EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4863
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Hat Trick of Today
142 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On March 18 2025 11:36 Hat Trick of Today wrote: The greatest thing about East Asians who thought black people were taking their spots at Ivy League schools is that those people are still not going to get in because the overwhelming majority of people getting in are legacy applicants. There’s a lot to be said about affirmative action being a really flawed solution to a systematic problem but it’s always odd that the same people whinging about its application in higher education never have any beef with legacy hires or applicants getting in through their connections or wealth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences Currently, the Ivy League institutions are estimated to admit 10% to 15% of each entering class using legacy admissions. | ||
|
Hat Trick of Today
142 Posts
OK not overwhelming but 1/10. My point still stands. Same people don’t do anything about fighting legacy hires, odd that they’re only focusing on affirmative action. Maybe there’s something that makes legacy hires different from the affirmative action folks. | ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
On March 18 2025 11:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Academic researchers and Democrats tend to use "DEI" in the original, intended manner: promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, to ensure that unqualified white people (especially straight/cis men) aren't given preferential treatment over qualified minorities. In other words, it's used to combat discrimination. (This is generally a good thing. Have there been fringe examples of overcorrection, such as the occasional ones that BlackJack has pointed out? Sure.) On the other hand, Republicans have been coopting the term to perpetuate discrimination, not reduce it. They've turned DEI into a boogeyman that can be blamed for anything and everything, and then they try to scapegoat minorities so that they can more easily push their white nationalist agenda. KwarK and others have given several examples of this recently, and it's vile and disgusting. Since many conservatives start with the premise that people of color and women and LGBTQ+ members are innately inferior, it resonates with them when Trump and other Republican leaders dismiss all minorities (even qualified ones doing jobs that they're experts in) as illegitimate DEI hires. They use DEI as a racist, sexist dogwhistle - a call to action, to despise and invalidate someone who doesn't look like them. That was not how DEI was applied though, it wasn't through "blind tests/interviews" it was in fact the opposite where race, gender and sexuality was important for hiring practices, for example in Ivy league admission the requirements were vastly different asians being negatively impacted the most. Yes republicans use DEI as a racist dog whistle, and they will keep doing that as long as democrats keep pushing affirmative action programs. If you want people to stop assuming minorities are under-qualified stop creating asymmetric hiring practices by race and conduct blind ones instead. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On March 18 2025 11:46 Hat Trick of Today wrote: OK not overwhelming but 1/10. My point still stands. Same people don’t do anything about fighting legacy hires, odd that they’re only focusing on affirmative action. Maybe there’s something that makes legacy hires different from the affirmative action folks. Probably has something to do with the explosion of DEI initiatives post-George Floyd. Have legacy admissions exploded in popularity in the last few years? Is there anyone in this thread that defends legacy admissions that you want me to call out the same way I mock certain DEI initiatives? It takes two to tango. You can't claim conservatives are inordinately obsessed with DEI when it's overwhelmingly people on the left pushing it. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26031 Posts
On March 18 2025 11:46 Hat Trick of Today wrote: OK not overwhelming but 1/10. My point still stands. Same people don’t do anything about fighting legacy hires, odd that they’re only focusing on affirmative action. Maybe there’s something that makes legacy hires different from the affirmative action folks. I don’t think one can really have a serious conversation about DEI without acknowledging such things, or indeed the metric fuckton of data on discriminatory hiring practices that is out there. If you think we live in a world of 100% merit, if only DEI initiatives didn’t exist you’re either lacking info, or wilfully disingenuous. Hell the UK is so loaded with subtle, or not-so-subtle class signifiers that researchers even found your accent would influence perceptions on intelligence, and actually success rates in job applications. Even if it’s white bloke A and white bloke B with equivalent qualifications. I recognise accent stereotypes do exist elsewhere btw, but trust me they’re particularly pronounced in the UK for various reasons. But yeah pretending DEI isn’t an attempt to fix actual problems is just profoundly uninformed, or unserious stuff, or perhaps worse. One may find the ‘cure’ worse than the poison, and not worth the tradeoff, think there are better mechanisms of equalisation etc, yeah 100% let’s have a conversation there. | ||
KwarK
United States43219 Posts
On March 18 2025 11:40 baal wrote: Could you point out a few instances where east asian men were refered to as DEI hires? About the "slow horse" thing, is ad-hominem cool in this thread? if so things are going to get fun :3 I mean, and please take this as direct actionable feedback on who you are as a person and how you're coming across, have you tried not being such a slow horse? DEI is used as a slur, it has nothing to do with hiring. East Asians are DEIs because they're nonwhites. If you committed a crime in the US they'd be decrying letting so many DEIs (non US nationals like you) enter the country. All but the very slowest horses have worked this out by now. Are you not at least a little comforted that you're a slow horse on the basis of your personal qualities, or lack thereof, and not because of your nationality, skin colour, sex, sexual preference etc.? Hopefully you understand that the process by which I came to this determination has treated you neutrally, fairly, and with due consideration of your lack of merit. For context, here's right wing thought leader and intellectual Laura Loomer explaining that Amy Comey Barrett is a DEI. Laura provides a photo for proof, and when you look at the photo it's undeniably that she is DEI, it's black and white. https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1897356082932306360 | ||
|
Introvert
United States4862 Posts
On March 17 2025 19:45 EnDeR_ wrote: I don't think we are as much in disagreement as it looked at first. I think all of Europe accepts that the US wants to diminish its sphere of influence -- as you put it, you feel like you're spread too thin. I think you're also on board with the point we're making that stopping Putin is just good long-term thinking -- you have said in your post that you support strengthening Ukraine as realistically possible. I have no qualm with any of these. What's your assessment of the way Trump is going about achieving these goals? I would argue that Trump could achieve America's longterm goals without antagonising its allies, but I guess that's just a Euro-centric opinion. As with many things Trump does, I think that even when I agree with it he does it in the worst way possible. He's overly antagonistic (although it often goes both ways) and it's often more chaotic that it should be, harming the thing itself as well as public perception. Trump's only just started, so I'm kind of waiting past the bluster. Perhaps what's happening in Europe could occur in a nicer way, but at the same time maybe a kick in the pants is what's needed. On March 17 2025 12:06 Dan HH wrote: My expectations from the current US admin are very low, yes. Hope they can at least meet those. Some talks about Greenland 150 years ago are not remotely relevant, today Denmark is a partner and an ally of the US and this is the kind of thing I was referring to in regards to NATO's credibility. Having your largest member threaten Denmark and Canada with annexations, threaten to leave every 2 weeks but not actually do it, threaten to stay in but not actually fullfil any call to action - we don't need this. The whole point of NATO is deterrence and right now the US is not offering any credible deterrence but actively undermining it. Ideally they stay in and in 4 years there's people that understand foreign policy in charge again, but the 2nd best option is they pull out rather than erode it from within. NATO's credibility doesn't just affect member states but also non-member partners such as Moldova or Georgia. I don't expect someone from across the ocean to care about some tiny country they've vaguely seen mentioned once every two years but this is important to us here. And then there's the Taiwan issue of course, as Kwark pointed out. Regarding Panama, there was a story a few days ago about Trump asking the Pentagon to draw up plans for a military takeover of the Panama Canal. Could it be a fake leak? Sure. Could it be a real preparation that will never actually be used? Sure. But in my experience everytime he proposed something crazy which was defended as being a joke it turned out to not be a joke and he either did it or attempted to do it and was stopped. So I'm taking this very seriously knowing that if he does do it, the same voices from the US that are now calling it a joke will then call it a brilliant and necessary move rather than seeing it as a red line he crossed. As for Ukraine, the difference is that Ukraine has been fighting for its existence while Russia has been fighting for a luxury. It's not so much that Russia would have ran out of juice first as it is that how much they can squeeze the juicebox is based on those motives. The US didn't run out of juice before the Taliban or the Vietcong, it just wasn't an existential necessity for them to keep pouring it. I can respect much of that. For all Trumps talk that you are worried about, the number of foreign countries he's invaded is quite small, so I'm not as worried about that and the US has other ways of getting what it wants. I think part of credibility is capability, so as I said to KwarK there's a real chance that re-orienting away from Europe in a way that demonstrates seriousness and dedication could be seen as a strong signal, both to China and to Europe. If everyone knows you are a paper tiger than what good is that? Listen there are still (some) conservatives who take a different view. They are now called neocons stuck in the Cold War, ironically a similar critique that Obama had of Romney, famously. But that view is dying. There is a positive though, I don't think many Republicans would really approve of giving Putin whatever he wants. Putin's approval rating among Republicans is still abysmal, as it is among the American populace more broadly, Tucker Carlson's efforts notwithstanding. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11629 Posts
This is part of an ongoing thing the right are doing where they steal words they deem dangerous, and turn them toxic. It started with "fake news". That was originally used against the rightwing bullshit media. But then they noticed that that is a really powerful idea, and abused it so hard that it is nowadays only be used by rightwing bullshit artists to discredit any legitimate media which shows that they are bullshitting. Then there was the whole CRT debacle, where afaik they even stated that this is what they are doing, and intentionally. DEI is just the latest in this line. Rightwing people take words they don't like and intentionally turn them so toxic that no one but them keeps using them. | ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
On March 18 2025 13:15 KwarK wrote: I mean, and please take this as direct actionable feedback on who you are as a person and how you're coming across, have you tried not being such a slow horse? DEI is used as a slur, it has nothing to do with hiring. East Asians are DEIs because they're nonwhites. If you committed a crime in the US they'd be decrying letting so many DEIs (non US nationals like you) enter the country. All but the very slowest horses have worked this out by now. Are you not at least a little comforted that you're a slow horse on the basis of your personal qualities, or lack thereof, and not because of your nationality, skin colour, sex, sexual preference etc.? Hopefully you understand that the process by which I came to this determination has treated you neutrally, fairly, and with due consideration of your lack of merit. And I never said it wasn't, in fact i said it was just 3 posts above.yours, I simply corrected your assertion that it was aimed at anybody not white-male-cis-straight which it isnt, its directed at groups that benefited from DEI, so it didn't include east asians and instead of correcting it you now tripled down. I don't think you are ready for the Kentucky Derby yourself, please take that as direct actionable feedback on who you are as a person and how you're coming across. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43219 Posts
On March 18 2025 14:30 baal wrote: And I never said it wasn't, in fact i said it was just 3 posts above.yours, I simply corrected your assertion that it was aimed at anybody not white-male-cis-straight which it isnt, its directed at groups that benefited from DEI, so it didn't include east asians and instead of correcting it you now tripled down. I don't think you are ready for the Kentucky Derby yourself, please take that as direct actionable feedback on who you are as a person and how you're coming across. East Asians are absolutely DEIs. You're not understanding the term. The thing that gets me about people like you is that you seem not to understand that no matter how hard you simp for them, you'll never be one of them. You understand that they see you as a DEI, right? That you can't ever be more than that. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5765 Posts
On March 18 2025 11:46 Hat Trick of Today wrote: OK not overwhelming but 1/10. My point still stands. Same people don’t do anything about fighting legacy hires, odd that they’re only focusing on affirmative action. Maybe there’s something that makes legacy hires different from the affirmative action folks. Firstly, people don't "do anything" about basically anything at all. The fact that this week's news cycle's Youtube comment spam is about X instead of Y is not changing the world in any direction. "Legacy hires" or legacy admissions are not an expressly political antiracist act of racism being pushed by one political faction, which is why they're opposed less widely or less vocally. Legacy admissions are also slightly different than for example the outright bribery of Hollywood getting their kids into elite universities a few years ago. The proponents of it are quieter, and the arguments against it weaker, so it gets proportionally less focus but it's definitely opposed by people for parallel reasons as affirmative action is. Many universities have gamed it to simply have their cake and eat it too - i.e. if we have the disparate impact of happening to admit more whites as legacy admissions, we can milk them financially, while at the same time counterbalancing it with the explicit discrimination against whites and Asians engendered by affirmative action. On March 18 2025 13:15 KwarK wrote: I mean, and please take this as direct actionable feedback on who you are as a person and how you're coming across, have you tried not being such a slow horse? DEI is used as a slur, it has nothing to do with hiring. East Asians are DEIs because they're nonwhites. If you committed a crime in the US they'd be decrying letting so many DEIs (non US nationals like you) enter the country. All but the very slowest horses have worked this out by now. Are you not at least a little comforted that you're a slow horse on the basis of your personal qualities, or lack thereof, and not because of your nationality, skin colour, sex, sexual preference etc.? Hopefully you understand that the process by which I came to this determination has treated you neutrally, fairly, and with due consideration of your lack of merit. DEI is a slur that has nothing to do with DEI, but calling someone Hitler can't be an insult because Eva Braun called Hitler Hitler. The fastest horse in General, ladies and gentlemen. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43219 Posts
On March 18 2025 14:40 oBlade wrote: DEI is a slur that has nothing to do with DEI, but calling someone Hitler can't be an insult because Eva Braun called Hitler Hitler. The fastest horse in General, ladies and gentlemen. You're not really as stupid as you pretend to be. Calling someone Hitler isn't always an insult because Eva Braun can call Hitler Hitler and not mean it as an insult. The context is key, if the group collectively believes that Hitler is a bad thing to be then implicitly calling someone Hitler is an insult because you're not meant to be Hitler. If the group is actually fine with Hitler, or even pro-Hitler, then calling someone Hitler takes on a very different meaning. So to take your example, yes, I was absolutely right, when Eva Braun calls Hitler Hitler she is not using it as an insult. We can see from the context that she doesn't have a problem with the man she is calling Hitler and therefore we cannot infer that it is being used negatively. You attempted to make the argument that JD Vance must be a political adversary of Trump because he called Trump Hitler. In that argument you asked us to ignore the evidence of our eyes, that Trump and JD Vance are clearly a team, and instead apply only the implicit assumption that, assuming no additional context, Hitler is someone not to be like. I pointed out that it's only an insult if you assume that the person views Hitler negatively and that while that assumption may normally be reasonable it is probably not reasonable when applied to Hitler's (or in this context Trump's) literal team members of which JD Vance is one. You were literally arguing that JD Vance and Trump are adversaries buddy. There isn't a version of this where I go "you know what, you're right, they're not on the same team". Both names were literally on the ticket. | ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
On March 18 2025 14:38 KwarK wrote: East Asians are absolutely DEIs. You're not understanding the term. The thing that gets me about people like you is that you seem not to understand that no matter how hard you simp for them, you'll never be one of them. You understand that they see you as a DEI, right? That you can't ever be more than that. I've personally never seen anyone calling an east asian man DEI, actually now that I think of it neither to jews. lol wtf, who am I simping to? you think I point out that asian and jewish men aren't insulted with DEI because I'm somehow trying to be accepted in the ethnonationalists circles? LMAO | ||
|
oBlade
United States5765 Posts
On March 18 2025 14:48 KwarK wrote: You were literally arguing that JD Vance and Trump are adversaries buddy. There isn't a version of this where I go "you know what, you're right, they're not on the same team". Both names were literally on the ticket. To adopt your framework for convenience, I was "literally arguing" that they were adversaries, which is uncontroversial among those of us who have developed temporal cognition. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43219 Posts
On March 18 2025 14:58 baal wrote: I've personally never seen anyone calling an east asian man DEI, actually now that I think of it neither to jews. lol wtf, who am I simping to? you think I point out that asian and jewish men aren't insulted with DEI because I'm somehow trying to be accepted in the ethnonationalists circles? LMAO Your posts radiate big "pick me sir" energy. From "the US should totally invade Mexico" to "well personally I think the real problem is white men having it too difficult when applying for jobs". | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2774 Posts
On March 18 2025 11:46 baal wrote: That was not how DEI was applied though, it wasn't through "blind tests/interviews" it was in fact the opposite where race, gender and sexuality was important for hiring practices, for example in Ivy league admission the requirements were vastly different asians being negatively impacted the most. Yes republicans use DEI as a racist dog whistle, and they will keep doing that as long as democrats keep pushing affirmative action programs. If you want people to stop assuming minorities are under-qualified stop creating asymmetric hiring practices by race and conduct blind ones instead. It's odd that you say this. I work at a prestigious higher education institution, let's call it a fortress of wokesitude, and this has not been my experience in the slightest. The DEI initiative pushed by the department was always centred on removing bias from hiring practices. We had to go do a bunch of training and lots of sessions about unconscious bias. We had stuff like 'dont judge people based on how they look' with hamfisted examples like showing the picture of some normal looking white man and asking us what profession we thought they had (spoilers it was a serial killer), and then one of a scruffy looking black man (spoilers doctor). We also had multiple choice questions like 'Latifa, a black mother of three and Jack, a married white man, are applying for the same post. Who should get it?' A. We must increase representation, so Latifa should get it. B. The most qualified candidate should get it. (In case it wasn't clear, this was the correct answer). | ||
|
KwarK
United States43219 Posts
On March 18 2025 14:58 oBlade wrote: To adopt your framework for convenience, I was "literally arguing" that they were adversaries, which is uncontroversial among those of us who have developed temporal cognition. Well in that case Eva Braun and Hitler are enemies, given that at the end he killed her. The absurdity of this being the point, you can't just proclaim that people are adversaries based on one instance and demand that we ignore everything else that happened. | ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
On March 18 2025 15:26 KwarK wrote: Your posts radiate big "pick me sir" energy. From "the US should totally invade Mexico" to "well personally I think the real problem is white men having it too difficult when applying for jobs". Well I live in México, the cartel violence isn't some foreign concept I use in forums to talk about something I don't know about. Just to give you a little glimpse last week they found an extermination camp where they cremated in ovens and the clothing of 400 people were found, witnesses said that over 1,500 people have been killed there, kids are kidnapped trained and forced to fight to the death with their friends, the survivors are forced to join the cartels. But sure I want US intervention because I want some random rednecks to like me or something ![[image loading]](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/ea7e/live/79a30340-0116-11f0-9110-3fefe805d8f1.jpg) https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly8gv7j5gyo | ||
|
oBlade
United States5765 Posts
On March 18 2025 15:39 KwarK wrote: Well in that case Eva Braun and Hitler are enemies, given that at the end he killed her. The absurdity of this being the point, you can't just proclaim that people are adversaries based on one instance and demand that we ignore everything else that happened. I didn't demand anything. If you feel demanded, it's a burden of your own doing. This is so easy to riff on since you insist on reality-perpendicularism. They "are" not anything now, except for dead. You could certainly make an argument that he was her "enemy" at the time she was being killed, assuming that was against her wishes, I don't know the particular story that well and probably nobody has access to her last thoughts. But the simple act of killing, intentional or not, isn't sufficient to classify someone as an enemy. For example if your mother drops a piano on your head by accident, or if a doctor were to get you some humane euthanasia during a terminal illness. At any rate, stating that Hitler was a bachelor at one time is not denialism of the fact that he later married Eva Braun, nor does it make any such demands of you. | ||
| ||
