|
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 March 18 2025 14:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
People being adversaries before joining a mutually beneficial alliance is not unheard of in politics. If JD Vance called Trump hitler before becoming his running mate then the correct assumption is that he didn't like Trump but was willing to set aside his difference for his own political aspirations. The wrong assumption is that "hitler" must not have been a criticism but instead some form of flattery.
On March 13 2025 00:33 KwarK wrote: The current VP is serving "Hitler: loyally. Your mistake is in thinking Hitler is a criticism when a Republican says it. It is not.
I haven't heard any Republicans using Hitler in a non-negative way besides Kanye. Even Alex Jones was uncomfortable with that. What's the reason for believing Republicans are down with Hitler now? Because of Musk's salute at the inauguration?
|
On March 18 2025 15:34 EnDeR_ wrote:
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).
I mean every single study has shown that minorities students in ivy league colleges had lower SATs, do I even need sources?
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/e162d5ba536ec7a88fcdf8cdb236367e.png)
That training is ridiculous and useless, if you really want an unbiased result you make a truly blind selecting, you see SAT scores, all the student information, you can't see gender, sexuality or race, but of course this was never their aim, they just pretend it is.
|
Socialist_Kt_elwood needs to remind you that we are having a "cold class war" and the culture war is just a performative stunt to prevent change.
After you done with race and scores, do "Parents Wealth".
Elite colleges have long been filled with the children of the richest families: At Ivy League schools, one in six students has parents in the top 1 percent.
A large new study, released Monday, shows that it has not been because these children had more impressive grades on average or took harder classes. They tended to have higher SAT scores and finely honed résumés, and applied at a higher rate — but they were overrepresented even after accounting for those things. For applicants with the same SAT or ACT score, children from families in the top 1 percent were 34 percent more likely to be admitted than the average applicant, and those from the top 0.1 percent were more than twice as likely to get in.
Article: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html
Study_ https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Paper.pdf
|
Northern Ireland25289 Posts
On March 18 2025 14:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2025 19:45 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 17 2025 09:40 Introvert wrote: I know Trump is making America more unpopular around the world, but I think some of that was inevitable. Trump's rhetoric doesn't help, but things have changed. The United States doesn't have the will, the means, or the capacity to be everywhere anymore. So it makes even less sense for it to be somewhere that should be fine without it. Perhaps things will change again in the future. And again I think it's more damaging long term to both power and prestige for the US to spread itself too thin.
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. Show nested quote +On March 17 2025 12:06 Dan HH wrote:On March 17 2025 09:40 Introvert wrote: Does it actually seem like Russia is going to run out of juice before Ukraine does though? it's a nice thought but I don't know how feasible that is. There will be no Russia/NK/US axis lol, although the US has a dim hope of detaching Russia from China if it can. Not an unprecedented thing, but maybe not super likely. Neither Panama nor Greenland would see any military action I really don't think. Aquring Greenland has been something previous administrations back at least to the 1870s have been interested in iirc. Not as well read on this but given that Ukraine is not in NATO, and in fact has been very consciously kept out, I don't know if how much more of it's credibility it will lose. It's not like Russia is in any sort of state to attack a NATO ally in the first place.
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. The criticism from most isn’t that they fear Trump will actually order an annexation of Greenland, or the 51st State becoming Canada, merely that talking about it so frequently is symptomatic of his rather contemptuous attitudes. Some that are directly reflected in his administration’s policies, or how they go about those policies although, not all to be fair.
Why the fuck bring up annexing Greenland again when you’re meant to be discussing other serious business with NATO’s Secretary General?
It’s not as if it’s the odd faux pas or miscommunication.
I think a lot of this rhetoric is also almost entirely to draw a wedge between Trump’s base, or at least parts of it, and Europe, to prep the ground for yet further disentanglement.
And a lot of it total bollocks, which is irksome. More irksome still is that for some the messaging actually lands.
But hey quite aside from Ukraine, we’ve tariff wars, yay! We’ve high-ranking Trump appointees calling the British Prime Minister and other members of government out for covering up child rape (erroneously). Or sitting on fucking Twitter talking about ‘race war’ that in part incited by his mess of an unmoderated platform allowing erroneous information to spread like wildfire. We’ve the Vice President saying shite like this. And those are just a few that have pissed Brits off, there’s plenty to go around for other European countries don’t worry! Or Canada.
Holy fucking mackerel Batman, there’s something ridiculous basically almost daily. We’re only months in.
As has been repeated before in thread, at both a government, and at a populace level, there is acknowledgement of deficient spending and the ramifications of letting that happen, and movement to redress it. Belatedly perhaps, but it’s been happening.
The UK already exceeded its spending by a decent whack already, it’s boosting it more, cutting some overseas aid to do so. Normally the left would be very vocal about the latter cuts, but opposition has been quite modest as, as I said there’s a general feeling that holes have got to be plugged. Keir Starmer Statement
That aspect, fine. The fuck is the rest of it though? It’s like my landlord raising rent on me. ‘Look you’ve been actually below market rate for a while son, but I like ya kid, wanted to look out for ya! I just can’t afford it no longer, nothing extortionate don’t worry.’ I mean I don’t want to pay more rent, few do, but a reasonable adjustment. So we agree, shake in it.
But then, on occasion when I’m out at work, the landlord starts letting himself into my domicile. Pisses on my bed, shits in fiendishly inventive and hard-to-pinpoint places. Leaves wee sticky notes all over the place, always emblazoned with the same one word, ‘cunt’, in all capitals.
I think a natural reaction to that state of affairs is one part, ‘even if I had wronged you, this is unhinged’, and another part, ‘this is even stranger as I agreed to what you asked!’
|
On March 18 2025 18:04 baal wrote:I mean every single study has shown that minorities students in ivy league colleges had lower SATs, do I even need sources? ![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/e162d5ba536ec7a88fcdf8cdb236367e.png) That training is ridiculous and useless, if you really want an unbiased result you make a truly blind selecting, you see SAT scores, all the student information, you can't see gender, sexuality or race, but of course this was never their aim, they just pretend it is.
Do you think that minority is the only prerequisite they're considering paired with a not too horrendous SAT score? Or do you think they're considering other socio-economic factors? Do you think it's all token based virtue signalling optics for unis? "Come here, we're diverse" The cynic could argue that unis have devolved into diploma mills to extract money from naive coming of age teens. I'd argue there's some grain of truth in that, but having a good reputable institution's stamp on your papers opens many doors as well. So.. how do we even out all these issues, is probably the deeper question.
|
On March 18 2025 18:04 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2025 15:34 EnDeR_ wrote:
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). I mean every single study has shown that minorities students in ivy league colleges had lower SATs, do I even need sources? ![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/e162d5ba536ec7a88fcdf8cdb236367e.png) That training is ridiculous and useless, if you really want an unbiased result you make a truly blind selecting, you see SAT scores, all the student information, you can't see gender, sexuality or race, but of course this was never their aim, they just pretend it is. The argument is roughly that testing is unfair because tests can be prepared for, which inherently biases the results in favor of people who have the means to prepare for them, which is racist because of disparate impact. Instead of accepting that as long as standards exist, there will be people who can and people who can't meet them, the idea is if you are doing a broad societal good by shoehorning people in based on an accounting of immutable protected characteristics rather than blind evaluation. The last 2 or so decades of US education since no child left behind have generally trended towards dumbing down for the lowest common denominators.
The high school I went to also gets pressure from that side of the aisle. The notion is you must be able to produce an admissions test which rates everybody equally on some kind of tabula rasa inherent potential, and the fallacy is if you can't/don't do that, you're doing a racism or God knows what. At every step it fails to realize that education and life don't start at that step. Like to get into medical school not everyone is the same at the stage they take the MCAT. Not everyone is the same when they take the SAT and apply to college. People aren't simply more or less prepared for the test per se, they are more or less prepared for the thing which the test is testing their preparation for.
It certainly sucks for people who live in shitty communities, who come from broken homes, who go to shitty schools, who come from poverty. But the base issues of "how can we promote family unity, clean up communities, fix/replace schools, and improve economic opportunity" which would result in more opportunities for equal preparation involve actual difficult work, which is more difficult than people who go into the field of social engineering and get cushy white collar jobs, even in the public sector, usually care to do. With exceptions.
|
How would you go about changing the playing field to equalize it, oBlade?
|
On March 18 2025 18:04 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2025 15:34 EnDeR_ wrote:
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). I mean every single study has shown that minorities students in ivy league colleges had lower SATs, do I even need sources? ![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/e162d5ba536ec7a88fcdf8cdb236367e.png) That training is ridiculous and useless, if you really want an unbiased result you make a truly blind selecting, you see SAT scores, all the student information, you can't see gender, sexuality or race, but of course this was never their aim, they just pretend it is.
You're talking about admissions. I was talking about hiring colleagues and postdocs.
Admissions have different challenges, where wealthy students are simply able to achieve more than non-wealthy students, no matter what you do. Leveling the playing field is a ginormous challenge with no easy solutions; if you institute quotas, it's bad; if you change entry requirements to account for socioeconomic status, well, it's bad. The main issue is that the achievement gap is big and getting bigger and this has knock-on effects on whose kids then are able to bridge this gap. The way to fix this is to improve outcomes from the bottom up, starting from primary and secondary schools, but this requires investment and this isn't something that most Americans are interested in doing.
I would agree that admissions policy is controversial and arguments can be made in both directions. I wouldn't mind hearing your suggestions on how you can bridge the attainment gap between wealthier students and non-wealthy students.
|
United States42682 Posts
On March 18 2025 18:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2025 14:48 KwarK wrote: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. People being adversaries before joining a mutually beneficial alliance is not unheard of in politics. If JD Vance called Trump hitler before becoming his running mate then the correct assumption is that he didn't like Trump but was willing to set aside his difference for his own political aspirations. The wrong assumption is that "hitler" must not have been a criticism but instead some form of flattery. Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 00:33 KwarK wrote: The current VP is serving "Hitler: loyally. Your mistake is in thinking Hitler is a criticism when a Republican says it. It is not. I haven't heard any Republicans using Hitler in a non-negative way besides Kanye. Even Alex Jones was uncomfortable with that. What's the reason for believing Republicans are down with Hitler now? Because of Musk's salute at the inauguration? Would you join an alliance with "Hitler"? The argument you’re making is that he thought Trump was Hitler but then got offered the chance to join and figured it was worth it due to his own advancement. My point is that joining implies that he doesn’t have such an issue with the Hitler part.
When there is zero context at all then it is reasonable to assume that if you call someone Hitler then you don’t like them. It is generally a bad thing. But when you’re on the team with the Hitler guy and you’re working together to make a pact with Russia that carves Eastern Europe into spheres of influence then it takes a somewhat different meaning.
|
On March 18 2025 15:34 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2025 11:46 baal wrote: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. 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). I think part of the problem with DEI is well there are stats to indicate that it actually helps production, outside of sales where you draw really direct lines, the why it is working is quite nebulous. I often here some sort of wordy explanation about how different people solve things differently blah blah. I think it might be simple enough that when DEI is done properly you are simply hiring the best candidates instead of mediocre ones that fit the traditional look.
That is not to say that BJ's examples and frustrations do not happen ever. It is just that they are the niche cases no symptomatic of some massive problem. Every change has new issues, it is just overall was it better before or now. For the business and under represented groups it is better, for the over represented groups it is worse.
|
On March 18 2025 23:15 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2025 15:34 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 18 2025 11:46 baal wrote: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. 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). I think part of the problem with DEI is well there are stats to indicate that it actually helps production, outside of sales where you draw really direct lines, the why it is working is quite nebulous. I often here some sort of wordy explanation about how different people solve things differently blah blah. I think it might be simple enough that when DEI is done properly you are simply hiring the best candidates instead of mediocre ones that fit the traditional look. That is not to say that BJ's examples and frustrations do not happen ever. It is just that they are the niche cases no symptomatic of some massive problem. Every change has new issues, it is just overall was it better before or now. For the business and under represented groups it is better, for the over represented groups it is worse.
The point of the vast majority of DEI initiatives is to eliminate bias from the selection process. In fact, people driving these programmes in my experience make the very specific point that you shouldn't be hiring someone because of their background but rather because they're the most qualified candidate. That means thinking critically about why you selected a particular candidate during the hiring process.
I've been in a hiring round where we had a really nice white bloke, but rather inexperienced vs a significantly more qualified candidate, but she was perceived as 'bitchy' and 'harder to work with' by a senior panel member (actual words used during the actual meeting). The HR person over-ruled the senior panel member and we ended up with the better candidate, but this kind of illustrated to me how we got to the situation we currently are.
I believe strongly than when trying to solve technical problems, access to a wider variety of perspectives and approaches is likely to reach a more optimal solution. I also think that working in a multicultural environment makes for a much more dynamic workplace where you learn a lot more than just the job you're doing, which makes you happier and more productive (personal experience).
|
As to your last paragraph: It's a similar thought process when people say: solving climate change can wait, focus on getting the world population in its entirety asap out of poverty and malnourishment and the excess of well fed, bright minds that can suddenly think about solving the problem becomes exponentiallly more easy to tackle, if you think a collaborative effort of many smart or well intended individuals can get you there. That's why people crying about curbing developing countries of accessing cheap, but polluting, resources can be a problem when those are the resources that kickstart a civilization. It's like saying: why do you rent when you can buy, do you want to stay poor?
|
I'm a little bit confused by your post, Uldridge. As far as I can tell, you've got two stances on climate change. One which posits that it is an actual emergency and the longer we wait the worse it gets -- i.e. solving climate change can't wait. And, a second, that posits that climate change doesn't exist or can't be influenced by humans or that solving it is too costly so future generations can bear the cost as far as they're concerned.
|
Sorry, I'll clarify. It's not my stance per se, but it's some people's opinion, and I used it to add onto your point about maximizing the pool of potential candidates.
People say, yes, climate change is an issue, but by hampering developing countries access to cheap resources, like we did in the past, they might not find the kickstart they need to get their living standard to a decent level in the time that we need all the people we can to think about solving the problem of climate change. It's doing A first then B, which hurts B but through ingenuity and collaborative effort might be easier to solve. Now we're doing B first and hurting A in the process and it's possible A might either not recover or ever catch up. Best case is doing A and B simultaneously though.
|
On March 18 2025 11:40 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2025 10:50 KwarK wrote:On March 18 2025 10:38 baal wrote:On March 18 2025 07:24 KwarK wrote: Anyone who is only now realizing that DEI means literally anyone not a cis, male, white, christian, able bodied man is the slowest horse in the race. They were not even slightly sublte about it. And anyone who still thinks it's a fringe element using it that way, and not the White House, is slower still. It doesnt mean east asians either since they were not benefited by DEI practices. It's the natual result of any affirmative action program, people will assume that anybody of that benefited group did not earn their position, how about we stop treating races unequally for a change? Hi there slow horse. “DEI” as used by the right has nothing to do with affirmative action or DEI practices. Hopefully that clears it up for you. 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
Would like to point out that this isn't ad-hominem. Ad-hominem is a fallacy where your entire argument is a personal attack; "I disagree with you because your face is dumb". Trump, for instance, is pretty good at this. Kwark is explaining his opinions very well, using evidence when available to back up his position. He's going "Your face is dumb and this is why". You can argue that he's being rude, and..yes, he's a total ass most of the time. But at the end of the day, as long as he can articulate his position and explain why he believes something, it's not a fallacy nor ad-hominem.
|
Northern Ireland25289 Posts
On March 19 2025 03:10 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2025 11:40 baal wrote:On March 18 2025 10:50 KwarK wrote:On March 18 2025 10:38 baal wrote:On March 18 2025 07:24 KwarK wrote: Anyone who is only now realizing that DEI means literally anyone not a cis, male, white, christian, able bodied man is the slowest horse in the race. They were not even slightly sublte about it. And anyone who still thinks it's a fringe element using it that way, and not the White House, is slower still. It doesnt mean east asians either since they were not benefited by DEI practices. It's the natual result of any affirmative action program, people will assume that anybody of that benefited group did not earn their position, how about we stop treating races unequally for a change? Hi there slow horse. “DEI” as used by the right has nothing to do with affirmative action or DEI practices. Hopefully that clears it up for you. 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 Would like to point out that this isn't ad-hominem. Ad-hominem is a fallacy where your entire argument is a personal attack; "I disagree with you because your face is dumb". Trump, for instance, is pretty good at this. Kwark is explaining his opinions very well, using evidence when available to back up his position. He's going "Your face is dumb and this is why". You can argue that he's being rude, and..yes, he's a total ass most of the time. But at the end of the day, as long as he can articulate his position and explain why he believes something, it's not a fallacy nor ad-hominem. Kwark’s a fan of a good old-fashioned insult, hey maybe too much sometimes but it’s nae an ad-hominem.
Along with ‘cognitive dissonance’, argh this is so frequently misapplied!
Anyone else got any pet peeves in this domain? Slippery slope has also gotta be up there.
Hey off-topic but man this thread is unrelentingly depressing of late, albeit just so it can accurately mirror the state of US politics.
|
On March 19 2025 03:26 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2025 03:10 Excludos wrote:On March 18 2025 11:40 baal wrote:On March 18 2025 10:50 KwarK wrote:On March 18 2025 10:38 baal wrote:On March 18 2025 07:24 KwarK wrote: Anyone who is only now realizing that DEI means literally anyone not a cis, male, white, christian, able bodied man is the slowest horse in the race. They were not even slightly sublte about it. And anyone who still thinks it's a fringe element using it that way, and not the White House, is slower still. It doesnt mean east asians either since they were not benefited by DEI practices. It's the natual result of any affirmative action program, people will assume that anybody of that benefited group did not earn their position, how about we stop treating races unequally for a change? Hi there slow horse. “DEI” as used by the right has nothing to do with affirmative action or DEI practices. Hopefully that clears it up for you. 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 Would like to point out that this isn't ad-hominem. Ad-hominem is a fallacy where your entire argument is a personal attack; "I disagree with you because your face is dumb". Trump, for instance, is pretty good at this. Kwark is explaining his opinions very well, using evidence when available to back up his position. He's going "Your face is dumb and this is why". You can argue that he's being rude, and..yes, he's a total ass most of the time. But at the end of the day, as long as he can articulate his position and explain why he believes something, it's not a fallacy nor ad-hominem. Kwark’s a fan of a good old-fashioned insult, hey maybe too much sometimes but it’s nae an ad-hominem. Along with ‘cognitive dissonance’, argh this is so frequently misapplied! Anyone else got any pet peeves in this domain? Slippery slope has also gotta be up there. Hey off-topic but man this thread is unrelentingly depressing of late, albeit just so it can accurately mirror the state of US politics.
There aren't much actual politics to talk about. The Democrats are making sure of that, since they aren't doing anything to stand in the way of Trump advancing whatever agenda he wants.
So all of the political news are either about just what the Trump administration is doing, and they don't give a fuck what anyone thinks about what they are doing, or what judge blocked the Trump administration today and how they are retaliating.
Congress has essentially allowed themselves to become a complete non entity in the last few months. So the only thing to talk about is how much everyone hates what Trump is doing except it doesn't matter because there isn't anything anyone with any power is willing to do to stop it.
|
On March 19 2025 03:31 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2025 03:26 WombaT wrote:On March 19 2025 03:10 Excludos wrote:On March 18 2025 11:40 baal wrote:On March 18 2025 10:50 KwarK wrote:On March 18 2025 10:38 baal wrote:On March 18 2025 07:24 KwarK wrote: Anyone who is only now realizing that DEI means literally anyone not a cis, male, white, christian, able bodied man is the slowest horse in the race. They were not even slightly sublte about it. And anyone who still thinks it's a fringe element using it that way, and not the White House, is slower still. It doesnt mean east asians either since they were not benefited by DEI practices. It's the natual result of any affirmative action program, people will assume that anybody of that benefited group did not earn their position, how about we stop treating races unequally for a change? Hi there slow horse. “DEI” as used by the right has nothing to do with affirmative action or DEI practices. Hopefully that clears it up for you. 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 Would like to point out that this isn't ad-hominem. Ad-hominem is a fallacy where your entire argument is a personal attack; "I disagree with you because your face is dumb". Trump, for instance, is pretty good at this. Kwark is explaining his opinions very well, using evidence when available to back up his position. He's going "Your face is dumb and this is why". You can argue that he's being rude, and..yes, he's a total ass most of the time. But at the end of the day, as long as he can articulate his position and explain why he believes something, it's not a fallacy nor ad-hominem. Kwark’s a fan of a good old-fashioned insult, hey maybe too much sometimes but it’s nae an ad-hominem. Along with ‘cognitive dissonance’, argh this is so frequently misapplied! Anyone else got any pet peeves in this domain? Slippery slope has also gotta be up there. Hey off-topic but man this thread is unrelentingly depressing of late, albeit just so it can accurately mirror the state of US politics. There aren't much actual politics to talk about. The Democrats are making sure of that, since they aren't doing anything to stand in the way of Trump advancing whatever agenda he wants. So all of the political news are either about just what the Trump administration is doing, and they don't give a fuck what anyone thinks about what they are doing, or what judge blocked the Trump administration today and how they are retaliating. Congress has essentially allowed themselves to become a complete non entity in the last few months. So the only thing to talk about is how much everyone hates what Trump is doing except it doesn't matter because there isn't anything anyone with any power is willing to do to stop it.
Is this another one of those "blaming Democrats for Trump's faults?". What exactly are you proposing they do? They have, literally, no power in any of the 3 governing branches or the supreme court. You can perhaps blame them for being naive in their campaign, and that's how we ended up here, but blaming Democrats for what Trump is doing has to stop. They can not stop him. The checks and balances are run by Republicans, and they do not give a shit
|
On March 19 2025 03:31 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2025 03:26 WombaT wrote:On March 19 2025 03:10 Excludos wrote:On March 18 2025 11:40 baal wrote:On March 18 2025 10:50 KwarK wrote:On March 18 2025 10:38 baal wrote:On March 18 2025 07:24 KwarK wrote: Anyone who is only now realizing that DEI means literally anyone not a cis, male, white, christian, able bodied man is the slowest horse in the race. They were not even slightly sublte about it. And anyone who still thinks it's a fringe element using it that way, and not the White House, is slower still. It doesnt mean east asians either since they were not benefited by DEI practices. It's the natual result of any affirmative action program, people will assume that anybody of that benefited group did not earn their position, how about we stop treating races unequally for a change? Hi there slow horse. “DEI” as used by the right has nothing to do with affirmative action or DEI practices. Hopefully that clears it up for you. 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 Would like to point out that this isn't ad-hominem. Ad-hominem is a fallacy where your entire argument is a personal attack; "I disagree with you because your face is dumb". Trump, for instance, is pretty good at this. Kwark is explaining his opinions very well, using evidence when available to back up his position. He's going "Your face is dumb and this is why". You can argue that he's being rude, and..yes, he's a total ass most of the time. But at the end of the day, as long as he can articulate his position and explain why he believes something, it's not a fallacy nor ad-hominem. Kwark’s a fan of a good old-fashioned insult, hey maybe too much sometimes but it’s nae an ad-hominem. Along with ‘cognitive dissonance’, argh this is so frequently misapplied! Anyone else got any pet peeves in this domain? Slippery slope has also gotta be up there. Hey off-topic but man this thread is unrelentingly depressing of late, albeit just so it can accurately mirror the state of US politics. There aren't much actual politics to talk about. The Democrats are making sure of that, since they aren't doing anything to stand in the way of Trump advancing whatever agenda he wants. So all of the political news are either about just what the Trump administration is doing, and they don't give a fuck what anyone thinks about what they are doing, or what judge blocked the Trump administration today and how they are retaliating. Congress has essentially allowed themselves to become a complete non entity in the last few months. So the only thing to talk about is how much everyone hates what Trump is doing except it doesn't matter because there isn't anything anyone with any power is willing to do to stop it. "The Democrats" continue to play their role in wanton obstructionism as you've laid out ("stand in the way"). If they had agendas or goals they might use the art of politics to negotiate with the other side and get some stuff that's good for everybody, but otherwise there's little they can do when they are the minority at every level. However, there's still some areas where they're doing their bit.
1) Wu continues to operate sanctuary policies in Boston in transgression of federal law.
2) Trump has already had as many judicial injunctions against his administration as Biden did in his entire first term. Mostly you can guess the judges' leanings.
3) Despite being the majority in Congress, Republicans do not "control" the Senate in the sense of having a filibuster-proof majority. If you're unfamiliar with the filibuster, it essentially means for most bills and Senate business, outside of budget reconciliation and confirmations, you need a 3/5ths majority to end debate on an issue (hence "cloture" as in close).
Democrats have previously complained that Senate Republicans abolished the filibuster (called the "nuclear option") to jam SCOTUS nominees through. So recent precedent is back to simple majority for nominations. However, Democrats have also previously complained the filibuster is a racist Jim Crow institution and voted to abolish it. Here's the details: + Show Spoiler +
Nevertheless, when push came to shove, many of them chose to rely on that Jim Crow institution as a tool. They have already blocked two bills in the Senate that had a majority of votes in this way. They also employed it to attempt to filibuster the recent budget continuing resolution. This is a budget that extends funding at the same levels that were previously enacted under the Biden administration (which you can find some media describe as a "Trump/Elon slush fund" budget, which is there either a pre-self-aware or extremely self-deprecating Democrat talking point since it was the same as last year when Democrats had more power).
However, they failed to ultimately block the CR in the Senate. Why? It's all opportunistic showboating. On both sides.
In the House, all Democrats voted no except for one (cool), and all Republicans voted yes except for one. On the Democrats' side, the reason they can vote no is their vote has no consequence - because the House operates on simple majority with no parliamentary tradition gentlemen's agreement of the filibuster. So even though the budget failing to pass could theoretically have led to a government shutdown, their vote carries no risk of responsibility for that, because it was already definitely going to pass, and is therefore only a signaling vote against muh fascism. The reason Massie voted no on the Republican side is he rightly realizes the entire party and President have campaigned on cutting spending, and they had months to work out a budget that they could pass with a majority that reduces spending instead of perpetuating Biden's agenda for months. However, Massie's problem is also he only votes "no" when his vote doesn't fucking matter either, like in this case when the budget was clearly going to pass anyway. So it's a symbolic, showboating protest vote.
Rand Paul's no vote in the Senate, for similar reasons, has more meaning because you need more bipartisanship to get to 60 and any vote you lose makes it just that much harder. The issue for Democrats was that unfortunately the Senate have to be adults even if no one else is. And if they all voted "no," they would have clear political blame for 1) blocking a continuation of Biden spending to allegedly oppose Drumpf, which only serves to implicate Biden/Democrat senses of fiscal responsibility if their "fascist slush fund" was so acceptable last year, and for 2) causing a government shutdown, which is what certain Republicans actually want but don't necessarily want to take the political blame for, which would be handing a huge present to that faction. So it doesn't make sense to mindlessly block something that's actually quite reasonable (or at any rate "normal" even if the unreasonable has been normalized). And the other issue of if a shutdown were to actually happen and people culturally realize, like last time, oh the government got shut down and my life didn't change at all, maybe this is all bullshit, that definitely takes points from Democrats and gives them to Republicans.
Nonetheless Rand Paul therefore did more to "stand in the way" of Blumpf than certain Senate Democrats.
In extrapolitical resistance, the people who just today shot, spray painted, and molotoved a Tesla center in Vegas, while I can't deduce their motives exactly, they probably weren't Republicans.
|
If they could all stop voting for Republican stuff that’d be a nice start
|
|
|
|