Jump to content

The Original Greaser Bob

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    2727
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Original Greaser Bob

  1. Yep, if mestizo is white.
  2. The National Dem party has never remotely attempted to eliminate or de-emphasize race and focus solely on class.
  3. Yep, I think he needs to be viewed with some suspicion, but he's clearly identifying a lot of points that I agree with. Two items that I think progs need to figure out, quickly, is a way to be pro "safe streets" and to reclaim patriotism. They need to be able to in very simple terms point out again and again why they love America and Americans. Anyone who has ever gone to the African American museum in DC comes away with a sense of sadness but also a profound pride and love for what African Americans were able to acheive in this country. Progs need to reassert, with pride, the need to protect the US as a place for opportunity, despite the gate closing fast. And yeah, they need multiple degrees of separation from Hamas.
  4. My takeaway - Dems need to really focus on color-blind class issues. Progressive taxes, econ issues, etc. Reclaim patriotism. And focus on representing people and not traditional interest groups.
  5. Topical. Sam Harris interview with Richie Torres. Torres better articulates some of the current concerns with bits and pieces of the progressive movement, but I was struck with how relatively few things the progressive movement needs to do to get working class back in the fold. Torres is apparently viewed as a traitor by the progs. And I realize people have issues with Harris, but thought this was pretty good. Sam Harris | 418 - A Future for Democrats
  6. Whole project is unpleasant. Needs someone like Turkish. I'd settle for Bullet Tooth Tony. Or Tyrone
  7. I think it will be fun. College is about learning about others.
  8. Yeah, it's just too damn early to pick, although it's not too early for these guys to show what they got.
  9. 1. Too cute, too female. 2. Too old. 3. Too cute, too female. 4. Fuck no. 5. Okay, maybe Jeffries. 7. Sure 8. Doofus.
  10. 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.
  11. Don't get me started on the giant wimpy gloves players use now.
  12. Who of the Dems can best communicate and persuade that we need to get back to a progressive tax system?
  13. 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.
  14. I'd be satisfied with "Gehrig! Heil! Gehrig! Heil!"
  15. Have a ready-made chant when he kicks the PAT.
  16. I want UTSA to go full Cal State Fullerton. "UT who? SA that's who!"
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. Yep, should have been on the Dem thread. Apologies. Will take it over there if it comes up again. Or not.
  20. 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.
Γ—
Γ—
  • Create New...