sheeeit
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by sheeeit
-
-
32 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:
Ignore the reply where I noted that it very much depends on what the firm does/specializes in. Different practices often have different ethnic mixes of the candidates who are interested in that practice. Zero racism by the hiring firm necessary, the pool of M&A candidates is gonna be a lot whiter than the pool of family law or even litigation candidates.
I did not ignore this. The guy who made the post can answer for himself. But in my close circle of friends and family there is an unusual high percentage of lawyers. I am not aware of any firm (especially firms that hire 10 or so summer interns each year) that are practice specific. Virtually all have a variety of practice specialties within the firm. And the vast amount of law school students do not know what they want to specialize in while in school. Some obviously do but most do not.
-
Edited by sheeeit
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said: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?
You could just answer the question. These aren't my "beliefs". Tell me the evidence.
2 hours ago, Vegas64 said:I know you aren't asking me, but I would hazard a guess:
- He works at a good law firm.
- There are a TON of crappy law schools. Tier 3 and 4 level rankings nationally.
- The majority of the racial/ethical minorities that make up your stat come from the law schools that accept anyone with a BA from any schools and arent generally competitive. A lot of the aforementioned are first generation college students who probably didn't go to prestige undergrad.
- The recruiting of a top law firm still targets top targets (undergrads) which still over-represent white (but probably now skew more women).
But this just isn't true. To your points:
1) I do not understand this one. He works for a good law firm so they do not hire minorities? Pretty racist.
2) No idea what crappy law schools have to do with anything.
3) Just not true at all. By most rankings, the best law schools in Texas are UT, Baylor, SMU and A&M. By Brisket's display, on average there are around 35% minorities in those schools.
4) So you are saying top law firms are racists? This isn't a gender question. I am fully aware of women increasing in law school as my daughter is in law school. That has nothing to do with that guys firm having a virtually all white summer intern group for 3 years.
-
1 hour ago, aggie08 said:
What part didn't you understand? You said you got certain advancements because you were a number of things and white. I am asking if you truly believe that you got advancements over people who had the exact same other attributes that you have but were not white? Other people that were tall, good looking, good engineers, socially competent but not white? Direct apples to apples comparison. It is a yes or no type question. And if the answer is yes, then you admit you work for a racist group.
-
21 hours ago, wildcat09 said:
Fewer boys are applying for colleges for a very simple reason: more girls are. There’s a type of male (conservative) who wants absolutely nothing to do with anything that woman do. We’ve seen this in various professions (e.g. teaching and nursing) and now we’re seeing it in education.
They’re not being denied opportunities, they’re refusing them. Because they have shitty parents that instill shitty values in them. There’s not an equivalent to Title IX that can fix that.
Lulz. So according to this logic, shitty parents only have sons and good parents only have daughters?
-
On 12/20/2025 at 6:30 PM, aggie08 said:
I qualify as a millennial (about to cross 40), and I'm pretty comfortable admitting that some of my career advancements have come, in part, to me being a tall, relatively handsome, socially competent white dude. Mechanical Engineer FWIW.
If we're throwing around isolated anecdotes.
This is just so much bullshit. You honestly believe that you have had advancements over other tall, relatively handsome, socially competent male minority engineers? So you admit you are fine working for a racist organization?
-
On 12/20/2025 at 9:51 AM, wildcat09 said:
I don't think this really happened. I think a much more accurate description of the story this author is telling and that you're buying is that in the pivot to try to diversify, some employers in certain fields adopted poorly-considered hiring and promotion policies that were moderately discriminatory against white men. I don't think it qualified as "en masse" and I think it's likely that more often than not, they weren't actually discriminatory against white men to any substantive degree, but mediocre white men felt discriminated against because they no longer had it as easy as they used to.
Jacob Savage is a mediocre writer with an axe to grind. Compact Mag is a reactionary centrist rag with a clear agenda. The essay even acknowledges that the biggest problem in the industry is its severe contraction, but they want to focus on the race angle because their agenda is to cater to entitled white boys with imagined grievances. I also question the truthfulness and accuracy of much of the piece, for the same reasons other posters have already addressed.
Over the last 3 years, we've had around 30 summer clerks come through our firm. Most have been white and it's probably been a couple more women than men. Of the 30 or so clerks we've had, there's only been 4 who've been below standard. Their quality of work was poor (one even turned in a clearly-AI generated memorandum that was not responsive to the assignment), they were arrogant and rude to their peers (and sometimes even to attorneys at the firm), one got belligerently drunk at a firm happy hour, etc. They were all straight white men. They were boys who hadn't grown up. But we've never had any issues with any of the other clerks (many of whom were also straight white men). Everyone else was capable of behaving like adults, in the office and socially, did great work, and will be good lawyers. Of those ~26 good clerks, we've hired 5. Despite being good to great candidates, we couldn't hire the rest. I'm pretty sure that one of the bad clerks thinks he didn't get an offer because he imagined that we'd decided we needed to hire more women. I suspect the others have the same or similar thoughts about why they weren't hired. Is this just a tiny sample size in a unique industry? Sure. Is it any less representative of larger trends than the anecdotes in the Compact essay? Not really.
Despite its whining, the essay does describe a shift that has happened and impacted mostly millennials, as Bozo notes. That change was bound to happen though, given the greater diversity of our generation and numerous other factors. 2020 got a little wacky in response to the George Floyd protests, but that was the mother of all outliers. It's still much easier to be a white man in America than it is to be anything else. It might not be as easy as it used to be for white millennial men in media as was for prior generations, but that's less about them being white and more about them being in an industry that's an absolute nightmare to break through in for anyone. If you're an entitled, mediocre white man who thinks you deserve to get a spot on the NY Times op-ed page before you're 30 or get your first screenplay greenlit or whatever, of course you're going to be fucked.
Bozo, I know you've been spending a lot of time monitoring what the right is saying these days and that you've been thinking through how to combat their messaging to white men. I could be wrong here, but the sense I get from your posting is that you think we need to acknowledge in our messaging that they've been screwed over by well-intentioned progressive policies. I think that would be a mistake. One thing that I don't think has been discussed here, is that though this essay described a phenomena that affected millennials, millennials still hold the most progressive views on diversity of any generation. Most white millennial men who've lived through what has been described are generally fine with their lot in life and think that phenomena was generally good. The rise in racism among younger people has been among Gen Z and Gen Alpha, not millennials. That's not because they've been discriminated against in hiring, that's because the GOP, the richest people on earth, and much of the mainstream media and alternate "centrist" media like Compact Mag and the Free Press all tell them they're being and are going to continue to be discriminated against.
Do I have a great idea about how to counter that? Not really. But the most important thing in trying to reach that demographic is not validating that messaging. What we probably need is a not-insane Jordan Peterson of the left, who can tell them to make their bed and stand up straight and learn to act like fucking adults.
I think this is a very interesting post. You say your firm has had 30 or so summer interns over the last 3 years and that most of them have been white. I don't know if your firm is in Texas or not, but in 2022 42% of law school students in Texas were from "racial/ethnic minorities" and nationally it is around 35%.
So why did your firm mostly have white summer interns? If we are to believe the vast majority of posters on this thread, you must work at a GOP dominated racist/white supremacist law firm?
Based on your post history, I seriously doubt you work for a racist/white supremacist firm. But if we are to believe the Briskets of this topic, you must.
So I am curious what the answer is?
-
8 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:
Let's be clear on what is currently happening right now with regards to ICE detentions and deportations. We were told by multiple levels of executive agencies from the Supreme executive all the way down to local law enforcement that there would be a focus on deporting criminals. I don't think that is something most people have a problem with. If you come here illegally and then go on to commit a bunch of crimes, then that probably wears on the patience of even the more liberal bent Americans. But that is not what is happening. I know from personal experience that the local law enforcement is just looking for any reason to pull over any vehicle they can find that looks like it may have illegal immigrants in it and then handing them over to ICE. My father in law has a landscape business. His workers got stopped for some made up reason in Smith County, and despite not being criminals, ended up with an express paid trip back to Mexico. These were otherwise law abiding guys just trying to make a better life for themselves in a place with actual opportunity for future generations. One, who had worked faithfully for him for like fifteen years, left behind a pregnant wife and an infant. All of my father in law's clients acted shocked that that had happened (not sure why they were shocked, the writing was on the wall when they voted for it). I had to spend my week off last month help out to keep him afloat instead of hunting the rut.
The economic fallout from policies like this is going to be catastrophic. Landscape, construction, and restaurant businesses are all going to go under because they cannot get workers to come to work when they are under the threat of having the life they have built up imploded. There is nobody reliable to fill the void. So we are going to be left with massive small business closure and a huge increase in the cost of living due to the related inflation. All due to the idea of brown people = bad. And that doesn't even get into the increase in crime you foster when a whole group of your population is afraid to call the police to report any crime that has been commited on them. We've essentially declared open season on brown people to the more criminal elements of our society.
Again, most people probably don't have an issue sending the actual criminals back, but when you start indiscriminately sending the hard working people just trying to make a new life for themselves and their family back for "reasons" then you are going to end up with some serious economic problems that are going to negatively affect everyone.
Lulz. I know it is going to be very hard for some but try and realize this is not a whataboutism. I think it was wrong then and now, but for some unknown reason most of you want to forget the past. Your post is emotional drivel.
When Obama deported several million, guess what? Everyone's lawn got mowed, restaurants still flourished, construction was and still is at an all time high.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TTLCONS
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MRTSSM7225USN
Obama did the exact same thing Trump is doing.
Going after criminals?
"The principal finding of the Times investigation is a damning indictment of an administration that has claimed repeatedly to be targeting the worst of the worst violent, foreign-born criminals. In reality, according to the Times analysis, “two-thirds of the nearly two million deportation cases involve people who had committed minor infractions, including traffic violations, or had no criminal record at all.” In contrast, only “twenty percent—or about 394,000—of the cases involved people convicted of serious crimes, including drug-related offenses, the records show.”
Family separation?
"The Obama administration doubled down on one of its worst immigration legacies: the return and expansion of family detention. Responding to a court order holding that its family detention camps violated the 1997 Flores settlement agreement, the Obama administration Friday again defended family detention as necessary to send a message to Central American families that they are not welcome here—even though it concedes that most of them are fleeing persecution."
Due process?
https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/speed-over-fairness-deportation-under-obama
Raids? Targeting non criminals?
https://www.immigrantdefenseproject.org/media-roundup-ice-raids/
"The Obama administration confirmed Monday that it began a new wave of arrests of Central American immigrant families over the weekend, moving forward with deportations of mothers and children despite an outcry from immigrant rights groups and potential political fallout for Democrats."
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/obama-family-deportation-raids-217329
US citizens?
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna45665156
Asylum?
. "In every case, the Obama administration has argued that it can deport asylum-seekers without any oversight or review from the federal courts. This practice deprives asylum-seekers of their constitutional right to challenge their deportation orders in federal court. "
Again, I don't Iike a lot of this now and didn't like it then. But even though the Obama admin did exactly the same thing Trump is doing and on a LARGER scale, none of you called Obama/Biden/Jeh Johnson- ethnic cleansers/xenophobic/brown people are bad/fascists etc. Yet they treated hispanic immigrants exactly the same.
-
I like the experience and fully embrace its future. My only complaint was my car needing to merge onto a busy street. I sat for at least 20 minutes waiting. I didn’t know what to do. I called people to ask. Horns blaring behind me. A few cars behind us passed in on the shoulder to merge. At one point I was going to get out and walk. It was actually pretty stressful. I’m sure they can tweak this and they need to.
-
-
-
-
On 9/18/2025 at 6:41 PM, sheeeit said:
I like some sports radio.
Listening to some Stones. This sounds blasphemous but fuck Keith Richards for shitting on Mick. Dude was a fantastic lyricist and top 10 all time vocal/frontman.
I’m sure Mick was pretentious but you just can not deny his talent. Overall, Mick is more of a savant in his lane than Richard’s is in his. Pains me. But maybe not.
-
On 9/22/2025 at 8:26 PM, RDCanecutter said:
Fooled. Pantsed. Suckered.
I am used to flushing out the run of the mill Calcutta boiler room flunky. Guys who claim they're from my credit union but don't know which state it's in.
But like Bama playing a year of Chattanoogas, I got punched in the gut coming up against real competition. They had texted me a couple of days ago from my credit union's number, as my credit union does any time I do an unusual transaction. Something about somebody trying to log in fron a second phone #. Type "No" if it's not you. "No." Forget about it.
They'd laid the groundwork that they and I were working together, against crime. I shoulda called back to talk to a person, but I get this stuff a fair amount as I roam the land.
Tonight I get a call about the same "infiltration" attempt. Person on the phone, vague American accent, slightly huffy. No doubt AI looking back. When I ask them where my credit union is, they misdirect and answer something else. Happens twice. Third time they tell me the town, Obvious now that they stalled and googled it. This is where I fumbled the ball, shoulda just hung up. At the very least, say bye and then call my credit union's number on my own. But for some reason thinking I just had a snitty employee on the phone that I had offended, I kept talking.
After all, they were just trying to help me.
For the rest of it I was a sheep led to slaughter. They texted me a log in to my account, me, brain turned off, signed in. Then (to howling laughter now) they explained how they'd be contacting the Feds as well as state authorities, so maybe don't log in for a day or two as they'd be looking for pings to hunt down the suspect and they didn't want me to muddy the trail. Even in my brain-washed state my instincts said "Wut th'FUCK" at that, while my rational brain said "No, stop that, they're trying to HELP us..."
About 5 minutes later I get a call back from a very human, slightly frazzled person who says she's credit union security. She knows where my credit union is, she sounds like she lives there, and she knows how to pronounce the weird street name it's on, I'm still burnt but I wave her into the compound. Turns out the bastards were running transactions through my credit card into my checking, about 2,000 at a time, she put a hold on it before it got astronomical.
Now my bank account is locked up. In the morning I'll call the credit union and we'll do the good ol' police report/start a new account thing.
Got got gotdammit. I had a simple trick for sussing out scammers, they failed the test, and I let em in the door anyway.
I thought for sure this was a bit. Lost a little respect you fell for this.
-
16 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:
So... what point did you think I missed? I simply pointed out that even if they cleared it with the refs, those refs would have been incorrect. That is a hideout play and has been against the rules for like 70 years. Regardless of whatever those specific refs said that play was against the rules and should have been flagged.
I don't think we disagree. All I said was that the rule is subjective and if a team asks for clarification on a specific play and the refs ok it, then I do not fault the team for running it.
-
11 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:
Myself
I doubt that's what happened in this game unless the officials on that particular crew are retarded.
Well that was the whole point of the hypothetical. The OU play by play guys said OU specifically told the refs pregame what they intended to do. I said to pretend it was some other team because OU doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. The refs said ok. They ran the play.
I have no idea if they really did ask the refs pregame. I just posited that if they did ask them pregame, it would change my opinion on whether it was cheating or not.
If you tell a coach something is not against the rules, you would be pretty hypocritical to then blame the coach when the play worked and the other team was pissed.
I have a hard time believing that if a coach asked you personally about a particular play before a game and you told the coach it was not a penalty, and then the coach ran the play, that you would call them dirty. It didn't happen in game speed. You as the ref had no distractions when explained what the play would be. You had time to talk about it with your other refs. If you would still say the play was dirty then we just disagree.
-
13 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:
LET THIS DUMB ASS RETARD KNOW!
LOL. Take your ritalin. I assume you guys know that it is routine for teams to talk to officials before the game and tell them about potential trick plays they intend to use (reverses, double passes, fake field goals etc) so the refs know it is coming and know what to look for from a rules standpoint. I already said it seemed shady at first. I guess I am having a hard time blaming the team when they told the refs before it happened. The refs knew the rules. Blame them or blame Auburn for being stupid.
If the conversation with the refs was that they noticed the Auburn DB talks a lot of shit and that they were going to have their slot receiver try and bait the DB into losing focus, is that a penalty?
28 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:As officials, we were instructed that if a player runs out wide past the numbers, chances are he's "simulating being taken out or substituted". That's exactly what OU did. Intentionally trying to deceive the defense (and the officials).
Solid point. So if a team came to you as an official before the game and explained exactly what they were going to do and you said it was not a penalty, who do you blame?
-
8 minutes ago, Codaxx said:
"If properly officiated, the second down play should have resulted in an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty of 15 yards assessed from the previous spot," the conference said. "Appropriate accountability will be applied without additional comment."
The statement referred to NCAA football rule G-2, Article 2, related to "unfair tactics."
"No simulated replacements or substitutions may be used to confuse opponents," the rule states. "No tactic associated with substitutions or the substitutions process may be used to confuse the opponent. This includes any hideout tactic with or without a substitution."
SEC is pretty clear on how they feel the play should have been officiated and how they expect it to be officiated in the future. I underlined the important aspect of the rule.
OK. I read that. The dude walked right in front of the defender. In a no huddle situation. No gesture to the sideline. No taking off his chin strap. Not running. It was pretty deep in OU territory and he wasn't angling toward the bench area. Just walking out to his spot. If he stopped 3 yards further from the sideline would it have been a penalty? What does "hideout" mean? He literally walked right in front of the defender and took his spot. OU had a wide receiver outside of the slot guy in virtually every play. Why would the defender think there was no one out there? Why would the defense think he was substituting when the QB and OL and everyone else on the field were lining up for the next play? I have watched it many times now. The DB was too busy jawing. I think there is a fine line between using the substitution penalty and just baiting a defender into an emotional mistake.
-
-
9 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:
Yes it's still cheating and still dirty. The rulebook specifically states that it is every coach's responsibility to know the rules and coach their team with integrity. In fact it says gaining an advantage by circumvention or disregard for the rules brands a coach as unfit to be associated with football.
That's in the rules governing the sport, so I'd say that answers your question.
Probably just have to disagree. There is no question that they hoped to fool Auburn. But what is the definition of substitution? After the play, there was no huddle. No one ran on the field (yes I know they do not have to). Guy just walked to his position. He didn't wave his hand like he needed to come out. Didn't limp towards the sideline. Does the offense have to tell the defense to cover them? Watch Texas or any game. Often receivers walk to their position during no huddle. The OU slot guy distracted the Auburn DB. I think the Auburn DB just messed up. He was too busy jawing with the OU guy and forgot to see who was out there.
But again, unless you think there is no subjectivity in the rule, the only way to be sure is to ask the refs. If they say its clean then run it. I am fairly certain it wont work against Texas
-
-
6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:
What was your point? I thought you concluded that if they addressed it with the officials, it was ok.
The question was do you think it is cheating or bush league by a team to run a play that they cleared with the refs? If they had not cleared it beforehand it would almost certainly be bush league and possibly against the rules. It certainly would be pushing the rules.
-
6 minutes ago, statsman said:
“Hideout” plays were a point of emphasis for SEC officials this past offseason.
so, one of these apply:1. OU described what they would do in a way that really didn’t communicate to the SEC officials.
2. OU is lying about coordinating with the officials.
3. Those officials slept through their offseason training.Possibly. 1) If they communicated it differently to the same refs that were on the field then the refs would have called it if they did something different. 2) Very possible. 3) Unlikely. But it is obviously a subjective call. They didn't huddle. The player did not fake any type of injury. Walking versus jogging to your spot is not a penalty. I actually think the OU player talking trash to the DB is what caused Auburn to miss it.
But, again, the question was not the technical intent of the rule. The question was that if a team clears a play beforehand with the refs is it cheating or even bush league if they then run it in the game? I guess I do not think so.
-
-
27 minutes ago, Cairn Horn88 said:
That was an illegal play by OU….its in the rule book. SEC has come out and said as such.
Heard’m talking about it on “Full Ride” this morning. Yea, Auburn shoulda caught, but so should have the refs. In this case, Auburn got screwed. It was intentional by Venables.
Just for arguments sake, the OU play by play guy is saying the OU coaches asked the refs before the game if the play was illegal and they were told it was not. Likely we will never know if this is the truth or not.
So, lets say some other team not OU, because OU, saw a tendency from Auburn and wanted to exploit it. They came up with a play (funnily the slot receiver was talking trash to the DB to distract him) and asked the refs about it before the game and were told is was not a penalty. Is that cheating? My initial reaction was it was a bush league play by OU that certainly skirted the rules. However, if they did address it before the game with the refs then I think it is ok.

The Lost Generation essay
in Cloak Room
I am sure this is true. Not sure of the point though? Hard to think of or even imagine a law firm in Texas that has a specialized practice that overwhelmingly only appeals to white women and white men. Couple that with Wildcat apparently being a lawyer there and it is almost impossible to invision.
You are trying to suggest there is a scenario where a guy like Wildcat (we all obviously know his thoughts on just about everything) is working at a firm that specializes in practice areas that overwhelmingly only attract white women and white men? With Wildcat's views? Unpossible.
If he doesn't want to defend his statements, I suppose I do not really care. But I will say he is the picture of hypocrisy because he calls out everyone he disagrees with and expects everyone else on here to defend their statements.
Wildcat has ripped white, straight, conservative males thousands of times on here. Thousands. Yet he apparently works for a law firm that overwhelmingly only takes white men and white women as clerks. He so wanted to get a story in the thread where he could rip some straight/white/conservative law clerks he exposed himself. Or maybe he just made it all up? I have tried to think of every scenario that could give him the benefit of the doubt but I can not come up with any. He either works for a racist law firm or he is a blatant liar.