Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[tstorm823]

Well yes, if their ideas are worse or unworkable. And apparently that makes me conservative, in your bizarre reckoning.

It makes you a pragmatist. Pragmatism is conservative a lot of the time.

 

[Hawki]

Right. And someone working at a university is going to encounter a diverse student body. So it's quite relevant to know if the candidate believes universities should or shouldn't be diverse.

I disagree that's a relevant question to ask unless the position is directly related to it. If the litmus test is encountering a diverse body, then that would include a significant chunk of occupations.

OF. COURSE. NOT.

But if I oppose something, I oppose... that thing. I don't then transfer my opposition to anything else that might have sometimes included it. That's what you've done: you oppose discrimination, and you've seen that in some instances, DEI has led to discrimination. But rather than just continuing to oppose discrimination, you've chosen to oppose DEI as a whole, including the majority of implementations that aren't discriminatory.

A and B: We oppose liquid lead being around kids. It can poison em.

A: Look, lead is in paint! Paint is bad!

B: well no, only lead-based paint. Oppose the lead, but there's no reason to wholly oppose paint.

A: Well, nothings true 100% of the time... does it have to be a 100% incidence for you to oppose something?? Paint is bad!

^ that's how this conversation seems to me.

I listed a whole bunch of issues besides the discrimination one. You've focused on one issue, and ignored every other issue. Since you've brought up lead point, a correct metaphor would be:

A: You oppose plastic?

B: There's a lot of problems with plastic. We have to start reducing our production of it.

A: Why? Hardly anyone suffocates under a plastic bag. Why are you opposing plastic?

B: Actually, the problems with plastic are many and varied. They-

A: Stop overreacting!

It isn't my first choice to use a metaphor, but you can look at my earlier post where I listed every issue with DIE, you've just focused on one of them

Diversity and inclusion are pretty bare minimum values. Equity in most cases is too-- the only times I've seen objections, those objections have been from extreme, fringe implementations.

Not really. Diversity is a very new phenomeon, and hardly a universal value. There are pros to diversity as well as drawbacks.

Inclusion? Sure, that's generally positive. There's certain cases where certain people shouldn't be included for whatever reason (e.g. age restrictions), but yes, I think inclusion is positive on the whole.

Equity, however, is hardly value neutral. And as for your claim about objections to it being fringe...so, for instance, that AA is opposed by the majority of people across all walks of life is a "fringe" position then?

 

[Hawki]

All of this is overlooking the fact that the reasons given for opposing DEI statements-- both by Hawki and the initial article's author-- are based on objections to DEI itself.

Except that's categorically untrue. I've said multiple times that diversity is neutral, equity is contentious, inclusion is good. Go over the original article and find something that actually objects to any of these concepts in isolation, or any other article linked to. The primary issues being raised are that:

-DIE statements are required

-That DIE statements in of themselves are enough to disqualify an applicant

-That DIE requirements are making it extremely difficult to do one's job

Intentionally or not, you're spinning all of this into arguments against the concepts themselves.

 

[Terminal Blue]

No, I think it's just people with a mental development problem, sexual problem, or liking naive partners that they can dominate and control.

I remember a study in which participants were asked about the age of people they found most attractive, and what it basically found was that, on average, the women in the sample tend to rate men of similar age to themselves as most attractive. Men, on the other hand, always rated the youngest available category of women (18-21) as most attractive regardless of their own age.

Of course, we shouldn't take this at face value, because these people were being asked to pick from a selection of abstract numbers and because they are self-reporting they might not be entirely honest. But it does reflect a culture which treats extreme youth in women very much as a selling point. This may blow some minds, but most of the "teens" in porn are not actually teenagers, but the fact that marketing them as such works indicates that a lot of men are attracted to the idea of women being extremely young.

And when you put those men in positions of power or celebrity, they lose some of the inhibitions that most people at least pretend to have. They end up surrounded by people who have developed parasocial attachments to them, and I think it's easy in that position to forget that those people are real even if their feelings aren't, and that how you treat them has consequences for them.

 

[Silvanus]

It makes you a pragmatist. Pragmatism is conservative a lot of the time.

And most of the time-- such as here-- its nothing to do with conservatism.

Except that's categorically untrue. I've said multiple times that diversity is neutral, equity is contentious, inclusion is good. Go over the original article and find something that actually objects to any of these concepts in isolation, or any other article linked to. The primary issues being raised are that:

-DIE statements are required

-That DIE statements in of themselves are enough to disqualify an applicant

-That DIE requirements are making it extremely difficult to do one's job

Intentionally or not, you're spinning all of this into arguments against the concepts themselves.

But you don't believe "DEI" actually just means diversity, equity and inclusion. You objected when I equated them, and connected DEI to a bunch of other guff like segregation. You can't now claim DEI is just diversity, equity and inclusion when it starts to suit the argument.

 

[Hawki]

But you don't believe "DEI" actually just means diversity, equity and inclusion. You objected when I equated them, and connected DEI to a bunch of other guff like segregation. You can't now claim DEI is just diversity, equity and inclusion when it starts to suit the argument.

You're alternating between concepts and execution. Also, I was the one who brought up segregation. I brought up segregation because segregation has been carried out in the name of equity.

I'm not claiming that DIE is diversity, inclusion, and equity by itself. No-one is. Not even in the articles you claiming are, when in fact they're objecting against the things I just listed. No-one here, or in any article cited, has objected to diversity in of itself. The complaints against diversity are usually from the twats who complain about "forced diversity," the event horizon for them being anyone who doesn't look like them. But that has nothing to do with DIE statements.

 

[Ag3ma]

I remember a study in which participants were asked about the age of people they found most attractive, and what it basically found was that, on average, the women in the sample tend to rate men of similar age to themselves as most attractive. Men, on the other hand, always rated the youngest available category of women (18-21) as most attractive regardless of their own age.

Of course, we shouldn't take this at face value, because these people were being asked to pick from a selection of abstract numbers and because they are self-reporting they might not be entirely honest. But it does reflect a culture which treats extreme youth in women very much as a selling point. This may blow some minds, but most of the "teens" in porn are not actually teenagers, but the fact that marketing them as such works indicates that a lot of men are attracted to the idea of women being extremely young.

And when you put those men in positions of power or celebrity, they lose some of the inhibitions that most people at least pretend to have. They end up surrounded by people who have developed parasocial attachments to them, and I think it's easy in that position to forget that those people are real even if their feelings aren't, and that how you treat them has consequences for them.

I am aware of research that suggests men are more physically focused in ideas of attractiveness, which would create premium for youth. Or at least, society's idealised concept of physical beauty, which is itself heavily driven towards youth (for women, anyway).

And to be fair, when I was under 20, the idea of having sex with a 30+-year-old woman was kinda weird (they're like, ancient). But then we also grow up and mature: now I'd happily say there are lots of extremely good looking 40-something and 50-something women. Plus, learning that a huge chunk of attractiveness is liking someone for their personality.

 

[Hawki]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/peel-school-board-library-book-weeding-1.6964332

Ah, good old equity.

As someone who works in libraries, who's taken part in weeding, inventoried, who's sold weeded books and even gone dumpster raiding in order to give books to charity (or sometimes for myself, admittedly), all I can is "this ain't it, chief."

But then again, kids have to be protected from the grimdark past of, um, pre-2008. 0_0

 

[Silvanus]

I disagree that's a relevant question to ask unless the position is directly related to it. If the litmus test is encountering a diverse body, then that would include a significant chunk of occupations.

Indeed it would. If someone has hangups about diversity and inclusion, it's likely to affect how they treat people in a lot of occupations.

I listed a whole bunch of issues besides the discrimination one. You've focused on one issue, and ignored every other issue.

Because none of the issues you've identified are definitive or inherent to DEI, so the crux of the counterargument remains the same.

Not really. Diversity is a very new phenomeon, and hardly a universal value. There are pros to diversity as well as drawbacks.

Diversity is not a "new phenomenon"; mixing of people from very different demographics has taken place since the Great Migrations.

But anyway. Believe what you want. If I as an employer want someone to interact with a diverse student body, I'm not going to prefer someone who believes the student body should be homogeneous, because that candidate is less likely to treat people fairly.

Equity, however, is hardly value neutral. And as for your claim about objections to it being fringe...so, for instance, that AA is opposed by the majority of people across all walks of life is a "fringe" position then?

No. The examples you've provided that you think represent 'equity' so far have been things like paying people differently depending on their ethnicity. That's a completely absurd fringe example that has nothing in common with equity practices in 99.9% of places.

 

[Silvanus]

You're alternating between concepts and execution.

No: I've been consistent in defending DEI as a concept, and pointing out that issues with the implementation of DEI in some institutions do not tarnish the idea of DEI.

Also, I was the one who brought up segregation. I brought up segregation because segregation has been carried out in the name of equity.

Yes, I know-- I said you connected DEI to segregation.

A bit like saying that because theft has been carried out in the name of redistribution, therefore redistribution is bad.

I'm not claiming that DIE is diversity, inclusion, and equity by itself. No-one is.

Yet when I said you opposed DEI, you responded by saying that's untrue... because of your beliefs on the concepts of diversity, equity and inclusion. You used them interchangeably for that reply, and I pointed out that doing so is inconsistent with your own position.

 

[Hawki]

Indeed it would. If someone has hangups about diversity and inclusion, it's likely to affect how they treat people in a lot of occupations.

I've already given you actual examples of people being treated differently. Equity and AA is inherently based on treating people differently.

Diversity is not a "new phenomenon"; mixing of people from very different demographics has taken place since the Great Migrations.

Ah yes, the Great Migrations...the period over which time homo sapiens outcompeted every other genus of homo, separated themselves into tribes, and after the agricultural revolution, spent the next 12000 years waging war on each other. The result being now, we're in the most peaceful period in human history (or at least since the dawn of agriculture), the flipside of which being that inter-country wars have generally been replaced by civil wars.

Human societies have traditionally been homogenous. Yes, you can find exceptions to the rule, usually across empires (and even then, usually with one group at the top), but actual countries, actual regions, have traditionally been homogenous entities until extremely recently (relatively speaking). The idea that humanity was in one big kum bi yah is flatly contradicted by the historical evidence. Also, there's a cute Histeria song about it, and if you can't trust dwarf Napoleon, who can you trust?

But anyway. Believe what you want. If I as an employer want someone to interact with a diverse student body, I'm not going to prefer someone who believes the student body should be homogeneous, because that candidate is less likely to treat people fairly.

Except interacting with a diverse body is generally part of life, particularly if you live in a capital city of a MEDC. And treating people fairly is all well and good until the demands involve treating people unfairly (again, see the DIE requirements).

No. The examples you've provided that you think represent 'equity' so far have been things like paying people differently depending on their ethnicity. That's a completely absurd fringe example that has nothing in common with equity practices in 99.9% of places.

I can give numerous examples of pricing differences based on ethnicity, all of which were done in the name of equity. AA, which is hardly fringe, is also a form of equity. Removing advanced courses because the makeup of those taking said courses wasn't representative is another example of equity.

Now, you're entitled to say that all of that is "fringe," but I find that incredible.

Yes, I know-- I said you connected DEI to segregation.

A bit like saying that because theft has been carried out in the name of redistribution, therefore redistribution is bad.

I don't know how many times we have to go in this circle. I've given examples of segregation, I've given my stance on segregation, all you can do is insist that it's fringe.

As for redistribution, that exists separate of any other issue here. I'm sure most of us are fine with redistribution (unless you call taxation theft), but that's a potential can of worms all of its own.

Yet when I said you opposed DEI, you responded by saying that's untrue... because of your beliefs on the concepts of diversity, equity and inclusion. You used them interchangeably for that reply, and I pointed out that doing so is inconsistent with your own position.

All I can say is re-read my posts. I've given my thoughts on diversity, equity, and inclusion, and I've given my thoughts on DEI statements. I'm not repeating myself yet again.

 

[Silvanus]

I've already given you actual examples of people being treated differently. Equity and AA is inherently based on treating people differently.

Take a look at the context. Equity practises are quite a way away from treating students from different backgrounds unfairly because you believe the student body should be homogeneous.

Ah yes, the Great Migrations...the period over which time homo sapiens outcompeted every other genus of homo, separated themselves into tribes, and after the agricultural revolution, spent the next 12000 years waging war on each other. The result being now, we're in the most peaceful period in human history (or at least since the dawn of agriculture), the flipside of which being that inter-country wars have generally been replaced by civil wars.

...not really seeing how this simplistic history lesson is relevant. Demographic mixing isn't new. That's the point, and none of this changes that.

Human societies have traditionally been homogenous. Yes, you can find exceptions to the rule, usually across empires (and even then, usually with one group at the top), but actual countries, actual regions, have traditionally been homogenous entities until extremely recently (relatively speaking). The idea that humanity was in one big kum bi yah is flatly contradicted by the historical evidence. Also, there's a cute Histeria song about it, and if you can't trust dwarf Napoleon, who can you trust?

This applies to some societies, but far from all. Numerous large and prosperous societies-- among them Spain, Egypt and China at points-- experienced demographic mixing for centuries prior to the modern age. Nobody is saying it was all peace and butterflies. But demographic mixing is factually, demonstrably not new.

Except interacting with a diverse body is generally part of life, particularly if you live in a capital city of a MEDC. And treating people fairly is all well and good until the demands involve treating people unfairly (again, see the DIE requirements).

Indeed it is generally part of life. And quite a few people have weird hangups about that, and treat people unfairly based on their background. If I as an employer get an indication a candidate is likely to do so, then it's quite reasonable to count that as a minus.

I can give numerous examples of pricing differences based on ethnicity, all of which were done in the name of equity. AA, which is hardly fringe, is also a form of equity. Removing advanced courses because the makeup of those taking said courses wasn't representative is another example of equity.

Now, you're entitled to say that all of that is "fringe," but I find that incredible.

AA isn't fringe, but it's routinely misrepresented and usually used in very limited ways. Pricing differences based on ethnicity is fringe. I've literally never seen it, having interacted with hundreds of businesses and orgs with DEI policies.

I don't know how many times we have to go in this circle. I've given examples of segregation, I've given my stance on segregation, all you can do is insist that it's fringe.

All you have to do is stop pretending it's definitive or emblematic of DEI.

As for redistribution, that exists separate of any other issue here. I'm sure most of us are fine with redistribution (unless you call taxation theft), but that's a potential can of worms all of its own.

Yes-- but if we use the same line of logic you're using for DEI ("X bad thing has sometimes been done in the name of Y, so therefore Y is bad"), where does that take us...?

Bad stuff has been done in the name of almost everything. That's the point.

All I can say is re-read my posts. I've given my thoughts on diversity, equity, and inclusion, and I've given my thoughts on DEI statements. I'm not repeating myself yet again.

Good! We all know your thoughts on those things. You could try addressing the actual points raised instead.

 

[Gergar12]

Goddamn he was my favorite comedian.

 

[Schadrach]

No. The examples you've provided that you think represent 'equity' so far have been things like paying people differently depending on their ethnicity. That's a completely absurd fringe example that has nothing in common with equity practices in 99.9% of places.

What equity practices aren't about giving certain demographics explicit favoritism with a goal of trying to get the final outcomes to match or exceed some preplanned demographic goals?

For example, look at the (since overturned by the courts) law passed in CA about the sex makeup of corporate boards, passed in the name of diversity and equity.

Or look at sex and higher education for the last 40 years. The explicit "equity" goal is that at least half of students and graduates be women. We hit that goal over 40 years ago (and went well past the 50% mark since), so instead of declaring it a job well done (or dialing it back or even swinging in the other direction as the numbers continued to move) we just keep narrowing the scope to the set of fields where that remains not the case, periodically narrowing it further as we go.

Equity practises are quite a way away from treating students from different backgrounds unfairly because you believe the student body should be homogeneous.

Instead, they are about explicitly treating students from certain backgrounds preferentially because you believe the student body should meet or exceed specific demographic targets. If you were instead concerned about treating students identically across racial/ethnic/sex/gender/etc lines regardless of what the final distribution looked like, that would cease to be "equity". For example, something like blind hiring could be seen as a way of promoting equity, but only if it results in who is hired moving in the "correct" direction (because equity is about the result, not the process).

 

[Silvanus]

What equity practices aren't about giving certain demographics explicit favoritism with a goal of trying to get the final outcomes to match or exceed some preplanned demographic goals?

For example, look at the (since overturned by the courts) law passed in CA about the sex makeup of corporate boards, passed in the name of diversity and equity.

Or look at sex and higher education for the last 40 years. The explicit "equity" goal is that at least half of students and graduates be women. We hit that goal over 40 years ago (and went well past the 50% mark since), so instead of declaring it a job well done (or dialing it back or even swinging in the other direction as the numbers continued to move) we just keep narrowing the scope to the set of fields where that remains not the case, periodically narrowing it further as we go.

Well, let's see. How about wheelchair access? That's equity-- making adjustments that assist some people who would otherwise be disadvantaged. It's also completely innocuous and widely accepted.

Free prescriptions and eye tests. Discounts for students/elderly/veterans/unemployed. Free school meals for disadvantaged kids. Tax-free sanitary items. Redistributive tax. Foreign aid and most forms of charity. These are forms of equity that aren't about "favouritism", whatever that means-- they're about levelling the playing field and addressing areas that are otherwise unfair.

Instead, they are about explicitly treating students from certain backgrounds preferentially because you believe the student body should meet or exceed specific demographic targets. If you were instead concerned about treating students identically across racial/ethnic/sex/gender/etc lines regardless of what the final distribution looked like, that would cease to be "equity". For example, something like blind hiring could be seen as a way of promoting equity, but only if it results in who is hired moving in the "correct" direction (because equity is about the result, not the process).

Equity is very much about the process. Equity policies very often promise nothing about the result; they focus on ensuring the process is not itself unfairly affecting some more than others.

I think you're just really talking about quotas, which are a clumsy and highly imperfect tool for pursuing equity, but which I believe could still have some value when the organisation is highly discriminatory in an entrenched way.

 

[Hades]

This may blow some minds, but most of the "teens" in porn are not actually teenagers, but the fact that marketing them as such works indicates that a lot of men are attracted to the idea of women being extremely young.

I mean not really because if you make porn vids starring teenagers then at some point the police are gonna have a word with you. From both a moral and business aspect it makes way more sense to just use young looking adults.

 

[Absent]

Of course, we shouldn't take this at face value, because these people were being asked to pick from a selection of abstract numbers and because they are self-reporting they might not be entirely honest. But it does reflect a culture which treats extreme youth in women very much as a selling point.

Well, have you ever seen a movie.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I am aware of research that suggests men are more physically focused in ideas of attractiveness, which would create premium for youth. Or at least, society's idealised concept of physical beauty, which is itself heavily driven towards youth (for women, anyway).

I feel like most people over the age of 30 have very little real understanding of what 18 year olds are like. Because, having actually had the misfortune of being the object of an 18 year old's crush, I feel like if you yourself have undergone any form of maturation in the course of reaching 30 you can't look at that and not see a child. I'm aware that people age differently and I don't deny there are probably people of that age who I would find attractive, but for the sake of my own belief in humanity I cannot accept that the fixation men seem to have on youth is anything other than a bizarre fetish for the idea of youth, rather than some genuine attraction towards the awkward, underdeveloped reality.

I also feel that a lot of what registers as attractiveness, including that idealized concept of beauty, is extremely artificial. Feminine beauty in particular is highly constructed, it takes work and skill to create, and the sad fact is, most 18 year olds don't have the skills or resources to make themselves attractive. They tend to look messy, and I think that draws a certain type of predatory person who is attracted to vulnerability and low self-esteem, but again, I choose to believe most people would find it a turn off.

I mean not really because if you make porn vids starring teenagers then at some point the police are gonna have a word with you. From both a moral and business aspect it makes way more sense to just use young looking adults.

An 18 year old is still a teenager, and as long as your paperwork is in order the legal risk is minimal. The problem, again, is that I don't think a lot of guys realize how young 18 year olds actually look. There's an obvious difference between porn made for younger audiences where the actors are actually in their late teens or very early 20s and porn featuring "teen" fantasies made for older people, because deep down I suspect both the men and women in the study I quoted are responding more to the cultural associations of the numbers themselves than their real preferences, and I would hypothesize the truth is actually somewhere between the men and women in that study. I think most people find youth appealing, but not to the point that they feel they can no longer relate to someone.

 

[Gergar12]

UK police in a nutshell.

MSN

 

[Gordon_4]

UK police in a nutshell.

MSN

Okay so he didn’t chase them on foot, which no self-respecting police officer would give a shit about, but he got in his car and tried to Hollywood car chase them and then reality ensued.

Like I feel for him, but he fucked up. He did a damn stupid thing and the only reason any public sentiment is on his side is because he didn’t maim or kill an unrelated party.

EDIT: also as an aside, the police are likely very much on his side, but they’re obligated to charge him with the offences he committed. Any leniency was up to the Crown Prosecution Service, who could have reviewed the facts and returned either a heavily reduced prosecution or even if they were feeling magnanimous (or very drunk), decide he had no case to answer.