The murder of Charlie Kirk

Just one more thing that he makes up a definition to fit his life narrative.

Can I offer you a philosophical reply? 😀

The core of this whole cookie is people have a very flawed understanding of what "The Good" is. "The Good" consistent of core virtues, justice, temperance, courage, and wisdom and they fit together like spokes on the wheel of the good. To the degree that you have a flawed understanding of these virtues, is to the degree that you will be divergent from "The Good" and transgress into the bad.

How do you think Lucicom understands Justice? I'm betting much, much different than you or I. But where did he learn this? He probably doesn't even know because most of these virtues are internalized, non-verbally, through life lessons and from our guardians.

Any ways... not to get too deep... but in essence, this is why some people can look at someone like Kirk and say... "hey, what a great guy!". And others in here can just roll their eyes.

Well, you have people who seriously think that publicly traded companies with fiduciary responsibility to shareholders implemented DEI because it checked a woke box and not because it provides measurable benefits. It’s impossible to reason with people like that because there is fundamentally something wrong with how they think about things.

This is a solid 35% of the US population

There is no reason to believe the racial wealth gap can be fixed without exceptional state violence in place forever.

Even if you were to sequester all the gap difference and redistribute it to bring all ethnicities at the same identical level (and this is something no first world country could ever attempt without something like a coup and trashing of our current constitutions), you would need to keep doing that every 10 years or any genetic/cultural difference in wealth accumulation would show up again.

Even something as minuscule as a 1% difference in saving rates and/or a slightly higher propensity to risk in investment (again, whether cultural or genetical, it's irrelevant) would mean massive differences down the line even starting from identical points.

they implemented DEI to protect themselves from lawsuits from leftist administrations ffs, which is why they rushed to quit those money burning operations as soon as Trump made it clear there would be no lawsuits if they did so.

I mean you really need to live in lalaland if you believe DEI was good for profit. Probably you believe those silly papers showing that more profitable companies did more DEI, without realizing the causality was inverted, ie more profitable companies had more money to waste on DEI and it costed proportionally less for them to do so so they did it more.

Not to mention the fact that the very top companies that can pay the best salaries can achieve DEI quotas with lower damage than middle of the pack companies. Because it's not like there are NO good black engineers. Just very few compared to the % of black people in the population. But if you can pay the highest salaries around you can still get enough black engineers to fulfill some quotas.

Companies with much more down to earth margins and efficiency can't.

I didn’t mean to imply everyone should get the same outcome. Just that there are ways within a country to target certain communities with policies like prenatal, natal, and preadolescent health. They are much less intrusive policies and can have a big impact.

He is completely wrong that free speech has not been violated here. His employer made the decision about Kimmel based on being directly threatened by the president and his appointed head of the FCC. They basically said they need to take Kimmel off the air or they will lose their licenses. That is a clear case of government punishment of protected speech.

Companies recently removed it though. Wouldn't that go against their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders if it provided measurable benefits?

Nope, because the current administration is actively antagonistic towards DEI policies so they are avoiding a litigious over reaching overbearing government

You mentioned the wealth gap which is a very specific gap, and is a relative comparison with how other groups perform.

I agree increasing absolute levels of outcomes is completly different and far easier.

But the left hates that, which is why they use relative poverty levels and compare stats with other groups all the times, because they don't want to improve the lives of minorities with worse outcomes, they want EQUALITY of outcomes (or to strive toward that) which is impossible to acheive without exceptional levels of constant government violence.

lmaoooo

thanks, i needed that
(still laughing btw)

You really think that the problem was Kimmel wasn't funny, and not that ABC was threatened by the federal government after Kimmel mocked Trump? The only headache he created was with the federal government attacking free speech.

I interact far more frequently with the general public than I would prefer.

I’m not surprised by our differences in perception regarding average intelligence, but I am dismayed.

I'm against that, and i suspect pressure is a factor here. But people are also saying some sort of conglomerate was refusing to air the show on their stations. Im not sure but i think that was separate from any of the speculated pressure put on the regulators

I think portnoy makes totally valid points and also I already posted that right wing politicians pressuring regulators is totally wrong

I think it matters what kind of company you keep. 😀

My liberal tankie friends tend to have multiple masters, doctorates, and/or experts in their fields. Dinner conversations w/ friends is a little above the level in here. I'm the dum-dum in those circles.... but I'm even the dumb dumb in here, so ....

I agree to an extent with your point, but I’m less accepting of it as an excuse.

I was raised in a deeply conservative household, I was made to attend church 3x a week and memorize large portions of the Bible, I was forced to dress a certain way, speak a certain way, and carry myself a certain way. Every aspect of my life as a child was centered around religious indoctrination and by proxy conservative values. When I did not conform, I was subjected to severe corporal punishments.

It did not work. Because I did not allow it. I carried my opinions in silence and followed my own value system regardless of the consequences. I became an adult, and I don’t believe adults should have the excuse of being indoctrinated as a child anymore than an adult has an excuse to behave poorly due to trauma they endured as children. Grow the **** up and take responsibility for your own beliefs and behaviors. You can’t blame mommy and daddy forever. That’s just imho.

I don't get your reference here, but I haven't read most of this thread, just the past two days of it.

It means that trump, his sycophants, and maga are actively trying to silence everyone with differing opinions. It is already happening. People across the nation are losing their jobs because of political posts. And, guess what, none are right wing posts no matter how vile. This is just the first step of the current fascist government. You will soon see people going to jail/prison for their beliefs. Or worse.

And you support it.

People are often basing their perception on their bubble. Like their friends or the college student serving their starbucks

I just got my passport renewed and spent an hour in the waiting room plus shopped at a few stores in that mall. The mall was new and it was like an hour from where I live. Sometimes we forget.

I don't know whether DEI is profitable or not, but I know this is wrong. Most large companies abandoned DEI because the Trump administration made it clear that they would face legal action if they didn't do so.

I'm basing that opinion on the differences between the arguments (and syntax) I find here, compared with those I see made by people debating the same issues on Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube.

Have you compared the discourse here with those places? Or how are you making the determination?

First off... I hear you. It doesn't sound like I was raised too dissimilar, in that both sides of my family were deeply conservative and "Christian". My father even taught Sunday school. 😀 So as much as I can, I get where you're coming from.

But I wasn't offering an excuse in the above. It's just a model of how we learn, at least from my understanding. We assume from an early age that the people closest to us are always looking out for our best interest, because we have to.... for survival. Even if that later becomes apparent, it's not always entirely true. During that time, we learn many unconscious life lessons. They're unconscious because they are scenes that take place where WE make non-verbal conclusions about events. They are usually very powerful scenes. But WE are responsible for our own conclusions, nobody else.

The literal problem is... because there’s no logos ever put on these scenes, we live them out unconsciously. They are the source of most of our life's failure cycles. People go through life wondering why they keep having the same bad relationships, problems at work, issues w/ friends, etc... all because they've never put words onto those scenes. They instead remain in us as "emotions" (energy in motion) and we react to similar scenes the same way, repeating the same patterns w/o knowing why. It's not until we've reflected, and articulated those scenes again w/ a more mature understanding that we intelligibly understand it, and hence become free from it.

And understanding is key.

Again... don't want to get too deep, but that's at least how I see it.

The FCC had threatened not only ABC, but its individual affiliates, which are the entities actually required to have FCC licenses. That conglomerate is the largest owner of those affiliates (I believe of a majority of them).
That conglomerate also made its decision in light of the threats made by the FCC. It was under more direct attack than ABC itself.

Right, but they implemented because they had the fedicuary responsibility and not because of the administration at the time avoiding litigious over reaching overbearing government?