All Activity
- Past hour
-
BOOM MOTHER FUCKER - Will Muschamp's Triumphant Return
Wilcox Cummingtonite replied to Nueces River Rat's topic in Football
Engineered by Greg Davis who was a much better OC than the “offensive genius” -
Okay. I can live with that, I guess
-
Oh, you gasped? Painful to watch Democratic leaders and mainstream media continue to believe that we still live in world of institutional norms and the rule of law. We're not getting shit from the Epstein files. The Trump administration is playing along with these "demands" while laughing their fucking ass off. They took over our entire government. The United States of America is now ruled by an authoritarian regime. It's not a threat anymore, it happened. Wake. The. Fuck. Up.
-
Well, same state anyway.
-
I'm sorry but this essay is just so cynical. Using a personal anecdote about having a project passed on in Hollywood as the prologue? What assurance do we have that his pilot was even any good? He received one of the most cliche fucking polite rejection lines, believed it at face value, and that's somehow a data point in support of his conclusion? Part I, centered on "Andrew," is basically the same grievance repackaged. The man was in a dying industry. Once again, I ask, what evidence do we have that this Andrew guy was even any good at his job? Dude, if you are going to be saying shit like this, be man enough to put your name on it. Part II is sort of a mismash of different anecdotes, basically complaining that there was no demand in academia for the niche subjects these particular white millennial men had studied, and heavily implying but never outright saying that the only reason they didn't get the jobs they were finalists for was because they were white men. Part III, back to Hollywood, and we are finally dealing with an anecdote about someone who actually has some evidence of their talent. Still, I wonder if something else was holding "Matt" back professionally, something other than his race and age cohort. Hollywood is notoriously petty and vindictive, and word tends to get around. You piss of the wrong person, or rub them the wrong way, and it's basically curtains for your career. This part in particular: Is that something the showrunner actually told "Matt," or is that creative license on the part of the essayist? I ask because I've seen this play out in Hollywood, where something is progressing and then gets abruptly halted, often by a higher-up. It's usually personal. The above bears all the hallmarks of a "we just really don't want to work with this guy in particular." As is commonly said in the industry, "talent will out." But slightly less well known is that your agent can submit a writing sample that some screener may like, and then when the writing team actually has lunch with you, they realize they'd rather not spend a lot of time with you in a small writer's room, but need a polite way to explain how it got that far but is gonna be a "pass." TV has only gotten better since 2011. Correlation or causation? This is pretty strong evidence that merit isn't being sacrificed when diversity is made a priority. Part IV, the parade of statistics. I agree with the first part, in that it's "not an argument." But it does explain why, when steps are finally taken to remediate the effects of those worse systems of discrimination, the effects are felt so sharply by the people who had historically benefited from that discrimination. The essay so far has failed to rule out a common sense conclusion one could draw from this evidence: that the people "harmed" are "mediocre" at best (and "harmed" is a bit of an excessively dramatic word choice on the part of the essayist). I've yet to see the evidence that these guys actually were better than the people who got hired instead of them. It's a cynical appeal to the losers' desire to believe that they didn't lose fair and square, for which there will always be an audience. Part V returns to the personal anecdote. I suppose it's kind of novel to be pointing the finger at other white men, upset that the Gen Xers were the last ones who could build careers while being mediocre: I call this essay cynical because the essayist proposes absolutely nothing in light of the "problem" it chronicles, fully aware that all of these unanswered questions he's leaving the reader with will almost certainly be filled in by right-wing pundits, opportunistic pundits who will laud the Trump administration's regressive policies and clueless (or equally cynical) consultants who will advise the Democrats to abandon even more of their constituents. And that's what gives the game away.
-
You don’t think he’d drop it?
-
She decommitted from Texas.
-
Indeed. Being poor is another layer -- and a big, fat layer -- in the shit sandwich of American life. It's why I'm a huge fan of community colleges, getting first-gen kids through college and such, etc. Yeah, college isn't for everyone, but damn....it opens the door to the professional classes, and not just for the first generation. For FUTURE generations. An influential teacher who got my dad to think of, and then go to college, is a large part of the reason I'm successful. I had a leg-up because I was born to a college-educated father, with a professional degree and license (nothing fancy, petroleum engineer working for the government, but it was stability, and gave me examples and expectations). But back to whiny white guys, by far the biggest factors crushing them are (1) women have entered the work force, and not just in "women's jobs" like teaching and nursing, but in all manner of professional fields, and (2) women are smart and have an aptitude for the very things that make one successful academically and professionally. E.g., women are much less likely to spend formative educational years in their parents' basement playing COD 12 hours a day. Once we allowed women to compete....they started kicking our asses, and it ain't getting any better for those of us equipped with a dingus. As much as there are strong retrograde impulses in society and government right now, that genie is never going back in the bottle. Get used to it, white guys. Want to do better? Then BE better. You know, the meritocracy you love to shout about, the key first step is "have some fucking merit."
-
Is that a still from a scene Kubrick cut from 2001?
-
You have a source for this?
-
And OU was a rolling ball of butcher knives against shitass mizzou and lsu? OU beating bama was one of the biggest flukes of the year going off the underlying metrics. If not for braindead "but the h2h" ou should have been on the bubble and probably left out.
-
FWIW, the wage gender gap for ages 20-24 is 9.1%. The wage gap for ages 55-64 is 23.4%. So, in total, men still make more than women, for every generation. (US Department of Labor) Black men between 25 and 55 earn an average of $1098 per week. When men in that same age group earn $1426 per week. Hispanics - $1031. Asian men - $1906. (US Bureau of Labor Statistics) I'm afraid I don't have it broken down in smaller segments. Statistically, men still make more money than women in the United States. Statistically white people make more money than black or hispanic people. I'm not saying everything is fair in all situations. It's not. It never was. But it's a massive exaggeration to say Gen whatever white males are the "lost generation" when they still make more money, on average, than their female and black counterparts. Lets say the average hiring process is slanted against white males. To get to that same end result - that they make more money - it means that there are other non-hiring process factors which more than balances out the hiring basis. Part of that may be personal decisions, like which career men or women decide to follow, or who stays home with the kids. (Although those decisions are heavily influenced by the culture at those jobs and which parent makes more money - so, a feedback loop.) Most of it is probably generational issues, which we need to decide if we want to disrupt. (By generational issues, I mean whether their families were wealthy, professional, etc.)
-
Compensation & WFH debate ($120K vs 240K)
Judge Roybeanbag replied to Nice Guy Eddie's topic in Daily Texan
Fuck you I won’t do what you tell me! (Some song I listened to) -
I think an unenthusiastic blowjob from wickline would be hot.
-
-
Nick Saban's hair dye is...a lot.
-
Sorry, Edwards. Same for the Crawford kid.
-
Prime location and timing for the roller coaster to drop.
-
One whore was raised White Trash. Rough part of town. Parents in and out of prison for drug possession/trafficking. Girl is cute, but not a head turner. Ex-husband is an HVAC tech. She is dumber than a sack of hammers. I mean, not being able to find Texas on a map stupid. Second wife was my niece's college roommate at OU. Absolute smoke show. Probably one of the top ten best looking women to ever come out of Granbury. This girl has had every STD known to man. Was even getting tested at the school clinic for HIV. Her ex-husband is a strikingly handsome young man that is probably in the same boat when it comes to STDs. I am pretty sure both have the Herp. CHIEF
-
2025 Texas Coaching/Support Staff Thread
Daichee Bell replied to RaysBoomBoomRoom's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
I'm thinking 2 Pittmans or 1 Poggi. -
2025-26 Houston Rockets Thread - Back to Contention?
Dutchrudder replied to BigOrange1's topic in Basketball
They make ~15% of the revenue of the league, I think they have a reasonable case. The business is growing and the workers want a bigger piece of the pie, nothing crazy about that. The new broadcast rights deal starts in 2026 and will add 2.2 billion over 10 years, which means they should be profitable next year.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... COOKIE MONSTER!