this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2025
880 points (96.7% liked)
Political Weirdos
1160 readers
4 users here now
A community dedicated to the weirdest people involved in politics.
- Focus on weird behaviors and beliefs
- Follow Iemmy.world TOS
- Don’t be a jerk
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It is insane and disengenous of you to pretend he was anything but a raging racist.
He opposes the Civil rights act, hates MLK, and pushes utter bs theories like that liberals hired unqualified people based on race/gender
The comment about black pilots was heinous. It immediately in its premise asserted that one should at all be questioning a pilots abilities based on race. It was a way to get a foot in the door for racism.
Well, if you present that you are hiring based on race, which some companies were doing. Why would not be ok to question about the merits of the hiring outside of, what is seemingly, the only thing that the people hiring care about?
This is the issue that he was talking about, and the issue that caused others to listen. He didnt make it about race, the companies looking to racewash their shitty reputations did. He only joined the conversation later for grifting purposes. How can you not see the difference?
The very premise is incorrect. I'm not going to argue with you based on a false premise.
I know of no cases where companies hired solely based on race, in fact, that wouldn't be legal.
In reality, DEI programs were cheap courses to encourage hiring managers to not hire racistly and understand the value of diversity. They were mostly box ticking, no qoutas.
I mean* look at Google, if anything they have reverse quotas with how few minorities they hire.
He only served to poison minds like yours with faulty premises to feel discriminated against by policies that simply aimed to stop having marginalized groups unfairly turned down from positions they were qualified for.
Google: Multiple lawsuits and internal complaints alleged that Google, under its diversity initiatives, gave preferential treatment to women and underrepresented racial groups in hiring and promotions. While Google did not publicly admit wrongdoing, leaked internal communications and testimony in related cases referenced managers being pressured to “balance” teams racially and by gender.
Harvard University Admissions (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 2023 Supreme Court Ruling). Although not a hiring case, this is directly relevant to institutional selection practices. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Harvard’s use of race as a factor in admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause. Evidence revealed that Harvard consciously adjusted acceptance rates to maintain racial balance, which it openly defended as part of its diversity mission.
Various Tech Start ups. Basecamp and several Silicon Valley firms were revealed to have instructed recruiters to prioritise women and minority candidates to “improve representation metrics.”. Internal memos and recruiter testimonies (That were leaked via The Verge and Insider) showed directives to only consider female applicants for some engineering roles.
BBC: The BBC faced controversy over a diversity programme that guaranteed BAME (Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic) candidates certain production and internship roles. They stated explicitly that certain training and entry-level positions were “only open to BAME applicants.”. This was judged to be legal.
Women-Only Job Advertisements:
Ernst & Young (Australia, 2018): Advertised women-only internships to boost female representation. The firm confirmed that these were “deliberately restricted to women.”
UK Civil Service (2019): Some graduate schemes were briefly open only to women or minority applicants under positive action.
Facebook: A U.S. Department of Labour investigation found that Facebook discriminated against U.S. citizens by favouring temporary visa holders for certain positions. Facebook paid $14.25 million to settle the claims.
Tesla faced multiple lawsuits alleging discriminatory practices within hiring and workplace culture. Internal testimonies from HR staff and former managers suggested informal guidance to recruit “more diverse” applicants to reduce legal exposure.
RAF: In 2020, the RAF conducted a recruitment drive to increase representation of women and ethnic minorities. Defence-sources alleged that the service accelerated training places for such candidates ahead of other eligible candidates, including white men. A report found that “161 candidates, who were either women or from ethnic minority backgrounds, were accelerated into training places ahead of other candidates.” Leaked internal documents and interviews with defence sources claimed that recruitment officers were directed to prioritise female and minority ethnic applicants once the minimum standard was met, even if white male candidates had passed ahead of them.
The fact that you don't know something, doesn't mean anything. These 8 examples of hiring or recruiting practices based around sex or race. It is happening, whether you know or not.
And thats before you get to racists like Dani Lalonders, a game dev, who said openly: “We have no white people on our team. I did that because I wanted to create a safe environment … I know the best way for an environment to be safe is to be around people who are just like me.”. Where is your outrage for this? Because, this is clearly racist. The internet, in true culture wars fashion, hand waved it away with "You cant be racist towards white people". And then you all scratch your heads as to how people like Charlie Kirk can find an audience...
Some of your example literally aren't the US and the ones that are don't support what you are alleging. None of these are hiring uneligible people based on race etc.
For your legal cases, they are basically doing exactly what I mentioned just more strongly: saying "hey stop hiring racistly".
It really seems you are simply also racist and want companies to not address existing racism problems because your perceive removing disadvantage/removing repivelege and somehow being the real racism.
I don't scratch my head and kirk having an audience, it's all priveleged people angry that when the privilege is removed, they'll be revealed as less worthy than they thought.
So, youre the racist? Got it.
Ah, the ol "anti-racism is the real racism" shtick.
A tail as old as time.
Youre not anti racism, youre just racism.
If you hire based on the colour of a persons skin, for any reason, you diminish that person. But youre too fucking stupid to see that, even though Kirk spelled it for you in plain fucking English. Youre outraged, but at the wrong thing. Its right in front of your fucking face, and you wont see it because your too balls deep in the stupid as fuck culture wars.
Those are all cases where they were balancing out for the fact that they'd been discriminating against women and minorities for decades and were trying to diversify their employee rosters.
If you have a job opening that requires X degree and Y experience and your last 17 hires were white men despite a bunch of women and minorities having the qualifications, you probably should start prioritizing those applicants you've spent the last few decades ignoring for one or two cycles.
lol Jesus fucking christ...
Regardless of DEI, affirmative action, or anything else - all airline pilots are required to be licensed, qualified pilots.
There's no nuance here. If you agree with Kirk and worry about a pilot being unqualified because of their race, then you're a racist.
I fucking hate talking to you people. Youre so fucking desperate to be right all the fucking time. Are you like, scared of being wrong? Is that what it is? If youre hiring based on race, YOU are the racist. Kirk may well have been a racist, but this was not example of it. Calling out racism, isnt racist.
Do you believe that it's defensible to tell people to fear flying on a plane operated by qualified pilots because they are black?
If yes, you're racist. Full stop.
He didnt do that though, which is the point Im making. What arent you getting here? He was talking about companies using black people and women and gay people to wash their shitty reputations. You dont like they way he was doing it? Thats totally fair. But THAT is what he was doing, he wasnt saying that being black makes a person inferior.
From the Thought Crime podcast in January 2024:
lol Yes, post the whole the fucking transcript. But I bet you dont, cause then you'll see Im right, and youve bought in to the grift that monetised your outrage.
The context is that he said airlines are hiring unqualified people because they're black, and that's 100% horseshit. They're all licensed, qualified pilots. They have to be by federal fucking law.
There's zero non-racist justification for fearing a pilot because they're black.
No it wasnt, and thats why youre not posting the whole thing. You are a race baiting liar.
Okay then: explain the context in which Kirk saying people should be scared of qualified pilots because they're black isn't racist.
You can't do it because it's absolutely, 100% racist. He's trying to pretend it's about diversity programs meaning unqualified minorities are being hired over the (implicitly superior) white man, but his example is a profession with clearly-defined federal standards including mandatory aircraft-specific qualifications.
A pilot flying a commercial airliner is qualified, period. There's no reason to fear a black pilot for any reason that isn't racist. Which was fine by Kirk because he was a racist piece of shit, as is anyone defending his fear mongering.
I already did, and more than once. Is reading really that hard for all of you??? Or are you all just terrified of being wrong?
Here, lets try coming at it from a different angle. Lets see if the special crayon approach works.
lets say, Im the owner of an airline, and you are whatever the opposite of Charlie Kirk looks like. I, only hire white male pilots. You, while talking about companies that hire based on skin colour say one of the following:
“Only white male pilots? Great, because obviously flying a multi-ton metal tube at 500 mph depends entirely on your skin colour and not, you know, skill or training.”
“Ah yes, forget flight hours and certifications, clearly the secret to a safe landing is having a penis and a specific melanin level.”
“Only white men? Brilliant strategy! Because turbulence, engine failure, and bad weather are obviously solved by outdated stereotypes instead of competence.”
“Of course! Forget merit; the real measure of a pilot’s ability is apparently their genetics. Who needs experience when you have arbitrary conformity?”
“Yes, let’s hire based on race and gender. Nothing screams ‘expert aviator’ like throwing decades of proven training out the window for pure bias.”
Are you, mild mannered chiliedog, now... Super-racist? Or, have you just employed wild exaggeration and hyperbole to get your point across? Whether or not you agree with his point, is another conversation. But the point he was making, is not that black men were inferior to white men. It was that hiring based on race wasnt going to get you the very best pilots(but he wasnt just talking about pilots).
Lets try something else. The NBA is currently around 13% white American. And that only rises to 17.5% if you include international white players. No one gives a fuck about diversity in the NBA, do they? Why? Because we all know that its merit based. No one is hiring white dudes to make up the numbers. If white dudes are in there, its because they earned it. Just like the black dudes did. If, all of sudden, some team started hiring white players because "diversity", youd have something to say about it. Sure, they can all play the game. But are they the best? And if they arent, are you racist for not wanting them on your team? This isnt quite the same thing that Kirk was talking about, but you get the idea. Hiring based on skin colour is dumb. No matter which way you come at it. Its dumb. Black, white, and everything in between, doesnt matter. Only skill and experience matters. That was his point.
But again, whether you agree with him on that, is another conversation.
But that's not what Kirk said. Kirk said specidlfically that he's nervous about black pilots because he assumes they're "diversity hires" and unqualified. But that's 100% bullshit. You literally can't get the job if you aren't qualified. And if you're qualified, you can di the job. That's why qualifications exist.
A pilot is a technical position, not a sport. You demonstrate the required knowledge and skills through a rigorous licensing and continuing education program. Your qualifications aren't based on the relative performance of others, but on a strict set of standards. If you meet those standards you're qualified to do the job.
The concept of "best airline pilot" is flawed, because the standards require that the "worst" airline pilot be qualified for the job. Air travel is made safe by those standards.
But, and you'll get a kick out of this, that is what he said. Thats exactly what he said. And this is the problem with cherry picking quotes and removing the context. You end up with this dumb as fuck argument, instead of putting focus on what he actually said and challenging that.
Kirk was a prick that was acting like there was a number of valid reason that someone might have a program that gave minorities a place. This is where the focus of the argument should be. When you get Kirk fans repeating his shit, shouting "FASCIST!!!!!" isnt going to get it done. You need to explain why Kirk was wrong. You need to insert the context of the hiring practice. He did the very same thing that all of you are doing. Removing context to fit your narratives. You dont like it when he does it, but you get angry at me when I dont like it when you do it... Its kinda weird, no?
The weapon against Kirk was never lies, and it was sure as shit, not a bullet. It was truth. Unsexy, hard, truth. And the more you, and others, push the out of context and cherry picked quotes, the more you convince them that he was right and some kind of martyr to a cause. Instead of what he was, just another grifter saying populist bullshit for clout.
Then leave.
We don't need people bending over backwards making bullshit excuses for white supremacy.
Leave.
lol If you dont like what Im saying, feel free to not reply. But we both know you cant do that, because you want your worthless fucking internet points from like minded culture war weirdos.
Im happy to talk with people who arent dumb as fuck, as you clearly are. Agree with me or not, I dont care. Just fuck off with culture war popular thing thats a straight up and easily defeated lie.
Fuck you peddlers of fake news/misinformation. Youre the reason the internet fucking sucks now. Hell, youre the reason cunts like Charlie Kirk had a fucking audience in the first place.