Jump to content

The Original Greaser Bob

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    2817
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by The Original Greaser Bob

  1. 3 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

    48%, almost half of the respondents, couldn't even come up with a name.

    I don't know why that is necessarily a problem at this juncture. 

    Over the next year or so we will see how many James Talaricos and Pete Bs (white, military, maybe not gay) rise to the surface.

    I don't see AOC as being able to beat a white guy.  Not in this retarded country of ours.

    More importantly, I am not sure why I am certering this stuff.

    Nothing, not even the rain,

    Has such small hands.

  2. 57 minutes ago, Hookem2147 said:

    Different bats, balls, fences have been moved in at the Disch, etc.

    Don't get me started on the giant wimpy gloves players use now.

    baseball.jpg?s=612x612&w=0&k=20&c=hgYwwg

  3. 1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

    I think Pete is by far the most qualified candidate. 

    We can't have anyone this close to Biden.  

    He watched the fucking disaster germinate, and he rode along into the crash. 

    Would I have known better?  Nope. But Dems need to have someone who wouldn't have known better.  Or at least aren't associated with this.

    Sorry - Obama/Biden era is over.  Thank you for your service.

    Kamala, Pete:  Here's to your senate bids and podcast/news panel careers.

  4. 9 hours ago, perfectchaos007 said:

    I want to say UTSA will get swept in the supers, but who knows.

    I want UTSA to go full Cal State Fullerton.

    "UT who?  SA that's who!"

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. Gorsuch concurrence in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case:

     Even beyond all this, the parties debate the availability of alternatives. SFFA contends that both Harvard and UNC could obtain significant racial diversity without resorting to race-based admissions practices. Many other universities across the country, SFFA points out, have sought to do just that by reducing legacy preferences, increasing financial aid, and the like. Brief for Petitioner 85– 86; see also Brief for Oklahoma et al. as Amici Curiae 9– 19.4 As part of its affirmative case, SFFA also submitted evidence that Harvard could nearly replicate the current racial composition of its student body without resorting to race-based practices if it: (1) provided socioeconomically disadvantaged applicants just half of the tip it gives recruited athletes; and (2) eliminated tips for the children of donors, alumni, and faculty. Brief for Petitioner 33–34, 81; see 2 App. in No. 20–1199, at 763–765, 774–775. Doing these two things would barely affect the academic credentials of each incoming class. Brief for Petitioner 33–34. And it would not require Harvard to end tips for recruited athletes, who as a group are much weaker academically than non-athletes.5 At trial, however, Harvard resisted this proposal. Its preferences for the children of donors, alumni, and faculty are no help to applicants who cannot boast of their parents’ good fortune or trips to the alumni tent all their lives. While race-neutral on their face, too, these preferences undoubtedly benefit white and wealthy applicants the most. See 980 F. 3d, at 171. Still, Harvard stands by them. See Brief for Respondent in No. 20–1199, at 52–54; Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 21–1199, at 48–49. A

     

    A discussion of focusing on economic affirmative action and integration.

    Ep. 15: Can Economic Affirmative Action Replace DEI? | Washington Monthly

  6. 10 hours ago, Thatguy said:

    First and foremost pivoting to different wording isn't going to work. You DO understand that this isn't about a demographic that is fatigued with the attention paid to marginalized groups, right? This is a political party that wants to eradicate what they see as inferior humans. They are starting with what they feel they can get away with. Erasing of black history. Using DEI to push black people out of high level spaces.

    You are way, way, way overstating the DEI executive orders.  I've got no issue with the EOs as symbols of all of the evils you are suggesting.  But the required response to those orders for private companies that don't want to rock the boat is absolutely minimal.  And we haven't seen repercussions for those who don't want to make changes.  

    It's absolutely an open question as to whether DEI has a significant impact keeping people in "high level spaces".  The problem with unquestioning support for DEI is that it's unclear whether it has had any significant impact in in getting people to high level spaces and keeping them there. 

    Moving towards economic based affirmative action would be a huge step forward, not back.  Whether or not one wants to carry the vestiges of DEI along with it.

    Anyway, that's my stance.  DEI is fine but not good enough. Dems should take the opportunity to move towards supporting a better, more effective approach to equity in hiring and opportunity.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  7. 1 hour ago, Thatguy said:

    Weird hill to die on. You cannot see the benefits teaching diversity and inclusion would have on not only your employees but how they treat the customers that come through the doors? Fuck a study. Never heard the phrase silence is collusion? 

    No, the argument is that you can still continue to teach these to employees under the EOs. "Inclusion" is not a problem word under the EOs.  Nor is equality or discrimination nor is bias.  So that's not an issue.

    Yes, and the effectiveness of whatever you teach is certainly an issue. Companies have to make decisions about how much time employees are in training, and if the DEI program isn't effective, why have it?

    But the hill I would likely die on, is that politically I think the Dems would be well served to focus all their energy on econmic color blind affirmative action in all sorts of government and private company policies.  I think that is a faster trip to an equitable society, and it doesn't run up against the current discrimination laws we have which have in many ways locked disadvantaged people into an unfair race.

    We CAN discriminate based on economic disadvantage - which if used properly will be more beneficial to historically disadvantaged people of color.

    Let's use that tool to get us to an equitable society. 

  8. 6 hours ago, Tuco said:

    I haven’t argued it needs to be taught in a certain way. .... That’s not because I’m trying “to own MAGA”, but because I believe it is unconscionable to surrender to them as they (successfully) roll back the progress that has been made.

    As to your first statement. Agreed.

    As to the second, I think DEI has been more marketing than actually results, and hence I am thinking that actual lemonade can be made once the Restoration happens.

  9. 1 hour ago, Nivek said:

    If only there were articles on this subject like this, that and this and uh. It's like that and like this and like that and uh.   

    I waw not able to download the first link, but the only article that even pretended to be an academic paper rendered this conclusion: 

    Conclusions and implications.  This study concludes that the majority of the sample companies have publicly stated diversity- related value statements. This suggests that companies have started to realise the importance of emphasising diversity related values. This study also concludes that diversity-related value statements are positively correlated with the financial performance of the sample companies, although their correlation is not statistically significant.

    Which basically says that companies who trumpet diversity and talk the talk may have had positive financial performance.  Maybe.  Which isn't even the question I posed, which was how DEI programs have actually had positive diversity and inclusion EFFECTS.

    And companies can still trumpet their commitment to these values today.  Which again, doesn't answer the questions as to whether the programs themselves are of value or more importantly whether programs aimed at economic disadvantage would have a more positive effect.  

    This study highlights things that work and that aren't a problem under the EOs - mentorship programs and targeted recruiting (yes, you will have to recruit at Georgetown if you are going to recruit at Howard in order to cover your ass - but that's just good business.).  But you can get actual results without being bogged down by the nomenclature.

    Why Diversity Programs Fail

    This kinda puffy piece identifies the problem with the puff pieces you linked to.  The data just isn't there that goes beyond the intuitive and real conclusion that diversity is good, and actually shows the results that DEI programs have achieved.    The end of the article points wo how companies who are interested in diversity equity can do a lot more than lip service in terms of actually getting results. 

    Are Diversity Programs Doomed—Or Ready for a Revamp?

    Although people are spending lots of time criticizing companies for editing their DEI-ish marketing language, in reality I think a lot of those companies behind the scenes are pretty pissed off and actually, finally, thinking of ways to go beyond the marketing. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  10. 6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    Pete Buttigieg is not a pretender. He's a real contender for the nomination.

    I'd vote for Pete in a heartbeat, but his proximity to Biden as a member of the Cabinet may be a tiebreaker, depending on how everything shakes out.  I'm hoping a non-member of the Biden Admin starts rising to the top. 

    Chris Murphy has a good "fuck you" vibe and I'd go with the cadre of Emanuel Bros - three savage jews that won't leave a scrap on MAGA bones.

     

  11. 1 hour ago, Tuco said:

    In fact my position is that details of the policy are irrelevant in the context of allowing the MAGA reaction to dictate the how it is presented, even if nothing materially changes. That’s not because I’m trying “to own MAGA”, but because I believe it is unconscionable to surrender to them as they (successfully) roll back the progress that has been made.

    1) What progress do you feel has been made beyond creation of the DEI industry?  I think there is likely progress.  I just don't think there is very much good data to show any material progress.  I think refocusing opportunity and inclusion to be based on advantages and even quotas based on economic disadvantage would be a far better approach to creating equity and certainly inclusion in hiring in the federal and private sectors. 

    2) We surrendered to MAGA because we allowed them to win.  That's over.  The question is how we act when we retake the legislature, the White House, and after we're all dead, the judiciary.  If we settle for reinstituting the paltry tool that was DEI and an ineffective OFCCP than that is a tragic loss of opportunity.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  12. 1 hour ago, Tuco said:


    I didn’t realize we had to argue that diversity, equality, and inclusion were important.

    No, your argument seems to be that diversity and equality has to be taught and practiced in a certain pre-packaged way -- a way whose effectiveness is of questionable.  And that we moment this administration is gone we need to go back to that exact practice "to own MAGA".

    • Fuck You 2
  13. 10 hours ago, Nivek said:

    Safety is often a platitude and a check box that gets ignored as well. That doesn’t mean it should be disregarded because some company pays it lip service.

    Not a good analogy.

    You son goes out to work on an oil rig first day on the job.  Are you going to worry about his safety or whether he was thinking about whether he is secretly biased against his African American coworker?

    I can remain committed to equality and opportunity without using the specific jargon of equity and diversity.

    I can't be committed to safety without following safety guidelines.

    Finally, there are built in financial disincentives to not following safety policies let alone the finality of death or dismemberment.  

    Your term lip service is appropriate. I think DEI in lots of lip service in many private firms.  To me it almost hides issues of opportunity.  We remove that veil then after this administration is done we can work on the real problem and not put the veil up again as lip service.

    Netted out I see it as an opportunity if discourse and the quality of legislators ever improves.

  14. 4 hours ago, Tuco said:

    Trump wins, and then multiple corporations remove "diversity" and "equality" from their company policies.  You can argue the merits of this or that individual section or subsection of a policy, but, as a whole, this is just corporate cowardice and greed, at the expense of minorities who are significantly underrepresented in the corporate world. 

    I guess I need to see the data on this.  Corporations will continue to be able to "sell" inclusion and basically continue as they have been and try to avoid discrimination lawsuits of all types.  What they are giving up is the D and E of DEI -- nomenclature that fostered a cottage industry that didn't feel particularly successful.

    The question is -- how effective were DEI initiatives pre-Trump II?  I mean, they had to be highly successful, no, guaranteeing equity in the board rooms and in equal pay?

    I think the best argument is that attacks on DEI are symbolic of more serious racial divides that Trump is pushing, but I just don't think making private company employees attend three hours of DEI and unconscious bias classes every year was much more than window dressing. 

    Dems should focus on economic affirmative action that would really mean something.  DEI feels like the "ho hum" being the enemy of "great".

×
×
  • Create New...