Want to understand

[hntnhole]

1 hour ago, PozTalkAuthor said:

Well, the word is TOKENISM.

I don't particularly endorse that contrivance either. 

However, if the result is a beginning to address past wrongs, create a deeper understanding of problems, and potential remedies, starting with "tokenism" is better than not starting at all.  To my way of thinking, it's when "tokenism" becomes both the beginning and the end of the effort that it becomes useless.  

Filling an open position with someone who fits only the "token" bill accomplishes nothing, if they happen to be incompetent to advance the issue at hand.  Filling an open position with someone who fits the bill of an underrepresented community, and who also can accomplish the job is the whole point of giving some underrepresented person an equal chance.

Once I hired a salesperson on the basis of underrepresentation, because that person was equally able relative to other applicants for that position.  She was a lesbian, also of Filipino descent, so I managed to fulfil two of the goals in one hire.  Had she not worked out, she would have been gone, but she worked out well.  To me, that's a win/win, all the way around.  

Point:  when each of us does what we can to redress wrongs, we should do that.  It only helps move cultural redress forward, even if in only some small way.  

[hntnhole]

1 hour ago, PozTalkAuthor said:

He says

... anything that stumbles into his head at the moment, which is why nothing he says can be taken at face value.  Apparently, his mental "filter" - which each human being possesses - no longer works, so that his utterances become nothing but noise to lucid folks.  

Add into the mix, a sorely-confused mindset that is focused only on satisfying his wish-of-the-moment, and we wind up with gangs of unruly armed mobs running amok in Minneapolis/St. Paul, stunningly confused commentary about "taking" Greenland, which has been associated with Denmark since the days of the Vikings.  He mouths one platitude, and acts diametrically opposite to that platitude moments - literally moments - later.  The man is clearly, obviously unwell, his "abilities" are fading fast, and sadly, he's trying to simply destroy the nation.  

From the Oxford:

"A hypocrite is someone who pretends to have virtues, beliefs, or moral standards they don't actually possess, or whose actions contradict their stated principles, often to appear good while acting otherwise, essentially being a "play actor" or two-faced person. They profess certain ideals (like caring for the environment) but don't follow them in their own lives (like driving a gas guzzler). 

Key characteristics

Pretends virtue: Claims to be moral, pious, or virtuous but isn't."

[tobetrained]

@PozTalkAuthor I think a lot of the DEI stuff we agree. But, in the US (and I'm sure similar if not same in EU), we already had equal opportunity laws -- making a lot of DEI irrelevant. In fact, the Supreme Court rule 9-0 on this last summer.

Part of the DEI issue is in ideological "inclusivity" culture, aka campus culture, aka, etc, etc. This is not about hate speech. Even in your response, you defined terms in the norms of that culture -- that creates an "right vs. "wrong" even though those are not quantitative terms, they're qualitative.

For many, esp those who argue for separation of church vs state on principle, it's an important distinction. When it comes to religion -- like "inclusivity culture" -- the issue is about preventing a self-justifying ideology from determining how everyone must live. The terms you articulate are among a superficial form of that, e.g. tokenism.

A pluralistic society needs objectivity.

I'll relate a lunch conversation with a former colleague on this topic, a self-professed Socialist (an American socialism is probably more to the left than in Germany, if I understand those politics enough): he says, "If I'm staffing out 4 roles including me, I'm making sure one is black, one is Hispanic, and the other is Asian." 

So, where do you start with that!? And, the area I live is 75%-80% non-Hispanic White. All you can do is discriminate against the majority population...besides the fact that it's horribly ethnocentric to say an Arab, Indian, Chinese (among others) are the same, an Asian. And, same goes for other classifications based on the happenstance of the American population composition.

This is identity-politics run-wild.

Edited Monday at 08:52 PM by tobetrained
minor language edits

[tobetrained]

I forgot to add the link. Hopefully you all had seen this at the time, I'm not sure all commentary is aligned to the Supreme Court's 9-0 ruling. maybe.

[think before following links] https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-06-05/supreme-court-rules-that-anti-discrimination-law-applies-equally-to-all-including-majority-group-members

[tallslenderguy]

On 1/19/2026 at 12:49 PM, tobetrained said:

 

A pluralistic society needs objectivity.

 

^^i think this nails it. ^^

Where i am coming from is likely vulnerable to triggered subjectivity lol, so please forgive where it may bleed through. my desire and goal is objectivity. i escaped  a fundamentalist religious cult culture that i'd been raised in and conditioned by from birth. One of the results of my escape is a super sensitivity to authority.  

"Pluralism" by definition (especially when speaking about government?) is "the co-existance of two or more groups, states, principles, sources of authority" (that's the google search result/definition). Here's a more detailed explanation from Britannica:

"pluralism, in political science, the view that in liberal democracies power is (or should be) dispersed among a variety of economic and ideological pressure groups and is not (or should not be) held by a single elite or group of elites. Pluralism assumes that diversity is beneficial to society and that autonomy should be enjoyed by disparate functional or cultural groups within a society, including religious groups, trade unions, professional organizations, and ethnic minorities."

my sticking place of authority is the form it takes.  Beyond arithmetic, i find it impossible to believe in absolutes... i.e., every belief involves an element of faith.  The scientific approach, ideally, recognizes this is what we know now, but further research often demonstrates our knowledge was not complete, or downright wrong. The authority i'm most apt to get along with in a pluralistic setting, is the one who may argue a particular point, citing evidence, reason, etc., but who always holds some reserve doubt. The understanding and premiss for ongoing openness being that, in an infinite universe, our conclusions are not absolute? 

The sticking points, challenges, of pluralism arise (i think) when some consider their group to possess absolute knowledge vs belief. As an example,  i'll choose religion since i'm pretty familiar with it. There are some who identify as "Christian" who live that as a belief, while the fundamentalist approach of others approach life choices convinced their basis is knowledge (absolute). They cannot be wrong, and because they cannot be wrong, they cannot truly engage in objective debate.  

As i see it, the issue with authoritarians like trump, those he surrounds himself with, and their 2025 agenda, is they cannot be engaged.  I.e., their "authority" is not the type that is open to further learning through ongoing 'research' or debate, rather, they know the truth and their only goal is to rule and implement accordingly.