Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

No that’s a no?

Feel free to. I don't think it'll change the general conversation if you're still insisting that anecdote be taken as proof of a more generalized problem. If you want to convince me that you're a problem and that you have discriminated in hiring practices, consider me convinced. If you want to convince me your company sucks and discriminates in hiring practices, consider me convinced. Y'all should stop doing that. If you want to convince me that this is happening on a more generalized basis, you'll have to provide actual evidence of that. But really, what would be most helpful is if you would tell me what the fuck answer you're looking for that I haven't already provided. How can I show you I care and empathize with these folks' feelings even if I doubt their conclusions? 

Posted

I was a young boy that had big plans
Now I'm just another shitty old man
I don't have fun and I hate everything
The world owes me, so fuck you

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

i don't know enough depth about the topic to add anything wholly substantive either way, other than my own anecdote as a white genx female in IT, married to an AA boomer, i definitely have a sense of 'welcome to the party, pal!' towards white millennial male discrimination grievances.

like, i get it, but...so? whole groups got a real shit deal for the vast majority of this country's history...and to fix it it seems like another group who traditionally has had it much easier than all those other groups now also might kind of be getting a shit deal? okay...as someone said above, the reality is we are ALL getting a super shit deal right now. so now what? 😕

 

anyways, mainly i would like to say that other than the expected suspects flinging their usual pop-in troll bs (moreso in the other thread actually)... both this and the MN fraud thread are good examples of intelligent people discussing/arguing the actual merits of a topic including nuance, facts and figures, and varying perspectives. not necessarily finding agreement, but just being able to have/read these discussions with a minimum of trolls poo-flinging is rather refreshing. kudos to most of the participants. 

 

 

i mean where am i??

image.gif.6a39dd8b15456071e53f0e44bdd490e8.gif

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, mchookem said:

white millennial male discrimination grievances.

The grievances are about as legitimate as Milton complaining that his paychecks stopped coming in

Posted
52 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think it'll change the general conversation if you're still insisting that anecdote be taken as proof of a more generalized problem.

Indeed that’s why I didn’t offer examples to begins with- I’m not trying to prove the existence of a generalized problem. The personal experience of any human is entirely subjective and inherently anecdotal.
I’m arguing that the progressive movement should be open to people who feel the economy is rigged against them or been denied opportunity for no reason other than being born, and should not deny the realities of their lives or wave them away with statistical generalities. 

Posted
10 minutes ago, mchookem said:

both this and the MN fraud thread are good examples of intelligent people discussing/arguing the actual merits of a topic including nuance, facts and figures, and varying perspectives.

Is that thread worth reading? It seems like such a local issue I’m struggling to follow it other than that I see people online being super racist about Somalis and other East Africans in MSP.
That sucks because they are awesome, work super hard, and their cuisines kick ass. 

Posted
14 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I’m arguing that the progressive movement should be open to people who feel the economy is rigged against them or been denied opportunity for no reason other than being born, and should not deny the realities of their lives or wave them away with statistical generalities. 

Well why didn't you just say that 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Indeed that’s why I didn’t offer examples to begins with- I’m not trying to prove the existence of a generalized problem. The personal experience of any human is entirely subjective and inherently anecdotal.
I’m arguing that the progressive movement should be open to people who feel the economy is rigged against them or been denied opportunity for no reason other than being born, and should not deny the realities of their lives or wave them away with statistical generalities. 

Ok, so what exactly do you want the response to be? That's where the disconnect is. You keep saying you want the progressive movement to be open to these people. Great. It is. It wants to help everyone. It is just the particular problem may be caused by something different than they think.  Helping them means doing something different than what I they think needs to be done. That isn't hand waiving the problem. It is attempting to identify and correct it. 

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, G650 said:

Well why didn't you just say that 

What would be the fun in that?

15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Ok, so what exactly do you want the response to be? That's where the disconnect is.

Solidarity instead of rejection 

15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You keep saying you want the progressive movement to be open to these people. Great. It is. It wants to help everyone

I COMPLETELY disagree. I think the mainstream of the progressive movement is mainly a social/cultural affection of older, mass affluent whites who enjoy the performance of “helping people*” as long as it doesn’t involve personal risk or loss of social status. 

*the right kind of people

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
35 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Indeed that’s why I didn’t offer examples to begins with- I’m not trying to prove the existence of a generalized problem. The personal experience of any human is entirely subjective and inherently anecdotal.
I’m arguing that the progressive movement should be open to people who feel the economy is rigged against them or been denied opportunity for no reason other than being born, and should not deny the realities of their lives or wave them away with statistical generalities. 

Does being open to them require playing along with imagined grievances? 

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Does being open to them require playing along with imagined grievances? 

Yes, it requires you to be open to the possibility that they aren’t imagined, even if the reasons are more complex than it seems to them. If someone gets shafted, they got shafted. That should be enough for you. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
17 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I COMPLETELY disagree. I think the mainstream of the progressive movement is mainly a social/cultural affection of older, mass affluent whites who enjoy the performance of “helping people*” as long as it doesn’t involve personal risk or loss of social status. 

 

So while I'm rambling, I also think we really have to separate culture from politics to be effective. I was actually thinking about this recently in the context of something else, but this is just another example. Republicans have banked on culture shit, but I can promise you if you feed and house a man the odds are in your favor he will vote for you.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yes, it requires you to be open to the possibility that they aren’t imagined, even if the reasons are more complex than it seems to them. If someone gets shafted, they got shafted. That should be enough for you. 

You're confused. We are open to the possibility they aren't imagined. But I'll still require evidence. That isn't any different than how I treat any other problem. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, G650 said:

So while I'm rambling, I also think we really have to separate culture from politics to be effective. I was actually thinking about this recently in the context of something else, but this is just another example. Republicans have banked on culture shit, but I can promise you if you feed and house a man the odds are in your favor he will vote for you.

I’m not sure that’s possible, and we’ve seen the reverse in rural Texas. 

Posted
29 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Solidarity instead of rejection 

Is that solidarity gonna go both ways? Because in my anecdotal experience, young white guys let you down more often than not when it comes to sticking up for someone different than them. 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yes, it requires you to be open to the possibility that they aren’t imagined, even if the reasons are more complex than it seems to them. If someone gets shafted, they got shafted. That should be enough for you. 

This sounds like a recipe to turn even more young white men against the Democratic party. What you're prescribing is identifying Democrats as their enemy. 

ETA: This is JD Vance, literally today:

You're saying that we need to tell young white men that he's correct.

Edited by wildcat09
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
19 minutes ago, G650 said:

 

So while I'm rambling, I also think we really have to separate culture from politics to be effective. I was actually thinking about this recently in the context of something else, but this is just another example. Republicans have banked on culture shit, but I can promise you if you feed and house a man the odds are in your favor he will vote for you.

The utter failure of Bidenomics begs to differ. 

Posted
16 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I’m not sure that’s possible, and we’ve seen the reverse in rural Texas. 

 

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

The utter failure of Bidenomics begs to differ. 

 

You both misunderstand me. I'm talking about not putting a cultural lens on people we are supposedly trying to help. And the 'we' in this circumstance is not you and me, but politicians and their messaging.

 

 

Posted

Sounds like the writer was a late millennial who did not find his niche within his industry during his prime years. Opportunities afforded to him in younger age to network may not have landed because he may not have been any kind of dazzling personality or he refused to chop it up and say the things everyone wants to hear in Hollywood. If one will not network, than you damn sure need to stay current and upskill. Digital age has shifted and moved the target due to constant tech upgrades.

Post WW2 to now, job options have largely been farm, enlist, work in manufacturing, or office work (I’m not gonna name all industries). In the grand scheme of things, how many working generations in this country’s history have actually faced discrimination? I think that history is much more dominated by sex.

Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

You're confused. We are open to the possibility they aren't imagined. But I'll still require evidence. That isn't any different than how I treat any other problem. 

That seems weird. If people are saying “I got shafted,” demanding they prove it to you is a weird way to engage them. 
Do you have the luxury of alienating them? 

Posted
I'm less concerned with the plight of unemployed white male screenwriters, but I do think there's an increasing gender imbalance amongst college graduates that seems impolite to bring up in progressive circles, and it's a good example of a general blind spot amongst progressives when it comes to issues that don't fit conveniently within their historical promotion of civil rights.  

I’ve raised that specific concern numerous times. Our society and systems are failing our young men across the board, and alarm bells should be ringing loudly.
And at least in my circles, it hasn’t been taboo to discuss.
We had a system of secondary and higher education. We opened it fully to women, and encouraged them to participate across the board. And it turns out, women are really good at the very things that helps one succeed within those systems. So, they’re beating men at their own game, at a 60-40 clip.
Good for women.
But it’s also very bad to leave men behind. A large cadre of bitter dudes is not a good social outcome.
However, I also don’t think that young men are willing to do their part to address this systemic issue. INSTEAD, what I see and hear is lazy generalities (minorities stealing our jobs, women are stuck up bitches who won’t have sex with me even though I’m the best Call of Duty player in my friend group, etc).
We can’t “solve the problems of young men” until they are willing take SOME modicum of ownership of their situation, and make an actual effort to change it.
Nope. Just gonna whine and blame and demand that someone put their finger on the scale to favor them again.
 
I think that is a common concern, but that is literally the opposite side of the coin of this conversation. It's the input, we are discussing the output. But I do think it's a serious conversation that need to be had to be sure.

Indeed.
And it starts at a young age. Our educational system is perfect for little girls, it’s lousy for squirmy little boys. The gap begins in first grade, and just gets worse. Leading to discouraged boys who just fall further behind.
But don’t worry, we have a social plan to deal with it: teach little Timmy in second grade that the real reason he’s falling behind is woke DEI.
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

SIAP but I’ve also seem commentary about the pressures of writers in Hollywood. Writers room have gotten smaller. If you get in a room instead of a 9+ month gig writing 23+ episodes, you write a few months for 8-10 episodes. I imagine execs ask showrunners how they’re attracting different audience demographics. The cast and writers’ demographics come into play.

News orgs have been drastically shrinking and asking more of writers. As in several stories and social media posts every day. And colleges have been focused on more adjunct instructors and not tenured professors.

 

Posted
9 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That seems weird. If people are saying “I got shafted,” demanding they prove it to you is a weird way to engage them. 
Do you have the luxury of alienating them? 

If I'm being asked to address the problem, yes. Are you really saying we should make broad policy decisions without evidence? If it turns out factually they aren't being shafted because of race, does that matter to you? 

Posted
That seems weird. If people are saying “I got shafted,” demanding they prove it to you is a weird way to engage them. 
Do you have the luxury of alienating them? 

Do minorities and women have luxury of indulging them?
These “aggrieved” people 1) believe it’s a zero sum game, 2) WANT it to be a zero sum game, and 3) will only accept everyone else losing as sufficient evidence that they are winning again.
Yeah, I’m SUPER interested in partnering up with people who will not think they’re getting a fair shake until they see my daughter getting fucked over.
To this demographic, “discrimination” is just like everything else: every accusation is a confession.
Sure, they’re voters and humans, so engage with them…but do it at arms length. Because right now, the main thing they want to see is discrimination…in their favor.
  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...