be there, regardless of race.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, OL SMOKEY and whodeycin85
#8,779
#8,779
NashVol11 said:
I agree, I think the word is loaded enough that people jump to the worst assumptions when they see it. I guess ideally for me we would be able to get past that rather than having to come up with a new word, but it is what it is
Click to expand...
I agree. In the scenario racist does become correctly used for stuff like this, what gets used for deeper racism and racists? Does it all get labeled the same? Obviously there’s a big difference between David Duke and this
 
#8,780
#8,780
KB5252 said:
Their stated plan was to have half of their crew be women or minorities by 2030.

I think that irresponsible. Quotas are usually a problem. Increase the numbers get the best prime for the job, of you have targets you'd like to hit internally that's great..... You should have that if you want to increase minority representation in your company. But the quotas are where the problem starts and ends. If that's where it ends up in 2030 so be it, but just makes sure it's the best man and woman for the job, nothing else should matter.
Click to expand...

They stated that from 2021-2030 (and extended to 2032), that they would train and hire 5,000 people from their academy. Half of which are non-white males. They did not say half their pilots would be non white males but half they train from 2021-2032 would be...
 
  • Like
Reactions: KB5252
#8,781
#8,781
Smokey123 said:
Would you consider it to be a prejudice comment? Like what word would you use to define if? I do agree we have to define and use words correctly

Yours may not be related to race, but Charlie’s was imo
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree Charlie was taking about race.

I would consider that more of a stereotypical comment. They are based in truth but there is always the exception that prices the rule
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey123
#8,782
#8,782
Smokey123 said:
I agree. In the scenario racist does become correctly used for stuff like this, what gets used for deeper racism and racists? Does it all get labeled the same? Obviously there’s a big difference between David Duke and this
Click to expand...
Yeah I thought about that earlier, the first thing I thought of was that "white supremacy" sounds worse but that obviously doesn't capture everything
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey123 and KB5252
#8,783
#8,783
NashVol11 said:
And maybe those judgments are temporary based on policies like DEI. But for that temporary period, you are still viewing people differently based on what race they are, and that is racist (or, again, bigoted if you prefer). It doesn't mean it's the worst thing in the world
Click to expand...
I disagree, I'm judging them differently based on the initiatives of their employer. Without that initiative or statement I don't have that question.

I agree that some will/do. But my thought process is lined specifically on the actions of their employer, if there's no statement I never question if they're the best for the job. It's assumed they are!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#8,785
#8,785
KB5252 said:
I disagree, I'm judging them differently based on the initiatives of their employer. Without that initiative or statement I don't have that question.
Click to expand...
I think I can tweak my statement to just say this, which makes the same point and is essentially what Kirk was doing.

But for that temporary period, you are still viewing people differently depending on what race they are, and that is racist (or, again, bigoted if you prefer).

(And for the record, I say "you" but I mean it in general, not really you specifically)
 
#8,786
#8,786
NashVol11 said:
I think I can tweak my statement to just say this, which makes the same point and is essentially what Kirk was doing.

But for that temporary period, you are still viewing people differently depending on what race they are, and that is racist (or, again, bigoted if you prefer).

(And for the record, I say "you" but I mean it in general, not really you specifically)
Click to expand...
And again I'll respond, it doesn't matter the race. I'm not viewing their qualifications based on race, I'm viewing it through the prism of their employers initiatives. If they said they wanted to prioritize cajun white males I'd have a similar issue. It's not the race, it's intentionally excluding the largest candidate pool possible to identify the best.

Which by the way isn't necessary to increase minority inclusion.


Which is essentially what I think Kirk was saying.

Anyway, have a good evening.
 
#8,787
#8,787
Smokey123 said:
I’m fully aware of what he said and the context it was said in. Saying it wasn’t about race is insanely intellectually dishonest. Looking at someone and assuming they’re not qualified because of the color of their skin is about race no matter how you try to spin it.

So there’s more black pilots now to meet racial quotas and it’s dropping the quality? Why are plane crashes lower than any point in history and majority of crashes and not the pilots fault.
Can you provide examples of black pilots crashing?
Click to expand...
If I host a track and field event and I say for the white athletes we are going to make the hurdles 6" lower and a white athlete wins and I question whether the white athlete was truly the best, that doesn’t mean I think the white athlete is inferior. It means I don't know if the white athlete is truly the best. It's an indictment on lowering the bar for the white athlete. Could the white athlete be the best? Sure. Does it mean I think all white athletes are not capable? Absolutely not. It was never about the race of the person, it's about the test.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CobbVol, Orange Maniac and Orangeslice13
#8,788
#8,788
Smokey123 said:
But again. My question remains that never got answered. is looking at a black person and assuming they’re not qualified judging based off their skill or appearance? You can use this for any race. If I look at a white man and assume he’s not good at basketball, it’s me judging based off race and not skill. Denying this is dishonest
Click to expand...
Lol, no it's not. When you choose because of race it's the problem. Charlie adamantly always claimed, he wanted a color blind society. He wanted a merit based society. When you chose because of the color of one's skin, you are not choosing the best.

Your basketball analogy is perfect. If we suddenly decided that we wanted to make NBA teams reflect the make up of the population and we selected mostly white players, would the quality of play go up? Of course not. We select, or at least try to select NBA players based on their skill level.

Wanting a merit based selection process is not racist at all. Saying your against merit based selection is highly racist though as you are saying minorities are incapable and must be given special considerations.
 
#8,790
#8,790
InVOLuntary said:
Lol, no it's not. When you choose because of race it's the problem. Charlie adamantly always claimed, he wanted a color blind society. He wanted a merit based society. When you chose because of the color of one's skin, you are not choosing the best.

Your basketball analogy is perfect. If we suddenly decided that we wanted to make NBA teams reflect the make up of the population and we selected mostly white players, would the quality of play go up? Of course not. We select, or at least try to select NBA players based on their skill level.

Wanting a merit based selection process is not racist at all. Saying your against merit based selection is highly racist though as you are saying minorities are incapable and must be given special considerations.
Click to expand...

Unless they're eastern Europeans. That breed of wonder bread knows how to put the damn ball in the basket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey123 and InVOLuntary
#8,798
#8,798
NashVol11 said:
If you see a white pilot and a Black pilot and are comfortable with the former's qualifications but worried about the latter's, based on race, that is racist. The word you want to use is to somehow say it's not that bad, or explained by policy, or not from a place of hate or something, but looking at two people doing the same job differently, based on race, is racist. There is no way around that.
Click to expand...
in this argument you are assuming we know eithers' qualifications. the question is about the qualifications themselves. what the "score" was. pilots/airlines don't, and shouldn't, post those. previously, there was no reason to worry about the scores. if you were a pilot, you met the standard. now being a pilot doesn't mean you met the standard. that is concerning for some.

the only reason you are able to bring up race at all is because of DEI. before DEI there was no racial issues. DEI made something that wasn't race based race based.

it being a raced based assumption would say someone knows the White pilot scores a 90, and are comfortable, and they also know the black pilot also scored 90 and was uncomfortable. THAT would be racist.

the actual situation is that we know one pilot met the qualifications, and are thus comfortable. the other pilot we don't know if they met the qualifications, and thus have concerns. the problem is the qualifications the airline accepted.

flip the situation, have the airline announce they are keeping the old standard for minorities, but are letting white pilots in on a lower test score, and the same people would then be worried about the white pilots. no one would say its a racist assumption to not trust white pilots in that situation, because the matter causing concern is the qualifications.

them being black/asian/women/trans/whatever has nothing to do with it except for being the circumstances around the lowered standards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Behr
#8,800
#8,800
InVOLuntary said:
Lol, no it's not. When you choose because of race it's the problem. Charlie adamantly always claimed, he wanted a color blind society. He wanted a merit based society. When you chose because of the color of one's skin, you are not choosing the best.

Your basketball analogy is perfect. If we suddenly decided that we wanted to make NBA teams reflect the make up of the population and we selected mostly white players, would the quality of play go up? Of course not. We select, or at least try to select NBA players based on their skill level.

Wanting a merit based selection process is not racist at all. Saying your against merit based selection is highly racist though as you are saying minorities are incapable and must be given special considerations.
Click to expand...
Good grief. I’m not arguing about DEI. Charlie himself said his comments did not reflect what he actually believes as a person. His comments were about race. What a mental gymnastics to claim other wise
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top