Jump to content

Bozo_Casanova

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    16337
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Bozo_Casanova

  1. I don't speak for all of corporate America but you should read what 956 wrote about his experience, because that was in line with what I saw in global corporations and Big Tech over the course of about a decade. In other words, I can't honestly say that "the best candidate we can get" was a huge part of the equation when it came to early-mid career promotion, hiring and recruitment. And he's especially dead-on about gay guys not counting.
  2. But, that's not his core complaint. His core complaint is that millenial males, particularly the white ones were individually denied opportunity while the power structure stayed the same. Which is really hard to argue with. Gen X is not millenials. Both of you guys should read and not skim - the essay is not about Gen X or Gen Z - it's about what happened to millenial males over the course of a very specific decade. And I would also say to both of you - you're lawyers and in one of the most gatekept professions there is, and one which exercises more aggressive cultural hygiene and self-protection than any other, with the possible exception of police. In other words, you're part of the power structure. Of course things are mainly the same.
  3. put another way, you didn't read the essay
  4. And that's exactly the reaction I would expect from someone who doesn't read the essay
  5. Lolololol
  6. Yeah I don’t think it’s about DEI, which has become sort of an HR catch-all term. I think the basic thesis is that individual *millennial* white males (again, not GenX, not Boomers) were at a disadvantage without any real population level benefit to disenfranchised or marginalized people or change to the power structure. That’s hard to disagree with from where I sit, and I can think of some pretty egregious examples. The funny thing is that at least based on what I saw during the period, it was a lot like affirmative action at elite universities. At the individual level the people who benefited most were already quite privileged: usually affluent, well connected top university grads who were themselves the children of top university graduates. Indeed, I think he’s writing what he knows about. Plus media loves to talk about itself.
  7. It has a thread now, this isn’t the right place for it
  8. I’ve hesitated to post this, but if people want to engage the topic honestly that would be great. This Jacob Savage essay has gone viral this week and is having a major impact, particularly in right wing and libertarian online spaces. I would encourage those who want to comment here to read the essay before posting. The author suggests that efforts to diversify, while well intentioned had the effect of systematically excluding millennial men, and especially white millennial men from hiring and promotional opportunities in high status or culturally elite professional fields from 2014 through recent times. In other words, that Gen X and Boomer men (almost universally white) got to keep their spots at the top, but millennial white men got frozen out. Predictably, this essay has been latched onto by online progressives and online MAGA to signal their respective audiences. For progressives, this means ridiculing the idea that white male privilege took a holiday (which is not what the essay says). For MAGA, this means banging the drum of racial grievance. Neither are responsive to the point, which rang true to me. I can’t speak for media, journalism or academia first hand, although it seems observationally true when I look at the compositions of staff. But I can say that it aligns with my experience and involvement in hiring and promotional decisions at global corporations and in tech beginning around 2008. I don’t think we thought about the generational component of what we were doing at the time, but looking back it’s clear to me that it had a significant impact, mostly without mitigating benefit.
  9. I’ve been thinking about starting a thread to discuss that Jacob Savage essay because of its vitality and the impact it’s having (or not) on our politics, but I haven’t because I suspect it will just be progressives who haven’t read it reciting the catechisms which is exactly what MAGA is doing with it. But, having read it, it’s not about how the mediocre Mike’s didn’t get a fair shake, which is what progressives and MAGA are flogging to make their usual points. It’s about a very specific window in time and how that impacted a very specific demographic cohort in a very real way.
  10. Maybe he needs to yell some more
  11. Man I like these shirts
  12. Yep, agreed. That said, I get it now. I wasn’t kidding that he honestly reminds me of Julius Irving- a prototypical ABA SF. He’s a rangy, ferocious attacker and on-ball defender* who performs best in motion, who doesn’t shoot particularly well but winds up with relatively high career FG% because of what he can do attacking the basket. Two observations: 1) Asking Flagg to shoot threes is a waste of his talent and a wasted shot. Maybe he can develop but why bother when he can do his best work elsewhere? 2) We need to enjoy him while he lasts and they need to build around him soon. His style of play is going to limit his shelf life a bit and he’s likely going to peak early. * Flagg gets credit but Dr J was underrated defensively despite making a couple of all NBA defense lists and blocking 2 shots a game
  13. Yep, but this 18 year old is doing Dr J shit:
  14. I’m very impressed with anybody getting this one in three Wordle 1,644 4/6 ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
  15. Peak. Well done.
  16. You joke, but I’m going to buy a Murano Cabriolet if I can find one.
  17. The humblest of brags. Save some pussy for the rest of us!
  18. They aren’t inherently bad, in fact, they are great in some specific ways (better fuel efficiency, smoother acceleration, reduced wear and tear on engine and so on. They work really well in tandem with hybrid cars and are great for small cars that primarily do daily commutes. They are also a lot cheaper to put in new cars because they are relatively simple compared to a traditional automatic and turn something very expensive and hard to replace into something hypothetically cheap and easy to replace. On the other hand- they aren’t very robust and do not hold up well in situations that produce high levels of mechanical stress - ie towing and aggressive driving. Because they reduce production costs, and it’s tempting for manufacturers to use them inappropriately or put them in places where they aren’t easy to replace. If I was buying a Corolla or equivalent I wouldn’t think twice about a CVT. But I wouldn’t want one in a truck, and putting CVTs in a hard to reach location and/or selling a bunch of cars with cvts to people with bad credit seems like a bad strategy.
  19. The sad thing is that they aren’t *terrible* cars, notorious CVT issues notwithstanding. Going all-in on subprime and focusing on short-term profitability made them toxic to higher value customers.
  20. Your mom only pays $350 for dick.
  21. Did I miss an hugely disruptive, paradigm shifting scientific breakthrough?
  22. a new reason is born every minute
×
×
  • Create New...