Most of us have had beat into our heads the "diversity" is a wonderful thing. Diversity means that you will have many different people of differing viewpoints and backgrounds that come together to achieve a common goal or to live together harmoniously, fostering mutual respect and opportunity for all . Such groups are often thought of as compromising, accepting, and "outside the box" when dealing with an issue important to all. I think most of us would agree that such a situation is beneficial and enhancing to all, particularly in the long-term.

But is "diversity", in its rawest form, desirable? Is having a bunch of people brought together with differing viewpoints and backgrounds AND widely different desired outcomes healthy and beneficial to society? Recent elections have brought some very radical elements into the Democratic Congress. Omar, Tlaib, and that petulant little twit AOC certainly have backgrounds and viewpoints that are different, but they add the desire for radically different outcomes of their proposed policies than what mainstream Americans find desirable. Slavery reparations, condemnation of Israel, Sharia Law, punitive taxation on wealth creation, social justice, infanticide, etc. are not in the mainstream of American thought, and the radicalization of the Democrat Party is causing the more "moderate" Democrats to make the difficult decision between party loyalty and the direction of the Democratic agenda. If a "big tent" is desired, has it gotten so big that the tent now holds folks that are completely at odds with party priorities in the OUTCOMES of their proposed legislation.?

I am enjoying watching the Democrats infight, but am terrified if the ultimate winners are championed by the new crop of Democratic representatives. Their values and desired outcomes look nothing like the America I envision.

Just my thoughts, and look forward to likewise serious thoughts on the topic.

smitty, I couldn't agree more....

however, would somebody get schmuckster, pee-loosey, and (in)dentured mcconnell a dadgum spit bib....

this is the worst congressional leadership I've witnessed in my ~54 yrs of feeding the trees....

it's downright disturbing....

(03-08-2019 10:10 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Most of us have had beat into our heads the "diversity" is a wonderful thing. Diversity means that you will have many different people of differing viewpoints and backgrounds that come together to achieve a common goal or to live together harmoniously, fostering mutual respect and opportunity for all . Such groups are often thought of as compromising, accepting, and "outside the box" when dealing with an issue important to all. I think most of us would agree that such a situation is beneficial and enhancing to all, particularly in the long-term.

But is "diversity", in its rawest form, desirable? Is having a bunch of people brought together with differing viewpoints and backgrounds AND widely different desired outcomes healthy and beneficial to society? Recent elections have brought some very radical elements into the Democratic Congress. Omar, Tlaib, and that petulant little twit AOC certainly have backgrounds and viewpoints that are different, but they add the desire for radically different outcomes of their proposed policies than what mainstream Americans find desirable. Slavery reparations, condemnation of Israel, Sharia Law, punitive taxation on wealth creation, social justice, infanticide, etc. are not in the mainstream of American thought, and the radicalization of the Democrat Party is causing the more "moderate" Democrats to make the difficult decision between party loyalty and the direction of the Democratic agenda. If a "big tent" is desired, has it gotten so big that the tent now holds folks that are completely at odds with party priorities in the OUTCOMES of their proposed legislation.?

I am enjoying watching the Democrats infight, but am terrified if the ultimate winners are championed by the new crop of Democratic representatives. Their values and desired outcomes look nothing like the America I envision.

Just my thoughts, and look forward to likewise serious thoughts on the topic.

Here is the long and short of "diversity". The United States long ago recognized the strength that could arise out of diversity. But it was appropriately coined (literally) with a caveat, "E Pluribus Unum", or "Out of Many, One."

That worked very well when English was the required language of commerce and law. It worked well when being an immigrant meant that you figured out how to contribute to the overall health and defense of the nation. The "Unum" came from what we held in common: the good of the nation, our civil rights, our respect of the law, and our right to achieve or fail on our own. When those ideals are agreed upon and tolerance is taught and expected to cover all of our continued differences we can be "One".

The problem with "diversity" is the root of the word means "to divide" which is the opposite of "unity" or "One". The concept of rights and law being afforded to all is our basis for unity. With identity politics we set one group apart from another. It is the opposite side of the same coin of "discrimination" only flipped. No Republic can survive what divides it because conflict of interest and civil unrest is the only byproduct of "politics of identity."

Herein lies the whole underpinning of the social and civil war which is being foisted upon our citizens by people who desire to destroy our Republic. We should never be focused on what makes us different. Tolerance covers that. We should only be focused on what makes us strong and unified and that is our rights, our law, and our opportunities to succeed. Focus on the latter and we are "One". Focus on the former and we will be divided and as one late great president said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Those who push the politics of identity are the deadly enemies of our Republic and our freedom.

I enjoy the Spin Room for it's lack of diversity. It's so nice when everyone generally agrees.

(03-09-2019 12:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 10:10 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Most of us have had beat into our heads the "diversity" is a wonderful thing. Diversity means that you will have many different people of differing viewpoints and backgrounds that come together to achieve a common goal or to live together harmoniously, fostering mutual respect and opportunity for all . Such groups are often thought of as compromising, accepting, and "outside the box" when dealing with an issue important to all. I think most of us would agree that such a situation is beneficial and enhancing to all, particularly in the long-term.

But is "diversity", in its rawest form, desirable? Is having a bunch of people brought together with differing viewpoints and backgrounds AND widely different desired outcomes healthy and beneficial to society? Recent elections have brought some very radical elements into the Democratic Congress. Omar, Tlaib, and that petulant little twit AOC certainly have backgrounds and viewpoints that are different, but they add the desire for radically different outcomes of their proposed policies than what mainstream Americans find desirable. Slavery reparations, condemnation of Israel, Sharia Law, punitive taxation on wealth creation, social justice, infanticide, etc. are not in the mainstream of American thought, and the radicalization of the Democrat Party is causing the more "moderate" Democrats to make the difficult decision between party loyalty and the direction of the Democratic agenda. If a "big tent" is desired, has it gotten so big that the tent now holds folks that are completely at odds with party priorities in the OUTCOMES of their proposed legislation.?

I am enjoying watching the Democrats infight, but am terrified if the ultimate winners are championed by the new crop of Democratic representatives. Their values and desired outcomes look nothing like the America I envision.

Just my thoughts, and look forward to likewise serious thoughts on the topic.

Here is the long and short of "diversity". The United States long ago recognized the strength that could arise out of diversity. But it was appropriately coined (literally) with a caveat, "E Pluribus Unum", or "Out of Many, One."

That worked very well when English was the required language of commerce and law. It worked well when being an immigrant meant that you figured out how to contribute to the overall health and defense of the nation. The "Unum" came from what we held in common: the good of the nation, our civil rights, our respect of the law, and our right to achieve or fail on our own. When those ideals are agreed upon and tolerance is taught and expected to cover all of our continued differences we can be "One".

The problem with "diversity" is the root of the word means "to divide" which is the opposite of "unity" or "One". The concept of rights and law being afforded to all is our basis for unity. With identity politics we set one group apart from another. It is the opposite side of the same coin of "discrimination" only flipped. No Republic can survive what divides it because conflict of interest and civil unrest is the only byproduct of "politics of identity."

Herein lies the whole underpinning of the social and civil war which is being foisted upon our citizens by people who desire to destroy our Republic. We should never be focused on what makes us different. Tolerance covers that. We should only be focused on what makes us strong and unified and that is our rights, our law, and our opportunities to succeed. Focus on the later and we are "One". Focus on the former and we will be divided and as one late great president said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Those who push the politics of identity are the deadly enemies of our Republic and our freedom.

Incredibly succinct and well said. I was thinking the same, but wasn’t quite sure how to put it into words.

Bottom line, our country can be wonderfully successful and the envy of the rest of the world so long as the vast majority all want/work for the same general goals.

As it stands today, we (all of us) are far more alike than different than certain groups AND the media would lead us to believe. Both the left, and the media are playing the divide us game to the hilt - one because it sees it as politically advantageous and the other because it portrays us divided because it sells.

Time will tell if we choose to divide ourselves and tear the country apart or enough people see the deceit being thrown at us on a daily basis and reject those the divide us.

If we eventually fail, it will be because of ignorance.

(03-09-2019 07:55 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 12:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 10:10 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Most of us have had beat into our heads the "diversity" is a wonderful thing. Diversity means that you will have many different people of differing viewpoints and backgrounds that come together to achieve a common goal or to live together harmoniously, fostering mutual respect and opportunity for all . Such groups are often thought of as compromising, accepting, and "outside the box" when dealing with an issue important to all. I think most of us would agree that such a situation is beneficial and enhancing to all, particularly in the long-term.

But is "diversity", in its rawest form, desirable? Is having a bunch of people brought together with differing viewpoints and backgrounds AND widely different desired outcomes healthy and beneficial to society? Recent elections have brought some very radical elements into the Democratic Congress. Omar, Tlaib, and that petulant little twit AOC certainly have backgrounds and viewpoints that are different, but they add the desire for radically different outcomes of their proposed policies than what mainstream Americans find desirable. Slavery reparations, condemnation of Israel, Sharia Law, punitive taxation on wealth creation, social justice, infanticide, etc. are not in the mainstream of American thought, and the radicalization of the Democrat Party is causing the more "moderate" Democrats to make the difficult decision between party loyalty and the direction of the Democratic agenda. If a "big tent" is desired, has it gotten so big that the tent now holds folks that are completely at odds with party priorities in the OUTCOMES of their proposed legislation.?

I am enjoying watching the Democrats infight, but am terrified if the ultimate winners are championed by the new crop of Democratic representatives. Their values and desired outcomes look nothing like the America I envision.

Just my thoughts, and look forward to likewise serious thoughts on the topic.

Here is the long and short of "diversity". The United States long ago recognized the strength that could arise out of diversity. But it was appropriately coined (literally) with a caveat, "E Pluribus Unum", or "Out of Many, One."

That worked very well when English was the required language of commerce and law. It worked well when being an immigrant meant that you figured out how to contribute to the overall health and defense of the nation. The "Unum" came from what we held in common: the good of the nation, our civil rights, our respect of the law, and our right to achieve or fail on our own. When those ideals are agreed upon and tolerance is taught and expected to cover all of our continued differences we can be "One".

The problem with "diversity" is the root of the word means "to divide" which is the opposite of "unity" or "One". The concept of rights and law being afforded to all is our basis for unity. With identity politics we set one group apart from another. It is the opposite side of the same coin of "discrimination" only flipped. No Republic can survive what divides it because conflict of interest and civil unrest is the only byproduct of "politics of identity."

Herein lies the whole underpinning of the social and civil war which is being foisted upon our citizens by people who desire to destroy our Republic. We should never be focused on what makes us different. Tolerance covers that. We should only be focused on what makes us strong and unified and that is our rights, our law, and our opportunities to succeed. Focus on the later and we are "One". Focus on the former and we will be divided and as one late great president said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Those who push the politics of identity are the deadly enemies of our Republic and our freedom.

Incredibly succinct and well said. I was thinking the same, but wasn’t quite sure how to put it into words.

Bottom line, our country can be wonderfully successful and the envy of the rest of the world so long as the vast majority all want/work for the same general goals.

As it stands today, we (all of us) are far more alike than different than certain groups AND the media would lead us to believe. Both the left, and the media are playing the divide us game to the hilt - one because it sees it as politically advantageous and the other because it portrays us divided because it sells.

Time will tell if we choose to divide ourselves and tear the country apart or enough people see the deceit being thrown at us on a daily basis and reject those the divide us.

If we eventually fail, it will be because of ignorance.

He's good that way. I wish I was half as articulate and succinct. My mind can construct these kinds of thoughts but something happens on the way from my brain to my pen - or keyboard - and what I end up saying usually isn't what I was thinking, lol. Dyswondria is a lexiful thang.

AT&T started pushing the liberal tenets of diversity and inclusion back around the turn of the century or shortly thereafter. They pushed it so hard that they actually produced mandatory training courses and forced compliance. We were taught that everyone is special to AT&T and that we should all respect each other. Well, some turned out to be just a wee bit more special and that respect proved to be a one way street as I fought tooth and nail for 10 years as a manager against groundless complaints from my diverse group of technicians. Meanwhile, groups with labels such as Black Telecom Engineers and Latino Communications Professionals (not real names) all clamored for attention while no one was left standing to represent white workers except for the CWA, who actually represented no one. All they cared about was collecting everyone's union dues.

That focus on diversity in our workforce was supposed to improve morale and production but it didn't. Mainly what it did was create animosity where little to none had existed previously. It caused resentment and wrecked morale. It pitted people who were once cordial against each other because it convinced each sup group that they were being discriminated against and the evil white power structure of AT&T was the cause.

No thanks.

(03-09-2019 08:07 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 07:55 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 12:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 10:10 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Most of us have had beat into our heads the "diversity" is a wonderful thing. Diversity means that you will have many different people of differing viewpoints and backgrounds that come together to achieve a common goal or to live together harmoniously, fostering mutual respect and opportunity for all . Such groups are often thought of as compromising, accepting, and "outside the box" when dealing with an issue important to all. I think most of us would agree that such a situation is beneficial and enhancing to all, particularly in the long-term.

But is "diversity", in its rawest form, desirable? Is having a bunch of people brought together with differing viewpoints and backgrounds AND widely different desired outcomes healthy and beneficial to society? Recent elections have brought some very radical elements into the Democratic Congress. Omar, Tlaib, and that petulant little twit AOC certainly have backgrounds and viewpoints that are different, but they add the desire for radically different outcomes of their proposed policies than what mainstream Americans find desirable. Slavery reparations, condemnation of Israel, Sharia Law, punitive taxation on wealth creation, social justice, infanticide, etc. are not in the mainstream of American thought, and the radicalization of the Democrat Party is causing the more "moderate" Democrats to make the difficult decision between party loyalty and the direction of the Democratic agenda. If a "big tent" is desired, has it gotten so big that the tent now holds folks that are completely at odds with party priorities in the OUTCOMES of their proposed legislation.?

I am enjoying watching the Democrats infight, but am terrified if the ultimate winners are championed by the new crop of Democratic representatives. Their values and desired outcomes look nothing like the America I envision.

Just my thoughts, and look forward to likewise serious thoughts on the topic.

Here is the long and short of "diversity". The United States long ago recognized the strength that could arise out of diversity. But it was appropriately coined (literally) with a caveat, "E Pluribus Unum", or "Out of Many, One."

That worked very well when English was the required language of commerce and law. It worked well when being an immigrant meant that you figured out how to contribute to the overall health and defense of the nation. The "Unum" came from what we held in common: the good of the nation, our civil rights, our respect of the law, and our right to achieve or fail on our own. When those ideals are agreed upon and tolerance is taught and expected to cover all of our continued differences we can be "One".

The problem with "diversity" is the root of the word means "to divide" which is the opposite of "unity" or "One". The concept of rights and law being afforded to all is our basis for unity. With identity politics we set one group apart from another. It is the opposite side of the same coin of "discrimination" only flipped. No Republic can survive what divides it because conflict of interest and civil unrest is the only byproduct of "politics of identity."

Herein lies the whole underpinning of the social and civil war which is being foisted upon our citizens by people who desire to destroy our Republic. We should never be focused on what makes us different. Tolerance covers that. We should only be focused on what makes us strong and unified and that is our rights, our law, and our opportunities to succeed. Focus on the later and we are "One". Focus on the former and we will be divided and as one late great president said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Those who push the politics of identity are the deadly enemies of our Republic and our freedom.

Incredibly succinct and well said. I was thinking the same, but wasn’t quite sure how to put it into words.

Bottom line, our country can be wonderfully successful and the envy of the rest of the world so long as the vast majority all want/work for the same general goals.

As it stands today, we (all of us) are far more alike than different than certain groups AND the media would lead us to believe. Both the left, and the media are playing the divide us game to the hilt - one because it sees it as politically advantageous and the other because it portrays us divided because it sells.

Time will tell if we choose to divide ourselves and tear the country apart or enough people see the deceit being thrown at us on a daily basis and reject those the divide us.

If we eventually fail, it will be because of ignorance.

He's good that way. I wish I was half as articulate and succinct. My mind can construct these kinds of thoughts but something happens on the way from my brain to my pen - or keyboard - and what I end up saying usually isn't what I was thinking, lol. Dyswondria is a lexiful thang.

there's no question that wise man should be writing books...

there's some very bright fellers on this board in more ways than one...

hence, the diversity of the 4 corners and the center of the US....

When I hire, I look for the "beat athlete"... skills, credentials, experience, past performance, goals, personality fit and salary expectations all taken into consideration in a trade off. Some aspects may be more important than others depending on the job and the company gaps and needs. Never once has race been a factor. I would like to hire an attractive woman with a bubbly personality to memorize a script and go to industry days, talk about our capabilities, and set up meetings. Usually not but one or two attractive women at these things in my business and they always get a lot of attention. That said, I can't afford to hire someone without experience that can't contribute to the capture process otherwise

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(03-09-2019 12:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 10:10 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Most of us have had beat into our heads the "diversity" is a wonderful thing. Diversity means that you will have many different people of differing viewpoints and backgrounds that come together to achieve a common goal or to live together harmoniously, fostering mutual respect and opportunity for all . Such groups are often thought of as compromising, accepting, and "outside the box" when dealing with an issue important to all. I think most of us would agree that such a situation is beneficial and enhancing to all, particularly in the long-term.

But is "diversity", in its rawest form, desirable? Is having a bunch of people brought together with differing viewpoints and backgrounds AND widely different desired outcomes healthy and beneficial to society? Recent elections have brought some very radical elements into the Democratic Congress. Omar, Tlaib, and that petulant little twit AOC certainly have backgrounds and viewpoints that are different, but they add the desire for radically different outcomes of their proposed policies than what mainstream Americans find desirable. Slavery reparations, condemnation of Israel, Sharia Law, punitive taxation on wealth creation, social justice, infanticide, etc. are not in the mainstream of American thought, and the radicalization of the Democrat Party is causing the more "moderate" Democrats to make the difficult decision between party loyalty and the direction of the Democratic agenda. If a "big tent" is desired, has it gotten so big that the tent now holds folks that are completely at odds with party priorities in the OUTCOMES of their proposed legislation.?

I am enjoying watching the Democrats infight, but am terrified if the ultimate winners are championed by the new crop of Democratic representatives. Their values and desired outcomes look nothing like the America I envision.

Just my thoughts, and look forward to likewise serious thoughts on the topic.

Here is the long and short of "diversity". The United States long ago recognized the strength that could arise out of diversity. But it was appropriately coined (literally) with a caveat, "E Pluribus Unum", or "Out of Many, One."

That worked very well when English was the required language of commerce and law. It worked well when being an immigrant meant that you figured out how to contribute to the overall health and defense of the nation. The "Unum" came from what we held in common: the good of the nation, our civil rights, our respect of the law, and our right to achieve or fail on our own. When those ideals are agreed upon and tolerance is taught and expected to cover all of our continued differences we can be "One".

The problem with "diversity" is the root of the word means "to divide" which is the opposite of "unity" or "One". The concept of rights and law being afforded to all is our basis for unity. With identity politics we set one group apart from another. It is the opposite side of the same coin of "discrimination" only flipped. No Republic can survive what divides it because conflict of interest and civil unrest is the only byproduct of "politics of identity."

Herein lies the whole underpinning of the social and civil war which is being foisted upon our citizens by people who desire to destroy our Republic. We should never be focused on what makes us different. Tolerance covers that. We should only be focused on what makes us strong and unified and that is our rights, our law, and our opportunities to succeed. Focus on the later and we are "One". Focus on the former and we will be divided and as one late great president said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Those who push the politics of identity are the deadly enemies of our Republic and our freedom.

This

(03-09-2019 08:18 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  AT&T started pushing the liberal tenets of diversity and inclusion back around the turn of the century or shortly thereafter. They pushed it so hard that they actually produced mandatory training courses and forced compliance. We were taught that everyone is special to AT&T and that we should all respect each other. Well, some turned out to be just a wee bit more special and that respect proved to be a one way street as I fought tooth and nail for 10 years as a manager against groundless complaints from my diverse group of technicians. Meanwhile, groups with labels such as Black Telecom Engineers and Latino Communications Professionals (not real names) all clamored for attention while no one was left standing to represent white workers except for the CWA, who actually represented no one, while collecting everyone's union dues.

That focus on diversity in our workforce was supposed to improve morale and especially production but it didn't. Mainly what it did was create animosity where little to none had existed previously. It caused resentment and wrecked morale. It pitted people who were once cordial against each other because it convinced each sup group that they were being discriminated against and the evil white power structure of AT&T was the cause.

No thanks.

This is happening at my company now. I've got 10 years to retirement. Not sure I can make it.

(03-09-2019 11:02 AM)DFWMINER Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 08:18 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  AT&T started pushing the liberal tenets of diversity and inclusion back around the turn of the century or shortly thereafter. They pushed it so hard that they actually produced mandatory training courses and forced compliance. We were taught that everyone is special to AT&T and that we should all respect each other. Well, some turned out to be just a wee bit more special and that respect proved to be a one way street as I fought tooth and nail for 10 years as a manager against groundless complaints from my diverse group of technicians. Meanwhile, groups with labels such as Black Telecom Engineers and Latino Communications Professionals (not real names) all clamored for attention while no one was left standing to represent white workers except for the CWA, who actually represented no one, while collecting everyone's union dues.

That focus on diversity in our workforce was supposed to improve morale and especially production but it didn't. Mainly what it did was create animosity where little to none had existed previously. It caused resentment and wrecked morale. It pitted people who were once cordial against each other because it convinced each sup group that they were being discriminated against and the evil white power structure of AT&T was the cause.

No thanks.

This is happening at my company now. I've got 10 years to retirement. Not sure I can make it.

It has been going on in my company for years now in the salaried ranks. What was once (relatively speaking) a system of promotion based on meritocracy has morphed into one that places “special emphasis” on people that belong to check box groups.

It has eroded the business’s ability to do “the blocking and tackling functions” required to make the business as successful as it should be. That happens when the promotions are based not on experience and past success, but more so on gender, color or ethnicity.

I really am okay if those are used as “tiebreakers”, but in practice that’s not what happens. I call it forcing square pegs into round holes.........

(03-09-2019 12:54 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 11:02 AM)DFWMINER Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 08:18 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  AT&T started pushing the liberal tenets of diversity and inclusion back around the turn of the century or shortly thereafter. They pushed it so hard that they actually produced mandatory training courses and forced compliance. We were taught that everyone is special to AT&T and that we should all respect each other. Well, some turned out to be just a wee bit more special and that respect proved to be a one way street as I fought tooth and nail for 10 years as a manager against groundless complaints from my diverse group of technicians. Meanwhile, groups with labels such as Black Telecom Engineers and Latino Communications Professionals (not real names) all clamored for attention while no one was left standing to represent white workers except for the CWA, who actually represented no one, while collecting everyone's union dues.

That focus on diversity in our workforce was supposed to improve morale and especially production but it didn't. Mainly what it did was create animosity where little to none had existed previously. It caused resentment and wrecked morale. It pitted people who were once cordial against each other because it convinced each sup group that they were being discriminated against and the evil white power structure of AT&T was the cause.

No thanks.

This is happening at my company now. I've got 10 years to retirement. Not sure I can make it.

It has been going on in my company for years now in the salaried ranks. What was once (relatively speaking) a system of promotion based on meritocracy has morphed into one that places “special emphasis” on people that belong to check box groups.

It has eroded the business’s ability to do “the blocking and tackling functions” required to make the business as successful as it should be. That happens when the promotions are based not on experience and past success, but more so on gender, color or ethnicity.

I really am okay if those are used as “tiebreakers”, but in practice that’s not what happens. I call it forcing square pegs into round holes.........

I call it what nobody else will, discrimination. It's merely discrimination justified wrongly by past discrimination and falls under the error of two wrongs don't make a right. Shareholders should take note. A business must always be focused on the most productive and the most efficient because those are difference makers in profits.