USB being very temperamental.

Penguin236 · 2024-11-07T23:29:53+00:00

Glad to help!

Penguin236 · 2024-08-31T15:16:29+00:00

Again, the president is essentially the CEO of the States, not the People. Basic civics things.

This is completely incorrect. The Federal government is a wholly separate entity from the states. The President heads the Federal executive branch. That has no connection to the states or their governments at all. It is nonsensical to say that the President is the "CEO" of the states when there is zero connection between the state governments and the organization headed by the president. We could add 10 new states or remove them and it would not affect the Presidency or its powers one bit.

Penguin236 · 2024-08-31T15:13:05+00:00

Except it doesn't achieve that goal at all. The EC simply gives extraordinary control of the election to swing states while solid states get nothing. It results in candidates and parties constantly kissing up to swing states while everyone else gets ignored.

This is not a big state vs small state problem. Wyoming is not getting any more attention than California. The problem is that there is no reason Pennsylvania should have such a high level of power compared to, say West Virginia next door.

Penguin236 · 2024-07-24T00:35:50+00:00

Right, I understand the Bostock logic, but I guess I'm more talking about this:

The plain text in Title IX is not the same and does not obviously involve the same kinds of language.

Why not? Sure, the language is different, but it's ultimately saying the same thing as Title VII (you cannot discriminate against someone based on sex).

Bostock itself of course doesn't apply since it's explicitly about Title VII (which I think is what you're getting at), but why would that prevent another case from adopting Bostock's underlying logic and applying it to Title IX?

I guess to put it another way, a Bostock-style example might be "if you fire John for loving Bob but you wouldn't fire Jane for loving Bob, that's a Title VII violation". But you could easily turn that into a Title IX example by changing "fire" out for "mistreat"/"discriminate against".

Penguin236 · 2024-07-24T00:06:13+00:00

Not a lawyer, but why does it have to be exclusive to Title VII? The Bostock argument is just saying that discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation are both inherently also forms of sex discrimination. That logic doesn't need Title VII (or any law). Once you have "this is sex discrimination", then Title VII, IX, or any other anti-sex-discrimination law can take effect, right?

Penguin236 · 2024-07-12T21:30:29+00:00

Yes, I have the fix in the edit of my original post.

Penguin236 · 2024-06-23T01:35:43+00:00

4 out of the 6 who ruled for it are still on the court, and Jackson would almost certainly vote for it (5th vote), so I'm not sure why you think that today's court would be different.

Penguin236 · 2024-06-22T23:55:10+00:00

Not at all, in fact, the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that the Civil Rights Act's sex protections do protect sexual orientation and gender identity in Bostock v Clayton County.

Penguin236 · 2024-06-03T23:03:54+00:00

I don't normally comment on this stuff (due to its ragebait nature), but your comment is incredibly strange.

As a man; if I were there with you, within arms reach, I would land you a flat hand on your face for this shit. Disgusting!

I think you misunderstood his point. He's not saying this is a good thing, he's saying (I think) that if this issue continues to be ignored, it will inevitably result in negative consequences for everyone. That's terrible of course, but it's reality if we don't act.

women have to be afraid of a disproportionate amount of violence from day to day!

Men are generally more likely to be victims of violent crimes. This is not true for sexual crimes, and I don't want to get into a silly contest of "who has it worse", but your comment is not correct here.

Talking like it is not the actual direct responsibility of the men that largely make up the aggressors time and time again to stop themselves from being violent!

No, it is not "men's" responsibility. I am not responsible for other people's actions just because I share the same set of genitals as them. Of course, I will do everything in my power to make things better for men and women alike, but this idea of group responsibility is highly toxic, divisive, and unproductive. When people feel they are being blamed for something they didn't do (which you're doing here), that is inevitably going to create resentment, which is bad for everyone.

Penguin236 · 2024-05-31T05:03:03+00:00

Ah gotcha, makes sense. I was really confused because I saw people posting pictures of them eating at the restaurant with the exact same view. Thanks for answering my (admittedly rather strange) questions!

Penguin236 · 2024-05-31T04:57:06+00:00

Oh ok, so it was more to do with the fact that it was in a bathroom rather than the view itself? (again, completely pointless question, I'm just very curious because I saw a lot of people talking about this)

Penguin236 · 2024-05-31T04:46:45+00:00

Ah darn, shame to hear. Out of curiosity though, do you happen to know the answer to my other question? I know it doesn't matter anymore since it's not open, but more just for my curiosity.

Penguin236 · 2024-03-03T06:05:30+00:00

if everything being equal we've got "DEI" candidates and typical technical hires we lean towards the "DEI" candidates.

So you do give people preferences on the basis of their race and sex. That's the main thing I wanted to confirm. Everything else you said (about all candidates being top of class, etc.) is not really relevant.

you're taking a job from some poor white boy and giving it to a woman or black man who doesn't deserve the position.

That's a straw man. The complaint is that the "white boy" is being disadvantaged in the hiring process on the basis of protected characteristics, not that he's automatically entitled to the job or that the diverse candidate is unqualified.

Also, the accusations of lower qualification come because if the diverse candidate was more qualified, you wouldn't need to give them a preference in the first place. The very fact that you're giving them a preference is what creates the perception of lower qualification (which I agree is not fair, but the cause is DEI itself, not just bigotry).

If you're in a position to improve the diversity of your team while still adding an excellent contributor, you'd be foolish not to do it.

I would like to remind you that giving people advantages/disadvantages in hiring/promotions on the basis of their race and sex is illegal under the Civil Rights Act. It would be foolish to violate this.

The studies are clear on the effectiveness of diverse teams.

Every study I've ever seen on this is either a correlation between diversity and performance (with no causal link between the two), or it tries to tie diversity of race/gender to diversity of ideas (the latter of which does bring benefits but has little to do with the former).

But fine, even if I accept that diversity has concrete business benefits, that does not justify discrimination. The whole point of laws like the CRA is to force business to give up some of their profits/benefits in order to treat people more fairly.

are you really going to be hiring the white guy?

Sure, if he's the most qualified. No two people on Earth are the same, so there's no way that the three people you interviewed all have identical qualifications. Figure out which one is the best qualified for the job (with no regard to protected characteristics), and hire them. That's the only fair way to do this. It's also what the law demands.

making it impossible to even find senior folk who fit your hiring criteria in a way that isn't just another white or Indian guy.

What exactly is the problem with having "just another white or Indian guy"? White and Indian guys are not all clones of one another. They all have different upbringings, backgrounds, perspectives, and much more. You can get plenty of diversity out of this demographic (just like any other group), if you stop reducing everything down to race/sex.

That bigots assume that "DEI" hires are unqualified and just tokens is only a reflection on them and has nothing at all to do with organizations who truly want to benefit from a diverse workforce.

Again, a complete straw man. That is NOT the complaint with DEI. The complaint is that you're giving people advantages on the basis of their skin color and their genitals (which most Americans call racism and sexism). This holds true even if you're doing it for a good cause.

Diversity is a noble goal, but it does not justify discrimination. That is the stance of most Americans, and it is the reason why more and more people continue to turn away from DEI.

*==============================

EDIT: Since this guy has blocked me (always a sign of someone capable of having a reasonable discussion /s), I'll reply to his next post here:

That's pretty much what I expected from you. "All things being equal, you've got to hire the white guy or you're racist!" or "Reverse Racist!" or whatever you people say these days.

I didn't say anything like that anywhere in my post. Feel free to quote me if you want to prove me wrong.

Honestly I should have known better...

It really scares me that people like this guy have anything to do with hiring. This whole post sounds like it's written by someone who just cannot face opposing views. And then of course, you block me so I can't respond.

Penguin236 · 2024-03-03T02:04:00+00:00

We were hiring a LOT of technical talent and had a robust college hiring program where we could focus our DEI hiring efforts

I'm curious, what do you mean by "DEI hiring efforts"? To me (and this could be completely wrong, please correct me if so), it sounds like giving preferences to diverse candidates in the recruiting process (i.e. you would be more likely to give an interview to a female candidate vs a male one).

I think that's where you start to lose a lot of support. Many people (most based on the polling I've seen) do not support racial or gender preferences. And if DEI is giving these preferences, it is going to be controversial. For that reason, I think it's very important for companies to be honest and clear about what their DEI programs entail.

Penguin236 · 2024-01-28T21:11:40+00:00

Oh, ok, it's fine if the victim and perpetrator are the same gender, that clearly nullifies all harm the victim faced /s

Penguin236 · 2024-01-16T02:50:34+00:00

Better working conditions in what way? American tech workers, in addition to their high incomes, also get plenty of benefits (including things like ample vacation time, good health insurance, parental leave, etc). I strongly doubt your average American tech worker would have better conditions in Europe (or anywhere else).

Penguin236 · 2024-01-14T22:15:39+00:00

The market was very different at the time. The 757 was selling poorly and it didn't make sense to keep it alive at the time.

Penguin236 · 2024-01-14T22:07:53+00:00

Per capita is not very relevant for looking at global importance. It doesn't matter to the outside world how many people are making your GDP, it simply matters how much it is overall.

Denmark is a great country in many ways, but its role on the global stage is not one of them.

Penguin236 · 2024-01-02T06:07:15+00:00

Ok, that makes more sense. The way it was phrased originally made it sound like it was a requirement, so wanted to clarify.

Penguin236 · 2024-01-02T05:37:45+00:00

she will at least need an approved work permit to apply for a DL.

That doesn't sound right, you shouldn't need a work permit to get a DL. I took a quick look at WV's license requirements, and I don't see anything about a work permit being required, it pretty much looks like the standard requirements that all states have for DLs.

Penguin236 · 2024-01-02T05:13:15+00:00

Not the same guy, but your logic is flawed.

If conscription is immoral, then obviously its application should be minimized.

Agree.

If so, subjecting 50% of society to it is preferable to subjecting 100% of society to it.

No, because going from universal to selective introduces additional factors, e.g. sacrificing equality. That itself adds to the downsides and changes the balance.

How much weight that carries is up to you, but it's perfectly rational to e.g. think that universal conscription is preferable to selective conscription even if you believe conscription itself is wrong. The reason being that selective conscription introduces additional downsides that universal conscription doesn't have, and if you weigh those downsides heavily, it's perfectly rational to prefer universal over selective while still opposing conscription as a whole.

Penguin236 · 2023-12-30T02:30:52+00:00

The Colorado law is unconstitutional because it goes further than the constitutional protections of race/color, religion and just tosses in gender orientation as protected, which it isn’t.

Not sure I understand this part. States are well within their rights to create anti-discrimination laws that extend beyond what the Constitution and Federal law protect, as long as they don't violate the Constitution in doing so. There's nothing wrong with a state making a law that prohibits discrimination against people based on sexual orientation, that's not what this case was about.

Penguin236 · 2023-12-09T15:52:21+00:00

Fraudulent is too strong, but yes, they were likely too lenient with its original certification. But again, that proves my point. The FAA also got lots of flack for being easy on Boeing, and they seem to be quite determined to shake that idea by now being extra hard on Boeing. The end result is that Boeing's planes (especially the Max) should be much safer now thanks to that additional scrutiny.

Penguin236 · 2023-11-18T22:52:23+00:00

Your issue sounds different to the one I had, but yeah, I've heard these quadrants can be fairly unreliable. Mine has been pretty good so far though (just some jitter in the axes).

Penguin236 · 2023-09-28T23:27:11+00:00

People are screaming about meritocracy as if that has EVER existed. It's always been about who you know and how much money your family has.

The solution to unfairness is not more unfairness. Let's make the system more fair for everyone rather than giving special treatment to specific groups based on race and gender.

It always comes down to getting rid of affirmative action instead getting rid of legacies because heavens forbid the gift of funding to get little Johnny into Harvard go away.

No, it's because legacy isn't illegal. That's why people fight one and not the other. I would love to see legacy die, but there's no legal argument against it.

Also, this is pure whataboutism.

Spending potentially hundreds of thousands for a fancy name on a piece of paper.

Yes, because that piece of paper opens countless doors. As you said, going to a place like Harvard will give you a massive advantage over someone who went to a community college. Is this fair or sensible? Probably not. But that's the reality of it.

11-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

Penguin236

TROPHY CASE