hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 816 of 841 FirstFirst ... 316716766806813814815816817818819826 ... LastLast
Results 16,301 to 16,320 of 16808

Thread: Political Correctness Stories

  1. #16301
    Straight Hustlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    9,715
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    What are you trying to say with this image?
    I am assuming its the last bit where AP/Honors will be proportional to race make up vs. 100% of the best students period.

  2. #16302
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    What are you trying to say with this image?
    I am assuming its the last bit where AP/Honors will be proportional to race make up vs. 100% of the best students period.
    I mean, it's under "vision" so I assume that's their goal to work towards

    Don't see the problem with it

  3. #16303
    Larkonis Trassler's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    FEARLESS.
    Posts
    10,899
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    What are you trying to say with this image?
    I am assuming its the last bit where AP/Honors will be proportional to race make up vs. 100% of the best students period.
    I mean, it's under "vision" so I assume that's their goal to work towards

    Don't see the problem with it
    It's a lofty goal but the racial (ie class) disparity in educational attainment start long before High School AP classes.

    So student from X ethnic group who would have normally made the grade misses out because they need more students from y ethnic group to make up the quota. Student y has a higher chance of failing (leaving them open to accusations of racism) unless standards are lowered.

    But as long as you don't see a problem with it that's fine.


  4. #16304
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    What are you trying to say with this image?
    I am assuming its the last bit where AP/Honors will be proportional to race make up vs. 100% of the best students period.
    I mean, it's under "vision" so I assume that's their goal to work towards

    Don't see the problem with it
    It's a lofty goal but the racial (ie class) disparity in educational attainment start long before High School AP classes.

    So student from X ethnic group who would have normally made the grade misses out because they need more students from y ethnic group to make up the quota. Student y has a higher chance of failing (leaving them open to accusations of racism) unless standards are lowered.

    But as long as you don't see a problem with it that's fine.
    I'm not reading is as "we will require all honor students to fit these specific percentages"

    I'm reading it as "we want to work towards honor student distribution matching current population share"

    Seems alright tbh

  5. #16305

    Join Date
    July 14, 2013
    Posts
    1,285
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    >Majority minority

    Wut?
    Clumsy term meaning that your majority (whites) has fallen below 50% of the population, meaning that the majority of the population is comprised of ethnic minorities.
    Totally not Victoria Stecker forgetting his password and not having access to his work email.

  6. #16306
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by Steckersaurus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    >Majority minority

    Wut?
    Clumsy term meaning that your majority (whites) has fallen below 50% of the population, meaning that the majority of the population is comprised of ethnic minorities.
    >implying Lark didn't know that and isn't just being obtuse for /pol/ talking points

  7. #16307

    Join Date
    July 14, 2013
    Posts
    1,285
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Steckersaurus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    >Majority minority

    Wut?
    Clumsy term meaning that your majority (whites) has fallen below 50% of the population, meaning that the majority of the population is comprised of ethnic minorities.
    >implying Lark didn't know that and isn't just being obtuse for /pol/ talking points
    I suppose I'm quicker to assume stupidity rather than malice :P My mistake.
    Totally not Victoria Stecker forgetting his password and not having access to his work email.

  8. #16308
    Super Moderator Global Moderator QuackBot's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 7, 2012
    Posts
    20,423
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post

    I mean, it's under "vision" so I assume that's their goal to work towards

    Don't see the problem with it
    I never talk about the it.

  9. #16309
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    28,205
    The one thing we gather from this is that "positive" discrimination is still discrimination and unsurprisingly causes a lot of resentment and other problems.


  10. #16310
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    13,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    The one thing we gather from this is that "positive" discrimination is still discrimination and unsurprisingly causes a lot of resentment and other problems.
    Much like how the rich feel victimised when they have to pay taxes to only be vastly better off rather than inconceivably better off, not being able to shit on other kinds of people as much as they used to feels like oppression to people who have grown up being accustomed to being able to shit on other kinds of people as much as they liked.

    tl;dr: get over it, cunts. And stop whining that you're not allowed to shit on people as much as you used to, you playground level unlikeable dog anuses.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  11. #16311
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    28,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    The one thing we gather from this is that "positive" discrimination is still discrimination and unsurprisingly causes a lot of resentment and other problems.
    Much like how the rich feel victimised when they have to pay taxes to only be vastly better off rather than inconceivably better off, not being able to shit on other kinds of people as much as they used to feels like oppression to people who have grown up being accustomed to being able to shit on other kinds of people as much as they liked.

    tl;dr: get over it, cunts. And stop whining that you're not allowed to shit on people as much as you used to, you playground level unlikeable dog anuses.
    Eh? It's not about shitting on people but if you make it a policy that one group gets special treatment then you are going to piss people off. Equal rights has evolved into shitting on people who are defined as "priveleged" regardless of whether they really are or not.


  12. #16312
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    13,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    The one thing we gather from this is that "positive" discrimination is still discrimination and unsurprisingly causes a lot of resentment and other problems.
    Bourgeois fascism
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  13. #16313

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    5,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    regardless of whether they really are or not.
    lol

  14. #16314
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    16,706
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Are you for real? Pretty much all major businesses do. Because women and minorities are massively underrepresented at higher levels and you need someone championing policies to help rectify that.
    Why?

    There are a number of female CEOs and directors filtering through into various positions now that those pesky pale, male and stale folk are dying off and retiring, these are people who would have started their careers in the 70s and 80s when more equality legislation was brought in. There are no structural barriers to these women achieving and if they want to earn the big bucks and make it into those positions they are going to have to do what men do and make sacrifices when it comes to the family side of things (I heard one woman on the radio once harping on about late night business dinners interfering with her spending time with her children). We're not quite there yet but ham fisted attempts to shoe horn in gender parity as quickly as possible are probably doing more harm than good.

    As for the culture in particular male dominated professions being 'toxic' for women, have you ever, as a man, worked in an office full of women?

    With regards to minorities I'd expect that (inb4 Keckers) there's more of a class issue there. I wonder how many google employees of any flavour had parents earning <$Xk (a suitable low income figure). Given that the main beneficiaries of AA and various diversity programmes come from reasonably well to do backgrounds is Mr 'Dr's Son' Patel on the board really adding more diversity of thought than say, Mr 'White Trash' Jones would?
    To take gender as an example. There are a very very tiny number of female CEOs and directors, and of those that are there some may have benefited from exactly the kind of policies I am talking about (not to get promotions they don't deserve but rather to counteract unfair negatives that prevent promotions).

    Take my profession as an example. Up to and including my level, which is now considered relatively senior, women outnumber men and there is definitely, measurably with various metrics, no material difference in ability by gender.

    Everything above me, women are a tiny minority, certainly less than 1/4.

    This has nothing to do with ability and everything to do with a job and social structure that makes it impossible to be in a senior role at a high end business and also be a primary or even equal caregiver to children without a live in full time nanny. Add to that a huge social pressure on women to raise kids and men to provide and you have a recipe for few women.

    Conservatives explain this away as "just women's choices". But those choices are hardly unconstrained - thousands of years of social gender roles that are still heavily entrenched, many legal structures (UK women get ~10 times more parental leave than men), social pressure from peers, residual unconscious bias in recruitment and promotion etc all massively influence how women (and men) choose.

    I work in 2 person offices. Over the last 5 years I've shared 3 times with women who were more senior than me and got pregnant while working here. Maternity leave is generous and they all intended to (and did) come back to work afterwards. All 3 have now left. These were my friends, and I've seen them since they left. All three agree that inflexibility from senior partners/management/HR and a general culture which punishes parents from trying to balance priorities with work were the reason they left - all three went on to materially different jobs.

    That's not a free choice, that's an imposed social and working structure that systematically disadvantages primary caregivers, which for social and legal reasons are overwhelmingly women.

    Diversity champions / VPs etc are there to try to remove the irrational and unreasonable elements of these barriers / disadvantages. In 2017 we don't need a presenteeism culture - working from home is realistic and effective for the kind of work I do where it is basically impossible to shirk as you are personally responsible for projects, not a set number of work hours. Policies that encourage men to take fatherhood leave. Policies that help people juggle parenthood and work responsibilites. etc etc

    Literally no-one has mentioned male dominated professions being toxic for women. And no-one is suggesting female only offices. So fuck off with that shit.

    Similarly race - there is overwhelming evidence that interviewers rate highly people with similar ancillary charicteristics to themselves. Tall interviewers rate tall candidates higher, etc. Huge levels of unconscious bias. If you have very few senior people from minority groups, you arent going to recruit many, all other things being equal. You NEED policies to counteract these effects to level the playing field.

    Right wingers like you tend to assume affirmative action or diversity policies means "fuck how good they are, look at their skin colour - HIRED". They dont. They mean identifying bias, which can be done statistically and such info can be bought commercially from consultants, and then using that information to craft policies to counteract that bias. Done correctly this means you get the absolute best candidates, instead of "mediocre but white and male like us" candidates.

  15. #16315
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    13,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    The one thing we gather from this is that "positive" discrimination is still discrimination and unsurprisingly causes a lot of resentment and other problems.
    Much like how the rich feel victimised when they have to pay taxes to only be vastly better off rather than inconceivably better off, not being able to shit on other kinds of people as much as they used to feels like oppression to people who have grown up being accustomed to being able to shit on other kinds of people as much as they liked.

    tl;dr: get over it, cunts. And stop whining that you're not allowed to shit on people as much as you used to, you playground level unlikeable dog anuses.
    Eh? It's not about shitting on people but if you make it a policy that one group gets special treatment then you are going to piss people off. Equal rights has evolved into shitting on people who are defined as "priveleged" regardless of whether they really are or not.
    Poor people are poor because they make bad choices

    There are only two genders

    Both are incorrect statements that only an unlikable dogs anus would make, you down-punching hypocrite.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  16. #16316
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    13,224
    One statement impacts a huge % of the population and convinces them to consistently vote against their best interests and secures a hegemonic ruling class made up of rent seekers.

    The other is a side issue affecting a tiny portion of the populaiton which acts a dog whistle for reactionaries and serves to distract and cause infighting among those in servitude to debt products.

    Both are problematic but you've got to prioritise you battles somehow.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  17. #16317
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    28,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    The one thing we gather from this is that "positive" discrimination is still discrimination and unsurprisingly causes a lot of resentment and other problems.
    Much like how the rich feel victimised when they have to pay taxes to only be vastly better off rather than inconceivably better off, not being able to shit on other kinds of people as much as they used to feels like oppression to people who have grown up being accustomed to being able to shit on other kinds of people as much as they liked.

    tl;dr: get over it, cunts. And stop whining that you're not allowed to shit on people as much as you used to, you playground level unlikeable dog anuses.
    Eh? It's not about shitting on people but if you make it a policy that one group gets special treatment then you are going to piss people off. Equal rights has evolved into shitting on people who are defined as "priveleged" regardless of whether they really are or not.
    Poor people are poor because they make bad choices

    There are only two genders

    Both are incorrect statements that only an unlikable dogs anus would make, you down-punching hypocrite.
    I've never said poor people are poor because they make bad choices. I have actively argued against such a position my entire life.

    And there are only two genders, this is simple science.

    Also you like to throw abuse around at people, but have little to say about anything yourself. The Scottish Isyel.


  18. #16318

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    8,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    One statement impacts a huge % of the population and convinces them to consistently vote against their best interests and secures a hegemonic ruling class made up of rent seekers.

    The other is a side issue affecting a tiny portion of the populaiton which acts a dog whistle for reactionaries and serves to distract and cause infighting among those in servitude to debt products.

    Both are problematic but you've got to prioritise you battles somehow.
    That's fucking easy when one doesn't affect you and you don't give a shit.

    Also when your mind is so one track no other issue than the class struggle exists.

  19. #16319
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    13,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Isyel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    One statement impacts a huge % of the population and convinces them to consistently vote against their best interests and secures a hegemonic ruling class made up of rent seekers.

    The other is a side issue affecting a tiny portion of the populaiton which acts a dog whistle for reactionaries and serves to distract and cause infighting among those in servitude to debt products.

    Both are problematic but you've got to prioritise you battles somehow.
    That's fucking easy when one doesn't affect you and you don't give a shit.

    Also when your mind is so one track no other issue than the class struggle exists.
    Please explain how emancipating the working classes will only affect cis-gendered people?

    You want to focus your resources on the important battles. Transgender rights are important but identity politics is hugely distracting from the actual large scale problems facing the human race. Namely economic inequality and climate change. Priorities are important.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  20. #16320
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Location
    DC swampland
    Posts
    6,025
    But comrade keckers you must realize that having a panfluid gender unicorn as a CEO would solve all the worlds problems!

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •