When Harris had to pick a VP, all media kinda agreed it should be a white male, to balance the fact that she is black and a woman. So Walz is the DEI hire.

BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world to Showerthoughts@lemmy.world – 965 points –

If you ask me, I'm upset no one picked up that this consideration was sexist and racist, although it is indeed the best choice for her to win, which reflects how bad US can't get over race and gender.

138

Is Trump the DEI hire?

Yes, he was the first orange person to be hired as president. He was hired despite Hillary getting more votes because he was the DEI candidate.

was hired despite Hillary getting more votes because he was the DEI candidate of special admission processes.

This meme is so inaccurate. Everyone knows he can't say Kamala. Isn't it weird people think you should elect someone who can't even pronounce someone's name?

It’s worse than that - it’s like how he and his cronies choose not to call her “Harris” like everyone else calls him “Trump” or the president “Biden.” No one says “Joe,” or “Donald,” or “Barack.” So to add insult to disrespectful injury, they refuse to actually say her name correctly. Hence the “Kamabla” shit he’s been doing too.

I've noticed that too. It was the same with "Hillary."

Using the last name is a sign of respect that they don't think women deserve.

Yeah I almost used her as an example but I didn’t want to deal with the inevitable “it’s so she isn’t confused with her husband.

I was having this conversation the other day. Pelosi came up as a counterexample.

Now I'm not sure where the line is between subtle disrespect and simply using the more distinctive part of a candidate's name.

I do see a lot of republicans just call her “Nancy” but she definitely gets more references to her last name

Huh, I haven't really heard people call her "Nancy". Last time I recall her coming up amongst Republicans, it was "Pelosi" with a reference to the attack on her husband.

"Kamala" is hard to pronounce, yet they never had a problem with "Barack Hussein Obama pause for the scary middle-eastern/Islamic-sounding name to sink into racist audience"

And I love when Palin got called out directly for that and she backpedaled so hard, trying to make it sound like they always do that with everyone and started rattling off republican full names like that made a single bit of difference...

Can we get a truth-o-meter to scrutinize all candidates during debates like they do in futurama?

Exactly! It’s not hard to pronounce, it’s just not intuitive. I used to say “Kuh-MAH-luh” too. One correction and I stopped. “Kah-mah-la” is easy for native English speakers. They are perfectly capable of saying it they just don’t want to.

The one thing I find difficult about it is that I've heard it mispronounced so many times, I have to consciously think about which version is correct. I blame right-wing assholes for that.

His handlers have just barely managed to stop him from calling her "Kamablack".

Yeah, so was Biden when he was VP.

Everyone knows this, I do t know why so many people are treating it like a revelation. Mainstream news was openly saying it as soon as she announced she was running.

Her VP would be an older white guy for "diversity" of the ticket.

meanwhile, trump who will claim he's "most qualified" for the job, REFUSES to let his college transcripts go public. i'm going to go out on a limb (except, not) and say he cheated his way through college, as with everything else, OR he's a straight D student, hilariously

this is of course ignoring all the lying, raping, treasoning, failed businesses, failed presidencies, and other wannabe con man shit.

but people will still vote for him, because people are stupid gullible suckers

Even if you just randomly selected from the available options, 3/4 of them are older white guys.

Almost all VPs are DEI hires.

Trump chose Pence because he had government experience and his religious conservatism helped reassure the GOP's religious voters.

Biden choosing Harris:

Biden committed to selecting a woman as his running mate ... He noted that his selection would likely be younger than he is

Obama choosing Biden:

Obama recalled that he and his advisers Axelrod and Plouffe wondered if voters would accept a ticket of "two relatively young, inexperienced, and liberal civil rights attorneys" and ultimately Obama felt the contrast between him and Biden was a strength, and that Biden being older than Obama would reassure those voters who were concerned that Obama was too young to be president

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democratic_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection

Bush Jr. choosing Cheney

By picking Cheney, Bush had a running mate who had years of experience as well as an extensive foreign policy expertise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Republican_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection

Clinton was an exception:

In making the selection, Clinton emphasized Gore's experience with foreign policy and environmental issues.[1] Clinton's choice of a fellow young southern centrist defied conventional wisdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Democratic_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection

This pattern goes through the years. If the presidential candidate is a northerner, they often pick a southerner. If he's old, he chooses a younger VP candidate. If he's from a wealthy background, he chooses someone who has a more humble background. If he lacks political experience, he chooses someone who has it. If he lacks international experience, he chooses someone who has it.

All VPs are DEI hires, at least to some extent. It's accepted that if the two candidates are too similar that the ticket will fail.

If he lacks political experience, he chooses someone who has it. If he lacks international experience, he chooses someone who has it.

I mean, this just sounds like good teamwork

Fundamentally DEI is about good teamwork. You want a diverse team of people with different backgrounds and experiences.

The repubs have successfully tricked a large number of people (including liberals/centrists) into accepting their premise that DEI is a bad thing. When they accuse someone of being a DEI hire the response shouldn't have been "nuh-uh, she was chosen for her merits," it should have been "so what? What makes you think she's not up to the job?"

All VPs are basically picked because of what they are more than who they are. Since there aren’t a lot of actual duties assigned by the constitution, VPs are just picked to help win the election. That means their age, gender, skin color, birthplace, etc are more important than their achievements. That means almost all VPs, including Vance, are “DEI hires.”

I'd argue Walz bucks this trend, at least to a certain degree. His progressive policy and seemingly unwavering integrity seems to be a huge reason he was picked. They've leaned into his achievements and republicans are desperately grasping at straws trying to criticize him.

Yeah, I kinda wish Walz was the candidate instead, based on his progressivism and integrity.

8 years of Harris and then 8 years of Walz.

16 years isn't much in the grand scheme but maybe in that time The Left can wake up and mobilize and actually make some progress towards election reforms so we can start un-fucking the last 50 years of GOP-Heritage Foundation Trickledown Reaganomics Bullshit that's destroying the country.

im honestly not sure, with kamala as the previous VP she has a lot more experience than walz, so it provides a much stronger campaign being the "previous VP" walz being VP also gets him a large in to being a presidential candidate later on, assuming people want another 70-80 year old dude running the country.

Completely agree. He also just seems like a better candidate vibe wise so far, he's funny and endearing in a way Kamala is not. Although I do vibe with Kamala's dorky/weird moments that so many seem to criticize.

1 more...

It's still about perception over tangible benefits, though. He's not chosen because he'll make progressive decisions, he's chosen because he helps encourages progressives to vote come November. Just like if he was black or hispanic would help push those demographics to vote in the general election.

1 more...

idk if vance is a DEI hire as much as he is a right hand man hire.

He appeals to the billionaire voting bloc. They have small numbers (larger than I’d like) of direct votes, but for some reason, they sway elections.

i think that might be trump considering how corrupt he seems to be. I think the real reason they sway elections is because they often have a lot of influence through funding and lobbying.

I think that VPs are also a deterrent of presidential assassination. If the VP is seen as worse than the president by the opposing party members, then no one will try to assassinate the president. However, if the VP is better, that president's life can be much shorter.

Would the Republicans prefer Walz as president? If yes, then he is a bad selection for VP. If no, Harris is safer as president.

Polling wise VP’s have historically changed very little in elections.

1 more...

You could also argue that he was hired for representation. The goal is not to get as many black women into power as possible, but to keep the congress diverse. So ideally, there would be half men, half women, some significant fraction black, and so on.

She could have picked another woman as a VP, and it would not have been too bad. But from a diversity perspective, it is better to represent more parts of the population in these positions.

This. I don't understand why people think diversity is a bad thing. True democracy and progress comes when everyone is well represented and everyone's opinions are heard.

With that said we have a lot of institutional barriers that need to be utterly demolished before the people will actually be heard. We have a long way to go, and the first step is to participate in your local elections and vote for the people who actually listen.

I would love to see Gretchen Whitmer but reality says we are (hopefully) ready for a woman in charge, two is sadly pushing it. Maybe in 20-40 years, it will be something to see before I die. (I’m 50). But I’m estatic about Walz!!! He so… wholesome? “Perfect”? Perfect fit. So warm and compassionate. And the ticket has GenX! We are FINALLY represented! 💙

1 more...

I'm not sure I'm hearing anyone saying diversity is a bad thing.

People used "diversity hire" as an attack on Harris, but no one is using it as an attack on Walz, even though everyone basically immediately knew that the VP pick was going to be an older white man if only to make the ticket less of a "leap".

That an all woman ticket, a ticket with two not-white people, or anything else not "default American politician" would face issue is kinda OPs point that we still have a long way to go to overcome those institutional barriers you mention.

Needing to consider diversity or representation when picking people is a sign that something has already gone wrong.
If the system were just and those barriers didn't exist, people wouldn't consider diversity, they'd just pick the best person and the diversity would just be there as consequence of demographics. (In a fair system, the top N% of the population will have a comparable demographic breakdown to the population at large).

It's a sign of a cultural hangup that we definitely consider diversity, and need to in order to have decent representation, when making these choices, and even more sad that it's only used as a cudgel against minorities , even when they were the first pick and others are being used to offset their "riskiness".

I’m not sure I’m hearing anyone saying diversity is a bad thing.

i haven't either, but the tone is weird, and it's making me a little iffy seeing people not go "look tim walz is a great pick, but this is definitely a shower thought to think about more completely" but instead its mostly just comments about how it's a little weird that kamala picked a white VP even though that makes perfect sense.

I understand why affirmative action is needed to somehow bring back some fairness and equality, but it is just sad that it is accepted as a permanent feature of a system that is systemically racist/mysoginist. It prevents tackling the root causes and investing in a free education system which is the only way to fix this on the long run. But anyway we have science fiction movies and series that do it right... I mean the fact that e.g. a ticket Harris/AOC is science fiction saddens me

It's not preventing solving the root cause. It's helping put people in power who can attempt to solve it by for example investing in free education. Unless you put enough such people through education into the halls of power, you can't hope that someone from the winner class of the system would do things to hurt their children from having such advantage to win. And then you have people who constantly and actively oppose any such actions. So things are improving but there still aren't enough people in the halls of power to do the work needed to root out these problems.

The thing is... you're not really represented because they look the same as you. Someone who could run as the Aryan candidate may represent the downtrodden PoC than someone who looks like them.

There's plenty of PoC who still represent the GoP, even if it's not the same as Democrats.

Values are about more than appearance, despite what many conservatives will tell you.

The implication is they are chosen due to their demographics instead of merit/experience, and it “just so happens” white men are only where they are due to merit and not because they were hired/chosen/etc. based on their demographics

1 more...

Representative democracy.

Should represent the diverse concerns, culture, and needs of the diverse population.

Equitably including the diverse.

yes THIS, i don't know why people don't see this. Tim walz literally represents tens of millions, of people in the US population, it's very clear why he was chosen.

but to keep make the congress diverse

Because it definitely isn't there yet, due to overrepresentation of white (cis, straight, Christian, abled) men.

So from a diversity perspective, she should have gone for anyone other than a white man, but instead she has to cater to white men who somehow still manage to feel like they're lacking in representation, because picking a running mate that wasn't a white man would have tanked her campaign. Everyone knows it, but few are willing to admit to themselves why - racism, sexism, and a bunch of others too.

Is he the best from the options she had? Looks like. But the options she had were limited.

So from a diversity perspective

no, from a minority representation perspective she should've absolutely gone for another minority candidate who doesn't get the same rep as these people do.

But for a diversity perspective, you're picking the most immediately broad and comprehensive minority and majority/plurality groups available. You want a diverse coverage of the US population, and the easiest way to do like 50% of that is with a white candidate.

I realize you're probably talking about the federal government more broadly, but that's an unreasonable comparison because her running mate, and cabinet picks are what are arguably most representative of the average population here.

House and senate members are literally voted in, so that's already a solved problem, just vote in minority candidates. Everyone else is an employee of the government, so who gives a fuck about them.

because picking a running mate that wasn’t a white man would have tanked her campaign. Everyone knows it, but few are willing to admit to themselves why - racism, sexism, and a bunch of others too.

you mean to tell me having representation of only like 20-30% of the population means you're not going to do well? That's weird.

But for a diversity perspective, you’re picking the most immediately broad and comprehensive minority and majority/plurality groups available.

Not when one group is already vastly overrepresented, but well done on missing the point. Your congress is not diverse, and adding/keeping a white man in the mix is never going to make it more diverse.

you mean to tell me having representation of only like 20-30% of the population means you’re not going to do well? That’s weird.

And with that, thanks for demonstrating my actual point (and also that you are clearly conflating diversity with representation, as well as ignoring every statistical reality about the makeup of your government and population to build your strawman):

Everyone knows it, but few are willing to admit to themselves why - racism, sexism, and a bunch of others too

I know it's so so scary to even imagine, but don't fret, even if she had picked someone who isn't a white man, you'd continue to be vastly overrepresented for no good reason at all...

“When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression"

Not when one group is already vastly over-represented, but well done on missing the point. Your congress is not diverse, and adding/keeping a white man in the mix is never going to make it more diverse.

yeah, and the congress is irrelevant and again, voted in by voters. Kamala is not at the reins of the congress, you should be advocating for minorities to run for congress positions then. I'm in support of that, i have nothing against that. I just don't believe you should be going for ONLY representation in government, you need the correct people in office.

Might i also add that the kamala ticket is also the most diverse ticket we have in this election cycle, every other candidate you can vote for is old white men, this one is an older black woman, and an older white man who is her VP.

And with that, thanks for demonstrating my actual point (and also that you are clearly conflating diversity with representation, as well as ignoring every statistical reality about the makeup of your government and population to build your strawman):

you mean the point you were making about how the US government is a representative democracy which intends to equally represent the demographic of each state relatively equivalent to the population demographics of that state?

I know it’s so so scary to even imagine, but don’t fret, even if she had picked someone who isn’t a white man, you’d continue to be vastly over-represented for no good reason at all…

vastly over-represented how? Do my votes count more magically because i'm white? If we're talking about representation i think we should put mentally ill people into office because i feel extremely under-represented in that category.

“When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression"

there is almost no situation in which the presidential candidate and their VP being both of minority status would "increase" diversity in any meaningful way. Arguably since it's federal, and we're talking nationwide, the most diverse and representative cast would literally just be a white person, and someone else.

To be clear, i have no problems with two minority candidates running for office together, if they have good policy and a really good campaign. Kamala and walz have quite literally the best campaign built in a long time. Picking anybody other than walz in this would have likely been a mistake. It just wouldn't get as much reach as it currently is. And when you're literally trying to run to gain a representative vote in your country, not having a white person on your ticket is probably going to hurt that representation.

also, little tidbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity some demographics data, as of 2020 census, about 50% of the US population was white, not mixed white, but white, about 20% was hispanic (always bigger than i remember for some reason, i guess i just don't think about it often lol) every other group except for blacks being less than 10%

so in your optimal minority pick, you would pick hispanic, and black candidates, which would represent about 30% of the country. Kamala and walz is about 60% of representation, about 2x as much as the optimal minority pick. The OPTIMAL pick would be white and hispanic, at about 70% representation total.

to make my point clear here, if you're trying to reach out for as much representation and support based on that representation as possible, which is what the idea behind diversity primarily is, this is a pretty good lineup.

1 more...
1 more...
2 more...

Yes because a black woman needs a white man to "balance" the fact... :)

America is a very strange country.

I'm not saying it's good (because it's not) but I'm unfortunately pretty certain they're correct.

There's a difference in saying something sexist and racist to be sexist and racist vs being practical due to other people's sexism and racism.

I don't like it any more than you, but I'm afraid they're right. While the country might benefit from two women, two POC, two women of color any variation thereupon, they might not have the best chance in certain (usually older) demographics. And unfortunately this isn't a contest we can pick the morally right choice, lose with dignity, and still come out okay.

"Stand in the ashes of a [Million] dead and ask them if honor matters... Their silence is your answer."

After going through project 2025, I do not think I am being dramatic or hyperbolic with that video game quote.

Looked at pragmatically, I feel like the more varied viewpoints and ideas you can get about an issue the better solution you can find. It makes sense to surround yourself with advisers who aren't carbon copies of you. People who've had different experiences and can bring additional skills to the table. Advisers that can say "consider it from this angle" or "if we do this thing, the consequences could be..."

If you had told me in 2008 that electing the first black man President would create racial issues in the US, I would have said, that's fine, we need to get passed this. If you had told me that electing Obama would have lead to President Trump, I may have voted for McCain. (Assuming I believed the foretelling)

So instead of giving Obama eight years to try to patch things up before another Republican continued the USA's march to fascism you'd have voted to put another Republican in right away and speed-run the whole process?

When does it get better though? If we’re always tempering the appearance of marginalized people in leadership roles, i fear generations will keep growing up with a prejudice against it

are we though? i'm not sure we are, i literally do not care about the race/ethnicity of either candidate, i only care about how likeable/relatable they are, and how good of a record they have.

Does it help to me as a white Midwesterner that tim walz is also a white Midwesterner, yeah probably, but my state is literally 80% white. And that's pretty similar across most of the midwest.

You could pick any number of equally good candidates, but a white Midwesterner garnering for the broad Midwesterner population? You're gonna be hard pressed to find someone like tim walz who's not white. Even just statistically, not including the likely long standing systemic racism in the government itself.

It gets better when children grow up being taught that bigotry is unacceptable. Ignoring the effects of bigotry isn't how you do that.

I think AOC would have been a safer pick for VP than Walz, what with Walz' record of deploying the national guard. He's just a little bit too controversial. Harris needed to pick a running mate who would have given her an easy win. It's too late to change it now but I'm disappointed she picked the hard route. I'm not sure we can afford to do that this election.

AOC wouldn't win Harris the swing vote. I love AOC, don't get me wrong, but with two women on the ticket, it's too easy for conservatives to paint the duo as "crazy" or "radical." Sexism remains alive and well here. People still believe the stereotypes and are easily influenced by dog whistles, especially here in the Midwest.

I hope that we get to the point where this isn't a concern, but as it stands now, we have never had a woman in charge, and a lot of people are afraid of the unknown, so they wouldn't like the idea of something new on both the presidential front as well as the VP front.

That's on top of the fact that AOC is from NY and Harris is from CA. We are already irritated that a majority of people in office (and the country) ignore the "flyover" states even though we do a lot for the country (and have really cool cultural and fun places to visit, but this addendum is clearly biased). It really does matter a lot that Walz is one of us. He gets us in a way that people from the coast states don't. That will influence a lot of votes, and two midwestern states are considered swing states - i.e. states that Harris absolutely NEEDS on her side.

Swing voters here don't care as much about deploying the national guard. In fact, it's lauded by a lot of people, including liberals/democrats. Midwesterners are okay with civil disobedience, but only if it's not unnecessarily destructive or if there isn't an attempt to gain simply for yourself (ex: looting). I'm not saying that that is what happened when the guard was deployed or that it's a realistic or correct belief, but in reality, the media painted it that way, so people believe what they were told. So, very few here are holding something like that against him.

I don't know of anyone in my region who would consider Walz to be truly controversial, and certainly, they think of him as way less controversial than AOC. They might disagree with Walz's policies or opinions, but they don't think he's controversial. Here, AOC's painted as a pot stirrer and a crazy lady. To reiterate, I don't agree with this view of AOC, and I respect her immensely, but it would be foolish to ignore the fact that a lot of other people do agree with it. Walz, because of his race, age, cultural background, and experience, is a thousand times more electable than AOC when you're looking at it from a national perspective.

It's politics. People literally make a living polling people about shit like this. It may not be right or even correct.

But it's just where America is right now.

It's progress. A little at a time.

It really is. Speaking as someone residing here. Send help pls

You shouldn't eliminate someone just because they are a 60 year old white guy. He has an extensive track record of getting progressive policies passed with a 1 vote majority. By your logic, no one should be touting Bernie who is just as white and older.

He's not even a boomer, he's gen x.

i mean, yeah, if you're trying to balance representation, why wouldn't you pick a white VP pick as a black candidate. Considering that probably 70% of the US population is white, it seems like a reasonable choice to me.

i'm not sure what the intention of your comment is here, but i'm a little conflicted about it. Maybe i'm missing something.

If you care about his gender and race, YOU are part of the problem.

Most people care, and in a democratic election is about what most people care, not what an individual cares.

What happened to merit?

I have no idea anymore. Politics is a cult of personality now. And one’s gender and sexual identity has apparently become part of that.

It’d be really cool if it were about the politics again.

That's what I'm saying. Can we stop focusing on people's appearance and instead pay more attention to what they have to say and their ideas?

Man, and I thought the Olympic boxer drama was disappointing. People really just want to tear each other down for no good reason.

It's about everyone's perception about how much other people will care.

All VP picks are DEI hires.

Mike pence?

He was to build a bridge to the evangelicals, they were all originally super skeptical of trump and needed pence.

In some circles they were voting for trump, hoping he got impeached so they could have pence.

All of that has shifted and Trump is their second coming, but originally, it was not like this.

Why do you think about US politics in the shower?

Same reason we think about mistakes we made in high school while we're trying to go to sleep?

Some people get off to politics.

Wow yeah, I guess I never sat around thinking "How can I make myself more depressed"

what do you think about in the shower?

Not about politicians in my country, that is for sure. They're the last people I want to think about naked and soapy.

Damn it now you got me thinking about naked and soapy politicians, now where's the mental eye bleach.

Maybe they just stare blankly at the floor, or read the ingredients on the shampoo bottle again for the 14 thousandth time.

Why don't you? This community probably confuses you greatly

Would be interesting to see the GOP try to run with this messaging. As much as they hate "dei hires" they would jump all over that part, but seeing that it benefitted a white male would likely make them short circuit.

I didn't consider his gender and race and I liked his policies, until I read about aipac and Palestine.

To be fair, visible representation is arguably kind of the job description of (or part of) a head of state.

Vance is also a DEI hire. They didn't want two geriatrics on the ticket so they chose someone young. Diversity in age. DEI can be spun many ways. It's not a bad thing.

there are no black people, or white people. just shades of brown from light brown to dark brown.

I can't believe we still use that antiquated differentiator. there can be both "white" and "black" people in the same ethnic group so it's means next to nothing

Missing the forest for the trees or whatever. It's not about skin colour but how society perceives and treats you. If Kamala isn't black then why is she being called a DEI hire when Hilary Clinton never was?

Only a certain group called her a DEI hire... and only because they cant say what they reallly mean without massive backlash...

My point is that society perceives her as a black women. Saying shit like "there are no black people" is moronic in a society that values and scrutinizes race as much as ours does.

I don't know about being called a DEI hire, but I DO remember Hillary being called the worst possible option. I DON'T recall anyone calling Harris the worst possible option. Oddly enough in 2024, that would be Biden.

2 more...

Hmmm how should I pick out who would be a good vice president.... I'll disregard professional perspective and voting history for no reason. Let's instead analyze the implied genitalia and melanin production in the dermis!

Really bro?

He was clearly chosen for the votes he's likely to bring in. That's smart strategy on Harris' part.
As near as I can tell "the media" spent a few days wildly guessing about who her VP pick would be and many of them where white males. There are many articles that predicted that she would pick a white male but I couldn't find any that argued that it should be a consideration.

She did interview exclusively white males for the position no?

I don't know. The 6 finalists that we know about were all white males but we can only speculate who she interviewed to get down to those 6 finalists.

While it's always a reasonable guess that a white male's identity played a role in their hiring process, we don't seem to have any evidence to support it.

Calling someone a "DEI hire" doesn't just mean that they're a different race than other people in an organization. It's used to imply that the person is otherwise unqualified for the job and was specifically hired to fill a diversity requirement.

I don't think that's an accurate description of Walz and I'd do some pretty serious eye rolling if MAGA starts trying to portray him as such.

maybe?, but then again im pretty sure like 70% of the US national population is white, so. At the very least it's above 50% making it a majority. In my state it's 80% white.

Statistically, you would expect to get a white dude. It's what's most representative.

Then there's the whole institutional race/ethnic bias problem as well. That's likely relevant here.

Holy shit that is a bad take. My god, you hit every single bullet-point of bad takes!

it's a catch 22 situation where you can't have two minority picks because ostensibly, that would be DEI, but specifically picking a white guy for DEI is ostensibly not DEI because you're picking the best candidate for the role.

i don't really think it's any deeper than the fact that tim walz was literally the perfect pick, he just happens to be white. I'm not sure you would be able to find an equally beloved and respected pick other than him.

like, just so we're on the same page here, it's not a bad thing that she picked a white guy, it quite literally broadens and diversifies her running, i believe she also wants to appoint more diverse office candidates as well, so we'll probably see less white people there inevitably.

at the end of the day, it is what it is. You push for diversity in picking someone like Kamala, you also have to do the same thing for white people as well. It's all strategic at the end of the day, they wouldn't have done it if it didn't make any sense.

I don't know man......sometimes politics DO do things that doesn't make sense.

In fact, most of politics these past 8 years have left me scratching my head.

this is true, politics and bureaucracy is weird.

to be fair, most of the last 8 years have been primarily due to trump being actually insane though. Outside of that, it's uh. Ok.

it's a catch 22 situation where you can't have two minority picks because ostensibly, that would be DEI, but specifically picking a white guy for DEI is ostensibly not DEI because you're picking the best candidate for the role.

But that is basically where everything is wrong with America. America is obsessed with gender and race

The fact that gender or race play any factor of consideration for a job that is not pushing out a baby or being an Asian model (for example), race and gender should mean nothing

You only ever hear "I want the best person for the job" when a non white non male is chosen. Basically if it's a white male, the assumption is he is probably ok for the job

But that is basically where everything is wrong with America. America is obsessed with gender and race

is it though? The only reason we're here is because someone had a shower thought, and people proposed that it was probably more significant that it really is quite forwardly.

Also this is just true for most things in the world, in engineering you need to balance between features and simplicity, and simplicity and manufacturing, and manufacturing and materials cost. There is no perfect outcome, improving one thing worsens another.

The fact that gender or race play any factor of consideration for a job that is not pushing out a baby or being an Asian model (for example), race and gender should mean nothing

the way this is worded implies that the implication of race and gender in job positions is normal, but i assume you meant the opposite. In an ideal world, it should mean nothing. But men and women are two different sects of the population, with fundamentally different consumer behaviors, men buy things women dont, women buy things men don't, and while there is absolutely discrimination in the workplace surrounding these things. It's also debatable whether they're even super relevant. Data collection and sciences is a hard field.

As far as jobs go, women can have children, and if you're a company looking for employees, you have to contend with the basic fact that women getting pregnant can drop 9 months or more out of the workforce, meaning you probably have to hire more women to do the same collective amount of work, or you move through more job positions in that given group. It's likely not all that significant, but it's something you have to think about. Granted in the US we have fuck all for maternal leave, so who knows whether this is even relevant to begin with lol.

You only ever hear “I want the best person for the job” when a non white non male is chosen. Basically if it’s a white male, the assumption is he is probably ok for the job

you should probably hear this with every hire, but the implication that a white male being chosen is "somehow worse" than any given minority candidate is a weird statement to make. Though, education wise it could be true.

Every democratic ticket that's won the presidency this century has been a mixed race ticket. If I had to guess, this election is gonna be a big win for democrats, and if they have any intelligence whatsoever, they'll keep their presidential tickets mixed race for a while in the future. Some people will just always prefer to vote for their own race.

Bush Cheney was not mixed race. I never considered anything other than policy, and tbf I need to see more.

Bush and Cheney weren't democrats. I was only talking about democratic victors.