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. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

It's pretty obvious that the whole reason you brought this forth is because this resonated with you.

I should hope so. I repeatedly said it did.

37 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

Your whole viewpoint started based on feelings and not facts, and feelings is almost always a terrible way to form an opinion. 

My viewpoint “started” because what the author of the essay described aligns with my (and others who also posted) first hand experience as an older person watching/involved in the hiring/promotion/layoff process while we tried to correct historical underrepresentation of women and minorities. I questioned how much we accomplished at the time because it seemed like the people benefitting were already mostly products of extraordinary privilege and it had zero impact on the power structures involved, but I really hadn’t thought about the cost or negative impact in generational terms. 

37 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

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

Indeed, so I’m not sure what it has to do with what I posted. It would be asinine to suggest that diversity efforts are the primary reason millennials or even millennial males struggle, and it would also be inconsistent with hundreds or perhaps thousands of observations on the labor economy I’ve posted here and in previous incarnations of this community over the last 20+ years.

37 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

Bottom line is statistical analysis of demographics in the workplace across different genres doesn't support your worldview. 

I’m not sure what you think my worldview is. That’s why I asked about my angle. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


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.

I am sure this is true.  Not sure of the point though?  Hard to think of or even imagine a law firm in Texas that has a specialized practice that overwhelmingly only appeals to white women and white men.  Couple that with Wildcat apparently being a lawyer there and it is almost impossible to invision.

You are trying to suggest there is a scenario where a guy like Wildcat (we all obviously know his thoughts on just about everything) is working at a firm that specializes in practice areas  that overwhelmingly only attract white women and white men?  With Wildcat's views?  Unpossible.

If he doesn't want to defend his statements, I suppose I do not really care.  But I will say he is the picture of hypocrisy because he calls out everyone he disagrees with and expects everyone else on here to defend their statements. 

Wildcat has ripped white, straight, conservative males thousands of times on here.  Thousands.  Yet he apparently works for a law firm that overwhelmingly only takes white men and white women as clerks.  He so wanted to get a story in the thread where he could rip some straight/white/conservative law clerks he exposed himself.  Or maybe he just made it all up?  I have tried to think of every scenario that could give him the benefit of the doubt but I can not come up with any.  He either works for a racist law firm or he is a blatant liar.

Posted
15 hours ago, TexasEd said:

r/LateStageCapitalism - I fixed that famous cartoon to show a more accurate representation of wealth inequality

This right here is something every single person should look at that blames minorities for their economic life being in shambles. It would take a massive societal upheaval to get equality for everyone in how we all live, but this is where you start. That we have people hoarding unconscionable amounts money that should be in circulation for everyone just really strikes a nerve with me. Even right now trying to type out my thoughts on that picture really overwhelms me.

I don’t know who the person or group will be that finally breaks this down and takes back the money that all Americans should have access to in the form of better pay or even programs to help people attain a better education, but I’ll support them. The amount of good paying jobs that could be created for people with that hoarded money would go a long way towards our society finding some middle ground. It’s all so pointless and ridiculous that we’re going into the year 2026 and we’ve still got a set of ghouls like the person in the center of the picture doing that to everyone. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

This right here is something every single person should look at that blames minorities for their economic life being in shambles. It would take a massive societal upheaval to get equality for everyone in how we all live, but this is where you start. That we have people hoarding unconscionable amounts money that should be in circulation for everyone just really strikes a nerve with me. Even right now trying to type out my thoughts on that picture really overwhelms me.

I don’t know who the person or group will be that finally breaks this down and takes back the money that all Americans should have access to in the form of better pay or even programs to help people attain a better education, but I’ll support them. The amount of good paying jobs that could be created for people with that hoarded money would go a long way towards our society finding some middle ground. It’s all so pointless and ridiculous that we’re going into the year 2026 and we’ve still got a set of ghouls like the person in the center of the picture doing that to everyone. 

Totally agree, and it illustrates how intellectually captive we’ve become. Fixing this is a handful of pretty straightforward changes to the tax code. But in order to do that, you need a major political movement to capture a political party and put the economic solidarity of the middle 60% of net worth ahead of literally everything else. 

I don’t mean it has to exclude everything else. The opposite- it can’t exclude anyone as long as they are willing to put economic solidarity first. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
5 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

It would take a massive societal upheaval to get equality for everyone in how we all live, but this is where you start. That we have people hoarding unconscionable amounts money that should be in circulation for everyone just really strikes a nerve with me. Even right now trying to type out my thoughts on that picture really overwhelms me.

 

11 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Totally agree, and it illustrates how intellectually captive we’ve become. Fixing this is a handful of pretty straightforward changes to the tax code. But in order to do that, you need a major political movement to capture a political party and put the economic solidarity of the middle 60% of net worth ahead of literally everything else. 

I don’t mean it has to exclude everything else. The opposite- it can’t exclude anyone as long as they are willing to put economic solidarity first. 

NOW we are getting to some interesting cocktail party conversation (and I still gag everytime this thread is bumped and I see the title "Lost Generation" and it not being a Hemingway or Post-WWII expat literary community reference).

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

I still gag everytime this thread is bumped and I see the title "Lost Generation"

Yeah I was like “don’t give up on the ticket scalping.” 

Posted (edited)

Yeah...the answer is in the fucking tax code.  LOLz.

Every.fucking.time.

The fact that y'all think the answer is there is a huge part of the problem.

Edited by Iceman
Posted
7 minutes ago, Iceman said:

Yeah...the answer is in the fucking tax code.  LOLz.

Every.fucking.time.

The fact that y'all think the answer is there is a huge part of the problem.

Maybe sit this one out.

Posted
34 minutes ago, Iceman said:

Yeah...the answer is in the fucking tax code.  LOLz.

Every.fucking.time.

The fact that y'all think the answer is there is a huge part of the problem.

This isn't going to be one of those "just pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and you too can be a billionaire helping to increase the skyrocketing wealth inequality" things, right?

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

This isn't going to be one of those "just pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and you too can be a billionaire helping to increase the skyrocketing wealth inequality" things, right?

nah, it's more of a "stop worrying about kids' feelings and provide proper direction as parents.  Reward desired behavior and be deliberate as stewards of our youth.  Confidence comes from achievement, not the lack of red ink on a test or lack of a trophy for a non-winning effort" thing.

Then again, and I have admitted this many times; there's not a lot of political capital in my answers; but they are effective AF.

Edited by Iceman


×
×
  • Create New...