How we can stop arguing

This is why we shouldn't listen to Republicans, and certainly not lawyers who are defending Republicans in court.

^^ Trump does not represent the vast majority of Republicans. Don’t make blanket statements

Amazing how progressives bend over for Islamic terrorists, yet feel free to joke about murdering a former President. DEI in action.

Who will win the rando championship of TUSCL, skibum or Dave A? They are both such worthy contenders.

Someone who is mad about the idea of someone joking about one president murdering a former president should not advocate for politicians who want the president to be able to do anything and everything with impunity. Duh. Nothing to do with DEI. Just try, as in put in effort, to be more intelligent and actually take time to consider some of the dumb things you believe instead or reacting to buzzwords.

^Thank you Mr. sloganeering asshole. No one is mad, just pointing out that progressives are hypocritical vermin. Progressives should name all of their children Benedict after the one person in history who best represents their loyalty to this once fine land. Maybe one of you ssholea can go pull a fire alarm like one of your progressive idols did; then you can whine about democracy being in danger and how you are so dei, while you treat women like whores.

Yea ski, it really accoplishes a lot being loyal to "land": youtube.com (actual footage of ski)

Loyalty is only as good as what you are loyal to. Land is neither good nor bad. When you say you are loyal "this fine land", that by itself is meaningless. "DEI" means putting it in practice that all are created equal and have an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As with any great truth, opportunists will bend its meaning in inappropriate ways, and evil people will try to distort its meaning into something bad.

@PT it's just a lot more complicated than that. Part of DEI is outreach to encourage more people to actually apply for medical school or whatever and to take the aptitude tests. And, there isn't some perfect way to measure aptitude for medicine (or pretty much any field). The way to get the best doctors is to admit more people to more medical schools, and then pick the best ones at the internship stage. But you´d probably need more government subsidy of tuition, or at least debt cancellation for those who wash out. Based on my experiences with doctors, I think medical schools must kick out anyone who shows signs of having any common senses. Bigots who want to eliminate any or all approaches to DEI always have to argue based on some simplistic, imaginary world, rather than the real one. DEI can be used as an excuse to do bad things, and that should rightly be criticized and blocked. But only bigots want to use those cases to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Supposedly it's the Ivy League schools that have your wonderful, perfect "standards" that select the best of the best. And that system gave us George W. "Mission Accomplished" Bush. Are you going to claim he got in due to DEI?

So you say you prefer having Jewish doctors. What if a lot of black people prefer to have a black doctor? Shouldn't they have that option?

Admissions, hiring and promotion are done in a mediocre way. When the current system does DEI, it does it in a mediocre way. DEI done right would lead to more competence not less.

When DEI opponents say they'll vote for the political candidate who got the best score on the SAT, then I'll believe they are not motivated by bigotry.

Where is the proof that the best doctors are the ones who scored highest on the MCAT? What is your evidence that DEI makes it harder for specifically Jewish people to get into medical school.

My point is that, why don't you just say you want a meritocracy? Why focus primarily on DEI? If we made sure everyone with the basic qualifications could go to college, that would help DEI. It would also increase the size of the candidate pool for graduate degrees, thus increasing the chances of the most qualified people getting those degrees. I am saying there are both good and bad things that can be called DEI. So the people who oppose any and all efforts at DEI are either ignorant or bigoted or both.

@PT my company has a DEI program. Nobody has said anything about us having to meet quotas in our hiring. It involves training classes, and reporting procedures if there are problems with employees being intolerant of others who are different than them, in ways that don't affect work. The classes teach us stuff like, for example, don't think a job candidate is more qualified because they're Jewish. All very, very similar to my previous job. And, has not been "slashed".

It's ironic how the latest DEI spaz is about female pilots, that they're panicky or something. As explained by Tucker Carlson, among the most hormonal, permanently-on-the-rag people who ever lived. Although lots of evidence it's all an act, to monetize a big part of our large idiot population.

^ you guys really need to get laid, who gives a flying fuck about dei

Wow someone really needs to get laid Lol

^ maybe so, but you still need to get laid LOL

^ My daughter wouldn’t give you a second thought

^ Back off loser you’re treading in dangerous territory

^ just like the jackass you referred to earlier, you’re an idiot. I didn’t attack you nor reference any personal details, yet you think everything is about you. Take a break, you seem to be off your meds.

^ I don’t think so

Yes, most of the DEI budget is for marketing purposes, not actual DEI. So, as the shock at the murder of George Floyd fades, that marketing effort will be dialed back. Really, the main focus of corporate DEI programs is to counter lawsuits for discrimination. There's lots of valid criticisms of DEI programs. But the hysteria that they're making white men second class citizens is ridiculous. Most of the stats indicate that white men still come out ahead of women and non-whites other than Asians.

So you don't think black people in the US are oppressed?

If some started a thread titled "I'm Black American, what are you?", the responses should be "I'm German/Italian/Polish/etc. American". Not "I'm White". The truth is, being white means nothing more than having advantages that all US citizens should have. So if being less white means being ready to share those advantages, seems like a good thing.

The idea that some weak pussy white guy says white people have a privilege, proves their impotent stupidity and weakness, because other than working hard or being born into wealth, no one has privilege. DEI is for weak losers to make themselves feel better. Calling someone a racist is sillier than calling them a doody head, but it has less actual meaning. All the word racist means is that a progressive lost the argument on facts. George Bush, Mr. Mission accomplished was the best President since Reagan. Preferring Jewish doctors is just another way of saying "I want the best chance of having a doctor educated in America, not some foreign land". PUDDY - for the comments you made about 25's daughter you should be ashamed of yourself, you fucking vagina.

The idea that some weak pussy white guy says white people have a privilege, proves their impotent stupidity and weakness, because other than working hard or being born into wealth, no one has privilege. DEI is for weak losers to make themselves feel better. Calling someone a racist is sillier than calling them a doody head, but it has less actual meaning. All the word racist means is that a progressive lost the argument on facts. George Bush, Mr. Mission accomplished was the best President since Reagan. Preferring Jewish doctors is just another way of saying "I want the best chance of having a doctor educated in America, not some foreign land". PUDDY - for the comments you made about 25's daughter you should be ashamed of yourself, you fucking vagina.

"So you don't think black people in the US are oppressed?"

How are they oppressed?

And more importantly, what metrics will we use to determine confidently that they are no longer oppressed? In other words, define "job done, DEI initiatives can be completely removed."

@5footguy econofact.org

We also have unrealistic expectations that poor people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps. So descendants of families that were poor in the past, due to even more pervasive and overt racism, are more likely to be poor not.

@ilbbaicnl

You're still talking about economic conditions though. Is your argument that they are poor due to racism? No doubt some of it is. But what about whites? There are also poor white people (about half as much, as a percentage, versus blacks). And, should we do something about the native americans who were displaced? What about the tribes that those native americans displaced before them? Unfortunately, greed causes humans to conquer, rule, and mistreat others. How far back do we go to "make it right"? How many hundreds of years?

Regarding people who can pull themselves up by their bootstraps... I think about the 125,000 Japanese people who were imprisoned in the US during WW2? What Americans did to them was horrible. Yet, I don't hear Japanese people ever use this as an excuse. They pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and then some.

It sounds a bit condescending when you doubt poor people's ability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. History has shown that people of all economic backgrounds have risen up to challenges. I'm all for helping people. For example, opportunities for education. What can we do to enhance this? If the answer is "more money for government education," I'd point to the current failures of government education and say that throwing more money at the problem may not be the best solution.

Regarding your link: it's not rigorous and doesn't seem to really say much useful to prove your point. It's like a wannabe meta-analysis. In particular:

• "It is hard to measure discrimination. While data on wages is generally consistent with wage differences across groups, it is difficult to prove this is evidence of discrimination."

• "I found results from about half of these studies of discrimination against ethnic, racial, or sexual orientation minorities are not robust when correcting for this possible bias and, in these cases, the original findings of discrimination were reversed."

• "Researchers find evidence of hiring discrimination against people based on race, ethnicity, prior felony convictions, and disability."

I agree on all counts, and it's a whole lot of nothing really.

Yes, some overcome oppression better than others. That seems more like an excuse rather than a reason to seek to end oppression.

Do you kick your dog every day, because it would be condescending to think it wasn't tough enough to take a kick?

You can tell when someone has no real counterargument, when they throw up a lot of smoke, mentioning everything but what they are trying to dispute. My assertion was that black people are oppressed, nothing about who else is or isn't oppressed, the best ways to end the oppression, or how long it will take.

That's a strawman. My statement in no way implies that the oppression was excused, just because some handle it better than others. You pulled that inference right out of your ass.

Your own reference said this: "It is hard to measure discrimination. While data on wages is generally consistent with wage differences across groups, it is difficult to prove this is evidence of discrimination."

You still haven't shown evidence of systemic discrimination or racism, and certainly not evidence that would go so far as "oppression." I acknowledge that blacks were once oppressed as a group, but claim that now they are not, as a group. I'll repeat: as a group. It's on you to actually make an argument before I can counter it, and you haven't done it yet.

No one in this land is oppressed involuntarily by others. Some communities always have voted for the oppressors because they give them an excuse for their failures and encourage them to blame others. The "oppressed" in this country have always voted for their oppressors. If a community never succeeds and yet always votes for the same people, wouldn't that make their failure to thrive their responsibility? Of course it would.