|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 27 2020 20:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 20:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2020 16:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2020 16:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2020 15:35 GreenHorizons wrote: the institution of police is very corrupt and the arm of Government enforcement (not "protecting wealth or capitalists" like GH loves to believe) Do you think the billionaires work for the government or the government works for the billionaires? What about "neither, it's way more complicated than that"? That would be a meaningless and useless answer imo. + Show Spoiler +
EDIT: I decided not to give a damn about my 20k wasn't worth writing some big post
Very moved that you spent your 20k post on me. Congratulations though. Now, that tendency of yours to uber simplify very complex dynamics and realities to reach one crude position that applies to everything is where our thought diverge. There is PLENTY to say about the extremely unhealthy relationship between a class of ultra rich donors and politicians, but it's way more intricate than blanket statements such as "X is working (or sold to) for Y." I'd rather you tell me how instead of just reasserting that whatever nuance you're referencing significantly undermines the generalization. If it's just some mindless platitude like "the government works for everybody" then I can discard it, if it is some substantive argument against the government working for billionaires (as opposed to billionaires working for the government) then I'd be curious.
The issue was police being beholden to the "wealth class" as you put it a while ago (which is demonstrably false in theory and practicality), rather than the Gendarmes and enforcement body for the State. It would be great if you could stay on point.
|
On September 27 2020 20:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 16:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2020 16:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2020 15:35 GreenHorizons wrote: the institution of police is very corrupt and the arm of Government enforcement (not "protecting wealth or capitalists" like GH loves to believe) Do you think the billionaires work for the government or the government works for the billionaires? What about "neither, it's way more complicated than that"? That would be a meaningless and useless answer imo. + Show Spoiler +
EDIT: I decided not to give a damn about my 20k wasn't worth writing some big post
Very moved that you spent your 20k post on me. Congratulations though. Now, that tendency of yours to uber simplify very complex dynamics and realities to reach one crude position that applies to everything is where our thought diverge. There is PLENTY to say about the extremely unhealthy relationship between a class of ultra rich donors and politicians, but it's way more intricate than blanket statements such as "X is working (or sold to) for Y."
Its always complicated but in politics the tendency is to simplify things. When people say,x is working for y they know its more complicated then that but going into all the details often doesnt make the message stick. It would become a 10.000 word essay to adress all the subtle details so things are simplified into some sort of core message.
Trump made use of lots of simplifications himself when running his 2016 campaign because thats the way to reach the "common people".
There was an interesting intervieuw today on dutch tv with margeret atwood,writer of the handmaids tale,about the upcoming elections and the state of american society these days. (you can find it online i think by searching for "margeret atwood buitenhof" though i am not sure it has been uploaded already).
|
Northern Ireland27236 Posts
@Taelshin, much ground to make up. Teletubby showed me me posting stats and what I’d thought was a year hiatus was like three and a half!
@Wegandi not all diversity training is well-designed, or particularly useful, absolutely. Plus you’ll have two cohorts where resentment is bred, people who know these things already and think it’s a waste of their time, or others more skeptical or hostile to the need for such measures, who will feel likewise.
That said the term diversity training refers to well, quite a diverse set of things.
The intent on pulling back on such things is important and instructive. There’s a world of difference between acknowledging there’s a problem but this is an ineffective solution that needs looked at, to fuck minority sensibilities, everything is fine, and various junctures in between. The issue with say, Trump would be that even if diversity training had proved widely, widely successful he’d still want rid of it.
I’d be interested to hear this diatribe on the minimum wage, should spark some fine discussion!
|
On September 27 2020 20:54 WombaT wrote:
@Taelshin, much ground to make up. Teletubby showed me me posting stats and what I’d thought was a year hiatus was like three and a half!
@Wegandi not all diversity training is well-designed, or particularly useful, absolutely. Plus you’ll have two cohorts where resentment is bred, people who know these things already and think it’s a waste of their time, or others more skeptical or hostile to the need for such measures, who will feel likewise.
That said the term diversity training refers to well, quite a diverse set of things.
The intent on pulling back on such things is important and instructive. There’s a world of difference between acknowledging there’s a problem but this is an ineffective solution that needs looked at, to fuck minority sensibilities, everything is fine, and various junctures in between. The issue with say, Trump would be that even if diversity training had proved widely, widely successful he’d still want rid of it.
I’d be interested to hear this diatribe on the minimum wage, should spark some fine discussion!
And this folks is why evidence is irrelevant when it comes to politics or policies. It doesn't matter that something doesn't work. It's about intent and feelings. Folks will even acknowledge that said policy or program is harmful, but will rationalize it anyways. The data was clear. Diversity training is a sure-fire way to get folks to turn away from what it is trying to do.
Then we can also talk about how environmentalists dismiss the science of nuclear energy to tackle carbon emissions while maintaining and improving standard of living while promoting bunk wind/solar as the primary energy source which would impoverish society (which as you see in CA even at their poor % capacity results in frequent rolling blackouts and increased cost).
Emotions, dogma, etc. rule politics. This idea that evidence and rational policies will ever originate in any significant #'s from the State has no bearing in fact (especially in a Democracy).
|
On September 27 2020 20:38 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 20:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2020 20:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2020 16:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2020 16:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2020 15:35 GreenHorizons wrote: the institution of police is very corrupt and the arm of Government enforcement (not "protecting wealth or capitalists" like GH loves to believe) Do you think the billionaires work for the government or the government works for the billionaires? What about "neither, it's way more complicated than that"? That would be a meaningless and useless answer imo. + Show Spoiler +
EDIT: I decided not to give a damn about my 20k wasn't worth writing some big post
Very moved that you spent your 20k post on me. Congratulations though. Now, that tendency of yours to uber simplify very complex dynamics and realities to reach one crude position that applies to everything is where our thought diverge. There is PLENTY to say about the extremely unhealthy relationship between a class of ultra rich donors and politicians, but it's way more intricate than blanket statements such as "X is working (or sold to) for Y." I'd rather you tell me how instead of just reasserting that whatever nuance you're referencing significantly undermines the generalization. If it's just some mindless platitude like "the government works for everybody" then I can discard it, if it is some substantive argument against the government working for billionaires (as opposed to billionaires working for the government) then I'd be curious. The issue was police being beholden to the "wealth class" as you put it a while ago (which is demonstrably false in theory and practicality), rather than the Gendarmes and enforcement body for the State. It would be great if you could stay on point.
"The state works for their own self-interest and police enforce their will" (If that's close enough?) is at least a position I can make sense of. I would then ask whether those interests better align with the wealthiest 3 American families or the half of the country with less combined wealth than them?
@Wombat + Show Spoiler +On September 27 2020 18:56 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 16:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2020 15:35 GreenHorizons wrote: the institution of police is very corrupt and the arm of Government enforcement (not "protecting wealth or capitalists" like GH loves to believe) Do you think the billionaires work for the government or the government works for the billionaires? What about "neither, it's way more complicated than that"? Both the government and billionaires work as agents for a race of aliens who sell the hit reality show ‘Earth’ around the galaxy. Things can’t run too smoothly or ratings will dip which I think explains many of the baffling things we’ve seen in recent times. Congrats on the 20k GH btw. Wooot ty I got a chuckle out of that too
|
On September 27 2020 21:02 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 20:54 WombaT wrote:
@Taelshin, much ground to make up. Teletubby showed me me posting stats and what I’d thought was a year hiatus was like three and a half!
@Wegandi not all diversity training is well-designed, or particularly useful, absolutely. Plus you’ll have two cohorts where resentment is bred, people who know these things already and think it’s a waste of their time, or others more skeptical or hostile to the need for such measures, who will feel likewise.
That said the term diversity training refers to well, quite a diverse set of things.
The intent on pulling back on such things is important and instructive. There’s a world of difference between acknowledging there’s a problem but this is an ineffective solution that needs looked at, to fuck minority sensibilities, everything is fine, and various junctures in between. The issue with say, Trump would be that even if diversity training had proved widely, widely successful he’d still want rid of it.
I’d be interested to hear this diatribe on the minimum wage, should spark some fine discussion! And this folks is why evidence is irrelevant when it comes to politics or policies. It doesn't matter that something doesn't work. It's about intent and feelings. Folks will even acknowledge that said policy or program is harmful, but will rationalize it anyways. The data was clear. Diversity training is a sure-fire way to get folks to turn away from what it is trying to do.
That's generally why right-wing programs or policies don't yield to some "the science says it doesn't work and is actually counterproductive." The corresponding left-wing policies can have the same deficits, but defenders like WombaT will always retreat to some combination of "the particular program wasn't defined well//failed for reason of the people enacting it" or dissemble to some "well, what you're referring to is so broad a topic that you can't conclusively say some 0.1% didn't work among the 99.9% that did harm." They're quite willing to question the evidence that it works on perspectives they disagree with, but will refuse to do so for perspectives nearer their own.
|
Is 3 years of experience as a federal judge enough to qualify for the supreme court ?
|
United States24784 Posts
On September 27 2020 14:27 JimmiC wrote:<snip> You calling climate catastrophe anti science while saying a bunch of other almost right but oh so very wrong stuff is way way too much to unpack for me, I'm going to tap out on this front for now. I will comment, what is your expertise on this stuff, both nuclear and climate science? What degree do you have, from where? What do you do for work? If you want to be the source ill need some credentials at least because your not building a lot of confidence in your expertise. If you don't have the credentials can you site your sources please, "east" climate science is pretty questionable at times so it would be nice to know at least where you are pulling it from and specifically what you are talking about. Right now it sounds like the generalities that people who don't really know shit spout off to try to sound smart. But by all means prove me wrong, post the sources and in a couple of days when I'm able to give them the time this impressive science needs I'll come back to you. (Your wiki source does not agree with the extreme point of view you are esposing, im not ignoring it, im looking for sources or some expertise )
If you scroll up to the top of that wikipedia article, the graphic shows a timeline of power reactor designs. My office developed some of them.
You are right to be cautious when someone is singing the praises of an upcoming nuclear power design (especially "generations"). The Navy is still extremely hesitant to go away from traditional light water reactors, although granted the mission for ships is different than for land-based power stations. Understanding the pros and cons when comparing specific reactor designs is very complicated, and usually impossible until the technology is mature. I'm not trying to discourage developing better nuclear power designs, but just cautioning the common pitfalls regarding discussions on this topic.
|
On September 27 2020 21:51 Erasme wrote:
Is 3 years of experience as a federal judge enough to qualify for the supreme court ?
Are there actually significant, necessary, legal requirements? I was under the impression that Trump could appoint pretty much anyone he wanted, regardless of qualifications.
Edit: Google tells me there are pretty much no relevant, necessary qualifications required.
|
On September 27 2020 21:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 21:51 Erasme wrote:
Is 3 years of experience as a federal judge enough to qualify for the supreme court ? Are there actually significant, necessary, legal requirements? I was under the impression that Trump could appoint pretty much anyone he wanted, regardless of qualifications. Edit: Google tells me there are pretty much no relevant, necessary qualifications required. I think the only real qualification is getting the Senate to confirm you.
As with so many things there are no specific requirements in place because no one assumed the senate would be stupid enough to approve someone who is unqualified.
|
On September 27 2020 20:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 20:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2020 16:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2020 16:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2020 15:35 GreenHorizons wrote: the institution of police is very corrupt and the arm of Government enforcement (not "protecting wealth or capitalists" like GH loves to believe) Do you think the billionaires work for the government or the government works for the billionaires? What about "neither, it's way more complicated than that"? That would be a meaningless and useless answer imo. + Show Spoiler +
EDIT: I decided not to give a damn about my 20k wasn't worth writing some big post
Very moved that you spent your 20k post on me. Congratulations though. Now, that tendency of yours to uber simplify very complex dynamics and realities to reach one crude position that applies to everything is where our thought diverge. There is PLENTY to say about the extremely unhealthy relationship between a class of ultra rich donors and politicians, but it's way more intricate than blanket statements such as "X is working (or sold to) for Y." I'd rather you tell me how instead of just reasserting that whatever nuance you're referencing significantly undermines the generalization. If it's just some mindless platitude like "the government works for everybody" then I can discard it, if it is some substantive argument against the government working for billionaires then I'd be curious.
The government doesn't work for anyone. It's made of people incredibly different from one administration to another with conflicting goals, conflicting interests, and an ever changing set of circumstances. Does that mean that billionaires don't have way too much weight on political decisions? Hell no, they sure do. That doesn't make your statement more clever.
Again, I understand that everything is easier when you make those blanket generalizations. It's a prêt-à-porter view on the world that you can apply to everything. I also think that it leads to a pretty simplistic and unnuanced understanding of politics, which, as you know, is my problem with your opinions.
|
On September 27 2020 21:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 21:02 Wegandi wrote:On September 27 2020 20:54 WombaT wrote:
@Taelshin, much ground to make up. Teletubby showed me me posting stats and what I’d thought was a year hiatus was like three and a half!
@Wegandi not all diversity training is well-designed, or particularly useful, absolutely. Plus you’ll have two cohorts where resentment is bred, people who know these things already and think it’s a waste of their time, or others more skeptical or hostile to the need for such measures, who will feel likewise.
That said the term diversity training refers to well, quite a diverse set of things.
The intent on pulling back on such things is important and instructive. There’s a world of difference between acknowledging there’s a problem but this is an ineffective solution that needs looked at, to fuck minority sensibilities, everything is fine, and various junctures in between. The issue with say, Trump would be that even if diversity training had proved widely, widely successful he’d still want rid of it.
I’d be interested to hear this diatribe on the minimum wage, should spark some fine discussion! And this folks is why evidence is irrelevant when it comes to politics or policies. It doesn't matter that something doesn't work. It's about intent and feelings. Folks will even acknowledge that said policy or program is harmful, but will rationalize it anyways. The data was clear. Diversity training is a sure-fire way to get folks to turn away from what it is trying to do. That's generally why right-wing programs or policies don't yield to some "the science says it doesn't work and is actually counterproductive." The corresponding left-wing policies can have the same deficits, but defenders like WombaT will always retreat to some combination of "the particular program wasn't defined well//failed for reason of the people enacting it" or dissemble to some "well, what you're referring to is so broad a topic that you can't conclusively say some 0.1% didn't work among the 99.9% that did harm." They're quite willing to question the evidence that it works on perspectives they disagree with, but will refuse to do so for perspectives nearer their own.
The sources provided were limited in scope- the yahoo article discussed the application at university and college campuses, and reading the intro to the book spoke to how the number of employed people of color in management level positions has barely changed in recent decades. Now, this can certainly be indicative of the potentially lackluster effect diversity training has, but anyone arguing this stance would surely agree there is more to it than just diversity training being underwhelming.
Other influencing factors could include education through the developmental periods of our lives, socioeconomic status of people of color vs white people, ingrained beliefs about people of color, etc,. I don't know if there's any research done on confounding factors regarding the efficacy of diversity training, but diversity training isn't gonna change the minds of people who are already racist or hateful, or people who 'know' the topics diversity training covers. I can relate to the 'knowing', I skim through the diversity training I'm required to complete in my own place of employment because I'm aware of all the things it's purposed with teaching me.
Large social issues like racial diversity and the reduction (and hopefully elimination) of racism are too difficult to effectively cover in something like a short diversity training course. Racism and prejudice don't happen overnight, so we can't expect it to be defeated overnight. It's a social science, which tends to be so multifactorial when attempting to apply changes that we can't ever know for sure what influences our interventions and to what degree.
Compare this with climate science or health science, which so many Trump supporters quickly and easily eschew as a hoax, and it forces us to consider why Trump actually wants to get rid of diversity training. If it's because it's ineffective, sure, that can make sense. But if there's no other plan to affect change? If Trump had a history of action that would allow us to believe he does things for anyone but himself, I could believe it. But nope, it's just like his health care approach. Claim what exists doesn't work, attempt to get rid of it, and provide no viable alternative if any at all.
|
On September 27 2020 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 20:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2020 20:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2020 16:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2020 16:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2020 15:35 GreenHorizons wrote: the institution of police is very corrupt and the arm of Government enforcement (not "protecting wealth or capitalists" like GH loves to believe) Do you think the billionaires work for the government or the government works for the billionaires? What about "neither, it's way more complicated than that"? That would be a meaningless and useless answer imo. + Show Spoiler +
EDIT: I decided not to give a damn about my 20k wasn't worth writing some big post
Very moved that you spent your 20k post on me. Congratulations though. Now, that tendency of yours to uber simplify very complex dynamics and realities to reach one crude position that applies to everything is where our thought diverge. There is PLENTY to say about the extremely unhealthy relationship between a class of ultra rich donors and politicians, but it's way more intricate than blanket statements such as "X is working (or sold to) for Y." I'd rather you tell me how instead of just reasserting that whatever nuance you're referencing significantly undermines the generalization. If it's just some mindless platitude like "the government works for everybody" then I can discard it, if it is some substantive argument against the government working for billionaires then I'd be curious. The government doesn't work for anyone. It's made of people incredibly different from one administration to another with conflicting goals, conflicting interests, and an ever changing set of circumstances. Does that mean that billionaires don't have way too much weight on political decisions? Hell no, they sure do. That doesn't make your statement more clever. Again, I understand that everything is easier when you make those blanket generalizations. It's a prêt-à-porter view on the world that you can apply to everything. I also think that it leads to a pretty simplistic and unnuanced understanding of politics, which, as you know, is my problem with your opinions.
Worse than "the government works for everybody" you went with "the government doesn't work for anyone". At least you didn't try "of the people, by the people, and for the people" I guess?
|
|
|
|
|
On September 27 2020 22:45 pajoondies wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 21:31 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2020 21:02 Wegandi wrote:On September 27 2020 20:54 WombaT wrote:
@Taelshin, much ground to make up. Teletubby showed me me posting stats and what I’d thought was a year hiatus was like three and a half!
@Wegandi not all diversity training is well-designed, or particularly useful, absolutely. Plus you’ll have two cohorts where resentment is bred, people who know these things already and think it’s a waste of their time, or others more skeptical or hostile to the need for such measures, who will feel likewise.
That said the term diversity training refers to well, quite a diverse set of things.
The intent on pulling back on such things is important and instructive. There’s a world of difference between acknowledging there’s a problem but this is an ineffective solution that needs looked at, to fuck minority sensibilities, everything is fine, and various junctures in between. The issue with say, Trump would be that even if diversity training had proved widely, widely successful he’d still want rid of it.
I’d be interested to hear this diatribe on the minimum wage, should spark some fine discussion! And this folks is why evidence is irrelevant when it comes to politics or policies. It doesn't matter that something doesn't work. It's about intent and feelings. Folks will even acknowledge that said policy or program is harmful, but will rationalize it anyways. The data was clear. Diversity training is a sure-fire way to get folks to turn away from what it is trying to do. That's generally why right-wing programs or policies don't yield to some "the science says it doesn't work and is actually counterproductive." The corresponding left-wing policies can have the same deficits, but defenders like WombaT will always retreat to some combination of "the particular program wasn't defined well//failed for reason of the people enacting it" or dissemble to some "well, what you're referring to is so broad a topic that you can't conclusively say some 0.1% didn't work among the 99.9% that did harm." They're quite willing to question the evidence that it works on perspectives they disagree with, but will refuse to do so for perspectives nearer their own. The sources provided were limited in scope- the yahoo article discussed the application at university and college campuses, and reading the intro to the book spoke to how the number of employed people of color in management level positions has barely changed in recent decades. Now, this can certainly be indicative of the potentially lackluster effect diversity training has, but anyone arguing this stance would surely agree there is more to it than just diversity training being underwhelming. Other influencing factors could include education through the developmental periods of our lives, socioeconomic status of people of color vs white people, ingrained beliefs about people of color, etc,. I don't know if there's any research done on confounding factors regarding the efficacy of diversity training, but diversity training isn't gonna change the minds of people who are already racist or hateful, or people who 'know' the topics diversity training covers. I can relate to the 'knowing', I skim through the diversity training I'm required to complete in my own place of employment because I'm aware of all the things it's purposed with teaching me. Large social issues like racial diversity and the reduction (and hopefully elimination) of racism are too difficult to effectively cover in something like a short diversity training course. Racism and prejudice don't happen overnight, so we can't expect it to be defeated overnight. It's a social science, which tends to be so multifactorial when attempting to apply changes that we can't ever know for sure what influences our interventions and to what degree. Compare this with climate science or health science, which so many Trump supporters quickly and easily eschew as a hoax, and it forces us to consider why Trump actually wants to get rid of diversity training. If it's because it's ineffective, sure, that can make sense. But if there's no other plan to affect change? If Trump had a history of action that would allow us to believe he does things for anyone but himself, I could believe it. But nope, it's just like his health care approach. Claim what exists doesn't work, attempt to get rid of it, and provide no viable alternative if any at all.
The focus should be on whether the "diversity training" programs as programs have any evidence of impact, not whether it results in more diversity of skin color in hires. The linked studies (psychology and authors survey of 800+ firms over 3 decades) should turn up positive impact along some scale if they are effective in any small measure. The factors you discuss overlap with reasons not to implement a program of diversity training. It's precisely because it's ineffective against larger issues and can't serve as a solution to them that (as authors use the term) dos and don'ts/command-and-control diversity training programs should be avoided.
From your post, the main hypothesis you're seeking to disprove runs something like "No programs exist which can remediate racial diversity or classical racism within employment." The particular programs under discussion show no impact and, as you point out, could be due to larger forces in society and previous exposure and dismissal. That should result in money going towards different approaches that aren't under current discussion, in any sane business climate.
Trump's statement and impact was on anti-racism training, a very specific subset of diversity training (see memo). You could argue it's a different approach than what's usually meant by diversity training and shouldn't be lumped in that category. Please see the text regarding "training on “critical race theory,” “white privilege” or any other material that teaches or suggests that the United States or any race or ethnicity is “inherently racist or evil.” You should recognize the controversial literature on anti-racism and white fragility, such as books from Ibram X Kendi and Robin DiAngelo. They go further than trying to remove bias and encourage empathy into actually guiding participants to confess racism and being complicit in racism by nature of their skin color and inaction. Those types of training are more obviously going to result in resentment and division, and are new enough to not have enough studies of effectiveness done on them. I'd argue they're dangerous enough on their face to stop at the federal level, particularly before more results can be gathered from them.
|
Northern Ireland27236 Posts
On September 27 2020 21:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 21:02 Wegandi wrote:On September 27 2020 20:54 WombaT wrote:
@Taelshin, much ground to make up. Teletubby showed me me posting stats and what I’d thought was a year hiatus was like three and a half!
@Wegandi not all diversity training is well-designed, or particularly useful, absolutely. Plus you’ll have two cohorts where resentment is bred, people who know these things already and think it’s a waste of their time, or others more skeptical or hostile to the need for such measures, who will feel likewise.
That said the term diversity training refers to well, quite a diverse set of things.
The intent on pulling back on such things is important and instructive. There’s a world of difference between acknowledging there’s a problem but this is an ineffective solution that needs looked at, to fuck minority sensibilities, everything is fine, and various junctures in between. The issue with say, Trump would be that even if diversity training had proved widely, widely successful he’d still want rid of it.
I’d be interested to hear this diatribe on the minimum wage, should spark some fine discussion! And this folks is why evidence is irrelevant when it comes to politics or policies. It doesn't matter that something doesn't work. It's about intent and feelings. Folks will even acknowledge that said policy or program is harmful, but will rationalize it anyways. The data was clear. Diversity training is a sure-fire way to get folks to turn away from what it is trying to do. That's generally why right-wing programs or policies don't yield to some "the science says it doesn't work and is actually counterproductive." The corresponding left-wing policies can have the same deficits, but defenders like WombaT will always retreat to some combination of "the particular program wasn't defined well//failed for reason of the people enacting it" or dissemble to some "well, what you're referring to is so broad a topic that you can't conclusively say some 0.1% didn't work among the 99.9% that did harm." They're quite willing to question the evidence that it works on perspectives they disagree with, but will refuse to do so for perspectives nearer their own.
Such as? My post earlier was rather brief, pajoondies more well articulated my particular position on diversity training.
It being counter-productive makes sense to me as the tendency of any privileged group towards any kind of move to making environments more neutral tends to be rather negative.
Aside from that phenomena, I don’t see how tacking a few training programs can particularly counteract decades of experience and attitudes imposed by wider culture, so it not being effective doesn’t exactly surprise me.
|
I think it's interesting to see this programs as "left-wing policies." To me they're actually a great lesson in the utter failure of markets when profitability and effectiveness are completely disentangled. The least effective trainings are products that serve as cheap solutions for institutions that want to hand-wave away issues of systematic racism in their own policies; it's the equivalent of the training videos in the 90s. But because they're cheap and allow something to be added to a shareholder or trustee update, they get implemented widely, whatever the politics of the organization (well, nearly whatever the politics; I don't think the National Review is doing any any time soon).
One of the first things we discussed at a recent university training on racism awareness was that it's widely recognized among (left-wing) scientists in the field that existing programs are at best are not enough and at worst do very very little.
Of course, the solution to this is to find something that actually does do enough. I have a pretty good idea about how much money and societal energy Trump wants devoted to that research (hint: it's negative).
|
It's definitely easy for me to also imagine a scenario where a lot of these programs or videos or what have you are only so widely implemented because they're an easy way for corporate to show how not-racist their company is, because they make a miniscule token effort that seems like a big step forward to people who genuinely don't have a clue, which is why they're so necessary in the first place. And part of overcoming that is hiring more than just token representation, and actually empowering the PoC in your business rather than capping them with invisible ceilings, etc. Then you start having meaningful conversations with meaningful results, and can thus take legitimately meaningful steps.
That's a lot to ask, and always was going to be, but it's also the bare minimum. It's why it can be insulting to hear how a group of companies are rolling out this new anti-racism training... thing, when you know it's way too easy to just do that and wash your hands of the whole thing afterward, going back to business as normal. It's very hard to effect change there. Basically the only thing it's really good for is appealing to the crowd that hates to hear about racism, it always brings the subject up but never follows through.
|
There's something I find interesting as a line of thought that touches on some stuff, lemme see if I can format in a way that will allow anyone to follow.
It starts with me handwavingly asserting that people are unwilling to undergo personal sacrifice even for something they understand to be for the greater good, to which WombaT_NI_Potatoes_Not_Windmills suggests that there needs to be science enough for the people to believe their sacrifice is worthwhile.
+ Show Spoiler +On September 27 2020 18:52 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 10:36 Fleetfeet wrote:
Probably is comparable to people being pro green energy but unwilling to give up driving an SUV. Humans pretty consistently can identify something as 'good' but be unwilling to actually sacrifice anything to get it. I guess the good has to be linked to effectiveness in some manner. Be it voting or anti-Covid measures or the climate. Most people I know think those are good ideas, they start to waver in say, voting because their previous votes haven’t been particularly impactful. On the other hand people can play ball and make much bigger sacrifices if there’s a wider top-down buy in society-wide and there’s a more clear link to sacrifice and an outcome. A good example would be the diets people adopted due to rationing in the World Wars. From my recollection of at least some of the rhetoric around problems about proposed green taxes in France and also Ireland, it wasn’t an outright lack of desire to chip in on the issue, more on why the financial burden was falling on the public when the corporate sector was remaining relatively untouched. If you do both, as well as frankly shifting the culture to outright consuming viewer things full stop, which I think is an option usually neglected, then I think people would be happy enough to contribute.
Smarter people are more than welcome to correct my understanding, but my understanding is that the world wars were heavily, HEAVILY propaganda-driven. The combination of times of global crisis sparking the idea of some sort of patriotic duty, coupled with a propaganda machine encouraging specific action, led to people engaging personal sacrifice for the perceived greater good. That isn't to say WombaT is wrong, just clarifying this as a stepping stone into my next point.
Below, we have a post from Danglars talking further on the topic of diversity training. Specifically, I want to address the memo linked within that post more than anything else.
+ Show Spoiler +On September 27 2020 23:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 22:45 pajoondies wrote:On September 27 2020 21:31 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2020 21:02 Wegandi wrote:On September 27 2020 20:54 WombaT wrote:
@Taelshin, much ground to make up. Teletubby showed me me posting stats and what I’d thought was a year hiatus was like three and a half!
@Wegandi not all diversity training is well-designed, or particularly useful, absolutely. Plus you’ll have two cohorts where resentment is bred, people who know these things already and think it’s a waste of their time, or others more skeptical or hostile to the need for such measures, who will feel likewise.
That said the term diversity training refers to well, quite a diverse set of things.
The intent on pulling back on such things is important and instructive. There’s a world of difference between acknowledging there’s a problem but this is an ineffective solution that needs looked at, to fuck minority sensibilities, everything is fine, and various junctures in between. The issue with say, Trump would be that even if diversity training had proved widely, widely successful he’d still want rid of it.
I’d be interested to hear this diatribe on the minimum wage, should spark some fine discussion! And this folks is why evidence is irrelevant when it comes to politics or policies. It doesn't matter that something doesn't work. It's about intent and feelings. Folks will even acknowledge that said policy or program is harmful, but will rationalize it anyways. The data was clear. Diversity training is a sure-fire way to get folks to turn away from what it is trying to do. That's generally why right-wing programs or policies don't yield to some "the science says it doesn't work and is actually counterproductive." The corresponding left-wing policies can have the same deficits, but defenders like WombaT will always retreat to some combination of "the particular program wasn't defined well//failed for reason of the people enacting it" or dissemble to some "well, what you're referring to is so broad a topic that you can't conclusively say some 0.1% didn't work among the 99.9% that did harm." They're quite willing to question the evidence that it works on perspectives they disagree with, but will refuse to do so for perspectives nearer their own. The sources provided were limited in scope- the yahoo article discussed the application at university and college campuses, and reading the intro to the book spoke to how the number of employed people of color in management level positions has barely changed in recent decades. Now, this can certainly be indicative of the potentially lackluster effect diversity training has, but anyone arguing this stance would surely agree there is more to it than just diversity training being underwhelming. Other influencing factors could include education through the developmental periods of our lives, socioeconomic status of people of color vs white people, ingrained beliefs about people of color, etc,. I don't know if there's any research done on confounding factors regarding the efficacy of diversity training, but diversity training isn't gonna change the minds of people who are already racist or hateful, or people who 'know' the topics diversity training covers. I can relate to the 'knowing', I skim through the diversity training I'm required to complete in my own place of employment because I'm aware of all the things it's purposed with teaching me. Large social issues like racial diversity and the reduction (and hopefully elimination) of racism are too difficult to effectively cover in something like a short diversity training course. Racism and prejudice don't happen overnight, so we can't expect it to be defeated overnight. It's a social science, which tends to be so multifactorial when attempting to apply changes that we can't ever know for sure what influences our interventions and to what degree. Compare this with climate science or health science, which so many Trump supporters quickly and easily eschew as a hoax, and it forces us to consider why Trump actually wants to get rid of diversity training. If it's because it's ineffective, sure, that can make sense. But if there's no other plan to affect change? If Trump had a history of action that would allow us to believe he does things for anyone but himself, I could believe it. But nope, it's just like his health care approach. Claim what exists doesn't work, attempt to get rid of it, and provide no viable alternative if any at all. The focus should be on whether the "diversity training" programs as programs have any evidence of impact, not whether it results in more diversity of skin color in hires. The linked studies ( psychology and authors survey of 800+ firms over 3 decades) should turn up positive impact along some scale if they are effective in any small measure. The factors you discuss overlap with reasons not to implement a program of diversity training. It's precisely because it's ineffective against larger issues and can't serve as a solution to them that (as authors use the term) dos and don'ts/command-and-control diversity training programs should be avoided. From your post, the main hypothesis you're seeking to disprove runs something like "No programs exist which can remediate racial diversity or classical racism within employment." The particular programs under discussion show no impact and, as you point out, could be due to larger forces in society and previous exposure and dismissal. That should result in money going towards different approaches that aren't under current discussion, in any sane business climate. Trump's statement and impact was on anti-racism training, a very specific subset of diversity training (see memo). You could argue it's a different approach than what's usually meant by diversity training and shouldn't be lumped in that category. Please see the text regarding "training on “critical race theory,” “white privilege” or any other material that teaches or suggests that the United States or any race or ethnicity is “inherently racist or evil.” You should recognize the controversial literature on anti-racism and white fragility, such as books from Ibram X Kendi and Robin DiAngelo. They go further than trying to remove bias and encourage empathy into actually guiding participants to confess racism and being complicit in racism by nature of their skin color and inaction. Those types of training are more obviously going to result in resentment and division, and are new enough to not have enough studies of effectiveness done on them. I'd argue they're dangerous enough on their face to stop at the federal level, particularly before more results can be gathered from them.
In that memo, the word "propaganda" is used five times. Three of the times it is referred to as "un" or "anti" American, and once as "Demeaning". I mention this because the memo itself seems like propaganda.
Given this line of "People are unlikely to engage personal sacrifice > Propaganda is an effective tool of the government to encourage personal sacrifice > The US gov't still uses and alleges it uses propaganda" is there a place for propaganda in our current forms of democracy? Is it something we should accept generally or fight against?
I'm aware that this is probably a "politics 101" thing for those of you with education on the matter, I was just following a line and realized I don't have a developed opinion on the role of propaganda within democracy, and given a Trump presidency, it feels like a decent thing to discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
