• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

In further la la land Trump is now ordering EU countries to drop any DEI or be forbidden to work for US embassies.
A bit of "Do as I say or I'll shoot myself!"
I hope the US taxpayers will appreciate flying in everything US embassies need from the states.
 
Trausti said:
But it's not evidence of racial discrimination. It's class discrimination. The folks who do these "studies" seem curiously disinterested in seeing if lower-class White sounding names also received lower call backs. These "studies" are tailored for a pre-deterimined outcome. Do you think names like Ben Carson, Ryan Coogler, or Jordan Peele would be on the no-call-back list?
Click to expand...

Again - and I can’t stress this enough - any thoughts expressed about the validity of scientific studies by people who voted for the anti-vaxxer, anti-science Trump administration are of zero value.
 
johnny karate said:
Again - and I can’t stress this enough - any thoughts expressed about the validity of scientific studies by people who voted for the anti-vaxxer, anti-science Trump administration are of zero value.
Click to expand...
It's almost amusing how hard they're working to to try to conflate discrimination and disparity based on race and discrimination and disparity based on class, honestly. Not least because they're pointedly supporting the people who actively and directly work to make both (and more) worse. Pretty openly, too. Only one major political party in the US is working to create a permanent underclass, after all.

It's actually worth asking what the point of claiming not to be racist even is, if they're going to keep fighting to make the various things that they try to invoke as a diversion or substitute worse.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
Again - and I can’t stress this enough - any thoughts expressed about the validity of scientific studies by people who voted for the anti-vaxxer, anti-science Trump administration are of zero value.
Click to expand...
Pretty ignorant of you to say.

One can support MAGA but also have sound knowledge of science. Two aren't inherently mutually exclusive.
 
Hercules56 said:
Pretty ignorant of you to say.

One can support MAGA but also have sound knowledge of science. Two aren't inherently mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

First of all, I am shocked - shocked, I tell you - to see you come rushing in to defend a Trump supporter.

Secondly, being pro-science and supporting anti-science, are in fact, mutually exclusive, by definition.
 
Hercules56 said:
One can support MAGA but also have sound knowledge of science. Two aren't inherently mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Sure! Those specific two things aren't mutually exclusive, especially when that's interpreted as having a sound knowledge of a limited subset of science (because no one is even remotely an expert for all of it)! That's missing the point, though. MAGA is used as a vehicle by those who sabotage science, in a number of ways. Among those are various false or deceptive claims about what various scientific studies say (the principle in play is not limited to scientific studies, of course) which are created by or seized onto by those like Trausti who are just looking to try to make some preferred conclusion that they started with more plausible, without any real regard for truth. MAGA sabotages science, especially when it's not telling them what they want to hear or they merely suspect that they won't like to hear. So much dishonesty and all around sabotage naturally impacts any credibility that the rare case of an actual expert who supports the MAGA claims about some bit of science, not least because of how many MAGA CT level self proclaimed "experts" are normally in play.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
I defend all people who are attacked.
Click to expand...
On the topic of science and people being attacked, you didn't say a word about the National Science Foundation, of course.

Yes, yes, that might be unfair as a direct response, but those like Trausti who have no respect at all for science and have gone all in with those actively sabotaging science have thrown away any and all normally granted benefit of the doubt.

To ask an analogous question, what sane person willingly entrusts their life to people who keep trying to kill them in really, really obvious ways unless they're suicidal?
 
Hercules56 said:
Pretty ignorant of you to say.

One can support MAGA but also have sound knowledge of science. Two aren't inherently mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Certainly you can have sound knowledge of science. Sound practice is another matter. It is possible, after all, not only to be ignorant of fields other than one's own, but to be insane or demented. If you actively support a person who has explicitly and repeatedly disparaged multiple scientific findings, defunded agencies and ended programs based on them, and conspicuously appointed enemies of science and public health to positions of authority, sound knowledge is irrelevant. I firmly believe that support of MAGA and its practitioners is prima facie evidence of opposition to science, whatever one's theoretical knowledge might be, and even if one is knowledgeable in some scientific field, such support justifies skepticism at best when a MAGA supporter makes a scientific statement.

Of course it's possible to be wrong about almost everything and right about one thing, and a disinterested (note that disinterested and uninterested are very different words despite their conflation in recent speech) person may not reject a statement outright, but on the basis of history is quite within bounds to consider it insufficient without convincing evidence.
 
arthwollipot said:
I would like to see some of our anti-DEI posters try to defend that.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't. For all the legitimate complaints that are sprinkled in among the mostly inane arguments, they've generally already shown, quite definitively, that even the legitimate complaints are not in good faith by supporting Trump and co. More inane bad faith arguments and efforts at finding some superficially plausible path to a preset conclusion that they can grasp onto without closer inspection means more personal investment and that means diving deeper into the cult mentality that the Republican Party's been nurturing.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
I would like to see some of our anti-DEI posters try to defend that.
Click to expand...
No problem likely. I think one of the features of anti-DEI arguments, as in many similar ones, is that although the instances they criticize are always seen statistically, the apparent bias that leads to them is never so. Seen disconnected from trends and tendencies, no event can be characterized as indicating bias. So they can just say it isn't a DEI issue. She just happens to be a black woman. Could happen to anybody. Whether this event is good or bad it needn't affect their argument.
 
johnny karate said:
Again - and I can’t stress this enough - any thoughts expressed about the validity of scientific studies by people who voted for the anti-vaxxer, anti-science Trump administration are of zero value.
Click to expand...
If you think that, then you are a moron. I know many highly acclaimed scientists, including at least one Nobel Laureate, who voted for Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom