this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
561 points (95.9% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3433 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

She’s already broken barriers, and now Kamala Harris could shatter several more after President Joe Biden abruptly ended his reelection bid and endorsed her.

Biden announced Sunday that he was stepping aside after a disastrous debate performance catalyzed fears that the 81-year-old was too frail for a second term. 

Harris is the first woman, Black person or person of South Asian descent to serve as vice president. If she becomes the Democratic nominee and defeats Republican candidate Donald Trump in November, she would be the first woman to serve as president. 

Biden said Sunday that choosing Harris as his running mate was “the best decision I’ve made” and endorsed her as his successor.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So long story short you are in favor of racist hiring policies as long as it harm particular groups that you want to harm?

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So long story short, are you in favor of racist hiring, and continued racist advantage for people of your favorite skin color, regardless of less opportunity for those who look different from you? Are you in favor of keeping hiring pure, white people on top, and everyone else can “pull themselves up by their bootstraps”?

If you look back at that article, you could see the data that even after this period, non-whites were under-represented, especially in positions of authority.

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, I am in favor of hiring people that are best for the job. This is a yes or no answer; are you in favor of hiring people based on their skin color if it advances an agenda such as higher representation of a race in a particular area? Would you pick a less qualified minority of a more qualified white person?

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The argument is that’s already been done, unless you believe white people are inherently smarter and more capable.

Assuming all humans have similar potential and similar opportunity, you’d expect over a large population such as the employee pool of the 100 largest companies, the mix of demographics will be similar to the population at large. Why isn’t it?

While I’m sure there are a few hires purely for quota, giving opportunity to those who would otherwise be denied is a good thing. I’ve always worked in very diverse companies and have found people equally capable regardless of what demographic group you try to stick them in.

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

Why isn’t it?

Because different demographics have varying levels of different qualities. Does every demographic commit crime and attend college at the same levels? No, and for whatever reason they dont there would be a similar reason for why demographics are different at work.

Are you unable to answer the questions I give? I say its a yes or no answer, and there is neither of those words in your answer.