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. 

[hntnhole]

On 1/19/2026 at 1:14 PM, PozTalkAuthor said:

When you hire someone because of their underrepresented condition rather for a real professional value.

I think that this issue is causing some misunderstanding: 

Since I was in business for years, I feel able to comment cogently on the issue.  I had to hire people, and one of the facets I considered was their "cultural identity", if that makes sense.  But it was only one, and not the most important one.  Competence, ability to do the job was paramount.  However, when there were - oh - say 3 relatively equally-qualified candidates, It was my "right" (and, in my mind, my duty), to consider any cultural issues as well, stressing competency of course, but also having the luxury of more than 1 equally qualified people, I could actually 1) act on my beliefs, and 2) engage an employee on an "equal" basis with every other employee.   

In that instance, I could allow myself to "empower" at least one minority of some sort (racial, cultural, whatever), simply because that is something I believed in, and it was my company,  so I could do it.  Only once (out of a number of hires) did an "inclusive" choice turn out to be a poor choice who had to be let go.  

Now.  Since I did have the ability to run the company the way I felt was right and proper, I was able to put my cultural conscience into the mix of issues, and hire someone from an underrepresented cultural group, and I'd alter nothing today, if I still had that company.  

Point:  not everyone has the ability to make decisions that impact underrepresented groups, but everyone can do whatever they're able to make the "playing field" more equal.  Whether it's something as small as a kind word, or a smile, or as impactful as hiring someone that needed a job - it all counts equally as doing what we're able to do to make our world a tiny bit more just, more inclusive, more equal, and a tiny bit better. 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 09:11 PM by hntnhole
rephrasing

[tobetrained]

5 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

my sticking place of authority is the form it takes.

In the definition you provide, it's more an academic use of the word. Words like authority, and I'll add coercion, have very dry neutral meaning. But in conversational-speak, these words typically are used implying a negative meaning of oppression.

In the definition, "authority" would be a "manager"  (or managing group) and coercion would be the "method of how you manage people." In practice, it can be the negative. But you can do the managing through positive means. You say you're sensitive to authority. I can be coerced with donuts, highly pliable.

These authority/managers can be people or groups.

5 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

The sticking points, challenges, of pluralism arise (i think) when some consider their group to possess absolute knowledge vs belief.

This is the foundation of extremism. Once a person believes they're "right" and "doing good" they begin to demonize "the other" as they can't be "doing good" if it's different.

We live in world of two political extremes now...both unwilling and unable to understand the other side. This actually gets back to you're original question... and how @PozTalkAuthor suggested adding/editing.

[tallslenderguy]

On 1/21/2026 at 5:01 PM, tobetrained said:

In the definition you provide, it's more an academic use of the word. Words like authority, and I'll add coercion, have very dry neutral meaning. But in conversational-speak, these words typically are used implying a negative meaning of oppression.

In the definition you provide, it's more an academic use of the word. Words like authority, and I'll add coercion, have very dry neutral meaning. But in conversational-speak, these words typically are used implying a negative meaning of oppression.

In the definition, "authority" would be a "manager"  (or managing group) and coercion would be the "method of how you manage people." In practice, it can be the negative. But you can do the managing through positive means. You say you're sensitive to authority. I can be coerced with donuts, highly pliable.

These authority/managers can be people or groups.

This is the foundation of extremism. Once a person believes they're "right" and "doing good" they begin to demonize "the other" as they can't be "doing good" if it's different.

We live in world of two political extremes now...both unwilling and unable to understand the other side. This actually gets back to you're original question... and how @PozTalkAuthor suggested adding/editing.

What i  was attempting to do in that particular post was to make a point that there are different types of authority, not just focus on one definition. i think we are on the same page?  Ultimately, i think it comes down to the individual attitude and approach. How one wields words and position.   In that way, i think "one" can apply to anyone.  Even something as obscure as an exchange between people on a BZ forum can contain examples of what i am trying to say, where one can express as fact or truth or feeling or thought.  "Fact or truth,"  can come across as more authoritative, instructive,  than expressing individual  "feeling, opinion or thought" on a topic.

i used religion and, often, use healthcare because they are two areas i have more experience and knowledge about.   In religion, many respond to a "pastor" as a position of authority.  Some religious even have special or particular garb, uniforms of a sort, that can have the effect of imbuing them with an automatic authority (with some). E.g., though two people might have and use the same exact title: "pastor," the way they utilize that title can be very different.  One might assert they speak for "God," while the other more simply shares a belief.  

It's a vast topic, eh?  Between individuals, each has their own personal cognitive and emotional response to perceived authority.  

Taking it back to the political/governance arena. i think there are more than "two political extremes" at play? Or, if i were to reduce it to two extremes, it would not be republican vs democrat, or conservative vs liberal. At this point i see it as fascism vs democracy.  But really, i think part of what complicates this is the many individuals that result in many groups that authorities are attempting to manage. 

i think trump, and many of his power structure, call/ed themselves "republican" to give them broader appeal. But i think fascist better describes him/them. And by saying that, i'm not excusing any particular party of what i perceive as nefarious motive. 

 

 

[tobetrained]

34 minutes ago, tallslenderguy said:

i think trump, and many of his power structure, call/ed themselves "republican" to give them broader appeal. But i think fascist better describes him/them. And by saying that, i'm not excusing any particular party of what i perceive as nefarious motive.

I've recognized this in past conversations. What I've tried to get across to you is this is excessive. Does he take a page out of the book of being a tyrant? Yes, possibly the whole book. But being a tyrant and being a fascist are two wholly different things.

But extremism happens on both ends of the continuum. One end, the collectivists -- communists, socialists, etc. -- are using Trump to claim the mantle of Democracy. I have a problem with that. This is purely to gain an advantage in the millennia-long debate over individualism vs. collectivism. In 20th century terms, fascism vs. communism -- but it goes well beyond this. And in so far as that, this effort is the equal-but-opposite reaction to Republicans going along with Trump as they get legislation they like.

Which bring me back to the thesis: we simply live in a world of two extremes.

And to that end, consider your original question here: "This goes out to Trump supporters. i want to know and, hopefully understand your perspective." in the context of the summary you just stated which I quoted above.

Are you trying to understand them or are you really asking "how can you think like this?" or, "why can't you think like me?"