It is? How so?
1 Like
Colonel Sanders started selling chicken from a roadside stand in the southern state of Kentucky during the 1930’s, the height of Jim Crow. And everybody knows it is Southern fried chicken
Edit. According to Google AI
Yes, KFC’s original recipe fried chicken can be considered a type of Southern fried chicken. While KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken) is a global chain, its origins are rooted in the American South, specifically Kentucky, where Colonel Harland Sanders perfected his recipe of 11 herbs and spices for fried chicken. The method of frying chicken with a breaded coating is also a hallmark of Southern cuisine.
I know all that, but how is it a symbol of the old Confederacy?
1 Like
Discrimination against whites and men, and especially white men, finally getting called out for what it was over the last 5-10 years of systematic oppression.
This is how you elect someone like Trump - when the left abandons merit entirely and leaves the next generation majority out in the cold for their career prospects.
3 Likes
So what was the better option for rebalancing the previous discrimination in career prospects that the author observed prior to 2015?
Because people in existing positions were simply not gonna get fired to be replaced by women and minority hires, the main lever for rebalancing the previous discrimination seems logical to be newer workers, and hence Millennial white men since older employed white men were disproportionately represented in the work force according to the author.
Other issue is the strict lens of news and journalism hiring. That definitely an industry that has undergone severe transformation since 2015 and I don’t know how that affected the trends.
What it looks like to me is that each party over-favors its base constituency in too large numbers until a knee jerk political reaction pushes the pendulum the other way. Dems have a voter base leaning heavily on women and minorities so they pushed DEI favoring them in reaction to prior discrimination. That pissed off enough young white men to elect GOP representatives who are now over-favoring white men… Nothing revolutionary in the pattern, just a swing in systemic discrimination.
I’ll leave open the question on why we cannot simply shoot for a fair representative equilibrium (instead of constantly over-compensating) although my personal belief is because it reflects humanity’s continued tendency towards self-interest priorities ahead of the general good.
So two wrongs make a right? There is no immediate “fix” to the systemic issues. The only correct option it to stop the discrimination in hiring, and let attrition effect the overall “rebalancing”. Punishing white kids today to remedy the punishing of minorities last century is just flipping the script and doesnt change anything. All it does is teach this new generation that discrimination is still acceptable. Young whites today do not deserve to be excluded any moreso than the young minorities of yesteryear deserved it back then.
Of course, that requires patience. Which doesnt really mesh well with today’s “I want it therefore I deserve it right now!” society.
2 Likes
The existence of egalitarian societies throughout history and even to this day is evidence that self-interest is not an innate human quality, it is acquired. 
Sure, except discrimination in hiring was already illegal, so how do you stop it?
First with DEI, obviously, then with anti-DEI. 
That argument seems tenuous. Self-interest could still be at play when situations involve mutual gains such as when working together towards goals that are not achievable by oneself. So, even evidence of the existence of egalitarian societies would not preclude self-interest motivations at least partially behind their development. However, considering there’s never been truly egalitarian societies outside of very small groups, evidence is not overwhelming either that achieving this is even possible for homo sapiens. Just watch very young kids and tell me self-interest does not come innately ahead of altruism.
But entertaining the idea, if self-interest is a learned trait only, why would it be acquired in egalitarian societies? And why do these societies all require a very high level of government control to prevent a trait that is not innate from taking over?
Innate or learned, what’s clear for me is that short-term self-interest have been the main driver behind our political decisions for as long as I remember, even if disguised under claims of promoting egalitarianism or meritocracy.
How about by simply hiring people? And not insisting on any sort of program to help artificially mould the workforce?
And maybe dropping the obsession with the workforce being “representative”. Maybe all the best candidates for a job really are from a minority that represents a fraction of the applicant pool. Or maybe there really werent any top applicants who were black. Over- and under-representation is a pretty meaningless statistic, that some have taken to be the only statistic with meaning.
1 Like
Yes, if only everyone in management was colorblind. According to my mandatory DEI training, that’s not how it has worked in practice. Managers tend to hire people who are like them, look like them, talk like them, hang out in the same circles, etc, and if most managers are white, then most people they hire are also white, disproportionately to the population or the hiring pool.
1 Like
Ok. But if you want to claim there’s a problem, how about you show evidence that there’s a problem? Because claiming the white guy hiring other wihite guys is a problem is in itself racist. The problem would be that better-qualified minorities were not hired, but always seems to be left out of the equation - it’s always just assumed that there must’ve been unidentified unnamed applicants who were better fits for the job but weren’t hired because they were a minority. Meaning the entire notion that there is a problem is nothing more than an assumption.
1 Like
Right. The mandatory training included more specific examples and statistics. I don’t have access to it now nor sufficient memory to recall such details.
I took it at its word then as it sounded reasonable. I suppose some or all of it could have been BS. C-suite going with the DEI flow like everyone else, hired an external provider for the training content, who knows if any of those claims were verified.
The only stats and specifics I’ve ever seen are based on the concept that if the pool is 20% black the hires should be 20% blacks (all claims reduce to that premise). Literally anything else merely correlates if it isnt entirely circumstantial, and causation is assumed. Anyone with a degree is equally qualified and thus deserving of the job, which anyone with practical experience understands is nonsense.
The people selling this stuff need to instead get jobs where they are doing the hiring. I can just imagine their head exploding from the syntex errors, where it becomes obvious they should hire one person but their whole schtick demands that they should be hiring the other person.
2 Likes
Worse than that, it’s that if your population is 10% black at large, the number of computer engineers in your company should be 10% black, without regard to the fact that perhaps the fraction of computer engineers that are black is 1% and not 10%. These kinds of statistical arguments were made possible under Obama under the “disparate impact” theory which has since been recently repudiated by the Trump DOJ.
3 Likes
I recall psychology evidence of a preference for likeness as early as self-awareness is present in kids. Evolutionary explanation was something along the lines of survival needs to identify potential threats quickly may have biased us towards associating like = safe and unlike = threat.
As far as hiring is concerned, wouldn’t a lot of the bias just disappear using some of the methods universities - at least the ones not discriminating for/against specific groups - apply. Give the person responsible for hiring as little as possible information related to race and gender. Do interviews using voice chat with a bot intermediary (or text chat only) and hiring person only gets the transcript of the interview so as to not figure out gender and minority status. No photo, no name of applicant, etc. And no more in person interviews.
More details about all the explicit anti-white discrimination in recent years.
In 2023, a report showed that 94% of all new corporate jobs in the S&P 100 went to non-whites.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-black-lives-matter-equal-opportunity-corporate-diversity/
1 Like
This might’ve been a good idea 10 years ago. Now with “AI” it’s a bad idea to do virtual interviews, because you could end up hiring a North Korean 
.
2 Likes
Most (~200K) of that went to non-professional roles though, with half of those non-professional roles (~100K) going to Amazon, most likely warehouses. At the higher levels, 27% of jobs went to white workers, not as egregious as the 6% overall shown on the chart. But yes, there was an increase in minority hiring at the professional and management levels compared to previous years.
It doesn’t really prove discrimination though. It shows that 39% of Professionals hired were Asian. This could easily be the result of huge numbers of Asians (Americans and foreign students) going to and graduating from our top universities (and just being smarter / more hard working). The S&P 100 is not necessarily representative of the population.
I don’t think the fraction of Asian professionals has increased meaningfully in the last year or two, although it might in a few years now that fewer of the top colleges are discriminating against them and their group will have more top degrees than before (for whatever those are worth in our post Ai hiring world).
Perhaps the higher level of non-professional anti-white racism under the BLM era reflects the big shifts in men’s voting, since suddenly you have not just a majority of the population (white people) getting a very small fraction of the job openings, as non-professionals they might have been more traditionally aligned with Democrats / labor (at least until the global democratic leadership sold them with offshoring and tons of immigration, and then finished off their chances with a bunch of BLM driven racism).
Both employers and universities did this because race-Marxists told them it was necessary to atone for the sins of random strangers who share their skin color in a narrow period of history that ended 160 years ago.
Arguments like that would get you an EEOC investigation under Obama/Biden, at least if you were on the wrong side of the color spectrum.
1 Like