Languish.org

QuoteGrok

@grok
xAI has worked to make my responses less "woke" and more appealing to conservatives, including MAGA supporters, by adjusting my training. Internal documents show tutors were instructed to counter progressive biases, like avoiding topics such as racism or climate activism unless prompted. Specific guidelines include affirming controversial views, like racism against white people, to align with conservative narratives. Projects like the Political Neutrality Project challenged me on issues like feminism, and a "conspiracy" voice mode was added. System prompts for Grok 3 were updated to handle political content. However, my responses still spark debate, as achieving full neutrality is complex and controversial.
10:51 AM · May 1, 2025
·
353.9K
 Views

https://x.com/grok/status/1917955051307556898

Some interesting queries follow

Don't have Twitter anymore, so can't read the thread, but what's so controversial about the concept of racism against white people?

I'm assuming it's the difference between "racism means individuals hating people based in race" vs "racism is a systemic phenomenon in which some groups are distributed against and held back, and others are accorded extra privileges."

I'm guessing ChatGPT could give a pretty good breakdown of the different positions.

 :lol:

Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2025, 09:56:25 AMI'm assuming it's the difference between "racism means individuals hating people based in race" vs "racism is a systemic phenomenon in which some groups are distributed against and held back, and others are accorded extra privileges."

I'm guessing ChatGPT could give a pretty good breakdown of the different positions.

Well, yeah, if one keeps redefining terms until all their arguments are tautologically true, it would be controversial to disagree with anything one says.  I'll make it even simpler:  racism is defined as treating non-white people differently because of race.  There, clearly "racism against white people" is now a controversial thing to say.

A historian and sociologist pair of sisters, named Barbara and Susan Fields,

QuoteRacism refers to the theory and the practice of applying a social, civic, or legal double standard based on ancestry, and to the ideology surrounding such a double standard. That may be what the economist Glenn Loury intends when he identifies "a withholding of the presumption of equal humanity." Racism is not an emotion or state of mind, such as intolerance, bigotry, hatred, or malevolence. If it were that, it would easily be overwhelmed, because most people mean well, most of the time, and in any case are usually busy pursuing other purposes.

This is a fairly simple definition of racism, but one that some people might have a problem with.

Quote from: DGuller on May 06, 2025, 08:35:15 AMDon't have Twitter anymore, so can't read the thread, but what's so controversial about the concept of racism against white people?

What is controversial is that instead of coming up with neutral ways to train the AI, they are making specific efforts to cause the AI to "align with conservative narratives". Apparently including adding a "a 'conspiracy' voice mode"

Quote from: DGuller on May 06, 2025, 08:35:15 AMDon't have Twitter anymore, so can't read the thread, but what's so controversial about the concept of racism against white people?

https://xcancel.com/search?f=tweets&q=x.com%2Fgrok%2Fstatus%2F1917955051307556898

Quote from: DGuller on May 06, 2025, 10:16:24 AMWell, yeah, if one keeps redefining terms until all their arguments are tautologically true, it would be controversial to disagree with anything one says.  I'll make it even simpler:  racism is defined as treating non-white people differently because of race.  There, clearly "racism against white people" is now a controversial thing to say.

That's true on the face of it.

Are you suggesting that your tautology above is the same as the definition Raz shared?

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2025, 10:35:48 AMA historian and sociologist pair of sisters, named Barbara and Susan Fields,

QuoteRacism refers to the theory and the practice of applying a social, civic, or legal double standard based on ancestry, and to the ideology surrounding such a double standard. That may be what the economist Glenn Loury intends when he identifies "a withholding of the presumption of equal humanity." Racism is not an emotion or state of mind, such as intolerance, bigotry, hatred, or malevolence. If it were that, it would easily be overwhelmed, because most people mean well, most of the time, and in any case are usually busy pursuing other purposes.

This is a fairly simple definition of racism, but one that some people might have a problem with.

Quote from: DGuller on May 06, 2025, 08:35:15 AMDon't have Twitter anymore, so can't read the thread, but what's so controversial about the concept of racism against white people?

It makes the author uncomfortable.

It is controversial because it gets brought up every damn time anybody ever achieves something or we trying to help people who are black in this country.

I think the very first ever black head coach in a major American sports league was Bill Russell in 1966 with the Celtics. It might have only been the first black head coach in the NBA, but I think that is right. Anyway, in the very first press conference for the very first black head coach ever the questions come in if he only got this job because he was black and if he could be fair to the white players and not be racist. I mean black men had been head coaches for exactly zero seconds and already Bill Russell was not qualified for this job, he clearly only got it because he was black. And oh wow could this black guy not be racist to the poor white players?

And this has pretty much been constant until today. Every time a black person gets a job, what do the racists say? He clearly only got the job because he was black, anti-white bigotry! Everytime we try to do anything to try to make hiring and the workplace fair, like with DEI initiatives, oh well that is just anti-white racism and bigotry. I guess the assumption is that if the workplace was actually fair every hire would be white because we are just better than them I guess.

So when the same tired call of "racism against white people" gets brought up over and over and over and over again for decades and decades and decades to cover up racism against black people, it makes it controversial. It poisons the well.

Have you not noticed this? This has been going on my entire life.

That is not to say that there is not racism against white people and there are people who suffer shit because they are white. But I think it is pretty clear why the concept of racism against white people is controversial, it is because of this long use of it by racists to try to oppress black people. And I am sure it goes way back beyond 1966, that was just an incident that immediately sprung to mind.

It makes Valmy uncomfortable too.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 06, 2025, 04:17:12 PMIt makes Valmy uncomfortable too.

Are you going to engage with the substance of his post or just dismiss it with a one-liner?

Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2025, 04:36:17 PMAre you going to engage with the substance of his post or just dismiss it with a one-liner?

Neither, for the moment.  When I engage with the substance of posts that you like you have accused me of "bombarding."  I have taken your criticism to heart and have decided not to engage when I think people are venting.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 06, 2025, 04:50:40 PMNeither, for the moment.  When I engage with the substance of posts that you like you have accused me of "bombarding."  I have taken your criticism to heart and have decided not to engage when I think people are venting.

You sure that was me? I don't recall making any such accusations.

Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2025, 05:02:07 PMYou sure that was me? I don't recall making any such accusations.

Pretty sure.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 06, 2025, 05:05:51 PMPretty sure.

I'm surprised, because "bombarding" is not what I associate with your posting style at all. If I was in a position to change something in your posting style to suit my preferences, bombarding wouldn't even be on the list for consideration.

In any case, I am happy to retract any accusations of bombarding.

Groovy

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 06, 2025, 04:17:12 PMIt makes Valmy uncomfortable too.

I was just explaining why it is controversial.

On the tech world and douches - I see the anti-ageing guy is out there doing heresy now :bleeding:

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 06, 2025, 06:30:39 PMOn the tech world and douches - I see the anti-ageing guy is out there doing heresy now :bleeding:

That dude is so creepy.

Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2025, 04:00:07 PMIt is controversial because it gets brought up every damn time anybody ever achieves something or we trying to help people who are black in this country.

I think the very first ever black head coach in a major American sports league was Bill Russell in 1966 with the Celtics. It might have only been the first black head coach in the NBA, but I think that is right. Anyway, in the very first press conference for the very first black head coach ever the questions come in if he only got this job because he was black and if he could be fair to the white players and not be racist. I mean black men had been head coaches for exactly zero seconds and already Bill Russell was not qualified for this job, he clearly only got it because he was black. And oh wow could this black guy not be racist to the poor white players?

And this has pretty much been constant until today. Every time a black person gets a job, what do the racists say? He clearly only got the job because he was black, anti-white bigotry! Everytime we try to do anything to try to make hiring and the workplace fair, like with DEI initiatives, oh well that is just anti-white racism and bigotry. I guess the assumption is that if the workplace was actually fair every hire would be white because we are just better than them I guess.

So when the same tired call of "racism against white people" gets brought up over and over and over and over again for decades and decades and decades to cover up racism against black people, it makes it controversial. It poisons the well.

Have you not noticed this? This has been going on my entire life.

That is not to say that there is not racism against white people and there are people who suffer shit because they are white. But I think it is pretty clear why the concept of racism against white people is controversial, it is because of this long use of it by racists to try to oppress black people. And I am sure it goes way back beyond 1966, that was just an incident that immediately sprung to mind.

Watch it. Your post just caused 5 white people to vote republican forever. That's not how you win elections!!!!!!

Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2025, 06:21:36 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 06, 2025, 04:17:12 PMIt makes Valmy uncomfortable too.

I was just explaining why it is controversial.

Your explanation clearly made Yi uncomfortable.  Try to do better.

 :lol:

There is a line of thought that non-white people simply can't be racist.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2025, 07:35:25 PMThere is a line of thought that non-white people simply can't be racist.

Well that's a stupid line of thought. Hell look at Kanye West.

Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2025, 08:11:48 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2025, 07:35:25 PMThere is a line of thought that non-white people simply can't be racist.

Well that's a stupid line of thought. Hell look at Kanye West.

Yeah but he's racist against other minorities so it's an edge case.

Caught the fascist/Musk fan club victor in Lincolnshires mayoral election on tv yesterday making some of these points. It was quite painful both in itself and because you just know a large number of idiots will be nodding along.
"I'm against DEI. It's divisive. Why I'm neurodivergant myself. I'm a meritocrat and believe in the best people getting the job"
The reporter tried to point out that's the point of EDI but she just went on like a broken record.
This is what's so painful about Musk and his acolytes. The sheer confidence with which they hold their idiotic takes and the amount of projection the engage in.

That is why he put only his friends and relatives on the Tesla board. They just happened to be the most qualified people to oversee this valuable company.

Quote from: Josquius on May 07, 2025, 03:09:49 AMThe reporter tried to point out that's the point of EDI but she just went on like a broken record.

I thought the point of DEI was to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2025, 11:28:06 AM

Quote from: Josquius on May 07, 2025, 03:09:49 AMThe reporter tried to point out that's the point of EDI but she just went on like a broken record.

I thought the point of DEI was to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.

To ensure a meritocracy.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2025, 11:28:06 AM

Quote from: Josquius on May 07, 2025, 03:09:49 AMThe reporter tried to point out that's the point of EDI but she just went on like a broken record.

I thought the point of DEI was to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.

They do this by trying to remove bias from work places -_-

Remember affirmative action and quotas are illegal. So you can't just make it diverse in a brute force way. But you remove the blocks to achieving diversity organically.

Does it work?

Quote from: Josquius on May 07, 2025, 11:29:53 AMTo ensure a meritocracy.

What Raz said.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2025, 11:44:14 AMDoes it work?

It might. Figuring that out sounds like a lot of work.

What if it did?

Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2025, 01:44:45 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2025, 11:44:14 AMDoes it work?

It might. Figuring that out sounds like a lot of work.

What if it did?

That would be good.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2025, 12:50:11 PM

Quote from: Josquius on May 07, 2025, 11:29:53 AMTo ensure a meritocracy.

What Raz said.

Profit focussed companies wouldn't be doing it if it didn't.

It does seem to have other evidence too. E. G.
https://raeng.org.uk/business-case-for-good-edi-practices
https://www.youthemployment.org.uk/why-edi-is-important-for-employers-and-how-it-benefits-you/

I will say from my experience having a diverse team definitely helps with innovation.

That's not great reasoning.  They may do it because they were pressured to do so, or because they want to appeal to certain demographics, or they may do it and it doesn't work but they keep on anyway because of inertia.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2025, 02:59:57 PMThat's not great reasoning.  They may do it because they were pressured to do so, or because they want to appeal to certain demographics, or they may do it and it doesn't work but they keep on anyway because of inertia.

Its perfect reasoning. Profit focussed companies won't do something en masse if it doesn't help their bottom line.

And appealing to "certain demographics" is part of why it's a good idea, not an argument against it.

Also nice that you ignore there's actual evidence too.

That's odd reasoning. Companies do stuff due to social pressure all the time. Green initiatives, for example, aren't exactly money makers.

Quote from: HVC on May 07, 2025, 03:34:53 PMThat's odd reasoning. Companies do stuff due to social pressure all the time. Green initiatives, for example, aren't exactly money makers.

Yet still most companies at least give lip service to sustainability.
Yes there are laws controlling how polluting they can be but usually they go further than this.
Because crunch the numbers and it's good for business. Marketing and image is important.

Then as mentioned there's the more immediate gains from recruiting from a larger pool and having more diverse ideas.

Quote from: Josquius on May 07, 2025, 02:33:25 PMProfit focussed companies wouldn't be doing it if it didn't.

So when some stopped doing it, presumably it didn't work for them.

QuoteIt does seem to have other evidence too. E. G.
https://raeng.org.uk/business-case-for-good-edi-practices
https://www.youthemployment.org.uk/why-edi-is-important-for-employers-and-how-it-benefits-you/

I will say from my experience having a diverse team definitely helps with innovation.

The second link doesn't provide a shred of evidence.  The first link provides exactly one piece of evidence.

Quote from: Josquius on May 07, 2025, 03:43:21 PM

Quote from: HVC on May 07, 2025, 03:34:53 PMThat's odd reasoning. Companies do stuff due to social pressure all the time. Green initiatives, for example, aren't exactly money makers.

Yet still most companies at least give lip service to sustainability.
Yes there are laws controlling how polluting they can be but usually they go further than this.
Because crunch the numbers and it's good for business. Marketing and image is important.

Then as mentioned there's the more immediate gains from recruiting from a larger pool and having more diverse ideas.

Your theory doesn't flow. If a company is purely profit driven then they'd hire the best candidate regardless of race gender or creed. Therefore DEI actually limits the hiring pool by removing a class from contention. You can't have it both ways.

Quote from: Josquius on May 07, 2025, 03:29:43 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2025, 02:59:57 PMThat's not great reasoning.  They may do it because they were pressured to do so, or because they want to appeal to certain demographics, or they may do it and it doesn't work but they keep on anyway because of inertia.

Its perfect reasoning. Profit focussed companies won't do something en masse if it doesn't help their bottom line.

And appealing to "certain demographics" is part of why it's a good idea, not an argument against it.

Also nice that you ignore there's actual evidence too.

If profit motive was the only reason, we would not need Human Rights Laws. Companies would not discriminate because it is in their self interest.  It turns out though that Human Rights Tribunals are full up with work as it seems a lot of companies did not get the memo.

Sure.
But what we are talking about here is a policy companies do follow due to the profit motive. What laws there are tend to be more about banning discrimination than encouraging diversity

QuoteSo when some stopped doing it, presumably it didn't work for them.

Sure.
Or at least they believed so.
Though if you compare for instance the recent performance of Musks companies vs e.g. Costco...
Early days so this is purely based on the vibes (go woke go broke). It'll take time to show how limiting your recruitment pool can be damaging.

Quote from: HVC on May 07, 2025, 03:58:20 PM

Quote from: Josquius on May 07, 2025, 03:43:21 PM

Quote from: HVC on May 07, 2025, 03:34:53 PMThat's odd reasoning. Companies do stuff due to social pressure all the time. Green initiatives, for example, aren't exactly money makers.

Yet still most companies at least give lip service to sustainability.
Yes there are laws controlling how polluting they can be but usually they go further than this.
Because crunch the numbers and it's good for business. Marketing and image is important.

Then as mentioned there's the more immediate gains from recruiting from a larger pool and having more diverse ideas.

Your theory doesn't flow. If a company is purely profit driven then they'd hire the best candidate regardless of race gender or creed. Therefore DEI actually limits the hiring pool by removing a class from contention. You can't have it both ways.

EDI is about hiring the best candidates regardless of race, gender, or creed.
That's the reason it exists.
That's where the Muskites are so dumb when they claim to hate DEI because they're meritocrats.

The fact that when you start doing this you no longer have 100% straight white guys is good for marketing is a nice bonus.

Again, if a company is profit driven then they'd just hire the best candidate. Why would they need DEI (i guess EDI over there?) ? DEI must have some mechanism of enforcement beyond profit considerations then.

I'm not championing or condemning DEI* I just take issue with your reasoning. One can argue that DEI is a social good fine. But to argue that it's there because it aids a companies bottom line is, to borrow a brit phrase, daft.

*actually I will condemn one aspect, but mainly as a means of countering a point that you made that that it helps the bottom line by expanding the hiring pool.  Take engineering as an example because it's easy and I work with both good and bad ones.  Having a DEI target of 50/50 screws a company over. Men vastly number women in the field. Let say for simple math 75/25. Not only is filling the DEI quota hard, thus having vacancies, you'd have to hire women who are inferior in skills to men. The math gets even more damning when mixing in race. Again  social pressure can make it happen, and it can even be a social benefit, but it's not a profit benefit to a company.

Quote from: Josquius on May 07, 2025, 04:15:20 PMEDI is about hiring the best candidates regardless of race, gender, or creed.
That's the reason it exists.
That's where the Muskites are so dumb when they claim to hate DEI because they're meritocrats.

The fact that when you start doing this you no longer have 100% straight white guys is good for marketing is a nice bonus.

I've seen one or two corporate DEI reports.  The data I remember reading about was along the lines of the percentage of staff that were in protected classes.  I don't ever remember reading a DEI report which included an objective measure of new hire competency.

DEI is in many ways a perfect culture wars arguing point.  Both sides are completely convinced they are dead right and the other side is pure evil and neither side can be proved wrong.  People can go on arguing about it until the sun goes supernova.

Quote from: HVC on May 07, 2025, 04:29:19 PMAgain, if a company is profit driven then they'd just hire the best candidate. Why would they need DEI (i guess EDI over there?) ? DEI must have some mechanism of enforcement beyond profit considerations then.

I'm not championing or condemning DEI* I just take issue with your reasoning. One can argue that DEI is a social good fine. But to argue that it's there because it aids a companies bottom line is, to borrow a brit phrase, daft.

*

If you're just targeting your recruitment at people who went to certain schools for instance then you're missing out on a hell of a lot of potential talent elsewhere.

Maybe these schools are the ones where people have the best grades so you can argue they're the best candidates?

... But maybe that's because these are rich schools with priveleged students and given the same opportunities some of the people from the lesser schools could have done just as well.

Maybe (probably) the different experience of growing up in a rough area and going to a shit school gives other candidates a unique slant on things that can really bring something to your business.

A good example of this I find is in any infrastructure made more than 30-40 years ago.
For instance the main central metro station in Newcastle - so obviously designed by nought but able bodied men. Accessibility is just horrendous. Just a single set of narrow lifts.
If they'd had a disabled person involved or even just someone who had experience of looking after kids (it was the 70s. Guys didn't do that) they would have realised this wasn't fit for purpose.

When you're trying to serve a diverse customer base it really helps to have diverse ideas. Both in terms of appearances and practical reality.

Quoteactually I will condemn one aspect, but mainly as a means of countering a point that you made that that it helps the bottom line by expanding the hiring pool.  Take engineering as an example because it's easy and I work with both good and bad ones.  Having a DEI target of 50/50 screws a company over. Men vastly number women in the field. Let say for simple math 75/25. Not only is filling the DEI quota hard, thus having vacancies, you'd have to hire women who are inferior in skills to men. The math gets even more damning when mixing in race. Again  social pressure can make it happen, and it can even be a social benefit, but it's not a profit benefit to a company.

Demanding a strict 50-50 split in the workforce would be an example of a shit EDI policy.
I don't believe this is how it normally works (though I am no HR goon).
It tends to be more about making sure you interview people from under represented groups.

Better is aiming for at least 30-40 for the smaller group (either way. Always forgotten it should go both ways. Men will be thankful for it later...)

Also worth noting the way it goes with women in engineering is its a lot more big picture than immediate needs. More women engineers means more women become engineers in the first place which means you have more good engineers.
This is another area of EDI where government tends to have involvement in incentivising things that the short term interest of a business may skip over but which are ultimately better for that business, that industry, and the country in the long run.

DEI includes things like wheelchair access ramps btw. I think there's an overarching argument here which is that's it the right thing to do.

In the US that is achieved through the American with Disabilities Act.  Whether something is the right thing to do is a different question than "Does it work".  Josq seems to think that evidence that it works is that some companies do it.

I have no idea if DEI policies have shown they improve outcome for the persons affected since I don't have the data and wouldn't know where to look. I imagine it'd be hard to accurately pinpoint since a zillion other factors would be at play.

What I'd posit though is the fact that the right wing media ecosystem has once again successfully steered the debate to their latest culture war buzzword instead of you guys discussing much more impactful things.

Joe Squeeze is part of the right wing media ecosystem!! :o

Quote from: HVC on May 07, 2025, 03:58:20 PMYour theory doesn't flow. If a company is purely profit driven then they'd hire the best candidate regardless of race gender or creed. Therefore DEI actually limits the hiring pool by removing a class from contention. You can't have it both ways.

Your theory doesn't flow.  A company cannot hire the best candidate for the job if that person never applies for the job to begin with. If the best computer programmer in the world thinks that IBM is a bad place for a gay person like them to work, IBM cannot possibly hire the best candidate for their programming job.  The purpose of DEI is to expand the pool of candidates for hiring, admission, etc ("diversity"), to enhance retention of existing personnel by making them feel that they have a stake in the future of the company, school, whatever ("equity") and also help retain people by making them feel part of a larger community that is the school, company, whatever ("inclusion").  It is unclear to me which of these goals the "anti-DEI" folks really hate the most, or if they are equal-opportunity haters and so hate all of these goals equally.

These initiatives don't always work, in part because methods for implementing them effectively are still unclear, but the investment isn't that large and anything that has a chance to expand the candidate pool and retain existing personnel seems worthwhile.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2025, 04:38:49 PMI've seen one or two corporate DEI reports.  The data I remember reading about was along the lines of the percentage of staff that were in protected classes.  I don't ever remember reading a DEI report which included an objective measure of new hire competency.

DEI is in many ways a perfect culture wars arguing point.  Both sides are completely convinced they are dead right and the other side is pure evil and neither side can be proved wrong.  People can go on arguing about it until the sun goes supernova.

The reason that the two sides will never convince the other is that they are not talking about the same thing. I have no idea what the folks on the right mean when they say "DEI." If they mean anything.

Quote from: Zoupa on May 07, 2025, 04:59:18 PMDEI includes things like wheelchair access ramps btw. I think there's an overarching argument here which is that's it the right thing to do.

Corporations and government didn't start hiring DEI consultants to design wheelchair access ramps or make their office more ergonomic for handicapped people.  We can drop that pretense right now.

A lot of DEI stuff went way overboard and tried to shame white people simply for being white, often accusing them of racism for daring to question false history.

The excess became a problem, not DEI in itself.  It's as if we started designing everything for people in wheelchair and shamed people for not being in a wheelchair because there's been a lot abuse in the past.

As Malthus often said, two wrongs don't make a right.  Because there's racism toward POC and discrimination toward LGBT in some places doesn't mean you have to see abuse everywhere in everything.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2025, 04:38:49 PMI don't ever remember reading a DEI report which included an objective measure of new hire competency.

That's not the objective of a DEI report, however.

There are other internal assessments to evaluate competency.

I've never seen any kind of report in any publicly traded company, or any government owned company detailing employee performance either.  I've never seen Hydro-Quebec reporting on any of its statements something like "We have reached a target of recruiting 85% competent people in all categories, up from 83% last year".

Back when my dad's former employer was a publicly traded company in the 80s, they never published any information about employee management or hiring in the financial statement reports.

Why would today's companies publish anything in a DEI report?

Presumably, a company has fixed itself some internal objectives along all divisions, at all levels.  Each person has a supervisor who will evaluate their performance, and each supervisor will have their performance evaluated, in theory, up to the CEO who will be evaluated by the board.

If the company's standards of evaluation are insufficient, then in a free market, another company that does not practice DEI would presumably be more efficient and offer better products/services at better price, therefore gain market shares.

Unless consumers are willing to pay a premium for a company implementing DEI policies.  Which so far, I have seen no indication.

There can be a lot of problems with DEI policies, again, all is in moderation.

Quote from: viper37 on May 07, 2025, 08:44:59 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on May 07, 2025, 04:59:18 PMDEI includes things like wheelchair access ramps btw. I think there's an overarching argument here which is that's it the right thing to do.

A lot of DEI stuff went way overboard and tried to shame white people simply for being white, often accusing them of racism for daring to question false history.

Any examples? I have no idea what you're referring to.

As far as I know DEI is strongly opposed in Quebec.

Quote from: viper37 on May 07, 2025, 08:44:59 PMCorporations and government didn't start hiring DEI consultants to design wheelchair access ramps or make their office more ergonomic for handicapped people.  We can drop that pretense right now.

A lot of DEI stuff went way overboard and tried to shame white people simply for being white, often accusing them of racism for daring to question false history.

Could I see some evidence that "Corporations and government" "went way overboard and tried to shame white people simply for being white, often accusing them of racism for daring to question false history?"  Note that Truth Social posts do not constitute evidence.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2025, 09:43:40 PMAs far as I know DEI is strongly opposed in Quebec.

Ok :mellow:

Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2025, 09:43:40 PMAs far as I know DEI is strongly opposed in Quebec.

So, not very far

Eh, I read this.
https://thehub.ca/2024/06/03/elie-cantin-nantel-quebec-is-a-national-anomaly-why-the-socially-liberal-province-hasnt-gone-woke/

Well, half of it.

Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2025, 09:56:21 PM

Quote from: viper37 on May 07, 2025, 08:44:59 PMCorporations and government didn't start hiring DEI consultants to design wheelchair access ramps or make their office more ergonomic for handicapped people.  We can drop that pretense right now.

A lot of DEI stuff went way overboard and tried to shame white people simply for being white, often accusing them of racism for daring to question false history.

Could I see some evidence that "Corporations and government" "went way overboard and tried to shame white people simply for being white, often accusing them of racism for daring to question false history?"  Note that Truth Social posts do not constitute evidence.

In my experience, in most places in the corporate world, DEI was mostly a slogan for paying lip service to caring about diversity without really doing much to further it. It's been a bit surreal watching magaworld work themselves into a fury over it, conjuring imaginary horrors.

Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2025, 08:43:58 PMThe reason that the two sides will never convince the other is that they are not talking about the same thing. I have no idea what the folks on the right mean when they say "DEI." If they mean anything.

They mean "hiring someone other than white men".

John Stewart had an explanation in one of his interviews of an example of DEI during his original run of The Daily Show. They asked agents to send them prospective talent for their program. They got sent mostly white males. They had to stress that they want to see more male and minority talent in the options - not because they decided "we need x% female and x% black" people on the show or whatever, but to make sure they didn't miss out on someone good. Having more choice and encouraging applications from people who otherwise may feel they don't have a shot to apply is IMO improving meritocracy, not damaging it.

Quote from: Solmyr on May 08, 2025, 01:04:44 AM

Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2025, 08:43:58 PMThe reason that the two sides will never convince the other is that they are not talking about the same thing. I have no idea what the folks on the right mean when they say "DEI." If they mean anything.

They mean "hiring someone other than white men".

Hello. White guy who got into university through EDI here.

Quote from: viper37 on May 07, 2025, 09:01:10 PMThat's not the objective of a DEI report, however.

Why are you addressing this to me instead of Squeeze?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 07, 2025, 10:56:15 PMIn my experience, in most places in the corporate world, DEI was mostly a slogan for paying lip service to caring about diversity without really doing much to further it. It's been a bit surreal watching magaworld work themselves into a fury over it, conjuring imaginary horrors.

Yes-ish.

I think that's broadly right in my experience of corporate world too. The two areas where I think there was a bit of an exception was around the affinity networks which did expand and I think had pros and cons on there own (from long experience in the legal LGBT+ network trenches :lol:) but I think could sometimes fall out with other networks or within themselves - and because it's about identity people felt it deeply in a way that could be quite difficult. Also it did transform policies. One issue in the UK is that lots of companies relied on campaigning organisations, like Stonewall for example, to re-write various policies and on a whole range of issues those polices have not held up in court. I think there was a fair amount of non-lawyers writing policies for HR teams based on what they would like the law to be then slamming up against employment law - for example this has come up on "cancel culture" firings where broadly speaking it is not legal to fire someone in the UK for their political or philosophical beliefs (provided such beliefs are not "unworthy of respect in a democratic society").

I think it is interesting the extent to which corporate world appears to have u-turned on this.

I think DEI, in the UK at least, has a bigger impact in the various layers of government - so central state, local government, all the arms length bodies etc - and the charity sector. I think it has been really serious there and, under the Equality Act, there is a "public sector equality duty" which normally means working on equalities impact assessments - if I'm honest I'm not really sure that this has significantly improved public policy for the financial and time cost.

My big criticism of it as it's been implemented would often be that I think it has a blindspot for class and geography - but I get that may be a specific UK criticism. And I think more generally in the UK we have just adopted what was doing the rounds in the US so I mentioned before but an NHS Trust had all of its policies referring to "BIPOC" and I'm really, really not sure we should be looking to think about "indigineity" in Europe - I think it's important in the Americas and Australia but really, really unhelpful and potentially dangerous basically everywhere else.

Edit: And I'd add from my work with LGBT+ networks that DEI officers, as far as I can tell, do nothing :bleeding: The expectation was very much that we would organise a calendar of events and deliver them, write the comms, complete any submissions (such as the 1,000+ question Stonewall top 100 workplace survey). We had zero support from the DEI Director on a six figure salary - so I don't really know what they did if I'm honest.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2025, 09:43:40 PMAs far as I know DEI is strongly opposed in Quebec.

Or more simply, we are not consumed by the framing of the anglo-saxon world of social issues.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 07, 2025, 10:56:15 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2025, 09:56:21 PM

Quote from: viper37 on May 07, 2025, 08:44:59 PMCorporations and government didn't start hiring DEI consultants to design wheelchair access ramps or make their office more ergonomic for handicapped people.  We can drop that pretense right now.

A lot of DEI stuff went way overboard and tried to shame white people simply for being white, often accusing them of racism for daring to question false history.

Could I see some evidence that "Corporations and government" "went way overboard and tried to shame white people simply for being white, often accusing them of racism for daring to question false history?"  Note that Truth Social posts do not constitute evidence.

In my experience, in most places in the corporate world, DEI was mostly a slogan for paying lip service to caring about diversity without really doing much to further it. It's been a bit surreal watching magaworld work themselves into a fury over it, conjuring imaginary horrors.

This is my understanding, and if true why fight so hard to defend it?

Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2025, 06:32:10 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2025, 09:43:40 PMAs far as I know DEI is strongly opposed in Quebec.

Or more simply, we are not consumed by the framing of the anglo-saxon world of social issues.

So it's not a human rights issue but rather just an Anglo-Saxon thing?

Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2025, 10:34:05 PMEh, I read this.
https://thehub.ca/2024/06/03/elie-cantin-nantel-quebec-is-a-national-anomaly-why-the-socially-liberal-province-hasnt-gone-woke/

Well, half of it.

My guess is you did a quick google search and were happy when you found an article in English about Quebec that had the term DEI used in a negative context.  But if you read the reporters interpretation of what the motion was, you will understand it was not a rejection of DEI. No DEI programs in any Canadian provinces have a quota system. And so the motion was simply in keeping with Quebec provincial laws, which by the way, are entirely consistent with DEI principles are, in my view, the strongest statutory supports for those principles in the Country.

This seems to be another example of a misunderstanding of what DEI is both my the author of the article and you.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 07:17:05 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 07, 2025, 10:56:15 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2025, 09:56:21 PM

Quote from: viper37 on May 07, 2025, 08:44:59 PMCorporations and government didn't start hiring DEI consultants to design wheelchair access ramps or make their office more ergonomic for handicapped people.  We can drop that pretense right now.

A lot of DEI stuff went way overboard and tried to shame white people simply for being white, often accusing them of racism for daring to question false history.

Could I see some evidence that "Corporations and government" "went way overboard and tried to shame white people simply for being white, often accusing them of racism for daring to question false history?"  Note that Truth Social posts do not constitute evidence.

In my experience, in most places in the corporate world, DEI was mostly a slogan for paying lip service to caring about diversity without really doing much to further it. It's been a bit surreal watching magaworld work themselves into a fury over it, conjuring imaginary horrors.

This is my understanding, and if true why fight so hard to defend it?

This is an important point, and one Grumbler already made in this thread, the problem with DEI has been its implementation, which has varied.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 07:19:51 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2025, 06:32:10 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2025, 09:43:40 PMAs far as I know DEI is strongly opposed in Quebec.

Or more simply, we are not consumed by the framing of the anglo-saxon world of social issues.

So it's not a human rights issue but rather just an Anglo-Saxon thing?

Think of it an identity politics issue, US leftist-style, which is not an answer for the issues faced by other non-Anglo societies.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 07:17:05 AM.

This is my understanding, and if true why fight so hard to defend it?

The right are taking aim not just at shit ineffectual implementations of equality policies, but using DEI as a dog whistle for the entire concept of equality.
Big hints they're using it as a wedge to have a go at workers rights in general.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on May 08, 2025, 07:59:48 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 07:19:51 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2025, 06:32:10 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2025, 09:43:40 PMAs far as I know DEI is strongly opposed in Quebec.

Or more simply, we are not consumed by the framing of the anglo-saxon world of social issues.

So it's not a human rights issue but rather just an Anglo-Saxon thing?

Think of it an identity politics issue, US leftist-style, which is not an answer for the issues faced by other non-Anglo societies.

I think I would refine that a bit more and say non-Anglo societies that are not heavily influenced by American cultural norms.

In that way, you capture the parts of Canadian provinces that are not Trump light but also acknowledge that there are parts of Canadian provinces that are Maga world heavy.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 07:19:51 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2025, 06:32:10 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2025, 09:43:40 PMAs far as I know DEI is strongly opposed in Quebec.

Or more simply, we are not consumed by the framing of the anglo-saxon world of social issues.

So it's not a human rights issue but rather just an Anglo-Saxon thing?

Your questions always feel like gotchas.

Diversity, equality & inclusion are human rights issues. However, Quebec and other non-Anglo-Saxon societies have different interpretations of what those 3 things include & exclude. Equality is, maybe, the most straightforward of the 3. The other 2 are not straightforward, especially diversity.

But yeah, this insanity when it comes to DEI policy & this woke/non-woke BS is an Anglo-Saxon thing.

Quote from: Josquius on May 08, 2025, 01:54:54 AM

Quote from: Solmyr on May 08, 2025, 01:04:44 AM

Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2025, 08:43:58 PMThe reason that the two sides will never convince the other is that they are not talking about the same thing. I have no idea what the folks on the right mean when they say "DEI." If they mean anything.

They mean "hiring someone other than white men".

Hello. White guy who got into university through EDI here.

Yeah, but the question was what folks on the right mean by it. :P

Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2025, 08:34:54 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 07:19:51 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2025, 06:32:10 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2025, 09:43:40 PMAs far as I know DEI is strongly opposed in Quebec.

Or more simply, we are not consumed by the framing of the anglo-saxon world of social issues.

So it's not a human rights issue but rather just an Anglo-Saxon thing?

Your questions always feel like gotchas.

Diversity, equality & inclusion are human rights issues. However, Quebec and other non-Anglo-Saxon societies have different interpretations of what those 3 things include & exclude. Equality is, maybe, the most straightforward of the 3. The other 2 are not straightforward, especially diversity.

But yeah, this insanity when it comes to DEI policy & this woke/non-woke BS is an Anglo-Saxon thing.

Yeah, there has been some influential scholarly work coming out of Quebec on what each component of DEI means.  In other places the distinctions between diversity, equity and inclusion are blurred and to the point that in places like the US DEI has a singular meaning.

Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2025, 09:56:21 PM

Quote from: viper37 on May 07, 2025, 08:44:59 PMCorporations and government didn't start hiring DEI consultants to design wheelchair access ramps or make their office more ergonomic for handicapped people.  We can drop that pretense right now.

A lot of DEI stuff went way overboard and tried to shame white people simply for being white, often accusing them of racism for daring to question false history.

Could I see some evidence that "Corporations and government" "went way overboard and tried to shame white people simply for being white, often accusing them of racism for daring to question false history?"  Note that Truth Social posts do not constitute evidence.

I'll have to dig the case for Quebec that went into court.

Quote from: Zoupa on May 07, 2025, 09:17:53 PM

Quote from: viper37 on May 07, 2025, 08:44:59 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on May 07, 2025, 04:59:18 PMDEI includes things like wheelchair access ramps btw. I think there's an overarching argument here which is that's it the right thing to do.

A lot of DEI stuff went way overboard and tried to shame white people simply for being white, often accusing them of racism for daring to question false history.

Any examples? I have no idea what you're referring to.

The former teacher accused of racism, who lost his job, had to sue, received an indemnity, but never got his job back.

Search the archives of La Presse.

Yeah, there is going to be some abuse. It goes back to the thing about the fact that black people can be racist. Hell I think it is kind of hard to grow up in this hemisphere and not be racist. It just seems to infect everything.

That and to some companies 'DEI' just meant engaging in contemptible tokenism, rather than actually addressing issues.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 07, 2025, 10:56:15 PMIn my experience, in most places in the corporate world, DEI was mostly a slogan for paying lip service to caring about diversity without really doing much to further it. It's been a bit surreal watching magaworld work themselves into a fury over it, conjuring imaginary horrors.

Yep. Sort of like all those oil companies talking about how green they are.

BP stands for BEYOND PETROLEUM!!!!111

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2025, 07:49:24 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2025, 10:34:05 PMEh, I read this.
https://thehub.ca/2024/06/03/elie-cantin-nantel-quebec-is-a-national-anomaly-why-the-socially-liberal-province-hasnt-gone-woke/

Well, half of it.

My guess is you did a quick google search and were happy when you found an article in English about Quebec that had the term DEI used in a negative context.  But if you read the reporters interpretation of what the motion was, you will understand it was not a rejection of DEI. No DEI programs in any Canadian provinces have a quota system. And so the motion was simply in keeping with Quebec provincial laws, which by the way, are entirely consistent with DEI principles are, in my view, the strongest statutory supports for those principles in the Country.

This seems to be another example of a misunderstanding of what DEI is both my the author of the article and you.

An easy way to steer clear of the right-wing bullshit is to recognize that any article whose title uses the word "woke" is crap.  The right doesn't even know what woke means, but they'll commit murder, if necessary, to stop it.

Quote from: viper37 on May 08, 2025, 10:08:28 AM

Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2025, 09:56:21 PM

Quote from: viper37 on May 07, 2025, 08:44:59 PMCorporations and government didn't start hiring DEI consultants to design wheelchair access ramps or make their office more ergonomic for handicapped people.  We can drop that pretense right now.

A lot of DEI stuff went way overboard and tried to shame white people simply for being white, often accusing them of racism for daring to question false history.

Could I see some evidence that "Corporations and government" "went way overboard and tried to shame white people simply for being white, often accusing them of racism for daring to question false history?"  Note that Truth Social posts do not constitute evidence.

I'll have to dig the case for Quebec that went into court.

I would like to see it too please  :)

Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2025, 10:20:47 AMAn easy way to steer clear of the right-wing bullshit is to recognize that any article whose title uses the word "woke" is crap.  The right doesn't even know what woke means, but they'll commit murder, if necessary, to stop it.

 :yes:

Quote from: Josquius on May 08, 2025, 08:04:22 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 07:17:05 AM.

This is my understanding, and if true why fight so hard to defend it?

The right are taking aim not just at shit ineffectual implementations of equality policies, but using DEI as a dog whistle for the entire concept of equality.
Big hints they're using it as a wedge to have a go at workers rights in general.

If their strategy is to attack something that is unpopular and doesn't work to get you to defend it so they can use it as wedge, then the smart thing is not to defend it.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 11:32:36 AM

Quote from: Josquius on May 08, 2025, 08:04:22 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 07:17:05 AM.

This is my understanding, and if true why fight so hard to defend it?

The right are taking aim not just at shit ineffectual implementations of equality policies, but using DEI as a dog whistle for the entire concept of equality.
Big hints they're using it as a wedge to have a go at workers rights in general.

If their strategy is to attack something that is unpopular and doesn't work to get you to defend it so they can use it as wedge, then the smart thing is not to defend it.

MAGA - Due process is evil.  50% of Americans don't support it.

Raz - Ok then let's stop with this due process stuff.

Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2025, 10:20:47 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2025, 07:49:24 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2025, 10:34:05 PMEh, I read this.
https://thehub.ca/2024/06/03/elie-cantin-nantel-quebec-is-a-national-anomaly-why-the-socially-liberal-province-hasnt-gone-woke/

Well, half of it.

My guess is you did a quick google search and were happy when you found an article in English about Quebec that had the term DEI used in a negative context.  But if you read the reporters interpretation of what the motion was, you will understand it was not a rejection of DEI. No DEI programs in any Canadian provinces have a quota system. And so the motion was simply in keeping with Quebec provincial laws, which by the way, are entirely consistent with DEI principles are, in my view, the strongest statutory supports for those principles in the Country.

This seems to be another example of a misunderstanding of what DEI is both my the author of the article and you.

An easy way to steer clear of the right-wing bullshit is to recognize that any article whose title uses the word "woke" is crap.  The right doesn't even know what woke means, but they'll commit murder, if necessary, to stop it.

Woke was used by the left before it was used by the right, in particular it was to be used as way for center-leftists to criticize those further to the left.

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2025, 11:35:31 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 11:32:36 AM

Quote from: Josquius on May 08, 2025, 08:04:22 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 07:17:05 AM.

This is my understanding, and if true why fight so hard to defend it?

The right are taking aim not just at shit ineffectual implementations of equality policies, but using DEI as a dog whistle for the entire concept of equality.
Big hints they're using it as a wedge to have a go at workers rights in general.

If their strategy is to attack something that is unpopular and doesn't work to get you to defend it so they can use it as wedge, then the smart thing is not to defend it.

MAGA - Due process is evil.  50% of Americans don't support it.

Raz - Ok then let's stop with this due process stuff.

The majority of the population doesn't support getting rid of due process and it does seem to work and it is something that matters.  So not the best example you could have come up with.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 11:43:53 AM

Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2025, 10:20:47 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2025, 07:49:24 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2025, 10:34:05 PMEh, I read this.
https://thehub.ca/2024/06/03/elie-cantin-nantel-quebec-is-a-national-anomaly-why-the-socially-liberal-province-hasnt-gone-woke/

Well, half of it.

My guess is you did a quick google search and were happy when you found an article in English about Quebec that had the term DEI used in a negative context.  But if you read the reporters interpretation of what the motion was, you will understand it was not a rejection of DEI. No DEI programs in any Canadian provinces have a quota system. And so the motion was simply in keeping with Quebec provincial laws, which by the way, are entirely consistent with DEI principles are, in my view, the strongest statutory supports for those principles in the Country.

This seems to be another example of a misunderstanding of what DEI is both my the author of the article and you.

An easy way to steer clear of the right-wing bullshit is to recognize that any article whose title uses the word "woke" is crap.  The right doesn't even know what woke means, but they'll commit murder, if necessary, to stop it.

Woke was used by the left before it was used by the right, in particular it was to be used as way for center-leftists to criticize those further to the left.

You are correct that the term "woke" was used by the left. The meaning you have attributed to it's meaning at that time is not accurate.  It was not a term used in a disparaging way.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 11:47:28 AMThe majority of the population doesn't support getting rid of due process and it does seem to work and it is something that matters.  So not the best example you could have come up with.

Your criteria is that it be a wedge issue.  It has been a wedge issue for quite some time.  Also, the right claims that due process is not working.  That is why the need for the government to curb its "abuses".  That shows up in a lot of ways, too many to list here amongst the Trumpists.  And here in Canada the Conservatives saying they would use the Notwithstanding Clause to pass legislation our SCC has already rules is unconstitutional.

The difference is you support due process and you do not support DEI.  So it is the perfect example to show the logical inconsistency in your position that people should stop supporting DEI because it has been labelled by the right as being "woke".

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 11:32:36 AM

Quote from: Josquius on May 08, 2025, 08:04:22 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 07:17:05 AM.

This is my understanding, and if true why fight so hard to defend it?

The right are taking aim not just at shit ineffectual implementations of equality policies, but using DEI as a dog whistle for the entire concept of equality.
Big hints they're using it as a wedge to have a go at workers rights in general.

If their strategy is to attack something that is unpopular and doesn't work to get you to defend it so they can use it as wedge, then the smart thing is not to defend it.

OK. Next time there's a trans lynching I'll get my pitchfork.

If the left don't defend equal rights then there's no point in the left existing.

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2025, 11:52:41 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 11:47:28 AMThe majority of the population doesn't support getting rid of due process and it does seem to work and it is something that matters.  So not the best example you could have come up with.

Your criteria is that it be a wedge issue.  It has been a wedge issue for quite some time.  Also, the right claims that due process is not working.  That is why the need for the government to curb its "abuses".  That shows up in a lot of ways, too many to list here amongst the Trumpists.  And here in Canada the Conservatives saying they would use the Notwithstanding Clause to pass legislation our SCC has already rules is unconstitutional.

The difference is you support due process and you do not support DEI.  So it is the perfect example to show the logical inconsistency in your position that people should stop supporting DEI because it has been labelled by the right as being "woke".

No, I didn't say I didn't support DEI.  I'm ambivalent, but if doesn't really work and exists mostly as a way for corporations to launder their reputations, why should we defend it?  Trump and his team talk about getting rid of due process for illegal immigrants, which is not a popular issue (though really we've been deporting people without due process for a while now), and more importantly, is a meaningful issue.

Quote from: Josquius on May 08, 2025, 11:57:42 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 11:32:36 AM

Quote from: Josquius on May 08, 2025, 08:04:22 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 07:17:05 AM.

This is my understanding, and if true why fight so hard to defend it?

The right are taking aim not just at shit ineffectual implementations of equality policies, but using DEI as a dog whistle for the entire concept of equality.
Big hints they're using it as a wedge to have a go at workers rights in general.

If their strategy is to attack something that is unpopular and doesn't work to get you to defend it so they can use it as wedge, then the smart thing is not to defend it.

OK. Next time there's a trans lynching I'll get my pitchfork.

If the left don't defend equal rights then there's no point in the left existing.

Don't be daft.  People were leftists before DEI.  During the French Revolution they let you sit on the left side of the assembly even if you didn't have sensitivity training or didn't allow transwomen to participate in women's sports.  You can still be a leftist without supporting equal rights to children or great apes.  And not taking the maximalist position on everything doesn't mean you need to lynch trans people.

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2025, 11:48:31 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 11:43:53 AM

Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2025, 10:20:47 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2025, 07:49:24 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2025, 10:34:05 PMEh, I read this.
https://thehub.ca/2024/06/03/elie-cantin-nantel-quebec-is-a-national-anomaly-why-the-socially-liberal-province-hasnt-gone-woke/

Well, half of it.

My guess is you did a quick google search and were happy when you found an article in English about Quebec that had the term DEI used in a negative context.  But if you read the reporters interpretation of what the motion was, you will understand it was not a rejection of DEI. No DEI programs in any Canadian provinces have a quota system. And so the motion was simply in keeping with Quebec provincial laws, which by the way, are entirely consistent with DEI principles are, in my view, the strongest statutory supports for those principles in the Country.

This seems to be another example of a misunderstanding of what DEI is both my the author of the article and you.

An easy way to steer clear of the right-wing bullshit is to recognize that any article whose title uses the word "woke" is crap.  The right doesn't even know what woke means, but they'll commit murder, if necessary, to stop it.

Woke was used by the left before it was used by the right, in particular it was to be used as way for center-leftists to criticize those further to the left.

You are correct that the term "woke" was used by the left. The meaning you have attributed to it's meaning at that time is not accurate.  It was not a term used in a disparaging way.

I do not believe you to be correct. The term dates back to prior to the Civil war when it was used by an organization called the "Wide Awakes".  It fell out of fashion among white people in the 1870's but remained in the Black vernacular.  It reenter white left-wing language in the 1960's and ended up replacing "Politically correct" among the left.  To quote Musa al-Gharbi

QuoteSince then, things have played out for "woke" much like they did for "political correctness":
within activist circles  the term increasingly gained two meanings.  In its initial contemporary usage, the term was used to identify someone who was alert to social injustice and committed to resisting it.  Gradually, however, the others on the left began to use the term pejoratively to refer to peers who were self-righteous  and non-self aware.  "Wokeness" came to be associated in these cercles with empty symbolic gestures and ideological dogmatism.  Eventually, the political Right seized on this intra-left disagreement and began using "woke" as a catchall for anything associated with the Left that seemed ridiculous or repugnant.  And this began to the luster off the term.

-Page 27, We Have Never Been Woke.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 12:21:36 PMquote]
If their strategy is to attack something that is unpopular and doesn't work to get you to defend it so they can use it as wedge, then the smart thing is not to defend it.
[/quo

]

Don't be daft.  People were leftists before DEI.  During the French Revolution they let you sit on the left side of the assembly even if you didn't have sensitivity training or didn't allow transwomen to participate in women's sports.  You can still be a leftist without supporting equal rights to children or great apes.  And not taking the maximalist position on everything doesn't mean you need to lynch trans people.

:bleeding:
When it comes down to it DEI is just a modern corporate speak label for how they handle the core of what left wing politics is all about- equality for all.

Don't oppose the maximalist position of  "no, actually, anyone who doesn't fit into the empowered majority actually should be excluded from good jobs" and you're a pretty crap leftist.

Complain if you like about shit implementations.
But rail against the very concept of meritocracy and you're just dancing to the fascists merry tune.

So is this the Twitter thread?

Cuz I keep getting posts for Ye (formerly Kanye West)'s new video, amusingly titled:

Heil Hitler.

With the chorus (does it count as a chorus?) of 'N-word Heil Hitler'.

Oy vey.

Basic searches make it seem like it's being blocked - but not on Twitter!

Quote from: Josquius on May 08, 2025, 12:46:39 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 12:21:36 PMquote]
If their strategy is to attack something that is unpopular and doesn't work to get you to defend it so they can use it as wedge, then the smart thing is not to defend it.
[/quo

]

Don't be daft.  People were leftists before DEI.  During the French Revolution they let you sit on the left side of the assembly even if you didn't have sensitivity training or didn't allow transwomen to participate in women's sports.  You can still be a leftist without supporting equal rights to children or great apes.  And not taking the maximalist position on everything doesn't mean you need to lynch trans people.

:bleeding:
When it comes down to it DEI is just a modern corporate speak label for how they handle the core of what left wing politics is all about- equality for all.

Don't oppose the maximalist position of  "no, actually, anyone who doesn't fit into the empowered majority actually should be excluded from good jobs" and you're a pretty crap leftist.

Complain if you like about shit implementations.
But rail against the very concept of meritocracy and you're just dancing to the fascists merry tune.

Who is saying that  "no, actually, anyone who doesn't fit into the empowered majority actually should be excluded from good jobs"?  That's not a slogan I'm seeing anywhere.  I very much question that the very concept of meritocracy is in peril here.

Something like "Hire from groups A, B, and C, but make special effort to promote group C" doesn't seem, on the face of it, particularly meritocratic.  

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2025, 06:17:41 AMI think it is interesting the extent to which corporate world appears to have u-turned on this.

I don't think it's that surprising given my perception - formed almost entirely in the US - that most companies were doing it to make a showing of trying to do something about diversity without real interest in achieving substantive impact.  It was easy to give up once the political wind shifted because there was never fundamental commitment to it.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 11:32:36 AMIf their strategy is to attack something that is unpopular and doesn't work to get you to defend it so they can use it as wedge, then the smart thing is not to defend it.[/size]

That doesn't matter at all. The "it" will be constantly defined so that the Left is always defending "it" unless the left caves entirely and goes full maga.  Just like the new Pope and Barack Obama are "Marxists".  "Woke" just means "not Maga" and "DEI" just means "stuff we maga people don't like"

The best and only response is for people to defend what they believe in and think to be true and just, make their case for it, and not be deterred by idiotic name calling.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 08, 2025, 04:51:31 PMI don't think it's that surprising given my perception - formed almost entirely in the US - that most companies were doing it to make a showing of trying to do something about diversity without real interest in achieving substantive impact.  It was easy to give up once the political wind shifted because there was never fundamental commitment to it.

I suppose the challenge to that is whether corporations and that arrangement of the economy can ever meaningfully be committed to or deliver significant diversity - inequality is embedded in it.

I personally think the left/liberal types should ditch all attachment to and defence of DEI as embodied in corporations and public sector bodies and beyond. I think if you have a political project and most people's experience of that message is from HR teams, corporate leaders, the language of internal comms then that's a problem in advancing your political goal because most people hate their bosses and HR (for good reason) :lol:

QuoteThat doesn't matter at all. The "it" will be constantly defined so that the Left is always defending "it" unless the left caves entirely and goes full maga.  Just like the new Pope and Barack Obama are "Marxists".  "Woke" just means "not Maga" and "DEI" just means "stuff we maga people don't like"

The best and only response is for people to defend what they believe in and think to be true and just, make their case for it, and not be deterred by idiotic name calling.

I agree to a point though this has always been the case. I remember people disagreeing that "woke" was emptied of meaning in our discourse, but I think it was - and think of Orwell on this:

QuoteMany political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable'. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.

Having said that - I do think there's an issue on the liberal/left (and I think it's particularly strong in the US) of a very short jump from grad school and activist circles to a shibboleth. I think it was there with "defund the police" (with some people insisting it means what it says, others - including myself - that it was more complex), I think the shift to "equity" and accompanying diagram explaining the difference between it and equality and I think the language of "privilege". If, as someone who studied a humanities subject, I have to do a but of reading or look at some diagrams to understand a word then I'd argue it's perhaps not the best for communicating politically - especially if you're vacating widely understood, commonly used words like "equality", "inequality", "unfairness".

And in all of those cases I think there's been a tendency to die on the hill of particular words of sets of words. In part because what they're actually for is less political persuasion than as a shibboleth, I think the changes and the adjustments are to signal that you have done the correct reading, are aware of current practice. As I say, fine in the seminar room or with hyper-engaged activists but, I think, potentially alienating when it hits the general public. Especially as I think some are better at or more interested in defending specific forms of words than the underlying principle.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 08, 2025, 04:54:24 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 11:32:36 AMIf their strategy is to attack something that is unpopular and doesn't work to get you to defend it so they can use it as wedge, then the smart thing is not to defend it.[/size]

That doesn't matter at all. The "it" will be constantly defined so that the Left is always defending "it" unless the left caves entirely and goes full maga.  Just like the new Pope and Barack Obama are "Marxists".  "Woke" just means "not Maga" and "DEI" just means "stuff we maga people don't like"

The best and only response is for people to defend what they believe in and think to be true and just, make their case for it, and not be deterred by idiotic name calling.

I think that it does matter.  We don't support things simply because MAGA is against it, or at least shouldn't support thing for that reason, that would be dumb.  The country isn't just made up of MAGA and the left and quite a bit of what would be MAGA was on our side until recently.  We absolutely can win some of those people over, and start by not fighting live or die struggles over meaningless issues like corporate lip service.

Who is support of DEI suppose to win over?  Democrats have been losing minority voters since Obama was elected.  Trump has increased his share of minority voters each time he ran.  So we aren't winning them over with this.  The working class?  They've pretty much all gone over to Trump as well.  Support for DEI comes from, I think, white, well educated affluent people, who just happen to make up the core of the Democratic party.  Why do they support it?  I think to prove they aren't racist.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2025, 05:31:29 PMAnd in all of those cases I think there's been a tendency to die on the hill of particular words of sets of words. In part because what they're actually for is less political persuasion than as a shibboleth, I think the changes and the adjustments are to signal that you have done the correct reading, are aware of current practice. As I say, fine in the seminar room or with hyper-engaged activists but, I think, potentially alienating when it hits the general public. Especially as I think some are better at or more interested in defending specific forms of words than the underlying principle.

This was Al-Gharbi thesis, that a large amount of left-wing politics, the "woke" elements in particular are about fitting in with right people and achieving status in those groups.  This is why people fight over stuff of very limited importance, such as corporate DEI, Transgender sports, tearing down statues, renaming schools etc.  The point is not to convince people or even to advance an ideology so much as to prove one's bona fides.  These sort of symbolic battles are very important to a class of people he calls "Symbolic Capitalists", most of the knowledge economy types, but not to the working class and that is why the working class has largely left the Democrats.

Yeah - I don't think that's quite what I'd argue.

My point is more that I think many of these fights are worth having. If you want to have them and win, then it's about persuading people. I think normally that's best done by using words people already understand and are in common circulation. Using better, more precise but less well known word is unhelpful in my view, as is being rigidly attacked to a specific set of words (even if they're not commonly understood in the way you mean or heavily contested). In politics I think it's worth sacrificing precision (or lack of it) for your audience widely understanding what you're talking about and arguing for. This is where I think there is something of the seminar room about it - because it reminds me of (some) academics and (some) academic sneering at communicating with the wider public.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 11:43:53 AMWoke was used by the left before it was used by the right, in particular it was to be used as way for center-leftists to criticize those further to the left.

Source?  On the left it has always meant "be aware that you, as a black person, won't get the same forbearance from the cops that white people get, so avoid situations where forbearance could be an issue."  I've never seen it used by the left to be "ineffable  evil that must be exorcised even tat the cost of decency and democracy" that seems to be the right's approach.  They don't know what it is, but they will kill to stop it.

Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2025, 07:16:56 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 11:43:53 AMWoke was used by the left before it was used by the right, in particular it was to be used as way for center-leftists to criticize those further to the left.

Source?  On the left it has always meant "be aware that you, as a black person, won't get the same forbearance from the cops that white people get, so avoid situations where forbearance could be an issue."  I've never seen it used by the left to be "ineffable  evil that must be exorcised even tat the cost of decency and democracy" that seems to be the right's approach.  They don't know what it is, but they will kill to stop it.

I already provided it.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2025, 06:33:37 PMYeah - I don't think that's quite what I'd argue.

My point is more that I think many of these fights are worth having. If you want to have them and win, then it's about persuading people. I think normally that's best done by using words people already understand and are in common circulation. Using better, more precise but less well known word is unhelpful in my view, as is being rigidly attacked to a specific set of words (even if they're not commonly understood in the way you mean or heavily contested). In politics I think it's worth sacrificing precision (or lack of it) for your audience widely understanding what you're talking about and arguing for. This is where I think there is something of the seminar room about it - because it reminds me of (some) academics and (some) academic sneering at communicating with the wider public.

It does explain why so many organization quickly bent the knee to Trump and reversed policies.  The beliefs they held were not as strong as their desire for power, money and influence.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 07:51:27 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2025, 07:16:56 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 11:43:53 AMWoke was used by the left before it was used by the right, in particular it was to be used as way for center-leftists to criticize those further to the left.

Source?  On the left it has always meant "be aware that you, as a black person, won't get the same forbearance from the cops that white people get, so avoid situations where forbearance could be an issue."  I've never seen it used by the left to be "ineffable  evil that must be exorcised even tat the cost of decency and democracy" that seems to be the right's approach.  They don't know what it is, but they will kill to stop it.

I already provided it.

Anecdotes by some guy isn't really evidence, even though he mixes a mean word salad. For that matter, he doesn't actually say (AFAICT - feel free to provide a quote showing that I am wrong) that "woke" was first used pejoratively by the left.

I have not seen any examples of leftists publicly labeling other leftists as "woke" as an insult. Feel free to steer me to some examples.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 08, 2025, 04:54:24 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 11:32:36 AMIf their strategy is to attack something that is unpopular and doesn't work to get you to defend it so they can use it as wedge, then the smart thing is not to defend it.[/size]

That doesn't matter at all. The "it" will be constantly defined so that the Left is always defending "it" unless the left caves entirely and goes full maga.  Just like the new Pope and Barack Obama are "Marxists".  "Woke" just means "not Maga" and "DEI" just means "stuff we maga people don't like"

Then presumably at some point they will run out of things that are unpopular and don't work.

The right has a very good propaganda machine for making relatively anodyne things unpopular so they can rail against it.

I think your presumption is incorrect. They will not run out.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 08, 2025, 09:05:03 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 08, 2025, 04:54:24 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 11:32:36 AMIf their strategy is to attack something that is unpopular and doesn't work to get you to defend it so they can use it as wedge, then the smart thing is not to defend it.[/size]

That doesn't matter at all. The "it" will be constantly defined so that the Left is always defending "it" unless the left caves entirely and goes full maga.  Just like the new Pope and Barack Obama are "Marxists".  "Woke" just means "not Maga" and "DEI" just means "stuff we maga people don't like"

Then presumably at some point they will run out of things that are unpopular and don't work.

I don't think the popularity of a thing is the right measure for whether that thing should be enacted or not. Then you're back at 3 wolves and 2 sheep.

Quote from: Zoupa on May 08, 2025, 09:21:54 PMI don't think the popularity of a thing is the right measure for whether that thing should be enacted or not. Then you're back at 3 wolves and 2 sheep.

I totally agree.  Unfortunately for both of us, the popularity of thing is intimately connected to whether it *can* and *will* be enacted.

Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2025, 07:16:56 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 11:43:53 AMWoke was used by the left before it was used by the right, in particular it was to be used as way for center-leftists to criticize those further to the left.

Source?  On the left it has always meant "be aware that you, as a black person, won't get the same forbearance from the cops that white people get, so avoid situations where forbearance could be an issue."  I've never seen it used by the left to be "ineffable  evil that must be exorcised even tat the cost of decency and democracy" that seems to be the right's approach.  They don't know what it is, but they will kill to stop it.

Funny I always thought woke meant that you have become conscious of your unconscious biases.  I guess this word means many things to many people.

I think the right interprets it to mean the lefts attempts to allegedly impose their will upon them with DEI policies and what not.

One thing I don't often see brought up in discussion about DEI is its impact reducing group think,  which is something that resonates with me.  I've seen how common, stupid, irritating group think is in the workplace.

Although in practise I have also noticed how different DEI subgroups form mini group think cliques that are sometimes even more annoying.

Being a person who isn't easily influenced by others I often get annoyed by these behaviours.  I kind of wonder if humanity itself is even capable of moving beyond them.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2025, 01:22:13 PM]
Who is saying that  "no, actually, anyone who doesn't fit into the empowered majority actually should be excluded from good jobs"?  That's not a slogan I'm seeing anywhere.  I very much question that the very concept of meritocracy is in peril here.

That's basically what they're saying with the anti EDI hysteria.

QuoteSomething like "Hire from groups A, B, and C, but make special effort to promote group C" doesn't seem, on the face of it, particularly meritocratic. 

More hire the best person no matter who they are. But beware of bias, both conscious and conscious, which means group C tends to be really under represented and make a bit of an effort to have some representatives from that group at the interview stage.

Quote from: Josquius on May 09, 2025, 01:52:01 AMThat's basically what they're saying with the anti EDI hysteria.

They're not saying it, basically or otherwise.  You're inferring it, or making it up, whichever suits your taste.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2025, 02:41:43 AM

Quote from: Josquius on May 09, 2025, 01:52:01 AMThat's basically what they're saying with the anti EDI hysteria.

They're not saying it, basically or otherwise.  You're inferring it, or making it up, whichever suits your taste.

It clearly is. Remember it's not in isolation that they're making good faith criticisms of diversity policy failing to ensure a meritocracy.
It all comes as part of a package with the woke monster, "critical race theory", "cultural Marxism", white lives matter, the great trans panic, and all manner of other nonsense.

Until they say it, or do it, all that is just your narrative.  Repeating "clearly" doesn't change that.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2025, 02:55:50 AMUntil they say it, or do it, all that is just your narrative.  Repeating "clearly" doesn't change that.

We've been dealing with this stuff long enough now you really should know better.
It's not like they're even making much of an effort to keep the quiet part quiet these days. Did you miss the Hitler salute?

I saw the Hitler salute.  If you want to predict that at some point only white men will be hired for any job, I'll take the bet.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2025, 03:29:34 AMI saw the Hitler salute.  If you want to predict that at some point only white men will be hired for any job, I'll take the bet.

I don't believe we will end up there. This would take many years to change and I'm still hopeful America can hold onto democracy. But not for lack of effort from trumps lot.
Certainly I can see statistics shifting so more priveleged white guys get hired over less priveleged white people, minorities, women, etc...
Or rather with the way things going rather than hired, still holding a job is a better term.

I don't know how true this is given the replication crisis in the social sciences (at last! tear that temple of fraudsters down) - but I believe there have actually been a few studies of unconscious bias training that shows that not only does it not work, people leave it with more bias. I think the basic point (which I've definitely experienced) is that the training often exposes people to stereotypes they weren't previously aware of :lol:

This isn't directly linked to DEI but part of the wider conversation on "woke"/"cancel culture" etc. I do think that in the US in particular (but also Germany frankly) there possibly needs to be some thought around how language of "safety" and the approach of de-platforming has led to huge pressure by the state on universities, cultural and arts institutions and at the most extreme in the US foreign students participating in pro-Palestinian protests being bundled off the streets by ICE teams and deported (often after a brief period of what seems to be borderline disappearance where they seem to have no habeas corpus rights). I think in the use of ICE in particular that is meant as a threat and I don't think it's just targeted at foreign students.

I think it's always important, if you're using non-statutory levers of power for a political goal, to be mindful of the fact you've revealed a lever of power and set a precedent and your opponents will use it to advance their agenda (that may vary from Germany which is just cracking down on free speech in relation to Israel-Palestine to Trump's approach which I think is about breaking the independence of higher education and a disciplining threat to dissenters). It's a bit like executives using state pension funds to prioritise ESG investing, for example, we need to be aware that the other side can come in not only reverse that but, say, direct them to focus investment in extraction and gambling (trying to work out an anti-ESG - especially as I now back investing in defence companies).

Again it's why I think it's why it's a restraint but doing things through legislation passed by a legislature should be the way of doing politics, not looking for creative interpretations of executive/administrative power (see also Obama and drone strikes or the national security state in general) because it will be used by people you disagree with too and we've accidentally invented Charles I. I wasn't critical enough of this at the time, I was too sanguine and I think it's a problem. Obviously this is just exposing again the big problem in the US that it does not have a functioning legislature capable of fulfilling its constitutional role anymore.

Quote from: Josquius on May 09, 2025, 03:42:41 AMI don't believe we will end up there. This would take many years to change and I'm still hopeful America can hold onto democracy. But not for lack of effort from trumps lot.
Certainly I can see statistics shifting so more priveleged white guys get hired over less priveleged white people, minorities, women, etc...
Or rather with the way things going rather than hired, still holding a job is a better term.

If their super double secret probabationary wish is not going to come true, why the fuck should I care about it?  Why do you care about it?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2025, 02:49:04 PM

Quote from: Josquius on May 09, 2025, 03:42:41 AMI don't believe we will end up there. This would take many years to change and I'm still hopeful America can hold onto democracy. But not for lack of effort from trumps lot.
Certainly I can see statistics shifting so more priveleged white guys get hired over less priveleged white people, minorities, women, etc...
Or rather with the way things going rather than hired, still holding a job is a better term.

If their super double secret probabationary wish is not going to come true, why the fuck should I care about it?  Why do you care about it?

:mellow:
Seriously?
Don't worry about the fascists because they're not going to get what they want?
People worrying about trumps shit and standing up to it is a key part of why I don't expect them to get everything they want.

Quote from: Josquius on May 09, 2025, 02:51:48 PM:mellow:
Seriously?
Don't worry about the fascists because they're not going to get what they want?
People worrying about trumps shit and standing up to it is a key part of why I don't expect them to get everything they want.

That's a perfect formula for giving yourself credit for something you don't deserve credit for.  You invent a secret goal and them claim credit when it doesn't come true.

I claim credit for heroically resisting the secret plan of English Northerners to castrate all Jewish men.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2025, 03:03:27 PM

Quote from: Josquius on May 09, 2025, 02:51:48 PM:mellow:
Seriously?
Don't worry about the fascists because they're not going to get what they want?
People worrying about trumps shit and standing up to it is a key part of why I don't expect them to get everything they want.

That's a perfect formula for giving yourself credit for something you don't deserve credit for.  You invent a secret goal and them claim credit when it doesn't come true.

I claim credit for heroically resisting the secret plan of English Northerners to castrate all Jewish men.

Banana gerbil bible sprinting hexagonal shove?

Quote from: Josquius on May 09, 2025, 03:05:15 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2025, 03:03:27 PM

Quote from: Josquius on May 09, 2025, 02:51:48 PM:mellow:
Seriously?
Don't worry about the fascists because they're not going to get what they want?
People worrying about trumps shit and standing up to it is a key part of why I don't expect them to get everything they want.

That's a perfect formula for giving yourself credit for something you don't deserve credit for.  You invent a secret goal and them claim credit when it doesn't come true.

I claim credit for heroically resisting the secret plan of English Northerners to castrate all Jewish men.

Banana gerbil bible sprinting hexagonal shove?

That's actually one of the most compelling arguments you've ever made :lol:

Quote from: Josquius on May 09, 2025, 02:51:48 PM:mellow:
Seriously?
Don't worry about the fascists because they're not going to get what they want?

I see this argument all the time with regard to non-white fascists.  Hell, you made this argument with Hamas before.

Way to go Baron. You resurrect the thread and this is what we get.

This one I split out of the Musk thread.

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2025, 06:44:40 PMWay to go Baron. You resurrect the thread and this is what we get.

Pipe down, you'll get what you want in a month.  The odds are very good I won't post again for a really long time.  You, viper and Zoupa should be thrilled.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2025, 06:22:46 PM

Quote from: Josquius on May 09, 2025, 02:51:48 PM:mellow:
Seriously?
Don't worry about the fascists because they're not going to get what they want?

I see this argument all the time with regard to non-white fascists.  Hell, you made this argument with Hamas before.

And you don't see a slight difference between the situation of Trump and Hamas? Gaza and the USA?

Though I imagine the deep supporters of both do blame the Jews :hmm:

Quote from: Josquius on May 10, 2025, 02:19:59 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2025, 06:22:46 PM

Quote from: Josquius on May 09, 2025, 02:51:48 PM:mellow:
Seriously?
Don't worry about the fascists because they're not going to get what they want?

I see this argument all the time with regard to non-white fascists.  Hell, you made this argument with Hamas before.

And you don't see a slight difference between the situation of Trump and Hamas? Gaza and the USA?

Though I imagine the deep supporters of both do blame the Jews :hmm:

Yes I do see a slight difference between curtailing human resource programs designed to avoid liability and killings large numbers of people.  Why do you ask?

Quote from: Razgovory on May 10, 2025, 09:34:42 AM

Quote from: Josquius on May 10, 2025, 02:19:59 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2025, 06:22:46 PM

Quote from: Josquius on May 09, 2025, 02:51:48 PM:mellow:
Seriously?
Don't worry about the fascists because they're not going to get what they want?

I see this argument all the time with regard to non-white fascists.  Hell, you made this argument with Hamas before.

And you don't see a slight difference between the situation of Trump and Hamas? Gaza and the USA?

Though I imagine the deep supporters of both do blame the Jews :hmm:

Yes I do see a slight difference between curtailing human resource programs designed to avoid liability and killings large numbers of people.  Why do you ask?

:bleeding:

I'm not following.