How is that a deflection? Excluding gang violence from mass shootings would change the number dramatically. So how could he give an accurate answer without knowing?
The definition of "mass shooting" varies and can potentially exclude gang violence. Excluding gang violence is often useful since most people don't care about criminals killing each other (which is most of gang shootings), and prefer to talking about innocent people who are shot.
When IBM hires engineers they’re not hiring women who are underqualified just to get to 50%, they’re just hiring very qualified women instead of very qualified men.
Only 20% of graduates in engineering are women. They're picking from a smaller pool, yet I'm supposed to think they won't be underqualified? That's not reasonable.
Do you think Ketanji Brown Jackson is unqualified?
You seems to be viewing qualifications as a binary instead of a spectrum. When I look for an attorney, I'm not just looking for someone who passed the bar, even if they technically "qualify" as an attorney. I want to scrutinize their qualification much more than that.
She's not a terrible judge, necessarily, but not great either. There have been worse selections in the past, but I don't think that makes the decision acceptable to hire based on gender and race. Justice Thomas proves that merely sharing someone's race does not represent that constituents of that race.
I don't think Biden already knew qualified judges that were black women for SCOTUS, imo. It was just politics. Trump did the same when he picked a woman strictly because he was replacing another woman. I'll admit that SCOTUS, along with a president's cabinet, are often not chosen based on particular expertise or skill. I personally don't like this 🤷. Though I gues this can work fine if they have a skilled team while they strictly lead.
Do you have any actual evidence that tech companies are actually choosing unqualified or underqualified non-white men?
Only anecdotal. They're having similar problems as universities, where they have "too many" asians and want to take measure to pick other races. The problem is that they're actually not admitting asians to universities and hiring asians in tech because of their race. So to even the ratio, they would have to pick people based on race.
I suspect tech companies really avoid hiring underqualified people, which is why they maintain high asian representation even while publicly acting like they're working to be more diverse. The lawsuit could be related to that public "policy". I work in tech and personally have seen positions made specifically to get quotas, usually in non-tech positions. My company has tons of women in non-tech positions like quality assurance, HR, marketing to even out the lack of women engineers and programmers. Or maybe they just know about the gender wage gap and they're trying to save money lol.
he was a blatant racist
I'm not seeing it. Most those quotes were about affirmative action logically causing him to question the qualifications of blacks (because their race got them there via affirmative action). The rest are simply not racist or just bashing specific black individuals.
I'll say this is the only one even worth discussing, as it requires a lot of nuance. The other points below aren't good.
little kids being killed in school shootings is “worth it”
If he could, I'm sure he would say his own death was "worth it" in the context of being able to live in a country with gun rights. There are like ~1200 children killed by cars every year. Would you say that's not worth having cars? Would you outlaw them?
ridiculed disabled people in his circles
Making a joke about blind people is insensitive, but not even half the insensitivity of the meme in this post. I won't defend him necessarily except to say this is a pretty mild offense, especially for someone everyone is calling a fascist who deserved public execution. I'd expect something a bit more dire.
said that children should witness public executions
Do you know why? And do you have a reason for being so strongly against that? I don't have a reason. I don't know any studies on how this affects kids, but it could very well be a good idea.
That's part of DEI, and conveniently not the parts that Kirk, or most conservatives, complain about.
The policies complained about are the one that effectively turn race/gender into qualifications. Like affirmative action. Like IBM working to get 50% female representation in their engineering hires. Like Biden in 2020 campaigning on the promise of hiring a black woman to SCOTUS (2 years before he even looked at candidates). Like Google and other tech companies implementing policies to favor non-asian minorities and women. It's a form of "diverse sourcing" while making their actual skills and expertise a lower priority than their race/gender.
If that's not the DEI the left supports, then they're awfully quiet about ridiculing it.
When did he frame school shootings as good? Are you referring to when he said they were acceptable deaths if they were required to keep the 2nd amendment? Because that doesn't make them a good thing, it makes them tolerable.
Kinda like how we tolerate ~350 toddlers dying in swimming pools every year and nobody demands that we ban swimming pools.
DEI means hiring a diverse pool of qualified employees. But you know that. You’re just arguing in bad faith.
No, I don't know that, because it's wrong, or misleading at best. "Qualified" is a spectrum, unless you're talking about the low bar of simply having a medical degree/license.
If you're looking for a lawyer to represent you, are you looking for "black woman" as a qualification, reassured by the fact that she is at least bar certified? That would be stupid. You'd want the person who you felt could best represent you. Which could end up being a black woman, but not necessarily.
Joe Biden literally said he was going to pick a black woman to sit in the SCOTUS before he had even made a shortlist of potential candidates. Jackson is a DEI hire. Sure, she is a "qualified" judge, most acting judges technically are, but it's unlikely that she's the most qualified. That's the problem with DEI, people will assume that women or minorities may not be qualified, even when they are. Jackson could very well be the best for that position, but that would be quite the statistical coincidence considering Biden started his search with narrow racial/gender qualifications.
Like Charlie was when he was shot, trying to pretend that the majority of mass murderers aren’t straight cis white men.
He was discussing whether to exclude gang violence when discussing mass shootings, because those are overwhelmingly from gangs. So much so, that people typically exclude gang violence from stats. So if you're including gang violence, white men would not commit the majority of "mass murder." However, most people don't care about gangsters killing each other, they care about innocent people killed/shot.
So, how would someone debate “kill homosexuals”? What’s the counter argument?
He never advocated for instituting laws to kill homosexuals. Neither did he support killing adulterers and people who worship false gods. So a counter argument is pointless unless he actively wanted to enforce Biblical law in the US.
If you learned that your new surgeon was hired strictly because she's a white woman, is it racism to be skeptical of her qualifications? Or are you thrilled to get that surgery just because it's a woman doing it?
Average person cares about their ability to do the job. It's not racist.
This is a reasonable fear in a world where pilots are hired based on their status of being a minority. Is it not? That was the whole point, DEI practices enforce the idea that minorities aren't qualified.
I see the real reason you guys hated Kirk so much. You seem very uncomfortable confronting differing opinions. That's not politically healthy.