Schadrach

Pretty sure there’s at least one quote of Davis himself using the n-word to refer to federal agents before describing how bright they glow…

A husband is someone who wants to be a husband and has consent from the person they’re a husband of.

No, a husband, wife or spouse is in a legal marriage with their partner, and in many jurisdictions carries specific legal rights involving one’s partner. That’s what makes them one of those terms and not a boyfriend, partner, fuckbuddy or whatever else. Unless you want to go the route that every noun or adjective describing a human is an identity, and thus no words for describing people can possibly have any meaning other than “person who applies this label to themselves.”

Both of these words are identities, and letting people be who they want to be when it doesn’t affect other people is one of the values of the left. So you can go ahead and extend this reasoning to all personal identities that don’t harm others, and I think that answers your question.

looks over at Rachel Dolezal

You sure about that? And that’s without jumping deep down the radqueer rabbit hole. Lots of identities in there that mainstream progressives will reject the idea that you can simply identify as (even if we ignore the weird pro-pedo stuff).

Let’s be honest, the Dems were hoping that being afraid of Trump was going to win them 2024 the same way it won them 2020, except that the only reason it worked in 2020 was because being under Trump was fresh in people’s minds.

It’s a matter of state law, as most election stuff is. Trump could vote because he’s a resident of Florida and Florida only bars people convicted of felonies in Florida from voting, and only then until they have fully completed the punishment laid upon them (meaning both any custodial sentence and any fines). Trump was convicted of felonies in New York, so Florida doesn’t care and Trump could vote.

EDIT: I was incorrect regarding Florida law. Florida also bans people convicted of crimes from voting in Florida if the state where they were convicted would prevent them from voting. This doesn’t impact Trump because New York does not do this.

You’re also, in my opinion erroneously, subscribing to the notion that there are “absolute best” applicants rather than “best fits”.

I’m not, there’s not some sort of generically absolute best applicant, there’s only ever best fit for the given position. Unless you are implying that being a specific demographic or demographics makes one a better fit inherently?

Fourthly, your example of blind hiring is a very good example as to why it’s not a fix: it doesn’t take into consideration “invisible labor” women are subjected to. Etc.

Explicitly not being able to make a decision based on race/sex/etc because you do not know the race/sex/etc of the applicant and thus it cannot be a factor is itself not a fix for racist, sexist, etc hiring practices because it does not allow you to give members of certain races or sexes additional consideration because of their demographic membership? And proof of this is that not knowing candidate’s race/sex/etc doesn’t necessarily increase the likelihood that you will pick women, non-white, etc candidates?

This actually demonstrates the point though - it’s not about removing discrimination in the hiring process, it’s about targeting a specific mix and coming up with whatever policies help you approach that desired mix without doing anything explicitly illegal (like outright saying only to hire [or not hire] a certain race/sex/etc for a given position). It’s the difference between saying “we want to hire a black person for this job, if possible” and heavily emphasizing that your institution is a historically black college and the “need to fit in with the college community” when hiring for this position. I’m not saying but I’m saying and all.

Generally ad companies want to sell space to the highest bidder that won’t cost them more money than they’d make. They only bow to foreign Nazis when foreign Nazis are the most efficient way to make money, and that is more about bowing to money than bowing to Nazis.

You can never trust a salesman. And ad people are salesmen selling you buying stuff from other people. Politicians are salesmen selling that they should be in charge of you.

You mean a thin skinned narcissist? Yeah, but there are lots of thin skinned narcissists who aren’t also Nazis.

When I was a hiring manager the DEI directives I received weren’t “pick a minority over a more qualified person” it was “be cognizant of your biases and consider the benefits a different perspective will bring to your team when making a hiring decision”. I had to take a training course that exposed me to some things I hadn’t really taken into account before and I found it to be beneficial.

So, care to give an example, how that example is executed in policy or decision making process and how that results in more women, LGBTQ or POC being hired? “Consider the benefits a different perspective will bring to your team when making a hiring decision” certainly sounds an awful lot like corp-speak for “consider how being a member of a demographic underrepresented in your team is in itself a qualification and should be treated as a point in their favor over other candidates who are not.”

Like repeatedly mentioning that the institution is a historically black college and emphasizing a “need to fit in with the college community” as code for “we want to hire a black person” or companies listing literally impossible job requirements as a pretense for getting H1B visas (because “we want employees we can abuse because we can threaten to deport them if they don’t play along” doesn’t technically fly as opposed to “we cannot find qualified employees domestically” because all applicants are either under qualified or lying because the qualifications are impossible).

I was never forced to make a decision in a particular way or questioned after the fact.

Instead, you were taught essentially what was expected of you draped in corporate sensitivity speak, and expected to do your job as intended. Had you not in a broad sense started hiring more in line with whatever demographic alterations the training was meant to get you lean more in favor of (for example, if it was gender-focused and you were not broadly speaking hiring more women than before) there would have been further training. No direct calling out of specific hiring decisions for being the wrong race/gender/whatever. Because the layers of indirection and “awareness building” and “implicit bias training” and the like is done the way it is because a direct corporate mandate to to hire a specific number of a specific demographic would be illegal discrimination so instead you have to walk around the subject until you’ve worn a “hire more of this demographic” shaped trail.

So what’s your definition then? What is the difference between hiring in accordance with DEI and merely hiring the best candidate available regardless of race or sex?

You can’t claim to be actively trying to increase representation of some demographic in hiring without biasing the process specifically in their favor, which requires at some level treating membership in that demographic as a positive qualification. The farthest from doing that you can meaningfully get is doing something to increase that demographic in the pool of candidates

You might point to something like blind hiring, in which those doing the hiring don’t get to know the race or sex of candidates, but whether or not that’s a valid DEI policy depends entirely on outcome (for example a public works department in Australia took up blind hiring as a means to improve gender equality, then cancelled it because not knowing which candidates were women was causing them to hire fewer women). Because that’s at the very heart of what DEI is - attempting to engineer a specific demographic distribution as a final outcome and whether or not a given policy is a valid DEI policy is about whether or not it helps approach that goal demographic distribution.

No, it’s not. Because he’s not hiring competent people that are the right race over equal or better candidates that are some other race - he’s hiring based on being in his circle, regardless of competence. We wouldn’t be calling out his picks nearly so much if he was picking someone qualified and white over someone potentially more qualified and black rather than picking someone totally unqualified because he knows them.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Trump picks people from a few lists:

1. Republicans with a strong presence on social media.
2. Whoever wrote the relevant bit of Project 2025.
3. People plausibly accused of being Russian assets.

Not at all. The difference is that DEI puts race/sex/etc before merit (e.g. hiring the best person of a target demographic you can find rather than the best person in general, which may or may not be the same person) while old fashioned nepotism ignores both merit and demographics entirely and picks based solely on connections with the boss.

In other words, it’s even worse but since Trump is generally going to pick mostly white dudes and the occasional white woman MAGA will eat it up.

Yeah, well, the geese have it coming. They know what they did. At least branta canadensis, I don’t necessarily have anything against other species of goose.

Ducks are rapey as hell, but they haven’t done anything to me or mine in particular, so that’s between them and the other ducks.

That seems like a good reason to feed geese entire loaves of the stuff. Geese are fucking assholes.

Don’t you know - mass death caused by nanotech in the vaccines is just around the corner! At least that’s what all the anti-vax Xitter weirdos say. Probably with a something something Jews in there too.

Either that or the vaccines tell the body to make spike proteins but not to ever stop and the spike proteins cause damage which is going to cause the aforementioned mass dying from vaccines. Hence the spike protein removing supplements being shilled by someone I saw on another thread on here, with the logo that’s supposed to be a stylized W but looks like saggy tits.

Yes, that the account has paid Elon for a blue check. Originally it meant that the user was in fact who they appeared to be. Then it became a status symbol, then Twitter removed it on a couple of occasions for saying something they disagreed with, then came the accusations of Twitter admins being capricious about the whole process and essentially taking personal bribes in exchange for checks, then Elon bought it and made it a paid feature.

The grey check indicates the identity of an government or non-profit has been verified and the account is who it says it is.

Right, but because most of humanity has been mostly reproductively isolated from each other for most of history there is a correlation between expressed phenotype in the handful of things that we think of as “race” and a boatload of other assorted genetically linked things.

Like how dogs with certain eye colors are more likely to go deaf.

How ks the drill baby drill crowd going to compete against mini stars in a can?

Nu-Cu-Lar Bad? That’s…about as far as they’ll make it. To be fair, that might be as far as they need to. It’s all the oil companies will approve of them learning, at least.

Of course, it sounds like the big problem of how to remove more power from it than you spend keeping it reacting remains an issue, presuming they can continue to extend reaction lifetimes to be functionally unlimited.

biologically no

Biologically still kinda yes in that most of the world was mostly reproductively isolated from each other for most of history, and as such something as hypothetically meaningless as skin color correlates with likelihood of a whole array of other genetic things.

For example, the bigger a threat malaria was in your ancestors’ part of the world the more likely you are to inherit sickle cell (which has a bunch of downsides but also makes you resistant to malaria). It’s the reason frequency of lactose tolerance varies based on where your ancestors are from. It also impacts organ transplant availability, because the organ compatibility markers are not uniformly distributed across all racial/ethnic groups.

I wasn’t suggesting it as “font list and you’re done”. I was using it as an example because it’s one where I’m apparently really unusual.

I would think you’d basically want to spoof all known fingerprinting metrics to be whatever is the most common and doesn’t break compatibility with the actual setup too much. Randomizing them seems way more likely to break a ton of sites, but inconsistently, which seems like a bad solution.

I mean hypothetically you could also set up exceptions for specific sites that need different answers for specific fields, essentially telling the site whatever it wants to hear to work but that’s going to be a lot of ongoing work.