no, no, and no (and that's gaslighting)

Should the same quotas be filled in areas where poc excel and are employed at higher percentages than population splits would otherwise suggest?

You should really think on how the Daily Mail sausage gets made. Do you think the Daily Mail, a British tabloid, is out there knocking door and shaking trees doing gumshoe reporting in Bumblef*ck, America? Or is there some British tosser who has a ton of reddit forums bookmarked and a BLM Google Alert sifting through the information to find the most reactionary tidbits to feed to the people who think "the mainstream media just won't report it?"

There's a reason why every time you think the Daily Mail has a scoop anyone can find the original newspaper where it came from (if it's true)

These are the little lies we tell ourselves.

False dichotomy question that presupposes that POC and women (both facing the same challenge) cannot also be equally qualified and there is only one magicly applicable new employ who just so happens to be overwhelmingly a white male.

The better question is 'why overwhelmingly, despite choice (Women and POC) and equally comparable qualifications did corporations for decades and decades still seem to have the same hiring patterns (overwhelming white males in key positions) and should corporations make moves to correct that.

That answer is, YES.

You sidestepped the question nicely there... Lets try to reframe so we can get a more direct answer..
A business is presented with 2 options for hiring
1) choose the most qualified candidates regardless of race
2)ensure that POC are represented proportionately regardless of qualification


Is the business racist if they chose 1 and the majority of the employees are the same race?

You don't agree that choking someone to death is the opposite of showing concern for their medical state ?

I guess this is why why progressives and conservatives will never find common ground. Most progressives don't think being high and irrational is grounds for a summary execution.

Conservatives really don't mind.

And that justifies his murder, how ?

Those people like the refer......

It doesn't justify his murder but it makes a murder 2 conviction impossible. Prosecution will have to prove the police intended to kill GF which is clearly not the case from the video. They will be acquitted and will get riots 2.0.

Well, if the judicial system was operating at full integrity that would likely be the case. Given any juror, judge, attorney and court official knows that an acquittal will mean riots and probably their own life and those of their families being in danger, it seems likely the officers will have the book thrown at them. So basically this will be a kangaroo court. Which social justice radicals will probably argue is fair for what they perceive as past and present judicial compromise working against their cause.

How does MN law deal with the lesser included offenses?

This post is just stupid. DUCY?

Can you find the original source for the leaked George Floyd video to prove your point? I'm too lazy.

Tabloids are known to pay £$£ for exclusive scoops so they get them now and then.

This would appear to be an admission that there is racism in hiring practices, and that straight up hiring more Black people would not cause harm to the business, as you previously suggested.

In the corporate world, we have, e.g., resume studies that show that equally qualified Black people are less likely to be receive interviews just for being Black. Do you have similar evidence that identically qualified white NBA players can't get a roster spot that a Black player can?

Do you have an example of where a cop got unduly punished for killing someone, presumably because of the fear of the uppity rioters? Because I've got a bunch where the cop got off super easy.

If the "most qualified" candidate is almost always white, then that's pretty much an open admission that the business thinks Black people and other people of color are less qualified, which is pretty racist.

Where are you getting that opinion from ?

Murder 2 does not include premeditation. It merely includes 'intent' which can still easily be established given the 10 minutes he choked him out and the fact that he continued to kneel on his neck for minutes after Floyd was unresponsive (already dead).

I dodge it because it is the type of false hypothetical always offered by those trying to rationalize institutionalized discrimination when raised in aggregate by trying to create the 'there is only one qualified person' logical fallacy sidestep question.


Here is what is being discussed as posted upthread...

"...These people think all these constraints put on a business won't have a negative impact to the quality and service level of the business. You can't degrade the options a business has to operate efficiently and expect the the quality level not to deteriorate.

The only effect will be driving the businesses and money out of this area and getting a couple more percentage points for Trump in November..."


...that the constraint 'ACROSS THE BOARD' on the business, that strives for a balanced work place (women and POC) will make it uncompetitive, and thus the putting in place of procedures that push for equity are wrong and harmful.

This is not about filling any SINGULAR specific job. And trying to switch the discussion to that is a strawman reply.

If you need an Astrophysicist and only one shows up then hire that person regardless of race or gender. Full stop.

But if across your organization, you do not, within a certain tolerance for your industry, reflect the populace of workers available and applying, then the default position should be to assume some underlying biases, more than likely subconscious, are at play.

That is true of any outlier position when examined statistically.

So if you buy a cycling team for $20,000,000 are you going to make a black guy a captain at the Tour De France? Hint: pretty much the only people who are qualified for this position are white or columbian. But hey, it's your money.

Actually I don't cy.

Conservatives always make excuses for anyone in authority abusing that authority. It's just one of those things. It doesn't make sense because conservatives say they're for freedom and against the deep state etc, but time and time again when these discussions come up on forums like this.....conservatives really don't mind police killing unruly people.

I consider you the exception that proves the rule. I'm totally generalizing, but that's really the way I 'c' it.

That's what happens sometimes when your principle is innocent until proven guilty. When you use the guilty until proven innocent principle, that's called oppression.

I do think that is the prime difference.

There seems to be a segment of the populace who believes anything except for 100% compliance to any cop demand, then justifies 'execution by cop'.

You are JWalking and the cop stops you, and you are having a bad day and get verbally confrontational with the cop, he can escalate, resort to massive force, and if you die, you die. 'Don't talk **** to cops'.


Even in the case with the cops who put a man thru the most impossible game of Simon Says, where a singular failure did not just get him kicked out of the game, but killed, you see people saying on this forum 'obey all rules or get shot'.

That is the absurdity that many express in looking for any reason to blame the victim and absolve the cop.

"Lay down", "don't move", "crawl", "but keep your hands up and out front", "you are not listening", "listen", "stop your hysterics and focus", "understand you make a single mistake and you will die"...


Bang, your dead.

Defenders, "he made a mistake, he deserved it".

No consideration of the threat level posed by the victim and if therefore the cop should de-escalate himself to a point where he is reserving the use of deadly force. Nope, comply or die, no mistakes allowed.


It would be very easy to see how one of those kids or their mother forced to lie face down on the pavement ends up shot, after a single 'wrong movement' BECAUSE the cops escalated the situation to the point where they had drawn down on the family, when there simply is visible tghreat being posed and thus no reason to draw down on them.


Cops need to be retrained, as they once were, not that long ago, that if you draw down and threaten someone's life like that you better be able to justify a real threat.

Hahahahahahhahaahaha.

It's disturbing that you can watch a man murder another man, slowly over a period of minutes and then claim if that man is convicted it will be in a 'kangaroo court'.

The leftist MSM does the same thing. Except they pass on a lot of stories, and in the stories they do cover pass on a lot of the details, for ideological reasons.

Ironically, because it is more interested in sensationalism than ideology, DailyMail will often do much more thorough reporting of US news than the US MSM.