Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by wargunfan, Sep 17, 2013.
My next vehicle will be an appliance, but for now I still like cars.
(not to mention it's paid for)
Except you weren't passed over, and would not have been a victim in any case.
You're making these broad claims, but even your anecdotal evidence is against you.
From reading what wargun is writing, he is describing the "Peter Principle" without even knowing it. "Employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence." In other words, an employee will continue to get promotions until he/she reaches a level where he/she cannot do his/her job. At this point, the work will get done by subordinates who have either A) not risen to their respective level of incompetence or B) Are high producers at their current level and too valuable for the company at the current level that they will be passed over for promotion.
Wargun is the shining example of B. He was too productive to be promoted and the company actually had a compensation system that would have dinged Wargun if he had taken a promotion.
This doesn't mean that reverse discrimination didn't happen or doesn't happen. And yes, all things being equal, companies will value diversity and often promote the minority. But I doubt this reverse discrimination is as widespread as Wargun wants to believe.
I don't think a scientfic study is necessary. And, again, I don't think the trend is anything more than path-of-least resistance behavior. If a white male character is lampooned in a commercial, then so what? No one is going to bitch or gripe.
Generally speaking, white males don't "identify" with one another. In other words, as a rule, when one white male sees another in an embarrassing situation, he does not tend to think, "My God, what about our image?!" Or speaking for self, I don't tend to see it that way. To me, it's just some other idiot I don't know.
Funny and true.
The only time I have felt discriminated against as a white male is when I tried out for a cornerback spot in the NFL.
That will do it. I'm telling you, we represent about 60% of the male population but rate 0% of the NFL cornerback slots.
It's naked discrimination. But we shall overcome ... someday.
Or learn to run faster and jump higher!
It's too hard.
I think instead a certain number of slots should be reserved for males of at least 87.5% European descent and the Combine should be banned as a culturally biased test. Those measurables only facilitate unlawful discrimination. The 40-yard dash does not determine how fast a man can run 40 yards.
(Yes, I'm being tongue in cheek)
Sort of off topic, but I'm curious. That's a really old article, but is it still accurate? Has there really not been a White Cornerback in the NFL since 2003?
Beats me. I googled "white cornerbacks in the NFL" and that's the first thing that popped up.
My wonderlic scores were also too good for CB.
Agreed on all points, but I still wonder whether this pattern is even real or if the people reporting it, take the white male buffoonery more personally.
I probably would have played in the NBA if it weren't for racial discrimination. I can't think of any other reason why a 6-1 power forward with an 8-inch vertical leap was rejected.
Like I said, those metrics are culturally biased. I think you should sue.
AZ, what I am actually saying is that in spite of the Peter Principle there were many White males who had not reached their level of incompetence who were passed over in order to promote women and minorities who definitely had reached it. In other words the ability to actually do the job took second place to political correctness. Men who had ample capacity to grow in a higher position found themselves being passed over in order to promote someone with no track record simply to fulfill a quota.
Women and minorities have made great strides in the workplace and it is not their fault that they are the beneficiaries of a policy which favors them. But that does not excuse a wrongheaded and patently unfair approach to promotions.
Let me say one more time for those who lack reading comprehension; I never turned down promotions not because I couldn't handle the position. I turned them down because I didn't want to take a 100K annual pay cut.
I probably won't. Just not a litigious kind of guy. But I have to confess, I'm still pretty bitter about it.
Part of the Peter Principle is that more competent people will be passed over for promotion because they are too valuable in their current job. Therefore, the more competent you are, the less likely you are to advance. Again, your company even placed income restrictions on the best performers at lower levels as you said that had you, a high performer, been promoted, it would have meant a pay cut.
Those getting promoted simply hadn't reached their highest level of incompetency yet. And the high performers? They were being purposely stymied from advancing to their level of incompetency because they were too valuable at their current level.
Certainly the company that was promoting people saw some value in keeping those promoted. Otherwise, they would have allowed them to wash out, as you say. Was race and gender a factor in the value? Yes, especially considering EOE laws. Were they the only factors? Maybe, but much more likely there were a lot of other factors, and cases of reverse discrimination happened a lot less than you think, wargun.
Wooohooo...back to the 50s and 60s...!
Yes, I live my life through TV and cartoons as well!:whoa:
Your quote about Jesus does not link up to your posts about race/women/etc.
But keep going...:zombie: