Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
19 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

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.

Neither. It means to sit with them in their feelings, listen, and not argue with them or attempt to explain them away. It’s what separates empathy from sympathy.

Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I got the impression that he didn’t read it based on his reaction, which seemed to be more of a reflexive response to a light skin, but if you did in fact read it, @wildcat09, I apologize. 
 

 

This:

What proposal? Why would anybody ever talk to an angry kid that way? It’s pure projection and totally bizarre.

 

 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Dude.  Most of our current information ecosystem aimed at young white males is "talking to angry kids" in EXACTLY that way.  That's a huge part of the problem.  

 

59 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yes, I agree with you and I made no such proposal that was something we should do in order to get people back into a voting coalition.

I think we have to meet people where they are to confort them, and we have to accept the truth of their personal experience do them. But that is a far cry from validating their most corrosive and misplaced resentments. 

The upshot of the essay, after all, was that minorities and women didn’t do anything wrong. They just got jobs.

I think we're done here.

Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No, because it was sloppy argumentation. You didn’t read the piece before you reacted, and then compensated by putting thoughts and motivations into the minds of people you don’t know, and then proposed a truly bizarre counterfactual scenario that involved me taking a position I wouldn’t. 
We’ve interacted enough that you know I try to give as good as I get, which is what I did then, too. That’s why i dismissed it that way. 

Even if someone didn't read the article, we can see your angle through your what you've personally written. I am pretty sure that's where @wildcat09 is coming from.

Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Ignore the reply where I noted that it very much depends on what the firm does/specializes in.  Different practices often have different ethnic mixes of the candidates who are interested in that practice.  Zero racism by the hiring firm necessary, the pool of M&A candidates is gonna be a lot whiter than the pool of family law or even litigation candidates.

Yeah like immigration law. I'm sure @sheeeit can guess what the demographic would be there. 

Posted
I did not ignore this.  The guy who made the post can answer for himself.  But in my close circle of friends and family there is an unusual high percentage of lawyers.  I am not aware of any firm (especially firms that hire 10 or so summer interns each year) that are practice specific.  Virtually all have a variety of practice specialties within the firm.  And the vast amount of law school students do not know what they want to specialize in while in school.  Some obviously do but most do not.  

And I’ve practiced for three decades and know plenty of firms that hire good numbers of associates (including mine) that do not have a broad-spectrum practice. For example, we have several practice groups/disciplines, but all in the same “space.” That space tends to draw more women, decent numbers of minorities, and in several practice groups, people with a technical background.
I know other firms where the practice is more “corporate” in nature. The poop of candidates interested in that is whiter and more male.
None of these are “exclusive” to one demographic or another, but the practice and firm type often skew things.
Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


I know other firms where the practice is more “corporate” in nature. The poop of candidates interested in that is whiter and more male.
 

What kind of fucking background screening are you perverts running over there? 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
48 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

Even if someone didn't read the article, we can see your angle through your what you've personally written. I am pretty sure that's where @wildcat09 is coming from.

I have no idea what this means. What’s my angle?

Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I have no idea what this means. What’s my angle?

Look man, I haven't commented on this subject much because I like to let the whites argue amongst themselves on topics like this. It's pretty obvious that the whole reason you brought this forth is because this resonated with you. Your whole viewpoint started based on feelings and not facts, and feelings is almost always a terrible way to form an opinion. The reason Millennials are getting squeezed out is far more complex. Most of it is because the olds aren't leaving. The workforce is getting older so not as many spots. Another is white male university enrollment has been steadily declining for years. I can go on but you get the picture. Bottom line is statistical analysis of demographics in the workplace across different genres doesn't support your worldview. The numbers have changed a little but far exceed the representation in population. 

 



×
×
  • Create New...