|
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. |
On July 20 2017 08:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less". Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"? If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it? My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate. Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence. TBH that third paragraph on "less aggressive," "worse at focusing," and "biological factors" is enough to be called a sexist in Southern California circles.
Ironically, the most sexist things I've ever heard have come from my sister (a doctor) when she's discussing differences between men and women's capabilities ("Men are better at judging distances etc.")
On July 20 2017 08:48 LegalLord wrote:
So, since we're probably at least a year away from any real charges, I'm curious what you folk think: how deep does this Russia thing go?
Very deep. Was listening to Julia Ioffe on one of the Lovett podcasts - podbay.fmdiscussing how
Russia suddenly became experts on the political system of the US during Trump's campaign. In 2012-2013 they apparently had some hilariously misinformed lobbying efforts in washington, didn't know who the DCCC, DNC were but during the campaign became massively prescient on exactly when to leak specific information for highest impact, who the key players were, etc.
I give it 50/50 odds as to whether it goes up to Trump himself. She mentions a bit that he himself really didn't coordinate well.
|
Video from Baltimore Police Department body cameras shows an officer tampering with evidence in a case that sent a man to jail for more than five months, reports have claimed.
The Baltimore Sun’s Justin Fenton recently shared a 90-second video showing what appears to be three Baltimore Police officers standing on a street corner. The camera follows one officer as he walks into an alleyway and places what appears to be a bag of drugs in a trash heap.
He then goes back to the street, stands for several seconds, and returns to the alleyway. He removes the bag from the same trash heap and brandishes it in front of the camera.
Baltimore Police Department body cameras record and preserve footage from the last 30 seconds before they are activated, according to the department's body-worn camera policy.
Fox Baltimore reports that a man was arrested in January on drug charges connected to this video. Mr Fenton claims the man was held for months on a $50,000 bail that he could not afford.
According to Fox Baltimore, the man’s trial was scheduled for last week. It was stalled, however, when a public defender found the video and send it to the prosecutor in the case.
In an email obtained by Fox Baltimore, the prosecutor writes: ”I’ve passed [the video] up and we are all appalled … something is going to happen because of this revelation.”
The charges were eventually dropped, but the officer in question was reportedly called in to testify on another case just one week later.
“[The prosecutors] had knowledge,” Public Defender Debbie Katz Levi told Fox Baltimore. “They watched it and were appalled by what was on the video, and then for whatever reason made the choice to continue to call him as a witness.”
The Baltimore Police Department said in a statement that they take the allegations “very seriously,” and have launched an internal investigation.
“We are fortunate to have Body Worn Cameras which provide a perspective of the events as reported,” the department said.
The Baltimore Police Department began rolling out body cameras to the majority of its officers in July of 2016. Officers are instructed to turn on their cameras during enforcement or investigative activities, emergency vehicle operation, custodial transports, or “other activities of a potentially confrontational nature”.
A 2016 Justice Department investigation of the Baltimore Police revealed at least one case of an officer planting drugs on a suspect. A fellow officer said he did not report the incident immediately for fear of retaliation.
That same year, the department settled a lawsuit with a man who accused the department of orchestrating a bogus drug bust at his home.
The city was also the site of riots last spring, when a young, black man named Freddie Gray died in police custody. All charges against the officers involved were eventually dropped.
The Independent has reached out to the Baltimore Police Department and the State’s Attorney's office for comment.
Source
|
On July 20 2017 08:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less". Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"? If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it? My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate. Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence. Because it's male dominated and they have to deal with male egos. Would you take a negotiation on a multi-million/billion dollar cause seriously if a woman represented the other firm? Probably not. But a male counterpart would probably get that deal done and have the respect of the other party. It's as simple as that. Women aren't less effective at those things, they are viewed that way. You're a prime example of why it's so hard for them to get their fair due in the corporate world.
Uhhh, you're aware that there are women CEOs, and still 30% of the consulting business is women, right? Clearly, women can compete with and outperform men. There are female partners at consulting firms, and female directors as well.
The issue is I raised is whether they do so on average.
If cultural and biological factors don't affect genders differently, why are so many college majors so imbalanced along gender lines (when each person chooses what to study)? Why are males more interested in sports in school than females? Why do males build muscle mass faster than females, even if they eat the same things and do the same workouts?
On July 20 2017 09:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 08:56 Danglars wrote:On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less". Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"? If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it? My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate. Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence. TBH that third paragraph on "less aggressive," "worse at focusing," and "biological factors" is enough to be called a sexist in Southern California circles. The female attorneys I work for agree that it is pretty sexist.
Let them. If they're offended because they don't understand how an individual's traits and abilities are different from the average of individuals' traits and abilities, that's their own problem. Not society's.
I never said that your coworkers were less aggressive or worse at multitasking because they're female.
|
On July 20 2017 08:58 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 08:48 LegalLord wrote:
So, since we're probably at least a year away from any real charges, I'm curious what you folk think: how deep does this Russia thing go? I didn't think it would go as far as it already has gone - Junior showing fairly overt willingness to basically straight-up collude was quite a surprise. I still doubt that there will be any connections found between the actual hacking and the Trump campaign though. Although there's still that Manafort character that we haven't heard much from lately... I don't understand how Gorsameth can come to the conclusion that the Trump campaign meeting with Russia is connected to Wikileaks. Wikileaks had the data for a long time and was dripping it out already at that time, were they not? I have to say I'm not 100% on the timeline of these things, but I haven't really seen anything to make me draw such a conclusion. Trump was just tweeting about it because his boy told him about the e-mail just after he received it - there hadn't been any meeting yet at that at time. What information was given to Wikileaks after the e-mail? And why would the Russians need to talk to the Trump campaign to do this at all? The Trump campaign had already added the pro-Russia lines in the Republican platform. I just don't think a tit-for-tat kind of deal was made. That would be really extraordinary. Also, Trump did a good thing today. I'm baffled. It seems he stopped the CIA from arming 'moderate rebels' in Syria. And the Washington Post is of course not at all framing their headline in a clickbaity 'Trump is a Russian puppet' kind of way. Very fair and balanced! (Why not just leave everything after the comma out, really? *Eyeroll*) Show nested quote +Trump ends covert CIA program to arm anti-Assad rebels in Syria, a move sought by Moscow
President Trump has decided to end the CIA’s covert program to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels battling the government of Bashar al-Assad, a move long sought by Russia, according to U.S. officials.
The program was a central plank of a policy begun by the Obama administration in 2013 to put pressure on Assad to step aside, but even its backers have questioned its efficacy since Russia deployed forces in Syria two years later.
Officials said the phasing out of the secret program reflects Trump’s interest in finding ways to work with Russia, which saw the anti-Assad program as an assault on its interests. The shuttering of the program is also an acknowledgment of Washington’s limited leverage and desire to remove Assad from power.
Just three months ago, after the United States accused Assad of using chemical weapons, Trump launched retaliatory airstrikes against a Syrian air base. At the time, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, said that “in no way do we see peace in that area with Assad at the head of the Syrian government.”
Officials said Trump made the decision to scrap the CIA program nearly a month ago, after an Oval Office meeting with CIA Director Mike Pompeo and national security adviser H.R. McMaster ahead of a July 7 meeting in Germany with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Source
Got my leaks mixed up. The DNC leaks started shortly after the Trump Jr - Russia meetings.
|
On July 20 2017 09:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Video from Baltimore Police Department body cameras shows an officer tampering with evidence in a case that sent a man to jail for more than five months, reports have claimed. The Baltimore Sun’s Justin Fenton recently shared a 90-second video showing what appears to be three Baltimore Police officers standing on a street corner. The camera follows one officer as he walks into an alleyway and places what appears to be a bag of drugs in a trash heap. He then goes back to the street, stands for several seconds, and returns to the alleyway. He removes the bag from the same trash heap and brandishes it in front of the camera. Baltimore Police Department body cameras record and preserve footage from the last 30 seconds before they are activated, according to the department's body-worn camera policy. Fox Baltimore reports that a man was arrested in January on drug charges connected to this video. Mr Fenton claims the man was held for months on a $50,000 bail that he could not afford. According to Fox Baltimore, the man’s trial was scheduled for last week. It was stalled, however, when a public defender found the video and send it to the prosecutor in the case. In an email obtained by Fox Baltimore, the prosecutor writes: ”I’ve passed [the video] up and we are all appalled … something is going to happen because of this revelation.” https://twitter.com/justin_fenton/status/887504546074939393The charges were eventually dropped, but the officer in question was reportedly called in to testify on another case just one week later. “[The prosecutors] had knowledge,” Public Defender Debbie Katz Levi told Fox Baltimore. “They watched it and were appalled by what was on the video, and then for whatever reason made the choice to continue to call him as a witness.” The Baltimore Police Department said in a statement that they take the allegations “very seriously,” and have launched an internal investigation. “We are fortunate to have Body Worn Cameras which provide a perspective of the events as reported,” the department said. The Baltimore Police Department began rolling out body cameras to the majority of its officers in July of 2016. Officers are instructed to turn on their cameras during enforcement or investigative activities, emergency vehicle operation, custodial transports, or “other activities of a potentially confrontational nature”. A 2016 Justice Department investigation of the Baltimore Police revealed at least one case of an officer planting drugs on a suspect. A fellow officer said he did not report the incident immediately for fear of retaliation. That same year, the department settled a lawsuit with a man who accused the department of orchestrating a bogus drug bust at his home. The city was also the site of riots last spring, when a young, black man named Freddie Gray died in police custody. All charges against the officers involved were eventually dropped. The Independent has reached out to the Baltimore Police Department and the State’s Attorney's office for comment. Source
Imagine if this was out in force in the 90s.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I will say this much from everything I have seen. Regardless of what extent of Russian involvement there is, I don't think it was ever about sanctions. The stakes there are too small; it would be preferable for Russia for them to be lifted but not worth it enough for something like this. The better purpose is to make an ass out of the US and drive a wedge between it and its European sycophants by helping to pit everyone against each other.
|
On July 20 2017 09:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 08:58 a_flayer wrote:On July 20 2017 08:48 LegalLord wrote:
So, since we're probably at least a year away from any real charges, I'm curious what you folk think: how deep does this Russia thing go? I didn't think it would go as far as it already has gone - Junior showing fairly overt willingness to basically straight-up collude was quite a surprise. I still doubt that there will be any connections found between the actual hacking and the Trump campaign though. Although there's still that Manafort character that we haven't heard much from lately... I don't understand how Gorsameth can come to the conclusion that the Trump campaign meeting with Russia is connected to Wikileaks. Wikileaks had the data for a long time and was dripping it out already at that time, were they not? I have to say I'm not 100% on the timeline of these things, but I haven't really seen anything to make me draw such a conclusion. Trump was just tweeting about it because his boy told him about the e-mail just after he received it - there hadn't been any meeting yet at that at time. What information was given to Wikileaks after the e-mail? And why would the Russians need to talk to the Trump campaign to do this at all? The Trump campaign had already added the pro-Russia lines in the Republican platform. I just don't think a tit-for-tat kind of deal was made. That would be really extraordinary. Also, Trump did a good thing today. I'm baffled. It seems he stopped the CIA from arming 'moderate rebels' in Syria. And the Washington Post is of course not at all framing their headline in a clickbaity 'Trump is a Russian puppet' kind of way. Very fair and balanced! (Why not just leave everything after the comma out, really? *Eyeroll*) Trump ends covert CIA program to arm anti-Assad rebels in Syria, a move sought by Moscow
President Trump has decided to end the CIA’s covert program to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels battling the government of Bashar al-Assad, a move long sought by Russia, according to U.S. officials.
The program was a central plank of a policy begun by the Obama administration in 2013 to put pressure on Assad to step aside, but even its backers have questioned its efficacy since Russia deployed forces in Syria two years later.
Officials said the phasing out of the secret program reflects Trump’s interest in finding ways to work with Russia, which saw the anti-Assad program as an assault on its interests. The shuttering of the program is also an acknowledgment of Washington’s limited leverage and desire to remove Assad from power.
Just three months ago, after the United States accused Assad of using chemical weapons, Trump launched retaliatory airstrikes against a Syrian air base. At the time, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, said that “in no way do we see peace in that area with Assad at the head of the Syrian government.”
Officials said Trump made the decision to scrap the CIA program nearly a month ago, after an Oval Office meeting with CIA Director Mike Pompeo and national security adviser H.R. McMaster ahead of a July 7 meeting in Germany with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Source Got my leaks mixed up. The DNC leaks started shortly after the Trump Jr - Russia meetings.
Yeah, but the data would have been in the hands of Wikileaks for a while so they could vet the information, right, so it wouldn't necessarily be the result of this meeting. It's possible that the Russian lawyer informed the Trump campaign that Wikileaks had the data - I don't know when Wikileaks themselves announced they had it and would be releasing it later? Some kind of comprehensive overview of all announcements, releases of data, e-mail exchanges, meetings and other events and such would be nice. Anyone know of one?
Just... straight up collusion with Russia to release this information, and Junior's willingness to post the e-mails about this meeting. I mean... they couldn't be quite THAT retarded, right? It's just too hard to imagine...
|
On July 20 2017 09:11 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 08:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less". Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"? If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it? My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate. Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence. Because it's male dominated and they have to deal with male egos. Would you take a negotiation on a multi-million/billion dollar cause seriously if a woman represented the other firm? Probably not. But a male counterpart would probably get that deal done and have the respect of the other party. It's as simple as that. Women aren't less effective at those things, they are viewed that way. You're a prime example of why it's so hard for them to get their fair due in the corporate world. Uhhh, you're aware that there are women CEOs, and still 30% of the consulting business is women, right? Clearly, women can compete with and outperform men. There are female partners at consulting firms, and female directors as well. The issue is I raised is whether they do so on average. If cultural and biological factors don't affect genders differently, why are so many college majors so imbalanced along gender lines (when each person chooses what to study)? Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 09:04 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2017 08:56 Danglars wrote:On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less". Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"? If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it? My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate. Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence. TBH that third paragraph on "less aggressive," "worse at focusing," and "biological factors" is enough to be called a sexist in Southern California circles. The female attorneys I work for agree that it is pretty sexist. Let them. If they're offended because they don't understand how an individual's traits and abilities are different from the average of individuals' traits and abilities, that's their own problem. Not society's. I never said that your coworkers were less aggressive or worse at multitasking because they're female.
No, the issue you raised was that women should be paid less for the same amount of work. And if H1-B visa was the same thing, then it should be used in place of women. Those visas are for foreign workers coming here on a temporary basis. Not women in the workforce trying to support themselves and a family.
You're cherry picking the narrative to suit your needs.
|
This killed my grandfather too. Explains his struggle questions Comey too.
|
On July 20 2017 09:15 LegalLord wrote:
I will say this much from everything I have seen. Regardless of what extent of Russian involvement there is, I don't think it was ever about sanctions. The stakes there are too small; it would be preferable for Russia for them to be lifted but not worth it enough for something like this. The better purpose is to make an ass out of the US and drive a wedge between it and its European sycophants by helping to pit everyone against each other.
The fact that the one input the Trump campaign had on the RNC charter was to back off Ukraine leads me to believe there was certainly a favor for a favor deal going on.
But yes such a thing was just gravy for Russia. The main goal was chaos.
|
On July 20 2017 09:17 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 09:11 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2017 08:58 a_flayer wrote:On July 20 2017 08:48 LegalLord wrote:
So, since we're probably at least a year away from any real charges, I'm curious what you folk think: how deep does this Russia thing go? I didn't think it would go as far as it already has gone - Junior showing fairly overt willingness to basically straight-up collude was quite a surprise. I still doubt that there will be any connections found between the actual hacking and the Trump campaign though. Although there's still that Manafort character that we haven't heard much from lately... I don't understand how Gorsameth can come to the conclusion that the Trump campaign meeting with Russia is connected to Wikileaks. Wikileaks had the data for a long time and was dripping it out already at that time, were they not? I have to say I'm not 100% on the timeline of these things, but I haven't really seen anything to make me draw such a conclusion. Trump was just tweeting about it because his boy told him about the e-mail just after he received it - there hadn't been any meeting yet at that at time. What information was given to Wikileaks after the e-mail? And why would the Russians need to talk to the Trump campaign to do this at all? The Trump campaign had already added the pro-Russia lines in the Republican platform. I just don't think a tit-for-tat kind of deal was made. That would be really extraordinary. Also, Trump did a good thing today. I'm baffled. It seems he stopped the CIA from arming 'moderate rebels' in Syria. And the Washington Post is of course not at all framing their headline in a clickbaity 'Trump is a Russian puppet' kind of way. Very fair and balanced! (Why not just leave everything after the comma out, really? *Eyeroll*) Trump ends covert CIA program to arm anti-Assad rebels in Syria, a move sought by Moscow
President Trump has decided to end the CIA’s covert program to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels battling the government of Bashar al-Assad, a move long sought by Russia, according to U.S. officials.
The program was a central plank of a policy begun by the Obama administration in 2013 to put pressure on Assad to step aside, but even its backers have questioned its efficacy since Russia deployed forces in Syria two years later.
Officials said the phasing out of the secret program reflects Trump’s interest in finding ways to work with Russia, which saw the anti-Assad program as an assault on its interests. The shuttering of the program is also an acknowledgment of Washington’s limited leverage and desire to remove Assad from power.
Just three months ago, after the United States accused Assad of using chemical weapons, Trump launched retaliatory airstrikes against a Syrian air base. At the time, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, said that “in no way do we see peace in that area with Assad at the head of the Syrian government.”
Officials said Trump made the decision to scrap the CIA program nearly a month ago, after an Oval Office meeting with CIA Director Mike Pompeo and national security adviser H.R. McMaster ahead of a July 7 meeting in Germany with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Source Got my leaks mixed up. The DNC leaks started shortly after the Trump Jr - Russia meetings. Yeah, but the data would have been in the hands of Wikileaks for a while so they could vet the information, right, so it wouldn't necessarily be the result of this meeting. It's possible that the Russian lawyer informed the Trump campaign that Wikileaks had the data - I don't know when Wikileaks themselves announced they had it and would be releasing it later? Some kind of comprehensive overview of all announcements, releases of data, e-mail exchanges, meetings and other events and such would be nice. Anyone know of one? Just... straight up collusion with Russia to release this information, and Junior's willingness to post the e-mails about this meeting. I mean... they couldn't be quite THAT retarded, right? It's just too hard to imagine...
The evidence is right there, multiple times.
They are that stupid.
Jr utterly incriminated himself when he released the emails.
Trump bragged about firing Comey to stop the Russia investigation.
|
I see Russia's actions in this sowing of chaos as about as relevant as handing the US media a dandelion. The US media grabbed it and blew on it to make sure the infestation of chaos would prosper. Good job, people, haha.
On July 20 2017 09:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 09:17 a_flayer wrote:On July 20 2017 09:11 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2017 08:58 a_flayer wrote:On July 20 2017 08:48 LegalLord wrote:
So, since we're probably at least a year away from any real charges, I'm curious what you folk think: how deep does this Russia thing go? I didn't think it would go as far as it already has gone - Junior showing fairly overt willingness to basically straight-up collude was quite a surprise. I still doubt that there will be any connections found between the actual hacking and the Trump campaign though. Although there's still that Manafort character that we haven't heard much from lately... I don't understand how Gorsameth can come to the conclusion that the Trump campaign meeting with Russia is connected to Wikileaks. Wikileaks had the data for a long time and was dripping it out already at that time, were they not? I have to say I'm not 100% on the timeline of these things, but I haven't really seen anything to make me draw such a conclusion. Trump was just tweeting about it because his boy told him about the e-mail just after he received it - there hadn't been any meeting yet at that at time. What information was given to Wikileaks after the e-mail? And why would the Russians need to talk to the Trump campaign to do this at all? The Trump campaign had already added the pro-Russia lines in the Republican platform. I just don't think a tit-for-tat kind of deal was made. That would be really extraordinary. Also, Trump did a good thing today. I'm baffled. It seems he stopped the CIA from arming 'moderate rebels' in Syria. And the Washington Post is of course not at all framing their headline in a clickbaity 'Trump is a Russian puppet' kind of way. Very fair and balanced! (Why not just leave everything after the comma out, really? *Eyeroll*) Trump ends covert CIA program to arm anti-Assad rebels in Syria, a move sought by Moscow
President Trump has decided to end the CIA’s covert program to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels battling the government of Bashar al-Assad, a move long sought by Russia, according to U.S. officials.
The program was a central plank of a policy begun by the Obama administration in 2013 to put pressure on Assad to step aside, but even its backers have questioned its efficacy since Russia deployed forces in Syria two years later.
Officials said the phasing out of the secret program reflects Trump’s interest in finding ways to work with Russia, which saw the anti-Assad program as an assault on its interests. The shuttering of the program is also an acknowledgment of Washington’s limited leverage and desire to remove Assad from power.
Just three months ago, after the United States accused Assad of using chemical weapons, Trump launched retaliatory airstrikes against a Syrian air base. At the time, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, said that “in no way do we see peace in that area with Assad at the head of the Syrian government.”
Officials said Trump made the decision to scrap the CIA program nearly a month ago, after an Oval Office meeting with CIA Director Mike Pompeo and national security adviser H.R. McMaster ahead of a July 7 meeting in Germany with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Source Got my leaks mixed up. The DNC leaks started shortly after the Trump Jr - Russia meetings. Yeah, but the data would have been in the hands of Wikileaks for a while so they could vet the information, right, so it wouldn't necessarily be the result of this meeting. It's possible that the Russian lawyer informed the Trump campaign that Wikileaks had the data - I don't know when Wikileaks themselves announced they had it and would be releasing it later? Some kind of comprehensive overview of all announcements, releases of data, e-mail exchanges, meetings and other events and such would be nice. Anyone know of one? Just... straight up collusion with Russia to release this information, and Junior's willingness to post the e-mails about this meeting. I mean... they couldn't be quite THAT retarded, right? It's just too hard to imagine... The evidence is right there, multiple times. They are that stupid. Jr utterly incriminated himself when he released the emails. Trump bragged about firing Comey to stop the Russia investigation.
Doing all those things, while at the same time actually being straight-up guilty of collusion down the whole line of speculation, would be an astronomically more stupid thing to do than doing all those things while being relatively innocent. I mean, it would actually have to be 45D-chess if they're trying to cover their tracks by being so overtly stupid that they've actually convinced me that there's no collusion of the most extreme kind by being that fucking dumb about it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Oh... holy shit. Life expectancy on that is not very good.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 20 2017 09:22 a_flayer wrote:
I see Russia's actions in this sowing of chaos as about as relevant as handing the US media a dandelion. The US media grabbed it and blew on it to make sure the infestation of chaos would prosper. Good job, people, haha.
That's what makes it so brilliant. You know they're trolling, but it's just so biting that you have to do everything you can to feed the troll.
|
On July 20 2017 09:11 mozoku wrote:
Let them. If they're offended because they don't understand how an individual's traits and abilities are different from the average of individuals' traits and abilities, that's their own problem. Not society's.
I never said that your coworkers were less aggressive or worse at multitasking because they're female.
Nothing in their answer, as reported by Plansix, indicates that they struggled to understand that. Interesting that you would follow that line of attack.
|
On July 20 2017 09:22 LegalLord wrote:Oh... holy shit. Life expectancy on that is not very good.
I'll be surprised if he lives through it. It is just a question as to how long he can serve in the senate.
|
On July 20 2017 09:18 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 09:11 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 08:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less". Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"? If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it? My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate. Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence. Because it's male dominated and they have to deal with male egos. Would you take a negotiation on a multi-million/billion dollar cause seriously if a woman represented the other firm? Probably not. But a male counterpart would probably get that deal done and have the respect of the other party. It's as simple as that. Women aren't less effective at those things, they are viewed that way. You're a prime example of why it's so hard for them to get their fair due in the corporate world. Uhhh, you're aware that there are women CEOs, and still 30% of the consulting business is women, right? Clearly, women can compete with and outperform men. There are female partners at consulting firms, and female directors as well. The issue is I raised is whether they do so on average. If cultural and biological factors don't affect genders differently, why are so many college majors so imbalanced along gender lines (when each person chooses what to study)? On July 20 2017 09:04 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2017 08:56 Danglars wrote:On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less". Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"? If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it? My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate. Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence. TBH that third paragraph on "less aggressive," "worse at focusing," and "biological factors" is enough to be called a sexist in Southern California circles. The female attorneys I work for agree that it is pretty sexist. Let them. If they're offended because they don't understand how an individual's traits and abilities are different from the average of individuals' traits and abilities, that's their own problem. Not society's. I never said that your coworkers were less aggressive or worse at multitasking because they're female. No, the issue you raised was that women should be paid less for the same amount of work. And if H1-B visa was the same thing, then it should be used in place of women. Those visas are for foreign workers coming here on a temporary basis. Not women in the workforce trying to support themselves and a family. You're cherry picking the narrative to suit your needs.
I never said they should be paid less for the same work. What I said is that there are cultural and biological factors that plausibly may cause women to be slightly less productive workers, in the aggregate. For that reason, they may be valued less on average by businesses.
That says nothing about what an individual woman's worth in the market is relative to the average man. They can be worth far more or far less. The variance of a worker's productivity is nearly entirely within gender, not between gender. To assert that the between gender variance is zero conflicts with the fact that there's measurable differences between genders in everything else. It's simply false on its face.
I don't support any kind of discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation because it doesn't make any sense. People should be paid what they're worth. If sexism is indeed the reason are paid less, then that's nonsense and needs to be fixed. But that needs to be clearly established before we start passing laws, unless they're being passed merely for political purposes.
|
|
|
On July 20 2017 09:11 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 08:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less". Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"? If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it? My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate. Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence. Because it's male dominated and they have to deal with male egos. Would you take a negotiation on a multi-million/billion dollar cause seriously if a woman represented the other firm? Probably not. But a male counterpart would probably get that deal done and have the respect of the other party. It's as simple as that. Women aren't less effective at those things, they are viewed that way. You're a prime example of why it's so hard for them to get their fair due in the corporate world. Uhhh, you're aware that there are women CEOs, and still 30% of the consulting business is women, right? Clearly, women can compete with and outperform men. There are female partners at consulting firms, and female directors as well. The issue is I raised is whether they do so on average. If cultural and biological factors don't affect genders differently, why are so many college majors so imbalanced along gender lines (when each person chooses what to study)? Why are males more interested in sports in school than females? Why do males build muscle mass faster than females, even if they eat the same things and do the same workouts? Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 09:04 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2017 08:56 Danglars wrote:On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less". Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"? If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it? My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate. Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence. TBH that third paragraph on "less aggressive," "worse at focusing," and "biological factors" is enough to be called a sexist in Southern California circles. The female attorneys I work for agree that it is pretty sexist. Let them. If they're offended because they don't understand how an individual's traits and abilities are different from the average of individuals' traits and abilities, that's their own problem. Not society's. I never said that your coworkers were less aggressive or worse at multitasking because they're female.
They are not offended. Nor am I. As my friend used to say, it is convenient that all the female traits just happen to justify paying women less.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 20 2017 09:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 09:22 LegalLord wrote:Oh... holy shit. Life expectancy on that is not very good. I'll be surprised if he lives through it. It is just a question as to how long he can serve in the senate.
Life expectancy with treatment is about a year. He probably won't be serving any more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
