Trump 2nd term prediction thread
So, looks like Trump not only smashed the electoral college, but is looking on track to win the popular vote, which seems to be an unexpected turn of events, but a clear sign of the current temperature in the country and perhaps the wider world.
Would be interested to hear views on how his 2nd term will pan out from both sides of the aisle - major happenings, what he's going to get done, what he's not going to get done, the impact of his election on the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, whether his popularity will remain the same, wane, or increase, etc.
A bit of an anemic OP, I know, just interested to hear people's thoughts now that the election uncertainty is over.
Racism. We don't need more studies. DEI is not racist. It is explicitly anti-racist. Only people that don't understand what it is call it racist.
sorry, you're the most qualified for this role, but you're white and we must hire a black person.
that is objectively racist.
the rest of your post about white people predominantly being hired more is *probably* due to some levels of racism. notice how it's subjective and difficult to quantify.
the rest of your post about white people predominantly being hired more is *probably* due to some levels of racism. notice how it's subjective and difficult to quantify.
That's the problem. It is subjective and difficult to quantify. So are the solutions, but ignoring it and throwing out any attempt at a solution is, well, not a solution and ultimately makes the problem even worse.
sorry, you're the most qualified for this role, but you're white and we must hire a black person.
I'm not an expert on any of this, but I think it goes more like, "He's the most qualified of the candidates, but the white guy fits the look of our company better, so call that guy and ask him if he wants to accept our offer."
No. I'm just saying that you don't go from a society where a race of people work for free for hundreds of years and then join the workforce and are treated equal to the race that spent hundreds of years exploiting them. That can't be disputed, unless you rewrite all the history books.
The complexity is it's nearly impossible to not overcorrect and then have the more qualified white candidate being passed on for a minority in an effort to seem inclusive.
Why are you asking me? If you have a point to make, make it. The truth doesn't hinge on how I answer that question.
That's Dids. He also likes to tell you you're wrong about something but not elaborate why.
No. I'm just saying that you don't go from a society where a race of people work for free for hundreds of years and then join the workforce and are treated equal to the race that spent hundreds of years exploiting them. That can't be disputed, unless you rewrite all the history books.
The complexity is it's nearly impossible to not overcorrect and then have the more qualified white candidate being passed on for a minority in an effort to seem inclusive.
ya it's very difficult to solve. but should young white people of today be forced to pay a price for racism of years past?
That's Dids. He also likes to tell you you're wrong about something but not elaborate why.
It's a particularly annoying debate trick. I usually call it out when I see it.
If there was an effective point to be made, the most effective way to make it is state the point and supply the evidence.
Asking me to provide the evidence for a point he hasn't made demonstrates that he's not particularly confident in the point and hopes I'll provide fodder.
ya it's very difficult to solve. but should young white people of today be forced to pay a price for racism of years past?
the only price they might pay is the privilege they have inherently benefited from
Black pay is around 70% of comparable white pay, even with equity policies in place
It's a particularly annoying debate trick. I usually call it out when I see it.
If there was an effective point to be made, the most effective way to make it is state the point and supply the evidence.
Asking me to provide the evidence for a point he hasn't made demonstrates that he's not particularly confident in the point and hopes I'll provide fodder.
You know Dids is the kind of guy that sees a classified ad for something listed as $2000 and instead of making an offer to initiate negotiations, he messages, "What's the absolute lowest price you're willing to accept on this?" in order to get the guy to negotiate with himself 😆
ya it's very difficult to solve. but should young white people of today be forced to pay a price for racism of years past?
I was on your side of this argument for most of my life. I've come around to framing it differently than this. It seems obvious to me that preventing an entire segment of society from being on an even footing for decades has a generational effect. Again, I don't know the perfect answer - probably isn't one, but lifting that same segment of society so they have equal footing helps the entire society.
What is happening
its an objectively awful meme it aint that srs
Does it bother you that before DEI white people were hired for positions in grossly disproportionate amounts compared to other demographics? Is that racist? Is that what you are advocating returning to? If not, what is your solution for avoiding that?
They weren't - show any proof within the past 10-20 years. This isn't 1960 - hell we had a black President 15 years ago. If you look at the NFL/NBA head coaches as well as actors in movies blacks have been hired in the past couple years at a disproportionate rate in favor of them - not only that there are dozens if not hundreds of programs that favor Blacks in terms of educational scholarships, grants to HBCU's that other colleges don't get, etc. Maybe you watch too much CNN or follow salacious headlines, but let's see some proof of racism that makes DEI needed.
Yes. They were.
Very likely the number is not 100%, but it is close enough to 100% to focus on that as the issue.
I think the racist HR people are far closer to 0% of the problem than 100%. Remember if HR people at companies 1, 2 & 3 only hire whites other companies are going to hire more per capita non-whites that will lead to a lot of the racism of a few being washed out.
FYI - I am NOT saying racist HR people is 0% of the problem just that they are likely the scapegoat in the same way police were blamed for black people dying at the hands of the police during the BLM riots. Everybody loves to look at the last decision makers and blame 100% of the problems on them because it is easier to blame them than to dissect all of the other variables that can be at play.
Saying "humm... racism" doesn't fix the problem. I am interested in fixing the problem and I don't think you are.
If you find a study or an article about a study that shows what percentage of the differences in unemployment is made up of different variables I would be super interested in reading it. I have never seen one.
Racism. We don't need more studies. DEI is not racist. It is explicitly anti-racist. Only people that don't understand what it is call it racist.
Picking winners and losers on the basis of race isn't racism. Got it, pal.
Another one. That isn't what DEI does. This misconception is exactly why I said:
Only people that don't understand what it is call it racist.
As for the rest of your post, my only reply is "nah, it's obviously racism."
Let's look at some common questions.
Are The Worse Unemployment Outcomes for Black People Due to a Lack of In-Demand Skills?
Are The Worse Unemployment Outcomes for Black People Due to Their Distance from Jobs?
Do White and Black People Have Similar Unemployment Rates if They are Veterans, Have a Disability, or Were Formerly Incarcerated?
Do Black Immigrants Have Similar Unemployment Rates as U.S.-Born Whites?
For Finding a Job, Is It Better to Be a White High School Dropout or a Random Black Person?
For the answers that should surprise no one, go here:
https://cepr.net/publications/the-contin...
Also, from that study:
"Social scientists find strong evidence of anti-Black discrimination in hiring through the use of audit studies, which are also known as field experiments of discrimination. In these studies, White and Black individuals are trained to present similar applications to the same or similar employers. An alternative methodology is to send similar resumes but with stereotypically “White” and “Black” names (e.g., Emily and Greg versus Lakisha and Jamal). In this manner, the researchers are varying only the race or the assumed race of the job candidate. Over two dozen studies, for over 25 years, find that in aggregate, employers have a preference for White candidates over essentially identical Black candidates."
ref: https://www.nber.org/system/files/workin...
...
"Conclusion
By investigating a range of group comparisons, ranging from educational attainment to geography, this report reveals that White people as a group always have better employment outcomes than similar Black people. Some of these outcomes can be attributed to overt anti-Black attitudes, while others to the more covert form of discrimination that results from hiring within White social networks. To begin to remedy the rampant anti-Black employment trends, the U.S. needs stronger anti-discrimination enforcement, a Federal Reserve committed to achieving maximum employment, and a national, subsidized employment program targeted to high-unemployment communities. None of these policy solutions can stand alone, but rather can work alongside one another to close the White-Black unemployment gap."
Why are you asking me? If you have a point to make, make it. The truth doesn't hinge on how I answer that question.
I was wondering if you knew. The reality is, they count results. So, for example, if you are only hiring 30% women - regardless on your applicant pool - your DEI program is not working correctly. So it ends up being a quota system by default.
