Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dahobbs

  1. If we want to make that an official thing with all due process protections associated with it, I'd be perfectly fine with it too. But it isn't just 48 hours. And never has been. It is whatever time frame they want, however many times they want it. Just because it has been done in the past doesn't mean it was ever proper. It is a dangerous process without any procedural safeguards. When people are being detained for months at a time based upon these hold requests, you're god damn right I'm going to sound an alarm bell. There is a simple, established procedure for someone to be legally held pending deportation. It provides some level of assurance that the government has sufficient information to justify the detention, striking that constitutional balance between protecting rights and the concerns of the state Why don't we make the government follow that rather than let it do whatever the fuck it wants because it is easier?
  2. They have always been a problem. Again, the reason the hold requests aren't a honored is because ICE rarely bothers to follow through. The holds just get reissued, leaving detainees in limbo without any due process, and leaving local authorities with the bill. Holds are an invention. They are made up. They mean absolutely nothing. If getting a warrant isn't a big deal, then why aren't you mad about ICE not doing that? Stop being lazy and fucking think. Please, tell me, why can't ICE just get a warrant? Why is that a problem for you?
  3. What if ICE went to the trouble of getting an actual warrant? Try to follow actual due process rather than just make shit up because it would be more convenient to disappear people? Why not try that? Why are you wasting time arguing a strawman (not wanting any deportations) to justify authoritarian bullshit?
  4. Stop being dense. I don't care if he is deported. I really truly don't. But I absolutely know people should not be forced to stay in jail because ICE requested a hold. There is absolutely zero due process associated with that. Again, you could be arrested for a traffic violation tomorrow and ICE could request you be held indefinitely. Do you think that is proper? Do you think that is due process?
  5. How on earth is that responsive? I don't give a shit if he gets deported. I don't know why they dropped the previous charges. Usually it is because, and I know this is crazy, they either didn't have sufficient evidence or the person was actually, you know, innocent. Again, your posts address a point no one is making. But if due process doesn't protect the worst among us, if doesn't protect anyone. Maybe you want to live in a country where anyone can be disappeared off the streets without process. I don't.
  6. 1) holding someone without a warrant is a violation of rights. 2) If you're a precog that can predict crime, maybe it makes sense to prejudge. We don't get to do that here in the USA. 3) Whether he should have been deported before is irrelevant here. 4) The release here despite the requested hold isn't really the result of an immigrant friendly policy. It is the result of an administrative and cost one. ICE issues these holds and then never collects. These shifts the costs of holding someone from the federal system to state and local authorities. 5) More importantly, ICE holds lack any due process protections. ICE doesn't have to prove the person is an immigrant. It doesn't have to prove they could be legally deported. You could be arrested tomorrow for a traffic violation. ICE could then request you be held pending deportation. That ICE has no legal authority to do that would be irrelevant. That ICE may never both to collect you would be irrelevant. Under your distorted and authorities view of the world, you could be disappeared to prison without any consideration by judge or jury. You may recognize where that system is "justice" is practiced. But it isn't supposed to be in the USA.
  7. That is a complete non-sequitur to the posts your responding to. Your turn to justifying authoritarian, rights infringing policies at every turn is very disturbing.
  8. I have no idea what the first part means if it doesn't mean either (1) expressing empathy but silent as to agreement or (2) accepting their causal analysis. You've been asked this very question at least a dozen times in this thread. You've refused to agree with the second sentence in bold above. Had you done so earlier, the discussion would have been much less contentious.
  9. 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.
  10. 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:
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. So, you're just ignoring all of Surly now?
  17. 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.
  18. He has just been trolling. Something happened to him recently and needs to process. I hope he figures it out.
  19. 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.
  20. 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?
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.