|
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 |
The calls for informing on immigrants to your local gestapo are already going out
After watching billionaires fighting to kiss Trump's ass like this is the premier of a new Apprentice I fully expect cities and states to help him crackdown on immigrants under threats of prosecution by Trump.
U.S. President Donald Trump's administration has directed prosecutors to investigate officials who resist immigration enforcement efforts, intensifying a sweeping crackdown that Trump launched the day he took office.
In a memo seen by Reuters, Trump's acting deputy attorney general, Emil Bove, told Justice Department staff that state and local authorities must cooperate with the immigration crackdown and federal prosecutors "shall investigate incidents involving any such misconduct for potential prosecution."
www.reuters.com
|
On January 23 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist. The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group.
Wtf does that even mean? If your NBA team has an overrepresentation of blacks so you pass over Michael Jordan to select John Stockton then it would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to say "You still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." If the best candidate is in the overrepresented group then the candidate you select in their stead Is. Not. The. Best. Candidate.
oBlade made it even more simple for you by using your own analogy. You think Magnus is the best chess player and I agree with you. You're not "still getting the best candidate" if you have to choose Vishy Anand for your chess team because your team already has too many white people. Only the mental gymnastics of wokeism would allow such a contradiction to exist.
|
Are you at it again with your NBA, hyperspecialized niche example?
Damn you're one silly goose. You might get it some day, maybe, hopefully.
|
United States42494 Posts
On January 24 2025 03:55 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist. The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. Wtf does that even mean? If your NBA team has an overrepresentation of blacks so you pass over Michael Jordan to select John Stockton then it would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to say "You still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." If the best candidate is in the overrepresented group then the candidate you select in their stead Is. Not. The. Best. Candidate. oBlade made it even more simple for you by using your own analogy. You think Magnus is the best chess player and I agree with you. You're not "still getting the best candidate" if you have to choose Vishy Anand for your chess team because your team already has too many white people. Only the mental gymnastics of wokeism would allow such a contradiction to exist.
Have you been on a hiring committee? I’ve been on loads and your imaginary scenario where you’re forced to hire the less qualified candidate due to wokism hasn’t ever come up.
|
On January 23 2025 22:51 Incomplete..ReV wrote:
Man, I feel like the US is just a dictatorship waiting to happen, unless it's "saved" by civil war. Both options are horrid. I really hope I'm wrong, or that it can be turned around.
Nah, its not waiting, it's charging forward with great haste lol
|
As I understand the argument for diversion and inclusion it isn't about hiring the best person for the specific job task.
It is about having a team with different angles on how to solve a problem or see an opportunity. Having the "same" 5 people looking at a problem will likely result in a similar outcome as if 1 of them looked at it. Similar to having a logistical engineer, mechanical engineer and lets say a change manager look at the problem together to get different perspectives.
If the studies hold up that having a diverse work force results in more flexible organizations that make leaps that would otherwise be less likely I don't know. I havn't read the science.
If the employee is good enough at the job, does it in time and willing to learn that is good enough for me to have a good work experience. Don't really matter if they are 18, 65, male, female, Indian, Chinese or Iranian.
---
If you take specific elite position into account where you don't work in teams in the same way it is less relevant. Most positions are not like that. For a grocery clerk, IT developer, HR rep etc etc you are not willing to pay for the best globally in most companies. Thus who is the best at the job is just one of many factors, as long as they are good enough other things come into it.
|
Best and diverse are not mutually exclusive.
|
On January 24 2025 03:55 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist. The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. Wtf does that even mean? If your NBA team has an overrepresentation of blacks so you pass over Michael Jordan to select John Stockton then it would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to say "You still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." If the best candidate is in the overrepresented group then the candidate you select in their stead Is. Not. The. Best. Candidate. oBlade made it even more simple for you by using your own analogy. You think Magnus is the best chess player and I agree with you. You're not "still getting the best candidate" if you have to choose Vishy Anand for your chess team because your team already has too many white people. Only the mental gymnastics of wokeism would allow such a contradiction to exist.
20 candidates have a skill that is valued on a scale from 1-10. Ten candidates are in group A, ten are in group B. The two groups have an overal equal value. The individuals in each group are valued at 1, 2, 3... up to 10.
You have a bias towards group A. This means that, every time you're presented with a choice between two candidates, you will always pick a candidate from group A.
Now you're being asked to pick one of two candidates. Candidate 1 is from group A, candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1.
Now you're being asked again to pick one of two candidates. Again candidate 1 is from group A and candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1.
You will repeat this process until you have picked a total of ten candidates. At the end there will be an evaluation of your picks.
As you repeat this process, you will end up picking all ten candidates from group A and none from group B, even though the value of the candidates you've been picking has been declining constantly. The value of your ten picks will be 1+2+3... until 10 divided by 10. The average valuation will be 5.5
If you had instead picked candidates from both groups (i.e. without bias), you would've been able to reach a much better total valuation of 8 (edit: I meant to say average valuation). You've missed out on 2.5 out of 8 points of valuation, which means your valuation is 31% worse than the best possible valuation.
The solution to this problem is DEI. Every time you pick a candidate from group A, you must next pick a candidate from group B. That way you prevent ending up with a bad valuation resulting from bias.
PS: no matter how small your group bias is, you will always end up with a lower valuation when you have a group bias towards A or B (unless one of the two groups has an inherently higher/lower valuation than the other).
|
Laws around meeting a quota for diversity usually are dumb, humans are equally stupid, don't need to sort gender or skin color.
|
On January 23 2025 22:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 19:13 BlackJack wrote:
Trump included the last one because it mandates federal contractors to take affirmative actions to improve diversity in their companies and he's pushing an anti-DEI agenda. Okay but I literally read the text of it and it didn't mandate that and then I linked the text of it and asked you where it said that.
It mandates that by way of saying contractors need to take "affirmative action..." The regulations are written after for what the entails. According to the wikipedia page on Executive Order 11246 some of the things it requires are
Federal regulations require affirmative action plans to include an equal opportunity policy statement, an analysis of the current workforce, identification of under-represented areas, the establishment of reasonable, flexible goals and timetables for increasing employment opportunities, specific action-oriented programs to address problem areas, support for community action programs, and the establishment of an internal audit and reporting system.
Or on the Code of Federal Regulations website
Contents of affirmative action programs.
(1) An affirmative action program must include the following quantitative analyses:
(i) Organizational profile—§ 60-2.11;
(ii) Job group analysis—§ 60-2.12;
(iii) Placement of incumbents in job groups—§ 60-2.13;
(iv) Determining availability—§ 60-2.14;
(v) Comparing incumbency to availability—§ 60-2.15; and
(vi) Placement goals—§ 60-2.16.
(2) In addition, an affirmative action program must include the following components specified in the § 60-2.17 of this part:
(i) Designation of responsibility for implementation;
(ii) Identification of problem areas;
(iii) Action-oriented programs; and
(iv) Periodic internal audits.
(c) Documentation. Contractors must maintain and make available to OFCCP documentation of their compliance with §§ 60-2.11 through 60-2.17.
You can go one layer deeper and look at one specific requirement, Placement Goals
Where, pursuant to § 60-2.15, a contractor is required to establish a placement goal for a particular job group, the contractor must establish a percentage annual placement goal at least equal to the availability figure derived for women or minorities, as appropriate, for that job group.
So federal contractors with 51 or more employees are required to set a placement goal that is the % greater than or equal to the number of available women and minorities qualified for that position. That's just one regulation of many that have been revoked with Trump's action. You can argue the merits of setting placement goals for women and minorities if you want. I'm not really interested in that. I was simply pointing out the bullshit dishonest framing that you originally offered.
|
Norway28630 Posts
On January 24 2025 04:44 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 03:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist. The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. Wtf does that even mean? If your NBA team has an overrepresentation of blacks so you pass over Michael Jordan to select John Stockton then it would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to say "You still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." If the best candidate is in the overrepresented group then the candidate you select in their stead Is. Not. The. Best. Candidate. oBlade made it even more simple for you by using your own analogy. You think Magnus is the best chess player and I agree with you. You're not "still getting the best candidate" if you have to choose Vishy Anand for your chess team because your team already has too many white people. Only the mental gymnastics of wokeism would allow such a contradiction to exist. 20 candidates have a skill that is valued on a scale from 1-10. Ten candidates are in group A, ten are in group B. The two groups have an overal equal value. The individuals in each group are valued at 1, 2, 3... up to 10. You have a bias towards group A. This means that, every time you're presented with a choice between two candidates, you will always pick a candidate from group A. Now you're being asked to pick one of two candidates. Candidate 1 is from group A, candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. Now you're being asked again to pick one of two candidates. Again candidate 1 is from group A and candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. You will repeat this process until you have picked a total of ten candidates. At the end there will be an evaluation of your picks. As you repeat this process, you will end up picking all ten candidates from group A and none from group B, even though the value of the candidates you've been picking has been declining constantly. The value of your ten picks will be 1+2+3... until 10 divided by 10. The average valuation will be 5.5 If you had instead picked candidates from both groups (i.e. without bias), you would've been able to reach a much better total valuation of 8 (edit: I meant to say average valuation). You've missed out on 2.5 out of 8 points of valuation, which means your valuation is 31% worse than the best possible valuation. The solution to this problem is DEI. Every time you pick a candidate from group A, you must next pick a candidate from group B. That way you prevent ending up with a bad valuation resulting from bias. PS: no matter how small your group bias is, you will always end up with a lower valuation when you have a group bias towards A or B (unless one of the two groups has an inherently higher/lower valuation than the other).
What if you're forced to pick 50/50 between the two groups but the 10 members from group A have scores of 10 10 10 9 9 9 8 8 5 2 and the members from group B have scores of 10 9 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1? In that case if you could just pick freely, you'd end up with 4 candidates with 10 3 with 9 3 with 8 giving an average slightly above 9 whereas if you had to pick 5 from each you'd end up with 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 4 3 3 and an average of 7.7. Your example is honestly meaningless (the same is true for mine).
Anyway BJ obviously isn't arguing in favor of not hiring the more qualified black or woman or gay candidate. He's arguing against hiring the less qualified black or woman or gay candidate. Your example counters the former, not the latter. The argument that 'but in the real world, there's going to be a pool of people where the qualifications are essentially equal and thus you might as well factor in diversity as a positive factor and add a tiebreak-point to non-white male' is a different point and fairly reasonable - might well be the case, honestly. Still - if I as a white male experienced that my application was overlooked even though I was equally qualified as a black woman who ended up getting the job instead of me and the ethnicity and gender was the deciding factor, I'd honestly find that more aggreviating than if I lost the job/interview by coinflip.
I'm not even really arguing against quotas here because I think there's a reasonable argument to be made in favor of them and in favor of workplace diversity but I think the counter-argument is also very strong - this is one of few political discussions where I lean 'I'm not sure/it's contextual'.
|
On January 24 2025 03:55 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist. The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. Wtf does that even mean? If your NBA team has an overrepresentation of blacks so you pass over Michael Jordan to select John Stockton then it would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to say "You still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." If the best candidate is in the overrepresented group then the candidate you select in their stead Is. Not. The. Best. Candidate. oBlade made it even more simple for you by using your own analogy. You think Magnus is the best chess player and I agree with you. You're not "still getting the best candidate" if you have to choose Vishy Anand for your chess team because your team already has too many white people. Only the mental gymnastics of wokeism would allow such a contradiction to exist. You and oBlade are not getting the scenario.
Its not about picking Vishy over Magnus because of diversity.
its that all to often John M Burke (ranked 220) is picked over Gukesh because one is a white male American and the other is not.
|
On January 24 2025 04:44 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 03:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist. The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. Wtf does that even mean? If your NBA team has an overrepresentation of blacks so you pass over Michael Jordan to select John Stockton then it would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to say "You still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." If the best candidate is in the overrepresented group then the candidate you select in their stead Is. Not. The. Best. Candidate. oBlade made it even more simple for you by using your own analogy. You think Magnus is the best chess player and I agree with you. You're not "still getting the best candidate" if you have to choose Vishy Anand for your chess team because your team already has too many white people. Only the mental gymnastics of wokeism would allow such a contradiction to exist. 20 candidates have a skill that is valued on a scale from 1-10. Ten candidates are in group A, ten are in group B. The two groups have an overal equal value. The individuals in each group are valued at 1, 2, 3... up to 10. You have a bias towards group A. This means that, every time you're presented with a choice between two candidates, you will always pick a candidate from group A. Now you're being asked to pick one of two candidates. Candidate 1 is from group A, candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. Now you're being asked again to pick one of two candidates. Again candidate 1 is from group A and candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. You will repeat this process until you have picked a total of ten candidates. At the end there will be an evaluation of your picks. As you repeat this process, you will end up picking all ten candidates from group A and none from group B, even though the value of the candidates you've been picking has been declining constantly. The value of your ten picks will be 1+2+3... until 10 divided by 10. The average valuation will be 5.5 If you had instead picked candidates from both groups (i.e. without bias), you would've been able to reach a much better total valuation of 8 (edit: I meant to say average valuation). You've missed out on 2.5 out of 8 points of valuation, which means your valuation is 31% worse than the best possible valuation. The solution to this problem is DEI. Every time you pick a candidate from group A, you must next pick a candidate from group B. That way you prevent ending up with a bad valuation resulting from bias. PS: no matter how small your group bias is, you will always end up with a lower valuation when you have a group bias towards A or B (unless one of the two groups has an inherently higher/lower valuation than the other).
Sure if you get to arbitrarily declare in your hypothetical that the underrepresented group is equally skilled as the overrepresented group. Let's draft a 1960s-70s era chess team. I'll pick Russian after Russian and you can pick one from group A and one from group B. My team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a 1990s basketball team and I will pick Black American after Black American and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a Starcraft team and I will pick Korean after Korean and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass.
|
On January 23 2025 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
Trump could send his goons to your school, snatch up kids out of your classroom and everyone from the teachers to the top administrator will point at process and procedure, ignorance, and the rest to rationalize their complicity. As you insist, if any kids were taken from your class it couldn't be your fault and you can't be complicit. You'd be "just doing my job"
Do you know any teachers? Have you spoken to them in idk the last few days?
|
On January 24 2025 05:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 04:44 Magic Powers wrote:On January 24 2025 03:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist. The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. Wtf does that even mean? If your NBA team has an overrepresentation of blacks so you pass over Michael Jordan to select John Stockton then it would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to say "You still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." If the best candidate is in the overrepresented group then the candidate you select in their stead Is. Not. The. Best. Candidate. oBlade made it even more simple for you by using your own analogy. You think Magnus is the best chess player and I agree with you. You're not "still getting the best candidate" if you have to choose Vishy Anand for your chess team because your team already has too many white people. Only the mental gymnastics of wokeism would allow such a contradiction to exist. 20 candidates have a skill that is valued on a scale from 1-10. Ten candidates are in group A, ten are in group B. The two groups have an overal equal value. The individuals in each group are valued at 1, 2, 3... up to 10. You have a bias towards group A. This means that, every time you're presented with a choice between two candidates, you will always pick a candidate from group A. Now you're being asked to pick one of two candidates. Candidate 1 is from group A, candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. Now you're being asked again to pick one of two candidates. Again candidate 1 is from group A and candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. You will repeat this process until you have picked a total of ten candidates. At the end there will be an evaluation of your picks. As you repeat this process, you will end up picking all ten candidates from group A and none from group B, even though the value of the candidates you've been picking has been declining constantly. The value of your ten picks will be 1+2+3... until 10 divided by 10. The average valuation will be 5.5 If you had instead picked candidates from both groups (i.e. without bias), you would've been able to reach a much better total valuation of 8 (edit: I meant to say average valuation). You've missed out on 2.5 out of 8 points of valuation, which means your valuation is 31% worse than the best possible valuation. The solution to this problem is DEI. Every time you pick a candidate from group A, you must next pick a candidate from group B. That way you prevent ending up with a bad valuation resulting from bias. PS: no matter how small your group bias is, you will always end up with a lower valuation when you have a group bias towards A or B (unless one of the two groups has an inherently higher/lower valuation than the other). What if you're forced to pick 50/50 between the two groups but the 10 members from group A have scores of 10 10 10 9 9 9 8 8 5 2 and the members from group B have scores of 10 9 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1? In that case if you could just pick freely, you'd end up with 4 candidates with 10 3 with 9 3 with 8 giving an average slightly above 9 whereas if you had to pick 5 from each you'd end up with 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 4 3 3 and an average of 7.7. Your example is honestly meaningless (the same is true for mine). Anyway BJ obviously isn't arguing in favor of not hiring the more qualified black or woman or gay candidate. He's arguing against hiring the less qualified black or woman or gay candidate. Your example counters the former, not the latter. The argument that 'but in the real world, there's going to be a pool of people where the qualifications are essentially equal and thus you might as well factor in diversity as a positive factor and add a tiebreak-point to non-white male' is a different point and fairly reasonable - might well be the case, honestly. Still - if I as a white male experienced that my application was overlooked even though I was equally qualified as a black woman who ended up getting the job instead of me and the ethnicity and gender was the deciding factor, I'd honestly find that more aggreviating than if I lost the job/interview by coinflip. I'm not even really arguing against quotas here because I think there's a reasonable argument to be made in favor of them and in favor of workplace diversity but I think the counter-argument is also very strong - this is one of few political discussions where I lean 'I'm not sure/it's contextual'.
In your example the two groups have vastly different valuations. Group A adds up to 80 total and group B adds up to 37 total. I addressed that in the last part of my post:
"(unless one of the two groups has an inherently higher/lower valuation than the other)"
In your example that is the case. A lower overall valuation obviously leads to an entirely different conclusion.
The whole point of DEI is that the two groups are assumed to have the same overall valuation, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense. Can you guess which type of person believes the two groups are unequal?
|
United States42494 Posts
On January 24 2025 05:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 22:52 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2025 19:13 BlackJack wrote:
Trump included the last one because it mandates federal contractors to take affirmative actions to improve diversity in their companies and he's pushing an anti-DEI agenda. Okay but I literally read the text of it and it didn't mandate that and then I linked the text of it and asked you where it said that. It mandates that by way of saying contractors need to take "affirmative action..." The regulations are written after for what the entails. According to the wikipedia page on Executive Order 11246 some of the things it requires are Show nested quote +Federal regulations require affirmative action plans to include an equal opportunity policy statement, an analysis of the current workforce, identification of under-represented areas, the establishment of reasonable, flexible goals and timetables for increasing employment opportunities, specific action-oriented programs to address problem areas, support for community action programs, and the establishment of an internal audit and reporting system. Or on the Code of Federal Regulations website Show nested quote +Contents of affirmative action programs.
(1) An affirmative action program must include the following quantitative analyses:
(i) Organizational profile—§ 60-2.11;
(ii) Job group analysis—§ 60-2.12;
(iii) Placement of incumbents in job groups—§ 60-2.13;
(iv) Determining availability—§ 60-2.14;
(v) Comparing incumbency to availability—§ 60-2.15; and
(vi) Placement goals—§ 60-2.16.
(2) In addition, an affirmative action program must include the following components specified in the § 60-2.17 of this part:
(i) Designation of responsibility for implementation;
(ii) Identification of problem areas;
(iii) Action-oriented programs; and
(iv) Periodic internal audits.
(c) Documentation. Contractors must maintain and make available to OFCCP documentation of their compliance with §§ 60-2.11 through 60-2.17. You can go one layer deeper and look at one specific requirement, Placement Goals Show nested quote +Where, pursuant to § 60-2.15, a contractor is required to establish a placement goal for a particular job group, the contractor must establish a percentage annual placement goal at least equal to the availability figure derived for women or minorities, as appropriate, for that job group. So federal contractors with 51 or more employees are required to set a placement goal that is the % greater than or equal to the number of available women and minorities qualified for that position. That's just one regulation of many that have been revoked with Trump's action. You can argue the merits of setting placement goals for women and minorities if you want. I'm not really interested in that. I was simply pointing out the bullshit dishonest framing that you originally offered.
Will you please, for the love of god, take 5 fucking minutes and just read the EO we’re disagreeing about. Not the Wikipedia summary of it, the EO itself. It’s not that long. It’s fewer words than you’ve spent so far arguing about the contents of a page of words you didn’t read.
I provided you a link to the document and stated that after reading it top to bottom I just wasn’t seeing the affirmative action stuff you were upset about. I invited you to copy and paste the sections that upset you so that we could clear up what you were talking about. Right now we’re not arguing about the merits of affirmative action, we’re not there yet, we’re arguing about whether it was even about affirmative action. And only one of us has checked.
How is it that you’re completely unwilling to read a page of text but utterly committed to arguing about what is on that page with someone that you know has read it? What’s your end game here? How do you care so much about what is on the page while not caring enough to read what is on the page?
|
On January 24 2025 05:38 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 04:44 Magic Powers wrote:On January 24 2025 03:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist. The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. Wtf does that even mean? If your NBA team has an overrepresentation of blacks so you pass over Michael Jordan to select John Stockton then it would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to say "You still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." If the best candidate is in the overrepresented group then the candidate you select in their stead Is. Not. The. Best. Candidate. oBlade made it even more simple for you by using your own analogy. You think Magnus is the best chess player and I agree with you. You're not "still getting the best candidate" if you have to choose Vishy Anand for your chess team because your team already has too many white people. Only the mental gymnastics of wokeism would allow such a contradiction to exist. 20 candidates have a skill that is valued on a scale from 1-10. Ten candidates are in group A, ten are in group B. The two groups have an overal equal value. The individuals in each group are valued at 1, 2, 3... up to 10. You have a bias towards group A. This means that, every time you're presented with a choice between two candidates, you will always pick a candidate from group A. Now you're being asked to pick one of two candidates. Candidate 1 is from group A, candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. Now you're being asked again to pick one of two candidates. Again candidate 1 is from group A and candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. You will repeat this process until you have picked a total of ten candidates. At the end there will be an evaluation of your picks. As you repeat this process, you will end up picking all ten candidates from group A and none from group B, even though the value of the candidates you've been picking has been declining constantly. The value of your ten picks will be 1+2+3... until 10 divided by 10. The average valuation will be 5.5 If you had instead picked candidates from both groups (i.e. without bias), you would've been able to reach a much better total valuation of 8 (edit: I meant to say average valuation). You've missed out on 2.5 out of 8 points of valuation, which means your valuation is 31% worse than the best possible valuation. The solution to this problem is DEI. Every time you pick a candidate from group A, you must next pick a candidate from group B. That way you prevent ending up with a bad valuation resulting from bias. PS: no matter how small your group bias is, you will always end up with a lower valuation when you have a group bias towards A or B (unless one of the two groups has an inherently higher/lower valuation than the other). Sure if you get to arbitrarily declare in your hypothetical that the underrepresented group is equally skilled as the overrepresented group. Let's draft a 1960s-70s era chess team. I'll pick Russian after Russian and you can pick one from group A and one from group B. My team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a 1990s basketball team and I will pick Black American after Black American and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a Starcraft team and I will pick Korean after Korean and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass.
The idea that white people are more skilled than black people, or that men are more skilled than women, is...
Can you guess it?
|
On January 24 2025 05:46 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 04:44 Magic Powers wrote:On January 24 2025 03:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist. The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. Wtf does that even mean? If your NBA team has an overrepresentation of blacks so you pass over Michael Jordan to select John Stockton then it would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to say "You still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." If the best candidate is in the overrepresented group then the candidate you select in their stead Is. Not. The. Best. Candidate. oBlade made it even more simple for you by using your own analogy. You think Magnus is the best chess player and I agree with you. You're not "still getting the best candidate" if you have to choose Vishy Anand for your chess team because your team already has too many white people. Only the mental gymnastics of wokeism would allow such a contradiction to exist. 20 candidates have a skill that is valued on a scale from 1-10. Ten candidates are in group A, ten are in group B. The two groups have an overal equal value. The individuals in each group are valued at 1, 2, 3... up to 10. You have a bias towards group A. This means that, every time you're presented with a choice between two candidates, you will always pick a candidate from group A. Now you're being asked to pick one of two candidates. Candidate 1 is from group A, candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. Now you're being asked again to pick one of two candidates. Again candidate 1 is from group A and candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. You will repeat this process until you have picked a total of ten candidates. At the end there will be an evaluation of your picks. As you repeat this process, you will end up picking all ten candidates from group A and none from group B, even though the value of the candidates you've been picking has been declining constantly. The value of your ten picks will be 1+2+3... until 10 divided by 10. The average valuation will be 5.5 If you had instead picked candidates from both groups (i.e. without bias), you would've been able to reach a much better total valuation of 8 (edit: I meant to say average valuation). You've missed out on 2.5 out of 8 points of valuation, which means your valuation is 31% worse than the best possible valuation. The solution to this problem is DEI. Every time you pick a candidate from group A, you must next pick a candidate from group B. That way you prevent ending up with a bad valuation resulting from bias. PS: no matter how small your group bias is, you will always end up with a lower valuation when you have a group bias towards A or B (unless one of the two groups has an inherently higher/lower valuation than the other). Sure if you get to arbitrarily declare in your hypothetical that the underrepresented group is equally skilled as the overrepresented group. Let's draft a 1960s-70s era chess team. I'll pick Russian after Russian and you can pick one from group A and one from group B. My team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a 1990s basketball team and I will pick Black American after Black American and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a Starcraft team and I will pick Korean after Korean and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass. The idea that white people are more skilled than black people, or that men are more skilled than women, is... Can you guess it?
The idea that Koreans are more skilled than non-Koreans at Starcraft is... can you guess it...?
The stick your head in the sand level of ignorance that is required to prop up your worldview is staggering
|
United States42494 Posts
On January 24 2025 05:38 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 04:44 Magic Powers wrote:On January 24 2025 03:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist. The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. Wtf does that even mean? If your NBA team has an overrepresentation of blacks so you pass over Michael Jordan to select John Stockton then it would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to say "You still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." If the best candidate is in the overrepresented group then the candidate you select in their stead Is. Not. The. Best. Candidate. oBlade made it even more simple for you by using your own analogy. You think Magnus is the best chess player and I agree with you. You're not "still getting the best candidate" if you have to choose Vishy Anand for your chess team because your team already has too many white people. Only the mental gymnastics of wokeism would allow such a contradiction to exist. 20 candidates have a skill that is valued on a scale from 1-10. Ten candidates are in group A, ten are in group B. The two groups have an overal equal value. The individuals in each group are valued at 1, 2, 3... up to 10. You have a bias towards group A. This means that, every time you're presented with a choice between two candidates, you will always pick a candidate from group A. Now you're being asked to pick one of two candidates. Candidate 1 is from group A, candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. Now you're being asked again to pick one of two candidates. Again candidate 1 is from group A and candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. You will repeat this process until you have picked a total of ten candidates. At the end there will be an evaluation of your picks. As you repeat this process, you will end up picking all ten candidates from group A and none from group B, even though the value of the candidates you've been picking has been declining constantly. The value of your ten picks will be 1+2+3... until 10 divided by 10. The average valuation will be 5.5 If you had instead picked candidates from both groups (i.e. without bias), you would've been able to reach a much better total valuation of 8 (edit: I meant to say average valuation). You've missed out on 2.5 out of 8 points of valuation, which means your valuation is 31% worse than the best possible valuation. The solution to this problem is DEI. Every time you pick a candidate from group A, you must next pick a candidate from group B. That way you prevent ending up with a bad valuation resulting from bias. PS: no matter how small your group bias is, you will always end up with a lower valuation when you have a group bias towards A or B (unless one of the two groups has an inherently higher/lower valuation than the other). Sure if you get to arbitrarily declare in your hypothetical that the underrepresented group is equally skilled as the overrepresented group. Let's draft a 1960s-70s era chess team. I'll pick Russian after Russian and you can pick one from group A and one from group B. My team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a 1990s basketball team and I will pick Black American after Black American and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a Starcraft team and I will pick Korean after Korean and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass.
Koreans aren’t better because they’re Korean, the Koreans who are better are better because they practiced more. Discriminating based on MMR is fine, you’re completely allowed to pick an all Korean team based on picking the highest MMR players. It’d be racial discrimination if you picked a team of low MMR Koreans over higher MMR white guys.
The fact that you seem to genuinely be unable to tell the difference between selecting based on competency and racist segregation is troubling. A policy of only selecting ethnic Koreans would be segregation. A policy of only selecting high MMR players with the language skills to engage with Korean language resources would not be. This isn’t very hard for everyone else to understand.
|
On January 24 2025 05:55 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 05:46 Magic Powers wrote:On January 24 2025 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 04:44 Magic Powers wrote:On January 24 2025 03:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist. The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. Wtf does that even mean? If your NBA team has an overrepresentation of blacks so you pass over Michael Jordan to select John Stockton then it would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to say "You still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." If the best candidate is in the overrepresented group then the candidate you select in their stead Is. Not. The. Best. Candidate. oBlade made it even more simple for you by using your own analogy. You think Magnus is the best chess player and I agree with you. You're not "still getting the best candidate" if you have to choose Vishy Anand for your chess team because your team already has too many white people. Only the mental gymnastics of wokeism would allow such a contradiction to exist. 20 candidates have a skill that is valued on a scale from 1-10. Ten candidates are in group A, ten are in group B. The two groups have an overal equal value. The individuals in each group are valued at 1, 2, 3... up to 10. You have a bias towards group A. This means that, every time you're presented with a choice between two candidates, you will always pick a candidate from group A. Now you're being asked to pick one of two candidates. Candidate 1 is from group A, candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. Now you're being asked again to pick one of two candidates. Again candidate 1 is from group A and candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. You will repeat this process until you have picked a total of ten candidates. At the end there will be an evaluation of your picks. As you repeat this process, you will end up picking all ten candidates from group A and none from group B, even though the value of the candidates you've been picking has been declining constantly. The value of your ten picks will be 1+2+3... until 10 divided by 10. The average valuation will be 5.5 If you had instead picked candidates from both groups (i.e. without bias), you would've been able to reach a much better total valuation of 8 (edit: I meant to say average valuation). You've missed out on 2.5 out of 8 points of valuation, which means your valuation is 31% worse than the best possible valuation. The solution to this problem is DEI. Every time you pick a candidate from group A, you must next pick a candidate from group B. That way you prevent ending up with a bad valuation resulting from bias. PS: no matter how small your group bias is, you will always end up with a lower valuation when you have a group bias towards A or B (unless one of the two groups has an inherently higher/lower valuation than the other). Sure if you get to arbitrarily declare in your hypothetical that the underrepresented group is equally skilled as the overrepresented group. Let's draft a 1960s-70s era chess team. I'll pick Russian after Russian and you can pick one from group A and one from group B. My team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a 1990s basketball team and I will pick Black American after Black American and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a Starcraft team and I will pick Korean after Korean and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass. The idea that white people are more skilled than black people, or that men are more skilled than women, is... Can you guess it? The idea that Koreans are more skilled than non-Koreans at Starcraft is... can you guess it...? The stick your head in the sand level of ignorance that is required to prop up your worldview is staggering
That's such a laughable attempt at a deflection. Koreans are not inherently better at Starcraft and you know that perfectly well. If an American, a European, an African and an Asian practice equally hard in the same environment, they're all equally likely to be the best at Starcraft. You're just trying to deflect from that obvious fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
