All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[shooshoomanjoe]

See, the problem is that too many people saw Affirmative Action as the be all-end all, when it should have been the first step. Then you have to do something to convince resentful white men that the beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are qualified for their positions and didn't just get them to fill a quota. Their mere presence in the workplace or university won't do it.

I noticed that these people have no issues with all the unqualified personnel in the White House.

[Kirby101]

Well at least GOP plans don't backfire, they do exactly what they are intended to, keep discrimination strong.

How Betsy DeVos Could End the School-Integration Comeback

[Tami]

Russian expert on state TV:
"Why is Trump better than Biden or Clinton? Because Biden or Clinton would act in support of [global] coalitions. It’s the gathering of all forces against us into one group, one team. When Trump came, he destroyed that team.”

Twitter Link

[aja_christopher]

I noticed that these people have no issues with all the unqualified personnel in the White House.

All you have to do is compare Obama to Trump to see where their priorities lie.

Has nothing to do with "qualifications" and everything to do with bigotry and discrimination.

[skyvolt2000]

How would you go about convincing people that beneficiaries of African Americans are qualified for their positions?

The same way you do for everybody else.

It's called a resume.
It's called what qualifiactions the job requires.

Why do I have to work harder to convince people to hire a black male over whites and other races?

That is discrimination.

One example is legislation to prevent potential employers from inquiring whether applicants have served jail time. The intent is to make it easier for people with criminal records (who are disproportionately likely to be young men of color) to get jobs. However, many employers will respond to "ban the box" regulations by considering less men of color in the initial stages of the job search progress, and by hiring white guys who have served time in jail.

There are plenty of companies that hire former jail birds.

They then tracked the number of callbacks received. When employers asked about criminal records on the job application, they called white applicants slightly more often than identical black applicants – but that small gap became more than four times larger, and statistically significant, after “ban the box” went into effect. (White applicants with criminal records benefited the most from the policy change – they’re the ones who got a chance to prove themselves in an interview, though it’s unclear if they would have gotten a job offer.

Funny the white males were allowed to defend thmeselves and get callbacks. While black men were left out.

[aja_christopher]

The same way you do for everybody else.

It's called a resume.

Ridiculous that these things even have to be explained.

It shouldn't be on "minorities" to have to change things -- it's those who discriminate against "minorities" who need to change.

The original goalpost is whether McConnell might think he's doing the right thing, rather than whether particular legislation is worthwhile.

Of course he thinks he's doing the right thing just like slaveowners and segregationists thought they were doing the right thing in their respective eras in protecting and prioritizing the rights of straight white male Christians over other citizens -- "for their own good".

[skyvolt2000]

I noticed that these people have no issues with all the unqualified personnel in the White House.

Say it again-they didn't hear you in the back!

They didn't hear you in all these industries where white guys can be unqualified and still get work. Be unqualified and work thier way up the ladder.

[Mister Mets]

The same way you do for everybody else.

It's called a resume.
It's called what qualifiactions the job requires.

Why do I have to work harder to convince people to hire a black male over whites and other races?

That is discrimination.








There are plenty of companies that hire former jail birds.



Funny the white males were allowed to defend thmeselves and get callbacks. While black men were left out.

Regarding the comment about resumes, that only works if the resumes are equivalent.

An argument from the left would be that the country's history of racist policies means that there are not as many opportunities for African-Americans to gain traditional signifiers of qualification.

For example, the University of Chicago law school has a lower percentage of African-American graduates (75 out of 1,524) than would be their share of the population.

https://www.collegetuitioncompare.co...**/graduation/



White ex-cons got more callbacks because of the incorrect assumption that they haven't served jail-time, the result of a policy that makes it difficult to gauge early in the hiring process whether applicants have been in prison.

[PaulBullion]

Ridiculous that these things even have to be explained.

It shouldn't be on "minorities" to have to change things -- it's those who discriminate against "minorities" who need to change.



Of course he thinks he's doing the right thing just like slaveowners and segregationists thought they were doing the right thing in their respective eras in protecting and prioritizing the rights of straight white male Christians over other citizens -- "for their own good".

No, when McConnel laughs and said that while he would not consider Merrick Fucking Garland because it was too close to the election, but would do so even closer to the election if Trump named the candidate, eh RELISHES in being a pick. He knows he is not doing the right thing. He loves being the Bond villain. He is evil to the bone, and he does not mind if people know it.

[aja_christopher]

For example, the University of Chicago law school has a lower percentage of African-American graduates (75 out of 1,524) than would be their share of the population.

White ex-cons got more callbacks because of the incorrect assumption that they haven't served jail-time, the result of a policy that makes it difficult to gauge early in the hiring process whether applicants have been in prison.

The problem with this method of argument is that it routinely lets you avoid any facts that you disagree with.

I understand it's part of your technique but I have to point it out when it happens if there is to be any real progress.

Any one can pick one or two data points and try to use that as proof of a larger argument but when you focus on that and ignore the larger data that subverts or disproves your arguments regarding discrimination within the Republican party it shows clear bias.

Understandable in a political discussion but still detrimental to moving forward.

-----
"Arizona Republicans discriminated against minority voters, court rules"

Ruling says Republican effort to restrict third-party ballot collection appeared to be part of effort to suppress black, Hispanic and Native American votes"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rs-court-rules

-----
"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.

Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.

This fallacy is a major problem in public debate."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

[Mister Mets]

I noticed that these people have no issues with all the unqualified personnel in the White House.

Much of the time that's because the qualified people don't want that on their resume. Would you want to explain at your 10th year Yale reunion why you helped put babies in cages?

Say it again-they didn't hear you in the back!

They didn't hear you in all these industries where white guys can be unqualified and still get work. Be unqualified and work thier way up the ladder.

It is true that many companies will hire people who are unqualified for whatever reason. Often, this is someone within an employer's social circle. The primary beneficiaries of this would be a subset of well-connected white people.

There are two potential policy solutions.

One would be to push for more diversity in the workplace, under the assumption that there is room for qualified black and brown employees alongside the unqualified white employees. This does screw over white and Asian people with limited connections.

Another is to take away from companies the ability to hire unqualified white people. But this will be likely to result in pushback from the business community for a variety of reasons. They're not going to care for decisions made by bureaucrats who do not feel the impact of a regulation upon an industry. They may want to be able to hire individuals with unconventional resumes; a person may have skills that make up for it that are recognized by a headhunter. There are benefits to hiring within your social circle, who has been vouched for by people you trust, rather than going with a stranger.

[aja_christopher]

No, when McConnel laughs and said that while he would not consider Merrick Fucking Garland because it was too close to the election, but would do so even closer to the election if Trump named the candidate, eh RELISHES in being a pick. He knows he is not doing the right thing. He loves being the Bond villain. He is evil to the bone, and he does not mind if people know it.

A Cheney with no term limits.

With near absolute obstructive power.

From one of the least educated states (47th) in the nation.

[aja_christopher]

"A federal court has ruled Arizona Republicans’ ban on mail-in ballots is illegal and unconstitutional, calling it intentionally discriminatory toward people of color, who already face increased barriers to voting.

The ruling is a major victory for the Democratic party, which filed the suit, and will likely make it easier for minorities to get their ballots counted in the largely red state.

Four years ago, Arizona Republicans made it a felony, punishable by prison time, for third-party groups to collect mail-in ballots during elections – a process often called “ballot harvesting.”

Marginalized communities in the state may rely more on ballot harvesting, the court noted. Native Americans, for example, benefit significantly from third-party ballot collection efforts because just 18% of registered voters have mail service at home, and reservations can be far from polling stations. Some minority communities also have widespread distrust in the mailing system: in San Luis, a city that is 98% Hispanic, a major highway separates 13,000 residents from the nearest post office.

“The adverse impact on minority communities is substantial. Without ‘access to reliable and secure mail services,’ and without reliable transportation, many minority voters ‘prefer instead to give their ballots to a volunteer’,” the court said. And Hispanics and Native Americans make up nearly 37% of the state’s population – promising to be a key demographic in this year’s presidential election.

The ruling noted that the Republican effort to restrict third-party ballot collection appeared to be part of a longstanding effort to suppress black, Hispanic and Native American votes. Republicans passed a similar law in 2011, but abandoned the effort after a state election official admitted that the measure was designed to target voting activity in Hispanic areas."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rs-court-rules

[Mister Mets]

No, when McConnel laughs and said that while he would not consider Merrick Fucking Garland because it was too close to the election, but would do so even closer to the election if Trump named the candidate, eh RELISHES in being a pick. He knows he is not doing the right thing. He loves being the Bond villain. He is evil to the bone, and he does not mind if people know it.

Do you really think that if the situation had been reversed, a Democratic Senate majority leader would have allowed a vote on an election year for the Supreme Court nominee of a Republican president?

The problem with this method of argument is that it routinely lets you avoid any facts that you disagree with.

I understand it's part of your technique but I have to point it out when it happens if there is to be any real progress.

Any one can pick one or two data points and try to use that as proof of a larger argument but when you focus on that and ignore the larger data that subverts or disproves your arguments regarding discrimination within the Republican party it shows clear bias.

Understandable in a political discussion but still detrimental to moving forward.

-----
"Arizona Republicans discriminated against minority voters, court rules"

Ruling says Republican effort to restrict third-party ballot collection appeared to be part of effort to suppress black, Hispanic and Native American votes"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rs-court-rules

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.

Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.

This fallacy is a major problem in public debate."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

You're criticizing me for cherry-picking by responding to points about affirmative action in the workplace with an example of a court decision on voting rights.

That certainly seems like cherry-picking itself.

The larger impetus for this discussion was the question about whether Mitch McConnell thinks he's wrong, so a bill passed by the Arizona legislature in 2016 isn't obviously relevant to that discussion.

I would note that posters on this forum expressed opposition to the policy of ballot harvesting from the left, so it is hardly something so obviously correct that any opposition is indefensible.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post4970558
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post4970560

[PaulBullion]