Jump to content

Bozo_Casanova

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    16421
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Bozo_Casanova

  1. Worth mentioning that the English who invaded were also French
  2. Is that right? Wow
  3. I should hope so. I repeatedly said it did. My viewpoint “started” because what the author of the essay described aligns with my (and others who also posted) first hand experience as an older person watching/involved in the hiring/promotion/layoff process while we tried to correct historical underrepresentation of women and minorities. I questioned how much we accomplished at the time because it seemed like the people benefitting were already mostly products of extraordinary privilege and it had zero impact on the power structures involved, but I really hadn’t thought about the cost or negative impact in generational terms. Indeed, so I’m not sure what it has to do with what I posted. It would be asinine to suggest that diversity efforts are the primary reason millennials or even millennial males struggle, and it would also be inconsistent with hundreds or perhaps thousands of observations on the labor economy I’ve posted here and in previous incarnations of this community over the last 20+ years. I’m not sure what you think my worldview is. That’s why I asked about my angle.
  4. Ouch: a thread
  5. Get em Yash The 60 Minutes Story Bari Weis spiked
  6. I have no idea what this means. What’s my angle?
  7. Where’s the fun in that?
  8. Neither. It means to sit with them in their feelings, listen, and not argue with them or attempt to explain them away. It’s what separates empathy from sympathy.
  9. Could’ve been a lot worse. apparently “Frodo” was in the mix.
  10. Yes, I agree with you and I made no such proposal that was something we should do in order to get people back into a voting coalition. I think we have to meet people where they are to confort them, and we have to accept the truth of their personal experience do them. But that is a far cry from validating their most corrosive and misplaced resentments. The upshot of the essay, after all, was that minorities and women didn’t do anything wrong. They just got jobs.
  11. I got the impression that he didn’t read it based on his reaction, which seemed to be more of a reflexive response to a light skin, but if you did in fact read it, @wildcat09, I apologize. This: What proposal? Why would anybody ever talk to an angry kid that way? It’s pure projection and totally bizarre.
  12. I dealt with this for years, because I have a very unusual ethnic name. When I was a kid it meant the Church of Christ elders coming to my house to tell my folks we were going to hell, and my grandparents initially refusing to call my by my first name. When I got older it was unreturned phone calls and jobs I didn’t get an interview for. I know a lot of blacks and Hispanics who have been in the same boat and I’m not going to judge anybody for anglicizing their name or using an alternative. I didn’t make that choice personally, because it was their loss, not mine. I’m way past that point now, but I’m glad I didn’t give up my name to accommodate bigotry.
  13. No, because it was sloppy argumentation. You didn’t read the piece before you reacted, and then compensated by putting thoughts and motivations into the minds of people you don’t know, and then proposed a truly bizarre counterfactual scenario that involved me taking a position I wouldn’t. We’ve interacted enough that you know I try to give as good as I get, which is what I did then, too. That’s why i dismissed it that way.
  14. I am not white enough to understand the analogy
  15. Good post. Two things 1) In the bolded above you’re saying they “lost privilege.” I don’t think they had it to lose, but were denied opportunities. It’s a narrow but important distinction, but we agree that the most privileged people did not lose much if anything when efforts were made to establish a level of parity. 2)We haven’t really talked about this, but my own observations of the period was that the people who did benefit were themselves almost always enjoying other forms of privilege - affluent, well connected, etc. To the extent that “greater diversity” was achieved, it came at a cost of making class and power structures even more rigid and impenetrable.
  16. CRT was never going to be dangerous. It's like any other critical academic framework - somewhat self-evident, highly self-referential, analytically useful, and fragile when confronted by ambiguity.
  17. And we would have MUCH more and better cheese. But it would not be great for anybody who was not "heritage American" because the kind of "colorblind nationalism" that is practiced in the real life of France is often quite a bit like like what we see MAGA working towards - a sort of perscriptive cultural American-ness that treats others with deep suspicion. I think you are really dug in, and unfortunately not responding thoughtfully. Again, do you not understand that the consistent theme of what I've posted, including the post you repsonded to is that GenX and Boomer white males did not give up anything or lose any advantage? You're just reciting the catachism here.
  18. No, I'm just not playing along. *Holy strawman, Brisket! Who said they"have it worse than everyone else"? ** Sigh, you are here begging the question. You bolded the word lost and it's important to your point, but did most of them ever have that advantage? I'm not sure. But either way, that isn't even what this is about. What you (ostensibly) read in the essay and from me (who you know personally) is first-hand personal knowlege of millenial men excluded from consideration for jobs and promotional opportunities on the basis of their race and gender, usually by white boomer and Gen X men, and that's significant too. You aren't addressing that at all. Instead, you're sort of vaguely suggesting that it didn't happen, or maybe didn't happen a lot, and if it did, they deserved it because their motivations are bad, ie *** "they want to get back the unfair advantage their predecessors had." I don't buy that. I think most people just want to move up in the world, forward in their career, etc, and there's nothing wrong about wanting that. I said that too, because that's what white progressives don't seem to want to address. You don't care about them getting fucked and said so, to wit:
  19. Indeed, and that’s extremely significant.
  20. This is an aside- by way of background I’ve been a boxing fan my entire life and spent 15 years in boxing gyms on an off, and even did some coaching. I wasn’t any good, but I know what I’m looking at. I will grant Jake Paul a modicum of respect for this one thing: he started late and yet got to the level of a decent local pro. He would be like the 5-6th best heavyweight boxer in DFW, for example. That’s good enough to get your ass beat flat by Anthony Joshua past his prime, but it’s not nothing. I don’t know anything about the sport of kickboxing, but because it has “boxing” on the name and Andrew Tate was apparently a professional kickboxing champion I just assumed he could box well enough to hang with Chase DeMoor, because DeMoor can’t box, like at all. Evidently not.
  21. But what’s in bold above is a core them of the essay and I thought it was provocative. The white males who hold power didn’t lose it, and the ones who were denied opportunity during the period we are discussing never had it.
  22. I’m horrified by most of the Gen Z boys I meet. I’m glad I have daughters. I like to think that if I had a boy I would have done a good job of raising him like @Brisketexan did his (he’s got a good one), but the truth is I think the problem is way beyond parenting. It’s everything. It’s the dismal tide. A pretty ok kid my daughter’s age was at our house and called Andrew Tate “the top G,” and when I responded in an even speaking that Tate was “the opposite of what a man should be” the kid seemed very personally wounded. It was troubling.
  23. This is an excellent post, esp the bolded.
×
×
  • Create New...