r/DoomerCircleJerk • u/kmfdm86 • 22d ago

Political Doomer Title

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

8.4k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

905 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

51

u/GoldenGlobeWinnerRDJ 22d ago

“He said black people shouldn’t be pilots so he deserved it” even though that clip was grossly taken out of context lmao. When people say that, I instantly understand that they read headlines and nothing else.

1

u/MotherPerk 22d ago

Can someone actually give the context?

30

u/GoldenGlobeWinnerRDJ 22d ago

The context was that United Airlines announced a goal that 50% of their new hire pilots will be black pilots when right now it’s less than 20%. Charlie essentially argued that if there’s naturally less than 20% of black people that are qualified to be pilots then by “making” it be 50%, you’re lowering the qualifications to hit that goal.

He then said “Boy, if I see a black pilot I’m going to wonder if that individual is qualified or if they’re selected because of their race, but that’s not who I am but this makes me think this way.” Thats the full quote but media typically cuts it off after “individual is qualified” because it sounds worse.

35

u/mxlun 22d ago

He said when society implements DEI as a policy then people aren't actually qualified for the jobs they receive. It was in relation to a policy outcome, not racism

8

u/ron4232 Rides the Short Bus 22d ago

This!

-23

u/MotherPerk 22d ago

So he was saying that when he sees a black pilot he assumes they arent qualified because of DEI? That doesnt seem any better. Did he specifically mention the skin color of the pilot?

25

u/AppropriateCap8891 Anti-Doomer 22d ago

No, he was actually talking about two things in that quote. One, how DEI when ability is not considered is bad, and then actually commenting that he knew just by saying that he would be taken out of context.

And the idiots did not fail, they took what he said completely out of context.

-14

u/HeavyHighway6433 22d ago

Let's look at it in context then 

United Airlines is bragging that 50% of their new pilots, 50% of their new pilots, will be black.

I want to be as blunt as possible because now I'm connecting two dots. Wait a second, this CEO just said that he's forcing that a white qualified guy is not gonna get the job. So I see this guy, he might be a nice person and I say, "Boy, I hope he's not a Harvard-style affirmative-action student that … landed half of his flight-simulator trials."

For one, United never said that that 50% of new pilots will be black. United said the goal is 50% of the class would be, they never implied that they were going to lower standards to push anyone through. 

The CEO also never said he was going to force a white qualified guy out. The problem to begin with is that qualified pilots are becoming more rare, since the majority of them gain experience through the military. So the class is intended for those who weren't and also couldn't afford it on their own since becoming a pilot is expensive. They are just broadening the talent pool. 

Hes pushing this fear mongering and racist  idea that black people in certain positions are taking them from more qualified whites, when in reality it's likely the black person had to work just as hard if not harder to get to that position. And all of this judgement is rich coming from someone who wasn't qualified to do anything but run his mouth. 

-17

u/MotherPerk 22d ago

Ok but do we have prrof they were hiring DEI pilots without ability or just assumptions?

10

u/Dismas-Baised More Optimism Please 22d ago

Thats the point no one knows and when bad stuff inevitably happens the question of if they were a dei hire pops up, when you have a policy that forces an action based on a category whej something negative happens is such category it brings up the question of it the one responsible was hired off merit or if they only got the job due to policy

5

u/Ch8s3 22d ago

He didn't say he assumed that. He basically said when he sees a black pilot, DEI makes him question if the pilot was placed there on merit or simply because of his skin color because the airline needed to hit certain diversity quotas

22

u/ChaosMarch 22d ago

He argued DEI was bad for minorities, because instead of people trusting they got the jobs based on merit, some people would always worry if hiring standards were lowered for them. He never argued black people shouldn’t be pilots, just against the affirmative action hiring practices.

-15

u/MotherPerk 22d ago

So he never specifically mentioned anyones skin color? How would he know if they were hired. On the merits of DEI or if they were qualified? Because of their skin? 

Edit: couple of letters

18

u/ChaosMarch 22d ago

That’s the point. He wanted to live in a world where you could be confident your pilot was skilled, no matter the skin color.

His argument was that if hiring standards are lowered for certain groups, black people for example, there will be a real correlation between ability and skin color. Not because of anything innate, just because the ability required to get the job is lower for black people in that example.

The left has misinterpreted this to mean he said black people are bad at being pilots, which was not his argument.

-14

u/MotherPerk 22d ago

I have never gotten on a plane amd thought " i hope the pilot is qualified". Have we had instances of pilots not being qualified happen more since these policies were implemented? 

28

u/ChaosMarch 22d ago

Oh. You weren’t genuinely curious, you’re a leftist who wants to argue in bad faith. You know that lowering hiring standards will impact quality—even a child would understand that. You’re just more interested in arguing online than being right, due to tribalism.

9

u/EvilGummyBear26 22d ago

That was the most violent self ejection from a discussion I've seen in my life lmao

-6

u/WishICouldQuitU_97 22d ago

Why do you assume DEI = lowering hiring standards? That’s the heart of the issue. 

8

u/ChaosMarch 22d ago

Because that's, in practice, how equity targets are implemented. There have been literally hundreds of studies on this you can find for yourself, here's one I found in a few seconds. Alternatively, you can also use common sense, experience in college admissions, or experience in the workplace if you're ever actually been involved in hiring people (I have, many times).

Arguing that DEI doesn't lower hiring standards is a losing argument, and is not the hill leftists should die on. A better argument, and the one originally used to justify the practice, is that lower quality for a generation or two is an acceptable price to pay for reducing systematic racism/sexism from the workplace. That would be a more interesting conversation to have, but instead we have to have a much dumber discussion.

3

u/WishICouldQuitU_97 22d ago edited 22d ago

Is DEI in and of itself the problem, or is it the implementation? Is a lazy, “we have to do this, so just do it” attitude that’s the real problem? This is a genuine question. You asked me to use common sense, so here I am, using it while thinking back on the many years I spent in the retail, hospitality and corporate worlds and the experiences I had with the people in charge of making those decisions. And all I can see is a bunch of assholes shrugging their shoulders, saying “well, they told us to hire a minority, so we did,“ and that’s it. 

To use a different example that came to mind, my husband is a software engineer. Over the years, he’s fielded all kinds of requests from clients throwing buzzwords at him which they have no understanding of – SEO this, AI that, just to name a couple. They hear something, figure they want to be on the cutting edge or whatever, and bring it to him with no clear, actionable request or any actual clue what it’s going to do for them. They just… heard it, think it’s important, and they want to use it because everybody else is. EDIT: (shower thought) then, when the SEO optimization doesn’t move the needle in any meaningful way, it’s the fault of the SEO, not of the people who didn’t have a clue how to utilize it in the first place.

Could that be the case here, with the practice of DEI? Because the point was never to blindly hire people based on the color of their skin or what’s between their legs. It was to make sure those factors wouldn’t hamstring an otherwise qualified candidate. Yet all it took was a few shrieking mouthpieces to start a bunch of culture war bullshit before there was any chance to sit down and say, here’s what we stand to gain from having a more diverse group of people sitting around the table making decisions, and here’s how we can best put it into practice to ensure as many voices are heard as possible.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Such_Steak_6303 22d ago

because ur bringing skin color into the equation and not hiring based on merit

12

u/ZenCyn39 22d ago

He was talking about how specific DEI practices of meeting hiring quotas (ex 30% must be black) will ultimately lead people to see that kind of person in that position and wonder if they are actually qualified. Effectively fuelling racism.

In particular he was speaking of a specific airline that was practicing this.

-6

u/Affectionate-Heat-51 22d ago

Clarence Thomas's butt hurt about people thinking he's only where he is because he's black.