|
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 January 24 2025 05:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 05:13 BlackJack wrote: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 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. 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?
From the text of Executive order 11246
The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed,
|
On January 24 2025 05:56 KwarK 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. 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.
I didn't say Koreans were inherently better at Starcraft, did I? I said they are better. They are also "overrepresented." According to Magic Powers
They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group.
The idea that any candidate outside of the over-represented group, i.e. a non-Korean, could still be considered "the best candidate" demands you spit in the face of common sense.
|
United States41936 Posts
On January 24 2025 06:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 05:46 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 05:13 BlackJack wrote: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 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. 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? From the text of Executive order 11246 Show nested quote +The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed,
You cut off the bit where it specified what the action the contractor had to perform was. It was to act to ensure that they’re not discriminating in employment.
contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin
Nothing in there about quotas or anything. It’s simple and easily understood English. No racial discrimination and no tolerating racial discrimination. If you see racial discrimination you’re required to take action to address it, you can’t just accept it as part of the organization.
Nothing about what conservatives today would label “affirmative action”, they’re just saying that the obligation not to discriminate isn’t a passive one.
|
On January 24 2025 06:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 05:56 KwarK 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. 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. I didn't say Koreans were inherently better at Starcraft, did I? I said they are better. They are also "overrepresented." According to Magic Powers Show nested quote +They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. The idea that any candidate outside of the over-represented group, i.e. a non-Korean, could still be considered "the best candidate" demands you spit in the face of common sense.
That's why I wrote the other comment explaining the mathematics behind group bias leading to a lower overall valuation. It requires that both groups are equal to begin with, which is the case in the instance of white and black people applying for the same job. Surely you wouldn't argue that white people are better at, say, engineering than black people?
|
On January 24 2025 06:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 05:46 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 05:13 BlackJack wrote: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 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. 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? From the text of Executive order 11246 The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, You cut off the bit where it specified what the action the contractor had to perform was. It was to act to ensure that they’re not discriminating in employment. Show nested quote +contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin Nothing in there about quotas or anything. It’s simple and easily understood English. No racial discrimination and no tolerating racial discrimination. If you see racial discrimination you’re required to take action to address it, you can’t just accept it as part of the organization.
I never said anything about quotas. I said it led to a plethora of affirmative action regulations that Trump's EO overturned.
|
On January 24 2025 06:22 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 06:13 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 05:56 KwarK 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. 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. I didn't say Koreans were inherently better at Starcraft, did I? I said they are better. They are also "overrepresented." According to Magic Powers They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. The idea that any candidate outside of the over-represented group, i.e. a non-Korean, could still be considered "the best candidate" demands you spit in the face of common sense. That's why I wrote the other comment explaining the mathematics behind group bias leading to a lower overall valuation. It requires that both groups are equal to begin with, which is the case in the instance of white and black people applying for the same job. Surely you wouldn't argue that white people are better at, say, engineering than black people?
In your hypothetical world where Koreans and non-Koreans are equally as good as Starcraft it would make sense to pick a team where each group is equally represented. We all agree with your hypothetical world. When you're ready to leave your hypothetical world and have a serious conversation about the real world let me know.
|
United States41936 Posts
On January 24 2025 06:26 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 06:19 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 05:46 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 05:13 BlackJack wrote: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 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. 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? From the text of Executive order 11246 The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, You cut off the bit where it specified what the action the contractor had to perform was. It was to act to ensure that they’re not discriminating in employment. contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin Nothing in there about quotas or anything. It’s simple and easily understood English. No racial discrimination and no tolerating racial discrimination. If you see racial discrimination you’re required to take action to address it, you can’t just accept it as part of the organization. I never said anything about quotas. I said it led to a plethora of affirmative action regulations that Trump's EO overturned.
Affirmative action regulations in other documents that aren’t the one we’re currently discussing that he repealed? He repealed the civil rights EO because it was fine but a different regulation wasn’t?
|
Norway28553 Posts
A group can be better than another group without having an inherent advantage. For example, second generation immigrant indian women are 20 times more likely to have a medical degree than what the case for ethnic Norwegians. It might well be that black people and white people have the exact same inherent ability for engineering but that social factors (for example, and to be clear this isn't based around data or whatever, higher poverty rates might mean that black children are less likely to be exposed to toys that let them build more complex buildings and maybe there's a relationship between this and future desire for an engineering career). Or black people might attend schools where the learning environment is worse (for whatever reason) and then the inherently equally capable black children miss out on important building blocks for their own education. There can be a myriad of explanations for why one ethnic group (or even gender) performs better than another group at x without even considering 'genetic potential' as an explanation.
In fact I believe this is one of the arguments for affirmative action. You need some period of positive discrimination to reverse historic injustice, because with how strongly related your success is with the success of your parents, expecting groups that are on grossly uneven footing to just 'become equal now that there's no active discrimination happening' is a pipe dream. This is why I myself am somewhat sympathetic towards affirmative action as a concept even though I know I'd be pissed off if I ended up losing a position because I'm part of a privileged group.
|
On January 24 2025 05:40 Calanthe wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Yeah. The ones I'm in closest contact with are already openly in support of/working at "safe/sanctuary schools". Which I consider basically baseline humane. Many of them are already ramping up their efforts to take into consideration a more hostile administration. Others are scared to do that in the face of Trump's threats and the general impotence/incompetence/appeasement they have to expect from Democrats.
There's some (more admins and parents) that can't wait for ICE to show up and will be posing for their local paper with a giant grin as they are dragged out if they can arrange it.
I'm describing the teachers that aren't in sanctuary schools, aren't working on joining them in solidarity, and will not be adjusting their behavior to accommodate this threat to their students accordingly. Instead they will "just do their job" by following the rules and processes that just so coincidentally and unfortunately lead to the kids getting taken without their comprehension. Then attempt shirking any responsibility for their complicity by pointing to their obliviousness and adherence to process/procedure/the law.
It's not just teachers/schools having to make these tough calls about who they are going to be and what kind of country they will live in. Need more people on this Rabbi's page Despite the risk, Rabbi Elliott Tepperman of Bnai Keshet synagogue in Montclair said the congregation remained committed to providing sanctuary.
“We would offer the opportunity, if we could, to individuals seeking a safe place to stay who are facing deportation,” Tepperman said. “The goal of that would be to create a space where they could stay that ICE and other immigrant officials would not cross so that they could pursue legal means to have their cases heard.”
“I think we are living in a moment that is going to require some bravery,” he added. “If Trump is going to target congregations being safe havens, then we are going to have to practice more bravery than this small effort requires.”
www.northjersey.com
|
On January 24 2025 06:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 06:19 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 05:46 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 05:13 BlackJack wrote: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 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. 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? From the text of Executive order 11246 The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, You cut off the bit where it specified what the action the contractor had to perform was. It was to act to ensure that they’re not discriminating in employment. contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin Nothing in there about quotas or anything. It’s simple and easily understood English. No racial discrimination and no tolerating racial discrimination. If you see racial discrimination you’re required to take action to address it, you can’t just accept it as part of the organization. I never said anything about quotas. I said it led to a plethora of affirmative action regulations that Trump's EO overturned. Affirmative action regulations in other documents that aren’t the one we’re currently discussing that he repealed? He repealed the civil rights EO because it was fine but a different regulation wasn’t?
The affirmative action regulations laid out by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs whom the executive order tasks with enforcing EO 11246. These are not "other documents." They are regulations stemming from this executive order. Here is the webpage from the DoL's website detailing some of the regulations authorized by EO 11246
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/executive-order-11246/regulations
|
United States41936 Posts
On January 24 2025 06:44 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 06:33 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 06:19 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 05:46 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 05:13 BlackJack wrote: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 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. 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? From the text of Executive order 11246 The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, You cut off the bit where it specified what the action the contractor had to perform was. It was to act to ensure that they’re not discriminating in employment. contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin Nothing in there about quotas or anything. It’s simple and easily understood English. No racial discrimination and no tolerating racial discrimination. If you see racial discrimination you’re required to take action to address it, you can’t just accept it as part of the organization. I never said anything about quotas. I said it led to a plethora of affirmative action regulations that Trump's EO overturned. Affirmative action regulations in other documents that aren’t the one we’re currently discussing that he repealed? He repealed the civil rights EO because it was fine but a different regulation wasn’t? The affirmative action regulations laid out by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs whom the executive order tasks with enforcing EO 11246. These are not "other documents." They are regulations stemming from this executive order. Here is the webpage from the DoL's website detailing some of the regulations authorized by EO 11246 https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/executive-order-11246/regulations
Is your position that Trump couldn’t have changed those regulations? Because if not you’re still missing the link between “affirmative action/DEI” (the idea conservatives have) and dismantling the 1965 requirement that federal contractors desegregate.
|
Northern Ireland23738 Posts
On January 24 2025 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Show nested quote +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
Predictably gross.
I feel your fine sig quote is often apt, but it feels even more so now.
People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then"
If the driving force of such sentiment really was legitimate concerns about employment prospects and the likes, one would expect to see at least a decent fraction of that anger directed to businesses that hire illegal migrants and clamping down there too.
That it is not remotely close proportionally says rather a lot about the motivations of folks who would likely have touted on Anne Frank if they lived in a different time and place.
|
On January 24 2025 07:31 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:The calls for informing on immigrants to your local gestapo are already going out https://twitter.com/UFWupdates/status/1881884759674208444After 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 Predictably gross. I feel your fine sig quote is often apt, but it feels even more so now. Show nested quote + People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" If the driving force of such sentiment really was legitimate concerns about employment prospects and the likes, one would expect to see at least a decent fraction of that anger directed to businesses that hire illegal migrants and clamping down there too. That it is not remotely close proportionally says rather a lot about the motivations of folks who would likely have touted on Anne Frank if they lived in a different time and place.
Have we not talked about this before? Often the biggest immigration hawks are supporters of making E-Verify mandatory, which would do exactly that if implemented and enforced appropriately. I think last time someone said something like that they didn't even know what it was. As is too often the case with "if they really cared..."
|
On January 24 2025 06:31 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 06:22 Magic Powers wrote:On January 24 2025 06:13 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 05:56 KwarK 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. 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. I didn't say Koreans were inherently better at Starcraft, did I? I said they are better. They are also "overrepresented." According to Magic Powers They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. The idea that any candidate outside of the over-represented group, i.e. a non-Korean, could still be considered "the best candidate" demands you spit in the face of common sense. That's why I wrote the other comment explaining the mathematics behind group bias leading to a lower overall valuation. It requires that both groups are equal to begin with, which is the case in the instance of white and black people applying for the same job. Surely you wouldn't argue that white people are better at, say, engineering than black people? In your hypothetical world where Koreans and non-Koreans are equally as good as Starcraft it would make sense to pick a team where each group is equally represented. We all agree with your hypothetical world. When you're ready to leave your hypothetical world and have a serious conversation about the real world let me know.
You absolutely fail to understand the argument. You're pulling the Korean SC argument not because it's a counter to my explanations, but because you have no response to my explanations. You're sidestepping the argument entirely.
|
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?
This is such a flawed argument… you’re giving easy wins to BlackJack with these comments.
Of course on average white people are better at engineering than black people in the USA because on average white people have more money and more parents that went to engineering school. It’s not racist to say that.
To push it even further, even saying things like « on average, white people are naturally better at xxx than black people » isn’t necessarily racist if it’s backed up by enough scientific data. For example I could say « on average black people are naturally better at running fast than white people » and I don’t think I’d be racist.
I have an issue with left leaning people refusing basic facts because I’m left leaning myself and you’re pushing rational people towards the far right with this kind of reasoning.
|
United States41936 Posts
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/23/president-donald-trump-says-hell-demand-that-interest-rates-drop-immediately.html
“I’ll demand that interest rates drop immediately,” Trump said
during the presidential campaign Trump indicated that he should get a say in interest rate decisions.
Speaking later in the day to reporters, Trump said he expects the Fed to listen to him and plans to speak to Powell “at the right time.”
Inflation is back on the menu boys.
This was a very predictable Trump policy, I’ve been saying he was going to do this because of course he’d do this, he did exactly this last time. For those needing an economics refresher, low interest rates move future money into present demand which stimulates the economy by driving up consumer spend. But more money in the economy has a dilutive effect on the money because the supply of goods can’t perfectly mirror the demand for those goods. So it pumps up values and causes big stock market valuations due to cheap cash and stock buybacks but it causes inflation.
He was warned last time that the economy was overheating and that interest rates needed to be raised to avoid inflation. He insisted they be lowered and America had a lot of inflation, though stock valuations were good for those who owned them. And Trump bragged about that because he doesn’t understand the difference between the SP500 valuations and the actual economy.
Biden spent four years doing the thankless work of getting inflation under control just in time for Trump to come back and do it all over again. More debt, more deficit spending, pump up today, let someone else worry about tomorrow.
|
United States41936 Posts
On January 24 2025 10:07 Geiko wrote:
I’m left leaning myself and you’re pushing rational people towards the far right with this kind of reasoning.
This is emphatically a ‘you problem’ and a pretty huge one at that.
Magic Powers says dumb things all the time. It’s just what he does. He’s also on the left side of the spectrum, though he’s far from the best spokesperson for it.
But if you go “Magic Powers said something dumb so maybe Hitler was right” then that’s just telling on yourself. You weren’t ever on the left. It’s like those people who decide that they’re against feminism because a feminist was mean to them one time. If your conviction that women deserve rights is predicated on a given woman being nice to you then you never felt that they should have rights. If your opinion on whether the far right is making some valid points about dehumanizing others is influenced by fucking Magic Powers then that’s on you.
There’s nothing so stupid Magic Powers could say that would make me think that we need to round up all the immigrants. That’s what having actual convictions looks like.
The far right are wrong because they have no solutions to any actual problems facing society, they’re a wholly negative force that seeks reductive hateful answers to complicated questions. They add nothing, they fix nothing, they create nothing. All they can do is destroy, and when destroying one group doesn’t magically fix things they turn on another until they eventually cannibalize their civilization. They’re wrong because they’re morally bankrupt, they have no core values, no respect for human life, no belief in basic human rights such as freedom of association or expression. They require an in group and an out group and that only works if rights are something reserved for the privileged few. They lack any ambition to create a better world, they’re uninspired, small minded, unworthy of leadership. They do not strive, they only take.
Magic Powers can’t make any part of that untrue. It’s not up to him. If Magic Powers somehow gets to overrule your “left leaning” convictions then you’ve chosen to be an idiot’s bitch. Do better. Be better.
|
On January 24 2025 09:51 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 06:31 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 06:22 Magic Powers wrote:On January 24 2025 06:13 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 05:56 KwarK 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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. I didn't say Koreans were inherently better at Starcraft, did I? I said they are better. They are also "overrepresented." According to Magic Powers They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. The idea that any candidate outside of the over-represented group, i.e. a non-Korean, could still be considered "the best candidate" demands you spit in the face of common sense. That's why I wrote the other comment explaining the mathematics behind group bias leading to a lower overall valuation. It requires that both groups are equal to begin with, which is the case in the instance of white and black people applying for the same job. Surely you wouldn't argue that white people are better at, say, engineering than black people? In your hypothetical world where Koreans and non-Koreans are equally as good as Starcraft it would make sense to pick a team where each group is equally represented. We all agree with your hypothetical world. When you're ready to leave your hypothetical world and have a serious conversation about the real world let me know. You absolutely fail to understand the argument. You're pulling the Korean SC argument not because it's a counter to my explanations, but because you have no response to my explanations. You're sidestepping the argument entirely.
Why do you always think your arguments are so deep that nobody understands them? A 5 year old could understand your argument. If you have 2 groups of equal skill but your bias inhibits you from recruiting from one of the groups then you will leave talent on the table, so to speak, that will cause the resulting selection to be inferior to what it could have been. DEI/AA attempts to correct for that.
The counter point is that it's not necessarily true that the 2 groups are of equal skill so if you assume an overrepresentation is due to bias then you could end up with an inferior selection after overcorrecting for that bias. Sometimes African-Americans just crush at basketball. Soviets crush at chess. Koreans crush at Starcraft.
Your response along the lines of "you must think Koreans are inherently better at Starcraft" is where the conversation veers off course. It's a ridiculous response and ironically it's you that can't understand my argument, not the other way around.
|
By the way I want to point out the last time a discussion along the lines of this one came up Baal made the argument that East Asians were tested to have a higher IQ than Europeans and someone made the response of "Of course if you say white people are more intelligent than black people it's going get challenged" even though literally nobody had said that.
This time I made an argument that Koreans are better than non-Koreans at Starcraft and Magic Powers responds with "the idea that white people are more skilled than black people..." even though literally nobody said that either.
|
On January 24 2025 07:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 06:44 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 06:33 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 06:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 06:19 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 05:46 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 05:13 BlackJack wrote: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 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. 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? From the text of Executive order 11246 The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, You cut off the bit where it specified what the action the contractor had to perform was. It was to act to ensure that they’re not discriminating in employment. contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin Nothing in there about quotas or anything. It’s simple and easily understood English. No racial discrimination and no tolerating racial discrimination. If you see racial discrimination you’re required to take action to address it, you can’t just accept it as part of the organization. I never said anything about quotas. I said it led to a plethora of affirmative action regulations that Trump's EO overturned. Affirmative action regulations in other documents that aren’t the one we’re currently discussing that he repealed? He repealed the civil rights EO because it was fine but a different regulation wasn’t? The affirmative action regulations laid out by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs whom the executive order tasks with enforcing EO 11246. These are not "other documents." They are regulations stemming from this executive order. Here is the webpage from the DoL's website detailing some of the regulations authorized by EO 11246 https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/executive-order-11246/regulations Is your position that Trump couldn’t have changed those regulations? Because if not you’re still missing the link between “affirmative action/DEI” (the idea conservatives have) and dismantling the 1965 requirement that federal contractors desegregate.
Why do you find it necessary for him to use a scalpel here when segregation ended decades ago and there's already federal protections against discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, etc.
Or a better question, Why did Democrats in California fight so hard to repeal Proposition 209 which states
The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
Why did Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, Pete Buttegieg, Nancy Pelosi, etc. support repealing a proposition that protected people from discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity and national origin? Maybe you should go after the people actually trying to remove protections against discrimination on the basis of race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
