Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    20174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Dahobbs

  1. Yeah, we have to be careful not to conflate different causal events. You can have direct discrimination in hiring practices (e.g., don't hire the black guy). You can have systemic discrimination that prevents individuals from participating but doesn't necessarily require wrongful conduct by hiring firms (e.g., black family is poorer and unable to afford education/opportunities). And you can have internalized beliefs that cause individuals to choose not to participate (e.g., nurses aren't men). The last category can be caused be a discriminatory, internalized cultural belief, but because it is internalized and by that definition self-selective, it is less clear to what extent actions to remediate are appropriate.
  2. Where did you get that he didn't read the piece? He literally talked about it in some detail, including a discussion of the publication. What counter-factual scenario are you referring to? He gave a personal example, and I thought you were all about not dismissing personal experience? It seems pretty clear you didn't actually read his posts. I'd call you a hypocrite, but I don't think the word is sufficient at this point. You owe him an apology. We'll see if you're man enough to do it. Here is his first post in the thread for reference:
  3. I think this is a great opportunity for this discussion to advance. Should we placate @sheeeit's beliefs or address them honestly? Does it help to tell him what he wants to hear or what the evidence actually is? Does empathizing with his plight require us to admit his beliefs are true?
  4. Your analogy had a built-in assumption that the prior system was merit based. It's the same flaw in the original article. My only intention was to bring it out for discussion. The truth is neither system is a pure merit-based system. The question is whether one is more desirable than the other for society in general. Further, there is an error here in conflating all methods of improving equity as operating in the same manner. Some of them may operate by modifying the scoring (e.g., your testing scores example). Others may operate by providing equipment or training. I think the former are going to seem inherently more unfair to other competitors and are more likely to generate resentment.
  5. We know that isn't true. Plenty of studies show that if you put two applicants with the same qualifications, one with a black sounding name and one with a white sounding name, the one with the black sounding will get rejected more often.
  6. Is it? The suggestion is that the initial framework before was entirely skill/merit based. Since we know that isn't true, the analogy is flawed. It's more like they were playing a game of golf where the white guys had a few strokes handicap or maybe got to skip the first few holes. They also may have had better clubs, a caddy, and have played the course previously. The rules changed to remove the handicap and give everyone else slightly more comparable equipment.
  7. You've definitely said that. The question is whether the evidence actually shows it. I'm sure it has happened in particular companies and maybe even in particular industries. And that sucks. As I said in my first posts in this thread, a rush to change can also lead to an outsized and immediate impact. I think poorly implemented policies or ones that had a goal of making significant changes to the diversity of a company in short time frame (e.g., a couple of years) had negative impact on certain groups of workers. But the primary driver of the resentment in the original article appears to be the belief that prior to DEI policies becoming mainstream, the workplace was more fair and meritocracy based. That isn't a call for fair treatment. It is a call for the return of treatment that more favored white males. What is true is that the ones who lost some of the privileges attached with being a white male weren't those that most benefitted from them. And from a certain angle that can be seen as an unfair punishment. It would be fairer to take from those that reaped the awards of privileged, and I've repeatedly advocated that in this thread (despite your insistence that I don't care and want to abandon these people). I have no idea why you derisively dismissed this post, but it is an excellent response that captures both the need for empathy but also why we can't just feed negative beliefs that may not be based in fact.
  8. So, you're just ignoring all of Surly now?
  9. I'm sorry. I didn't realize how personal this topic was for you. I'm now realizing you meant you want someone to listen and empathize with you. I hope you find that person.
  10. He has just been trolling. Something happened to him recently and needs to process. I hope he figures it out.
  11. I don't think this is about anyone but you. You're angry and you want to lash out. You don't want discussion. You don't want solutions. You don't want truth.
  12. I'd really like to hear your solution. Empathize and then.... what? Let's say for a second the problem isn't discrimination against white men. Let's just assume the problem is that a person of lesser ability is angry because their lot in life sucks, and it sucks because our society does a poor job of providing for those with lesser abilities. Do we have to cater to their fantasies that white people are being discriminated against? Or can we try and address the problem of society doing a sucky job of providing for everyone?
  13. You absolutely are. I expressly said earlier in the thread that it is worthy of investigation. I just think it is a different issue than men being discriminated against because they are white males. There may be negative cultural factors there are related to race in some way. Here, we are talking about very different mechanisms. The article and this thread are about hiring practices that are directly related to sex and race. Stopping those would be very different than reversing an internalized choice related to generally societal pressure (assuming that is even happening). What are you babbling about? I agree #1 is required. Are we to ignore #2? What is the point of #1 if we don't move on to solving the problem? As to your second paragraph, I meant it didn't require discussion in this thread. We agree that empathy would be good. Discussion over. Again, is there any answer other than agreeing that white males are being discriminated against that will satisfy you? What is it that you want me to say that I haven't said? Empathy is important. Understanding is important. Listening is important. But if we are to solve a problem, we have to, you know, actually understand what is causing it. For some reasons you have a problem with that last part and it absolutely baffles me.
  14. Did I say they were non problematic? I just said we don't know the cause and it is worthy of investigation. Please stop misrepresenting my posts. I'm getting tired of it.
  15. A non-representative applicant pool may be an indication of a problem, but it isn't prima facie evidence of the cause of the problem. For instance, the vast majority of nurses are female. The cause isn't that men are denied entrance into nursing school, but that did to other cultural and societal factors, men don't choose the nursing profession.
  16. To answer your question another way, you appear to be conflating two different things: 1. Engaging with them and empathizing with their problems, 2. Identifying the root cause of them and addressing. If I'm just providing a friendly ear, I'm obviously not going to try and antagonize someone that is upset. It is perfectly possible to provide empathy without agreeing with them. That first step hardly requires discussion and is mostly passive. But if you want to get to the second step, yes, you need evidence and investigation.
  17. If I'm being asked to address the problem, yes. Are you really saying we should make broad policy decisions without evidence? If it turns out factually they aren't being shafted because of race, does that matter to you?
  18. You're confused. We are open to the possibility they aren't imagined. But I'll still require evidence. That isn't any different than how I treat any other problem.
  19. Ok, so what exactly do you want the response to be? That's where the disconnect is. You keep saying you want the progressive movement to be open to these people. Great. It is. It wants to help everyone. It is just the particular problem may be caused by something different than they think. Helping them means doing something different than what I they think needs to be done. That isn't hand waiving the problem. It is attempting to identify and correct it.
  20. 1. I never said I wasn't concerned about fraud. I've said multiple times that I am and I want it prosecuted. But when an article (or the tween introducing an article from the company publishing it) is misleading, it raises my suspicions about the other parts of it. 2. Thank you for providing a source for the quote. That is what I asked for. As I said, I couldn't find the source for it. I looked up other statements that were less specific, which is why I questioned what the article was referring to. 3. As a lawyer, I'm sensitive to the legal side of this, and the politicization of the DOJ and the justice system more broadly. Fraud is Minnesota is bad for Minnesota. I don't live there so I don't have a real connection or interest in it. Politicization of the justice system is bad everyone, is happening, and this appeared to be an extension of it. It is possible for multiple things to be true at the same time. There can be real and significant fraud and waste in Minnesota, and the weaponization of the justice system to stretch that issue for political gain can also be a significant problem.
  21. How did I misrepresent anything? I was talking about the article and the tweet. I wasn't talking about everything else happening in Minnesota. The tweet by the company that published the article was incorrect and misleading. You've agreed with that. I don't understand why you're upset that I've pointed it out. The article is about two things: 1) 5 new defendants being indicted for a few million dollars in fraud; 2) Suggestions (not even allegations) by the prosecutor that there may be $9 billion in fraud. The $9 billion isn't indicted. It isn't supported by any alleged facts. The sum total of his belief for that statement appears to be a cursory review of some billing data. That's a problem and not proper behavior by an officer of the court.
  22. Feel free to. I don't think it'll change the general conversation if you're still insisting that anecdote be taken as proof of a more generalized problem. If you want to convince me that you're a problem and that you have discriminated in hiring practices, consider me convinced. If you want to convince me your company sucks and discriminates in hiring practices, consider me convinced. Y'all should stop doing that. If you want to convince me that this is happening on a more generalized basis, you'll have to provide actual evidence of that. But really, what would be most helpful is if you would tell me what the fuck answer you're looking for that I haven't already provided. How can I show you I care and empathize with these folks' feelings even if I doubt their conclusions?
  23. Do you think being condescending to everyone is productive? Again, what response are you wanting here? I have said if individual events occurred, that was wrong and should be addressed. What more are you wanting me to say? What is going to satisfy you that I care enough? I just don't think there is evidence that your individual experiences can be generalized more broadly. Maybe you suck. Maybe your company sucks. I don't know. But I'm not going to assume there is some broad discrimination against white males without some sort of statistical evidence to back it up.
  24. No. It is a true and accurate accounting of the amount that has been alleged in court. That is a very significant difference. Not every allegation is true and not every allegation will be proven true. I get that you have your own pet perspective on this. But you're completely misrepresenting what others have said and I don't appreciate it.
  25. I've tried to find an actual quote to back that article up. The statement in the article seems to mispresent what I've seen that Walz said. He agreed it was significant and substantial. I don't think I saw anywhere where he agreed over $1 billion was fraudulent. You're taking the comment out of context. Relatively small was referenced the few million indicted in the original post. I have no issue with this statement generally. I have issue with a US attorney throwing out a bullshit number that isn't supported by evidence. I have issue with a tweet headline that implied it was half the Medicaid program that was fraudulent. These statements are exaggerations and misrepresentations. I can be upset about them AND upset about fraud. They aren't mutually exclusive things. Stop suggesting that is how I view it or how this thread has responded. It is incredibly disingenuous and you're better than that.
×
×
  • Create New...