When in your life did you learn that someone doing something important for you was hired BECAUSE of the color of their skin?
When Jackson was chosen for SCOTUS.
Cruel
joined 1 month ago
That's part of DEI, and conveniently not the parts that Kirk, or most conservatives, complain about.
The policies complained about are the one that effectively turn race/gender into qualifications. Like affirmative action. Like IBM working to get 50% female representation in their engineering hires. Like Biden in 2020 campaigning on the promise of hiring a black woman to SCOTUS (2 years before he even looked at candidates). Like Google and other tech companies implementing policies to favor non-asian minorities and women. It's a form of "diverse sourcing" while making their actual skills and expertise a lower priority than their race/gender.
If that's not the DEI the left supports, then they're awfully quiet about ridiculing it.
When did he frame school shootings as good? Are you referring to when he said they were acceptable deaths if they were required to keep the 2nd amendment? Because that doesn't make them a good thing, it makes them tolerable.
Kinda like how we tolerate ~350 toddlers dying in swimming pools every year and nobody demands that we ban swimming pools.
DEI means hiring a diverse pool of qualified employees. But you know that. You’re just arguing in bad faith.
No, I don't know that, because it's wrong, or misleading at best. "Qualified" is a spectrum, unless you're talking about the low bar of simply having a medical degree/license.
If you're looking for a lawyer to represent you, are you looking for "black woman" as a qualification, reassured by the fact that she is at least bar certified? That would be stupid. You'd want the person who you felt could best represent you. Which could end up being a black woman, but not necessarily.
Joe Biden literally said he was going to pick a black woman to sit in the SCOTUS before he had even made a shortlist of potential candidates. Jackson is a DEI hire. Sure, she is a "qualified" judge, most acting judges technically are, but it's unlikely that she's the most qualified. That's the problem with DEI, people will assume that women or minorities may not be qualified, even when they are. Jackson could very well be the best for that position, but that would be quite the statistical coincidence considering Biden started his search with narrow racial/gender qualifications.
Like Charlie was when he was shot, trying to pretend that the majority of mass murderers aren’t straight cis white men.
He was discussing whether to exclude gang violence when discussing mass shootings, because those are overwhelmingly from gangs. So much so, that people typically exclude gang violence from stats. So if you're including gang violence, white men would not commit the majority of "mass murder." However, most people don't care about gangsters killing each other, they care about innocent people killed/shot.
So, how would someone debate “kill homosexuals”? What’s the counter argument?
He never advocated for instituting laws to kill homosexuals. Neither did he support killing adulterers and people who worship false gods. So a counter argument is pointless unless he actively wanted to enforce Biblical law in the US.
If you learned that your new surgeon was hired strictly because she's a white woman, is it racism to be skeptical of her qualifications? Or are you thrilled to get that surgery just because it's a woman doing it?
Average person cares about their ability to do the job. It's not racist.
This is a reasonable fear in a world where pilots are hired based on their status of being a minority. Is it not? That was the whole point, DEI practices enforce the idea that minorities aren't qualified.
At least make a funny joke if you're going to mock murder victims. "LOL HE GARGLED AND CHOKED ON HIS BLOOD" is not an attempt at dark humor, it's just enjoying death and violence.
He didn't use "gang violence" as short hand for "black violence." That wouldn't make sense in the context of mass shootings. He said “Counting or not counting gang violence?” more as a shorthand for "Are we counting criminals killing each other?" Whether it's hispanic, white, or black gangs isn't very relevant.
Gangs contribute to the majority of designated "mass shootings," and are often excluded from conversations that want to focus on innocent victims of mass shooting as opposed to cases of criminals killing each other. After all, if all mass shootings were just gangsters shooting each other, people wouldn't care nearly as much as they do now. They care about the mass shootings that don't involve gangs.
EDIT: Seems like many sources explicitly exclude gang violence in their stats. So my statement may be incorrect that gangs contribute to "designated" mass shootings as they are not designation such by many sources.
Using that logic, everyone who supports cops or the military using guns is a supporter of gun violence, and anyone who supports physical self-defense is a supporter of violence. Makes the notion of "supporting violence" politically pointless.
He was willing to accept violent gun deaths in support of his 2a position.
Yeah. Everything has a trade-off. I don't want swimming pools outlawed, so I have to accept that ~350 toddlers are going to drown accidentally in pools every year. That does NOT mean I support toddlers drowning, I just tolerate it as a cost. It's not like Kirk wanted deaths from gun violence.
I'm not seeing it. Most those quotes were about affirmative action logically causing him to question the qualifications of blacks (because their race got them there via affirmative action). The rest are simply not racist or just bashing specific black individuals.
I'll say this is the only one even worth discussing, as it requires a lot of nuance. The other points below aren't good.
If he could, I'm sure he would say his own death was "worth it" in the context of being able to live in a country with gun rights. There are like ~1200 children killed by cars every year. Would you say that's not worth having cars? Would you outlaw them?
Making a joke about blind people is insensitive, but not even half the insensitivity of the meme in this post. I won't defend him necessarily except to say this is a pretty mild offense, especially for someone everyone is calling a fascist who deserved public execution. I'd expect something a bit more dire.
Do you know why? And do you have a reason for being so strongly against that? I don't have a reason. I don't know any studies on how this affects kids, but it could very well be a good idea.