Jump to content

The Leopards Eating Faces and Unlubed Dildo of Consequences Thread


Recommended Posts

Posted
7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's fuckin hilarious.

A substantial number of Americans consider this strong leadership. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
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. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 6
  • 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
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 2
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
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • 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 3
  • Like 3
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 5
  • 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 2
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
Posted
6 minutes ago, pantone159 said:

Not having aerial refueling on AF1 seems completely incomprehensible to me.

And completely on brand for Trump. He gets by with all this ridiculous shit because nobody stands up to him. When the tanks are in the streets, it will be too late.

Posted
18 minutes ago, pantone159 said:

Not having aerial refueling on AF1 seems completely incomprehensible to me.

It's among the stupidest things imaginable.  

So of course that's what has happened.

Posted
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".

I haven’t argued it needs to be taught in a certain way. In fact my position is that details of the policy are irrelevant in the context of allowing the MAGA reaction to dictate the how it is presented, even if nothing materially changes. That’s not because I’m trying “to own MAGA”, but because I believe it is unconscionable to surrender to them as they (successfully) roll back the progress that has been made.

If you feel that I have previously stated something different, please quote it.
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Tuco said:


I haven’t argued it needs to be taught in a certain way. In fact my position is that details of the policy are irrelevant in the context of allowing the MAGA reaction to dictate the how it is presented, even if nothing materially changes. That’s not because I’m trying “to own MAGA”, but because I believe it is unconscionable to surrender to them as they (successfully) roll back the progress that has been made.

If you feel that I have previously stated something different, please quote it.

He is full of bullshit and can't see his own hypocrisy. He is also outright fucking lying about what you and others have said. He is Crispy esque in his obtuseness hidden behind a veneer of intelligence. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Tuco said:

In fact my position is that details of the policy are irrelevant in the context of allowing the MAGA reaction to dictate the how it is presented, even if nothing materially changes. That’s not because I’m trying “to own MAGA”, but because I believe it is unconscionable to surrender to them as they (successfully) roll back the progress that has been made.

1) What progress do you feel has been made beyond creation of the DEI industry?  I think there is likely progress.  I just don't think there is very much good data to show any material progress.  I think refocusing opportunity and inclusion to be based on advantages and even quotas based on economic disadvantage would be a far better approach to creating equity and certainly inclusion in hiring in the federal and private sectors. 

2) We surrendered to MAGA because we allowed them to win.  That's over.  The question is how we act when we retake the legislature, the White House, and after we're all dead, the judiciary.  If we settle for reinstituting the paltry tool that was DEI and an ineffective OFCCP than that is a tragic loss of opportunity.

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

1) What progress do you feel has been made beyond creation of the DEI industry?  I think there is likely progress.  I just don't think there is very much good data to show any material progress.  I think refocusing opportunity and inclusion to be based on advantages and even quotas based on economic disadvantage would be a far better approach to creating equity and certainly inclusion in hiring in the federal and private sectors. 

2) We surrendered to MAGA because we allowed them to win.  That's over.  The question is how we act when we retake the legislature, the White House, and after we're all dead, the judiciary.  If we settle for reinstituting the paltry tool that was DEI and an ineffective OFCCP than that is a tragic loss of opportunity.

If only there were articles on this subject like this, that and this and uh. It's like that and like this and like that and uh.   

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Posted
4 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

That's actually probably going to hurt conservatives.  Leo and Fed Soc were VERY good at finding confirmable judges who would carry out the agenda and not turn into David Souter.

Except possibly for Barrett.

Trump is probably going to have more difficulty confirming his assclowns and there's a much higher likelihood of future Souters.  I don't think anyone in his orbit has the skill at that that Fed Soc/Leo had.

Posted
6 hours ago, pantone159 said:

Not having aerial refueling on AF1 seems completely incomprehensible to me.

Not when you understand that Trump is never going to use the bribe plane as AF1. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Not when you understand that Trump is never going to use the bribe plane as AF1. 

It's not just the bribe planes.

He got in the middle of the two existing AF1 contracts, fucked them up, and one result was no midair refueling.  They were originally to be line-built, but to save a few bucks, he art of the dealed it into two existing airframes to be retrofit.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Nivek said:

If only there were articles on this subject like this, that and this and uh. It's like that and like this and like that and uh.   

I waw not able to download the first link, but the only article that even pretended to be an academic paper rendered this conclusion: 

Conclusions and implications.  This study concludes that the majority of the sample companies have publicly stated diversity- related value statements. This suggests that companies have started to realise the importance of emphasising diversity related values. This study also concludes that diversity-related value statements are positively correlated with the financial performance of the sample companies, although their correlation is not statistically significant.

Which basically says that companies who trumpet diversity and talk the talk may have had positive financial performance.  Maybe.  Which isn't even the question I posed, which was how DEI programs have actually had positive diversity and inclusion EFFECTS.

And companies can still trumpet their commitment to these values today.  Which again, doesn't answer the questions as to whether the programs themselves are of value or more importantly whether programs aimed at economic disadvantage would have a more positive effect.  

This study highlights things that work and that aren't a problem under the EOs - mentorship programs and targeted recruiting (yes, you will have to recruit at Georgetown if you are going to recruit at Howard in order to cover your ass - but that's just good business.).  But you can get actual results without being bogged down by the nomenclature.

Why Diversity Programs Fail

This kinda puffy piece identifies the problem with the puff pieces you linked to.  The data just isn't there that goes beyond the intuitive and real conclusion that diversity is good, and actually shows the results that DEI programs have achieved.    The end of the article points wo how companies who are interested in diversity equity can do a lot more than lip service in terms of actually getting results. 

Are Diversity Programs Doomed—Or Ready for a Revamp?

Although people are spending lots of time criticizing companies for editing their DEI-ish marketing language, in reality I think a lot of those companies behind the scenes are pretty pissed off and actually, finally, thinking of ways to go beyond the marketing. 

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

I haven’t argued it needs to be taught in a certain way. .... That’s not because I’m trying “to own MAGA”, but because I believe it is unconscionable to surrender to them as they (successfully) roll back the progress that has been made.

As to your first statement. Agreed.

As to the second, I think DEI has been more marketing than actually results, and hence I am thinking that actual lemonade can be made once the Restoration happens.

Posted
7 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Surely there is a better thread to discuss DEI 

Sorry. I just can’t get over what Teresa Earnhardt did to that company and I am passionate about it. 

  • Haha 2
Posted
8 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I waw not able to download the first link, but the only article that even pretended to be an academic paper rendered this conclusion: 

Conclusions and implications.  This study concludes that the majority of the sample companies have publicly stated diversity- related value statements. This suggests that companies have started to realise the importance of emphasising diversity related values. This study also concludes that diversity-related value statements are positively correlated with the financial performance of the sample companies, although their correlation is not statistically significant.

Which basically says that companies who trumpet diversity and talk the talk may have had positive financial performance.  Maybe.  Which isn't even the question I posed, which was how DEI programs have actually had positive diversity and inclusion EFFECTS.

And companies can still trumpet their commitment to these values today.  Which again, doesn't answer the questions as to whether the programs themselves are of value or more importantly whether programs aimed at economic disadvantage would have a more positive effect.  

This study highlights things that work and that aren't a problem under the EOs - mentorship programs and targeted recruiting (yes, you will have to recruit at Georgetown if you are going to recruit at Howard in order to cover your ass - but that's just good business.).  But you can get actual results without being bogged down by the nomenclature.

Why Diversity Programs Fail

This kinda puffy piece identifies the problem with the puff pieces you linked to.  The data just isn't there that goes beyond the intuitive and real conclusion that diversity is good, and actually shows the results that DEI programs have achieved.    The end of the article points wo how companies who are interested in diversity equity can do a lot more than lip service in terms of actually getting results. 

Are Diversity Programs Doomed—Or Ready for a Revamp?

Although people are spending lots of time criticizing companies for editing their DEI-ish marketing language, in reality I think a lot of those companies behind the scenes are pretty pissed off and actually, finally, thinking of ways to go beyond the marketing. 

Weird hill to die on. You cannot see the benefits teaching diversity and inclusion would have on not only your employees but how they treat the customers that come through the doors? Fuck a study. Never heard the phrase silence is collusion? 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Thatguy said:

Weird hill to die on. You cannot see the benefits teaching diversity and inclusion would have on not only your employees but how they treat the customers that come through the doors? Fuck a study. Never heard the phrase silence is collusion? 

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. 

Edited by The Original Greaser Bob


×
×
  • Create New...