Funny events in anti-woke world

[Silvanus]

The pattern is the Biden Administration appointed disproportionately black and female officers to high positions. Those positions cycle out pretty regularly, even without extraordinary circumstances, but both Trump and Biden admins have been pretty heavy-handed as far as ousting their predecessors appointments. If you look up the people who have been fired by Hegseth from which you make this claim individually, you will find that every one of those women and minorities was a Biden appointee to the position they were removed from.

And is that a valid justification for terminating careers without cause? That they were appointed by Biden? Do you think it immaterial that this leads to a situation where you're far more likely to lose your job under a Trump admin if you're black or female, regardless of merit?

Joe Biden, the man solely responsible for nominating her, explicitly said she wouldn't have that job if she wasn't a black woman. This is not some sort of race obsession by Hegseth, Joe Biden stated that was precisely his intention even before picking Jackson. That does not mean it wasn't a pick with merit, though merit in this case is somewhat relative to your view of the law, but Hegseth is 100% correct to say she was picked because she's a black woman.

We're not talking about Jackson. We're talking about C.Q. Brown.

Here's a fun little double standard: when Democrats appoint women and minorities, you think there is zero reason to think that had anything to do with their appointment,

? No I don't. Affirmative action exists.

but if Republicans remove them, it's everything to do with why they were removed. Would it not make more sense that Democrats appointed their ideological allies and Republicans removed their ideological opposition?

Not when Hegseth is explicitly invoking race, and ascribing success solely to race, before appointing a white successor who is significantly less accomplished.

Not when Hegseth has also been striking black and female candidates from internal promotion lists, which have nothing to do with Biden or the Democrats whatsoever.

 

[Hades]

I made that post in response to someone who, from across the ocean, believes that Trump's administration is doing racial purging of the military. I may not be all-knowing, but it's easy to be on the more correct side of that argument.

You'd think so, but unfortunately Hegseth's firing and promotion/demotion policies are fairly open and tend to have some very interesting ''coincidences'' on who gets fired or withheld promotions

Even if it was a very uh ''unfortunate'' overcorrection to punish staff for daring to be promoted while black under Biden Hegseth should have had the grace to wait until there were signs they were promoted beyond their merrit, since in the absence of that situation he's merely a racist drunk dick.

 

[tstorm823]

Do you think it immaterial that this leads to a situation where you're far more likely to lose your job under a Trump admin if you're black or female, regardless of merit?

Not only do I think it immaterial, I think it is critical for those groups that we treat it as immaterial. You've got to think of it as rules of a game and consider what behavior those rules incentivize. If we say "we can't be in a situation where we fire disproportionately women and minorities", then we incentivize our opponents to make those appointments specifically, and open them up to making appointments based on partisanship with limited recourse. If you refuse to fire them because of their race or gender, you incentivize the other team to use those appointments for people who are questionably qualified but directionally loyal.

Trump has a number of female and minority appointments, some of who are more fiercely aligned with his interests than any of the white guys. Imagine a world where Democrats decline to replace them because they don't want to be seen firing women and minorities? Imagine what Republicans would do if Democrats were afraid to replace MAGA women in the government. And then downstream of that, imagine if the most prominent women and minorities in government were known to be there as Trump loyalists that were only picked because Democrats can only fire white guys. Your creation creates the DEI world and stokes the resentment.

Not when Hegseth has also been striking black and female candidates from internal promotion lists, which have nothing to do with Biden or the Democrats whatsoever.

Hegseth, speaking before Congress, responded to this question saying that they review every general officer potentially up for promotion, and that the number reviewed and removed is higher than then numbers being reported. C.Q. Brown refused to strike two woman and two black men from a promotion list. Did he also refuse to strike white guys from the list as well? Or was he taking a stand based on sex and race specifically? If these demographics are weaponized against one party in particular, it's neither bigotry nor coincidence to see that party striking them down.

 

[Bedinsis]

It would also open the doors for Elon Musk to worm his way into the presidency.

I'd be fine with that. The potential that a president would be awful is there no matter if it is produced domestically or abroad.

 

[Silvanus]

Not only do I think it immaterial, I think it is critical for those groups that we treat it as immaterial. You've got to think of it as rules of a game and consider what behavior those rules incentivize. If we say "we can't be in a situation where we fire disproportionately women and minorities", then we incentivize our opponents to make those appointments specifically, and open them up to making appointments based on partisanship with limited recourse. If you refuse to fire them because of their race or gender, you incentivize the other team to use those appointments for people who are questionably qualified but directionally loyal.

Nobody is asking for a situation in which minorities can not lose their jobs, and we're left without recourse if they need to be removed. What is asked is that job security be based on performance and suitability for the role.

Hegseth has not taken this approach. He has removed people of strong record, and replaced them with lesser appointees, and one of the main patterns in replacement is substituting minorities for white men.

If you want to talk about incentivisation, think about how this incentivises individuals to apply for military roles. The message from Hegseth and Trump is that if you're a minority, it doesn't matter if you want to serve your country or how well you perform in post; when Republicans get in, your success will be attributed to "DEI", and your career will be derailed.

Hegseth, speaking before Congress, responded to this question saying that they review every general officer potentially up for promotion, and that the number reviewed and removed is higher than then numbers being reported. C.Q. Brown refused to strike two woman and two black men from a promotion list. Did he also refuse to strike white guys from the list as well? Or was he taking a stand based on sex and race specifically? If these demographics are weaponized against one party in particular, it's neither bigotry nor coincidence to see that party striking them down.

So in short, what you offer here is speculation that actions or decisions from Brown justify Hegseth in singling out minorities.

Fact remains. When he disproportionately targeted minorities for removal, it patently wasn't just ideological Biden/ Dem appointees. The pattern went deeper, and the commonality in who he dislikes is their demographic.

He's a drunken, thuggish, inexperienced racist.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

K. What's the relevance of this?



And you think this because an ex fossil fuel executive on a YouTube video told you they don't "gel".



I'm sure policy has much to do with it. But the fact of the matter is the prices are ultimately set by private energy companies, and renewable energy generation is cheaper than fossil fuel energy generation.



The government data is inexhaustive because it doesn't include all subsidies. We have established this; we know the issue with it.

Whereas you haven't actually identified any issue with the higher figure, you're just shouting "bias" and dismissing it out of hand.

If EVs are so much more efficient in every possible metric (according to you) than ICE cars, why are EVs so expensive when just one component costs as much as an ICE car and we used child labor to mine for it (meaning it's much cheaper than it should be yet still more expensive)? EVs are more expensive and even more morally problematic than ICE cars.

And engineers have the same take as her, and 90+% of countries that get a substantial amount of electricity from renewables don't depend on solar/wind (just maybe because it's not dependable...).

The company charges a price and then there's a tax on top of it... You are literally paying for your renewable energy to not generate energy...

What source would know how much the subsidies are more accurately, the government source (the one that literally creates/makes all the subsidies) or the anti-fossil fuel organization that doesn't have said information?

Weird argument since Trump being a far right demagogue is one of the common of takes. One that Trump does not even deny much given who he idolizes and emulates.

All the weirder since it requires an extreme amount of propaganda to sell Trump as your typical wholesome rightwinger as they always have been , let alone a competent one.

Politicians are ALL DEMAGOGUES, stop using words that are rather meaningless.

I used to believe that a citizen not born in the US shouldn't be president, but I am starting to change my mind on changing that solely due to Mamdani. Imagine him just doing his job and using his high IQ and EQ to push things through like M4A, a bigger Green New Deal, and possibly a 15-25 dollar minimum wage.

Mamdani is just a rich trust fond kid that spouts Reddit-level left-wing nonsense that will never work and only make things worse. Mamdani would objectively be worse than Trump.

 

[Schadrach]

Trump also stuttered, muttered and seemed to forget what he was going on about, in addition to spreading pure falsehoods.

There's a significant portion of the population that will fall behind someone who is confident and loud, even if he's rambling, usually wrong, usually provably wrong and lies every few words, regardless of just how much pure unadultered crazy is involved. Why do you think we're the country the Mormons and Scientologists both came from?

I don't think Musk can do that effectively - basically any career politician would just stomp him the moment he got into a debate, even if by some miracle he was suddenly blessed to be genuinely correct about everything and was genuinely presenting the best possible policy ideas. It's not a game he's any good at playing. He's not the salesman nor showman that you need to be to get elected at any level of public office.

 

[Hades]

Politicians are ALL DEMAGOGUES, stop using words that are rather meaningless.

No. Every politician wants votes. That does not mean every politician is a demagogue.

 

[Hades]

So due to his obvious corruption Farage resigned from being an MP, and immidiately enlisted to run for his own seat again. Its theater rather than actually taking account for his actions. As such all the other candidates declined to run....except Count Binface.

Britain or at least Clacton now has the chance to do the funniest thing ever. Vote for the count to deprive the far right leader his seat in favor of a literal joke candidate. And considering the anti far right vote can now stand behind one candidate rather than splinter its even theoretically possible for this to happen. Not likely, but still possible.

Don't let us down Britain!

 

[Bedinsis]

And engineers have the same take as her, [...]

Got a source on that?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

No. Every politician wants votes. That does not mean every politician is a demagogue.

What politician doesn't do the following?
appeals to popular prejudices and who makes false claims and promises in order to gain power

Got a source on that?

As reliability concerns with renewables rise, upgrading inverters is urgent, analysts say

The variable output of renewable energy resources requires “grid-forming” inverters to protect power system current flows, engineers and others agree.

www.utilitydive.com

 

[Silvanus]

If EVs are so much more efficient in every possible metric (according to you) than ICE cars [...]

I... never said this. We weren't even talking about EVs. I don't know what you're blathering about.

And engineers have the same take as her [...]

They don't. The sole voice you've provided so far is an ex-fossil fuel exec with no relevant professional or educational experience.

The company charges a price and then there's a tax on top of it...

Uh-huh, and most of the cost to the consumer is the price set by the company. There's a reason energy companies rake in such obscene profits.

What source would know how much the subsidies are more accurately, the government source (the one that literally creates/makes all the subsidies) or the anti-fossil fuel organization that doesn't have said information?

Hmm. Yet it does have that information. Its right there. You're just refusing to read it, which isn't the same thing.

You can claim its wrong if you want, but you've not actually identified any issues with the data; you've just insisted it must be biased and wrong if it criticises fossil fuels.

 

[tstorm823]

Hegseth has not taken this approach. He has removed people of strong record, and replaced them with lesser appointees, and one of the main patterns in replacement is substituting minorities for white men.

Fact remains. When he disproportionately targeted minorities for removal, it patently wasn't just ideological Biden/ Dem appointees.

You have no evidence for this.

 

[Hades]

What politician doesn't do the following?
appeals to popular prejudices and who makes false claims and promises in order to gain power

As reliability concerns with renewables rise, upgrading inverters is urgent, analysts say

The variable output of renewable energy resources requires “grid-forming” inverters to protect power system current flows, engineers and others agree.

www.utilitydive.com

As their entire platform? Only the demagogues and you know who that are. But even beyond that even political sales pitches are not
''appeals to popular prejudices and who makes false claims and promises in order to gain power''

Kindly do not gasslight us into thinking the freaks you support are how everyone is and always has been. They are vile dangerous mutations for a reason.

 

[Hades]

Mamdani is just a rich trust fond kid that spouts Reddit-level left-wing nonsense that will never work and only make things worse. Mamdani would objectively be worse than Trump.

Your distrust is kinda weird because Social Democracy has been a highly successful political stream. Find among the most important, best regarded leaders and they are typically social democrats. Be they Drees, Palme or Atlee. Even left wingers closer to the centrum tend to have outgoverned their peers. Its worth noting that neoliberalism reached their zenith under Clinton and Blair. Given how neobliberalism turned out to be destructive they shouldn't have done that, but it still says something the left (or ''left'') was apparently needed to get the most out of a right wing philosophy.

Contrasting red states and blue states also is not really to the red's benefit

So little wealth and services going to the public that there are '''death by despair'' event shows that at last some shift to the citizen is needed.

 

[Silvanus]

You have no evidence for this.

For which part?

Its a fact that most of the people he has fired or forcibly retired have been minorities or women.

Its a fact that no performance issues have been given.

Its a fact that replacements for some, such as Brown's replacement Caine, are significantly less experienced.

And its a fact that Hegseth has also intervened to block promotions for minority candidates on internal military lists, nothing to do with Biden.

So what exactly are you disputing? Just the inferred motive? If so, then sure, i cannot definitively prove racism. But when Hegseth insinuates C.Q. Brown just got the job because he's black, and then replaces him with someone less experienced and less meritorious, I can see what's happening.

Drunken. Thuggish. Racist. You know it, too, but have made the trade-off to overlook or excuse it to protect the Republican brand.

 

[tstorm823]

For which part?

Its a fact that most of the people he has fired or forcibly retired have been minorities or women.

Its a fact that no performance issues have been given.

Its a fact that replacements for some, such as Brown's replacement Caine, are significantly less experienced.

And its a fact that Hegseth has intervened to block promotions for minority candidates on internal military lists, nothing to do with Biden.

So what exactly are you disputing?

All of that. You don't know all of who has been removed, you have a few small select lists, you don't know anything about these people or who replaced them. You have no particular insight to say decisions were not based on merit, and you definitely have nothing to substantiate that they were based on race or gender.

You know that in some select scenarios, black and female military members were removed or overlooked for promotion. You know that Democrats and Democrat appointees protested.

 

[Silvanus]

All of that. You don't know all of who has been removed, you have a few small select lists, you don't know anything about these people or who replaced them.

The number is 24 generals or senior commanders, as per the House Armed Services Committee, with about 60% of them black or women. Many of the names are public, and their careers are public record.

Chief of Staff General Randy George
General David Hodne
Major General William Green Jr.
General Timothy Haugh
Lt. General Jeffrey Kruse
Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield
Admiral Lisa Franchetti
C.Q. Brown
General James Slife
Admiral Linda Fagan
Admiral Nancy Lacore
R. Admiral Jamie Sands
Admiral Alvin Holsey

You have no particular insight to say decisions were not based on merit, and you definitely have nothing to substantiate that they were based on race or gender.

Except of course, Hegseth specifically invoking race when discussing Brown, & speculating that he got the job on that basis. Then appointing someone of less merit to replace him.

You know that in some select scenarios, black and female military members were removed or overlooked for promotion. You know that Democrats and Democrat appointees protested.

And Republicans. Numerous Republicans protested quite strenuously. The ones who still have some vestigial concern for meritocracy.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

As their entire platform? Only the demagogues and you know who that are. But even beyond that even political sales pitches are not
''appeals to popular prejudices and who makes false claims and promises in order to gain power''

Kindly do not gasslight us into thinking the freaks you support are how everyone is and always has been. They are vile dangerous mutations for a reason.

I doubt you can find any politician that is true for their ENTIRE PLATFORM. Plus, that's not what the definition entails anyway... Remember the democrats claiming 2024 was an election to SAVE DEMOCRACY!!!

Your distrust is kinda weird because Social Democracy has been a highly successful political stream. Find among the most important, best regarded leaders and they are typically social democrats. Be they Drees, Palme or Atlee. Even left wingers closer to the centrum tend to have outgoverned their peers. Its worth noting that neoliberalism reached their zenith under Clinton and Blair. Given how neobliberalism turned out to be destructive they shouldn't have done that, but it still says something the left (or ''left'') was apparently needed to get the most out of a right wing philosophy.

Contrasting red states and blue states also is not really to the red's benefit

So little wealth and services going to the public that there are '''death by despair'' event shows that at last some shift to the citizen is needed.

I'm totally for probably like 90% of the policy of Sweden and Denmark. Social Democrats in the US are not the same as those in the aforementioned countries.

I... never said this. We weren't even talking about EVs. I don't know what you're blathering about.



They don't. The sole voice you've provided so far is an ex-fossil fuel exec with no relevant professional or educational experience.



Uh-huh, and most of the cost to the consumer is the price set by the company. There's a reason energy companies rake in such obscene profits.



Hmm. Yet it does have that information. Its right there. You're just refusing to read it, which isn't the same thing.

You can claim its wrong if you want, but you've not actually identified any issues with the data; you've just insisted it must be biased and wrong if it criticises fossil fuels.

As reliability concerns with renewables rise, upgrading inverters is urgent, analysts say

The variable output of renewable energy resources requires “grid-forming” inverters to protect power system current flows, engineers and others agree.

www.utilitydive.com

So you're claiming that British utility companies are basically the most corrupt utility companies in the developed world and that's the main reason why British energy costs are so high?

Where is this source/information that the government's own data is missing data?

 

[Silvanus]

View attachment 14786

"Cheaper to produce" = "more efficient in every metric"?

As reliability concerns with renewables rise, upgrading inverters is urgent, analysts say

The variable output of renewable energy resources requires “grid-forming” inverters to protect power system current flows, engineers and others agree.

www.utilitydive.com

See, what you have there are engineers in the field saying we should upgrade our inverters.

This is not the same as that ex fossil fuel exec saying they don't "gel" and we should therefore stay away.

In fact, that article makes clear the engineers are encouraging the transition to renewables, and just informing us of how to do it.

So you're claiming that British utility companies are basically the most corrupt utility companies in the developed world and that's the main reason why British energy costs are so high?

British utility companies are like many private utility companies in the developed world: profit-motivated and capable of reaping enormous profit.

Where is this source/information that the government's own data is missing data?

The forms of subsidy excluded from the IAEA data have already been explained to you in this thread, with links.