Jump to content

The Leopards Eating Faces and Unlubed Dildo of Consequences Thread


Recommended Posts

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
37 minutes ago, Satchel said:

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.

There will always be collaborators, because there is always profit to be found in collaboration.

The problem is, both can be true (collaboration vs. integration) -- as any culture/ethnicity matures in a particular society, that culture will become more and more like the overall dominant culture.  Which is fine.  The children of Pakistani cricket fans growing up here will grow up to be baseball fans (either instead of or in addition to being cricket fans).  That's not "selling out," it's a natural evolution.  And sometimes, it's hard to tell the difference between selling out/butter biscuit/coconut and just being successful in a pluralistic society that nonetheless has a dominant culture.

I love that some of the most enthusiastic Scottish nationalists.....are sikhs wearing madras plaid kilts.  They are both sikh and Scottish.  

Striking the balance where our plurality is a strength, while also not being a source of outsized division, is hard.  Black Americans and black american culture make America richer, by far.  They are indeed a big part of what makes us - dare I say - great.  Yet, our failure to ever really deal with our original sin of slavery followed by Jim Crow, continues to poison us all.  It harms not just black America, but ALL of America.

Fucking hell, man.  We're all in this together.  We have different experiences, different perspectives, and different things to bring to the table.  That's a good thing.  It shouldn't be a source of division.  It should be a source of pride and strength.  And we're going completely backwards in that respect.  If it ain't mainstream white, it ain't right.  That's the openly stated mission of this Regime, and it's going to kill us.  Including the people cheering for it as we speak.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
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 4
  • 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
  • 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
5 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

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".

You're projecting.  Progressives don't want to "own MAGA" -- that's loser thinking.  We want to destroy MAGA and banish it from the discussion forever.

You clearly disagree, because (for instance) you find the concept of equality inequitable.  That's on you.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 3
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 1
  • Haha 2
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
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 1
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 3
  • 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
Posted
10 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. 

The first article had several links associated with it, including peer reviewed articles.  I am not sure why you glossed over that.  For example, one links to another, which cites the source as a 2022 paper in the Journal of Academy of Management, (abstract).   Another is written by BCG and another by McKinsey, and while not up to the peer reviewed standard, they operate in this segment and have some expertise.   The analog would be similar to listening to Dr. Offit or Fauci about their recommendation on how to navigate a pandemic with a novel virus without having direct expertise on the matter.  Sure it is an appeal to authority to some degree, but that authority has credentials.   And being a lawyer, you often cite cases which is just the opinion of some subjective people, not exactly a higher standard.  Heck, so many of them are wrong but they just defer to the other guy who said something.  Your SCOTUS is littered with historical idiocy and corruption. 

BTW I knew you you latch on to that one.  IIRC, the issue was that the study didn't differentiate between DEI as a platitude and DEI as a company culture commitment which in one of the other sources linked, discussed this aspect in greater detail.  And yet, they still found to some degree a positive correlation, had they had a slightly more robust study, they would have segmented the data into categories and then analyzed it and included the statistical output so we could see the null hypothesis results.   

The diversity programs failing HBR is a little dated and narrow in its focus.  While it is true the video for new employees and subsequent testing method is not a great initiative and does little to impact the culture of an organization, that doesn't mean that a cultural change within the organization will have the same impact. The interesting aspect of that article was the lawsuits paid out for harassment claims, and they should have looked into the rates in which those maintained, increased or decreased through time and awareness.   What are included in the previous links are surveys on employee engagement, reduction in turnover, financial performance gains, some of which is linked to expansion into new markets based on diversity.  Of course this could also be bad, if they just know better neighborhoods to dump toxic chemicals into.     

 

Posted
14 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

I'm being a little hypocritical because I do watch the Bulwark (Sarah Longwell's thing) on Youtube but I still cringe up every time on her, George Conway, Tim Miller et al yoking up it about Trump and MAGA.   Sure, it's nice to see some come to their senses and leave that world but they also had a significant hand in making it that way.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Macanudo said:

I'm being a little hypocritical because I do watch the Bulwark (Sarah Longwell's thing) on Youtube but I still cringe up every time on her, George Conway, Tim Miller et al yoking up it about Trump and MAGA.   Sure, it's nice to see some come to their senses and leave that world but they also had a significant hand in making it that way.

It's weird. By the way they talk they sound progressive, but they spent years of their lives getting ghouls like GWB and Reagan elected and trying to get people like Romney in. Yet the politics of those people are incongruent with what they say now on the Bulwark. So either they realized they were being stupid before and changed, or they were just being stupid before and never realized they were supporting this nonsense. 

Posted

Tim Miller doesn’t call himself a Democrat but pretty completely repudiates all of the positions he previously held as a Republican (or rather, mocks them).  
 

I think they are more interested in taking down the Emperor than figuring out where they lie currently on a left-right spectrum, and I’m fine with that.  

Posted
17 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

Tim Miller doesn’t call himself a Democrat but pretty completely repudiates all of the positions he previously held as a Republican (or rather, mocks them).  
 

I think they are more interested in taking down the Emperor than figuring out where they lie currently on a left-right spectrum, and I’m fine with that.  

To me, it’s a matter of degree.  If you have a core belief that business and our economy doing well as what’s best for the country and the source of the continued health of our democracy and nation, then you can reconcile yourself with GOP policies that may have hurt the little guy to some extent if it led to a robust economy.   If you view a good economy as the key to all good things in our country, you can surely overlook individual instances where people on the low economic end of the spectrum (here, read minorities ) take a hit from some of the policies.

That is completely different to seeing millions of undocumented immigrants who are good neighbors contributing to the economy and helping that precious economy being treated like criminals, regardless of their being in the country for decades, not causing any harm, but helping out established businesses in many industries that require undocumented labor because citizen white people don’t want to do it - then the combination of the assault on the economy and the destruction of many industries, combined with horrific human suffering on a bunch of people in a scale exceeding what you were willing to put up with previously would lead a rock rib,old school republican to turn on the current guys.

I always consider myself the last Rockefeller Republican on earth, and thought that conservative business models combined with progressive social issues was the way to go.  As long as that business  model  was not bullshit trickle down.    Which is all to say - I could see how those guys came from where they were to where they are.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

Tim Miller doesn’t call himself a Democrat but pretty completely repudiates all of the positions he previously held as a Republican (or rather, mocks them).  
 

I think they are more interested in taking down the Emperor than figuring out where they lie currently on a left-right spectrum, and I’m fine with that.  

I think that's me.  I'm certainly more sympathetic to social issues than I have ever been, and accordingly more willing to spend (and tax) to deal with them.  I'm also mostly done with "small government."

But if and when a conservative party emerges that has nothing to do with the shitheap that is Trumpism and sycophants, I might find myself there.  I don't know anymore.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

But if and when a conservative party emerges that has nothing to do with the shitheap that is Trumpism and sycophants, I might find myself there.  I don't know anymore.

 

I don't believe that will ever happen.    

You would need a situation like Germany at the conclusion of WWII to get a political party to completely repudiate everything they stand for. Because gerrymandering will ensure that today's GOP will still remain a political force for years to come,  no matter how repulsive they become.

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, LCHorn said:

think they are more interested in taking down the Emperor than figuring out where they lie currently on a left-right spectrum, and I’m fine with that.  

For the record I am 100% more interested in saving the republic than places on the left-right spectrum. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 2


×
×
  • Create New...