How we can stop arguing
ilbbaicnl
Keep it in my pants when I do OTC. If I were a stripper it would stand for I like big bucks and I can not lie.
Trump's lawyer said, if the President orders somebody killed, the remedy is impeachment. So Biden orders Trump killed, the House impeaches him, and the Senate acquits him. Everybody's happy.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
42 comments
Trump does not represent the vast majority of Republicans. Don’t make blanket statements
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.
If DEI was that good for a corporation, they wouldn't need to enforce it or tie executive bonuses of it, because it would be its own reward.
DEI is virtue signaling that you're one of the enlightened. It's already on the downswing. If Republicans take power again, it'll downswing further. Hopefully into irrelevance where it belongs.
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?
I recently had a major surgery, and all I cared about was that he was chief of this type of surgery at one of the best hospitals in the country, and most of all, had done 2,000 of these. From his name and appearance, I think he's Jewish. That calmed me. The best physicians I've had have been Jewish, Asian, or Indian, precisely the groups that the DEI crowd want to trim back.
Would you choose a lesser surgeon because they were a member of an underrepresented group? A law school professor got fired for noticing, in a blinded fashion, that the black students clustered at the bottom of the grade distribution. So elevating underqualified students happens. This harms them too by putting them into positions they aren't ready for, and making it rational to distrust them. The solution is to prepare them at earlier stages...look at the inner cities to see what progressive-run education systems do to kids, despite these being some of the highest dollar-per-student in the country.
In the corporate realm, DEI is funded well out of proportion to its value. If it's that valuable, why is it getting scaled back everywhere now? Baby and bathwater, there's no baby, maaaaaybe an embryo in the bathwater, if not just a zygote. What's the DEI value proposition for the corporation? Elsewhere, you've mentioned avoiding discrimination lawsuits...how many actually happen and does DEI eliminate it, or just encourage more people to file them?
Not sure what GWB has to do with DEI, other than to say DEI isn't the only crime against meritocracy. That's nepotism, a different one.
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.
If someone prefers a black doctor, they are free to choose one. They should also know that that doctor was admitted under less stringent standards. They might be just as good...or not. For whom might having someone of the same skin color outweigh?
"DEI done right would lead to more competence not less."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Sc…
Again, you're defining DEI as "whatever is good." In practice, it's a buzzword. Babylon Bee nailed it, as good satire does, with their piece meant to reassure flyers that the 737 Max engine was worked on by the most diverse crew in history. LOL, doesn't that inspire confidence?
Diversity isn't just skin color. They're also talking about increasing diversity including "psychiatric disabilities" in flight crews. Yeah, look up Germanwings Flight 9525 and Andreas Lubitz...that's what I want, someone having a psychotic break flying my plane because "diversity."
DEI is the emperor's new clothes. Until someone is willing to receive inferior (and possibly fatal) service in the name of DEI, I do not take them seriously.
Aptitude in politics is a lot less tied to the SAT than medicine is to MCAT/USMLE. Not a good comparison.
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.
I am. And that's against everything that "equity" (the E in DEI) stands for. Being a physician or pilot (to use the examples I've given) is not a human right or character-building experience, it's a huge responsibility for the lives and well-beings of others that most people are plainly not fit to handle.
A fixed number of med school slots is a zero-sum game. If you're saying that Group A that comprises 10% of the population deserves 20% of the slots, you're taking 10% of the total slots that would go to more qualified individuals and giving them to less-qualified individuals in Group A. Therefore, Group A will be less skilled on average...measure it by MCAT, interviews, extracurriculars, whatever you like, it's usually made into an aggregate score. Group quotas--the definition of equity--are inherently un-meritocratic. Look at the Harvard admissions lawsuit and who gets the biggest shaft of them all...Asians (usually includes both East and South Asians). Harvard has also used hazy "personality" scores to weed out Jews, too. I'm not telling you anything that hasn't been beaten to death in the news.
I'm talking about DEI as it actually takes place, not in the ill-defined "who could possibly be against 'diversity'?" sense. I don't see how it's the mission of, say, IBM or Apple or Merck, to enact social justice or promote racial equality. When they give out money to help underprivileged kids go to college, that's charity (and therefore, marketing, as these are for-profit entities), not their core business function.
Ask yourself why corporations have slashed DEI in the last year.
Is it because racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia is no longer a societal problem?
Is it because a flood of discrimination lawsuits that once hamstrung the company has stopped?
Is it because minorities have finally achieved equal status?
Is it because suddenly these companies have grown callous and depraved?
No, there's no evidence of any of those. The best explanation is that it stopped being profitable.
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.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/div…
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/22/google-m…
Again, if this is such a vital function, why are they being slashed?
The best explanation is that the DEI virtue signal is dropping in value like a lead balloon.
BTW HR has dealt with bias complaints for decades. Nothing necessitates a new function. And yes, DEI activists are pushing companies for senior leadership quotas.
Lol
LOL
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 sincerely apologize for trolling a discussion between two adults. It did not reference or concern me in any way, yet I stuck my nose in because I needed conflict to add some excitement to my boring day. I promise I'll do better in the future."
I think generally the "making white men second class citizens" is overblown, but it's been DEI who was pushing out the Robin DiAngelo/Saira Rao/Ibram X. Kendi (real name Henry Rogers which sounds a lot less exotic) training material that outright calls white people oppressive and literally says "be less white." That I can understand having a problem with.
Ironically, for all I'm not a fan, my company's DEI was very kind after the 10/7 attacks. I'm not Jewish but they held a forum for Jewish employees and allies to speak their minds. I was gobsmacked how many Jewish colleagues had close ties to Israel, including one whose son used to live a mile from one of the kibbutzes that got attacked.
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.
Do you deny that 60 years of affirmative action and preferences had an impact? That too is a loaded question. If it didn't, then it needs to be eliminated (it's a major cause of resentment, too). If it did, then we can call victory and end it.
A charge of "racist" is one of the most serious one can level against another these days. If it's demonstrated, it can remove one from polite society or even one's means of making a living. True racists (outside the tendentious redefinition of the term) are few and far between, and marginalized out of power. "Racism" has been written out of law.
But you can't deny the impact of culture. My black friends tell me as much. The racial wealth gap disappears when you factor in the two-parent household gap. The crime problem is real when black Americans account for 13% of the population (really, it's young black males) but over half the murders, 90% of black-vs-white crimes, and even Jesse Jackson says he's relieved when he sees someone following him on the street and they turn out to be white. Blaming poverty for non-property crimes is demonstrably false progressive nonsense.
Not to mention, non-American blacks thrive under the same system. Some groups like Ghanaians and Nigerians even outperform white Americans. That's culture, despite being the same gene pool and looking the same--they value hard work, education, and family, and kick ass in society as a result.
I don't know what they mean by "being less white," but their influence has been pernicious, referring to things necessary to thrive in society like being on time, hard work, valuing education as "white." Those "advantages" are common to any group that has excelled in society like Chinese, Indians, and Jews.
It's laughable how the DiAngelo's (and other race grifters) talk about "white fragility" or the need to have a national conversation on race. America has discussed this issue to death; what I think they mean is they want us to bow and scrape (and of course funnel dollars) before them. I don't enter into conversations on a presumption that I'm the asshole by accident of my birth. But if they make $2,500 a person telling rich white progressive women that they're racist and horrible and need to do penance, well, a fool and her money are soon parted.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.