|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The most important part is the diversity can be justified through capitalism, which is the only metric a society should ever, ever care about. We just need to pray discrimination can’t also be justified through capitalism.
|
Hence when I say that Religion needs to erode in majority of support for this country to become a modern nation and address climate change and so on.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt dismissed evolution as an unproven theory, lamented that “minority religions” were pushing Christianity out of “the public square” and advocated amending the Constitution to ban abortion, prohibit same-sex marriage and protect the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments, according to a newly unearthed series of Oklahoma talk radio shows from 2005.
Pruitt, who at the time was a state senator, also described the Second Amendment as divinely granted and condemned federal judges as a “judicial monarchy” that is “the most grievous threat that we have today." And he did not object when the program’s host described Islam as “not so much a religion as it is a terrorist organization in many instances.”
The six hours of civics class-style conversations on Tulsa-based KFAQ-AM were recently rediscovered by a firm researching Pruitt’s past remarks, which provided them to POLITICO on condition of anonymity so as not to identify its client. They reveal Pruitt's unfiltered views on a variety of political and social issues, more than a decade before the ambitious Oklahoman would lead President Donald Trump’s EPA.
The views he states, in discussions peppered with references to inalienable rights and the faith of the nation's founders, are in line with those of millions of other conservative, devout Christians. But they also show stances that at times are at odds with the broader American mainstream, and in some cases with accepted scientific findings — an issue that has more recently come up with his skepticism about the science behind climate change.
“There aren’t sufficient scientific facts to establish the theory of evolution, and it deals with the origins of man, which is more from a philosophical standpoint than a scientific standpoint,” he said in one part of the series, in which Pruitt and the program's hosts discussed issues related to the Constitution.
Source
|
Christianity=\= Inerrant, Cowardly Christianity that serves as cover for political belief, ignorance of science, and/or straight up hate.
|
On March 03 2018 03:12 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Reading more about this youtube or google or whatever hiring thing, super fucked up. What a disaster. Hope they get utterly slammed for messing up this bad. It is hilarious to see how good intentions can go so badly.
Taking a million steps back, are there reasons unrelated to culture and inclusion bullshit that companies do affirmative action stuff? Is there a tax benefit or anything like that? It always feels like companies are aiming for a certain number of racial composition or something. What is the selfish reason for it? I refuse to believe it is purely charity.
Affirmative action has its place, but only in school admission in my eyes. And it should be focused on economic conditions rather than racial. Or at least mostly economic. There are still major societal reasons to make sure blacks and other disproportionately impacted minorities to have more role models and whatnot. But at the core, the reason for affirmative action is the fact that communities and families end up cyclic. A shitty mom goes on to raise a shitty kid, who gets pregnant just as early as her mom, meaning she goes on to raise another shitty kid, who then also does not go to college and also has a kid at 16. We as a society have a purely selfish, financial incentive to make sure theses cycles end. People who are a drain on society can become a benefit to society. The country benefits from ending these cycles. It is worth our money to invest in ending these cycles. These types of people are expensive for the government. It is a good investment to make them self sufficient through schooling.
But if 10% of CS graduates are women, it isn't possible for companies to hire 50% women and 50% men. If companies are going to try to meet diversity requirements, they should at least make them realistic. If only 1% of CS graduates are Hispanic, no need to plan on having more than that working for you. I agree basing hiring solely on quotas is stupid, but there is lots of research which suggests that diverse work forces perform better: Show nested quote +Striving to increase workplace diversity is not an empty slogan — it is a good business decision. A 2015 McKinsey report on 366 public companies found that those in the top quartile for ethnic and racial diversity in management were 35% more likely to have financial returns above their industry mean, and those in the top quartile for gender diversity were 15% more likely to have returns above the industry mean.
...
In a nutshell, enriching your employee pool with representatives of different genders, races, and nationalities is key for boosting your company’s joint intellectual potential. Creating a more diverse workplace will help to keep your team members’ biases in check and make them question their assumptions. At the same time, we need to make sure the organization has inclusive practices so that everyone feels they can be heard. All of this can make your teams smarter and, ultimately, make your organization more successful, whatever your goals. Source
Everyone I've ever talked to in my industry has said mixes of men and women help but that there is zero racial benefit. As long as you've got men and women, you're good. But in terms of problem solving, it's not like a team of Chinese people benefit from having someone from India or Peru. Hispanic and white engineers are not taking fundamentally different approaches. Women and men can think very dissimilarly. But I haven't seen evidence of racial components.
|
On March 03 2018 03:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hence when I say that Religion needs to erode in majority of support for this country to become a modern nation and address climate change and so on. Show nested quote +Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt dismissed evolution as an unproven theory, lamented that “minority religions” were pushing Christianity out of “the public square” and advocated amending the Constitution to ban abortion, prohibit same-sex marriage and protect the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments, according to a newly unearthed series of Oklahoma talk radio shows from 2005.
Pruitt, who at the time was a state senator, also described the Second Amendment as divinely granted and condemned federal judges as a “judicial monarchy” that is “the most grievous threat that we have today." And he did not object when the program’s host described Islam as “not so much a religion as it is a terrorist organization in many instances.”
The six hours of civics class-style conversations on Tulsa-based KFAQ-AM were recently rediscovered by a firm researching Pruitt’s past remarks, which provided them to POLITICO on condition of anonymity so as not to identify its client. They reveal Pruitt's unfiltered views on a variety of political and social issues, more than a decade before the ambitious Oklahoman would lead President Donald Trump’s EPA.
The views he states, in discussions peppered with references to inalienable rights and the faith of the nation's founders, are in line with those of millions of other conservative, devout Christians. But they also show stances that at times are at odds with the broader American mainstream, and in some cases with accepted scientific findings — an issue that has more recently come up with his skepticism about the science behind climate change.
“There aren’t sufficient scientific facts to establish the theory of evolution, and it deals with the origins of man, which is more from a philosophical standpoint than a scientific standpoint,” he said in one part of the series, in which Pruitt and the program's hosts discussed issues related to the Constitution. Source
You can imagine a Christianity which embraces Stewardship, can't you?
|
On March 03 2018 03:33 farvacola wrote:
Christianity=\= Inerrant, Cowardly Christianity that serves as cover for political belief, ignorance of science, and/or straight up hate.
They really like to skip over that separation of church and state section.
|
|
|
On March 03 2018 03:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hence when I say that Religion needs to erode in majority of support for this country to become a modern nation and address climate change and so on. Show nested quote +Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt dismissed evolution as an unproven theory, lamented that “minority religions” were pushing Christianity out of “the public square” and advocated amending the Constitution to ban abortion, prohibit same-sex marriage and protect the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments, according to a newly unearthed series of Oklahoma talk radio shows from 2005.
Pruitt, who at the time was a state senator, also described the Second Amendment as divinely granted and condemned federal judges as a “judicial monarchy” that is “the most grievous threat that we have today." And he did not object when the program’s host described Islam as “not so much a religion as it is a terrorist organization in many instances.”
The six hours of civics class-style conversations on Tulsa-based KFAQ-AM were recently rediscovered by a firm researching Pruitt’s past remarks, which provided them to POLITICO on condition of anonymity so as not to identify its client. They reveal Pruitt's unfiltered views on a variety of political and social issues, more than a decade before the ambitious Oklahoman would lead President Donald Trump’s EPA.
The views he states, in discussions peppered with references to inalienable rights and the faith of the nation's founders, are in line with those of millions of other conservative, devout Christians. But they also show stances that at times are at odds with the broader American mainstream, and in some cases with accepted scientific findings — an issue that has more recently come up with his skepticism about the science behind climate change.
“There aren’t sufficient scientific facts to establish the theory of evolution, and it deals with the origins of man, which is more from a philosophical standpoint than a scientific standpoint,” he said in one part of the series, in which Pruitt and the program's hosts discussed issues related to the Constitution. Source
When I read this article earlier today I was in awe. HOW does someone with views like that, such mental ideas, coupled with the belief that their faith should influence their policy, get elected to anything? It boggles the mind.
There was a beautiful opinion piece that WaPo had about religion overstepping its place in politics.
www.washingtonpost.com
I particularly like this part. The pre-context is that some writer made inaccurate claims about Christian persecution in the US.
Why are we reluctant to challenge such claims? It’s the result of a tacit social contract, an uneasy truce after the 20th-century wars over science and the role of religion in the public sphere. According to this social contract, institutions outside the religious sphere will not use scientific methods to criticize religious beliefs, so long as those beliefs are not combined with sweeping political claims that extend far beyond the walls of the church.
The reluctance to fact-check Dreher, or any other Christian claiming persecution, is the social contract at work. We journalists inherently understand that we must suspend our usual judgment when writing about religion.
But evangelical Christians have long chafed at the strictures of that social contract. Now, with the election of Trump and the rise of Moore, they are in open rebellion against it. They want their beliefs to extend outside the walls of their churches and into bakeries, businesses, doctor’s offices, public bathrooms, Congress, the court system and the presidency — and they don’t want these actions to be subjected to legal and social scrutiny. They take such scrutiny, and any resulting opposition, as persecution. It’s a powerful rallying cry that has now swelled into a force capable of rewriting laws and oppressing the truly vulnerable.
When Christians make factually untrue claims that then go on to influence elections, law-making and eventually the lives of people outside the walls of the church, that social contract has been violated.
The appointment of someone like Pruitt, who believes some crazy religious BS and is willing to act on it politically, highlights the need to place some serious church-state boundaries.
|
On March 03 2018 03:47 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 03:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hence when I say that Religion needs to erode in majority of support for this country to become a modern nation and address climate change and so on. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt dismissed evolution as an unproven theory, lamented that “minority religions” were pushing Christianity out of “the public square” and advocated amending the Constitution to ban abortion, prohibit same-sex marriage and protect the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments, according to a newly unearthed series of Oklahoma talk radio shows from 2005.
Pruitt, who at the time was a state senator, also described the Second Amendment as divinely granted and condemned federal judges as a “judicial monarchy” that is “the most grievous threat that we have today." And he did not object when the program’s host described Islam as “not so much a religion as it is a terrorist organization in many instances.”
The six hours of civics class-style conversations on Tulsa-based KFAQ-AM were recently rediscovered by a firm researching Pruitt’s past remarks, which provided them to POLITICO on condition of anonymity so as not to identify its client. They reveal Pruitt's unfiltered views on a variety of political and social issues, more than a decade before the ambitious Oklahoman would lead President Donald Trump’s EPA.
The views he states, in discussions peppered with references to inalienable rights and the faith of the nation's founders, are in line with those of millions of other conservative, devout Christians. But they also show stances that at times are at odds with the broader American mainstream, and in some cases with accepted scientific findings — an issue that has more recently come up with his skepticism about the science behind climate change.
“There aren’t sufficient scientific facts to establish the theory of evolution, and it deals with the origins of man, which is more from a philosophical standpoint than a scientific standpoint,” he said in one part of the series, in which Pruitt and the program's hosts discussed issues related to the Constitution. Source When I read this article earlier today I was in awe. HOW does someone with views like that, such mental ideas, coupled with the belief that their faith should influence their policy, get elected to anything? It boggles the mind. There was a beautiful opinion piece that WaPo had about religion overstepping its place in politics. www.washingtonpost.comI particularly like this part. The pre-context is that some writer made inaccurate claims about Christian persecution in the US. Show nested quote +
Why are we reluctant to challenge such claims? It’s the result of a tacit social contract, an uneasy truce after the 20th-century wars over science and the role of religion in the public sphere. According to this social contract, institutions outside the religious sphere will not use scientific methods to criticize religious beliefs, so long as those beliefs are not combined with sweeping political claims that extend far beyond the walls of the church.
The reluctance to fact-check Dreher, or any other Christian claiming persecution, is the social contract at work. We journalists inherently understand that we must suspend our usual judgment when writing about religion.
But evangelical Christians have long chafed at the strictures of that social contract. Now, with the election of Trump and the rise of Moore, they are in open rebellion against it. They want their beliefs to extend outside the walls of their churches and into bakeries, businesses, doctor’s offices, public bathrooms, Congress, the court system and the presidency — and they don’t want these actions to be subjected to legal and social scrutiny. They take such scrutiny, and any resulting opposition, as persecution. It’s a powerful rallying cry that has now swelled into a force capable of rewriting laws and oppressing the truly vulnerable.
When Christians make factually untrue claims that then go on to influence elections, law-making and eventually the lives of people outside the walls of the church, that social contract has been violated.
The appointment of someone like Pruitt, who believes some crazy religious BS and is willing to act on it politically, highlights the need to place some serious church-state boundaries.
they get elected because a lot of the constitutients in the district feel the same way. there's a LOT of people like that in some parts of the US.
|
On March 03 2018 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 03:12 Mercy13 wrote:On March 03 2018 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Reading more about this youtube or google or whatever hiring thing, super fucked up. What a disaster. Hope they get utterly slammed for messing up this bad. It is hilarious to see how good intentions can go so badly.
Taking a million steps back, are there reasons unrelated to culture and inclusion bullshit that companies do affirmative action stuff? Is there a tax benefit or anything like that? It always feels like companies are aiming for a certain number of racial composition or something. What is the selfish reason for it? I refuse to believe it is purely charity.
Affirmative action has its place, but only in school admission in my eyes. And it should be focused on economic conditions rather than racial. Or at least mostly economic. There are still major societal reasons to make sure blacks and other disproportionately impacted minorities to have more role models and whatnot. But at the core, the reason for affirmative action is the fact that communities and families end up cyclic. A shitty mom goes on to raise a shitty kid, who gets pregnant just as early as her mom, meaning she goes on to raise another shitty kid, who then also does not go to college and also has a kid at 16. We as a society have a purely selfish, financial incentive to make sure theses cycles end. People who are a drain on society can become a benefit to society. The country benefits from ending these cycles. It is worth our money to invest in ending these cycles. These types of people are expensive for the government. It is a good investment to make them self sufficient through schooling.
But if 10% of CS graduates are women, it isn't possible for companies to hire 50% women and 50% men. If companies are going to try to meet diversity requirements, they should at least make them realistic. If only 1% of CS graduates are Hispanic, no need to plan on having more than that working for you. I agree basing hiring solely on quotas is stupid, but there is lots of research which suggests that diverse work forces perform better: Striving to increase workplace diversity is not an empty slogan — it is a good business decision. A 2015 McKinsey report on 366 public companies found that those in the top quartile for ethnic and racial diversity in management were 35% more likely to have financial returns above their industry mean, and those in the top quartile for gender diversity were 15% more likely to have returns above the industry mean.
...
In a nutshell, enriching your employee pool with representatives of different genders, races, and nationalities is key for boosting your company’s joint intellectual potential. Creating a more diverse workplace will help to keep your team members’ biases in check and make them question their assumptions. At the same time, we need to make sure the organization has inclusive practices so that everyone feels they can be heard. All of this can make your teams smarter and, ultimately, make your organization more successful, whatever your goals. Source Everyone I've ever talked to in my industry has said mixes of men and women help but that there is zero racial benefit. As long as you've got men and women, you're good. But in terms of problem solving, it's not like a team of Chinese people benefit from having someone from India or Peru. Hispanic and white engineers are not taking fundamentally different approaches. Women and men can think very dissimilarly. But I haven't seen evidence of racial components.
The article I linked mentions several studies which have suggested that there are benefits from racial diversity. I assume that in such cases racial diversity is a proxy for diverse backgrounds and perspectives, which can encourage innovation. I.e. I would anticipate that you wouldn't get a ton of benefit from having a black and white person on your team who grew up next to each other. However, the US is so racially segregated that white people and black people have radically different experience to draw from.
|
On March 03 2018 03:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hence when I say that Religion needs to erode in majority of support for this country to become a modern nation and address climate change and so on. Show nested quote +Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt dismissed evolution as an unproven theory, lamented that “minority religions” were pushing Christianity out of “the public square” and advocated amending the Constitution to ban abortion, prohibit same-sex marriage and protect the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments, according to a newly unearthed series of Oklahoma talk radio shows from 2005.
Pruitt, who at the time was a state senator, also described the Second Amendment as divinely granted and condemned federal judges as a “judicial monarchy” that is “the most grievous threat that we have today." And he did not object when the program’s host described Islam as “not so much a religion as it is a terrorist organization in many instances.”
The six hours of civics class-style conversations on Tulsa-based KFAQ-AM were recently rediscovered by a firm researching Pruitt’s past remarks, which provided them to POLITICO on condition of anonymity so as not to identify its client. They reveal Pruitt's unfiltered views on a variety of political and social issues, more than a decade before the ambitious Oklahoman would lead President Donald Trump’s EPA.
The views he states, in discussions peppered with references to inalienable rights and the faith of the nation's founders, are in line with those of millions of other conservative, devout Christians. But they also show stances that at times are at odds with the broader American mainstream, and in some cases with accepted scientific findings — an issue that has more recently come up with his skepticism about the science behind climate change.
“There aren’t sufficient scientific facts to establish the theory of evolution, and it deals with the origins of man, which is more from a philosophical standpoint than a scientific standpoint,” he said in one part of the series, in which Pruitt and the program's hosts discussed issues related to the Constitution. Source
So the Second Amendment is "divinely granted" but the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is unimportant? Scott Pruitt is a dangerous man because of his religious zealotry and his ignorance of science and the environment.
|
On March 03 2018 03:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 03:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hence when I say that Religion needs to erode in majority of support for this country to become a modern nation and address climate change and so on. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt dismissed evolution as an unproven theory, lamented that “minority religions” were pushing Christianity out of “the public square” and advocated amending the Constitution to ban abortion, prohibit same-sex marriage and protect the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments, according to a newly unearthed series of Oklahoma talk radio shows from 2005.
Pruitt, who at the time was a state senator, also described the Second Amendment as divinely granted and condemned federal judges as a “judicial monarchy” that is “the most grievous threat that we have today." And he did not object when the program’s host described Islam as “not so much a religion as it is a terrorist organization in many instances.”
The six hours of civics class-style conversations on Tulsa-based KFAQ-AM were recently rediscovered by a firm researching Pruitt’s past remarks, which provided them to POLITICO on condition of anonymity so as not to identify its client. They reveal Pruitt's unfiltered views on a variety of political and social issues, more than a decade before the ambitious Oklahoman would lead President Donald Trump’s EPA.
The views he states, in discussions peppered with references to inalienable rights and the faith of the nation's founders, are in line with those of millions of other conservative, devout Christians. But they also show stances that at times are at odds with the broader American mainstream, and in some cases with accepted scientific findings — an issue that has more recently come up with his skepticism about the science behind climate change.
“There aren’t sufficient scientific facts to establish the theory of evolution, and it deals with the origins of man, which is more from a philosophical standpoint than a scientific standpoint,” he said in one part of the series, in which Pruitt and the program's hosts discussed issues related to the Constitution. Source So the Second Amendment is "divinely granted" but the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is unimportant? Scott Pruitt is a dangerous man because of his religious zealotry and his ignorance of science and the environment.
When Trump arrived in DC, he stripped all the veneer off of these folks, which revealed the rot underneath. It has never been about government over reach and over regulation. That is the politically palpable mask they put to while they move to destroy the instructions that get in the way of their anti-science, anti-sectarian ideology.
|
On March 03 2018 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2018 03:12 Mercy13 wrote:On March 03 2018 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Reading more about this youtube or google or whatever hiring thing, super fucked up. What a disaster. Hope they get utterly slammed for messing up this bad. It is hilarious to see how good intentions can go so badly.
Taking a million steps back, are there reasons unrelated to culture and inclusion bullshit that companies do affirmative action stuff? Is there a tax benefit or anything like that? It always feels like companies are aiming for a certain number of racial composition or something. What is the selfish reason for it? I refuse to believe it is purely charity.
Affirmative action has its place, but only in school admission in my eyes. And it should be focused on economic conditions rather than racial. Or at least mostly economic. There are still major societal reasons to make sure blacks and other disproportionately impacted minorities to have more role models and whatnot. But at the core, the reason for affirmative action is the fact that communities and families end up cyclic. A shitty mom goes on to raise a shitty kid, who gets pregnant just as early as her mom, meaning she goes on to raise another shitty kid, who then also does not go to college and also has a kid at 16. We as a society have a purely selfish, financial incentive to make sure theses cycles end. People who are a drain on society can become a benefit to society. The country benefits from ending these cycles. It is worth our money to invest in ending these cycles. These types of people are expensive for the government. It is a good investment to make them self sufficient through schooling.
But if 10% of CS graduates are women, it isn't possible for companies to hire 50% women and 50% men. If companies are going to try to meet diversity requirements, they should at least make them realistic. If only 1% of CS graduates are Hispanic, no need to plan on having more than that working for you. I agree basing hiring solely on quotas is stupid, but there is lots of research which suggests that diverse work forces perform better: Striving to increase workplace diversity is not an empty slogan — it is a good business decision. A 2015 McKinsey report on 366 public companies found that those in the top quartile for ethnic and racial diversity in management were 35% more likely to have financial returns above their industry mean, and those in the top quartile for gender diversity were 15% more likely to have returns above the industry mean.
...
In a nutshell, enriching your employee pool with representatives of different genders, races, and nationalities is key for boosting your company’s joint intellectual potential. Creating a more diverse workplace will help to keep your team members’ biases in check and make them question their assumptions. At the same time, we need to make sure the organization has inclusive practices so that everyone feels they can be heard. All of this can make your teams smarter and, ultimately, make your organization more successful, whatever your goals. Source Everyone I've ever talked to in my industry has said mixes of men and women help but that there is zero racial benefit. As long as you've got men and women, you're good. But in terms of problem solving, it's not like a team of Chinese people benefit from having someone from India or Peru. Hispanic and white engineers are not taking fundamentally different approaches. Women and men can think very dissimilarly. But I haven't seen evidence of racial components. The article I linked mentions several studies which have suggested that there are benefits from racial diversity. I assume that in such cases racial diversity is a proxy for diverse backgrounds and perspectives, which can encourage innovation. I.e. I would anticipate that you wouldn't get a ton of benefit from having a black and white person on your team who grew up next to each other. However, the US is so racially segregated that white people and black people have radically different experience to draw from.
I can understand how that would be beneficial. Interesting. It also highlights how taking the perspective of needing a certain number of x minority isn't telling the whole story. Teams that encourage thought and perspective diversity naturally end up having more elegant, creative solutions to problems. That's a slam dunk and I would easily sign off on that.
But considering the fact that many tech companies hire everyone from the same 10 schools, I doubt they are accomplishing their goal of thought diversity by just doing their best to snag the black students from MIT.
|
On March 03 2018 03:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Hence when I say that Religion needs to erode in majority of support for this country to become a modern nation and address climate change and so on.
All the "good" countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland) are majority Christian.
The real obstacle to addressing climate change is the fossil fuel industry, the military industrial complex (that Einsenhower warned us about), and the bought politicians who comprise the majority of the house and senate.
|
On March 03 2018 03:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hence when I say that Religion needs to erode in majority of support for this country to become a modern nation and address climate change and so on. Show nested quote +Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt dismissed evolution as an unproven theory, lamented that “minority religions” were pushing Christianity out of “the public square” and advocated amending the Constitution to ban abortion, prohibit same-sex marriage and protect the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments, according to a newly unearthed series of Oklahoma talk radio shows from 2005.
Pruitt, who at the time was a state senator, also described the Second Amendment as divinely granted and condemned federal judges as a “judicial monarchy” that is “the most grievous threat that we have today." And he did not object when the program’s host described Islam as “not so much a religion as it is a terrorist organization in many instances.”
The six hours of civics class-style conversations on Tulsa-based KFAQ-AM were recently rediscovered by a firm researching Pruitt’s past remarks, which provided them to POLITICO on condition of anonymity so as not to identify its client. They reveal Pruitt's unfiltered views on a variety of political and social issues, more than a decade before the ambitious Oklahoman would lead President Donald Trump’s EPA.
The views he states, in discussions peppered with references to inalienable rights and the faith of the nation's founders, are in line with those of millions of other conservative, devout Christians. But they also show stances that at times are at odds with the broader American mainstream, and in some cases with accepted scientific findings — an issue that has more recently come up with his skepticism about the science behind climate change.
“There aren’t sufficient scientific facts to establish the theory of evolution, and it deals with the origins of man, which is more from a philosophical standpoint than a scientific standpoint,” he said in one part of the series, in which Pruitt and the program's hosts discussed issues related to the Constitution. Source
I don't know if it needs to erode like that (see a whole load of other countries), but certainly the wealth gospel is incredibly dangerous and a huge barrier. It wouldn't be surprising if it has a large responsibility for a lot of views like this. It basically incentivizes pastors to radicalize their following for personal gain and a strong way to do it is by painting your group as the victims and establishing hard line positions that your followers should never cross.
|
On March 03 2018 04:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On March 03 2018 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2018 03:12 Mercy13 wrote:On March 03 2018 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Reading more about this youtube or google or whatever hiring thing, super fucked up. What a disaster. Hope they get utterly slammed for messing up this bad. It is hilarious to see how good intentions can go so badly.
Taking a million steps back, are there reasons unrelated to culture and inclusion bullshit that companies do affirmative action stuff? Is there a tax benefit or anything like that? It always feels like companies are aiming for a certain number of racial composition or something. What is the selfish reason for it? I refuse to believe it is purely charity.
Affirmative action has its place, but only in school admission in my eyes. And it should be focused on economic conditions rather than racial. Or at least mostly economic. There are still major societal reasons to make sure blacks and other disproportionately impacted minorities to have more role models and whatnot. But at the core, the reason for affirmative action is the fact that communities and families end up cyclic. A shitty mom goes on to raise a shitty kid, who gets pregnant just as early as her mom, meaning she goes on to raise another shitty kid, who then also does not go to college and also has a kid at 16. We as a society have a purely selfish, financial incentive to make sure theses cycles end. People who are a drain on society can become a benefit to society. The country benefits from ending these cycles. It is worth our money to invest in ending these cycles. These types of people are expensive for the government. It is a good investment to make them self sufficient through schooling.
But if 10% of CS graduates are women, it isn't possible for companies to hire 50% women and 50% men. If companies are going to try to meet diversity requirements, they should at least make them realistic. If only 1% of CS graduates are Hispanic, no need to plan on having more than that working for you. I agree basing hiring solely on quotas is stupid, but there is lots of research which suggests that diverse work forces perform better: Striving to increase workplace diversity is not an empty slogan — it is a good business decision. A 2015 McKinsey report on 366 public companies found that those in the top quartile for ethnic and racial diversity in management were 35% more likely to have financial returns above their industry mean, and those in the top quartile for gender diversity were 15% more likely to have returns above the industry mean.
...
In a nutshell, enriching your employee pool with representatives of different genders, races, and nationalities is key for boosting your company’s joint intellectual potential. Creating a more diverse workplace will help to keep your team members’ biases in check and make them question their assumptions. At the same time, we need to make sure the organization has inclusive practices so that everyone feels they can be heard. All of this can make your teams smarter and, ultimately, make your organization more successful, whatever your goals. Source Everyone I've ever talked to in my industry has said mixes of men and women help but that there is zero racial benefit. As long as you've got men and women, you're good. But in terms of problem solving, it's not like a team of Chinese people benefit from having someone from India or Peru. Hispanic and white engineers are not taking fundamentally different approaches. Women and men can think very dissimilarly. But I haven't seen evidence of racial components. The article I linked mentions several studies which have suggested that there are benefits from racial diversity. I assume that in such cases racial diversity is a proxy for diverse backgrounds and perspectives, which can encourage innovation. I.e. I would anticipate that you wouldn't get a ton of benefit from having a black and white person on your team who grew up next to each other. However, the US is so racially segregated that white people and black people have radically different experience to draw from. I can understand how that would be beneficial. Interesting. It also highlights how taking the perspective of needing a certain number of x minority isn't telling the whole story. Teams that encourage thought and perspective diversity naturally end up having more elegant, creative solutions to problems. That's a slam dunk and I would easily sign off on that. But considering the fact that many tech companies hire everyone from the same 10 schools, I doubt they are accomplishing their goal of thought diversity by just doing their best to snag the black students from MIT.
The hope is the industry would push MIT to find more black students and help them succeed. I’m sure there are a large number of MIT quality students out there for any demographic that can’t attend financial reasons. Or simply don’t apply because they believe the school is beyond their reach.
|
On March 03 2018 04:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 04:15 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2018 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On March 03 2018 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2018 03:12 Mercy13 wrote:On March 03 2018 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Reading more about this youtube or google or whatever hiring thing, super fucked up. What a disaster. Hope they get utterly slammed for messing up this bad. It is hilarious to see how good intentions can go so badly.
Taking a million steps back, are there reasons unrelated to culture and inclusion bullshit that companies do affirmative action stuff? Is there a tax benefit or anything like that? It always feels like companies are aiming for a certain number of racial composition or something. What is the selfish reason for it? I refuse to believe it is purely charity.
Affirmative action has its place, but only in school admission in my eyes. And it should be focused on economic conditions rather than racial. Or at least mostly economic. There are still major societal reasons to make sure blacks and other disproportionately impacted minorities to have more role models and whatnot. But at the core, the reason for affirmative action is the fact that communities and families end up cyclic. A shitty mom goes on to raise a shitty kid, who gets pregnant just as early as her mom, meaning she goes on to raise another shitty kid, who then also does not go to college and also has a kid at 16. We as a society have a purely selfish, financial incentive to make sure theses cycles end. People who are a drain on society can become a benefit to society. The country benefits from ending these cycles. It is worth our money to invest in ending these cycles. These types of people are expensive for the government. It is a good investment to make them self sufficient through schooling.
But if 10% of CS graduates are women, it isn't possible for companies to hire 50% women and 50% men. If companies are going to try to meet diversity requirements, they should at least make them realistic. If only 1% of CS graduates are Hispanic, no need to plan on having more than that working for you. I agree basing hiring solely on quotas is stupid, but there is lots of research which suggests that diverse work forces perform better: Striving to increase workplace diversity is not an empty slogan — it is a good business decision. A 2015 McKinsey report on 366 public companies found that those in the top quartile for ethnic and racial diversity in management were 35% more likely to have financial returns above their industry mean, and those in the top quartile for gender diversity were 15% more likely to have returns above the industry mean.
...
In a nutshell, enriching your employee pool with representatives of different genders, races, and nationalities is key for boosting your company’s joint intellectual potential. Creating a more diverse workplace will help to keep your team members’ biases in check and make them question their assumptions. At the same time, we need to make sure the organization has inclusive practices so that everyone feels they can be heard. All of this can make your teams smarter and, ultimately, make your organization more successful, whatever your goals. Source Everyone I've ever talked to in my industry has said mixes of men and women help but that there is zero racial benefit. As long as you've got men and women, you're good. But in terms of problem solving, it's not like a team of Chinese people benefit from having someone from India or Peru. Hispanic and white engineers are not taking fundamentally different approaches. Women and men can think very dissimilarly. But I haven't seen evidence of racial components. The article I linked mentions several studies which have suggested that there are benefits from racial diversity. I assume that in such cases racial diversity is a proxy for diverse backgrounds and perspectives, which can encourage innovation. I.e. I would anticipate that you wouldn't get a ton of benefit from having a black and white person on your team who grew up next to each other. However, the US is so racially segregated that white people and black people have radically different experience to draw from. I can understand how that would be beneficial. Interesting. It also highlights how taking the perspective of needing a certain number of x minority isn't telling the whole story. Teams that encourage thought and perspective diversity naturally end up having more elegant, creative solutions to problems. That's a slam dunk and I would easily sign off on that. But considering the fact that many tech companies hire everyone from the same 10 schools, I doubt they are accomplishing their goal of thought diversity by just doing their best to snag the black students from MIT. The hope is the industry would push MIT to find more black students and help them succeed. I’m sure there are a large number of MIT quality students out there for any demographic that can’t attend financial reasons. Or simply don’t apply because they believe the school is beyond their reach.
So you imagine a situation where Google or someone gives MIT incentives to provide the industry with more minorities?
|
On March 03 2018 04:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On March 03 2018 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2018 03:12 Mercy13 wrote:On March 03 2018 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Reading more about this youtube or google or whatever hiring thing, super fucked up. What a disaster. Hope they get utterly slammed for messing up this bad. It is hilarious to see how good intentions can go so badly.
Taking a million steps back, are there reasons unrelated to culture and inclusion bullshit that companies do affirmative action stuff? Is there a tax benefit or anything like that? It always feels like companies are aiming for a certain number of racial composition or something. What is the selfish reason for it? I refuse to believe it is purely charity.
Affirmative action has its place, but only in school admission in my eyes. And it should be focused on economic conditions rather than racial. Or at least mostly economic. There are still major societal reasons to make sure blacks and other disproportionately impacted minorities to have more role models and whatnot. But at the core, the reason for affirmative action is the fact that communities and families end up cyclic. A shitty mom goes on to raise a shitty kid, who gets pregnant just as early as her mom, meaning she goes on to raise another shitty kid, who then also does not go to college and also has a kid at 16. We as a society have a purely selfish, financial incentive to make sure theses cycles end. People who are a drain on society can become a benefit to society. The country benefits from ending these cycles. It is worth our money to invest in ending these cycles. These types of people are expensive for the government. It is a good investment to make them self sufficient through schooling.
But if 10% of CS graduates are women, it isn't possible for companies to hire 50% women and 50% men. If companies are going to try to meet diversity requirements, they should at least make them realistic. If only 1% of CS graduates are Hispanic, no need to plan on having more than that working for you. I agree basing hiring solely on quotas is stupid, but there is lots of research which suggests that diverse work forces perform better: Striving to increase workplace diversity is not an empty slogan — it is a good business decision. A 2015 McKinsey report on 366 public companies found that those in the top quartile for ethnic and racial diversity in management were 35% more likely to have financial returns above their industry mean, and those in the top quartile for gender diversity were 15% more likely to have returns above the industry mean.
...
In a nutshell, enriching your employee pool with representatives of different genders, races, and nationalities is key for boosting your company’s joint intellectual potential. Creating a more diverse workplace will help to keep your team members’ biases in check and make them question their assumptions. At the same time, we need to make sure the organization has inclusive practices so that everyone feels they can be heard. All of this can make your teams smarter and, ultimately, make your organization more successful, whatever your goals. Source Everyone I've ever talked to in my industry has said mixes of men and women help but that there is zero racial benefit. As long as you've got men and women, you're good. But in terms of problem solving, it's not like a team of Chinese people benefit from having someone from India or Peru. Hispanic and white engineers are not taking fundamentally different approaches. Women and men can think very dissimilarly. But I haven't seen evidence of racial components. The article I linked mentions several studies which have suggested that there are benefits from racial diversity. I assume that in such cases racial diversity is a proxy for diverse backgrounds and perspectives, which can encourage innovation. I.e. I would anticipate that you wouldn't get a ton of benefit from having a black and white person on your team who grew up next to each other. However, the US is so racially segregated that white people and black people have radically different experience to draw from. I can understand how that would be beneficial. Interesting. It also highlights how taking the perspective of needing a certain number of x minority isn't telling the whole story. Teams that encourage thought and perspective diversity naturally end up having more elegant, creative solutions to problems. That's a slam dunk and I would easily sign off on that. But considering the fact that many tech companies hire everyone from the same 10 schools, I doubt they are accomplishing their goal of thought diversity by just doing their best to snag the black students from MIT.
Totally agree with that. That's why I think the quota policies (if they are real) are really dumb. If tech companies are serious about diversity they would be better served by developing the pipelines which allow women and minorities to break into the tech field, rather than using quotas and such.
Code.org is a pretty cool example of this:
Code.org® is a non-profit dedicated to expanding access to computer science in schools and increasing participation by women and underrepresented minorities. Our vision is that every student in every school should have the opportunity to learn computer science, just like biology, chemistry or algebra. Code.org organizes the annual Hour of Code campaign which has engaged 10% of all students in the world and provides the leading curriculum for K-12 computer science in the largest school districts in the United States. Code.org is supported by generous donors including Amazon, Facebook, Google, the Infosys Foundation, Microsoft, and many more.
Source
I don't know enough about the organization to say if this is just a stunt for good publicity, but it's a good idea.
|
On March 03 2018 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2018 04:21 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2018 04:15 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2018 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On March 03 2018 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2018 03:12 Mercy13 wrote:On March 03 2018 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Reading more about this youtube or google or whatever hiring thing, super fucked up. What a disaster. Hope they get utterly slammed for messing up this bad. It is hilarious to see how good intentions can go so badly.
Taking a million steps back, are there reasons unrelated to culture and inclusion bullshit that companies do affirmative action stuff? Is there a tax benefit or anything like that? It always feels like companies are aiming for a certain number of racial composition or something. What is the selfish reason for it? I refuse to believe it is purely charity.
Affirmative action has its place, but only in school admission in my eyes. And it should be focused on economic conditions rather than racial. Or at least mostly economic. There are still major societal reasons to make sure blacks and other disproportionately impacted minorities to have more role models and whatnot. But at the core, the reason for affirmative action is the fact that communities and families end up cyclic. A shitty mom goes on to raise a shitty kid, who gets pregnant just as early as her mom, meaning she goes on to raise another shitty kid, who then also does not go to college and also has a kid at 16. We as a society have a purely selfish, financial incentive to make sure theses cycles end. People who are a drain on society can become a benefit to society. The country benefits from ending these cycles. It is worth our money to invest in ending these cycles. These types of people are expensive for the government. It is a good investment to make them self sufficient through schooling.
But if 10% of CS graduates are women, it isn't possible for companies to hire 50% women and 50% men. If companies are going to try to meet diversity requirements, they should at least make them realistic. If only 1% of CS graduates are Hispanic, no need to plan on having more than that working for you. I agree basing hiring solely on quotas is stupid, but there is lots of research which suggests that diverse work forces perform better: Striving to increase workplace diversity is not an empty slogan — it is a good business decision. A 2015 McKinsey report on 366 public companies found that those in the top quartile for ethnic and racial diversity in management were 35% more likely to have financial returns above their industry mean, and those in the top quartile for gender diversity were 15% more likely to have returns above the industry mean.
...
In a nutshell, enriching your employee pool with representatives of different genders, races, and nationalities is key for boosting your company’s joint intellectual potential. Creating a more diverse workplace will help to keep your team members’ biases in check and make them question their assumptions. At the same time, we need to make sure the organization has inclusive practices so that everyone feels they can be heard. All of this can make your teams smarter and, ultimately, make your organization more successful, whatever your goals. Source Everyone I've ever talked to in my industry has said mixes of men and women help but that there is zero racial benefit. As long as you've got men and women, you're good. But in terms of problem solving, it's not like a team of Chinese people benefit from having someone from India or Peru. Hispanic and white engineers are not taking fundamentally different approaches. Women and men can think very dissimilarly. But I haven't seen evidence of racial components. The article I linked mentions several studies which have suggested that there are benefits from racial diversity. I assume that in such cases racial diversity is a proxy for diverse backgrounds and perspectives, which can encourage innovation. I.e. I would anticipate that you wouldn't get a ton of benefit from having a black and white person on your team who grew up next to each other. However, the US is so racially segregated that white people and black people have radically different experience to draw from. I can understand how that would be beneficial. Interesting. It also highlights how taking the perspective of needing a certain number of x minority isn't telling the whole story. Teams that encourage thought and perspective diversity naturally end up having more elegant, creative solutions to problems. That's a slam dunk and I would easily sign off on that. But considering the fact that many tech companies hire everyone from the same 10 schools, I doubt they are accomplishing their goal of thought diversity by just doing their best to snag the black students from MIT. The hope is the industry would push MIT to find more black students and help them succeed. I’m sure there are a large number of MIT quality students out there for any demographic that can’t attend financial reasons. Or simply don’t apply because they believe the school is beyond their reach. So you imagine a situation where Google or someone gives MIT incentives to provide the industry with more minorities?
Yeah. They say here is a truck ton of money to set up scholarships for underrepresented minorities. Find them and give them full rides to your school. The law of averages will take care of the rest.
And stuff like this:
http://www.blackgirlscode.com/
|
I think it'd just be easier to do Bernie's tuition-free college plan than to beg for some corporations to use some of their surplus to fund a few scholarships.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
