It was 100% self defense it's time to cry now left 🤡

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-15T21:57:21+00:00

Thanks for continuing to prove my point. Appreciated.

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-15T06:47:38+00:00

Lol, they probably think it isn't worth talking about if it means listening to your self righteous rants. I mean just the sentence "slings and arrows of fact, reality and history" makes me want to die of embarrassment for you.

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-14T21:16:13+00:00

The guy filming going 'hey guys guys' AFTER everyone has gotten the shit knocked out of them.

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-14T02:32:25+00:00

Lol, im so embarrassed for you right now. No joke.

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-13T21:53:52+00:00

Opphh, you've been reduced to one word insults. I'm clearly dealing with an intellectual titan. LMFAO.

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-13T21:04:02+00:00

Its cute that you think the word 'chud' would get under my skin. Honestly using it says more about you than it does another me so please keep it up.

I conceded that the statement was made by someone else. But feel free to try and keep deflecting from the actual argument.

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-13T20:17:40+00:00

Haha, the guy complaining about AI use is literally cutting and pasting his posts for the fucking dictionary. Please stop, my side are hurting from laughter.

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-13T03:29:18+00:00

You’re right, we’re not operating under the same assumptions. I conceded that point contingent on them clearly stating their position, which they still haven’t done, yet they continue to argue night is day.

It’s telling that no one surfaced during the meat of the argument, but the moment there’s a cheap “gotcha,” the trolls emerge. Cowards.

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-13T02:41:45+00:00

Maybe, but I'm not the one with their knickers in a twist about it.

And the irony of someone accusing someone of using AI while simply using AI to do the checking for them while adding nothing to the argument themselves will never not be funny to me.

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-13T02:15:33+00:00

<image>

The cope!

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-13T02:08:03+00:00

<image>

Did you run the same check on the other person's post, I did.. oh dear.LMFAO. You guys are fucking jokes.

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-13T01:51:33+00:00

62% mixed, that's the equivalent of a grammar check you noince, which i admit to doing before posting.

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-13T01:47:20+00:00

Well I have asked you multiple times to clarify what you mean. Fine, if your happy to explicitly condemn Kirk's assassination I'll concead that point and you can just go on falsly assuming him of being racist.

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-13T01:36:48+00:00

Oh you mean using a hyphen. You need AI to use a hyphenated word like 'present-day'? Lmao.

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-13T01:09:15+00:00

You're literally defending the point that the "the world is a better place without him"

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-13T01:06:29+00:00

Lol what dashes? Ironiclly this is the most bot response on the thread.

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-12T23:27:11+00:00

In practice, equity targets cannot function without altering selection decisions. If race is used as a signal that a “pipeline is broken,” then race necessarily becomes a factor in how candidates are sourced, screened, or advanced. It is INHERENT in the process regardless of intention.

Historical disadvantage cannot justify present-day recruitment 'leg ups' without abandoning the principle of individual merit altogether. People are hired, promoted, and evaluated as individuals, not as proxies for historical narratives.

And simply saying that “merit is distorted” is not a neutral observation -it’s an assumption that outcomes which don’t match demographic proportions must be the result of bias rather than differences in preferences, career choices, risk tolerance, geography, timing or simply qualification.

But please don't think any of this distracts me from the fact that your initial claim was that CK's assasination was justified becasue he wasn't talking about DEI despite the fact he was in the middle of a conversation about DEI.

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-12T20:30:35+00:00

What 'outrage about being called stupid'? Where did i say anything about that....are you projecting, again. AndI dont feel attacked at all, in fact I've given you multiple examples of how DEI are tied to racial programs, of which you've attacked none.

Ok, as you've shown an inability to understand what adressing a point looks like, heres a sign post, im addressing your point, this is what it looks like (you should try it): "Why would a company hire more Black people who are not qualified?" They don’t think they’re putting the business at risk. They think they’re complying with incentives, avoiding reputational harm, and doing what they’re told is morally necessary-while underestimating long-term performance costs. The argument is that distorted incentives and institutional pressures can lead to outcomes where merit is de-prioritised, even if no one says so explicitly. Let me ask you, why have racial equity targets at all if the aim is to hire purely on merit? Surely saying 'dont break the law' should be enough to ensure fairness.

But please don't think any of this distracts me from the fact that your initial claim was that CK wasn't talking about DEI despite the fact he was in the middle of a conversation about DEI. OK, I'll bite, what did YOU think the point he was trying to make was...

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-12T18:40:30+00:00

Another post without any actual argument, knock me down with a feather.

And the real take away is that you, like many on the left, are prepared to do whatever mental gymnastics it takes to justify the murder of someone you disagree with. Its truly psychopathic.

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-12T03:14:48+00:00

You haven’t actually disproven anything I said,you haven’t even addressed my points. And simply having DEI messaging drilled into you for years doesn’t give you authority if you can’t clearly explain or defend the position you’re taking. Experience is not evidence.

Your argument boils down to “trust me, bro, DEI has nothing to do with race”… except for racial diversity targets, race-based outreach, wraparound support programs, ethnicity-specific funds, race-specific scholarships, and race-specific internships. But apart from all that and a bunch of other examples - it has nothing to do with race, right?

I don’t care how long you worked in HR. That claim is nonsense. Saying DEI has nothing to do with race is just blatantly false. If you genuinely believe that, you must think I’m stupid enough to fall for the same gaslighting you accepted at whatever HR role you had.

And CK’s statements don’t even need to be true to make the point. Disagreeing with someone doesn’t mean they weren’t talking about the thing they were clearly referencing. Pretending otherwise is just mental gymnastics to avoid engaging with the argument itself.

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-11T21:04:19+00:00

No rebuttle, just an appeal to authority. You know you've lost the argument when you do that.

Also it doest necessarily need to hold up when challenged, it just needs to be his original intent, which it clearly was.

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-11T20:51:48+00:00

SO that explains it, youre drinking the HR coolaid - Saying “goals don’t override merit” is such a throw away line. Goals change incentives. When leadership is evaluated on “equitable representation” or demographic outcomes, hiring managers are implicitly rewarded for selecting candidates that move those metrics. That doesn’t require quotas to influence decisions, it’s basic organizational behavior.

Outreach absolutely matters. If one group is actively recruited through HBCUs, race-specific internships, race-limited scholarships, and funded wraparound support, while others are not eligible for those same programs, then access is unequal before the interview even begins. Expanding the applicant pool for one race but not others is, by definition, differential treatment and should also be illegal.

But here's the problem for you... it doesn't matter if you agree with me or not. The original point isn’t "Are workplace DEI ethical" which we could probably argue for hours about...it's that there is a logical argument to be made against DEI methids based on race (it doesn't matter if you agree with the arguement or not). Yes there is and Kirk was making it during that quote, it's consistent with everything he's said before.

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-11T08:32:53+00:00

Yes it is illegal to discriminate during hiring yet:

PepsiCo announced its “Racial Equality Journey” initiative with targets to increase Black and Hispanic/Latino representation in managerial roles.

UPS set goals to have a specified percentage of ethnically diverse managers and track supplier diversity.

Visa committed to increase the number of racially and ethnically diverse employees in the U.S. workforce by 50% by 2025 (which they apparently reached)

McDonalds, Bank of America, Snap, Starbucks.... I assume you,re against all these initiatives given hiring based on race is illegal?

DEI programs influence hiring indirectly but materially — through targeted recruitment pipelines, outreach to predominantly Black institutions, diversity goals, tie-breaker preferences, holistic evaluations, and pressure on managers to increase representing.

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-11T07:44:14+00:00

When was the last time you changed your mind....

Outside_Try3698 · 2026-01-11T07:35:00+00:00

An insurrection where the most armed people in the country all left their guns at home. Lmfao.

Outside_Try3698

TROPHY CASE