We need a diverse virus task force

I'm thinking ageism might be the most important ism in the coming 2 years

The quickest way to pay for all this is to raid old people's assets, superannuation

 

So...

No link?

Shame

 

But we're all "equal".

 

So a fixed state of low expectations then. Just so we don't miss anyone. Amazing!

 

Because we all know you can only expect results from the privileged! They are just better! Fantastic!

 

And they're mmmmilky whhhhhhite.

 

no, no lowered expectations. Just looking at everyone is what I'm saying. Not just Joe Smith, but also Donna Washington, you know?

 

You're making the broad assumption that some people, based on their color, are likely to be underprivileged, marginalized, and in need of recognition. Assuming before you know that they are put upon because of their heritage. Don't worry, it's common thinking. It has been drilled into us since the 60s. The voter ID issue is a prime example.

 

The idea that certain minorities cannot get ahead without lowering the bar, is a pretty low form of racism

 

Yeah, that idea. That idea that minorities can only get ahead if we have low standards. That one. What a shame, but it bears repeating. Over and over and over again.

 

How racist. If only we could see that all people are equal, then minorities would have no one to blame but themselves. Ya fucking racists.

 

Isn't how low a form of racism is usually determined by intent, motive or the level of discrimination. Nice try.

 

Those are both cases in Britain, aren't they? Different country, different policies, different legal system. So is it British discriminatory policies or American discriminatory policies we're to be concerned about, or do we just mix and match?

 

I'm not worried.

I think that the real statistics show that certain populations in fact are underrepresented in, as an example, managerial positions. Similarly they are not represented in certain occupations, say the political arena, or medicine.

Voter ID is an interesting example because, again, with certain populations (this is also true of non-color people) there is lower income. We had this discussion before and it came to my attention that there are actually measures to provide for ID at a discount through the DMV or otherwise. But I think by and large those programs are, if not hidden, difficult to discover.

It's not just thinking though. There are sociological surveys of various samples and they demonstrate not only a lower level of income, but also lower rates of hiring and promotion for people of color, women, trans, gay, or really any "other".

I don't believe we are lowering the bar at all. I think that by looking outside the proverbial box (the obvious candidates), we are catering to a vision of a better tomorrow; one where people of all backgrounds are considered equally. You seem to feel we already have that. The facts and figures however suggest otherwise.

 

This argument made some sense in the 50s. 60s and 70s. There were all kinds of isloated communities all over the country and people had little need for carrying an ID crd around. Even driver's licenses didn't have a photo.

But we're 2 full decades into the 21st century and ID cards are not difficult to come by. If you are SO poor you can't afford one, most states have a waiver program. The government wants ID cards in everyone's hands, it makes people more exposed to the tax code overall (money money money). After all, they get grants and subsidies based on how many poor they can produce on their roles (and keep on a particular side of town).

So the idea that requiring the same ID we use for liquor, cashing checks and gun purchases, is somehow not good enough for voting, is absurd.

 

Government should make all voter ID available without expense, this way everyone is happy and we don't have to fret over the voter fraud that isn't happening.

 

Voter fraud is as old as voting itself. It's why we have so many systems for reducing the potential for repeated votes. This sort of thing isn't about what side you are on. Any side in a vote wants to know the vote isn't being rigged at any stage of the process. That's just logic.

Also, people are charged with voter fraud every election cycle. Many of them are guilty. However, it's rarely enough voters to turn an election. So it is happening, and it wouldn't take much to escalate it. And of course, it's far from being an exclusively American phenomenon.

 

I agree it is an insignificant number of fraudulent votes, and as I implied, not worth nearly the debate and time the issue has been devoted.

So if we just put this extraneous idea on the back of the taxpayer for a modest fee, we can put the issue to bed where it belongs.

 

The way this thread is framed makes it hard to have an intelligent discussion on a complicated subject. First of all, it's sarcastic. I gather the bloke who posted it doesn't really think we need a diverse task force. Next, it's simplistic. It uses the extreme example of response to an emergency pandemic as the standard for employment practices throughout society. Yes, we must have the very most qualified people as emergency responders (which seems inconsistent with the Trump populist MAGA hatter distrust of experts as the Deep State). Must this apply to all positions in our society, from ditch diggers, to janitors, and that Burger King waitstaff, to the exclusion of all other societal concerns. (To be sure, we don't want incompetent people even in these jobs, but incompetency is a different matter.) Most importantly, it is idealistic--pushing a color-blind ideal of "most qualified" as though it was a clear standard established in Plato's heaven, rather than colored in the real world by subjective judgments and prejudices. It begs the question of what is qualified in a hiring situation--what is known in the vernacular as BFOQ (bona fide occupational qualification). Can Hooters get by hiring only slender, big breasted women? Should it?Hooters settles gender discrimination lawsuit, gets to keep waitresses Obesity and Weight Discrimination in the Workplace via Hooters Back in the day, it was a matter of the preferences and prejudices of the hirer, and as it turned out, secretaries who couldn't type were hired because of their looks, the glass ceiling kept women from executive positions because they were deemed too emotional to handle the jobs, and most college and professional school classes were made up of white males. Recruiting for management or faculty slots was often done by on old boy system in which the hirer would ask people he knew if they knew anybody who could fill the job, and that person tended, more often than not, to be a white guy just like them. Were folks at the top really the most qualified back then? Or was there a terrible waste of human talent among women and minorities who were out of the loop or judged in terms of stereotypes.

That's why, in the U.S., LBJ introduced the policy of affirmative action back in the sixties, originally for African-Americans but extended to other minorities and women. And with it came bureaucrats and judges to implement, interpret, and enforce it. And of course, also zealots who think it's outrageous, for example, that three seventy-something white men are "once again" the finalists in the presidential race (Hillary having lost the previous bout and the six Democrat contenders for the nomination being eliminated by the voters in the polls and primaries). Being human, there were excesses, litigation, and injustices--but some think the result is preferable to the status quo ante. But the inevitable consequences were charges of "reverse discrimination" and fertile ground for demagogues to stir shit.