←back to thread

The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

(www.tracingwoodgrains.com)
739 points firebaze | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.411s | source
Show context
legitster ◴[] No.42949439[source]
This is a fascinating read, but the thing that bugs me about this whole affair is that when this came to light many years ago it was treated as a cheating and recruitment scandal. But only recently has it been reframed as a DEI issue.

Taking old, resolved scandals - slapping a coat of culture war paint on it - and then selling it as a new scandal is already a popular MO for state-sponsored propoganda, so we should be extra wary of stories like this being massaged.

replies(25): >>42949571 #>>42949589 #>>42949780 #>>42949935 #>>42950437 #>>42950475 #>>42950481 #>>42950518 #>>42950650 #>>42950743 #>>42950785 #>>42951339 #>>42951761 #>>42951858 #>>42951980 #>>42952004 #>>42952071 #>>42952270 #>>42956413 #>>42956974 #>>42959822 #>>42960107 #>>42963187 #>>42979388 #>>42997828 #
s3r3nity ◴[] No.42949571[source]
The cheating element is only _part_ of it, and the dominant regime at the time downplayed / ignored the DEI elements because that was supported by their ideology...like a sacred cow. Litigating "disparate impact" cases across any category became a successful attack vector against capitalist structures, and supported by Democratic leadership.

This isn't "slapping a new coat of paint for propaganda," but rather exposing the rest of the iceberg that was otherwise concealed. Both pieces are relevant.

replies(3): >>42950022 #>>42950196 #>>42950634 #
perching_aix ◴[] No.42950022[source]
> This isn't "slapping a new coat of paint for propaganda," but rather exposing the rest of the iceberg that was otherwise concealed.

Our Blessed Homeland vs. Their Barbarous Wastes

replies(1): >>42950068 #
1. s3r3nity ◴[] No.42950068[source]
Their Blessed Homeland vs. Our Barbarous Wastes
replies(1): >>42950118 #
2. Gud ◴[] No.42959616[source]
What’s up with the hostility? You doing ok?
replies(1): >>42960086 #
3. perching_aix ◴[] No.42960086{3}[source]
Thanks for asking, I think I do, yes. I'm not sure what you find particularly hostile about it - they edited out what they originally had to say, but even then, I'm not saying anything extraordinary.

Telling people they're acting childish and are not bringing anything to the table argumentation wise I think is pretty low on the hostility scale.

The irony of being called out as hostile after confronting someone that they're just asserting their opinions is definitely not lost on me. What a thread...

4. s3r3nity ◴[] No.42962684[source]
It’s more of a “yes, and…” comment. Namely, both are relevant, but previously only one side was highlighted.
replies(1): >>42964565 #
5. perching_aix ◴[] No.42964565{3}[source]
Neither are "relevant" in my opinion, not yours, not theirs. Both are inflammatory, subjective characterizations from different ends of the horseshoe. These are never productive or insightful, and that's why I brought up "Their Blessed Homeland vs. Our Barbarous Wastes".