testfactor @ testfactor @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

392

Joined

2 yr. ago

You are technically correct. The best kind of correct. :)

I was using "The War in Iraq" as a cover term for the whole ongoing conflict that arose in the aftermath of 9/11.

I think that your point actually furthers my parallel though. As the US was in Afghanistan, the Bush Administration's obsession with Iraq ended up with them pushing questionable Intel that there were Al Queda controlled WMDs in Iraq, and that we had to invade there as well if we really wanted to win the war.

There's a pretty clear parallel between that logic and the "Hamas Tunnels" arguments we're hearing out of Israel at the moment.

I think this issue is also more nuanced than you'll see it given credit for in the media.

I think there's some strong "War in Iraq" parallels that can be drawn that might help reflect why the US is reacting the way they are.

To summarize, small group of terrorists commit an attack that is one of the worst in the nations history. This country that was attacked has a much better funded military, and they roll in to exact retribution, notionally under the banner of "stopping the people who did this and not letting it happen again." The war of revenge is hugely detrimental to the civilian population therein, and human rights violations occur.

Most establishment politicians were/are fully on board with the War in Iraq. Why wouldn't they be on board with Israel right now? It's basically the same situation again.

I think that a lot of what you see online forgets that this wasn't some random thing where Israel just decided to commit a genocide out of nowhere. But just like how 9/11 didn't justify the War in Iraq, 10/7 doesn't justify what's happening now. But it's somewhat understandable why it's happening, and why people support it.

I remember right after 9/11, the vast majority of people were on board with sending troops in. The dissenters were super few and far between. This is just that again, but Israel this time.

This is an interesting one. I think this ruling may be legit, if stupid?

The CROWN act specifically says that a school can't limit access based on hair "style or texture" IF that style or texture has particular associations to that person's "race or national origin."

A blanket ban on hair longer than a certain length wouldn't violate that at face value since "longer than X inches" isn't a style or texture in and of itself, and isnt particularly associated with any race or national grouping of people?

And while certain religions prohibit cutting your hair, I think that would be a standard religious exemption, the same way you're allowed to have a "no hats" rule, even though some religions require them. That's long been upheld by the courts.

I think this is a crazy hill for the school to die on, but I think it might be within their rights to die on it? Idk though, I'd be interested to hear what other people think.

It was also a joke for a long time. Back in the late 90s/early 00s, it wasn't nearly as widely accepted. It was way more niche back then. Nowadays it's pretty much the same as any other card.

And I'll agree with the guy above that I have had absolutely stellar experiences with Discover. This potential merger has me legit bummed out.

To be fair, she could simply be arguing that racism, while a major issue she faced in her youth, is now a largely solved issue in modern America.

Not that I agree. Just pointing out that it isn't an inherently dishonest position. Things change over time, and things are in fact better than when she was young.

Not solved by any stretch for sure. America still struggles with bigotry in all forms. But it wasn't that long ago that Barak Obama was actively arguing against gay marriage on national TV. We've come a long way for sure.

Worst is a pretty high bar to clear though. Like, Jackson literally committed the Trail of Tears, genociding all the Indians against the express orders of the SCOTUS, who he told to pound sand because he controlled the army and there wasn't jack or shit they could do to stop him.

Like, Trump was real real bad for sure, but like, Trail of Tears, literal death marches at gunpoint bad? Idk.

Honestly, even just read the headline. It says "more than just being a dick "

The headline itself implies that being a dick can be part of a successful formula.

But surely the correct solution is to remove bias altogether rather than replacing non-codified past bias with codified future bias, right?

Like, surely we should be trying to eliminate bias completely?

I'm sympathetic to those arguments that equality is not the same as equity, and that in some cases some form of reparation needs to be made to account for past bias. The issue is that, if that's the line you take here, then you are in fact doing what the Republicans claim, and putting less qualified people into positions that could have major impacts on the lives of other people.

And maybe your stance is that that's fine, and it's not that big a deal to hire less qualified candidates if it helps fix systematic racial issues. But I think then that what the Republicans are claiming is in fact just true, and they are probably right that most Americans will find that unpalatable.

Can someone who works in an institution that uses DEI metrics in the hiring process explain them for me? I'm a left leaning person for sure, but I can see why the Republicans would think this issue would resonate with the voters.

I know that DEI metrics are only "allowed to be used to differentiate between two, otherwise identical candidates for a position."

And while that seems reasonable on the surface, it does beg some follow-up questions. Like, "who identifies if two candidates are identical or not," and "how 'identical' do the two candidates need to be (exactly the same, 1% variance, 10%)?"

It seems like, as a system, while it should notionally only be used to distinguish between equally qualified candidates, is ill-defined enough that the actual "on the ground" outcome would be to favor less qualified candidates who belong to DEI targeted groups out of a sense of "erring on the side of caution," as it were.

I also fail to see how DEI initiatives that allow you to take race into account are better than systems that require blind interviews, where the race of the person isn't ever made clear to the interviewer? It seems like that should appeal to both sides, no? Why push to consider race as a placement criteria over just eliminating the issue all together?

I feel like some may push back against that and say that it disadvantages minorities due to systematic racial issues resulting in poorer resumes or performance on phone interviews, perpetuating systematic racism under the guise of eliminating race from the selection process. And while I'm sympathetic to that argument, it does somewhat contradict the first argument about distinguishing between "otherwise equal candidates," does it not?

But, as I say, all this is from the perspective of a left leaning layman who has absolutely no hand in implementing any of these initiatives. I'd really be very interested to hear how these issues are handled in the real world, and why blind interview processes aren't used instead.

Thanks!

Surely there's a limit though, right? Like, you're not a proponent of bum fights are you? Just because someone is agreeing to do something for money doesn't make it inherently ethical.

And a large part of the SCOTUS scepticism is why should one state be able to decide that as a matter of fact for the rest of the country. From their point of view this should be a federal decision.

And typically you wouldn't see Congress declare a single person as traitorous. Congress could declare Jan6 an insurrection, and then anyone involved who believes they should get an exception is allowed to seek remediation by Congress. Hardly a chicken and egg problem.

See, while what you're saying is true, it's not the whole truth.

The remedies in the late 1800's were required because Congress had already taken action to define the events of the Civil War as an insurrection. It was an act of Congress that they were having to appeal. There has been no similar act of Congress that Trump would need to appeal.

The core question, and one that the justices seem to be asking pointedly, is who determines whether someone's actions constitute "insurrection"? In the past, it was Congress. There's certainly an argument to be made that if someone was convicted of criminal insurrection, that would suffice. But absent those two, how do you make that determination, and who makes that determination.

I think the court feels that, while the 14th doesn't explicitly state how to make that determination, absent a criminal conviction or act of Congress, that there is no grounds to disqualify a candidate due to 14th amendment rules.

And I think I kind of agree. Or, at least, I think there should be some sort of objective metric that gets defined before making a determination. Especially since the last major use of the 14th was literally the Civil War, which, as bad as Jan6 was, is a pretty huge amount worse. And if we're plotting them along a continuum, to the left of Jan6 you have things like mass protests that attempt to shut down government functions to push certain agendas, which I think we all agree is well within the bounds of freedom of speech.

I'm not defending Trump, let me be clear. I am simply advocating that we note that there is nuance to this issue. Life is not painted in black and white. Just because something was bad, and even that it should be disqualifying, doesn't mean that it's easy to justify that fact in the current legal framework we exist in.

As I get older, I've realized that places like here and reddit would be wildly better if everyone younger than me wasn't allowed to use it, lol. :P

I don't think you understand the leopards eating faces meme.

Holy cannoli!

One of the captured bar proprietors noticed that the pertinent association, Umih, never noticed this necessity while reestablishing his permit:

“No one, not even the experts of Umih who give obligatory preparing as a component of a permit IV resumption, to me never said I should keep this set of experiences.”

In light of inquiries by BFM Business, Umih conceded that the preparation doesn’t make reference to WiFi logging yet noticed that Umih individuals ought to have thought about this significant prerequisite since it was referenced in a bulletin.

So they even had to get accredited when standing up the WiFi, the accreditation organization didn't mention it, then when charged with a crime have the audacity to say, "well, I mean, he should have known."

My brother in Christ, this guy just owns a coffee shop. Why on earth should he be deep in the weeds on technical regulations.

I love the idea of a two state solution as much as the next guy, but it's not just the Israelis who would have to be willing to agree to it. The Palestinians have an equally long history of having no interest in giving up land they view as rightfully theirs.

There's a reason a two state solution has only ever worked on paper. It's wildly unpopular on both sides. And good luck convincing either. Much less both.

Welcome to the "Beef and Dairy Network Podcast.". This week, we'll hear from Mavis of South Hampton, the inventor of that most popular drink, beef fizz.

It's either or. But the Obama thing was mostly just racism.

His dad isn't an American citizen (Kenyan) and he has a couple of half brothers who aren't citizens (different mother, born in Kenya).

Obama was double fine, both because he had a US Citizen mother and because he was born in Hawaii.

The conspiracy theory at the time was that he was actually born in Kenya like his half brothers. The conspiracy mostly just ignored that his mom existed, since she died back in 1995, so she wasn't there to defend the point.

I'd rule out k8s if you're looking for simple administration.

Oh, for sure. And I agree that the death penalty is fundamentally inhumane. I also understand that justice is hard to manage and measure. Idk, I'm drunk and not paid enough to have to make hard decisions like that, and for that I'm very much appreciative. :)