Jump to content

The Leopards Eating Faces and Unlubed Dildo of Consequences Thread


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Many companies didn't do much more than change the wording. Absolutely no changes were made to employee interest groups, or any other policy. Companies were always subject to reverse discrimination actions so I am assuming most companies didn't have to do a whole lot in terms of changing policies other than clarifying or opening up certain training or mentorship programs to all races and sexes. Which is probably not a bad policy to begin with. 

DEI and the related "unconscious bias" are both somewhat sloppy, careless terms and opportunity for truly underrepresented groups can proceed better without those terms. 

Netted out, the executive actions related to DEI all demand one thing - don't exclude white males.

That's not a tall order for companies that weren't doing that anyway, and that gives Dems lots of incentive to truly look at inclusion of all groups.

I'm being Panglossian, but this chainsaw allows people who care about opportunity to go forward while jettisoning the weight of those terms. 

Absolute fucking head in the sand nonsense. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I kinda disagree.  It's the cognitive dissonance that lives in their brains.

Individual minorities, gay people etc. who they personally know?  Well.....Jose is a good fella, hard worker.  We aren't talking about him.  And Carol...she's a sweetheart.  We don't mean her.

But brown people generally?  THEY'RE INVADER CRIMINALS!

How do they reconcile these?  We've all seen it before.  If you grew up in the South over the past 50 years, there is a 100% chance you've heard someone utter the phrase "oh....but not you, Jose/Tyrese/Vinh...you're one of the good ones!"

It's that easy.  They can be both completely and totally racist....yet compassionate and not racist as to a specific individual.  And both things are absolutely true, and match human nature.  It's easy to dehumanize a group, it's hard to dehumanize an individual who you know - it's a cousin of the "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" phenomenon.

We are filled with people who will cheerfully build death camps for "the other," then cry genuine tears when their minority friend is sent to his death there.

You just described my MIL to a T.  She's fully on board the Trump train, but has illegals that do work at her house that she likes and has no problems with them.  The cognitive dissonance is real.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I kinda disagree.  It's the cognitive dissonance that lives in their brains.

Individual minorities, gay people etc. who they personally know?  Well.....Jose is a good fella, hard worker.  We aren't talking about him.  And Carol...she's a sweetheart.  We don't mean her.

But brown people generally?  THEY'RE INVADER CRIMINALS!

How do they reconcile these?  We've all seen it before.  If you grew up in the South over the past 50 years, there is a 100% chance you've heard someone utter the phrase "oh....but not you, Jose/Tyrese/Vinh...you're one of the good ones!"

It's that easy.  They can be both completely and totally racist....yet compassionate and not racist as to a specific individual.  And both things are absolutely true, and match human nature.  It's easy to dehumanize a group, it's hard to dehumanize an individual who you know - it's a cousin of the "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" phenomenon.

We are filled with people who will cheerfully build death camps for "the other," then cry genuine tears when their minority friend is sent to his death there.

Lol. Any black person that has done well for themselves knows what Brisket here said is dead on balls accurate. You're one of the good ones. "You are so well spoken". They have it in their heads that everyone else is ignorant and a criminal. Just one or two good ones.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

Lol. Any black person that has done well for themselves knows what Brisket here said is dead on balls accurate. You're one of the good ones. "You are so well spoken". They have it in their heads that everyone else is ignorant and a criminal. Just one or two good ones.

Bingo.  And the cousin of that (for my folks) is "I don't even think of you as a mexican....you're like a real American," or words to that effect.  Which carries with it the bold implication that the DEFAULT is if'n you have a messican name, you're not a "real American," and the burden is on you to prove otherwise.

Applies to any "foreign-sounding" name/ethnicity as well.

And yeah, it has ALWAYS applied to black people in America.  One of the good ones, you're so well-spoken, you're a credit to your people, all that shit.  But, you know, racism isn't a thing anymore, and Thatguy and I are just making shit shit up/relating things that ended in the 1950s, etc.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Yeah, the “Godly inspired act to prevent black and brown men from whistling at white women” is probably being drafted by Stephen Miller as we speak.   It probably wasn’t filed yet because they are trying to find the right verbiage to allow the death penalty.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I get what you are saying.  I think for your job, your focus is looking at the details of the policy or program.  But I think you are missing, or ignoring, the overall context in which those details are being adjusted. Trump runs on a life-is-so-unfair-to-white-men, Trump wins, and then multiple corporations remove "diversity" and "equality" from their company policies.  You can argue the merits of this or that individual section or subsection of a policy, but, as a whole, this is just corporate cowardice and greed, at the expense of minorities who are significantly underrepresented in the corporate world. 

And we always do this.  The Republicans make some stink about something and we think the solution is to change the name.  Black Lives Matter is a pretty self-evident statement, but some people feel the need to qualify it.  Critical Race Theory is an academic approach, but rather than standing by its basic conept, we back off leaving the vacuum for Republicans to set the academic agenda.  Now DEI....because somehow diversity and equality are bad words. No, fuck that.  We need to stop retreating from the terminology and start defending the concepts.  But by all means, let's change the name tags and see if that addresses white victimhood that they don't have the same built in advantages they had in the past. 

 

I'm old enough to remember seeing TV ads as a kid for companies that stated they were equal opportunity employers, without much of a stink. It's pretty plainly stated and, hell, there's a whole federal commission that's supposed to enforce related laws. 

Is it the fact that organizations/companies that incorporate proactive employment opportunity policies (DEI) in hiring and internal advancement a bridge too far for these people?

Take Greaser Bob, for example. As a self-professed employment lawyer, he should be familiar with EEO laws; however, his judgment appears muddled when it comes to actually encouraging equal opportunities for all rather than simply passively requiring them. Or maybe I'm being too charitable and he's actually opposed to equal opportunities to all, after all.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

however, his judgment appears muddled when it comes to actually encouraging equal opportunities for all rather than simply passively requiring them.

You'd like to think this is the case.

Requiring equal opportunity - that means "you don't screen out any candidate based on race.  Evaluate all of them equally."

Encouraging equal opportunity - that means that in addition to recruiting at UT, you also send recruiters to universities with larger minority and first-gen college student populations (like Prairie View, TAMU-Laredo, etc.).  Doesn't mean you FAVOR any such candidate - a shitty resume from a Prairie View grad gets treated like a shitty resume from a UT grad.  It DOES mean that you are expanding your search beyond your historical habits.  

But in Greaser Bob land, the answer is actually much closer to this:

8 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Or maybe I'm being too charitable and he's actually opposed to equal opportunities to all, after all.

Daring to look for candidates in non-traditional places, full of minority candidates who have historically been overlooked....well, that's RACIST AGAINST WHITE DUDES.  Not hiring, mind you....merely LOOKING, and trying to increase the pool beyond your existing good-old-boy network...is illegal discrimination.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Macanudo said:

I continue to stand by the assertion that if those who hire undocumented employees where fined/jailed for doing so, things would get shook up pretty nicely.  

That would violate the sole governing principle of modern conservatism:

Quote

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Macanudo said:

I continue to stand by the assertion that if those who hire undocumented employees where fined/jailed for doing so, things would get shook up pretty nicely.  

That's the thing Mac. A lot of these folks recently weren't actually undocumented. They were here on some type of program that got canceled because reasons. Trump's last day in office he granted asylum to Venezuelans. I am sure he did it to fuck with Biden but he let in a shit ton of the very people he is now deporting. Haitians came the right way. A ton of other people came the right way.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Macanudo said:

I continue to stand by the assertion that if those who hire undocumented employees where fined/jailed for doing so, things would get shook up pretty nicely.  

I agree. We should also publicly shame them with local police mugshot photos like they use to do with men caught in prostitution stings. Then, of course, ship them off to a 3rd world country supermax. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Nonsense. They knew they were black when they came over here.

I stand by the theory that this is what happened to Trump at some point.

 

 

Edited by Thatguy
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Thatguy said:

That's the thing Mac. A lot of these folks recently weren't actually undocumented. They were here on some type of program that got canceled because reasons. Trump's last day in office he granted asylum to Venezuelans. I am sure he did it to fuck with Biden but he let in a shit ton of the very people he is now deporting. Haitians came the right way. A ton of other people came the right way.

Oh he did it because Maduro was a nasty commie and VZ was in deep shit at the time.

That's old news, and they're brownish and from down south.  Also TdA.

And, I think ultimately, Trump wants numbers of deportations.  It's going to be hard to do that with just border-crossers.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 hours ago, Tuco said:

Trump wins, and then multiple corporations remove "diversity" and "equality" from their company policies.  You can argue the merits of this or that individual section or subsection of a policy, but, as a whole, this is just corporate cowardice and greed, at the expense of minorities who are significantly underrepresented in the corporate world. 

I guess I need to see the data on this.  Corporations will continue to be able to "sell" inclusion and basically continue as they have been and try to avoid discrimination lawsuits of all types.  What they are giving up is the D and E of DEI -- nomenclature that fostered a cottage industry that didn't feel particularly successful.

The question is -- how effective were DEI initiatives pre-Trump II?  I mean, they had to be highly successful, no, guaranteeing equity in the board rooms and in equal pay?

I think the best argument is that attacks on DEI are symbolic of more serious racial divides that Trump is pushing, but I just don't think making private company employees attend three hours of DEI and unconscious bias classes every year was much more than window dressing. 

Dems should focus on economic affirmative action that would really mean something.  DEI feels like the "ho hum" being the enemy of "great".

Posted
4 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Yeah, the “Godly inspired act to prevent black and brown men from whistling at white women” is probably being drafted by Stephen Miller as we speak.   It probably wasn’t filed yet because they are trying to find the right verbiage to allow the death penalty.

They allowed the death penalty.  Turns out, Till didn't even whistle. 

  • Like 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
I guess I need to see the data on this.  Corporations will continue to be able to "sell" inclusion and basically continue as they have been and try to avoid discrimination lawsuits of all types.  What they are giving up is the D and E of DEI -- nomenclature that fostered a cottage industry that didn't feel particularly successful.
The question is -- how effective were DEI initiatives pre-Trump II?  I mean, they had to be highly successful, no, guaranteeing equity in the board rooms and in equal pay?
I think the best argument is that attacks on DEI are symbolic of more serious racial divides that Trump is pushing, but I just don't think making private company employees attend three hours of DEI and unconscious bias classes every year was much more than window dressing. 
Dems should focus on economic affirmative action that would really mean something.  DEI feels like the "ho hum" being the enemy of "great".

Everything like this is incremental. So, doing it for a few years is meaningless.
Women didn’t really start to get full access to the workplace until around 50 years ago. Only in the last decade or so has it been a case of “and half or more of highly qualified college grads getting hired are women.”
But we all know the real reason “DEI” efforts of the last half decade or so didn’t result in half of all businesses and boardrooms being run by minorities. It’s because minorities…you know, don’t have what it takes. That’s what the renewed claims of “MERIT-BASED” (while proceeding to hire some of the least qualified humans to have ever lived…but at least they’re white) is code for.
Only hire people of merit!
And if you hired a minority, that’s not what you were doing!
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
I guess I need to see the data on this.  Corporations will continue to be able to "sell" inclusion and basically continue as they have been and try to avoid discrimination lawsuits of all types.  What they are giving up is the D and E of DEI -- nomenclature that fostered a cottage industry that didn't feel particularly successful.
The question is -- how effective were DEI initiatives pre-Trump II?  I mean, they had to be highly successful, no, guaranteeing equity in the board rooms and in equal pay?
I think the best argument is that attacks on DEI are symbolic of more serious racial divides that Trump is pushing, but I just don't think making private company employees attend three hours of DEI and unconscious bias classes every year was much more than window dressing. 
Dems should focus on economic affirmative action that would really mean something.  DEI feels like the "ho hum" being the enemy of "great".

Safety is often a platitude and a check box that gets ignored as well. That doesn’t mean it should be disregarded because some company pays it lip service.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
On 5/25/2025 at 7:42 AM, Pato del Muerto said:

I notice he never claims to be at a Boring dig site with a shovel, digging 20 hrs a day. Does anyone believe him when he claims to be hands on helping with Tesla, AI, or rocketeering?

I believe he’s working as much as I believe TFG isn’t a raging alcoholic and pill addict.

Edited by UpperWestside
Posted

Well, now. Ban woke. Go broke. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/27/tesla-europe-sales-plunge-49percent-as-elon-musk-brand-fallout-continues.html

  • Tesla sold 7,261 cars in Europe in April, down 49% year on year, while EV sales grew 27.3% according to the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association.
  • Tesla brand equity has been declining since 2024 owing largely to CEO Elon Musk’s incendiary political rhetoric and government work.
  • Musk endorsed Germany’s extreme anti-immigrant party, AfD, and serves as a key advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump, working to slash federal agencies.
  • Tesla is also facing heightened competition in Europe.
  • In the US, Tesla's US sales were down 9% year-over-year in Q1 2025, while total EV sales grew significantly.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, Satchel said:
  • Tesla sold 7,261 cars in Europe in April, down 49% year on year, while EV sales grew 27.3% according to the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association.
  • In the US, Tesla's US sales were down 9% year-over-year in Q1 2025, while total EV sales grew significantly.

IMG_4639.gif.1ea0c888d681ee241aefea1020e60814.gif

  • Haha 2
Posted
16 hours ago, bolverk said:

 

I'm old enough to remember seeing TV ads as a kid for companies that stated they were equal opportunity employers, without much of a stink. It's pretty plainly stated and, hell, there's a whole federal commission that's supposed to enforce related laws. 

Is it the fact that organizations/companies that incorporate proactive employment opportunity policies (DEI) in hiring and internal advancement a bridge too far for these people?

Take Greaser Bob, for example. As a self-professed employment lawyer, he should be familiar with EEO laws; however, his judgment appears muddled when it comes to actually encouraging equal opportunities for all rather than simply passively requiring them. Or maybe I'm being too charitable and he's actually opposed to equal opportunities to all, after all.

In my experience employment lawyers are often the most racist and misogynistic. It’s really quite incredible. 

Posted
10 hours ago, Nivek said:

Safety is often a platitude and a check box that gets ignored as well. That doesn’t mean it should be disregarded because some company pays it lip service.

Not a good analogy.

You son goes out to work on an oil rig first day on the job.  Are you going to worry about his safety or whether he was thinking about whether he is secretly biased against his African American coworker?

I can remain committed to equality and opportunity without using the specific jargon of equity and diversity.

I can't be committed to safety without following safety guidelines.

Finally, there are built in financial disincentives to not following safety policies let alone the finality of death or dismemberment.  

Your term lip service is appropriate. I think DEI in lots of lip service in many private firms.  To me it almost hides issues of opportunity.  We remove that veil then after this administration is done we can work on the real problem and not put the veil up again as lip service.

Netted out I see it as an opportunity if discourse and the quality of legislators ever improves.

Posted
5 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Not a good analogy.

You son goes out to work on an oil rig first day on the job.  Are you going to worry about his safety or whether he was thinking about whether he is secretly biased against his African American coworker?

I can remain committed to equality and opportunity without using the specific jargon of equity and diversity.

I can't be committed to safety without following safety guidelines.

Finally, there are built in financial disincentives to not following safety policies let alone the finality of death or dismemberment.  

Your term lip service is appropriate. I think DEI in lots of lip service in many private firms.  To me it almost hides issues of opportunity.  We remove that veil then after this administration is done we can work on the real problem and not put the veil up again as lip service.

Netted out I see it as an opportunity if discourse and the quality of legislators ever improves.

This fucking guy. 

  • Haha 5
  • Drool 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Weirdly, I almost could believe this. He probably didn’t know about Leonard Leo because he doesn’t know shit about fuck. The rest is hilarious though. 

More evidence that he's a useful idiot to the more insidious conservative movements.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
32 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Not a good analogy.

You son goes out to work on an oil rig first day on the job.  Are you going to worry about his safety or whether he was thinking about whether he is secretly biased against his African American coworker?

I can remain committed to equality and opportunity without using the specific jargon of equity and diversity.

I can't be committed to safety without following safety guidelines.

Finally, there are built in financial disincentives to not following safety policies let alone the finality of death or dismemberment.  

Your term lip service is appropriate. I think DEI in lots of lip service in many private firms.  To me it almost hides issues of opportunity.  We remove that veil then after this administration is done we can work on the real problem and not put the veil up again as lip service.

Netted out I see it as an opportunity if discourse and the quality of legislators ever improves.

Yeah. Let's not offend the snowflakes or there be's torches and pitchforks fo us massa

 

524b33440ca78804d3d747e20956e517.gif

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
42 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Not a good analogy.

You son goes out to work on an oil rig first day on the job.  Are you going to worry about his safety or whether he was thinking about whether he is secretly biased against his African American coworker?

I can remain committed to equality and opportunity without using the specific jargon of equity and diversity.

I can't be committed to safety without following safety guidelines.

Finally, there are built in financial disincentives to not following safety policies let alone the finality of death or dismemberment.  

Your term lip service is appropriate. I think DEI in lots of lip service in many private firms.  To me it almost hides issues of opportunity.  We remove that veil then after this administration is done we can work on the real problem and not put the veil up again as lip service.

Netted out I see it as an opportunity if discourse and the quality of legislators ever improves.

^The Chewbacca Defense.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Not a good analogy.

You son goes out to work on an oil rig first day on the job.  Are you going to worry about his safety or whether he was thinking about whether he is secretly biased against his African American coworker?

I can remain committed to equality and opportunity without using the specific jargon of equity and diversity.

I can't be committed to safety without following safety guidelines.

Finally, there are built in financial disincentives to not following safety policies let alone the finality of death or dismemberment.  

Your term lip service is appropriate. I think DEI in lots of lip service in many private firms.  To me it almost hides issues of opportunity.  We remove that veil then after this administration is done we can work on the real problem and not put the veil up again as lip service.

Netted out I see it as an opportunity if discourse and the quality of legislators ever improves.

Do you not understand how having a bias against your coworkers on an oil rig could create a safety issue?

Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

If you best argument for a change in policy is that it offends the snowflakes, your underlying policy may not be that rigorous.

 

Uh... you see the irony here, right? Or maybe it is just hypocrisy? 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Haha 1
Posted
14 hours ago, HenryJames said:

IMG_8828.jpeg

"He openly brags about how he controls Judges, and even Justices of the United States Supreme Court" is the new "It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side."

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
If you best argument for a change in policy is that it offends the snowflakes, your underlying policy may not be that rigorous.
 

I didn’t realize we had to argue that diversity, equality, and inclusion were important.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Tuco said:


I didn’t realize we had to argue that diversity, equality, and inclusion were important.

We do.  Because, see....they are NOT important.  In fact, each one of those things is BAD.

Because for every recruiter you send to a HBCU....that's a moment of recruiting that would otherwise be spent at a majority white university.

For every minority who would otherwise not be on an employer's radar screen, who then beats out a white candidate....that means a job that white candidate used to be able to take for granted now isn't his.

For every second spent trying to understand and eventually include different cultural perspectives....well, that's a second not spent further cementing the "Leave it to Beaver" lily-white cultural perspective that dominated American life with no competition for....ever.

Paying attention to those values means opting OUT of the value system of "the way we've always done it....only talking to and hiring white folks, making white middle-American culture the only culture," etc.

It's not at the expense of white American's EQUALITY, mind you.  It's at the expense of their ADVANTAGE.  And white people losing their inherent ADVANTAGE pisses them off even more than minorities get pissed about not having an EQUAL shake.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
23 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Bingo.  And the cousin of that (for my folks) is "I don't even think of you as a mexican....you're like a real American," or words to that effect.  Which carries with it the bold implication that the DEFAULT is if'n you have a messican name, you're not a "real American," and the burden is on you to prove otherwise.

Applies to any "foreign-sounding" name/ethnicity as well.

And yeah, it has ALWAYS applied to black people in America.  One of the good ones, you're so well-spoken, you're a credit to your people, all that shit.  But, you know, racism isn't a thing anymore, and Thatguy and I are just making shit shit up/relating things that ended in the 1950s, etc.

This is true and a major reason the butter biscuit class has grown so much. A certain kind of black person has learned how to monetize the inferior Negro meme. Some white folks will pay big bags to have biscuits act as their mouthpieces.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Tuco said:


I didn’t realize we had to argue that diversity, equality, and inclusion were important.

No, your argument seems to be that diversity and equality has to be taught and practiced in a certain pre-packaged way -- a way whose effectiveness is of questionable.  And that we moment this administration is gone we need to go back to that exact practice "to own MAGA".

  • Fuck You 1
Posted

Trump is responsible for the delays connected to producing the two Air Force One replacements:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-air-force-1-debacle_n_683874c6e4b0e2e0f9a1e6ff

WASHINGTON — If Donald Trump wants someone to blame for his still having to ride around in a 40-year-old Air Force One, he might consider starting with a long look in the mirror.

And if Americans want someone to blame for their future presidents being saddled with a plane lacking a key wartime capability, they should consider taking a long look at the current president

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...