Forum Statistics

Threads
28,055
Posts
551,444
Members
28,708
Latest Member
Brymaster
What's New?

Will the insanity ever stop?

Tuffoldman

Tuffoldman

VIP Member
May 23, 2011
1,712
1,670


Hiring based on qualifications rather than anything else seems so barbaric. J/K so basically if you're a big old pink-haired lesbian you should get hired because of diversity rather than qualification? I don't get it?!?!?!
 
J

J2048b

MuscleHead
Jul 2, 2012
350
109


Hiring based on qualifications rather than anything else seems so barbaric. J/K so basically if you're a big old pink-haired lesbian you should get hired because of diversity rather than qualification? I don't get it?!?!?!
But daddie its now “NoRmAl”

nothing will ever be the same
 
tommyguns2

tommyguns2

Senior Moderators
Staff Member
Dec 25, 2010
6,745
5,890
When Oregon forests are ablaze due to incompetent forest management, they can at least find comfort that a diverse amount of trees and wildlife are being destroyed
 
fasttwitch

fasttwitch

VIP Member
Mar 17, 2011
859
1,126
Almost all corrections go too far. There is a problem. Then a correction which goes to far. Then eventually things settle in the middle.

Luckily, most sensible people of all types know that a meritocracy is the correct way.
 
tommyguns2

tommyguns2

Senior Moderators
Staff Member
Dec 25, 2010
6,745
5,890
Almost all corrections go too far. There is a problem. Then a correction which goes to far. Then eventually things settle in the middle.

Luckily, most sensible people of all types know that a meritocracy is the correct way.
I agree that most sensible people know that meritocracy is correct, but that assumes that a competent result is what's desired. If those in charge are not accountable to anyone, a competent result is not really needed.

Just look at NASA. When they fail, they get more funding. When SpaceX fails, they'll go out of business. Those at NASA simply follow rationally the incentives and disincentives placed before them. As do the people at SpaceX.

How do we fix gov't agencies so that the agency is held accountable for their performance? In one respect, this should be simple, but it never seems to happen.

It seems like every time there's a school shooting, we find out that the shooter was on the FBI's radar. What does that mean? Did somebody at the FBI drop the ball? Has anybody been fired, demoted or otherwise disciplined? If not, does it really matter that you're not competently doing your job?
 
jipped genes

jipped genes

VIP Member
Oct 22, 2022
1,691
2,148
Fashion over function. It does not matter is the person is qualified for a job with DEI no matter what they say. Only if they like banging people of their own sex or have more melanin in their skin and a DEI person MUST NOT hire the evil white straight men!!!!!!!!!!!!!

These people cultivate victimhood like a farmer cultivates their crops.
 
fasttwitch

fasttwitch

VIP Member
Mar 17, 2011
859
1,126
I agree that most sensible people know that meritocracy is correct, but that assumes that a competent result is what's desired. If those in charge are not accountable to anyone, a competent result is not really needed.

Just look at NASA. When they fail, they get more funding. When SpaceX fails, they'll go out of business. Those at NASA simply follow rationally the incentives and disincentives placed before them. As do the people at SpaceX.

How do we fix gov't agencies so that the agency is held accountable for their performance? In one respect, this should be simple, but it never seems to happen.

It seems like every time there's a school shooting, we find out that the shooter was on the FBI's radar. What does that mean? Did somebody at the FBI drop the ball? Has anybody been fired, demoted or otherwise disciplined? If not, does it really matter that you're not competently doing your job?

This isn't really my wheelhouse. DEI. But I've got friends who work for various governmental agencies & corporate giants. A close friend at FEMA, a friend's brother at the State Dept, another friend at a large tech company and one at Amazon, for example.. (By the way, my friend at FEMA is a hardcore Trumpie) and he thinks some of this DEI discussion is overblown. He thinks that yes, there are obvious misfires related to hiring practices and incentive structures, but they typically are aiming for results. They are taking some DEI criteria into account. He sees obvious examples of imperfect decision making, but he hardly sees it as ramped.

This is his perspective.

I am always skeptical about discussions where one side (either conservatives or liberals) are overly angry about a policy or practice and the other side is not worried at all. This typically means that there is a distortion in the discussion or some nuance is being ignored. Neither side is infinitely wise. Neither side has a monopoly on common sense.

My FEMA friend talks about his chain of command demanding serious accountability.

My friend in Seattle at Amazon talks about ridged incentive structures. Nobody is getting a free ride from what he sees.

Anyhow.. Wish I cared enough about this issue to read more about it. But favoritism of some kind in organizations has been around since the beginning of time. It's always there to some extent.
 
Last edited:
Who is viewing this thread?

There are currently 0 members watching this topic

Top